CAR_Public/150710.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 10, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 137


                            Headlines


AIRMEDIA GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
AJ INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Lollipop Candies Due to Milk
ALABAMA ONE: Credit Union Members File Class Action
ALCON LABORATORIES: Court Dismisses All Plaintiff's Claims
ALEXANDER WANG: Faces "Podell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ALUM HOME: Faces "Fernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMERICAN IN-LINE: Faces "Prata" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ANSELL HEALTHCARE: Recalls Micro-Touch Nitratex Sterile Gloves
APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Venlafaxine XR Capsules
ASIANA AIRLINES: Faces New Class Action Over 2013 Plane Crash

BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Mortgage Modification Application
BEAM GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Fail to Demonstrate Ascertainability
BEVERLY HILLS CEMETERY: Faces "Baba" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
CALLAHEAD: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York
CAMEO COUNTERTOPS: Faces "Bowles" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CAN-FITE BIOPHARMA: Faces Class Action over CF101 Drug
CAPITAL ONE: Objectors' Appeals in $75.5MM Settlement Tossed
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: C.A. Publishes Opinion on Class Action
CLEVELAND BROWNS: Faces Class Action Over Personal Seat Licenses

COLLEGE BOARD: June SAT Testing Scores Released Amid Class Suits
COULSON AVIATION: Faces "Ford" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CR & RA: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CYBER-STRUCT INC: Subcontractors' Suit Remanded to State Court
DELTA AIRLINES: Sued Over Alleged Airline Ticket-Price Fixing

DENNIS SHIPPING: Faces "Murrell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DON DAVIS: Gay Marriage Litigation Costs Taxpayers $200,000+
DR. COLORCHIP: Recalls Paint & Blending Solutions
FAIRBRIDGE FARM: $24MM Settlement Reached in Child Abuse Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces "Ebian-Pesa" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

FG DELI: Recalls Roast Beef Products Due to Listeria
FLEETWOOD: Recalls 2015 RV Models Due to Noncompliance
FOREST CITY: Faces "Rovner" Suit Over Illegal Rental Agreement
GENUINE PARTS: Faces "Mar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Proposed Brookfield Merger

HEMPOLA VALLEY: Recalls Protein and Fibre Powder Due to Gluten
HQ FINE: Recalls Roast Beef Sandwich Products Due to Listeria
HYUNDAI: Recalls 2015 Sonata Models Due to Injury Risk
INDIANA: TB Outbreak Victims File Class Action Against IDOC
JACKSON PLAZA: Removed "LaFosse" Class Suit to S.D. Florida

KABA GROUP: Settles 2010 Class Action Simplex Lock Defects
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Howard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KIDS PREFERRED: Recalls Puppy Pull Toys Due to Choking Hazard
LIA SOPHIA: Faces Class action Over Lifetime Guarantee
LOEWS HOLLYWOOD: Faces "Ferra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Wood Flooring Claims
MAGNUM HUNTER: Securities Class Action Dismissal Affirmed
MARTHA STEWART LIVING: Faces "Lisman" Suit Over Sequential Deal
MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Shaev" Action Over Sequential Brands Deal
MASTEC INC: Faces "Baffield" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

NAIL SPA: Faces "Giang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Settles Class Action Over Unwanted Robocalls
NIELSEN COMPANY: Faces "Tubiak" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NISKA GAS: Faces "Raul" Suit Over Proposed Swan Holdings Merger
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Stern" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation

OCEAN STATE JOB: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Newton" Suit Says
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment
PALOMA GENEVA: "Barnett" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PF CHANG'S: Faces "Stancil" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PHILADELPHIA: Tentative Accord Struck in Civil Forfeiture Suit

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Congressional Panel Opens Oil Spill Probe
PMFG INC: Faces "Herre" Suit in Del. Over Proposed CECO Merger
PROVIDENT LIFE: CA Reverses Ruling on Penalty Interest
QUINDELL: No Class Action Yet Despite Share Plunge
RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls RAN-Venlafaxine XR Capsules

ROBERT L. LIPTON: "Kerr" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SAMSUNG CORP: Settles Class Action Over Carrier IQ Software
SCARLETT'S CABARET: Settles Former Dancers' Wage Class Action
SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SIRIUS XM: Settles Pre-1972 Music Suit for $210 Million
SOFINA FOODS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Has Invaded Class Member's Privacy, Suit Claims
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Rose" Suit Claims
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Faces "Whalen" Suit Over FDCPA Violation

STANHOPE BEACH: Settles Class Action Over Norovirus Outbreak
TONTO BASIN: Faces "Chadler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TRACFONE WIRELESS: Settlement in Service Plan Case Has Final OK
TRANSURBAN: Faces Class Action Over Express Lane Tolls
TRIPLE LEAF: Settles Class Action Over Product Labeling

UBER TECH: Drivers Clearly Independent Contractors, Exec Says
UNITED FURNITURE: Common Misrepresentation Hurdle in Class Action
UNITED STATES: OPM Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
UNIVERSAL CONNECT: Recalls Sens.us TAB>U Style Hair Products
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Settlement in Sperm Bank Suit OK'd

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Foreign Suspect Indicted in Tax Case
WESTERN POWER: Parkville Bushfire Class action "Imminent"
WHOLE FOODS: Customers File Class Action Over Food Labeling
WYNDHAM VACATION: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
XTDR LLC: Sued in New York Over Alleged Breach of Contract

YELLOW CAB: Faces Liability as Driver an "Ostensible Employee"
ZUCKER GOLDBERG: Shuts Down Following Debt Collection Class Suit

* Court of Appeals Take Active Role in Use of CPLR Article 9
* House Passes HR 1927 Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act
* Obama Mulls Broader OT Coverage for Lower-Income Workers
* Some Newer Cars Burn Too Much Oil, Consumer Reports Reveals
* Texas Truancy Reform Law Doesn't Help Kids with Special Needs

* Transport Canada Recalls 43,679 SUVs Due to Fire Risk
* Well-Crafted Arbitration Clauses Can Avert Class Actions


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Gets $438,000 More from Insurers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vicar's Wife Dies from Fibro-related Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resto Owner Fined GBP15,000 for Fibro Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Greenock Grandad Dies After 4 Weeks of Diagnosis
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Wins Jury Verdict in Fibro Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Does Booming Business in Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nelson Pleads Guilty in 2011 Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TransRe Must Face Berkshire Fibro Liability Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Says Affidavit Not Needed for Suit Exit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feds Offer Exit Plan for Libby Fibro Cleanup

FLINTKOTE COMPANY: $1.7-Mil. Settlement With Travelers Approved
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Wins $13-Mil. in Suit v. Colgate-Palmolive
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Tunnels Probed After Woman's Diagnosis
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Sets Aside $11M Verdict in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Pa. Fire Department Bldg.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Kirksville Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: York Company Faces $490K Fine for Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Englewood Apartments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Take Home" Fibro Victim Awarded $3.5-Mil.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Railway Worker Exposed to Toxic Dust

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Pipefitter Dies After Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Attacks Fibro Causation Theory
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Danes Dying from Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Harrods Seller Diagnosed with Fibro Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sycaruse Co. Admits Negligent Release of Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insulation Fitter Dies Due to Fibro Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Finds Cigarettes Cause of Lung Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Bill Aims to Raise Bar on Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Rejects Evidentiary Hearing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Richmond River Classrooms

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas House Passes Fibro Litigation Reforms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Years of Fibro Exposure Led to Builder's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Former Railway Workers Sue BNSF
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Fibro at Alcoa's Refinery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Worker Gets GBP230,000 Payout for Disease

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NWT Gov't Fined $115K for Workers' Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toledo Man, Firm Admit to Removing Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Challenges to Status as Special Admin. Rejected
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Niagara County Union Head Claims Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Seeks Justice After "Hideous" Fibro Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philadelphia Tough Place to Fight Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builder Fined GBP50,000 for Fibro Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Co. Fined Over Dumping of Fibro Waste
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Contractor Fined for Airport Fibro Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Firm Fined for Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suits Make Up 3/4 of Cases in Madison
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust Transparency Law Takes Effect in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Says Consolidation Led to $1M Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Stands by Ruling Favoring Policyholders
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children Continue Wrongful Death Fibro Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards Moore Man $6-Mil. in Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Man Gets 3 Years for Illegal Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife Dies From "Take-Home" Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plumber Dies from Prolonged Exposure to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Appeals Court Won't Free Crane Co. from Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builder Jailed for Unlicensed Fibro Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Says Husband Was Not Warned of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Children's Play Area
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Weighs in on Motions in Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Ruins of Yampa Royal Hotel

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Most Exposed to Fibro Losses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Fibro Settlements Disclosure Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Hammell" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: June 18 Ruling in "Greenberg" Suit Modified
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circ. Refuses to Stay "Wilde" Remand Order

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser's Bid to Dismiss "Prust" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Amend "Yates" Complaint Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Ruling in "Vedros" Suit Issued
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Dismissed in Ill. Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Refuses to Remand "Smith" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Payne" Remanded for Hearing on Damages
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Dismissed from "McAlvey" Suit


                            *********


AIRMEDIA GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 25 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
AirMedia Group Inc. American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") during
the period between April 15, 2015 and June 15, 2015.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from June 25, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/airmedia/

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

The complaint charges AirMedia and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
AirMedia operates out-of-home advertising platforms primarily in
the People's Republic of China, including a network of digital TV
screens on airplanes; traditional media in airports, such as light
boxes, billboards, and painted advertisements; and gas station
media displays, as well as other outdoor media displays outside of
the air-travel advertising sector.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the purported sale
of a 5% interest in AirMedia's advertising subsidiary, AirMedia
Group Co., Ltd., to Shenzhen Liantronics Co. Ltd., and the
valuation of the subsidiary negotiated in the deal.  AirMedia's
press release announcing the sale stated that the deal "reflected
the total valuation of AM Advertising of RMB3 billion," or $500
million.  The complaint alleges that defendants made additional
statements during the Class Period claiming that RMB3 billion/$500
million was a solid valuation of the AM Advertising subsidiary.
As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements during
the Class Period, AirMedia ADRs traded at artificially inflated
prices, reaching a high price of $7.70 per ADR in intraday trading
on June 15, 2015.

Later on June 15, 2015, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it had entered into a definitive agreement to sell
a 75% equity interest in AM Advertising to Beijing Longde
Wenchuang Fund Management Co., Ltd. for RMB2.1 billion/$344.4
million, significantly less than the purported value the Company
had claimed the subsidiary was worth during the Class Period.  On
this news, the price of AirMedia ADRs fell more than 50% over the
next two days.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
AirMedia ADRs during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in
prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving
financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller, --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first
in both the amount and number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.


AJ INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Lollipop Candies Due to Milk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 6, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: AJ International Trading (2372761 Ontario Inc.)
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9923

   Brand       Common     Size    Code(s)        UPC
   name        name       ----    on product     ---
   -----       ------             ----------
   None        Lollipop   200 g   All codes     6 911316 820302
   (Chinese    Candy -            where milk
   characters  Orange             is not
   only)                          declared on
                                  the label.
   None        Lollipop   200 g   All codes     6 911316 821026
   (Chinese    Candy -            where milk
   characters  Lychee             is not
   only)                          declared on
                                  the label.
   None        Lollipop   200 g   All codes     6 911316 521308
   (Chinese    Candy -            where milk
   characters  Mango              is not
   only)                          declared on
                                  the label.
   None        Lollipop   200 g   All codes     6 911316 610408
   (Chinese    Candy -            where milk
   characters  Strawberry         is not
   only)                          declared on
                                  the label.
   None        Lollipop   200 g   All codes     6 911316 541306
   (Chinese    Candy -            where milk
   characters  Lemon              is not
   only)                          declared on
                                  the label.


ALABAMA ONE: Credit Union Members File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Michael Seale, writing for Birmingham Business Journal, reports
that one the state's largest credit unions is being sued by its
members, according to a complaint filed in Tuscaloosa County
Circuit Court.

Alabama One Credit Union, which has more than $600 million in
assets and 60,000 members, has been sued by Jerry Logan, a former
board member, on behalf of all of the credit union's members.
Alabama One was once known as the BF Goodrich Employee Credit
Union.

Mr. Logan is represented by Birmingham firm Campbell, Guin,
Williams, Guy and Gidiere. Campbell Guin partner Andy Campbell
said, "We expect the evidence to show that the Board failed to
engage in any meaningful oversight over its officers in making
loans and handling assets of the credit union.  This nonfeasance
allowed a pattern of engaging in numerous bad loans and other
misconduct.  As a result, the losses are staggering."

Mr. Logan has been critical of the management of the Tuscaloosa-
based credit union, and filed the civil suit seeking the removal
of the credit union's leadership. Logan's complaint quoted and
focused on an 18-page cease and desist order that the Alabama
Credit Union Administration issued against Alabama One on April 2.
The ACUA's cease-and-desist order required changes in Alabama
One's management and lending practices, including limits on making
new business loans.

Defendants in the suit include CEO John Dee Carruth, Tammy Ewing,
Edwin Harrell, Richard Powell, Flora Gay, Darlene Wallace, Larry
Sexton, A.D. Sanders, Martha Fincher, Evelyn Pelt, Charlie West,
Charles McKinney, Jerry Hewitt and Mike Carr, who are part of the
credit union's board and management.

The suit alleges that the credit union's management failed to
fulfill their fiduciary duties; grossly mismanaged the credit
union; wasted the credit union's assets; and committed civil
conspiracy and intentional, reckless and innocent
misrepresentation and suppression.

These actions, according to the complaint, occurred from at least
2010 to present and claims to have caused significant monetary
loss to the credit union.  As of the end of May 2015, Alabama One
has lost $2.7 million, according to a financial report that the
credit union posted in its branches.

This case also alleges that Alabama One's management issued "straw
loans" to borrowers for the benefit of other member-owners, who
otherwise would not have been permitted to receive financing, as
well as management's participation in a check-kiting scheme that
admittedly caused Alabama One to lose more than $1.25 million.

The complaint claims, "Such actions were taken with the Alabama
One Board of Directors' knowledge and acquiescence, as the Board
also served as the credit union committee and was tasked with
overseeing and approving loans issued by the credit union."

Mr. Logan is seeking a jury trial and asked the court to remove
the defendants from control of the credit union by appointing a
receiver to manage it.


ALCON LABORATORIES: Court Dismisses All Plaintiff's Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Generic and Brand Name Defendants moved separately to dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint in the case, LENOARD COTTRELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 14-5859 (FLW) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against pharmaceutical
manufacturers and distributors of engaging in unfair and illegal
business practices by marketing prescription eye medications that
allegedly deliver unnecessarily large eye drops, which resulted in
consumers purchasing more medication than they required. These
Plaintiffs brought various state law consumer fraud-related claims
against Defendants.

In the motion, Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that (1)
lack of standing; (2) preemption; and (3) failure to state a
claim.

District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey in the Opinion dated June 24,
2015 available at http://is.gd/vWuSDmfrom Leagle.com, granted
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and dismissed without prejudice
all of Plaintiffs' claims on the basis that the Plaintiffs lacked
standing to bring suit.  The Court also said the Plaintiffs failed
to sufficiently alleged standing. The Court allowed the Plaintiffs
to amend their Complaint within 30 days from the date of the
Order.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq. --
jwh@njlawfirm.com -- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF,
LLC

Defendants are represented by Roger B. Kaplan, Esq. --
kaplanr@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP


ALEXANDER WANG: Faces "Podell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Podell, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Alexander Wang Global Retail LLC, Alexander
Wang Incorporated, and Alexander Wang New York City LLC, Case No.
600355/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
New York Labor Law.

The Defendants operate a clothing company with headquarters
located at 386 Broadway, New York, New York 10013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


ALUM HOME: Faces "Fernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Javier Fernandez and all others similarly situated v. Alum
Home Solutions, Inc. and Sergio Alum, Case No. 1:15-cv-22495-PDG
(S.D. Fla., July 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of home and
office aluminum furniture and fixtures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN IN-LINE: Faces "Prata" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Prata, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. American In-Line Inspection Service, Inc., Case No.
8:15-cv-01556-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla., July 1, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay proper overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

American In-Line Inspection Service, Inc. performs sewage and
drain water pipe inspection, cleaning, and restoration services
throughout Central Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
              cthomas@forthepeople.com


ANSELL HEALTHCARE: Recalls Micro-Touch Nitratex Sterile Gloves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 6, 2015
Posting date: July 7, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-54092

The inner wrap of the product is mislabelled and can cause
confusion for the end user. An end user sensitized to latex would
believe the product to be latex and not use the product. However,
the product is actually a Nitrile glove and the outer container
notes the product is Nitrile.

Affected products:
A.MICRO-TOUCH NITRATEX STERILE GLOVE (2015-06-16)
Lot or serial number: 14070112GM
Model or catalog number: 6034251

Manufacturer: ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS LLC
              1635 INDUSTRIAL ROAD,
              DOTHAN
              36303
              Alabama
              UNITED STATES


APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Venlafaxine XR Capsules
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 3, 2015
Posting date: July 7, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-54132

Reason: Out of specification result for potency during shelf life
testing.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers and Distributors

Affected products:
APO-Venlafaxine XR
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02331691
Dosage form: Capsule (Extended Release)
Strength: Venlafaxine 75 mg
Lot or serial number: 265170

Recalling Firm: Apotex Inc.
                150 Signet Drive
                Toronto
                M9L 1T9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Apotex Inc.
                                150 Signet Drive
                                Toronto
                                M9L 1T9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


ASIANA AIRLINES: Faces New Class Action Over 2013 Plane Crash
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that South Korea's Asiana Airlines Inc. is facing
a new class action suit from passengers on a plane that crashed in
San Francisco in 2013 that seeks a combined $30 million in
damages, a lawyer for the passengers said.

Three teenagers from China died in the crash and more than 180
passengers out of about 300 on board the Boeing 777 plane
sustained injuries.

The lawsuit brought by 53 passengers is the first to be brought in
South Korea. Previous lawsuits, including compensation claims
brought by 72 passengers that were later settled for an
undisclosed amount, were brought in the United States, a spokesman
for the airline said.  He declined to comment further.

The 53 passengers are seeking compensation for injuries, mental
distress and damage to property.  They include 27 South Koreans,
25 Chinese and one Indian, Jason Ha, a lawyer at Barun Law said,
adding that settlement negotiations are ongoing for many of the
passengers.

Barun is working with Kreindler & Kreindler LLP to represent the
passengers in a separate suit in the United States against Boeing
Co to be brought this week, Ha added. Any court action to claim
damages from air crashes must be taken within 2 years of the
incident under the Montreal Convention.

Asiana said in a regulatory filing that it has not yet received
official notice concerning the lawsuit.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Mortgage Modification Application
------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Diresta v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 154638/2015
(N.Y. Sup Ct., June 30, 2015), is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendant's failure to diligently process the
Plaintiff's mortgage modification application and refusal of the
application with no legitimate basis and failure to address the
merits of the application.

Bank of America, N.A. operates a banking and financial services
corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy DiResta, Esq.
      DIRESTA LAW GROUP, PC
      30 W. Park Ave., Suite 301
      Long Beach, NY 11561
      Telephone: (516) 432-0102
      Facsimile: (516) 345-1678
      E-mail: timothydiresta@optimum.net


BEAM GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Fail to Demonstrate Ascertainability
------------------------------------------------------------
Penelope Preovolos, Esq. of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an article
for JDSupra, reports that a New Jersey federal court ruled that
plaintiffs once again failed to demonstrate the ascertainability
of a class of purchasers seeking to challenge "all natural" claims
by the makers of Skinnygirl Margarita. Stewart v. Beam Global
Spirits & Wine, Inc., No. 11-5149 (D.N.J. June 8, 2015).  The
court held that the Third Circuit's high bar for demonstrating
ascertainability was not lowered by its most recent decision on
the issue, Byrd v. Aaron's Inc., 784 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2015).  The
Stewart decision is notable for its analysis and rejection of
plaintiffs' effort to rely on a class action administrator's
declaration to establish a "reliable and administratively
feasible" methodology for ascertaining class membership.

Ascertainability Requirements

The court noted that there are two requirements for
ascertainability: (1) the class must be defined with reference to
objective criteria, and (2) there must be a reliable and feasible
mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall
within the class definition.  The court concluded that, because
putative class members were simply defined as purchasers of
Skinnygirl Margaritas between specified dates, the first
requirement was satisfied; the second, however, was not.

The court reiterated the Third Circuit's guiding principle, first
articulated in Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 306 (3d Cir.
2013), that ascertainability may not be based on the purported
class members' "say so;" a methodology that depends primarily on
class members' affidavits does not give defendants a "suitable and
fair" basis for challenging class membership.  In Stewart, the
defendants did not sell directly to consumers and did not have
records that would permit identification of class members.
Plaintiffs attempted to satisfy the requirement of a reliable and
feasible methodology for identifying class members by submitting
the declaration of Steven Weisbrot, the executive vice president
of Angeion Group, LLC, a class action administration firm,
detailing the methodology proposed to be applied.  The court
addressed the proposed methodology in detail, finding it lacking
in numerous respects.

Analysis of Proposed Methodology

The Weisbrot declaration proposed a three-tiered methodology.  In
the first level of review, claims submitted with a receipt would
be accepted and subject to further review only at the third level.
Class members who had not retained receipts would be subject to a
second level of review, involving multiple factors such as
identifying the size of the bottle from photographs and providing
details about date of purchase, place of purchase, and price,
which the class action administrator would use to validate claims.
Finally, a third level of review would apply "sophisticated . . .
data matching techniques" to identify patterns of duplication.

The court found the declaration insufficient at every level.  The
court noted that few purchasers would have retained receipts, and
that, in any event, possession of a receipt did not necessarily
demonstrate that the claimant had purchased the product.
Claimants could fabricate receipts, use a receipt to support more
than one claim, or could have come into possession of the receipt
by happenstance.  The third tier of review would only identify
duplicative claims, not detect other types of fraud.

The court expressed even more skepticism as to the second level of
review, noting that even the named plaintiffs could not recall the
details of their purchases.  The court stated that it was "left to
wonder how the named plaintiffs, or any claimant, can complete an
affidavit attesting under oath to the details of their purchases
when they cannot remember such specifics."  The court concluded
that claimants would either provide only generalized information
that would not provide any indicia of reliability, would
speculate, or could possibly make up the information.  The court
thus concluded that the fraud prevention methodology in the
declaration was not a workable, reliable process for identifying
class members.  The court also noted that even were the proposed
methodology workable, plaintiffs had not demonstrated that it was
reliable because Mr. Weisbrot admitted that it had only been
applied to settlement classes and never to a litigation class, and
because he admitted in his deposition that it might not be
reliable.

The court lastly rejected plaintiffs' argument that defendants'
due process rights were protected because total damages from the
sales of the beverage were purportedly objectively quantifiable
and not based on consumers' proof of purchase.  Following Carrera,
the court said that even if defendants' rights were protected, the
risk of fraudulent claims meant that the recovery of legitimate
claimants could be improperly diluted.  The court then denied
class certification based on plaintiffs' inability to carry their
burden of proof that the class was ascertainable.

Ascertainability in the Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the standard for
ascertainability; a case currently pending before the court, Jones
v. Conagra Foods, Inc., No. C12-01633 CRB (N.D. Cal. June 13,
2014), will provide the first opportunity for it to do so.
District court opinions in food labeling cases within the Ninth
Circuit have taken a variety of approaches to the ascertainability
issue.  Some cases have adopted the Third Circuit approach. See,
e.g., In re Clorox Consumer Litigation, 301 F.R.D. 436 (N.D. Cal.
2014); Sethavanish v. ZonePerfect Nutrition Co., No. 12-2907-SC
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2014).  Others have rejected it, taking a
significantly more permissive approach to ascertainability and
finding it sufficient for plaintiffs to rely on class member
declarations and an adequate notice plan. See, e.g., Allen v.
Similasan Corp., No. 12-cv-376 BAS (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27,
2015); Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., No. 13-cv-02998-JST (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 18, 2014).  Still other courts in the Ninth Circuit have
rejected the Third Circuit's approach as too strict but have
nonetheless found classes unascertainable because variations in
product labeling, advertising, product contents, or other factors
precluded ascertainability. See, e.g., Jones v. Conagra Foods,
supra; In re POM Wonderful, LLC, No. 10-2199 DDP (RZx) (C.D. Cal.
Mar. 25, 2014).

If the Ninth Circuit rejects the Third Circuit's approach and
adopts a different standard, ascertainability may well be the next
major class action issue headed for the United States Supreme
Court.


BEVERLY HILLS CEMETERY: Faces "Baba" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Baba, John Doe (New York), John Doe (Michigan), and John
Doe (Indiana), on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and Class members v. Beverly Hills Cemetery
Corporation, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05151 (S.D.N.Y., July
1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages and statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Beverly Hills Cemetery Corporation, Inc. owns and operates Rose
Hills Memorial Park and King David Cemetery, both located at 101
Mill Street, Putnam Valley, New York 10579.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


CALLAHEAD: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
The city's top porta-potty company treats its workers like crap.
That's the allegation of a new class-action lawsuit charging
Callahead ("We're #1 at picking up #2") fails to pay workers any
money at all for hours of overtime.

The company, which says it commands 70% of New York's portable
toilet market, cheats laborers out of as much as 30 hours of
overtime a week, according to papers to be filed on June 30 in
Manhattan Federal Court.

"The job is really gross.  It's nasty.  It's hard," said
Jeury Marte, 30, of Queens.  "I worked every Friday and I didn't
get paid a dime for it over 10 years."

Callahead and its president, Charles Howard, have been sued at
least six times in the past seven years for failing to pay OT,
according to the suit.  In each case, the company settled with
individual plaintiffs but continued to maintain the same policies,
papers charge.

"Unfortunately, defendants do not treat their service technicians
like number one," the suit reads.

Callahead employs about 100 workers servicing the portable
toilets, the suit says.

Their duties include delivering, cleaning and picking up the
portable johns in the five boroughs and Nassau, Suffolk and
Westchester counties.

"It's a dirty job.  It's a tough job.  It's a difficult job.  It's
not one everybody would want.  That's why it's so unfair they're
not getting compensated for all hours they're working,"
Adam Slater, the plaintiffs' attorney, said.

Juan Vargas, 41, said he normally worked Monday to Thursday, and
that shifts ended only when all of the site visits were complete.
In practice, that meant he worked around 53 to 60 hours a week but
was only paid for 40, Vargas says.  He also often had to work
Fridays but was told not to clock in, papers claim.

Callahead, the suit charges, has a policy of only paying workers
for 10 hours of overtime on Fridays -- even though days typically
lasted 14 to 16 hours.

That meant that if Vargas worked 70 hours total, he'd only receive
credit for 10 hours of overtime, and some 20 OT hours would go
down the toilet, documents say.

"I don't feel good when I work 60 hours -- I'm not happy," said
Mr. Vargas, 41, who earns $23.70 an hour.

An attorney for Callahead, Martin Scher, said the company pays
workers for all regular and overtime hours.  "I expect the company
to be vindicated if the case goes forward," Mr. Scher said.

If a judge grants the case class-action status, all technicians of
the company in the past six years would potentially be eligible to
participate.


CAMEO COUNTERTOPS: Faces "Bowles" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bowles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cameo Countertops, Inc. and Brian Hudock, Case No.
3:15-cv-01311-JJH (N.D. Ohio, July 1, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Defendants are in the business of designing, installing, and
maintaining custom countertops and fabricated surfaces.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      Ste. 1325, 815 Superior Avenue, E
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (440) 498-9100
      Facsimile: (216) 621-1094
      E-mail: rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
              jfscld@yahoo.com


CAN-FITE BIOPHARMA: Faces Class Action over CF101 Drug
------------------------------------------------------
Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd. on June 29, 2015, received a lawsuit
requesting recognition of this lawsuit as a class action.  The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company misled the
public with regard to disclosures concerning the efficacy of the
Company's drug candidate, CF101.  The claimant alleges that he
suffered personal damages of over NIS 73,000, while also claiming
that the shareholders of the Company suffered damages of
approximately NIS 125 million.  The Company strongly believes the
lawsuit and its allegations to be baseless and without merit, and
will vigorously defend this action.


CAPITAL ONE: Objectors' Appeals in $75.5MM Settlement Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
Aliso Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that on June 26, the
7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ended a drama that has roiled
the class action bar last month.  A 7th Circuit motions panel
agreed to dismiss appeals by objectors in a $75.5 million class
action settlement with Capital One over debt collection robocalls.
That sounds like a pro forma docket entry, since all of the
objectors at the 7th Circuit moved to drop their cases.  But there
was a chance the appeals court might have taken bait dangled by
Ted Frank at the nonprofit Center for Class Action Fairness and
insisted on investigating settlements between the objectors and
class counsel at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.

The 7th Circuit did wait to toss the case until Lieff had a chance
to offer its side of the story in a 72-page brief and attached
declarations filed on June 25.  In his sworn statement, Lieff
partner Jonathan Selbin said he deplores professional objectors
"who advance baseless, often irrelevant and sometimes cut-and-
paste objections, and notice appeals solely for purposes of
extorting money from class counsel."  But sometimes, Selbin's
declaration said, it's in the interests of class members to pay
objectors to go away, as Lieff Cabraser reluctantly agreed to do
in the Capital One appeal.  And according to two legal ethics
professors Lieff Cabraser hired to review the Capital One case,
there was nothing improper or unethical about the firm's conduct,
despite allegations to the contrary by Ted Frank.

Mr. Frank represented one of three objectors who filed appeals of
Lieff Cabraser's $16 million fee award in the Capital One case. (A
couple other objectors protested the entire settlement.) Though
Lieff Cabraser initially refused mediation with the objectors, it
eventually reached a deal with Christopher Bandas, a plaintiffs'
lawyer and frequent objector who had signed onto Mr. Frank's brief
appealing Lieff's fees.  Through Mr. Bandas, Lieff also offered a
$25,000 settlement to Mr. Frank's client.  That offer led to a
split between Mr. Frank and his client, who opted to accept the
settlement -- and to a split between Messrs. Frank and Bandas,
with whom Mr. Frank turned out to have had a years-long business
relationship.

In a June 10 motion at the 7th Circuit in which he asked to be
named a guardian for the Capital One class, Mr. Frank described
Lieff's "unethical" settlement offers to his client and
Mr. Bandas.  He also disclosed that Mr. Bandas had paid him about
$250,000 in consulting fees since 2013.  Mr. Bandas then sued
Frank in Texas state court for revealing confidential information,
winning a restraining order.  According to Mr. Frank, he and Mr.
Bandas reached a settlement in which Mr. Bandas dropped the state
court suit and Frank withdrew his motion at the 7th Circuit to be
appointed a steward for the class.  But Mr. Frank refused a
request from Lieff Cabraser specifically to repudiate his
assertions that the firm's settlement with his now-former objector
client was unethical.

The firm's filings on June 25 responded to those allegations.
Lieff has added details to Mr. Frank's account, disclosing, for
instance, that when the firm was discussing a settlement with
Mr. Bandas, Mr. Bandas told Lieff lawyers that Frank's client,
Jeffrey Collins, had already fired the Center for Class Action
Fairness.  Mr. Selbin's declaration also said that when Mr. Frank
first contacted him about the settlement offer to Collins,
Mr. Frank agreed Mr. Selbin had done nothing wrong in offering a
settlement through Mr. Bandas.  In addition, Mr. Selbin said he
told Frank he was ethically prohibited from talking about
settlement offers to other objectors. (Mr. Selbin said his notes
and emails back his account of his dealings with Mr. Frank and
that he disagrees "with much of what Mr. Frank says in his
declaration about what was said and done.")

More broadly, Lieff Cabraser argued, its settlements with Capital
One objectors were in class members' interests.  All of the money
it paid came from the firm, not from the class fund, it said, and
the settlements will expedite payments to the class.  "Any
suggestion of wrongdoing is as meritless as it is reckless," the
firm's brief said.  "Class counsel only agreed to settle after
considering the costs of pursuing the appeal and the inevitable
delay in payment to the class  Class counsel's decision was
reasonable and in line with their fiduciary duties." (Lieff
attached declarations from University of Connecticut law professor
Alexandra Lahav and Northwestern law prof Robert Burns to buttress
its ethics arguments.)

The 7th Circuit's order on June 26 closes discussion of paying
objectors to go away in the Capital One appeal but I hope it
doesn't end examination of the issue.  If you believe in class
actions you should too.  Lieff Cabraser and Ted Frank didn't agree
on much in this case, but they both said there's a flaw in a
system that rewards lawyers who file unwarranted objections merely
to extract settlements from class counsel.  Mr. Frank and Lieff
Cabraser are compromised as messengers, Mr. Frank as the former
beneficiary of a prolific for-profit objector and Lieff as a firm
that has paid objectors.  But don't ignore their message of
reform.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Charter Communications of California, LLC, Case No.
5:15-cv-01302 (C.D. Cal., July 1, 2015), seeks to put an end on
the Defendant's practice of placing calls on consumers cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Charter Communications of California, LLC is a nationwide company
which provides cable TV, internet and telephone services to
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: C.A. Publishes Opinion on Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that the Court of Appeal [in
Los Angeles, California district] on June 25 ordered publication
of its June 3 opinion reviving part of a putative class action by
an employee of Children's Hospital of Los Angeles.

Div. Three held that that some of the plaintiff's claims were
tolled by the filing of earlier lawsuits by members of the same
putative class.

Justice Richard Aldrich cited American Pipe & Construction Co. v.
Utah (1974) 414 U.S. 538, which holds that a class claim is
generally tolled during the pendency of a prior class action
raising a related claim on behalf of the same class.  The rule
preserves the ability of a class member to sue on claims that were
not resolved as to non-named parties in the earlier action.

The court ruled, in part, in favor of Michelle Falk, a licensed
vocational nurse who sued the hospital in December 2012, claiming
various violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of the Labor
Code.  Ms. Falk's complaint, Justice Aldrich noted, was
substantially similar to that filed by registered nurse Denise
Mays 11 months earlier.

Ms. Mays claimed, among other things, that the hospital routinely
failed to pay overtime when required to do so, and failed to
promptly pay employees upon separation from employment and to pay
late penalties in such cases.  She also claimed that CHLA had a
policy of discouraging employees from taking rest periods to which
they were statutorily entitled, and was in non-compliance with the
code's meal-break requirements because employees were required to
answer pages during those periods and to clock out even if they
did not take the break.

Two similar complaints were filed against the hospital, in 2007
and 2013.

The 2007 case of Palazzollo v. Children's Hospital of Los Angeles
resulted in a summary judgment for the hospital on the merits,
which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in an unpublished
opinion in December 2010.  Neither the trial court nor the
appellate panel addressed class action issues in its ruling.

In granting CHLA's summary judgment motion in the Falk case on
limitations grounds, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jane L.
Johnson rejected the plaintiff's claim that the action was timely
under American Pipe.

Judge Johnson reasoned that the Palazzolo complaint did not have
tolling effect because none of the claims were found substantively
viable, that American Pipe does not permit "piggybacking" of
successive class actions, and that the earlier suit did not put
the defendant on notice of Ms. Falk's "esoteric" claim that the
hospital evaded paying the proper amount of overtime to class
members by using a "dual wage" system in which employees who
worked overtime were paid a lower base wage.

Justice Aldrich, writing for the Court of Appeal, noted that the
California Supreme Court has adopted the American Pipe rule,
holding in Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103 that
tolling applies "from the time of commencement of the suit to the
time of denial of certification for all purported members of the
class who either make timely motions to intervene in the surviving
individual action . . .  or who timely file their individual
actions."

The justice cited a case in which the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals applied American Pipe to an action in which the class
action plaintiff dismissed the action before class certification
was ruled on, leaving the other class members "in the lurch," as
the federal panel put it.  In ruling that a subsequent action by
another class member was tolled during the pendency of the first
action, the court rejected the argument that the first action was
"never a class action" and noted that the class-certification
question was never ruled on in American Pipe either.

The class members in Palazzolo's case were in a similar position,
Aldrich said, because they were left without remedy when the trial
court granted summary judgment to the hospital, which chose to
seek a ruling on the merits rather than wait for a decision on
class certification.

The justice emphasized that the hospital prevailed "because
Palazzolo, not the class, failed to state viable causes of
action."

He went on to conclude, however, that Falk's claims were only
tolled for three years, nine months, and three days--the length of
time from the filing of Palazzolo's complaint to the issuance of
the remittitur following his defeat in the Court of Appeal.

Because some of Ms. Falk's claims, such as for violation of the
requirement that employees be given accurate wage statements, are
subject to a one-year statute of limitations, the dismissal of
those claims was proper, Justice Aldrich said.  But other claims,
he explained, were subject to a three- or four-year statute and
were timely.

Attorneys on appeal were Steven Bruce Gold of The Gold Firm and
Joseph Antonelli, Janelle Carney and Jason Hatcher of the Law
Office of Joseph Antonelli for the plaintiff, and Derek R. Havel
-- dhavel@sheppardmullin.com -- Daniel J. McQueen --
dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com -- Marlene M. Nicolas and Matthew A.
Tobias -- mtobias@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton and Linda Miller Savitt -- lsavitt@brgslaw.com
-- of Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt for the defendant.

The case is Falk v. Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, 15 S.O.S.
3252.


CLEVELAND BROWNS: Faces Class Action Over Personal Seat Licenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Payerchin, writing for The Morning Journal, reports that
Cleveland Browns season ticket holders are back in court, claiming
they lost money because the football team stopped requiring fans
to buy personal seat licenses, also known as PSLs.

Cleveland Browns LLC is the defendant in a class action lawsuit
filed June 25 at Lorain County Common Pleas Court.  Season ticket
holders from Lorain, Stark, Geauga and Lake counties filed the
case over their PSLs, which the Browns required from 1998 to March
2013, according to court records.  The PSL prices ranged from $250
to about $3,000 per license, according to the lawsuit, and were
"marketed as an investment" that "would grow in demand and in
value in subsequent seasons" when PSLs became scarcer.

The PSLs "provided more than a mere right to view entertainment,"
the lawsuit said.

"A PSL was not merely a license to purchase football tickets, but
rather was a valuable expectancy interest in renewable rights to
season tickets," the lawsuit said.  "The PSL conferred an array of
'permanent' rights that were wholly separate and distinct
interests from purchasing game tickets."

When the Browns announced that the club was discontinuing the
prerequisite PSLs in March 2013, it severely depressed the market
for buying and selling the licenses, according to the lawsuit.

"Now that the Browns have removed the PSL requirement and cost to
new purchasers of season tickets, the PSLs owned by the named
plaintiffs and the class members have lost their value to anyone
interested in acquiring Browns season tickets," the lawsuit said.

The named plaintiffs included Lorain attorneys Michael Brosky and
J. Anthony Rich; Robert A. Schneider of Amherst; Allen M. Kocsis
of Chester Township; Jacalyn Luli of Uniontown; William J.
Galiardi of Chardon; and Charles G. Clark of Mentor-on-the-Lake.
The case was filed by attorney Eric Zagrans of Cleveland.

The court filing also alleges the Browns' PSLs were unregistered
securities that were not regulated by the Ohio Department of
Commerce.  The lawsuit asks for compensatory and punitive damages
of at least $25,000.

It appeared the June 25 case was similar to one filed March 4, but
dismissed a day later as the Browns and season ticket holders were
to negotiate a settlement out of court.


COLLEGE BOARD: June SAT Testing Scores Released Amid Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Strauss, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
scores for the June 6 SAT are now out, and a controversy that
erupted over the botched administration of the college admissions
exam is only escalating.  To wit: Class-action lawsuits have been
filed in three states, the reliability and fairness of the results
are being questioned, some students who want to accept the College
Board's offer to retake the SAT for free on Oct. 3 can't because
they are taking SAT Subject tests on the same day, and calls are
being made for the entire test to be made public.

For those who haven't followed the story: The College Board, which
owns the SAT, was forced to discard two of 10 sections of the SAT
administered June 6 -- or 22 percent of the test -- because of
printing errors on test booklets.  Students discovered that the
time allotted for one section, the last reading section, said 25
minutes rather than the 20 minutes that they were supposed to
have.  Because of the way the test is administered, some students
were taking the final math section at the same time as some were
taking the reading section with the misprinted timing instruction,
and some test-takers were allowed more time than others by exam
proctors.

The College Board's solution was to toss out two sections and
offer any June 6 test-taker a chance to retake the test at its
next administration, on Oct. 3, 2015, for free.  College Board
officials have said students' scores would be as reliable as if
the entire test had been graded because the SAT is designed to
collect enough information even if the entire test is not scored.

Many students aren't buying the College Board's explanation.
According to the Courthouse News Service, three class-action
lawsuits have been filed against the College Board and the
Educational Testing Service, which administers the SAT, seeking a
test fee refund as well as money for damages.  The lawsuits were
filed in Trenton, N.J., Jacksonville, Fla., and Long Island, N.Y.
Said the New Jersey lawsuit:

Examinees . . . rely on the constancy and reliability of the SAT
score as a solid, unquestioned indicator of relative ability.
Instead, the June 6th test examinees' scores will be "the SAT with
the asterisk."

Zach Goldberg, media director for the College Board, said in an
e-mail that the College Board is certain that it is providing
"valid and reliable scores" to students.  He said:

To make this determination, we conducted a comprehensive review
and statistical analysis with three important components:

First, the scores for the shorter test were shown to be
sufficiently reliable -- meaning they show technical consistency
over repeated testings.

Second, the equating process was not affected by the error.
Equating is a statistical procedure that is conducted to ensure
that different versions of a test are of comparable difficulty.

Finally, the scored sections had the same distribution of content
and skills as the full-length test and therefore is reflective of
the overall SAT content specifications.

We have consistently communicated with College Board higher
education members since learning of the misprint in the June 6 SAT
administration book.  Admission directors from across the country
have told us they have full confidence in those scores and will
view them just like scores from any other SAT administration.
They want students to be assured of the integrity of their scores.

We take our responsibility to students very seriously, and we
appreciate their patience as we've worked to deliver to
institutions scores that are valid and reliable.

But some testing experts are calling for more disclosure from the
College Board. Bob Schaeffer, public education director of the
nonprofit National Center for Fair and Open Testing, or FairTest,
is calling for the College Board to:

     * Offer a special summer retest for students who need
trustworthy scores before October 22.  That's the date when
results from the free October SAT retest would be released) in
order to qualify for athletic eligibility, early action
application deadlines, "merit" scholarships, etc. or to avoid a
conflict with SAT Subject Tests also scheduled for October 3.

     * Cancel scores and refund all registration fees from the
June 6 SAT to those who neither trust the reported scores nor want
to retake the test.

     * Rebate a portion of the registration fee to all test-takers
because less than 80 percent of all the questions they paid for
are being scored.

     * Provide any studies and/or data it has to support the claim
that the June 6 SAT scores are valid and reliable to independent
experts for review.

Larry Krieger, a respected test-prep expert who has been preparing
thousands of students to take the SAT and PSAT for nearly 25
years, said the College Board should release the entire June 6
test so people can see for themselves how the test was scored.  A
fully released SAT includes four components:

All of the questions
Answer to the questions
The Level of Difficulty of each question on a scale of 1 - 5
The Scoring Scale for Critical Reading, Math, and Writing


COULSON AVIATION: Faces "Ford" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Ford, Miguel Landeros and Amir Mohmed, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coulson Aviation
USA, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04983 (C.D. Cal., July 1, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Coulson Aviation USA, Inc. maintains a C-130 airplane operation
that contracts to dump water on forest fires.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Christopher Marsili, Esq.
      POSNER AND ROSEN LLP
      3600 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1800
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 389-6050
      Facsimile: (213) 389-0663
      E-mail: jmarsili@posner-rosen.com


CR & RA: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alida Lopez v. CR & RA Investments, Inc. and Integrity Health
Services Miami, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-22479-JAL (S.D. Fla., July
1, 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 home healthcare services company
in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
      4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 780-8228
      Facsimile: (954) 719-4016
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


CYBER-STRUCT INC: Subcontractors' Suit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Nancy Hershey Lord permissively abstained from
hearing the removed state court proceeding involving Chapter 11
debtor Patsy Fierro, and remanded the case to state court.

The case is captioned, J.C. Ryan EBCO/H&G LLC, on behalf of itself
and all other subcontractors similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
Cyber-Struct Inc., Louis Zuccaro, aka Lou Zuccaro, aka Louie
Zuccaro, Patrick Fierro, aka Patsy Fierro, aka Pat Fierro, Damon
Coromilas, Defendants. In re: Luigi Zucaro, aka Louis Zucaro,
Chapter 11, Debtor. J.C. Ryan EBCO/H&G LLC, on behalf of itself
and all other subcontractors similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
Cyber-Struct Inc., Louis Zuccaro, aka Lou Zuccaro, aka Louie
Zuccaro, Patrick Fierro, aka Patsy Fierro, aka Pat Fierro, Damon
Coromilas, Defendants, CASE NO. 1-14-41439-NHL, ADV. PRO. NO. 1-
14-01068-NHL, CASE NO. 1-14-41440-NHL, ADV. PRO. NO. 1-14-01087-
NHL (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.).

The state court found debtors Patsy Fierro and Luigi Zucaro liable
in a class action lawsuit for damages for their failure to pay
subcontractors on a construction project. Fierro and Zucaro twice
moved to vacate the state court judgment and, after filing a
Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, removed the state court proceeding
to the bankruptcy court.

J.C. Ryan EBCO/H&G, LLC ("Ryan"), the lead plaintiff in the class
action lawsuit, opposed the removal, and moved for remand of the
proceeding to state court and relief from the automatic stay to
continue the action in that forum. Alternatively, Ryan requested
the bankruptcy court to abstain under the doctrines of mandatory
or permissive abstention.

Judge Lord concluded that permissive abstention is warranted
because the state court is more familiar with the case and can
likely adjudicate the issues more quickly, as the case has been
litigated in that court for over 12 years. Judge Lord also found
it proper to remand to the state court and to lift the stay to the
extent necessary for the parties to continue to prosecute and
defend the debtors' Second Motion to Vacate, as well as to
continue the appeal of the First Motion to Vacate.

A copy of the May 29, 2015 decision is available at
http://is.gd/ixjcjffrom Leagle.com.

Douglas J. Pick, Pick & Zabicki LLP, New York, NY Attorney for the
Debtors/Defendants.

Jay H. Berg, Cornicello Tendler & Baumel-Cornicello, New York, NY,
Attorney for the Debtors/Defendants.

Scott A. Mandelup -- asm@pryormandelup.com -- Pryor & Mandelup,
LLP, Westbury, NY Attorney for JC Ryan EBCO/H&G, LLC.

Richard L. Yellen -- ryellen@yellenlaw.com -- Richard L. Yellen &
Associates, LLP, New York, NY 10006, Attorney for JC Ryan
EBCO/H&G,
LLC.

Patsy Fierro and Luigi Zucaro each filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy
petition on March 27, 2014.


DELTA AIRLINES: Sued Over Alleged Airline Ticket-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Devivo, Jack Sniado, and Julia L. Holt, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Delta Airlines,
Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-05162 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2015),
arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or
stabilize prices of airline tickets, specifically by signaling one
another how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra
seats in order to limit the capacity, and limiting access to
competitive fare information to keep the price of airfares
artificially high.

The Defendants are major airline companies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
      Christian Levis, Esq.
      Sung-Min Lee, Esq.
      LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
      White Plains Plaza
      One North Broadway
      Suite 509
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914) 997-0500
      Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
      E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
              clevis@lowey.com
              slee@lowey.com


DENNIS SHIPPING: Faces "Murrell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Garreth Murrell, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Dennis Shipping Company, Inc., Dennis Hawthorne, and
Jennifer Campbell, Case No. 1:15-cv-03861 (E.D.N.Y., July 1,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a shipping business that provides
shipping services for destination to, amongst others, the
Caribbean.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher David Skoczen, Esq.
      MCMANUS AND RICHTER, PC
      48 Wall Street, 25th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 425-3100
      Facsimile: (212) 425-3175
      E-mail: cskoczen@mcmanusandrichter.com


DON DAVIS: Gay Marriage Litigation Costs Taxpayers $200,000+
------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Kirby, writing for AL.com, reports that Mobile County
Probate Judge Don Davis has employed a half-dozen lawyers and
spent more than $200,000 to defend against gay marriage
litigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 26 made gay marriage the law of the
land.

Judge Davis, who was unavailable for immediate comment on June 26,
has been named as a defendant in four same-sex lawsuits.

According to Mobile County officials, taxpayers have paid a total
of $204,451.03 on legal fees.  They break down as follows:

  -- $102,767.53 to attorneys Michael Druhan and Harry
     Satterwhite.

  -- $76,343 to the Chelsea, Ala., firm of Boardman, Carr,
     Bennett, Watkins, Hill & Gamble.  Attorneys Mark Boardman,
     Clay Carr and Teresa Petelos have worked on the case.

  -- $25,340 to Mobile lawyer Lee Hale.

Judge Davis cited rising legal costs in requesting that a judge
allow him to withdraw as a representative on behalf of all probate
judges in Alabama in a class-action lawsuit brought by gay couples
who have been unable to obtain marriage licenses since the Alabama
Supreme Court ordered them to follow state law.  That ruling
challenged the Jan. 23 ruling by Mobile-based U.S. District Judge
Callie V.S. "Ginny" Granade declaring the state's ban on same-sex
marriage unconstitutional.

When Judge Granade's original order took effect in February, Judge
Davis kept his marriage license office closed to all couples for
several days.  He reopened it by week's end after Judge Granade
issued a specific order directed at him.

But Judge Davis closed the office again after the Alabama Supreme
Court declared that its order instructing probate judges to
continue following state law applied to him, as well.  Judge Davis
had argued that he was in a different position from the other
probate judges because he was under a direct federal court order.

Since then, the case has played out in Judge Granade's courtroom.
In May, she certified the civil complaint as a class-action suit
on behalf of all gay couples wishing to marry, with all 68 probate
judges as defendants. She appointed Davis and Baldwin County
Probate Judge Tim Russell to represent the defendants.

With the high court ruling on June 26, the federal class-action
suit in Mobile presumably becomes moot.

Attorneys for all three firms were unavailable for immediate
comment.  Judge Davis' chief of staff, Mark Erwin, said he was
unauthorized to speak on the matter.

But attorney David Kennedy, who sued Judge Davis in multiple same-
sex marriage lawsuits, called the legal fees "unbelievable."

"As a resident of the county and taxpayer of the county, it
greatly saddens me to know we've incurred $200,000 in legal fees
in a meritless defense," he said.  "That's $200,000 that didn't do
anything except help the lawyers who made it, and it did not do
anything to advance the interest of the county one bit."


DR. COLORCHIP: Recalls Paint & Blending Solutions
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 6, 2015
Posting date: July 6, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall:  Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54052

This recall involves Dr. ColorChip Automotive Touch-Up Paint
(available in 1 oz. and 1.5 oz. clear bottles) and Dr. ColorChip
SealAct Blending Solution (available in 1 oz., 2 oz. and 4 oz.
plastic bottles) sold as part of 4 different repair kits. The
touch-up paint was available in various colours.

The repair Kits have the following SKUs:

  Product Name                         SKU
  ------------                         ----
  Dr. ColorChip Squirt '  n Squeegee     SNS
  Paint Chip Repair Kit
  Dr. ColorChip Road Rash Paint        RR
  Chip Repair Kit
  Dr. ColorChip Standard Paint Chip    S
  Repair Kit
  Dr. ColorChip Basic Paint Chip       B
  Repair Kit

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that
the products do not meet labelling requirements for consumer
chemical products under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

The consumer products do not have proper hazard labelling required
by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 under
the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The improper labelling
could result in unintentional exposure to these products and lead
to serious illness, injury or death.

Neither Health Canada nor Dr. ColorChip has received any reports
of consumer incidents related to the use of this product.

Approximately 3000 units of the recalled products were sold
directly to consumers through online sales.

The recalled products were sold in Canada between January 2007 and
November 2014.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Dr. ColorChip Corporation
              Lake Park
              Florida
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
dispose of them according to Municipal Hazardous Waste Guidelines.
Consumers may contact the manufacturer by email or by telephone at
1-866-372-2548 for more information about the recall.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/9XMfKz


FAIRBRIDGE FARM: $24MM Settlement Reached in Child Abuse Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Central Western Daily reports that the announcement of a $24
million provisional settlement to compensate child residents of
Fairbridge Farm who were subjected to physical, sexual and
emotional abuse brings to a conclusion an emotional six-year
struggle in the courts in NSW.

Roop Sandhu, of Slater and Gordon said the apology by NSW
Department of Family and Community Services representatives to a
recent gathering of Fairbridge claimants in Sydney was an
emotional and memorable experience as was the June 29
announcement.

"Everyone was in tears because it was a truly heartfelt apology
from deputy secretary Deidre Mulkerin on behalf of the NSW
Department of Family and Community Services to the victims,"
Mr. Sandhu said.  He paid tribute to Geraldine Giles and Vivian
Drady who acted as lead claimants on behalf of almost 150 other
members of the class action.

"This has been a long battle," Mr. Sandhu said.

He said although the settlement is still to be confirmed in the
Supreme Court in late August he remains confident.

"We wouldn't have put it up if we didn't think it was an
appropriate deal," he said.

Mr. Sandhu said his firm is keen to contact anyone who was not
part of the original class action who are now eligible to be
included in the settlement.

"I understand completely that not everyone felt they were able to
come forward and tell their story if they felt they had to do so
in a court," he said.

"We will be putting an ad in the Central Western Daily and in the
Sydney papers asking people to contact us before July 24," he
said.

Head of the Old Fairbridgians' Association Molong, Derek Moriarty
said it wasn't always easy for many people to remain optimistic
about the positive outcome of the court case.

"In my role as head of the organization of course that is what I
had to do, but it was difficult at times as people were losing
heart," he said.

Mr. Moriarty who has already given evidence at the Royal
Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse said the timing
this year for a settlement was right.

"Everyone is so conscious of the level of child abuse in
institutions at the moment because of the Royal Commission and the
timing was perfect," he said.

Mr. Moriarty said at times members of the association have
sometimes expressed differing opinions about alleged abuse at
Fairbridge.

"But you only have to look at the numbers of people who have
already come forward to tell their stories," he said.

Former child resident David Hill said it was wonderful news that
justice is finally being delivered to the claimants in the class
action.

"But what is really sad is that since the class action began eight
people who wanted to tell their story have died," Mr. Hill said.

He said it was a disgrace that the Fairbridge Foundation, and the
NSW and the commonwealth governments have dragged the case out for
so long adding to the angst of claimants.

"Slater and Gordon are to be congratulated on taking on this case
on a no win no fee basis as there is no way anyone would have had
the resources to put this case forward," he said.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces "Ebian-Pesa" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ebian-Pesa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc., Case No.
SUCV2015-01962 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 30, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc. owns and operates 70
stores throughout Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617)994-5800
      E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com


FG DELI: Recalls Roast Beef Products Due to Listeria
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: FG Deli Group Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Possibly National, Saskatchewan, Yukon
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9926

FG Deli Group Ltd. is recalling Grimm'  s Fine Foods brand Home
Style Roast Beef from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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

   Brand    Common     Size     Code(s)      UPC   Additional
   name     name       ----     on product   ---   info
   -----    ------              ----------         ----------
Grimm'  s     Home Style Variable G11630 BB    None  This product
Fine Foods  Roast Beef          24 JUL 2015        may have been
                                                   sold clerk-
                                                   served from
                                                   deli counters
                                                   with or
                                                   without a
                                                   label or
                                                   coding.

Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the affected
product are advised to contact their retailer.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ugYAUh


FLEETWOOD: Recalls 2015 RV Models Due to Noncompliance
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 2, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 5
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015299TC
ID number: 2015299
Manufacturer recall number: 150625ARG

On certain motor homes, an emergency egress window was not
installed in the road side bedroom wall, thus failing to comply
with applicable fire escape standards. If there is no emergency
egress window in the bedroom, in the event of a fire or other
emergency, escape from the motor home may be delayed or prevented,
increasing the risk of personal injury and/or property damage.
Correction: Dealers will inspect the road-side bedroom window, and
if necessary, replace it with an emergency egress window. The
emergency egress window can be identified by red exit handles,
which are visible from the inside of the window.

  Make        Model   Model year(s) affected
  -----       -----    ----------------------
  FLEETWOOD   RV       2015, 2015


FOREST CITY: Faces "Rovner" Suit Over Illegal Rental Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Rovner and Megan Cook, individually and as representatives
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Forest City
Residential Management, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-10028 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to provide its tenants with a Residential Landlord and Tenant
Ordinance (RLTO) Separate Summary, at the time rental agreements
are initially offered and renewed.

Forest City Residential Management, Inc. operates a residential
apartment complex in Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200
      Chicago, JL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 924-0278
      Facsimile: (312) 650-8241

         - and -

      MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
      225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200
      CHICAGO, JL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 775-1015
      Facsimile: (312) 256-2055


GENUINE PARTS: Faces "Mar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Mar, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public v. Genuine Parts Company, NAPA
Auto Parts, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-at-00734 (E.D.
Cal., July 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Genuine Parts Company engages in the distribution of automotive
replacement parts, industrial replacement parts, office products
and electrical and electronic materials.

NAPA Auto Parts is the largest division of the Genuine Parts
Company that distributes automotive parts and accessory items.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
      Yi-Fan C. Everett, Esq.
      BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 444-9300
      Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
      E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
              yvonne@bryanschwartzlaw.com


GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Proposed Brookfield Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark O'neill and Adoracion Guerrero, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Graftech International Ltd., et
al., Case No. CV-15-847670 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, June 29, 2015), is
brought on behalf of all the holders of the common stock of
GrafTech International Ltd., to enjoin the acquisition of the
publicly owned shares of GrafTech common stock by Brookfield Asset
Management Inc., for an unfair price and inadequate consideration.

Graftech International Ltd. is a global company that offers
innovative graphite material solutions for its customers in a wide
range of industries and end markets, including steel
manufacturing, advanced energy applications and latest generation
electronics.

Brookfield Asset Management Inc. is a global alternative asset
manager, with over $200 billion in assets under management,
engaged in managing and making investments in property, renewable
energy, infrastructure and private equity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
      Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
              egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
              jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com

         - and -

      Paul Grieco, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GREICO MERRIMAN, LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, Ohio 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007


HEMPOLA VALLEY: Recalls Protein and Fibre Powder Due to Gluten
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Hempola Valley Farms
Distribution: Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, New
Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9920

   Brand   Common            Size    Code(s)          UPC
   name    name              ----    on product       ---
   -----   ------                    ----------
Hempola    100% Hemp Powder, 454 g   BEST BY 100616   6 23188-
           Protein and Fibre         or 10JN1         678935 4
           Powder
Hempola    100% Hemp Powder, 5 lb    BEST BY 100616   6 23188-
           Protein and Fibre         or 10JN16        78935 4
           Powder


HQ FINE: Recalls Roast Beef Sandwich Products Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: HQ Fine Foods
Distribution: Alberta
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9922

HQ Fine Foods is recalling Gloria'  s brand and Lunch Box Roast
beef sandwich products from the marketplace due to possible
Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume
the recalled products described below.

The following products have been sold in Alberta.

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

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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


   Brand    Common       Size    Code(s)       UPC
   name     name         ----    on product    ---
   -----    ------               ----------
   None     Lunch Box    244 g   Best Before   0 24904 47530 6
            Roast Beef           15JL13 and
            and Cheddar          15JL16
            Cheese Sub
            with Creamy
            Coleslaw
  Gloria'  s  Roast Beef   166 g   Best Before   0 24904 38574 2
            Sandwich             JL10

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/t9UJQS


HYUNDAI: Recalls 2015 Sonata Models Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 6, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 10401
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015302TC
ID number: 2015302
Manufacturer recall number: R0098 (51CA13)

On certain vehicles, if the front passenger seat belt buckle
tongue is inserted into the buckle forcibly at an extreme angle,
it could damage the buckle and prevent the front passenger seat
belt from being fastened. If this occurs, the front passenger'  s
seat belt warning lamp will also illuminate. If the vehicle were
to be driven in this condition, it could increase the risk of
injury to the front passenger occupant in the event of a crash.
Correction: Dealers will repair or replace the front passenger
seat belt buckle.

  Make        Model     Model year(s) affected
  -----       -----     ----------------------
  HYUNDAI     SONATA    2015


INDIANA: TB Outbreak Victims File Class Action Against IDOC
-----------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 2015, the law firms of Stewart & Stewart Attorneys and
Pavlack Law, LLC, filed a class action complaint in the Marion
Superior Court 7 against the Indiana Department of Correction
(IDOC) and IDOC Commissioner Bruce Lemmon on behalf of Larry
Newton and 30 additional Plaintiffs affected by last year's
Pendleton Correctional Facility tuberculosis (TB) outbreak.
In the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to
a fellow inmate who exhibited symptoms of active TB while
incarcerated at the Pendleton Correctional Facility in Pendleton,
Indiana, during spring and summer 2014.

During their period of exposure, IDOC failed to provide "prompt
and adequate medical care to the inmate or inmates who was/were
exhibiting signs of active TB, and Defendants otherwise failed to
institute and/or implement proper policies to properly screen,
treat, and diagnose the inmate or inmates with active TB."

The Plaintiffs allege that approximately 400 individuals were
exposed to the bacterium that causes TB. To date, at least 50
inmates have tested positive for TB following subsequent
screenings. The Plaintiffs are seeking damages on behalf of
themselves and all others affected.

Darron Stewart, of Stewart & Stewart Attorneys, is representing
victims affected by the Pendleton Correctional Facility TB
outbreak, and he is continuing to take cases related to the
matter.


JACKSON PLAZA: Removed "LaFosse" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Dieudonne LaFosse and other
similarly situated individuals v. Jackson Plaza, Inc., Russell
Galbut, William Zubkoff, Marty Wasserman, Joan Brent, and
William Eck, Case No. 15-12771 CA01 CA01, was removed from the
11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District
Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22496-UU to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Robert L. Switkes, Esq.
      ROBERT L. SWITKES & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      407 Lincoln Road, Penthouse SE
      Miami Beach, FL 33139
      Telephone: (305) 534-4757
      Facsimile: (305) 538-5504
      E-mail: rswitkes@switkeslaw.com


KABA GROUP: Settles 2010 Class Action Simplex Lock Defects
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaba Group disclosed that the class action filed in the USA at the
end of 2010 has now been settled.  The settlement proposed by
representatives of the plaintiffs and Kaba has been approved by
the Federal court in Ohio.

The lawsuit claimed that there were defects in specific models of
Simplex mechanical pushbutton locks, which were manufactured by a
US subsidiary of Kaba and misleading advertising.  Kaba has
consistently denied the allegations.  The settlement provides non-
cash benefits which, including legal costs, are covered by a
provision made in FY 2010/2011.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Howard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Howard, Lauren Kennedy, David Nitta, Manuel Guzman, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., and Does 1-50
inclusive, Case No. BC586369 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. owns and operates 30 community
hospitals in California, Hawaii, and Oregon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 551-1223
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
      Firm-site: www.bamlawca.com


KIDS PREFERRED: Recalls Puppy Pull Toys Due to Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 7, 2015
Posting date: July 7, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54096

This recall involves a pull toy in the shape of a puppy. Bud, an
8-inch (20 centimetres) high soft brown puppy with a blue and
white pull cord, stands on red wooden wheels with blue hub caps.
There is a red, blue and white soft ball at the end of the pull
cord. The lot code YM5/14 is on the label sewn on the back leg of
the toy and the item number 401101, can be found on the lower
right-hand corner of the original packing.

The hub caps on the wheels can break off or become detached from
the wheel, posing a choking hazard for young children.

Neither Health Canada nor Preferred Kids LLC has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.

Consumers can find information on how to choose safe toys and
protect their children when they play by visiting the General toy
safety tips page on the Healthy Canadians website.

One unit was sold at a retail store in Edmonton AB.

The recalled Wheely Cute Pull Toy was sold between March 2015 and
June 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Bunnies by the Bay
              East Windsor
              New Jersey
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: Kids Preferred LLC
             East Windsor
             New Jersey
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away from
children and return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Bunnies by the Bay at
1-866-763-8869 or 1-732-274-1144, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST
Monday to Friday, or visit their website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/4WbYZa


LIA SOPHIA: Faces Class action Over Lifetime Guarantee
------------------------------------------------------
Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that
Lia Sophia, a direct-sales jewelry company that announced in
December that it was shutting down, is the target of a lawsuit
alleging the company refuses to honor its lifetime guarantee on
purchases, even as it continues to sell its merchandise online.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed June 23 in
Chicago's federal district court on behalf of Lia Sophia customers
and its sales representatives, who sold the company's jewelry
mostly at home parties in a business model similar to Avon and
Tupperware.  At its peak, Lia Sophia had more than 30,000 sales
representatives, known as "advisers," who sold more than $300
million of costume jewelry a year, the complaint says.

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, fraud and unjust
enrichment.  It was filed by former Lia Sophia sales adviser
Cynthia West, who lives in Fairfax, Iowa; and customer Kristine
Hollander of Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

The company, headquartered in Roselle, offered a "lifetime
replacement guarantee" that promised it would replace any jewelry
it sold or provide a certificate redeemable for jewelry of
comparable value -- a perk that enabled the company to charge more
than the market typically demanded, the suit says.

Lia Sophia announced Dec. 1 that it would cease operations by the
end of February, which came as a shock to many of its advisers,
and later said that all replacement certificates would expire
Dec. 28, 2014.  But in subsequent responses to customer complaints
on Facebook, the company said the lifetime replacement guarantee
was no longer valid, the suit says.

Lia Sophia continues to sell jewelry directly to customers on
shopliasophia.com.  The website was initially promoted as an
outlet to liquidate excess inventory, but the company has also
said in messages to customers that demand has been so strong that
it is exploring other business models through which to sell its
jewelry, the lawsuit says.

In addition to reneging on the lifetime guarantee, selling the
products online contradicts "repeated statements and promises" Lia
Sophia made to its sales advisers that it would never bypass them
and sell directly to customers, the complaint says.  The lawsuit
also alleges that Lia Sophia's owners knew for months before the
announcement that they planned to shut down the company.

"Yet, Lia Sophia induced its sales advisors to continue to sell
and recruit, and to purchase additional products and supplies from
Lia Sophia, despite knowing that Lia Sophia would not be around
for its sales advisors to ever recover on those purchases and
recruitments," the complaint says.  "Similarly, Lia Sophia
continued to sell jewelry to customers with its lifetime
guarantee, all the while knowing it was going to close its
business and attempt to extinguish the guarantee."

Lia Sophia said in a statement: "We feel confident that this
complaint is without merit. Beyond that, we are not commenting
further."

The Illinois attorney general's office has received 70 complaints
involving Lia Sophia this year but has been able to mediate them
successfully, either because orders were fulfilled or refunds were
issued to consumers, said spokeswoman Maura Possley.

Named as defendants in the suit are Act II Jewelry, a Delaware LLC
that does business as Lia Sophia; Kiam Equities, a Delaware
corporation that is the "sole member of Lia Sophia"; and Lia
Sophia CEO Victor K. Kiam III (also known as Tory Kiam) and
creative director Elena Kiam, the husband-wife team who ran Lia
Sophia before it closed.

The couple, who live in New York, took over the fashion jewelry
business from Tory Kiam's father, Victor Kiam, onetime owner of
the New England Patriots and president of Remington Products.
Victor Kiam bought direct-sales jewelry company Act II in 1986 and
renamed it Lady Remington.  His son renamed it Lia Sophia, after
the names of two of his daughters, in 2004.

The suit says claims of a potential class exceed $5 million.  It
asks that members of a potential customer class who have
unredeemed certificates, or who returned jewelry and did not get a
replacement, as well as customers who have not received the
jewelry they bought at all, are owed a refund.  It also seeks
damages for advisers.

"Just because you close your business doesn't mean you can say
we're not going to honor your guarantee anymore," said
Todd McLawhorn -- tmclawhorn@siprut.com -- an attorney for West
and Hollander.  "The company has money, and they sell a lot of
(product).  They can't just say we're not going to do it anymore."


LOEWS HOLLYWOOD: Faces "Ferra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Ferra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC and Does 1-30, Case No.
BC586176 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC operates a hotel that offers high end
luxury accommodations, dining, and banquet facilities for its
visitors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari E. Moss, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ARI MOSS
      15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Facsimile: (818) 861-0389
      Telephone: (818) 982-2984
      E-mail: ari@arimoss.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Wood Flooring Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
WFTV.com reports that a Winter Garden couple claims the air in
their home wasn't safe, and they blame the company that sold them
laminate wood floors from China.  There is a federal investigation
into Lumber Liquidators imported wood, but the family claims it
could not wait for action.

Workers ripped out the laminate wood flooring Pir Mohammed and
Roma Seudat had bought just the year before and replaced it with
tile.  Getting the replacement cost $14,000.

"I had to replace it for health reasons and to make my home
livable again," said Mohammed.

The couple said they suffered severe allergy symptoms after the
wood flooring was installed.

"My throat would be burning," said Seudat.

Her breathing problem was so acute that despite medical treatment,
she could not sleep inside the house.

"I felt like a homeless person.  I never thought I would be
looking for a place to sleep," she said.

They discovered the federal investigation into laminate wood
flooring from China sold by Lumber Liquidators and suspected of
having dangerous levels of formaldehyde.

The couple paid to have the air and a wood sample tested. They
were told the results confirmed their fears.  An independent lab
found toxic formaldehyde levels in the air.

Mohammed claims the flooring was also a problem.

"The wood sample indicated there was a high level of
formaldehyde," he said.

Lumber Liquidators insists its product is safe, even though it
stopped selling it, and offered free air testing.  It has not paid
any homeowners to replace the laminate.

A nationwide class action lawsuit is taking shape in Virginia
federal court that could force the company to cover damages.
The couple claims their good health now proves what the risk had
been.

"Have your symptoms improved?" asked Action 9's Todd Ulrich.
"Oh, my God, yes.  I'm so grateful to sleep in my bed," said
Seudat.

Attorneys Ulrich talked to say removing the flooring is an
individual choice, but if you do, keep a sealed sample of the
laminate and document all test results and expenses.

Lumber Liquidators told Action 9 it wants to review the couple's
test results and the product they purchased.

The homeowner had requested the company's test kit, but then
decided to pay an independent lab instead.

Statement from Lumber Liquidators

"Lumber Liquidators has voluntarily offered free home air test
kits to thousands of consumers through a program we believe is
among the largest of its kind ever conducted in the United States.
Mr. Mohammed received and refused this same offer.  We can't speak
to the tests that were administered given the unknown protocols
and methodology of the laboratories.  Concerned consumers can
reach out to us for a free home air test kit by clicking the Air
Quality Test link on the Lumber Liquidators website."


MAGNUM HUNTER: Securities Class Action Dismissal Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
StreetInsider.com reports that as previously reported by Magnum
Hunter Resources Corporation in its filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, including the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, certain
class action complaints had previously been filed against the
Company and certain of its officers relating to the alleged
accounting issues further described below.  In late 2013, the
class action cases that remained outstanding were consolidated
into one action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  This consolidated case is referred
to in this Current Report on Form 8-K as the "Securities Case."
The complaints in the Securities Case alleged that the Company
made certain false or misleading statements in its filings with
the SEC, including statements related to the Company's internal
and financial controls, the calculation of non-cash share-based
compensation expense, the late filing of the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012
(which was filed by the Company with the SEC in June 2013), the
dismissal of the Company's previous independent registered
accounting firm, and other matters identified in the Company's
Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 16, 2013, as amended.  The
complaints demanded that the defendants pay unspecified damages to
the class action plaintiffs, including damages allegedly caused by
the decline in the market price of the Company's common stock
between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013.

As reported by the Company in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on June 25, 2014, on June 23, 2014, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
Opinion and Order granting the Company's and the individual
defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Case.  The plaintiffs
subsequently appealed the decision dismissing the Securities Case
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On June 23, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
entered a Summary Order unanimously affirming the Southern
District of New York's dismissal of the Securities Case in favor
of the Company and the individual defendants.

Motion for Summary Judgment Pending in Remaining Derivative
Securities Case

As previously reported by the Company in its filings with the SEC,
including the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, a series of stockholder
derivative cases was filed against certain of the Company's
officers and directors alleging that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company with respect to the
accounting and internal control matters identified in the
Securities Case (the "Derivative Cases").  As previously reported,
all of the Derivative Cases have been dismissed except for one
suit filed on March 19, 2014 by Richard Harveth (the "Harveth
Case") in the 125th District Court of Harris County, Texas (the
"Harris County Court").  The Company and the individual defendants
have moved for summary judgment with respect to the Harveth Case.
That motion is currently pending before the Harris County Court.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of the Harveth Case,
although, if the motion for summary judgment is not granted by the
Harris County Court, the Company and the individual defendants
intend to continue to vigorously defend against the Harveth Case.
It remains possible that additional stockholder derivative suits
could be filed over these prior events.

Update Regarding Previously Disclosed SEC Investigation

As disclosed in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, the Company's management,
under the supervision of the Company's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer, assessed the
effectiveness of the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2014 and concluded that it was
effective.  Additionally, the Company's independent registered
public accounting firm audited the effectiveness of the Company's
internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014
and expressed its opinion that the Company maintained, in all
material respects, effective internal controls over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2014, as set forth in the report of
the independent registered public accounting firm included in the
Company's 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

As previously disclosed by the Company in its public filings with
the SEC, including the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, on March 24, 2015, the
Company received a "Wells Notice" from the staff (the "Staff") of
the SEC's Division of Enforcement stating that the Staff has made
a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an
enforcement action against the Company.  The Wells Notice was
received by the Company following an investigation by the Staff
regarding the Company's internal controls, change in outside
auditors during 2012 and 2013, and public statements to investors.
The Wells Notice issued to the Company states that the proposed
action against the Company would allege violations of Sections
17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(the "Securities Act"), and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and
13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and Rules 13a-l, 13a-13, and 13a-15(a)
promulgated under the Exchange Act. Certain individuals currently
associated or formerly associated with the Company also received
Wells Notices.  The proposed actions against the individuals would
allege violations of those same provisions, as well as violations
of Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-14 and 13a-
15(c) thereunder. The proposed actions described in the Wells
Notices do not include any claims for securities fraud under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act or Rule 10b-5 thereunder or
under Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act.  The Wells Notices
further state that the Staff's recommendation may involve a civil
injunctive action, public administrative proceeding, and/or cease-
and-desist proceeding, and may seek remedies that might include,
among other things, a cease-and-desist order, injunctions,
disgorgement with pre-judgment interest and civil money penalties.

On April 21, 2015, the Company responded to its Wells Notice in
the form of a Wells Submission, pursuant to which the Company set
forth why it believes an enforcement action against it and the
individuals should not be commenced.  The Company has engaged and
continues to engage in discussions with the Staff regarding the
issues raised in the Wells Notices.  The Company cannot predict
with confidence or certainty the ultimate outcome of the SEC
process, including whether a settlement with respect to the issues
raised in the Wells Notices may be reached with the Staff.  If no
settlement is achieved, the Company believes the Staff will likely
recommend that the SEC bring an enforcement action against the
Company and the individuals and that such an enforcement action
will likely be brought.  If an enforcement action is brought
against the Company and the individuals, the Company cannot
predict with certainty what violations of the Exchange Act or the
Securities Act the SEC would allege or what remedies the SEC would
seek.  If an enforcement action is brought against the Company by
the SEC, the Company intends to mount a vigorous defense
consistent with the defenses that were successfully mounted with
respect to the Securities Case and Derivative Cases.

The Company believes that the issues raised by the Wells Notices
relate primarily to the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting during certain periods prior to the filing of the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012, which identified certain material weaknesses in
the Company's internal controls over financial reporting.
However, as stated above, as of December 31, 2014, the Company had
remediated 100% of the previously identified material weaknesses.
In addition, in connection with the reporting of these material
weaknesses in the Company's 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K, the
Company was not required to restate any of its financial
statements previously filed with the SEC.

In accordance with General Instruction B.2 of Form 8-K, the
information in this Item 7.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K,
including the related Exhibit 99.1, shall not be deemed "filed"
for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise
subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed
incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
filing of the Company under the Securities Act or the Exchange
Act, except as otherwise expressly stated in such filing.


MARTHA STEWART LIVING: Faces "Lisman" Suit Over Sequential Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Lisman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc., et al., Case No.
11224-VCN (Del. Ch., June 29, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., to
enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company
to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed process and
for an inadequate price.

Headquartered in New York, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
is a globally recognized lifestyle company committed to providing
consumers with inspiring content and well-designed, high-quality
products.

Sequential Brands is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located at 5 Bryant Park, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10018.
Sequential Brands owns, promotes, markets, and licenses a
portfolio of consumer brands in the fashion, active, and lifestyle
categories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com


MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Shaev" Action Over Sequential Brands Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia Inc. was hit with a putative securities class
action in Delaware state court on June 25 claiming its proposed
$353 million acquisition by Sequential Brands Group Inc. is a
lowball deal with onerous buyer protections that cheats investors.
An investor in the lifestyle company built by cooking, crafting
and do-it-yourself guru Martha Stewart launched the putative class
action against the two companies and board of directors in
Delaware Chancery Court alleging Sequential's $353 million
takeover offer is unfair and inadequate and contains "go-shop" and
other provisions that lock up the deal for the benefit of
Sequential.

"The board members have therefore breached their fiduciary duties
owed to plaintiff and the class to take all necessary steps to
ensure that MSO stockholders will receive the maximum realizable
value for their shares on a sale of the company," the suit says.

The suit comes three days after Sequential, a retail licensing
company with an expanding portfolio of brands that includes Ellen
Tracy, Jessica Simpson and Justin Timberlake's William Rast
fashion lines, announced that it will pay $6.15 per share in cash
and stock to acquire all of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, whose
businesses span across publishing, broadcasting and merchandising.

The investor plaintiff, David Shaev Profit Sharing Plan for the
Benefit of David Shaev, claims it and other Martha Stewart Living
investors are being cheated out of the full and fair value of
their stock in the company, pointing out that Martha Stewart
Living's stock was trading near $7 per share just this April.

"Because of the board's breaches of its fiduciary duties,
plaintiff and the class have been and will be damaged, and will
not receive the fair value of [Martha Stewart Living's] assets,"
the suit alleges.

The suit alleges Martha Stewart Living's board breached its
fiduciary duties, including the duties of loyalty, good faith, and
due care.

The suit claims the deal doesn't factor in Martha Stewart Living's
recent turnaround initiatives to cut expenses and set the company
up for future growth.  For example, it inked a revenue-sharing
agreement in October 2014 with Meredith Corp. for Meredith to take
over the sales, circulation, and production of the Martha Stewart
Living magazine and digital content.  That allowed Martha Stewart
Living to focus on content creation and consumer products.

It's a move that helped the company trim its operating loss from
$2.75 million in the first quarter of 2014 to $2.13 million in the
first quarter of 2015, according to the complaint.  Additionally,
Martha Stewart Living expanded licensing deals to improve its
operating margins, the suit says.

The plaintiff is represented by Seth D. Rigrodsky, Brian D. Long,
Gina M. Serra and Jeremy J. Riley of Rigrodsky & Long PA and
Gregory M. Nespole and Gloria Kui Melwani -- melwani@whafh.com --
of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

The case is David Shaev Profit Sharing Plan for the Benefit of
David Shaev v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et al. in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  A case number wasn't
immediately available.


MASTEC INC: Faces "Baffield" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Baffield, Titus Cooper, individually, and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. MasTec, Inc. and Jose R. Mas, Case
No. 1:15-cv-05843 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

MasTec, Inc. operates an infrastructure engineering and
construction company based in Coral Gables, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      E-mail: aficzko@stephanzouras.com
              rstephan@stephanzouras.com


NAIL SPA: Faces "Giang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nghi Giang, Tuyen Huynh, Minh Thu Vuong, Uyen T. Khuong, and Myan
Pham, on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Luan Truong
d/b/a Nail Spa by Tammy, Inc., Nail Spa By Tammy, Inc., and Does
One through One Hundred, Case No. 5:15-cv-03061 (N.D. Cal., July
1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a nail salon in Santa Clara County,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Dal Bon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JAMES DAL BON
      95 South Market Street, 3rd Floor
      San Jose, CA 95113
      Telephone: (408) 977-7710
      E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Settles Class Action Over Unwanted Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that Nationstar Mortgage
has tentatively agreed to settle a class action accusing it of
violating federal law by barraging thousands of customers with
unwanted robocalls reminding them to pay their mortgages,
according to a court filing.

Terms of the settlement-in-principle were not disclosed. One of
the country's largest mortgage servicers, Nationstar is
represented by lawyers at Reed Smith.


NIELSEN COMPANY: Faces "Tubiak" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Tubiak and Edward Cuello, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. The Nielsen Company (US), LLC, and
Nielsen Holdings N.V., Case No. 1:15-cv-05159 (S.D.N.Y., July 1,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a business that, tracks the
television and media-viewing habits of individual homes across the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Orin Robert Kurtz, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 905-0509
      Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
      E-mail: okurtz@gardylaw.com


NISKA GAS: Faces "Raul" Suit Over Proposed Swan Holdings Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Raul as Custodian for Pinchus Raul Utma Ny, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al., Case No. 11220-CB (Del.
Ch., June 29, 2015) is brought on behalf of the public unit-
holders of Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of Niska by Swan Holdings LP, for an unfair price and
inadequate consideration.

Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC provides commercial, industrial,
and retail natural gas marketing services via Access Gas Services
in both British Columbia and Ontario, and also provides agency
services to natural gas end-users in Eastern Canada through
EnerStream Agency Services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Stern" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yitzchok Stern, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Northland Group Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03833
(E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCEAN STATE JOB: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Newton" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne Newton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Ocean State Job Lot Stores of Ma, Inc., Case No.
MICV2015-04823 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 30, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Ocean State Job Lot Stores of Ma, Inc. owns and operates stores
throughout Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617)994-5800
      E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
      HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
      221 Main Street, Suite 502
      Hartford, CT
      Telephone: (860) 522-8888
      E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
SreetInsider.com reports that on December 2, 2011, a securities-
related purported class action was filed against Pain Therapeutics
and its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas.  This action, titled KB Partners I,
L.P., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. Pain Therapeutics, Inc., Remi Barbier, Nadav Friedmann and
Peter S. Roddy, was scheduled for trial by court order dated June
23, 2015.  Trial is to occur on July 7, 2015 through July 9, 2015
and continue on July 13, 2015 to July 14, 2015.

In an order dated June 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas denied a motion for summary judgment
filed by Defendants concluding that there were genuine disputes of
material fact for a jury to resolve in a class action alleging
violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The Company said "We continue to believe we have substantial
defenses in this matter.  As with any litigation proceeding, we
cannot predict with certainty the eventual outcome of this matter.
Risk factors associated with this legal proceeding and other risk
factors related to the Company are included in our Reports on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 and Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and incorporated herein by reference."


PALOMA GENEVA: "Barnett" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Barnett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Paloma Geneva National, LLC d/b/a Geneva National Golf
Club, Case No. 2:15-cv-00797-LA (E.D. Wis., July 1, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Paloma Geneva National, LLC is a Wisconsin Limited Liability
Company that operates a banquets and events facility at the Geneva
National Golf Club.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL SC
      222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com


PF CHANG'S: Faces "Stancil" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Stancil and Amilcar Huyhua, on behalf of themselves
individually and all others similarly situated v. P.F. Chang's
China Bistro, Inc. and John Does #1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-01013-AVC
(D. Conn., July 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. operates a Chinese restaurant
chain throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      1100 Summer Street, Third Floor
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (877) 795-3666
      E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


PHILADELPHIA: Tentative Accord Struck in Civil Forfeiture Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newsworks reports that a tentative settlement should help rein in
part of the civil forfeiture process in Philadelphia.

The Philadelphia district attorney's office was sued over the
civil forfeiture program, in which it confiscates homes or
property believed to have been used in furthering a crime.

In some cases, houses have been taken even in the absence of proof
that the homeowner committed a crime.

Attorney David Rudovsky, who represents the plaintiffs in the
class-action suit, said two major issues have been worked out.

"Absent some very, very unusual circumstances [the district
attorney's office] will have to give notice to the homeowner and a
hearing in court," he said.

That's a big deal, because hearings are routinely held after a
property is seized.

Mr. Rudovsky says the Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams
also has agreed not to impose concessions on homeowners before
returning seized property.

Points of contention still remain, however, and a legal challenge
to civil forfeitures in Philadelphia is pending.  The next hearing
in the case is set for July 20.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Congressional Panel Opens Oil Spill Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Melley and Michael R. Blood, writing for The Associated
Press, report that a congressional committee on June 25 opened a
probe into an oil pipeline rupture on the Central California coast
that spread to the Pacific Ocean and washed up goo on beaches as
far as 100 miles away.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee asked operator Plains All
American Pipeline for detailed information on maintenance of the
failed line, including how it addressed corrosion, and inspection
records for five years.  The panel also wants the company to
explain what it did in the hours leading up to the break near
Santa Barbara, and how it reported the problem. The spill was
estimated at up to 101,000 gallons.

The Texas-based company has faced criticism for how long it took
to relay information to the federal government on the break, even
though its internal planning documents repeatedly stress the
importance of notifying the government of a leak as quickly as
possible.

In a letter to Plains CEO Greg Armstrong, the committee said it
wanted to understand the circumstances leading up to the break, as
well as what steps the company had taken to maintain the integrity
of the line.

The cause of the accident is being investigated by the federal
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Earlier in June, the agency released preliminary findings that
said the break occurred along a badly corroded section that had
worn away to a fraction of an inch in thickness.  An estimated
21,000 gallons entered the ocean.

In a separate letter on June 25, the committee asked the pipeline
administration for an update of what it called long overdue
pipeline safety rules.

The panel said the California spill raised questions about the
agency's oversight of pipeline safety, and added that the agency
had failed to complete 17 of 42 requirements Congress outlined in
2011 to help the administration prevent spills.

The agency "has failed to reach important decisions and issue
regulations concerning pipeline damage prevention, automatic and
remote-controlled shut-off valves . . . and accident and incident
notification," the committee wrote.

Company officials said cleanup costs had reached $92 million.

Meanwhile, a Santa Barbara County beachfront property owner became
the latest in a string of people to file proposed class-action
lawsuits against the company.  Alexandra Geremia's lawsuit, filed
on June 23, seeks to represent more than 3,000 other coastal
landowners in Southern California against Plains All American for
the spill.

The company, which has reported 229 spills since 2006, has said it
regrets the incident and is addressing claims filed against it.
The company said it doesn't comment on pending litigation.

Three other lawsuits seeking class-action status have been filed
by a commercial fisherman, a Santa Barbara shop owner and a tour
guide.  All said the spill had harmed their livelihood and that of
others who earn a living from the sea or from the area's bustling
tourist industry.


PMFG INC: Faces "Herre" Suit in Del. Over Proposed CECO Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. Jeffrey Herre, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PMFG, Inc., et al., Case No. 11223-VCN (Del.
Ch., June 29, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of PMFG, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of
all of the outstanding shares of PMFG by CECO Environmental Corp.,
for an unfair price and inadequate consideration.

PMFG, Inc. is a holding company that owns all of Peerless
Manufacturing, Co., a global provider of engineered equipment for
the abatement of air pollution, the removal of contaminants from
gases and liquids, industrial noise control, and heat-transfer.

CECO environmental Corp. is an environmental technology company
that services the product recovery, air pollution control, fluid
handling, and filtration segments of the worldwide market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500


PROVIDENT LIFE: CA Reverses Ruling on Penalty Interest
------------------------------------------------------
Defendants appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment
and denial of penalty interest in the appellate case captioned,
LOUIS LEONOR, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. PROVIDENT
LIFE AND ACCIDENT COMPANY; PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Case No. 14-2120, 14-2152
(6th Cir.).

The case stemmed from a dispute over three disability income
insurance policies issued to Louis Leonor, a dentist licensed in
Michigan.  Leonor suffered an injury that prevented him from
performing dental procedures. Each policy provided total
disability benefits in the event that Leonor became unable to
perform the important duties of his Occupation, or words to this
effect.  Paul Revere Life Insurance Company issued policy number
0102450113 (the 0113 policy) to Leonor on April 24, 1990. The
district court granted summary judgment to Leonor on his contract
claim concluding that Leonor was Totally Disabled under the policy
because he was unable to perform duties that had taken up two-
thirds of the time spent in his pre-injury occupation.

On appeal, Provident et al. argued that the district court had
failed to address their argument that, as a matter of grammar,
"the important duties" has necessarily the same meaning as "all
the important duties and that it erred by finding the phrase "the
important duties" ambiguous.

Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Russel of the United States Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit in the Memorandum Opinion dated June 24,
2015 available at http://is.gd/FVfVeFfrom Leagle.com, affirmed
the district court's grant of summary judgment to Leonor on his
contract claim, reversed the district court's denial of penalty
interest to Leonor under M.C.L. Sec. 500.2006(4), and remanded
with instructions to modify the award to include penalty interest
under that statute.

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael Max Jacob, Esq. --
jacob@youngbasile.com -- Jeffrey D. Wilson, Esq. --
wilson@youngbasile.com -- YOUNG BASILE

Defendants are represented by K. Scott Hamilton, Esq. --
khamilton@dickinsonwright.com -- DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC


QUINDELL: No Class Action Yet Despite Share Plunge
--------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that with two big share price
plunges halving the value of its stock in a matter of months, it
might be time to ask the big question of listed litigation funder
Slater and Gordon: Is anyone knocking on its door with a class
action lawsuit?

"As you would appreciate, we have no intention of commenting any
further post this morning's ASX statement," a company spokesman
said.

The statement confirmed that the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission is digging deeper into Pitcher Partner's
audit of Slater and Gordon's accounts, and tried to offer further
assurance about the accounting woes at Quindell, the former parent
of its UK operation.

"We must respect that process that is underway," it said of the
ASIC probe.

Slater and Gordon also underlined its defense to any potential
class action interest.

The company acknowledged UK regulator's engagement with Quindell,
the former parent of its UK operation, and said it was "confident
that it had no liability arising from that enquiry".

On June 29, to ensure the market was not trading with "imperfect
information" it said it "did not acquire Quindell Plc or the
common stock of the Quindell Plc and, as a result, is satisfied
that in the event that any findings are made against Quindell Plc
those findings will not expose the Company to any material
financial risk."

CBD's next port of call was Maurice Blackburn, which is also no
amateur in the class action game.

"Maurice Blackburn hasn't built Australia's leading class actions
practice by simply filing cases every time a share price falls,"
the company told CBD.

We are sure Slater and Gordon supports that sentiment
wholeheartedly.

"As with any company in this situation, we'll continue to monitor
developments closely, but at this stage it is too early to comment
on the likelihood of any shareholder class action," Maurice
Blackburn said.


RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls RAN-Venlafaxine XR Capsules
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 3, 2015
Posting date: July 7, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-54128

Reason: Out of specification result for potency during shelf life
testing.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers and Distributors

Affected products:
RAN-Venlafaxine XR
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02380080
Dosage form: Capsule (Extended Release)
Strength: Venlafaxine 75 mg
Lot or serial number: 2627939

Recalling Firm: Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.
                200-2680 Matheson Blvd. East
                Mississauga
                L4W 0A5
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Canada
                                Inc.
                                200-2680 Matheson Blvd. East
                                Mississauga
                                L4W 0A5
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


ROBERT L. LIPTON: "Kerr" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Kerr, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Robert L. Lipton, Inc., d/b/a Lipton Toyota, Case No.
0:15-cv-61371-BB (S.D. Fla., July 1, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an automobile dealership in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Sanchez, Esq.
      ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
      6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
      Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 665-9211
      Facsimile: (305) 328-4842
      E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com


ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 23
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of root9B Technologies Inc. securities from December 1,
2014 through June 15, 2015, both dates inclusive.  The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for root9B investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the root9B class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-636.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

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

According to the lawsuit, Defendants during the Class Period made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company does not have an advanced cyber security product
offering, and (2) a substantial portion of the Company's Cyber
Solutions business consists of a one-time low margin hardware
installation.  When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 24, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-636.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


SAMSUNG CORP: Settles Class Action Over Carrier IQ Software
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that HTC, Samsung and
four other mobile phone manufacturers have agreed to settle a
class-action lawsuit alleging that they violated consumers'
privacy by pre-installing software created by Carrier IQ,
according to court papers filed on June 25.

The settlement details, including any financial terms, are
expected to be revealed this month.  If approved by U.S. District
Court Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco, the deal will resolve
litigation surrounding Carrier IQ's software, which allegedly was
able to track and record users' keystrokes.  Those capabilities
came to light in November of 2011, when a researcher posted a
video that appeared to show the company logging keystrokes.

After that report surfaced, consumers filed class-action lawsuits
against Carrier IQ, as well as six device manufacturers -- HTC,
Samsung, Huawei Devices USA, LG Electronics, Motorola Mobility and
Pantech Wireless.  The consumers alleged that Carrier IQ and the
manufacturers violated the federal wiretap act, as well as a
variety of state laws.

Last year, shortly after losing a bid to send the case to
arbitration, Carrier IQ agreed to resolve the litigation.  But
HTC, Samsung and the other manufacturers continued to fight the
lawsuit.  They raised a number of arguments, including that the
consumers lacked "standing" to proceed in federal court because
they weren't harmed by the software.

In January, Judge Chen rejected the contention that consumers
weren't injured, but dismissed several of the allegations against
the manufacturers -- including the claim that they violated the
federal wiretap law by intercepting communications without
permission.  He ruled that there were no allegations that the
manufacturers themselves "acquired the contents" of any messages
or other transmissions.

But Judge Chen allowed the consumers to proceed with other counts,
including that the manufacturers violated various state laws.  The
manufacturers agreed to settle the matter after meeting with a
mediator in April, according to court records.

After reports about Carrier IQ's potential keystroke logging
surfaced in 2011, the company acknowledged that its software
sometimes logs the contents of messages, but said the data isn't
readable.  The company also said that its software was intended to
help mobile carriers to discover the source of network problems,
like dropped calls.

The Federal Trade Commission ultimately brought an enforcement
action against manufacturer HTC, accusing the company of failing
to disable a code that was used in testing.  HTC also allegedly
installed Carrier IQ in such a way that many third-party apps
could access users' keystrokes and gain access to the phone
numbers users' called, browsing histories and other data.

The manufacturer settled those charges by agreeing to issue
software patches.  The company also agreed to establish a security
program and undergo security audits for 20 years.


SCARLETT'S CABARET: Settles Former Dancers' Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Swenson, writing for Broward Palm Beachm, reports that the
owners of one of South Florida's most popular strip clubs have
agreed to settle a big-time class-action lawsuit filed by former
dancers over pay.  The parent company that's behind Scarlett's
Cabaret in Hallandale Beach as well as two other clubs agreed to
fork over $6 million.  That means more than 4,700 current and
former dancers might be entitled to a payout.

The suit was filed last August by a former Scarlett's dancer named
Adonay Encarnacion.  Scarlett's has three locations -- Hallandale;
Ybor City, Florida; and Toledo, Ohio -- each owned and operated by
a series of companies: J.W. Lee Inc., J.W. Lee Properties LLC,
Ybor Operations LLC, and others.

The basis of Ms. Encarnacion's claim is that dancers at the club
were incorrectly labeled "independent contractors" and not
full-time employees.  The claims, as summarized in court filings,
were:

[T]hroughout the time period from December 2009 through February
2015, Plaintiffs received no hourly wage or salary from the
Nightclubs based upon their classification as non-employees
(colloquially termed "independent contractors").  In this case,
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants misclassified them as
independent contractors, when they were actually employees, and as
a result Defendants failed to pay them legally mandated minimum
wages and/or overtime as required under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), the Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FLMWA"), and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA").

By misclassifying their dancers, the clubs basically failed to pay
them the minimum wage and overtime they were entitled to, the case
claimed.

Nine additional dancers ended up joining Ms. Encarnacion in the
lawsuit.  In February, the two sides came together for a 12-hour
mediation session in the offices of a Fort Lauderdale law firm.
It took two additional half-day sessions to hammer out a deal.
Under the agreed-upon settlement, the Scarlett's side still
maintained that dancers were not misclassified and that the fees
the dancers took home from sweaty clients were "service charges"
that "upon a reclassification, would be the lawful property of the
Nightclubs and that could then be used, in whole or in part, to
satisfy any wage claims found to be owned."

Still, under the settlement, the club will offer the $6 million to
the qualifying dancers who worked during the 2009 to 2015 period.
That money will also go toward paying lawyers' fees.

The settlement was filed on June 26 in Florida federal court and
still must be approved by a judge.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melody Miller v. Sears Holdings Corporation, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00084-OMW (D. Utah, July 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Sears Holdings Corporation, Inc. is a retail corporation with many
stores around the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trey A.R. Dayes III, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM
      3101 N Central Ave Ste 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 288-1610
      E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


SIRIUS XM: Settles Pre-1972 Music Suit for $210 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that a
deal announced by the RIAA on June 26 provides resolution to one
of the key battles in a legally contentious area.

The Recording Industry Association of America has announced that
SiriusXM will be paying for the use of sound recordings created
before 1972.

A $210 million settlement with ABKCO Music & Records, Capitol
Records, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings and Warner Music
Group resolves a lawsuit filed over the satellite radio giant's
performance and reproduction of older songs.

"This is a great step forward for all music creators," said RIAA
CEO Cary Sherman.  "Music has tremendous value, whether it was
made in 1970 or 2015.  We hope others take note of this important
agreement and follow Sirius XM's example."

The lawsuit came in the aftermath of a class action filed by Flo &
Eddie of The Turtles and aimed to use California state
misappropriation laws -- also called common law copyrights -- to
win compensation over the use of sound recordings made before such
recordings fell under federal copyright protection.  For years,
record labels accepted publicity and no royalties from terrestrial
radio operators, but changes in how music is consumed have changed
the dynamic.

SoundExchange, a digital performance rights organization, collects
money from SiriusXM, which has excluded from gross revenue
calculations performances of pre-1972 recordings.

Sound recording owners have gone to court over the issue in
California, New York and Florida, and RIAA members got a big
victory on an interpretation of law in October 2014.

The deal provides for a license through the end of 2017, after
which SiriusXM will have to negotiate with the record labels going
forward.  The settlement doesn't end the class action lawsuits led
by Flo & Eddie, who have prevailed on summary judgment and await
review by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to see if the rulings
hold up.  The agreement announced on June 26 also doesn't deal
with if and how the big record labels will share proceeds with its
artists.

The announcement of the settlement is a milestone, but leaves
plenty of issues left unresolved in the controversy over use and
compensation of the public performance of pre-1972 music.  The
subject has led to calls for new legislation, and in the meantime,
will continue to circulate in courts.


SOFINA FOODS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 1, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Sofina Foods Inc.
Distribution: Possibly National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9916

Sofina Foods Inc. is recalling no name and Compliments brands
frozen uncooked breaded chicken products from the marketplace due
to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume
the recalled products described below.

The following products have been sold nationally.

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

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

There have been reported illnesses associated with the consumption
of these products.

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

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

   Brand      Common   Size    Code(s)         UPC
   name       name     ----    on product      ---
   -----      ------           ----------
No Name       Chicken  2 kg    2016 JA 22 EST  0 60383 11695 8
              Burgers               374

Compliments   Chicken  907 g   BB/MA 2016 JA   0 55742 33687 0
              Strips                22 EST 374

Compliments   Chicken  907 g   BB/MA 2016 JA   0 55742 33688 7
              Nuggets               22 EST 374


Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/bgPR5F


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Has Invaded Class Member's Privacy, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Alan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv-04964
(C.D. Cal., July 1, 2015), is brought for damages and injunctive,
resulting from the Defendant's alleged illegal actions in
negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby, invading her privacy.

Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. is a Texas corporation that
provides accounts receivable management and consumer service
solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Rose" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Giovanna Rose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv-04998
(C.D. Cal., July 1, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's
practice of placing calls on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. provider of accounts receivable
management and consumer service solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Faces "Whalen" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Whalen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00410 (W.D. Wis., June 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Leighton Crandall, Esq.
      CRANDALL LAW OFFICES, SC
      PO Box 27
      New Richmond, WI 54017
      Telephone: (715) 246-1012
      Facsimile: (715) 246-1018
      E-mail: consumerlaw@frontiernet.net

         - and -

      Thomas John Lyons Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
      367 Commerce Court
      Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
      Telephone: (651) 770-9707
      E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com

         - and -

      Thomas John Lyons Sr., Esq.
      LYONS LAW FIRM PA
      367 Commerce Court
      Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
      Telephone: (651) 770-9707 x122
      Facsimile: (651) 770-5830
      E-mail: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com


STANHOPE BEACH: Settles Class Action Over Norovirus Outbreak
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the owners of Stanhope Beach Resort have
settled a class-action lawsuit over an outbreak of norovirus three
years ago.  More than 140 people are entitled to some of the
$300,000 settlement package.

Stanhope Beach Resort, on P.E.I.'s North Shore, used to be a
popular spot for weddings.  That was true in the summer of 2012
when a number of wedding parties in August and September of that
year ended badly.

An outbreak of norovirus left hundreds of people sick, with
varying degrees of vomiting, diarrhea, nausea and fever.

Newfoundland lawyer Ches Crosbie represented those people on
June 29 in P.E.I. Supreme Court.

"It ruined what otherwise should have been a joyous occasion for
the wedding parties.  And most people were actually guests at
these wedding parties," said Mr. Crosbie.

The court granted a joint request, from Mr. Crosbie and from
lawyer Gregory Cann, representing the resort, to accept the terms
of the settlement.

The settlement includes a payment to each wedding guest of several
hundred dollars for general damages.  The bride and groom of each
wedding party will receive $2,200 in general damages.  Plaintiffs
may be entitled to additional payment, for lost wages and other
expenses.

The settlement does not include any admission of liability on the
part of Stanhope Beach Resort, neither for the cause of the
norovirus outbreak, nor for the manner in which the outbreak was
managed.

One of the plantiffs, Deborah Basco of Vancouver, said, it was a
"horrible" experience.

"My husband and I were both quite ill.  I'm happy.  It just gives
an opportunity for lots of people involved in something like this
to feel that there's been some justice."

The resort was destroyed by an accidental fire two years ago.

The owners of the property, D.P Murphy Inc., say they are pleased
the lawsuit has been resolved.

Notice of the June 29 settlement will now be advertised in local
media, as required by law.

Victims are entitled to opt out of the class-action settlement and
sue the resort on their own, but so far, no one has done that.


TONTO BASIN: Faces "Chadler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Chandler, Sally Dell, Susan Hulbert, and Steven Kemper v.
Tonto Basin Marketplace L.L.C., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01223-NVW
(D. Ariz., July 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek.

Tonto Basin Marketplace L.L.C. operates a full service grocery
store and gas station in Tonto Basin, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Christopher Davis, Esq.
      Trey A. R. Dayes III, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC
      3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (800) 562-5297
      Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
      E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com
              treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


TRACFONE WIRELESS: Settlement in Service Plan Case Has Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the Northern District of
California grants final approval to the settlement reached in the
case, In Re Tracfone Unlimited Service Plan Litigation, No. C-13-
3440 EMC (N.D. Cal.).

The Court also grants class counsel $5 million in attorneys' fees,
and $63,644.75 in costs, and also grants the request for $2,500
incentive awards for the named plaintiffs. The Court overrules all
objections on the merits, and further concludes that objector
Alexander Donald Birner lacked standing to object in the first
instance.

Class Plaintiffs filed four consolidated class actions against
Defendant TracFone Wireless, alleging that TracFone sold
"unlimited" data plans that were not, in fact, unlimited. Rather,
when TracFone's customers exceeded certain data usage caps,
TracFone would throttle1 or suspend those customers' data service
altogether, or even terminate their phone services entirely.
Plaintiffs claim this behavior violated numerous laws, including
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), its Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (FDUTPA), as well as numerous common-law
proscriptions. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also alleges
that TracFone's advertising of its "unlimited" data plans was
deceptive, and filed a separate enforcement action that has been
related to this case.  Federal Trade Commission v. TracFone
Wireless, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-00392-EMC. TracFone has settled the
FTC enforcement action as part of a global resolution of these
class actions.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, TracFone has
paid $40 million to the FTC that the FTC will disburse to class
members in accordance with an agreed upon payment formula.
Depending on the precise injury a class member experienced (i.e.,
whether their service was throttled, suspended, or terminated) and
when that injury occurred, class members who made a claim will
receive between roughly $15 and $65 per affected phone line.
TracFone further agreed to the entry of injunctive relief
regarding its advertising and disclosure practices with respect to
its "unlimited" data plans.

1.8 to 1.9 million customers for whom TracFone has up-to-date
address information will automatically receive a payment under the
settlement without filing a claim. All other class members are
required to submit a simple claims form to recover under the
settlement. The deadline to file claims passed on June 19, 2015.
The deadline for opt-outs and objections passed on May 20, 2015.
The settlement administrator reports that 803,671 claim forms were
submitted as of June 22.

By contrast, 142 putative class members opted out, and five
objected to the settlement.  Of those five objectors only two,
Objectors Birner and Johnson, filed substantive objections. And of
those, only Birner appeared at the fairness hearing, is
represented by counsel, and filed a formal objection to the
settlement complete with legal citations.

The Court says Birner lacks standing to object because he is not a
class member. In any event, the Court determines that his
objection is without merit.

The Clerk is directed to close the file in this case, along with
the file in the following cases: Browning v. TracFone Wireless,
No. 14-cv-1347-EMC; Blaqmoor v. TracFone Wireless, No. 13-cv-5295-
EMC; Gandhi v. TracFone Wireless, No. 13-cv-5296-EMC; and Federal
Trade Commission v. TracFone Wireless, No. 15-cv-392-EMC.

A copy of the Court's July 2, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/pW9ckjfrom Leagle.com.

David Hansell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Morley Kekoa Hattis,
Hattis Law, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Cornelius Pellman Dukelow, Abington Cole, John Tate Spragens,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann ampersand Bernstein, LLP, John A.
Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A. & Roger Norton Heller, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Edward Tooley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Morley Kekoa Hattis,
Hattis Law, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Cornelius Pellman Dukelow, Abington Cole, John Tate Spragens,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann ampersand Bernstein, LLP, John A.
Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A. & Roger Norton Heller, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Christopher Valdez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Morley Kekoa
Hattis, Hattis Law, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Cornelius Pellman Dukelow, Abington Cole, John
Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann ampersand Bernstein, LLP,
John A. Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A. & Roger Norton Heller,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Tracfone Wireless, Inc., doing business as Straight Talk Wireless,
Defendant, represented by Aaron S Weiss, Carlton Fields, Joel
Steven Feldman, Sidley Austin LLP, Lisa Schwartz, Sidley Austin
LLP, Ryan M. Sandrock, Sidley Austin, LLP & Steven J Brodie,
Carlton Fields.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, Defendant, represented by Steven J Brodie,
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Joel Steven Feldman, Sidley
Austin LLP, Lisa Schwartz, Sidley Austin LLP & Ryan M. Sandrock,
Sidley Austin, LLP.

Mr. Alexander Donald Birner, 1211 Oakcrest Circle Corona, CA 92882
3096421589 Objector, Objector, represented by Donald Kent Birner &
Paul Michael Monzione, Law Offices of Paul M. Monzione, PC.


TRANSURBAN: Faces Class Action Over Express Lane Tolls
------------------------------------------------------
NBC Washington reports that a Maryland resident says he was fined
more than $11,000 after his family accidentally missed paying $30
in Virginia Express Lane tolls -- and now he and others have filed
a class action lawsuit.

The trouble began for Kevin Stanfield with an honest mistake, he
said.  His wife lost her wallet, so the family canceled all their
credit cards -- including the card linked to their E-ZPass.  The
family continued driving and using toll roads as usual, not
realizing their transponder wasn't working and fees were piling
up.

After they unwittingly missed eight tolls for $29.45, they
received a bill for $900.  When Mr. Stanfield refused to pay, a
collections agency went after him for a total of $11,000.
"I was flabbergasted," Mr. Stanfield said.  "I don't have that
kind of money."

He and six other people have filed a class action lawsuit against
Transurban, the operators of the Express Lanes.

"Thousands of Virginia, Maryland and DC residents have been
subject to [Transurban's] excessive fines and fees," the lawsuit
claims.

Other plaintiffs in the suit claim they also have faced steep fees
when Express Lane sensors failed to read their E-ZPass correctly.
"I've heard so many stories of just hard working people that just
made an honest mistake and then just being taken through the
ringer," Mr. Stanfield said.

Transurban spokesman Mike McGurk said drivers are notified
multiple times of fees they owe.

"You are going to get a notice.  You are going to get a letter in
the mail.  So, you really want to look out for these
notifications," Mr. McGurk said.

Mr. Stanfield said he and his wife ended up settling with
Transurban for $2,200, but that he hopes to get the money back.

"I paid because I don't want to go to jail," he said.  "The main
thing is, I want them to stop doing this to people."

New purple lane stripes will be added to Interstate 95 and 495
Express Lanes in an effort to better mark the roadway.  Those new
markings could help drivers who faced major charges for missing
Express Lane tolls.

Since the Express Lanes opened in 2012, the lane tolls have
confused some drivers.  To use the all-electronic Express Lanes,
drivers must have an active E-ZPass.  If drivers use the Express
Lane without an E-ZPass or accidentally drive into the lane
without knowing it, they may face toll fees and administrative
charges.

Jackie Gilbert started using the Express Lanes in late 2012 even
though she didn't have an E-ZPass.  She expected toll fees for the
16 trips she took in the Express Lanes.  But she was not prepared
for the $12.50 administrative fee that came with every toll that
went unpaid.

Ms. Gilbert said she was charged $225 for missing tolls.  She,
like many area drivers, was unaware of the hefty administrative
costs that come with skipping toll fees.

Ms. Gilbert was able to work with Express Lane officials to reduce
the charge.  But she is not the only local driver who received a
surprise bill in the mail.

Toni Cooley was slammed with more than $10,000 in Express Lane
fees, court costs and civic penalties after taking 11 unpaid trips
in two weeks in 2012.

Ms. Cooley used Express Lanes during these trips and had an E-
ZPass in her car.  She did not properly set up auto-renewal on her
pass, though.  Because of this, she inadvertently used Express
Lanes without paying tolls for two weeks.

Ms. Cooley received a bill for several hundred dollars.  She paid
only about $11 to cover the tolls, but refused to pay the fees.
The several hundred dollars she was billed soon skyrocketed to
more than $10,000 as she fought the charge.

Other drivers face fees for using the lanes accidentally.

Naima Fellers' teenage daughter accidentally got on a 495 Express
Lane in 2013.  She exited the lane as soon as she realized where
she was.  She only drove the Express Lane for about one minute.
Fellers got a $13.10 bill in the mail three weeks later.  Her
daughter missed only one toll, a charge that would have been 60
cents.  But the administrative fee hiked the bill up dramatically.
If drivers still use the Express Lane accidentally or have an
issue with E-ZPass, there is a way to avoid major fees: contact
Transurban.  If a driver reports his or her missed toll within
five days, he or she will face a much smaller charge, usually only
about one dollar.


TRIPLE LEAF: Settles Class Action Over Product Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a settlement is
moving forward that would resolve a class-action lawsuit accusing
Triple Leaf Tea of misleading consumers in its marketing and
promotion of several teas that promise to help with weight loss.

U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney in the Northern District of
California on June 26 granted preliminary approval to the deal,
which calls for the California-based company to change the names
and labeling information on several of its products, and to
discontinue the use of whorled mallow, an herb with laxative and
diuretic effects.  The order also appoints Ronald Marron of the
Law Offices of Ronald Marron as counsel for the nationwide class.


UBER TECH: Drivers Clearly Independent Contractors, Exec Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
NPR.org reports that the question of whether an Uber driver is an
employee of the company, or an independent contractor is the focus
of a federal class action lawsuit coming up in California, and in
smaller cases around the country.  But maybe there's a third
category -- a murky middle not yet defined in the U.S., though
there is some precedent abroad.

According to David Plouffe, the senior vice president of policy
and strategy at Uber, Uber's drivers are clearly independent
contractors.

"Drivers can log onto the platform if they want, and if they
don't, they don't have to -- even when we're busy," he says.

Mr. Plouffe, who ran President Obama's 2008 election campaign, was
hired by Uber to help clean up its image and fight public policy
battles.  He says drivers have "maximum flexibility" over their
most important asset: time.

"That's very different than almost any other part of our economy,
where even people who work part time at some retail establishment,
restaurant establishments -- their schedule gets set often times
with very little notice," Mr. Plouffe says.

The California Labor Commission recently ruled an Uber driver is
an employee.  The company is appealing that decision.

According to Uber, its drivers in the U.S. work 19 hours a week on
average.  Mr. Plouffe says Uber wants to recruit more casual
drivers, specifically getting people on their way to work to pick
up passengers.

"If they do 10 trips a week in a 'casual carpool' using the Uber
platform, is that person an employee? Of course not," Mr. Plouffe
says.

But if they do 40 hours a week, they got the car to be an Uber
driver, and records show they've been doing it for a year or two,
are they an employee?

"I think sort of dicing this up is not the right way to look at
this," Mr. Plouffe says.  He says the driver is in the driver's
seat, and hours come down to personal choices.

"Of course it's diverse, but those drivers, whether you drive 40
hours a week or four hours a week, you're not told whether to
drive at all," Mr. Plouffe says.  "It's your decision."

In the U.S., looking well beyond Uber, the employment debate tends
to have two poles -- employee on one end, independent contractor
on the other.

But that's not the case in Canada.

In Canada there's an intermediary class that is recognized by the
courts and by labor and employment statutes called a dependent
contractor, says Simon Heath, an employment lawyer in Ontario.

"It doesn't really matter now what you call yourself, or how you
try to structure your relationship.  What really matters is how
that relationship plays itself out," he says.

In 2008 and 2009, courts in Canada ruled that economic dependence
matters.  If a company has relied on a person consistently over
the years, if that person derives all or most of her income from
that job -- then she could be a dependent contractor.  Mr. Heath
says for his clients, the main benefit is getting a severance
package if terminated.

"In Ontario that ranges from zero to a maximum of 24 months of
pay, so two years," Mr. Heath says.  "That can be a significant
sum of money."

Germany has also created a third category for employee-like
workers.

But the U.S. Congress hasn't tweaked fundamentals in decades.

In the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, Congress explicitly stated
independent contractors are a class that does not get protections
given to employees.  Since then, workers have tried to get
reclassified, like janitors who aren't allowed to work for more
than one company or plumbers who've worked more than full time at
the same place for years.

"There's been plenty of opportunities for Congress to say more
about this issue as it's enacting newer employment statutes, and
it really just hasn't caught a lot of attention," says
Jeffrey Hirsch, a professor at the University of North Carolina
School of Law.

He says as labor moves from blue collar to service jobs -- fewer
factory workers, more Uber drivers -- the need for a third
category is growing.


UNITED FURNITURE: Common Misrepresentation Hurdle in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tristram Mallett, Esq., Kelly Osaka, Esq., and Sean Sutherland,
Esq. of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that establishing a common misrepresentation can be a high
hurdle to class action certification for misrepresentation claims
where multiple representations are alleged to have been made.  The
issue is particularly acute in the consumer protection context,
where customers often decide to purchase products only after
speaking to a sales representative.  The British Columbia Court of
Appeal's recent decision in Marshall v. United Furniture Warehouse
Limited Partnership serves as a reminder of how difficult it can
be to obtain certification in these types of actions.

The Cash Back Voucher Program

The plaintiffs in Marshall sought certification of a class action
against the respondents, United Furniture Warehouse and related
entities, for, among other things, alleged deceptive acts or
practices and negligent misrepresentation related to a "cash back
voucher" program.  Through the "cash back voucher" program, United
Furniture Warehouse granted vouchers with a cash value to
consumers who purchased furniture in some of their stores.
Consumers were required to wait three years after the purchase
before becoming eligible to redeem the voucher with a third-party,
the Consumers Trust.

In late 2005, the Consumers Trust filed for bankruptcy.  United
Furniture Warehouse offered consumers the opportunity to exchange
vouchers for in-store credit.  Unsatisfied with this offer, the
plaintiffs filed for class action certification, alleging that
United Furniture Warehouse misrepresented that it was the
administrator of the "cash back voucher" program.

Varying Combinations of Oral and Written Representations

The BC Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision to
refuse certification on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to
establish a common issue.  Central to each court's reasoning was
that "[e]very customer had to deal with a sales person in making
his or her purchase" and, therefore, oral representations were
"part of the mix for every customer".  The combinations of written
and oral representations made individual inquiries inevitable.  It
did not matter that the plaintiffs' claimed the class was not
relying on any oral representations -- the fact those
representations might still affect the common issue question was
enough to prevent certification.

These facts are in stark contrast to class actions certified based
on an alleged misrepresentation in a single advertisement or
written material provided to all members of the proposed class.

The Marshall case suggests that, as long as oral representations
are a significant "part of the mix", plaintiffs will struggle to
obtain certification of consumer protection class actions alleging
deceptive acts or practices, or negligent misrepresentation.  This
hurdle is in addition to the traditional barrier to certifying
class actions alleging misrepresentation: establishing reliance on
a class-wide basis, which Alexander Cobb and Adam Hirsh wrote
about last year in the securities context and which has been
applied in the consumer protection act context.


UNITED STATES: OPM Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
CIO.com reports that a federal employees union has filed a lawsuit
against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, its leadership
and a contractor, alleging that their negligence led to a data
breach that compromised the personal information of millions of
current, former and prospective government employees and
contractors.

Since at least 2007, the OPM has been warned by its Office of
Inspector General of significant deficiencies in its cybersecurity
protocol, according to the proposed class-action suit filed on
June 29 by the American Federation of Government Employees in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

However, OPM failed to take measures to correct these issues,
despite handling massive amounts of federal applicants' private,
sensitive and confidential information, it added.  The data
handled by the OPM included a 127-page form, called Standard Form
86, which requires applicants for security clearances to answer
questions on their financial histories and investment records,
children's and relatives' names, foreign trips and contacts with
foreign nationals, past residences, and names of neighbors and
close friends, according to the filing.

The lawsuit names the OPM, its director, Katherine Archuleta, and
its chief information officer, Donna Seymour.  Also charged is
KeyPoint Government Solutions, a provider of investigative and
risk mitigation services to the OPM.

The federal personnel agency announced on June 4 that it had been
the victim of a massive cyberattack that could have compromised
the personally identifiable information of up to 4 million
persons.  It said that as the investigation was ongoing, other
exposures of personal information could come to light.  Some
accounts have put the figure of people that could be affected as
high as 18 million.

When KeyPoint, which handled the majority of federal background
checks, announced in December that it had faced a computer network
breach, a spokeswoman of the OPM said there was "no conclusive
evidence to confirm sensitive information was removed from the
system" but that the OPM would notify 48,439 federal workers that
their information may have been exposed, according to the
complaint.

But after the OPM hack became public, Ms. Archuleta and the OPM
identified the misuse of a KeyPoint user credential as the source
of the breach, it added.

Despite knowing about the KeyPoint breach and explicit warnings
about shortcomings in its cybersecurity protocol and the dangers
associated with those deficiencies, the OPM leaders chose not to
shut down the agency's software systems, according to the
employees.

"The combination of KeyPoint's cyber security weaknesses and the
OPM's cyber security failures caused the massive scope of the OPM
Breach," according to the filing by the AFGE jointly with one
current and another former employee of the federal government, who
had both received notifications that their personal identifiable
information may have been exposed in the OPM data breach.

The petition asks the court for certification of the case as a
class action and appropriate relief to the plaintiffs and class
members, including actual and statutory damages.  It also wants a
ruling that KeyPoint "breached its duty to implement reasonable
security measures to safeguard and protect" the personally
identifiable information of the plaintiffs and the class members
that was compromised in the OPM breach.  The employees have asked
for a jury trial.

KeyPoint and OPM could not be immediately reached for comment.

The woes of the OPM continue to mount after it was reported that a
second breach compromised a database containing copies of Standard
Form 86 questionnaires that's used by people seeking a national
security clearance.  The agency has come under scathing criticism
from lawmakers and experts over its handling of the crisis.

On June 29, OPM said it was temporarily suspending its E-QIP
system, a Web-based platform used to complete and submit
background investigation forms, as a proactive security measure
after a vulnerability was found in the system.  The OPM said there
was no evidence that the vulnerability had been exploited.


UNIVERSAL CONNECT: Recalls Sens.us TAB>U Style Hair Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 6, 2015
Posting date: July 6, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Specialized Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53998

This recall involves the following Sens.us TAB>U Style hair
products in pressurized containers.

Various Sens.us TAB>U Style Hair Products in Pressurized
Containers

  Product                                    UPC
  ------                                     ---
  Sens.us TAB>U Style Volume Boost Mousse    8033315056587
  Sens.us TAB>U Style Curl Kick Mousse       8033315056594
  Sens.us TAB>U Style Eco Force Spray        8033315056600
  Sens.us TAB>U Style Slinky Shine Spray     8033315056563
  Sens.us TAB>U Style Dry Volume Shampoo     8033315056532
  Sens.us TAB>U Style Hard Lock Spray        8033315056709

The recalled hair products do not meet labelling requirements for
pressurized containers and potentially flammable products under
the Cosmetics Regulations and Food and Drugs Act. This lack of
labelling information, including lack of appropriate warnings,
could result in serious injury.

Neither Health Canada nor Universal Connect Corp has received
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of the affected products.

Approximately 218 units of the recalled product were sold to
Canadians.

The recalled hair products were sold from May 2014 to June 2015 at
various salons across Ontario.

Manufactured in Italy.

Distributor: Universal Connect Corp
             Aurora
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cosmetics and
return them to their place of purchase for corrective labelling.

Consumers may also contact Universal Connect Corp by telephone at
416-801-2454 from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET, Monday through Saturday,
or by email.

Alternatively, the product can be disposed of as per Municipal
Hazardous Waste Guidelines. Consumers are asked to contact their
municipality for instructions on disposing aerosol containers.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/CW4t1K


UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Settlement in Sperm Bank Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford Class Action Services on June 27 disclosed that the
Supreme Court of British Columbia has approved a $6.2 million
settlement of a class action for men whose sperm samples were
stored in a freezer at a laboratory operated by the University of
British Columbia at the time of a power outage in May 2002.

If you stored your sperm at the University of British Columbia
Andrology Lab prior to May 2002, you may be a potential Class
Member and you may be eligible to receive compensation.  Claim
forms and additional information are available online at the
administration website www.ubcspermbankclaim.ca or by calling the
Claims Administrator at 1-877-739-8940.

Class members must submit their claim to the Claims Administrator
on or before October 9, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Foreign Suspect Indicted in Tax Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mandak, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal grand jury has indicted a foreign citizen in a conspiracy
to file more than 900 phony federal tax returns seeking $2.2
million in refunds by using employee information stolen from the
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Yoandy Perez Llanes, 31, and at least three others were part of a
group who took those phony tax refunds as Amazon.com credits, a
service that online filing service Turbo Tax offers customers,
known as "monetizing," U.S. Attorney David Hickton said.

The credits were used to buy smartphones, laptop and tablet
computers, video games and other high-end electronics which were
"re-shipped" by others, based in Miami, to Venezuelan cities
including Maracay and Maracaibo, according to the indictment
announced on June 26.

Conspirators in Venezuela then sold the devices through online
merchants or auction sites, or kept them for personal use.

"The important message here is we've identified the conspirators
who have profited from the theft of employee information from
UPMC," Mr. Hickton said.

Mr. Hickton said the scheme was stopped after nearly $1.5 million
of the refunds were paid out.

The 21-hospital network, which dominates western Pennsylvania, was
hacked in early 2014 and UPMC officials said then it appeared as
many as 27,000 of its 62,000 employees were affected.

UPMC issued only a brief statement on the indictment:

"On behalf of our employees whose personal information was
compromised by hackers, we applaud the diligent and thorough
investigation conducted by the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal
Investigation, the United States Secret Service and the United
States Postal Inspection Service leading to the indictment in this
case."

Mr. Hickton wouldn't say where Mr. Llanes lives, and a news
release identified him only as a "foreign national residing
outside of the United States."

"We have a fix on him, but out of deference and respect to both
the continuing investigation and our efforts to bring him to
justice here, I don't want to be more specific," Mr. Hickton said.

Court records show a federal judge in Pittsburgh issued an arrest
warrant on June 25 on charges of conspiracy, wire fraud, money
laundering and aggravated identity theft.  Wire fraud and money
laundering carry up to 20 years in prison each, and conspiracy up
to five years.  Aggravated identity theft carries a two-year
penalty, which must be tacked onto any other sentence a person
receives.

Although the scheme is detailed in the indictment, Mr. Llanes'
precise role in it is not and Mr. Hickton declined to elaborate.

The other conspirators are not named. They're referred to only as
"one," ''two" and "three" but the indictment suggests there are an
unspecified number of others involved, too.

"The good news is we've specifically identified groups who stole
identities and used them to file over $2 million in false tax
returns," Mr. Hickton said.

Although it details only crimes that occurred between January and
April of 2014, Mr. Hickton stopped short of saying the scheme
ended.

"In any computer hacking scheme, I'd be loath to say we've
completely stopped it," Mr. Hickton said.  "But this indictment is
good news that we've disrupted the conspiracy."


WESTERN POWER: Parkville Bushfire Class action "Imminent"
---------------------------------------------------------
WAToday reports that class action against Western Power over the
Parkerville fires which destroyed 57 homes is now "imminent",
according to the chair of the Stoneville, Parkerville Progress
Association.

Fairfax Media revealed in March that Perth law firm Slater and
Gordon met with at number of locals whose homes were destroyed or
suffered property damage in last January's blaze.

An EnergySafety report released in December confirmed a jarrah
pole fell as a consequence of extensive damage to the base caused
by termites and rot, despite Western Power performing work on the
pole the previous year.

While it is the landowners' responsibility to maintain power poles
on their property, it is not covered by legislation.

Stoneville, Parkerville Progress Association chairman Greg Jones
told Radio 6PR on June 30, affected residents were meeting with
lawyers tonight to finalise the claims.

"A number of QCs [Queen's Counsel] have looked at this case and
have advised Slater and Gordon there is a real strong case to
answer and as a result of that Slater and Gordon have commenced
action," he said.

"And legal action is now imminent.

"There are already a large number of people that have joined this
action, however, the problem we have is because we don't have
access to official lists we are unable to contact everyone who has
been affected by the fire.  There are more than half of the people
that have been affected that don't know about this impending legal
action. "

Mr. Jones said many people in the area had only just rebuilt their
homes.

"There are people out there that sold their properties and have
moved on, because they couldn't afford to do it or whatever," he
said.

"There are people there with lots still vacant and they don't know
what to do and they can't afford to move.

"Really it's a dog's breakfast. There are people living in sheds
or caravans and these people are doing it pretty hard. "

Mr. Jones said the meeting at the Parkerville Pavilion at 7:00
p.m. on June 30 was only open to residents affected by the fire.

Slater and Gordon commercial and project litigation lawyer
Ben Hardwick said most people found their insurance didn't provide
adequate coverage for the real cost of restoring their homes.

"Unfortunately not all losses will be covered by insurance, so we
are providing advice to a number of local residents about their
rights and if they are entitled to take legal action to pursue
uninsured losses independently from their insurer," he said.

"We're increasingly confident Western Power can be held legally
responsible for the losses sustained by our current clients and we
look forward to speaking with other affected residents about their
rights too."


WHOLE FOODS: Customers File Class Action Over Food Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuven Blau, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a group
of Whole Foods customers filed a class-action lawsuit on June 25
against the high-end chain, arguing they paid extra for falsely
labeled pre-packaged foods.

The suit filed in Bronx Supreme Court on behalf of
Joseph Bassolino and others comes a day after the Daily News
revealed a city probe of the food purveyor for overcharging
customers since at least 2010.

Last fall, inspectors weighed 80 types of items at eight city
Whole Foods locations and found every label was inaccurate, with
many overcharging consumers, said the Department of Consumer
Affairs.

Whole Foods said it "never intentionally used deceptive practices
to incorrectly charge customers."


WYNDHAM VACATION: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq. of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reports that on June 8, a class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California alleging that Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.
("Wyndham") violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  In the action, the plaintiff alleges that Wyndham
"placed multiple calls in a single day to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone seeking to collect [on an] alleged debt owed by his
wife."  The complaint is unclear as to whether the plaintiff's
wife gave consent or provided his number, but the plaintiff
alleges that he did not provide Wyndham with consent.  The
plaintiff seeks to certify a class of "[a]ll persons within the
United States who received any collection telephone calls from
[Wyndham] to said person's cellular telephone" using an automatic
telephone dialing system.  Wyndham has yet to appear in the
action.

What Constitutes Consent Under the TCPA?

Will Wyndham Argue Prior Express Consent Under TCPA?

According to the complaint filed in the action, Wyndham placed
calls to the plaintiff's wife concerning an alleged debt.  Wyndham
has not filed an answer, but we suspect that it may move to
dismiss the complaint on prior express consent grounds.  Verizon
had a TCPA class action dismissed by arguing that the plaintiffs
in that action had provided prior express consent to be contacted
for debt collection purposes.  The issue in the case against
Wyndham may be whether a spouse can provide prior express consent
for debt collection calls.


XTDR LLC: Sued in New York Over Alleged Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
Guevara's Painting, Corp., on behalf of itself And all other
persons similarly situated v. XTDR, LLC, The Anchorage at Freeport
Owners' Corp., National Casualty Company, and Fred Cohn, Case No.
604240/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 30, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged breach of contract, specifically by failure to
pay the balance due of $132,200.00 for Guevara's services to
paint, sheetrock, carpet and provide wood doors pertaining to the
renovations and repairs on all buildings, apartments, clubhouse,
and security shed for the buildings located on the The Anchorage's
Property.

The Anchorage at Freeport Owners' Corp. owns the real property
commonly known as 1 Anchorage Way, Freeport, New York 11520.

XTDR, LLC is a Connecticut company that provides property and
casualty insurance services.

National Casualty Company is a corporation organized and existing
pursuant to the laws of the State of Wisconsin that operates an
insurance company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Moyal, Esq.
      MAVRIDES, MOYAL, PACKMAN, SADKIN LLP
      525 Northern Boulevard, Suite 210
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 358-7200
      E-mail: dmoyal@mmps.com


YELLOW CAB: Faces Liability as Driver an "Ostensible Employee"
--------------------------------------------------------------
SFGate reports that a San Francisco Superior Court jury found that
a Yellow Cab driver was an "ostensible employee," making the taxi
cooperative liable for a car crash allegedly caused by the driver.
The jury awarded $8 million to a passenger injured in the crash.

Some legal experts said the finding in Fua vs. Sanchez may have
implications for Uber, Lyft and other companies with workforces
composed of independent contractors, while other experts said it's
too different to affect those companies.  The case also undercuts
taxi companies' frequent assertions that their insurance coverage
for passengers is superior to that of the new ride-hailing
companies.

Yellow Cab contended that the crash was entirely the driver's
fault and that it bore no legal responsibility because the driver
was an independent contractor, according to Todd Emanuel, a
Redwood City lawyer who represented the injured passenger,
Ida Fua.

Yellow Cab general manager Jim Gillespie did not return a call for
comment.  But in a deposition last month, he said that Yellow Cab
does not provide driving services directly to the public.  "The
drivers are in the business, obviously, of transporting the
people, and we're in the business of providing the vehicles and/or
the dispatch service, the color scheme," he said, according to a
transcript.

That parallels similar assertions by Uber and Lyft that they are
merely technology companies, not transportation services.
Ida Fua, then 28, a first-year associate at a Silicon Valley law
firm, took a Yellow Cab home from San Francisco International
Airport in April 2011.  Traffic on southbound Highway 101 came to
a dead stop, but the cab driver didn't notice and struck the
vehicle in front of him at 60 to 65 mph, Mr. Emanuel said.
Ms. Fua was left paralyzed on one side of her body, suffered
residual symptoms of traumatic brain injury and is not able to
work.

The jury found that the driver was not a Yellow Cab employee, but
still was an "ostensible employee," making the company responsible
for his actions.  "A passenger getting into a Yellow Cab
legitimately assumes that there is a company that stands behind
that vehicle and its driver," Mr. Emanuel said.

Mr. Emanuel said Yellow Cab, which carries $1 million in liability
insurance, "is grossly underinsured."  Uber and Lyft also provide
$1 million liability insurance while drivers are carrying
passengers or en route to pick them up, and a lesser amount while
they are awaiting ride requests.

"The problem is, what happens in a case where you have damages in
the millions and millions of dollars?" Mr. Emanuel said.
Control over worker

William Gould, a professor emeritus of law at Stanford Law School,
said the case demonstrates "what a thin and sometimes artificial
demarcation line there is between these two concepts" of employees
and independent contractor.  The determining factors are how much
control the company has over the worker, and how much
entrepreneurial opportunity the worker has, he said.

If individuals are employees, their companies bear liability, he
said.  "The only way liability could be avoided would be to say
that the so-called independent contractor is truly a separate
business on his/her own."

San Francisco attorney Christopher Dolan is suing Uber over a
crash in which an UberX driver who was allegedly awaiting ride
requests struck and killed a child in San Francisco.  He said he
expects that Uber would say that cabs differ from UberX in
multiple ways: cab drivers work full time, pay the companies a
daily rental fee, drive cars emblazoned with the cab company name
and are more heavily regulated than Uber.  "Uber will try and
differentiate itself, saying it's a lynx, not a cat," he said.
Tamara Devitt, a labor attorney in Orange County, said the Yellow
Cab case sounds like one in which a jury wanted to find for the
victim of a horrific crash and that it doesn't have much relevance
for Uber and Lyft.

The concept of "ostensible employment" revolves around the
appearance of employment, she said.  That is not relevant for
Uber/Lyft drivers because they don't represent themselves to
passengers as being company employees, she said.  Instead,
Uber/Lyft drivers' employment status is grounded in how much
control the companies have over them.

In March, Yellow Cab of Chicago was found liable for $26 million
in damages to a passenger who was severely injured in a cab crash.
The company filed for bankrupty protection nine hours after the
verdict.  Its president told news organizations that it could not
pay the bill.


ZUCKER GOLDBERG: Shuts Down Following Debt Collection Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Staci Zaretsky, writing for Above The Law, reports that another
large firm that suddenly went under, and this time, nearly 300
people stand to lose their jobs as a result of the firm's failure.

According to a WARN Act notice filed with the New Jersey
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Zucker Goldberg &
Ackerman, a firm that represents banks and mortgage servicers in
foreclosure, bankruptcy, and eviction actions, will be laying off
approximately 289 employees on or before August 24, 2015.
NJBIZ.com, which first reported the news, notes that the firm
cited "current and anticipated profitability insufficient to
sustain current operations."  The firm previously had legal
troubles in 2013, when it was involved in a class-action suit
concerning misleading debt collection notices.


* Court of Appeals Take Active Role in Use of CPLR Article 9
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Dickerson and Colleen D. Duffy, writing for New York Law
Journal, report that starting in 2012 the Court of Appeals decided
to take an active role in encouraging the use of CPLR Article 9
which provides for the aggregation of similar claims in a class
action if certain prerequisites are met, e.g., a showing of
numerosity, predominance of common questions of law or fact,
typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority (CPLR
901(a)).

First, there was Koch v. Acker, Merrall & Condit Co., an
individual action wherein the purchaser of allegedly counterfeit
wine asserted claims based on the violation of General Business
Law (GBL) Sections 349 (prohibition of misleading and deceptive
business practices) and 350 (prohibition of false advertising).
In essence, the Court of Appeals made both GBL 349 and 350
certifiable in consumer class actions.

Second, there was Corsello v. Verizon, New York, an inverse
condemnation class action, in which the Court of Appeals stated
that the case "seems on its face well-suited to class action
treatment" because "it would be reasonable to infer that the case
will be dominated by class wide issues -- whether Verizon's
practice is lawful, and if not what the remedy should be" and that
expert testimony could be used to "support an inference" of
typicality.

And third, there was the important policy statement by the Court
of Appeals in Borden v. 400 East 55th Street Assoc. "From a policy
standpoint, permitting plaintiffs to bring these claims as a class
accomplishes the purpose of CPLR 901(b) . . . The State Consumer
Protection Board emphasized the importance of class actions: 'The
class action device responds to the problem of inadequate
information as well as the need for economies of scale'" for
". . . a person contemplating illegal action will not be able to
rely on the fact that most people will be unaware of their rights
-- if even one typical person files a class action, the suit will
go forward and the other members of the class will be notified of
the action."

This article will address the application of CPLR 901(b), which
has prevented or delayed the salutary use of Article 9 prior to
Borden and the sea change produced by Borden.

Penalties and Class Actions

CPLR 901(b), which is unique amongst class action rules whether
state or federal, provides, in relevant part, that "an action to
recover a penalty, or minimum measure of recovery created or
imposed by statute may not be maintained as a class action" unless
authorized by the statute creating the penalty.  In 1975, as the
Legislature, at the urging of the Court of Appeals was about to
enact CPLR Article 9, CPLR 901(b) was engrafted onto an otherwise
modern class action statute equal to or better than Federal Rule
23.  The Empire State Chamber of Commerce requested enactment of
CPLR 901(b) asserting without benefit of any studies or scholarly
support that "Penalties and class actions simply do not mix."
CPLR 901(b) is inconsistent with the trend in federal and other
state courts to enable citizens with small and/or complex claims
to seek and obtain adequate representation within the context of a
class action lawsuit.  CPLR 901(b) has prevented or delayed the
salutary use of Article 9 of the CPLR by, inter alia, consumers,
employees and tenants until very recently. CPLR 901(b) should be
repealed as soon as possible.

No Penalty Class Actions

A review of court decisions dealing with CPLR 901(b) rendered by
New York state courts from 1978 through 2014 reveals the
following. In the early years from 1975 to 1987 nearly all class
actions alleging the violation of a statute which provided for a
"penalty" were denied class certification.  In addition these
cases denied plaintiff's attempt to waive the "penalty" and seek
only actual damages.

Typical of these cases was Lennon v. Philip Morris Cos. In Lennon
the court stated, "Even where treble damages are discretionary and
need not be sought by the injured party, it is this court's
understanding that no New York court has sustained such a claim
either under the Donnelly Act [GBL 340] or any other statutory
provision." GBL 340 declares illegal and void all contracts or
agreements for monopoly or in restraint of trade.

Waiving the Statutory Penalty

The introduction of the concept that a class action plaintiff
could waive a "penalty" with the proviso that absent class members
be given the opportunity to opt out and seek individual statutory
damages was first accepted in 1987 in a case involving GBL 349.
As noted by the court in Cox v. Microsoft Corp. "We also reject
Microsoft's argument that plaintiffs are not entitled to class
action relief under [GBL 349] since the statutorily prescribed $50
minimum damages to be awarded for a violation of that section
constitutes a 'penalty' within the meaning of CPLR 901(b).  In as
much as plaintiffs in their amended complaint expressly seek only
actual damages, the motion court correctly found CPLR 901(b) which
prohibits class actions for recovery of minimum or punitive
damages, inapplicable."

The waiver concept began to spread from GBL 349 class actions to
class actions brought by employees alleging violation of various
Labor Law provisions.  For example, in the 1998 employee class
action, Pesantz v. Boyle Environmental Services, the court stated
"To the extent certain individuals may wish to pursue punitive
claims pursuant to Labor Law 198(1-a) which cannot be maintained
in a class action (CPLR 901(b)) they may opt out of the class
action."  In addition, the waiver concept has recently been
applied in a class action alleging violation of the Arts and
Cultural Affairs Law 25.33 and Labor Law 663 but not in a class
action brought by Nassau County seeking hotel taxes from online
travel sellers.

'Sperry': Economic Analysis

The Court of Appeals first addressed CPLR 901(b) in Sperry v.
Crompton Corp. In Sperry, a class action alleging violation of GBL
340, the court held, "Although we never construed the term
'penalty' within the meaning of CPLR 901(b), nor have we had
occasion to characterize the treble damages provision of the
Donnelly Act . . . It is evident that by including the penalty
exception in CPLR 901(b), the Legislature declined to make class
actions available where individual plaintiffs were afforded
sufficient economic encouragement to institute actions [through
statutory provisions awarding something beyond or unrelated to
actual damages], unless a statute expressly authorized the option
of class action status.  This makes sense, given that class
actions are designed in large part to incentivize plaintiffs to
sue when the economic benefit would otherwise be too small,
particularly when taking into account the court costs and
attorneys' fees typically incurred."

While this economic analysis may apply to corporations with
potentially large individual damages it may not apply to consumers
and small businesses that may have small individual damage claims
arising from violations of GBL 340.

'Borden': Legislative Analysis

In Borden, three class actions seeking to obtain rent overcharges
under Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, and alleging
violations of the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, the court seemed
to take a more expansive view than it had in Sperry.  "The
language of CPLR 901(b) itself says it is not dispositive that a
statute imposes a penalty so long as the action brought pursuant
to that statute does not seek to recover the penalty.  This view
is bolstered by the legislative history of CPLR 901(b), which
provides that the statute requires a liberal reading and allows
class-action recovery of actual damages despite a statute's
additional provision of treble damages . . ."

The court continued: "Waiver does not circumvent CPLR 901(b); on
the contrary, the drafters not only foresaw but intended to enable
plaintiffs to waive penalties to recover through a class action
. . . It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs seek a refund, i.e.,
actual damages, which CPLR 901(b) did not intend to bar . . .
Where a statute imposes a nonmandatory penalty plaintiffs may
waive the penalty in order to bring the case as a class action
. . . Although CPLR 901(b) intended to restrict the types of cases
that could be brought as class actions, in our cases (before us)
the CPLR is not contravened by allowing waiver because plaintiffs
will not receive a windfall.  They will only receive compensatory
damages in the form of rent overcharges . . ."

Antitrust Class Actions

A close reading of Sperry and Borden suggests that the Court of
Appeals may be signaling that the waiver concept may be viable in
Donnelly Act class actions.  "This Court signaled that the
'determination of whether a certain provision constitutes a
penalty may vary depending on the context' (Sperry, 9 NY3d at
213). In Sperry where we found the treble damages provision of
[GBL] 340(5) constituted a penalty, we also found that 'one third
of the award unquestionably compensates a plaintiff for actual
damages' while 'the remainder necessarily punishes . . .
violations, deters such behavior (the traditional purposes of
penalties) or encourages plaintiffs to commence litigation'
(Sperry, 8 NY3d at 214).  We disallowed class action recovery in
Sperry, but the plaintiff plainly sought treble damages, refusing
to waive the penalty . . . Plaintiffs here seek that first third
of the treble damages award, which we have determined is a
compensatory form of relief").

Conclusion

An appropriate question, of course, is why did it take so long for
the waiver concept to be introduced and expanded upon until very
recently? A clear example, perhaps, of justice delayed due to the
seemingly obstructive engrafting of CPLR 901(b) upon an otherwise
well-intended class action statute.

While there is still more to do in expanding the use of CPLR
Article 9 to areas in which it was intended to be used (i.e., mass
environmental, property and personal injury torts; governmental
operations) the Court of Appeals has over the last three years
breathed new life into New York State's underutilized class action
statute.


* House Passes HR 1927 Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Lazarus, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that many
companies already forbid you from joining other disgruntled
customers in filing a class-action lawsuit, forcing you instead to
take your beef to an arbitrator.  A bill making its way through
the Republican-controlled House would diminish your legal options
even more.

"The backers of this bill aren't even trying to hide their
intentions," said Christine Hines, consumer and civil justice
counsel at the advocacy group Public Citizen.  "The aim is to wipe
out class-action lawsuits."

How? By requiring that everyone in the suit have identical
injuries or losses, such as experiencing a broken leg because of a
car's faulty brakes.  People with broken arms would have to file a
separate lawsuit against the carmaker.

The shamelessly titled Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act (HR
1927) was approved by the House Judiciary Committee.  It now heads
to a vote by the full chamber.

The legislation is the brainchild of Judiciary Committee Chairman
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who are
passing it off as a much-needed improvement to the U.S. legal
system.

"The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act is a simple, one-page
bill that furthers a common-sense principle that should apply to
class-action lawsuits in the future," said Mr. Goodlatte.

Said Mr. Franks: "Class-action lawsuits should allow those with
serious injuries to have their own day in court.  The Fairness in
Class Action Litigation Act would do just that."

Actually, it wouldn't. Just the opposite.

It's striking that such a far-reaching bill would fit on one side
of a napkin.  Here it is in its entirety:

"No Federal court shall certify any proposed class seeking
monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss unless the
party seeking to maintain such a class action affirmatively
demonstrates that each proposed class member suffered the same
type and scope of injury as the named class representative or
representatives."

The key phrase is the requirement for "the same type and scope" of
harm.  Under the existing system, people can join a class if they
share similar grievances against the defendant.

In a securities fraud case, for example, it wouldn't matter if you
lost $200 and the named plaintiff lost $100.  Your losses stem
from the same alleged fraud.

Class actions are especially useful in situations where losses are
relatively small.  You might not go to the trouble of filing a
lawsuit on your own.  But joined with scores of others with
similar interests, a class-action lawsuit can be an effective way
of seeking redress for all.

Look what would happen if the Fairness in Class Action Litigation
Act became law. In that securities fraud example, you'd be
eligible to join the class action only if you experienced "the
same type and scope" of harm -- that is, if you also lost exactly
$100.

"If your injury is different by just $1, it would preclude joining
a class action," said Adam Prom, a Chicago lawyer who specializes
in consumer cases.

Businesses argue, with some justification, that class actions can
be abused by unscrupulous lawyers, who pack on additional
plaintiffs in hopes of squeezing a fatter settlement out of the
accused company.  Certainly that happens.

But for every questionable class-action case, there's an Anderson
vs. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which was made famous by the
movie "Erin Brockovich."

PG&E was required to pay a civil settlement of $333 million after
it was found that the utility had contaminated groundwater beneath
the California town of Hinkley with a chemical that caused a
variety of cancers and birth defects.

Such diversity of harm clearly wouldn't be tolerated under the
Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act.

"The central question in a class action is -- and should remain --
whether a corporation has engaged in misconduct that harmed
consumers," said Linda Lipsen, chief executive of the American
Assn. for Justice, which represents trial lawyers.

Passage of the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, she said,
would leave corporations "off the hook if they sell defective
products, engage in widespread price-fixing schemes or defraud
consumers with deceptive advertising."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees it differently. The powerful
business lobby is a key backer of the bill.

Lisa Rickard, president of the chamber's Institute for Legal
Reform, said after the Judiciary Committee vote that class actions
"have become a tool of the plaintiffs' lawyers to game the system
of justice and inflate their compensation."

In March, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue,
declared at a business forum that his organization is accustomed
to getting its way in court.

"We spend half of our time trying to reduce the number of suits by
class-action lawyers and the other half of our time suing the hell
out of the government," he said.

It seems pretty clear who's gaming the system.


* Obama Mulls Broader OT Coverage for Lower-Income Workers
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher S. Rugaber, writing for The Associated Press, reports
that the Obama administration is proposing making up to 5 million
more people eligible for overtime -- its latest effort to boost
pay for lower-income workers.  They're called managers, and they
sometimes work grueling schedules at fast food chains and retail
stores.  But with no overtime eligibility, their pay may be lower
per hour than many workers they supervise.

These workers would benefit from rules requiring businesses to pay
eligible employees 1-1/2 times their regular pay for any work
beyond 40 hours a week.

"We've got to keep making sure hard work is rewarded," President
Barack Obama wrote in an op-ed published on June 29 in The
Huffington Post.  "That's how America should do business. In this
country, a hard day's work deserves a fair day's pay."

Employers can now often get around the rules: Any salaried
employee who's paid more than $455 a week -- or $23,660 a year --
can be called a "manager," given limited supervisory duties and
made ineligible for overtime.

Yet that would put a family of four in poverty territory.  Obama
says that the level is too low and undercuts the intent of the
overtime law.  The threshold was last updated in 2004 and has been
eroded by inflation.

The long-awaited overtime rule from the Labor Department would
more than double the threshold at which employers can avoid paying
overtime, to $970 a week by next year.  That would mean salaried
employees earning less than $50,440 a year would be assured
overtime if they work more than 40 hours per week.

To keep up with future inflation and wage growth, the proposal
will peg the salary threshold at the 40th percentile of income.
The White House said 56 percent of those who would benefit in the
first year are women, and 53 percent have a college degree.

With the higher threshold, many more Americans -- from fast food
and retail supervisors to bank branch managers and insurance
claims adjusters -- would become eligible for overtime.

A threshold of $984 a week would cover 15 million people,
according to the liberal Economic Policy Institute.  In 1975,
overtime rules covered 65 percent of salaried workers.  Today,
it's just 8 percent, the White House says.

The beneficiaries would be people like Brittany Swa, 30, a former
manager of a Chipotle restaurant in Denver.  As a management
trainee, she started as an entry-level crew member in March 2010.
After several months she began working as an "apprentice," which
required a minimum 50-hour work week.

Yet her duties changed little.  She had a key to the shop and
could make bank deposits, but otherwise spent nearly all her time
preparing orders and working the cash register.  She frequently
worked 60 hours a week but didn't get overtime because she earned
$36,000.

The grueling hours continued after she was promoted to store
manager in October 2010.  She left two years later, and now
processes workers' compensation claims at Travelers.  She makes
$60,000 a year, "which is surprising, since I only work 40 hours a
week," she says.

Ms. Swa has joined a class-action lawsuit against Chipotle, which
charges that apprentices shouldn't be classified as managers
exempt from overtime.  A spokesman for Chipotle declined to
comment on the case.

Dawn Hughey, a former store manager for Dollar General in Flint,
Michigan, would have also benefited from a higher overtime
threshold.  Ms. Hughey worked 60 to 80 hours a week for about two
years before being fired in 2011.  She was paid $34,700.

"I missed a lot of family functions working like that," Ms. Hughey
said.  "It was just expected if you were a store manager."

She made about $45,000 a year as an hourly worker in a previous
job at a Rite Aid in California, where she typically worked 48
hours a week and received overtime.

The White House's proposed changes will be open for public comment
and finalized sometime next year.  They can be enacted through
regulation without approval by the Republican-led Congress.

They set up a populist economic argument that Democrats have
already been embracing in the run-up to the 2016 presidential
election.  Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is challenging Hillary
Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination, said the proposal
means businesses would no longer be able to shirk their
responsibility to pay fair wages.

"This long overdue change in overtime rules is a step in the right
direction and good news for workers," Sen. Sanders said.

Yet the proposals won't necessarily produce a big raise for people
like Ms. Swa and Ms. Hughey.  The National Retail Federation, a
business group, says its members would probably respond by
converting many salaried workers to hourly status, which could
cost them benefits such as paid vacation.  Other salaried workers
would have their hours cut and wouldn't receive higher pay.

Businesses might hire additional workers to avoid paying overtime
or extend the hours they give part-timers.  Yet supporters of
extending overtime coverage say they would welcome those changes.

"It's a job creation measure," said Daniel Hamermesh, an economist
at the University of Texas, Austin.  "Employers will substitute
workers for hours, when the hours get more expensive."


* Some Newer Cars Burn Too Much Oil, Consumer Reports Reveals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher, writing for Associated Press, reports that newer cars
aren't supposed to need more oil between oil changes, but Consumer
Reports found that some engines -- mainly from Audi, BMW and
Subaru -- require an extra quart as often as once a month.

In an annual survey of car owners, significant numbers reported
what the magazine considered to be excessive oil consumption.
Consumer Reports focused on 2010 to 2014 models and called on
automakers to make repairs under the powertrain warranty or to
extend warranties.

"The companies should be willing to step up and take
responsibility for their products," said Mark Rechtin, the
magazine's cars content team leader.

Owners of newer cars, he said, shouldn't have to carry oil around
and worry about adding it. Most cars, he said, have dashboard
lights warning drivers if their oil gets too low.  But failing to
pay attention to that light eventually can cause engine damage.
The magazine's survey didn't find any link between oil consumption
and other engine problems, but it found that cars that burn oil
early consume more as they age.

It's normal for cars to burn a little oil as they age toward
100,000 miles, the magazine said in its August issue.  But for a
late-model car to burn a quart or more between changes is not
acceptable, Mr. Rechtin said.


* Texas Truancy Reform Law Doesn't Help Kids with Special Needs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Hope, writing for Breitbart, reports that Governor Greg
Abbott has signed historic truancy reform legislation.  It
decriminalized the Failure to Attend School (FTAS) in Texas; yet
child and civil rights advocates contend that the new law does
little to help youngsters in public school settings who have
disabilities and special needs.

Disability Rights Texas, the National Center for Youth Law, and
Texas Appleseed filed a joint complaint with the Texas Education
Agency (TEA) in late May.  They argue that 13 public school
districts use the truancy courts and court orders to force out
special needs students from the system, violating federal law.

The complaint alleges that students with disabilities are
disproportionately removed from public school classrooms and
funneled into alternative education, high school general
equivalency diploma (GED) programs, or mandatory homeschooling
despite the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
which requires that public schools identify students with
disabilities and develop the least restrictive individualized
plans to meet their education goals.

They also assert that there is nothing in the new law that forbids
courts from continuing to court order students with disabilities
to withdraw from public school and enroll in GED programs that
they have no chance of successfully completing, Dustin Rynders,
supervising attorney with Disability Rights Texas, explained to
Breitbart Texas.

The school districts named in the action are Abilene, Austin,
Clear Creek, Conroe, Ector County, Fort Bend, Fort Worth, Galena
Park, Galveston, Houston, Pasadena, San Antonio, and Victoria.

"Our complaint also revealed that 1,247 special education eligible
students have been court ordered to get GEDs over the past several
years (2010-13) and then were not able to pass the GED," said
Rynders.

These special needs students were folded into a larger 19.4
percent of students who failed the GED.  They represented only 8.5
percent of students but not all school districts track special
education status when they refer students to court for FTAS so it
is impossible to know if the special needs students' GED failure
rate is underestimated, according to the complaint.

The truancy reform law, HB 2398, goes into effect on September 1
and replaces existing criminal truancy prosecution with civil
punishments.  Breitbart Texas reported that HB 2398 intends to
examine the underlying issues behind FTAS -- like homelessness,
chronic illness, or unidentified special education needs. It also
requires schools to take common-sense steps to address students'
truancy problems before referring students to court.

"HB 2398 is well intentioned in trying to get to the root cause of
a truancy," says attorney Deron Harrington, who filed a class
action lawsuit against the highly punitive Fort Bend County
truancy court system on grounds that the courts themselves are
illegal, which Breitbart Texas reported.

Harrington emphasized that while Texas truancy reform eliminated
FTAS as a criminal offense and replaced it as civil matter in the
new family code section, it left in place as a Class C misdemeanor
the offense of the parent contributing and added measures against
the parents or any other person that the court finds contributing
to the truant conduct of the student.  That means, it still holds
parents accountable, adds Harrington.

In April, the US Department of Justice launched an investigation
into the Dallas County truancy courts due process policies and
practices. It was prompted by Texas Appleseed in a 2013 complaint.

The Fort Bend Independent School District (ISD) is named in the
complaint for its allegedly inadequate policies and procedures to
identify, locate and evaluate special education students as
required by federal Child Find laws.

The complaint purports that Fort Bend's special education
population is harmed because district school officials do not
properly identify youngsters and instead instruct staff to wait
until grade five before referring a child for an evaluation or re-
evaluation if a student struggles in school.

One of the pillars of special education is Free Appropriate Public
Education (FAPE).  Housed under the US Department of Education
(USDE) Office of Civil Rights, FAPE is supposed to protect the
rights of students with disabilities under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

It requires that school districts provide FAPE to K-12 youngsters
with disabilities and those special education services are
developed and administered through individualized education plans
(IEP), funded under IDEA.

Dianna Pharr is an Austin-area education advocate who helps
parents navigate through complex special education laws. She told
Breitbart Texas that there is nothing "free" or "appropriate"
about a public education that "seeks to exclude and punish
children with disabilities."

She asked, "Why not focus on the child's needs instead of
criminalizing those needs? When children are unwanted by school
districts, parents see a side of the public school system that
remains hidden to those whose children fit the mold."

Although Pharr is not affiliated with the TEA filed complaint, she
has served clients in one of the named districts in the complaint-
-Austin ISD--where she recalled an elementary student client who
was late by just a few minutes on multiple days "due to her
disability-related school refusal and anxiety," said Ms. Pharr.
"Instead of addressing the child's needs, the school filed
criminal truancy charges against the parent."

She explained, "Filing truancy charges are effective because
districts know that parents will feel intimidated and frightened
and are likely to simply give up and remove their child from the
school."

"In a very real sense, truancy criminalizes disabilities," she
emphasized.

Many of her cases involve truancy. Pharr says it is not about
absences only.  "Students don't have to miss whole school days to
be charged with truancy.  Local board policy can include tardies
as absences for the purpose of truancy."

In the complaint, a homeless student was charged with truancy
twice after teachers marked him absent when he was actually
receiving instruction in a special education classroom.

Ms. Pharr told Breitbart Texas, "Sometimes, even though a child is
in the school building, if he doesn't make it to his desk before
the bell rings, he is marked tardy.  This is an incredibly
militant approach that adds layer of stress on families that
already are dealing with far more than their fair share of
struggles."

Impairments like Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD),
Asperger's syndrome, depression, and bipolar disorder run rampant
among the complainants.  One family reported that their school
district representative threatened their special-needs son with a
22-week-long stay at a boot camp, which was almost 400 miles away,
if he had further absences.  Operated by the Texas National Guard,
Texas ChalleNGe Academy is on record in the complaint as saying
students were there to prepare for the GED.

Another teen with multiple mental health disorders was told he
would be ordered to drop out of school and enroll in a GED program
if he missed anymore school despite notes from his parents, which
the school did not count as excused absences.

The complaint noted that some courts and school districts pressure
parents into homeschooling by threatening that they will continue
to face future truancy charges and fines otherwise.

"This approach, the combination of denying services to students
and then, filing truancy charges, forces students with
disabilities out of the public education system," Ms. Pharr
commented.

While some are fortunate enough to fund private school, she
pointed out that most families don't have that option because
public education dollars don't follow the child to private school.
Instead, families throw their hands up in utter despair, are
forced to homeschool, or enroll their children in public charter
schools or other alternatives that may or may not be appropriate.

"In my experience, parents often turn to public charter schools
that accept students with disabilities after they are forced to
leave the neighborhood public school," she said.  "However,
charter schools often use the same strategies to deny a Free
Appropriate Public Education to students and retain the very same
private attorneys as the public school districts."

Open-enrollment charter schools are part of the public school
system.

Ms. Pharr said banning parents from their child's campus for
disruptive behavior is among the strategies used by public schools
to force out students with disabilities.  She underscored it is
with "no evidence necessary."

Mr. Rynders believes that the truancy reform law will minimize
some of the "harmful effects of court involvement by considering
the impact of mental health" treating cases on a civil level and
eliminating student fines, but it will not offer any specific
relief for students already forced out of the system.

He said that all of those students are eligible for special
education services until the age of 22 under federal law.  "TEA
must work diligently to ensure school districts locate and offer
educational services to each of these students."

The complaint also alleges that the state's Performance-Based
Monitoring Analysis System (PBMAS) Special Education indicator
scrutinizes districts that report higher special education student
cases than 8.5 percent of those eligible.  PBMAS measures the
percent of students enrolled per district who receive services.

"Under HB 2398, TEA is required to create minimum standards and
establish best practices for truancy prevention measures, and
adopt rules for sanctioning school districts found to be
noncompliant with those minimum standards," Mr. Rynders told
Breitbart Texas.

Like federal law, Texas Education Code Chapter 29 requires that
the TEA ensures students with disabilities have properly developed
and implemented IEPs and are educated in the least restrictive
environment that is appropriate to the students educational needs;
and that students receive the necessary related services, the
complaint states.

Mr. Rynders continued, "For far too long, TEA has not addressed
nonattendance issues, even as it relates to special education
services which they oversee.  TEA must follow the clear mandate
from the legislature to take on a more robust monitoring role with
respect to truancy.  In doing so, TEA must make sure students with
disabilities are identified, offered appropriate interventions,
and not forced out of schools through the truancy process."

Before the TEA can potentially do anything, though, they must
determine the merits of the complaint, which they received by mail
on June 1.  Agency Media Director Debbie Ratcliffe told Breitbart
Texas that because of the number of entities involved in the
complaint, she is fairly certain "we will extend the review
period" beyond the normally allotted 60 day review period. The
complaint is also lodged against TEA.


* Transport Canada Recalls 43,679 SUVs Due to Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 2, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Engine
Units affected: 43679
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015297TC
ID number: 2015297
Manufacturer recall number: R32

On certain vehicles equipped with a 2.4L engine, the engine cover
could shift over time due to road vibrations. If the engine cover
were to displace, it could result in the cover contacting the
exhaust manifold, which could result in a fire, increasing the
risk of injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will
install an enhanced retaining device to the engine cover.


* Well-Crafted Arbitration Clauses Can Avert Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that companies have new
protections against class-action lawsuits, thanks to two recent
decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court's decisions in American Express v. Italian Colors
Restaurant and Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter enable companies to
incorporate class-action waivers in their standard form contracts
with investors, customers and vendors.

In American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, Italian
Colors Restaurant and other merchants brought a class action
lawsuit against AmEx, asserting that it was using its monopoly
power to force merchants to accept credit cards with fees that
were significantly higher than the fees of AmEx's competitors.

AmEx moved to compel individual arbitration with the merchants
under its contracts, which required not only that all disputes be
resolved in arbitration but also explicitly waived the merchants'
right to arbitrate claims on a class-wide basis.

The district court sided with AmEx, but the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed.  In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court
reversed the Second Circuit, holding that the parties' contractual
class-action waiver was enforceable.

In Oxford Health Plans LLC. v. Sutter, the Supreme Court reviewed
the issue of whether an arbitrator had exceeded his powers under
the Federal Arbitration Act when he interpreted the parties'
arbitration clause to authorize class arbitration.  In affirming
the lower courts' rulings, the Supreme Court held that under the
limited judicial review provided by the Federal Arbitration Act,
the arbitrator's interpretation of the parties' agreement must
stand.

These two court decisions should remind business owners and
attorneys that the terms of arbitration, including the right to
arbitrate claims on a class-wide basis, are entirely dictated by
the wording of the contract.

By carefully drafting arbitration clauses, businesses can protect
themselves from certain types of class-action lawsuits.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Gets $438,000 More from Insurers
-------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company received an additional $438,000 settlement
amount from its insurance coverage litigation, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended May 30, 2015.


The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and
seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In
many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered
were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are
typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment.
If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable
injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case
is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness
of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities (including defense costs).
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and under certain circumstances,
settlements and judgments, in asbestos-related lawsuits. Under
these agreements, we are required under certain circumstances to
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent. In addition, to
delineate our rights under certain insurance policies, in October
2009, we commenced a declaratory judgment action against one of
our insurers in the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota. Additional insurers were brought into the action to
address issues related to the scope of their coverage. In 2013, we
entered into a settlement agreement with the defendant insurers in
this case that provided for the allocation of defense costs and
settlements in the future. The allocation under the settlement
agreement depended on the outcome of an appeal of two issues to
the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. During the
second quarter of 2015, we entered into an additional settlement
with the parties to the coverage litigation, which resulted in the
appeal being dismissed. Therefore, this litigation has now been
fully resolved.

"A summary of the number of and settlement amounts for asbestos-
related lawsuits and claims for the 26 Weeks ended May 30, 2015:

     Lawsuits and claims settled                  $5,000
     Settlement amounts                         $438,000
     Insurance payments received
        or expected to be received              $354,000

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of
our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

H.B. Fuller Company is formulator, manufacturer and marketer of
adhesives, sealants and other specialty chemical products. The
Company's core product offering is Industrial adhesives which are
used in manufacturing common consumer and industrial goods,
including food and beverage containers, disposable diapers,
windows, doors, flooring, appliances, sportswear, footwear, multi-
wall bags, water filtration products, insulation, textiles and
electronics. The Company has a range of product offerings for
residential construction markets, such as tile-setting adhesives,
grout, sealants and related products. The Company operates in four
segments: Americas Adhesives, EIMEA (Europe, India, Middle East
and Africa), Asia Pacific and Construction Products. It has sales
operations in over 40 countries in North America, Europe, Latin
America, the Asia Pacific region, India, the Middle East and
Africa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vicar's Wife Dies from Fibro-related Disease
-------------------------------------------------------------
North Wales Pioneer reported that a vicar's wife detailed to a
solicitor her history as a lecturer in asbestos-cladded and rat-
infested temporary buildings before she died.  Her horrifying
account was read at an inquest in Llandudno on April 29.

Gwyneth Bonnet, aged 60, whose husband Tom is vicar of Caerhun,
near Conwy, died at her home in January after a battle against the
asbestos-related disease malignant mesothelioma.

In a statement to lawyers Mrs Bonnet recalled how when she
lectured in psychology at Coleg Menai, Llangefni, in the 1990s she
operated in mobile and prefabricated classrooms which were
dilapidated and whose walls and ceilings were infested with rats.

"We could hear the rats scampering in the ceiling," she recalled.

"When rat poison was laid the bodies would attract flies and there
would be damp patches showing through the ceiling where they had
died.

"I did not think all the time I was working that I would later get
sick."

In later years she travelled around several other colleges but she
remembered specialist contractors being called in about 2003 or
2004 to demolish the buildings at Pencraig.

The statement by Mrs Bonnet, mother-of-three and grandmother, was
read by coroner John Gittins.

Rev Tom Bonnet told the coroner that there had been a refusal by
the authorities to provide evidence of what the situation had
been.

Recording a conclusion that Mrs Bonnet died arising from an
industrial disease Mr Gittins said evidence provided by her
indicated that the exposure to asbestos would have occurred during
her time at Pencraig.

Giving the family his condolences the coroner remarked: "I can
only hope that medical science will make some progress by means of
which this can be overcome."

After the inquest Mr Bonnet said: "Men in 'spacesuits' were
brought in to remove the asbestos from buildings in which my wife
and students had been working.

"I would like the college to give us the evidence as to why it had
gone on.

"We were looking forward to our retirement."

A spokeswoman at Coleg Menai declined to comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resto Owner Fined GBP15,000 for Fibro Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Cardwell, writing for Bristol Post, reported that a
restaurant owner's husband has been fined GBP15,500 after
spreading asbestos across the site of an Indian takeaway.

Aman Ullah was overseeing refurbishment work at the Bombay Palace,
in Main Road, Cleeve, in June last year. The restaurant is owned
by his wife and is currently closed.

North Somerset Magistrates' Court heard that inspectors from the
Health and Safety Executive had visited at the time of the work
and were concerned Ullah and his work team had spread asbestos
across the site.  They believed this occurred when the team
removed insulation boards which had covered roof rafters, and
leaned them up outside the building.

The inspectors saw what looked like asbestos fibres sticking out
from the boards. Laboratory analysis later confirmed them to be
amosite and chrysotile asbestos.

The inspectors served Ullah with a notice preventing him from
touching the boards -- and requiring a licensed contractor to
remove them. But on their next visit, the inspectors found he had
removed the boards himself and incorrectly disposed of them at a
Bristol City Council recycling centre.  Ullah pleaded guilty to
contravening the health and safety notice which prohibited him
from moving the asbestos materials, as well as failing to limit
the spread of asbestos and failing to reduce exposure for other
workers and members of the public.

Nicola Hutchinson, defending, said: "He had naivety and a clear
lack of understanding in regard to that area of the law."

Presiding magistrate Jane Corke ordered Ullah to pay the court
GBP5,000 for each of the three offences, as well as a GBP500
victim surcharge.

Ullah, 52, of Oldbury Court Road, Fishponds, was not able to pay
the GBP15,500 fine, so Mrs Corke ordered him to return to court on
May 26 bringing bank records to clarify his financial position.

Exposure to the substance has been linked to several fatal
diseases including mesothelioma, a type of cancer which usually
starts in the covering of the lungs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Greenock Grandad Dies After 4 Weeks of Diagnosis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Lochrie, writing for Greenock Telegraph, reported that the
family of a man who died only four weeks after he was diagnosed
with asbestos-related cancer now hope to help other sufferers in
his memory.

Grandad Harry Watt from Greenock, England, went to see a doctor
suffering from chest pains and was rushed straight to hospital.

His shocked wife Mary and family, including his five children,
were left devastated when they were told that exposure to asbestos
had left him with a cancer that they were unable to treat.
Harry was told he only had weeks to live.

From his hospital bed he promised his heartbroken wife that he
would be there for their 56th wedding anniversary.  He was, and
then passed away just three days later.

A year on, his family organised an emotional charity night in
memory of the former shipyard worker.  The money they raised will
go to Clydeside Action on Asbestos to help other victims, plus
Macmillan Nurses and Ardgowan Hospice.

His wife Mary, 75, of Greenock, who also worked as a cleaner in
the shipyards, said: "We still miss him so much.

"We did everything together.

"We knew he was ill but he wouldn't go to a doctor.

"We didn't know he had asbestosis until he was diagnosed.

"He went straight to hospital and never came home."

Henry was a spray painter in the shipyards for much of his working
life.  Since his death Mary has also discovered that she has
pleural plaques -- scarring in the lungs caused by exposure to
asbestos.  Mary and her family are still struggling to come to
terms with Harry's sudden death.

Daughter Jackie, 53, said: "It still feels like someone put their
hand into my heart and ripped it out. We are in pieces. Dad was
the strong one, the one that we all went to.

"I have never felt grief like it.

"It is the worst thing that has ever happened to me. I didn't
think I would ever stop crying. It was so sudden.

"He always said he wanted to go before my mum because he couldn't
live without her, so I guess he got his wish.

"He made a promise to my mum. He said that he would make it to
their anniversary and he did."

Harry died in Inverclyde Royal because he was too ill to go to the
hospice.  His family organised a recent charity night in the Lady
Alice Bowling Club to celebrate his life and raise money for
charity.  They raised GBP2,000, which has been divided between the
Clydeside Action on Asbestos, Ardgowan Hospice and Macmillan.

Jackie added: "We wanted to find a way of remembering him.
"Everyone who knew him loved him."

On the night Paul McGlone, who is the partner of Harry's youngest
daughter Marie, also contributed to the fundraiser -- having his
chest waxed to raise cash for the hospice in memory of Harry and
his own mum, Muriel McGlone.

Paul would like to thank his workmates at Rosyth Dockyard for
their support.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Wins Jury Verdict in Fibro Case
--------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reported that a jury in the Northern
District of Illinois returned a verdict for defendants Owens-
Illinois, Inc. and ExxonMobil, rejecting plaintiff Charles Krik's
claim that his lung cancer developed as a result of a "synergistic
effect" between his alleged asbestos exposure and his cigarette
smoking. The jury found, as argued by the defendants, that the
sole proximate cause of plaintiff's lung cancer was cigarette
smoking. The jury's finding on sole proximate cause made it
unnecessary to reach the questions of whether the defendants were
negligent or whether Mr. Krik was contributorily negligent. It was
also unnecessary for the jury to reach Owens-Illinois's government
contractor and maritime defenses, in light of the defense verdict
on causation.

Mr. Krik, 77 years old, alleged he was exposed to asbestos while
he served below deck as a boilerman in the United States Navy from
1954 to 1970, and while he worked as a pipefitter at refineries in
Illinois and Indiana from 1970 to the 1990s.  Mr. Krik smoked a
pack and a half of cigarettes a day for 30 years (quitting in
1982) and had alleged significant asbestos exposure for decades.

Mr. Krik's lawyers called four expert witnesses and argued that a
"synergistic" reaction between asbestos and cigarette smoking
caused his lung cancer. The trial, which lasted just under two
weeks, was presided over by the Honorable Manish Shah. Owens-
Illinois was represented by Edward Casmere and Brian Watson of
Schiff Hardin LLP. ExxonMobil was represented by Patrick Morris
and David Fanning of Johnson & Bell and Jerry Blackwell of
Blackwell Burke. Mr. Krik was represented by Robert McCoy, Allen
Vaughn, and Daniel Hausman of Cascino Vaughn Law Offices.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Does Booming Business in Fibro Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Alan Scher Zagier, writing for Associated Press, reported that few
of the tourists who drive old Route 66 through the rural Illinois
town are aware of its true economic engine: a booming business in
asbestos lawsuits that attracts law firms from across the country.

Since 2005, those lawsuits have generated a $14 million surplus
for Edwardsville and solidified Madison County's place at the
center of a long-running national debate over personal-injury
claims.

A decade after former President George W. Bush came here to tout
class-action lawsuit limits, the number of asbestos suits has
reached record levels, with caseloads that surpass specialized
courts in far larger cities such as New York, Chicago and
Baltimore.

Lawsuits have also proliferated in smaller industrial communities
such as Beaumont, Texas, and Charleston, West Virginia, but
Edwardsville is the smallest and perhaps most unlikely of the
bunch, with just 24,000 residents. The city 30 miles north of St.
Louis, Missouri, is better known for its historic downtown and the
scenic drive along the nearby Mississippi River.

From 2012 through 2014, an average of 1,500 lawsuits claiming
injury or death from asbestos were filed in Madison County -- a
nearly threefold increase from just five years earlier. By
comparison, a Philadelphia court that specializes in personal-
injury complaints involving birth-control devices, denture creams
and other consumer products averaged a little more than 300
asbestos lawsuits over the same time period -- in a city nearly 65
times larger than Edwardsville.

Madison County has the highest rate of lawsuits filed in Illinois,
8.2 per thousand residents in 2013, according to a report by the
Illinois Civil Justice League. That's twice as many as filed in
Cook County, home to Chicago.

The group Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch have rallied at the state
Capitol to highlight concerns about the legal system, including
the asbestos courts. They would find a sympathetic ear in
Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, who is pushing legislation to make
it more difficult for plaintiffs to "venue shop," saying people
should only file lawsuits in the county where a company has an
office.

Currently, asbestos plaintiffs don't have to live in the
jurisdiction where the suit is filed -- or even in the state. They
just have to show that the corporation being sued did business in
heavily industrial communities that surround Edwardsville and line
the Mississippi.

Plaintiff's lawyers from across the country were drawn to
Edwardsville by its reputation as a favorable venue for clients
sickened by the cancer-causing mineral after a succession of
multimillion-dollar jury verdicts in the last couple of decades.
Critics also point to the historically cozy relationship between
elected judges and law firms that helped fund their campaigns, as
well as lingering sympathies from the city's roots as a union
hotbed early in the 20th century.

Defense lawyers representing U.S. Steel, Georgia Pacific and other
large corporations quickly followed.

"The law firms in this area are huge economic engines," restaurant
owner Sam Guarino said. "And they're very engaged in the
community."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nelson Pleads Guilty in 2011 Fibro Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Record-Bee Community News reported that a manager of Hoberg's
Resort and Spa recently pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge
related to potentially exposing his employees to asbestos during
the widely-publicized renovation of the historical site.

On April 6 Daniel E. Nelson issued his plea to misdemeanor
violation of California Labor Code section 6423.

The Lake County District Attorney's office alleged in a criminal
complaint that Nelson repeatedly violated the Cal/OSHA asbestos
workplace-safety regulations for structure demolitions, which the
DA's office claims caused a real and apparent hazard to employees
by means of potential exposure to asbestos.

The terms of Nelson's plea include three years' probation, which
require him to serve 60 days in the county jail, 340 hours of
community service, pay a $5,000 fine and pay a non-deductible sum
of $20,000 to the Lakeside Health Clinic of Lake County, a
comprehensive care clinic for the uninsured and underinsured. The
latter sum will be used for health screenings for potential
victims in the case as well as to fill various urgent financial
needs at the clinic that would allow it to further and better
serve low-income residents of Lake County.

Nelson was the acting manager of Lake County Resorts, LLC, then
owners of Hoberg's Resort and Spa. In September of 2011, the Lake
County Air Quality Management District (LCAQMD) received an
incomplete asbestos notification form for renovation of one of the
buildings at the resort. An asbestos inspection was performed on
Sept. 6, 2011, which found asbestos present in all samples, but
LCAQMD never received a complete asbestos notification form.

Subsequent to demolition and renovation by employees hired by
Nelson, LCAQM staff observed large debris piles on the Hoberg's
property in August of 2012. A Notice of Violation was immediately
issued to Hoberg's citing the failure to inspect for asbestos,
failure to notify and for renovating without notice. The case was
investigated by LCAQM Air Pollution Control Officer Doug Gearhart
and by Lake County District Attorney's Office Investigator John
Flynn.

Other charges filed by the Lake County District Attorney included
failure to secure workers' compensation insurance, a violation of
section 3700.5 of the California Labor Code, and violations of
section 42400 of the California Health and Safety Code concerning
asbestos emissions control measures. These counts were dismissed
with a "Harvey Waiver," entitling Nelson's victims to restitution.

Nelson was previously sentenced in Santa Clara County on one
felony count of workers' compensation insurance premium fraud on
June 9, 2011. Last year he opened parts of the resort for a
successful summer concert run. He donated funds to a Middletown
High School organization and other local groups. Building at the
location ended in the fall.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TransRe Must Face Berkshire Fibro Liability Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reported that a Massachusetts
appellate court largely reversed a lower court decision freeing
Transatlantic Reinsurance Co. and parent Alleghany Corp. from a
lawsuit by two Berkshire Hathaway Inc. companies alleging they
used deceptive practices to rid themselves of asbestos
liabilities.

An appellate panel concluded that plaintiffs National Indemnity
Co. and Resolute Management Inc. may be able to maintain a claim
that TransRe and Alleghany engaged in unfair and deceptive acts,
and further found that NICO's three claims for tortious
interference with contractual relations can't be dismissed at this
stage of the litigation. Additional discovery is required to
determine the viability of all those claims, according to the
panel.

However, the panel said the trial court had correctly dismissed
Resolute's tortious interference claims because the claims
adjuster wasn't a party to the contracts at issue.

NICO and Resolute filed suit in April 2013, accusing TransRe of
unjustifiably withholding amounts it owed under reinsurance
contacts with insurers that the plaintiffs represented.

According to the plaintiffs, TransRe and Alleghany interfered with
their ability to meet their contractual duties to the insurers,
which hired NICO and Resolute to resolve their asbestos injury
claims and to recover amounts owed under reinsurance contracts.

At the trial court level, Judge Thomas Billings applied New York
law and dismissed NICO's three tortious interference claims,
noting that there was no allegation that the defendants'
interference had caused NICO to breach any of the three contracts,
which is a legal requirement in New York. Meanwhile, Judge
Billings held that Resolute's tortious interference claims fail
because it had no contractual relationships with the insurers.

The trial court judge held that NICO and Resolute's claim of
unfair and deceptive acts can't survive because the alleged acts
didn't primarily occur in Massachusetts.

In an opinion, the appellate panel said the complaint's
allegations alone aren't sufficient to determine whether New York
or Massachusetts law should be applied to NICO's tortious
interference claims. The suit doesn't state where the relevant
administrative service agreements were entered into, nor does it
describe in detail the claims that NICO sought to resolve,
including how many of those claims had a "substantial connection"
to Massachusetts, the panel said.

"[T]hough it appears that many of the parties (if not their
activities relevant to the complaint) are headquartered outside
the Commonwealth, it is impossible for us to conclude as a matter
of law on the basis of the complaint alone that New York (or any
particular state, for that matter) has the most significant
contacts with, and greatest interest in, the plaintiffs' claims of
tortious interference with the [administrative service
agreements]," Judge Mark V. Green wrote for the panel.

Moreover, the panel said it was hard to understand how the trial
court could find, looking solely to the allegations in the
complaint, that the conduct forming the basis for the plaintiffs'
claim of unfair and deceptive acts wasn't centered in
Massachusetts.

"In light of the multiple factors to be applied, and the nuanced
and flexible approach to assessing them . . . we find it difficult
to imagine how such an assessment might be made on the basis of
the allegations of the complaint alone -- at least where, as in
the present case, the loss occurred in Massachusetts, and
substantial numbers of the claims upon which the bills Resolute
submitted to Transatlantic were based related either to
Massachusetts insurers or claimants," Judge Green wrote.

Resolute and NICO claimed that TransRe had resorted to the
allegedly unfair tactics because their "efficient resolution" of
asbestos injury claims and "prompt collection" of reinsurance
payments had threatened TransRe's business model. They alleged
that TransRe held hostage the amounts that it owed under
reinsurance contracts with NICO's clients to pressure NICO into
relieving the reinsurer of its asbestos obligations for "below-
market" and "irrational" rates.

According to the suit, TransRe unjustifiably prolonged the
reinsurance collection process and acted in bad faith in mid-2012
and in 2013, after Alleghany acquired TransRe.

Attorneys for the parties did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.

Judges Mark V. Green, Gabrielle Wolohojian and Amy L. Blake sat on
the appellate panel.

TransRe and Alleghany are represented by John N. Thomas, Daniel E.
Vinish, Stuart C. Levene and David A. Beke of Crowell & Moring
LLP, by Ben Clements of Clements & Pineault LLP and by Arnold E.
Cohen.

Resolute and NICO are represented by Bryce L. Friedman and Andrew
S. Amer of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and by Kevin J. O'Connor
and Jennifer Louise Noe of Hermes Netburn O'Connor & Spearing.

The case is Resolute Management Inc. et al. v. Transatlantic
Reinsurance Co. et al., case number 14-P-573, in the Massachusetts
Appeals Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Says Affidavit Not Needed for Suit Exit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Fischler, writing for Law360, reported that Huntington
Ingalls Industries Inc. objected to a Delaware federal magistrate
judge's roadblock to the company's effort to duck an asbestos
suit, saying the court could grant its dismissal bid even without
considering an affidavit the judge found to be critical to the
dismissal argument.

HI Industries had sought to use executive Douglass Fontaine's
testimony mainly to show the company did not exist until 2010,
nearly 30 years after plaintiff Charles Malone, a former U.S. Navy
shipyard worker, said he was on the premises of a subsidiary,
Ingalls Shipbuilding, the company's Tuesday brief said. Proof the
company didn't exist until 2010 did not depend on Fontaine's
affidavit, HI Industries said, because, like all corporate
filings, it is in the public record.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon had concluded the reason
for Fontaine's affidavit was "to avoid liability as a parent
company for the actions of its subsidiary" and sought to convert
the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, the
defense contractor said. "However, plaintiffs do not allege in
their complaint (nor do they contend in their opposition) that HI
Industries should incur liability as a parent company for the
actions of its subsidiary, so there is no such claim for HI
Industries to avoid."

Because HI Industries didn't exist at the time Malone says he was
subjected to asbestos at Ingalls Shipbuilding, the complaint
against the parent company should be dismissed for failing to
state a claim, HI Industries concluded in the brief.

Malone and his wife, Elizabeth Malone, launched suit in April 2014
against more than 35 contractors alleging that Charles Malone had
developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos while
employed as a ship-fitter, insulator and superintendent at the
Ingalls Shipyard from 1964 to 1982. The Malones asserted claims
for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy
and loss of consortium, and sought punitive damages.

Malone was diagnosed with asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma
in February 2014.

A number of other defendant contractors, including Caterpillar
Inc., CBS Corp. and Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., also filed
motions earlier in April to duck out of the suit.

Co-defendant Imo Industries Inc. asked the court April 9 to boot
it from the suit, saying there was no evidence it was responsible
for the Malone's alleged asbestos exposure and resulting
mesothelioma.

Imo Industries, which manufactured and supplied turbines for ships
at the Ingalls Shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi, maintained
Malone had no evidence he worked with or around any asbestos-
containing products manufactured or supplied by Imo during his 18
years working at the shipyard, according to Imo's brief backing
its motion for summary judgment.

Representatives for HI Industries and the Malones did not return
calls seeking comment.

The Malones are represented by Charles E. Soechting Jr. of Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC, and Michael L. Sensor of Perry &
Sensor.

HI Industries is represented by Beth E. Valocchi and Allison L.
Texter of Swartz Campbell LLC, and Richard A. Oetheimer, Frederick
R. McGowen and Shauneen Garrahan Werlinger of Goodwin Procter LLP.

The case is Charles D. Malone and Elizabeth Malone v. Air & Liquid
Systems Corp. et al., case number 1:14-cv-00406, in U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feds Offer Exit Plan for Libby Fibro Cleanup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Brown, writing for Associated Press, reported that a long-
delayed U.S. government cleanup plan for a Montana community where
asbestos contamination has sickened thousands would leave the
deadly material in the walls of houses, underground and elsewhere
-- stirring worries among residents and state officials about
future exposures.

The proposal, for the neighboring mining towns of Libby and Troy,
calls for asbestos-containing vermiculite to be left in place
where the Environmental Protection Agency says it presents minimal
risk and can be safely managed.  But some Libby residents said the
asbestos inevitably will escape during future excavation work,
home renovations and accidents such as fires.

It's been more than 15 years since media reports revealed
widespread illness caused by asbestos dust from a W.R. Grace and
Co. vermiculite mine outside Libby, about 50 miles south of the
Canada border. Health workers have estimated as many as 400 people
have died and almost 3,000 have been sickened from exposure to the
contamination.

"We've left a lot of this behind in these houses, and you always
have the potential of people opening up that wall and running into
it," said Mike Noble, who worked for 21 years for Grace in Libby
as an electrician and suffers from a lung disease caused by
asbestos. "The EPA is unwilling to address that because the EPA is
saying it's safe as long as nobody touches it."

State regulators aired similar concerns in an April 2 letter to
the EPA obtained by The Associated Press.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Division Administrator
Jenny Chambers said it was unclear how the remaining contamination
would be monitored or what would happen when "currently
inaccessible waste becomes accessible."

Vermiculite from the Grace mine was used as insulation in millions
of houses across the U.S. In the Libby area, asbestos-tainted mine
waste unwittingly was used as a garden-soil additive by residents
and as fill for the local construction industry.

The government so far has spent $540 million removing more than a
million cubic yards of dirt and contaminated building materials
from more than 2,000 properties in Libby and Troy.  Just how much
remains is uncertain: Agency officials have never fully documented
how many homes and businesses were left with vermiculite in their
walls after cleanup work was completed.

EPA officials say the towns' health risks have decreased
considerably, with airborne asbestos concentrations now comparable
to levels in other cities.  For that progress to last, enough
money must be available in future years for local officials to
provide the proper assistance to homeowners, contractors and
others who might encounter vermiculite, said Noble, chairman of an
EPA advisory group in Libby.  An EPA research panel concluded last
year that breathing in even a tiny amount of asbestos from Libby
can scar lungs and cause other health problems.

The agency's proposal includes a number of "institutional
controls" to manage the remaining asbestos. They include zoning
restrictions that outline which activities are allowed on
contaminated property; permit requirements for the disturbance of
contaminated soil or building materials; and advisories for
firefighters and others who might inadvertently encounter asbestos
on the job.

If the proposal moves forward following a two-month public comment
period, the EPA could wrap most of its Libby work by the end of
the decade, officials said.  For now, the Libby area remains in
the EPA's Superfund program.

Eventually the community likely will lose that status -- and much
of the federal funding that goes with it. At that point, oversight
for the institutional controls will become the responsibility of
local agencies and the state Department of Environmental Quality.

"We know they are going to work only if we can get the community
to buy in," the department's Jeni Garcin-Flatow said.


FLINTKOTE COMPANY: $1.7-Mil. Settlement With Travelers Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Flintkote Company and Flintkote Mines Limited sought and
obtained from Judge Mary F. Walrath of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware approval for a settlement agreement,
policy buyback and mutual release with Travelers Casualty and
Surety Company.

Laura Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones LLP,
in Wilmington, Delaware, says the settlement agreement contains
the following terms and conditions, among others:

   (1) Travelers will pay to Flintkote the Settlement Amount of
$1,700,000 immediately after the Approval Order becomes a Final
Order.

   (2) Traveler's timely payment of the Settlement Amount and the
Debtors' receipt of the Settlement Amount will constitute a
purchase by the Travelers Releasees from the Debtors, free and
clear of any and all encumbrances pursuant to Sections 363(b)(1)
and (f) of the Bankruptcy Code, of (i) all of the Debtor's rights,
title, and interest in and to the Wellington Policies and the
Unknown Policies, (ii) any and all claims of the Debtors with
respect to the Wellington Policies and the Unknown Policies,
including without limitation, all claims for extra-contractual
liability or tort liability (except, with respect to the Unknown
Policies, that portion of any policy which provides coverage for
statutory workers' compensation), and (iii) all of the Debtors'
rights, title, and interest in and to all rights with respect to
Asbestos Claims arising from or related to the Affiliate Policies,
including but not limited to all claims for extra-contractual
liability or tort liability with respect to such rights.

   (3) Mutual releases by the Debtors and the Travelers Releasees
of (i) Claims (including Asbestos Claims) arising out of or
related to the Wellington Policies and the Unknown Policies, and
(ii) Claims arising out of or related to Asbestos Claims arising
under or related to the Affiliate Policies (in both cases subject
to carve-outs for violations of criminal law. Upon the Approval
Order and the Confirmation Order becoming a Final Order, and
subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, all past,
present and future obligations of the Travelers Releasees to the
Debtors shall be fully and completely satisfied.

Judge Walrath approved the settlement after no objections were
made on the Motion.

The Debtors are represented by:

          Kevin T. Lantry, Esq.
          Jeffrey E. Bjork, Esq.
          Anna Gumport, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA, 90013
          Telephone: (213)896.6000
          Facsimile: (213)896.6600
          Email: klantry@sidley.com
                 jbjork@sidley.com
                 agumport@sidley.com

             -- and --

          Laura Davis Jones, Esq.
          James E. O'Neill, Esq.
          PACHULSKI, STANG, ZIEHL & JONES LLO
          919 North Market Street, 17th Floor
          P.O. Box 8705
          Wilmington, DE 19899-8705
          Telephone: (302)652-4100
          Facsimile: (302)652-4400
          Email: ljones@pszjlaw.com
                 joneill@pszjlaw.com

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, The Flintkote
Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing
anddistributing building materials. Flintkote Mines Limited is
asubsidiary of Flintkote Company and is engaged in the mining
ofbase-precious metals.  The Flintkote Company filed for Chapter
11protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 04-11300) on April 30,
2004.Flintkote Mines Limited filed for Chapter 11 relief (Bankr.
D.Del. Case No. 04-12440) on Aug. 25, 2004.

The Debtors' Chapter 11 cases have been re-assigned to Judge Mary
F. Walrath in line with the retirement of former Bankruptcy Judge
Judith Fitzgerald.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Wins $13-Mil. in Suit v. Colgate-Palmolive
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that a California
woman won a $13 million lawsuit against Colgate-Palmolive after a
jury determined she developed mesothelioma from asbestos in the
company's Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder.

Judith Winkel, 73, told the court she used the popular scented
talcum powder from 1961 to 1976. It wasn't until 1973 that
federals laws required commercial talcum products to be asbestos-
free.

Although researchers have debated the connection between talc and
cancer for years, the verdict was the first against Colgate-
Palmolive for asbestos exposure from commercial talcum powder.

Talc, one of the world's softest minerals, has been mined from
deposits interwoven with asbestos fibers. Asbestos causes
mesothelioma, an often terminal cancer.

Officials for Colgate-Palmolive, which sold the Cashmere Bouquet
brand in 1995, rejected the Los Angeles jury's verdict, saying the
company's talcum powder was not responsible for Winkel's cancer.

"Cashmere Bouquet did not harm Mrs. Winkel. There was a clear
absence of proof connecting any disease to our product," Colgate-
Palmolive attorney Faith Gay argued during the case, according to
FairWarning.Org.

Asbestos Is Still Used in Many Products

Talc still is used widely today in many products, including
pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. It is coveted for its ability to
improve textural feel and to absorb moisture.  It also is used in
chalk, rubber and ceramics. Manufacturers consistently report
their talc is free of asbestos or at least below detection limits.

The connection between talc and asbestos involves the close
proximity of the two minerals on the earth's surface. Tremolite,
which is one type of asbestos, is often found in large amounts of
other minerals, particularly vermiculite and talc.  Talc miners
and millers are at a much higher risk for developing lung cancer,
mesothelioma and other respiratory conditions.

Microscopic asbestos fibers can be inhaled or ingested unknowingly
and sit dormant for decades before causing any health programs.
The latency period for mesothelioma can range from 10-50 years.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) completed an extensive
testing of cosmetics and talc products five years ago and found no
asbestos fibers. Yet the results were labeled by the FDA as
"informative" and were not conclusive. It stopped short of saying
that no asbestos-contaminated talc was being sold by retailers in
the U.S.

Asbestos Lawsuits Against Talc Suppliers

Talc suppliers in the past have paid damages or agreed to
settlements for asbestos-related illnesses in association with
their industrial-grade talc. Those damages often went to factory
workers who made or used the talc products in an industrial
setting.

In 2013, a jury found talc supplier Whittaker, Clark & Daniels
responsible for a New Jersey woman's mesothelioma. Court records
show the factory clothes her father brought home were covered in
asbestos-laced talc. The jury awarded her $2 million.

Winkel and her husband, John Winkel, both of Santa Barbara,
California, will receive $12.4 million from Colgate-Palmolive,
which was deemed 95 percent responsible for her diagnosis. Four
other companies that might have exposed her to asbestos are
responsible for the other five percent.

The couple, in a separate out-of-court settlement that followed,
also received undisclosed punitive damages.

Colgate-Palmolive, according to court testimony, was receiving
talc supplies until 1985 from three different mines contaminated
with asbestos.

Although the trial lasted two weeks, it took the jury only two
hours of deliberation before making a determination.

"We believe that the facts and evidence presented at trial showed
that Cashmere Bouquet played no part in causing the plaintiff's
illness," a company statement shows.

Judy Winkel was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2014. She is under
the care of renowned thoracic surgeon Dr. Robert Cameron, director
of the UCLA Comprehensive Mesothelioma Program.

Asbestos in Talc Also Tied to Ovarian Cancer

Studies have shown a possible link between ovarian cancer and the
feminine hygiene use of talc powders contaminated by asbestos.
There are hundreds of cases pending against talc suppliers.

Researchers say exposure to asbestos increases the likelihood of
developing ovarian malignancies.

Toxic asbestos fibers can collect in the ovaries of women exposed
to the deadly mineral. Some researchers suspect the use of talcum
powder on the genitals could have led to those diagnoses.

There is evidence that shows women diagnosed with ovarian cancer
from asbestos exposure often had fathers, brothers or husbands who
worked with the mineral in a mine or factory.

Winkel's case is a reminder that the toxicity of asbestos reaches
far beyond insulation and construction materials where it was most
popularly used in the 20th century.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Tunnels Probed After Woman's Diagnosis
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie White, writing for The Herts Advertiser, reported that
Sandra Schaverien, 75, of Radlett, England, is "shell-shocked"
after being told she has developed an asbestos-related cancer.
She is suffering from mesothelioma, a cancer in the lining of the
lungs caused by exposure to the deadly dust.

Sandra worked at Harrods between 1991 and 2001, and believes she
may have been exposed to asbestos dust in underground tunnels
below the upmarket department store on Brompton Road in
Knightsbridge.  The mother-of-three used to walk through them to
access the store and collect merchandise.

Sandra explained: "I started suffering from chest pains and was
struggling to breathe. When I was diagnosed with mesothelioma I
was devastated and remain shell-shocked to this day.

"My husband had Parkinson's disease for 10 years and both its
severity and the deterioration in my own health meant he had to go
into a nursing home. I visited him every day until he passed away,
but I felt unable to share my diagnosis because I wanted to spare
him unnecessary anxiety."

She has recently approached law firm Irwin Mitchell, which is
trying to establish how Sandra came into contact with asbestos.

Although the firm cannot say as yet whether it will result in
legal action being brought against Harrods, it has issued a press
release appealing to Sandra's former colleagues to get in touch.

Helen England, asbestos lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, said: "Sandra
has been devastated by her terminal diagnosis. She can recall the
underground tunnels that she used to regularly walk through as
being very dusty.

"We would like to hear from anyone who worked at Harrods between
1991 and 2001 as they may have vital information that could help
provide answers."

Sharon added: "I hope my former colleagues get in touch as any
information about the potential presence of asbestos and working
conditions, no matter how small, could help.

"Nothing can turn back the clock but knowing that my family will
have financial security in the future will give me peace of mind,
and allow me to make the most of the time I have left."

A Harrods spokesman said: "We are very sorry to hear of the ill
health of a former employee. Harrods has not received any request
for an investigation into this matter, therefore we are unable to
provide any further comment or information.

"Employee wellbeing is our priority and we would take any claim
extremely seriously."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Sets Aside $11M Verdict in PI Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Young, writing for JD Supra, reported that Justice
Barbara Jaffe of the Supreme Court, New York County, issued a
decision and order granting the motion by Ford Motor Company to
set aside the verdict of $11 million in Juni v. A.O. Smith Water
Products Co., an asbestos case. The jury awarded the plaintiff $8
million for pain and suffering and $3 million for loss of
consortium. The jury apportioned 49 percent of the liability to
Ford and found that Ford acted recklessly, thus making Ford
jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of the verdict.

Justice Jaffe determined that the evidence was legally
insufficient to establish that Mr. Juni's exposure to asbestos
from brakes, clutches or gaskets sold or distributed by Ford
constituted a significant contributing factor in causing his
mesothelioma. As a result, she found that there was no valid line
of reasoning or permissible inference that could have led the jury
to reach its result.

In a lengthy and well-reasoned decision, Justice Jaffe determined
that the Court of Appeals decisions in Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.,
7 N.Y.3d 434 (2006), and Cornell v. 360 W. 51st St. Realty, LLC,
22 N.Y.3d 762 (2014), which addressed the sufficiency of evidence
of causation in toxic tort cases, are the controlling precedents
in determining whether the opinions of the plaintiff's experts
were sufficient to prove causation as a matter of law in all toxic
tort cases, including asbestos cases. An expert opinion on
causation must set forth a plaintiff's exposure to a toxin and
must establish general causation by demonstrating that the toxin
is capable of causing the particular illness and specific
causation by demonstrating that the plaintiff was exposed to
sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the illness. Although an
expert does not always have to quantify exposure levels precisely
or use the dose-response relationship, the methods the expert uses
to establish causation must be generally accepted in the
scientific community.

Applying the Parker standard, Justice Jaffe found that the
plaintiff offered insufficient evidence of general causation
because Steven Markowitz, one of the plaintiff's experts, failed
to establish a causal connection between exposure to friction
products and mesothelioma. She found that the plaintiff failed to
prove specific causation because Jacqueline Moline, the
plaintiff's other expert, failed to provide a scientific dose
expression of Mr. Juni's exposure to asbestos from brakes,
clutches or gaskets sold or distributed by Ford.

With respect to visible asbestos dust, Justice Jaffe determined
that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to prove that the
dust to which Mr. Juni was exposed contained any asbestos or
enough asbestos to cause his mesothelioma. Finally, Justice Jaffe
determined that the "opinion that every single exposure
constitutes a significant contributing factor because the
exposures cumulatively cause the disease is irreconcilable with
the well-recognized scientific requirement, acknowledged by
Moline, that the amount, duration and frequency of exposure be
considered in assessing the sufficiency of an exposure in
increasing the risk of developing a disease." Therefore, some
quantification of exposure is necessary for a plaintiff to prove
causation.

This decision, which is the first ruling in the New York City
asbestos litigation (NYCAL) applying Parker, imposes the burden of
proof on plaintiffs to quantify their exposures to asbestos.
Attention will now be focused on other asbestos trial judges, and
ultimately on the appellate courts, to see whether the standard of
admissibility for expert evidence of causation in NYCAL will
conform with the case law in numerous other jurisdictions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Pa. Fire Department Bldg.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Ondrusek, writing for Pocono Record, reported that work has
begun on getting rid of asbestos in the Stroudsburg Borough Fire
Hall, in Pennsylvania, according to borough officials.

Borough Manager Cathryn Thomas said testing was done on Feb. 3 and
the borough received the results of the report on Feb. 13, that
tested positive for asbestos.

"In an old building, it is not surprising to find areas with
asbestos," Thomas said.

At a borough council meeting in May, council was supposed to vote
on paying $7,788 for the removal to be performed by Sargent
Enterprises. The matter has been tabled until the contractor can
explain certain costs in the contract.

In March, council approved the bids for the $1.2 million
renovation project which reinforce the floor of the fire
department so newer equipment can be store there. The work was
expected to start the middle of April.

A second phase of the project could renovate the borough offices,
but nothing has been decided on.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Kirksville Schools
--------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Hoak, writing for Heartland Connection, reported that
asbestos has been found in two buildings on the campus of the
Kirksville schools. One location is on the ceiling tiles of an art
room at the high school.  The asbestos was discovered as
renovations were underway in the classroom.

Superintendent Dr. Damon Kizzire told KTVO the asbestos will soon
be removed.  He adds that the discovery of asbestos led to a
closer inspection of all school buildings. Other improvement
projects are planned for the district throughout the summer
months. Some of those improvements include replacing doors and
windows at the Kirksville Area Technical Center.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: York Company Faces $490K Fine for Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Myles Snyder, writing for abc27.com, reported that a company from
York, Pennsylvania, is facing a $490,000 penalty for exposing its
workers to asbestos.  First Capital Insulation Inc. failed to
properly protect three workers who were removing thermal pipe
insulation from an unoccupied residence in Harrisburg, the U.S.
Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration
said.   OSHA requires employers to treat thermal system insulation
and surfacing material found in buildings built before and in 1980
as asbestos unless they can prove it is asbestos-free.

The Harrisburg house was built in 1928, but OSHA inspectors said
First Capital made no attempt to test the removed materials.  The
company was cited for seven willful violations.  OSHA inspectors
said the company not only allowed workers to remove asbestos
improperly, but failed to make sure their respirators fit
correctly and did not decontaminate employees and their clothing
before they left the work site.

Asbestos exposure has been linked to chronic lung disease and
cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Englewood Apartments
----------------------------------------------------
Lance Hernandez, writing for 7News Denver, reported that dozens of
tenants have been forced from their apartments at a complex in
Englewood, Colorado, because of asbestos contamination.

Work crews unknowingly loosened the dangerous fibers when they
began replacing windows at the Carmel Park Apartments several
weeks ago.

State health officials say the asbestos was in a texture compound
on existing drywall, and that some of the drywall had been cut
away to remove the old windows and install the new.  They say just
a small amount of material was loosened in the affected
apartments.

The contamination wasn't discovered until a repairman, who knew
there was asbestos in the popcorn ceiling, told the window
installers there "might" be asbestos in the drywall texture.

"They tested it and found asbestos," said Christopher Dann of the
Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment.

Apartment management then sent a note to affected tenants asking
them to move out temporarily while licensed crews clean up the
contamination.

Several residents told 7NEWS that after the windows were replaced,
they swept up the dust and debris themselves, not knowing it was
contaminated.

"There was dust everywhere," said Chris Davies-Gill. "It took me
three hours to clean it up."

Davies-Gill told 7NEWS the note from management was a big
surprise.

"I was like, 'you've got to be kidding me,'" she said.

The concerned tenant said she then looked up asbestos
contamination online.

"The first thing it says is, 'don't vacuum it up,'" she said. "So,
I'm like 'great,' cause that's exactly what I did."

"I'm frustrated because I can't get any answers," said David
Copeland, another tenant. "Management won't answer anything. I
went to the City of Englewood to ask about permits and told them
there was asbestos everywhere.  As soon as I mentioned that they
said we can't talk to you anymore."

Kate Roth, the mother of a 4-month-old boy, told 7NEWS she was so
concerned about her baby's health that she called the Poison
Control Center.

"They told me they can't treat asbestos unless your have
symptoms," she said. "None of us has any symptoms but I made a
doctor's appointment for my son anyway."

7NEWS asked state health officials about the risk to those
residents.

Mike Van Dyke, the branch chief for Environmental Epidemiology and
Occupational Health, said, "We typically don't see lung disease
from short term exposure lasting days or weeks. That's not to say
it doesn't exist. Lung problems take a long time to manifest -- 20
to 30 years."

Van Dyke said the big concern would be for "cumulative exposure
over a long period of time."  He said there is typically a low
concentration of asbestos in texture products.  When asked what
residents should do, he said, "Going to a doctor right now is
typically not helpful.  If you go, tell your doctor you believe
you have been exposed and be sure to continue to mention it during
succeeding visits."

Asbestos abatement crews are now cleaning up contaminated
apartments in buildings 140, 150, 160, 170 and 5051.  Tenants say
they were given $250 to help with expenses and that management has
paid for a week's worth of lodging.

"The locks have been changed," Davies-Gill said.

When asked about the extent of the contamination, Dann replied,
"Contractors are assessing each unit. We're talking about a very
small amount of material that was disturbed in each unit -- the
area around the windows."

7NEWS also asked if tenants will have to throw out any of their
belongings.

Dann said, "The units will not be released back to the residents
unless they've (including contents) been deemed free of
contamination."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Take Home" Fibro Victim Awarded $3.5-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A King County Superior Court jury awarded the estate of Barbara
Brandes, wife of a Puget Sound area refinery worker, $3.5 million
after concluding that the asbestos her husband carried home on his
clothing was the cause of the 80 year-old woman's fatal lung
condition that lead to her death in April.

The unanimous jury found that Brand Insulations Inc. was
responsible for Brandes' malignant pleural mesothelioma, a rare
and aggressive form of cancer that destroys the lining of the
lungs and is most commonly caused by regular contact with
asbestos. Mesothelioma can develop up to 50 years after having
contact with asbestos.

Brandes attended many of the court proceedings, wheelchair-bound
by her advanced mesothelioma, but ultimately succumbed to the
disease Sunday, the day before closing arguments of her case. Her
husband, who suffered from asbestosis -- a non-malignant asbestos-
caused condition -- had died earlier this year.

The jury's award is the largest in Washington state history of
cases involving "take home" asbestos contamination, where a worker
inadvertently contaminates others through clothing or other
material.

Brandes was a Tacoma homemaker and a licensed practical nurse for
most of her married life, and routinely laundered her husband
Raymond Brandes clothes, who worked at the ARCO Cherry Point
refinery in Ferndale, Washington, where he was in regular contact
with asbestos insulation, which often covered his clothes.

"Neither Raymond nor anyone else working with asbestos thought for
a moment that they would be putting anyone at risk by simply
coming home from work, dusty and dirty from a hard day's labor,"
said Matthew Bergman, founding partner of Bergman Draper Ladenburg
Hart, and Brandes' attorney. "While men like Raymond would
certainly accept some personal risk when working in inherently
dangerous industrial settings like refineries, they would have
never knowingly put their families at risk, as they did."

"The court ruled in a strong, unified voice that Brands
Insulation's actions were wrong, and it should be held accountable
for the actions that led to Barbara's death." Bergman added.

Raymond Brandes' duties at the refinery included maintenance of
thermal asbestos pipe insulation with products sold by Brand
Insulations. The suit claims the company was negligent in failing
to warn workers like Raymond Brandes of the hazards of asbestos,
among other charges.

The suit was filed in August 2014, and named seven defendants, all
of which except Brand Insulation settled with the plaintiffs prior
to trial.

"My mother was so passionate about this. Every day she valiantly
fought this case and her illness for the justice she and my father
deserved," said Brandes' daughter, Ramona Brandes, a King County
senior public defender. "She would have loved to see the jury
return with this unanimous verdict."

Under the law, civil cases such as this need 10 jurors to find for
the plaintiffs.

According to Bergman, Brandes' case is an example of a growing
population of second-hand victims of asbestos-related illnesses.

"We've seen tragic examples of workers' wives contracting
mesothelioma and other conditions through contact with clothing as
we did with Barbara," Bergman added. "What is more troubling is
that we are now seeing the corollary with the children of these
workers -- people in their 30s and 40s are increasingly afflicted
with this fatal condition."

Bergman noted that population statistics show that the numbers of
those affected and diagnosed with conditions caused by parents
unknowingly causing asbestos contamination will grow over the
coming years.

"The scourge of asbestos is long-lived and viciously efficient in
striking people down, even 50 years later," Bergman added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Railway Worker Exposed to Toxic Dust
------------------------------------------------------------
Derby Telegraph reported that a former railway worker would walk
home from his job in overalls covered in asbestos that would then
washed in the family twin-tub machine, an inquest has been told.
In a letter drafted by the children of John Wilson, they told how
their father's work clothes would be "washed with the family's"
after he returned home from his job at Carriage and Wagon, in
Derby.  The hearing heard that Mr Wilson was an electrician who
would wire the carriages after they had been sprayed with asbestos
insulation.

Louise Pinder, deputy coroner for Derby and Derbyshire, was told
how Mr Wilson was taken to the Royal Derby Hospital with an
infection on March 4 but died the same day. He was aged 86.  A
post-mortem examination, asked for by his family, found he had
both lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma, both of which were
given as his cause of death, along with the infection.

Dr David Green, who carried out the examination, said asbestos
fibres were found which were of such a density that they passed
the test for being a contributing factor to the cause of death.

Mr Wilson's daughter Lynn Winskill told the coroner's court: "I
remember the dust on his overalls.

"In those days, we had a twin-tub washer. Everything was swishing
around inside. The asbestos-covered clothes were washed with the
rest of the family's clothes."

In their letter, Mr Wilson's son, also called John, and Mrs
Winskill said their father worked for Carriage and Wagon from 1957
to 1988.

Mr Wilson said: "This was in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.

"We did not know exactly what he did because we were kids but we
know he would be doing the same job every day, wiring the
carriages and then, when that was done, moving on to the next one.

"I believe the asbestos was sprayed on the carriages for
insulation and he would be wiring into it."

When asked by Miss Pinder if their father ever told them whether
he was provided with safety equipment, Mr Wilson replied: "I don't
think so."  Miss Pinder said that on the balance of probabilities
Mr Wilson, of St Werburgh's View, Spondon, died as a result of his
asbestos exposure.  She said: "There is clearly a history here
that Mr Wilson was exposed to asbestos during his working life as
an electrician working on the carriages in Derby.

"Given all the evidence, I have no hesitation in reaching a
conclusion that John Wilson died as a result of industrial
disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Pipefitter Dies After Fibro Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------
The Sentinel reported that former pipefitter Ernest Evans died
decades after he was first exposed to asbestos during his time at
an engineering firm.  The 68-year-old, of Shawport Avenue,
Bradwell, in England, joined Hartleys (Stoke-on-Trent) Ltd at the
age of 15, an inquest has heard.

Mr Evans worked at the Stoke-on-Trent company -- which changed its
name numerous times over the years -- until his retirement in
2009.

North Staffordshire Coroner's Court heard Mr Evans was in good
health before suffering a cough last year.

Daughter Paula Green said: "He was always in the garden and when
he worked, he walked to and from work."

Newcastle-born Mr Evans was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
September last year and a month later was admitted to the Douglas
Macmillan Hospice for end-of-life care. Mrs Green added: "When we
heard of his diagnosis, we were told it was a matter of months. We
didn't expect him to be so seriously ill.

"He lost loads of weight -- he wasn't a big man to start with. It
just dropped off him. It was a struggle to get him to eat three
meals a day."

Mr Evans died on October 23 at the Blurton hospice.

A post-mortem examination found Mr Evans had a body mass index
(BMI) of 12.1 -- well under the 'normal' range of 18.5 to 24.9 --
and was classed as 'significantly underweight'.

A lung squeeze also revealed Mr Evans had asbestos bodies.

Former colleague and friend George Warrilow, giving a statement
taken by a solicitor, said the employees operated in three
'shops'.

He added: "These were very old buildings. I recall that the walls
were made with asbestos sheeting. He worked in shop number one.

"Those working in shop number one used to work with asbestos
string.

"It was powdery and when you handled it, you would get powder on
your hands and clothes. Due to the nature of the work, Ernie may
have come into contact with this product."

A statement given by another former worker, Raymond Massey, stated
that the roofs of the shops were made of corrugated asbestos.

It also read: "During my time with the company, I received no
guidance, training or instruction about the risks of exposure to
asbestos."

Assistant coroner Sarah Murphy gave a cause of death of empyema
caused by malignant mesothelioma -- which is often due to exposure
to asbestos dust.

Mrs Murphy said: "The deceased's condition deteriorated rapidly.

"It is clear from the evidence of George Warrilow that Mr Evans
had been exposed to asbestos.

"I accept that the company had not warned the staff about the
risks of exposure to asbestos.

"My conclusion is one of industrial disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Attacks Fibro Causation Theory
----------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reported that an attorney for Ford
Motor Co. urged the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to overturn a $1
million jury verdict in favor of a man who claimed he contracted
lung disease from exposure to asbestos in brake pads, attacking
expert witness testimony in the case.

Rob Byer of Duane Morris LLP told the justices that the key
scientific expert in the case put forth an opinion based on an
assumption -- barred by Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent --
that any exposure to asbestos fibers can cause mesothelioma.

"There is a threshold question of legal sufficiency of evidence,"
Byer said. "There has to be a recognized scientific basis for the
evidence, and that is what is missing here."

The plaintiffs in the case, Richard and Joyce Rost, have argued
that the former's cumulative exposure to the carcinogen during his
three months working as an assistant in a Ford dealership garage
in 1950 could account for his mesothelioma diagnosis. A
Philadelphia County jury ruled in his favor in 2011, and the
state's Superior Court upheld the ruling in 2014.

But Byer contended that the jury relied on expert testimony from
Dr. Arthur Frank, which ran afoul of previous rulings that barred
the so-called 'any-exposure' theory of causation

"It is our position that the evidence, as a matter of the law, was
insufficient," Byer said.

He said that it was not enough that Frank was barred from using
the phrase "every breath" in his testimony, noting that his claim
that all exposures contributed to the disease was logically
equivalent.

Ford has argued that Rost's exposure to asbestos at the dealership
in 1950 were minor compared to his subsequent exposures with other
employers. While the Rosts initially pursued claims against a host
of companies, court records show that all of the defendants aside
from Ford settled prior to trial.

"The question is, does that exposure justify a verdict that Ford
was liable, notwithstanding far more significant exposures?" Byer
asked.

Justice Max Baer identified the question of where to set a
threshold for exposure equaling liability as the key issue in the
case.

"If we're going to say three months isn't enough, where do we draw
the line?" he asked.

Byer responded that experts needed to show some fundamental
scientific assessment -- based, potentially, in pathology or
epidemiology -- that showed the exposure in question could lead to
mesothelioma.

Clifford Rieders of Rieders Travis Humphrey Harris Waters &
Dohrmann, representing the Rosts, defended Frank's testimony,
arguing that Ford had taken his remarks about exposure out of
context.

"The fact that on cross-examination, he acknowledged the
scientific fact with which no one disagreed -- that there's no
safe level of exposure -- that wasn't the basis of his opinion in
this case," he said. "What we're doing here -- and frankly, I'm
surprised to see it -- is we're arguing a jury verdict."

In response to questioning from several of the justices, Rieders
also objected to efforts to compare Rost's exposure from the Ford
dealership to other jobs, saying that there was no record that
showed he faced 40 years of exposure elsewhere.

Justice Debra Todd, meanwhile, raised alarm about Frank's
testimony going beyond the pre-trial ruling forbidding remarks on
the "every-breath" theory.

"In the snippets that I heard, Dr. Frank went beyond what he was
permitted to," she said.

Rieders responded that Frank had no choice but to say what he did,
noting that he was reiterating the scientific consensus that a
minimal exposure to asbestos could lead to mesothelioma.

The justices also heard arguments over the practice in
Philadelphia of consolidating unrelated asbestos suits for trial,
with Rost defending the custom and Ford calling it prejudicial to
its defense.

In response to an inquiry from Justice Todd, Byer allowed that
consolidation could be merited in certain cases, but only when
there was substantial commonality -- the same workplace, the same
products, the same diseases.

"There must also be some exercise of discretion, so that there's
no prejudice to either side," he said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Clifford Rieders and Pamela
Shipman of Rieders Travis Humphrey Harris Waters & Dohrmann and
Christian Hartley and Clayton Thompson of Maune Raichle Hartley
French & Mudd.

Ford is represented by Robert Byer and Sharon Caffrey of Duane
Morris LLP.

The case is Richard Rost et al. v. Ford Motor Co., case number 56
EAP 2014, before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Danes Dying from Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------
Copenhagen Online Post reported that almost 30 years after the ban
of asbestos in Denmark, more and more Danes are dying of
mesothelioma, according to the magazine Fagbladet 3F, which is
published by the union 3F.

Over 100,000 sqm of asbestos netting remains in place in Denmark,
and 120-130 Danes are diagnosed with mesothelioma every year.

"There are more cases every year," Johnni Hansen, a senior
researcher at cancer fighting association Kraeftens Bekaempelse,
told TV2 News. "Just ten years ago, there were fewer than 100
cases of mesothelioma per year."

Still a risk

Asbestos is the only known cause of mesothelioma, which can
develop over 20-60 years. Since 1943, it is estimated that over
4,000 Danes have died from the illness and over 300 Danes die from
asbestos-related illnesses every year. That's more than Denmark's
annual fatalities sustained in traffic and work accidents.

The asbestos roofs last for 40-60 years before they begin to
crumble and need to be replaced. And while there are regulations
for the handling of asbestos, there is a potential risk for people
being exposed to a hazardous amount.

Hansen contends that the rise in mesothelioma cases is down to the
large amounts of asbestos that was previously used at the Eternit
(registered trademark for fibre cement) factory in Aalborg and
various ship yards, and in the insulation of pipes and in brake
linings of cars, trucks and trains.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Harrods Seller Diagnosed with Fibro Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Cheston, writing for London Evening Standard, reported that a
former Harrods lingerie seller appealed to former colleagues for
help after being diagnosed with a terminal asbestos-related
cancer.

Sandra Schaverien, 75, is suffering from mesothelioma, a cancer in
the lining of the lungs caused by exposure to the deadly dust.
Her solicitors, Irwin Mitchell, are investigating whether she came
into contact with asbestos at the department store. In particular
she is concerned about the dust in underground tunnels which she
used to walk through to collect merchandise.

Mrs Schaverien, a mother-of-three from Radlett, Herts, worked at
Harrods between 1991 and 2001. She said: "I hope my former
colleagues get in touch as any information, no matter how small,
could help get the answers I need."

Metropolitan Police commander forced to defend video of stop-and-
search incident in south London which went viral

A Harrods spokesman said: "We are very sorry to hear of the ill
health of a former employee."

He added that Harrods "has not received any request for an
investigation into this matter".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sycaruse Co. Admits Negligent Release of Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Sycaruse.com, reported that a Syracuse,
New York, environmental laboratory has pleaded guilty to
negligently releasing asbestos into the air.

Certified Environmental Services Inc. pleaded guilty to one
misdemeanor count in federal court in Utica.

In 2010, a jury convicted CES of environmental crimes and mail
fraud. But a federal appeals court overturned that conviction last
year after finding an assistant U.S. attorney committed
prosecutorial misconduct during the trial.

The guilty plea resolved those charges against CES and two co-
defendants, federal prosecutors said.

CES faces up to five years of probation, restitution and a
$200,000 fine. U.S. District Judge David Hurd scheduled sentencing
for Sept. 10.

The company admitted that for eight years ending in 2007, when it
was in the business of air monitoring of asbestos removal
projects, it provided provided air sampling and laboratory
analysis for AAPEX Environmental Services Inc., and Paragon
Environmental Services Inc., federal prosecutors said.

Those two companies had performed illegal "rip and run" removals
in which asbestos was stripped and removed dry, scattered and left
behind and allowed to migrate outside the facility and into the
air, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors said CES was negligent by failing to:

-- Do visual inspections for asbestos debris and pools of water.
-- Observe required waiting times before sampling.
-- Record accurate starting and stopping times for sampling.
-- Calibrate pumps before and after sampling.
-- Conduct aggressive air sampling.
-- Decontaminate air samplers and their equipment before leaving
the asbestos work area.

"CES thereby negligently released asbestos into the ambient air
and negligently placed persons in imminent danger of death or
serious bodily injury from exposure to asbestos fibers," said a
news release from U.S. Attorney Richard Hartunian.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insulation Fitter Dies Due to Fibro Work
---------------------------------------------------------
Martin Naylor, writing for Burton Mail, reported that a retired
insulation fitter 'cut up asbestos with a hacksaw' while lagging
pipes at power stations across the country.

An inquest was told how Andrew Cox also lagged pipes with asbestos
'in the bowels' of HMS London when he first started work after
leaving school.

The hearing was told how the 67-year-old ended up on oxygen for 15
hours a day after developing breathing difficulties and died at
home only a week after being diagnosed with lung cancer.

A post mortem examination revealed how the cavities of his lungs
had been 'obliterated' by scar tissue, the arteries that fed his
heart had narrowed and that asbestos fibres were found in his
lungs after samples were sent away to be analysed under a
microscope.

His cause of death was given as asbestos-induced lung scarring.

Dr Andrew Hitchcock, who carried out the examination, said: "I
found asbestos fibres in significant numbers and I have no doubt
they were instrumental in bringing about this man's death through
industrial disease."

Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard how Mr Cox, of
Meadow Lane, Newhall, had previously been diagnosed with the lung
condition pulmonary fibrosis when he was diagnosed with lung
cancer the week before his death on February 23.

His widow Valerie told the hearing of the details of her late
husband's working history.

The 67-year-old said: "I did not know about this until he told the
kids but he worked on HMS London when he first left school.

"When I first met him, in 1966 he worked at Drakelow Power Station
as a contractor and he worked for years at a number of other power
stations."

The inquests was told how Mr Cox then got a job as a lab
technician at Molson Coors, in Burton, before giving up the job
through his own ill health.

Louise Pinder, deputy corner, reached a conclusion that Mr Cox
died as a result of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Finds Cigarettes Cause of Lung Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that after a
federal judge denied the plaintiff the ability to use the "any
exposure" theory to press his asbestos-related claim, a federal
jury has ruled a pipefitter's lung cancer may have been caused by
his pack-and-a-half a day cigarette smoking habit, rather than
asbestos exposure, handing a win at trial to a group of industrial
defendants.

On May 1, the jury ruled in federal court in Chicago in favor of
defendants ExxonMobil and Owens-Illinois and against plaintiff
Charles Krik.

Krik, a retired pipefitter, of Braidwood, had sued the companies,
along with others, claiming the lung cancer from which he suffered
had been caused by exposure to asbestos from the 1950s to the
1990s while performing work in buildings in which asbestos-
containing products were used.  He had filed suit in 2010, two
years after he was diagnosed with lung cancer.

Krik's case eventually proceeded to a jury trial in April.

However, in the months leading up to the trial, the parties had
argued over which expert witnesses would be allowed to testify on
Krik's behalf, and what those witnesses would be allowed to tell
the jury.

Krik's counsel had asked the court to allow the witnesses to
testify concerning their alleged knowledge of asbestos exposure,
and particularly the "any exposure" theory, under which any
exposure to asbestos results in injury and is considered to
potentially cause cancer.

Lawyers for ExxonMobil and Owens-Illinois, however, had disputed
the presentation of this theory, arguing the theory lacked "a
toxicological basis" because it ignores a "fundamental principle
of toxicology -- that the dose makes the poison."

Therefore, they said the theory was scientifically unreliable, and
the court should bar its use at trial, acting as evidentiary
gatekeepers under the criteria of the Daubert factors.

In December, U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee sided with the
defendants, saying he found Krik's arguments "unavailing," as
Illinois law requires "more than de minimis exposure . . . to
prove causation."

Lee ruled at that time Krik's expert witnesses, including Dr.
Arthur Frank, Dr. Arnold Brody and Frank Parker, needed to offer
more specific testimony pertaining to Krik's potential exposure to
asbestos in this case, rather than just on the effects of asbestos
exposure in general.

"Instead, Krik's experts tout the any exposure theory with little
to no evaluation of the actual facts in this case," Lee said.

Lee's ruling was backed by U.S. District Judge Manish Shah, who
presided over the trial and ruled even hypothetical questions
concerning "cumulative exposures" were too closely connected to
the "any exposure" theory and were inadmissible under Daubert.

At trial, Krik's counsel argued his lung cancer was the product of
a "synergistic effect" between his cigarette smoking and asbestos
exposure. He admitted he had smoked cigarettes for three decades,
quitting in 1982.

After a two-week trial, the jury, however, found the cigarette
smoking was the "sole proximate cause" of his lung cancer, leaving
unanswered the questions of the companies' negligence in the case,
as well as of the degree of Krik's potential contributory
negligence.

ExxonMobil was represented by Patrick Morris and David Fanning, of
Johnson & Bell, of Chicago, and Jerry Blackwell, of Blackwell
Burke, of Minneapolis. Krik was represented in the case by
attorneys Robert G. McCoy and Michael P. Cascino, of the Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, of Chicago.

Owens-Illinois was represented by Edward M. Casmere, Matthew J.
Fischer and Brian O'Connor Watson, of SchiffHardin LLP, of
Chicago, and Peter A. Moir, of Quilling, Selander, Lowinds,
Winslett Moser, of Dallas.

Attorneys for Krik and ExxonMobil did not respond to requests for
comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Bill Aims to Raise Bar on Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul DeBenedetto, writing for Law360, reported that the Texas
House of Representatives preliminarily approved a bill that would
require a plaintiff alleging asbestos damages to file a bankruptcy
trust claim before filing suit, while giving asbestos courts more
leeway to stay the trial in such a case.

H.B. 1492 would enable asbestos courts to stay a trial until a
claimant gives notice of all trust claims, and to modify a
judgment based on a trust claim made after trial. If a claimant
fails to provide a notice of trust but receives a judgment from an
asbestos or silica trust for an injury that also gave rise to a
judgment against a defendant, the defendant can submit a motion
for sanctions, including vacating the judgment and ordering a new
trial, according to the bill.

The bill passed to engrossment and will be read and voted on once
more in the House before moving on to the Senate.

Under the bill, sponsored by Texas Rep. Doug Miller, R-New
Braunfels, a defendant may file a motion to stay court proceedings
if he or she believes the plaintiff could instead make a trust
claim. The motion must include a list of asbestos trusts not
disclosed and other supporting information, and a plaintiff may
respond by providing proof he or she has made a trust claim
identified in the motion and served notice, the bill says.

The plaintiff can also request a court's determination that a
trust's claims fees exceed anticipated recovery. If the court
determines that the fees do exceed recovery, a claimant must
provide the court with a verified statement of exposure history to
asbestos covered by the trust, according to the bill.

Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a tort reform advocacy group, applauded
the vote, which brings the bill one step closer to the Senate.

"Texas has been a leader in fighting asbestos lawsuit abuse since
2005, when the Legislature reined in outrageous asbestos lawsuit
scams that were ravaging the state," the group said in a
statement. "Chairman Miller's bill will eliminate the latest
asbestos lawsuit abuse while assuring that people suffering from
asbestos diseases have speedy access to Texas' courts. H.B. 1492
encourages honesty, transparency and fairness in asbestos
litigation."

While supporters say the bill gives defendants an opportunity to
discover other possible sources of exposure and allocate damage
responsibility accordingly, critics say it creates a dangerous
delay.

"This bill gives asbestos manufacturers exactly what they want:
delay," said Jeffrey Simon of Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett
PC. "And when your client is a man with less than six months to
live, any delay is too much."

The bill would require asbestos victims to jump through hoops
before proceeding to trial, and lowers the standard of proof of
asbestos exposure for manufacturers to shift the blame onto other
bankrupt companies, Simon said.

Simon said powerful lobbying groups gave the bill steam, to make
it easier for companies to escape responsibility. Those same
lobbyists worked to kill a 2009 bill that would have brought Texas
in line with much of the rest of the country by lowering the
standard of proof for all parties, he said.

"That standard was much higher than this bill proposes," Simon
said. "Corporate lobbyists claimed the 2009 bill would bring 'junk
science' into the courtroom. Now they want to enact an even lower
standard, but only for manufacturers that are trying to avoid
responsibility for their dangerous products."

The bill narrowly passed in a 5-4 House committee vote. A senate
version of the bill, S.B. 491, sponsored by Texas Sen. Charles
Schwertner, R-Georgetown, is pending in the Texas Senate Committee
on State Affairs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Rejects Evidentiary Hearing
------------------------------------------------------
Graham Zorn, writing for JD Supra Business Advisor, reported that
finding that only a narrow evidentiary review is appropriate when
certifying a class under Missouri state law, a Missouri appeals
court reversed a trial court's decision to deny class
certification in a suit alleging asbestos exposure.  See Elsea v.
U.S. Engineering, Co., No. WD77687 (Mo. App. W.D. Mar. 17, 2015).
Plaintiff courthouse workers alleged improper removal of asbestos
during renovations and sought medical monitoring damages based on
negligence and strict liability claims.

The trial court held a four-day evidentiary hearing, involving
both fact and expert testimony, to determine whether members of
the potential class met the standards for class certification set
out in Missouri's rules of civil procedure.  Although Plaintiffs
presented testimony that improper asbestos abatement caused
elevated asbestos levels in the courthouse, the trial court
determined "[t]here is a likelihood that individual hearings would
be necessary to categorize class members, and to address
individual issues of exposure, dose, causation and monitoring
protocol."  Id. at 3.  The Court therefore denied Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Such an in-depth hearing, the appeals court found, was an abuse of
the trial court's discretion.  The appeals court held the
appropriate standard for class certification in Missouri is
whether "there is evidence in the record, which if taken as true,
would satisfy each and every requirement" for class certification.
Id. at 5.  The trial court erred by accepting conflicting expert
testimony and evidence presented by the defense, instead of taking
the Plaintiffs' evidence as true.  The appeals court reversed the
trial court's ruling and found that Plaintiffs' class definition
met Missouri requirements for certification.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Richmond River Classrooms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Stevens, writing for The Northern Star, reported that
asbestos found in window sills at Richmond River High School, in
Australia, has now forced the closure of another six classrooms.

This now means a total of 12 classrooms have been declared out of
bounds to students.  The school updated information about the
situation on it's website on May 12.

Work has started to remove asbestos from the affected classrooms
by qualified contractors according to WorkCover guidelines.

Classrooms known to be affected include music, maths and computer
rooms.  Students were issued a note on May 12 informing them that
asbestos had been found in classrooms 22 and 24, which have been
made out of bounds.

Further examination of classrooms on May 12 has revealed window
sills in four additional classrooms are riddled with the deadly
material.

A NSW Education Department spokesman confirmed the incident and is
seeking to provide further details.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas House Passes Fibro Litigation Reforms
------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Morris, writing for Texas Lawyer, reported that if a bill
that the Texas House passed becomes law, a plaintiff who is sick
from asbestos exposure would have to file claims with bankrupt
companies' trust programs before seeing his lawsuit proceed to
trial.

The House on May 11 voted 126-11 to pass House Bill 1492. The
bill's author, Rep. Doug Miller, R-New Braunfels, said during a
May 8 House debate that past legislative reforms ensured that the
sickest people got priority in court and eliminated "fraudulent
mass filings." Miller said that HB 1492 would finish that work,
ensuring that sick people receive much-needed funds faster by
compelling their lawyers to file bankruptcy trust claims sooner.
The bill would also ensure that relevant information is available
so that responsible parties pay their fair share of damages, said
Miller.

HB 1492 has a Senate companion bill that has stalled in committee
since April 13. Miller said that he would work for HB 1492 -- with
three significant amendments -- to keep moving through the
legislative process in lieu of working on the Senate's version.

Exposure to asbestos and silica can cause cancer, lung disease and
other ailments. Many companies that created asbestos or silica
products have gone bankrupt and created trusts to compensate
people who became ill from their products.

HB 1492 would require an asbestos plaintiff, before his lawsuit
went to trial, to make trust claims with each bankruptcy trust
that he believed owed him money. If a plaintiff would have to
spend more in expenses and fees to make a trust claim than he'd
stand to collect from it, he wouldn't have to make that claim, but
he still would have to file a verified statement of his exposure
history related to that trust.

Plaintiffs would have to serve each defendant with notices of
their trust claims and each trust claim's materials. Among other
things, the notice would have to state the amount of money the
plaintiff had collected from that trust. Notice would be due 120
days before trial. But if a plaintiff had filed a trust claim
after that time window, he could send notice later.

The bill sets consequences for plaintiffs who don't file trust
claims and provide notice of them.  Also, a defendant could ask a
court to stay a proceeding if he thought that a plaintiff could
have made more successful trust claims.

An amendment to HB 1492 deleted a provision that would have
allowed a defendant to use trust claim material to prove someone's
exposure; identify alternative sources of exposure; allocate
responsibility to other defendants; and more.

Another amendment deleted an entire section that would have
allowed a defendant to ask a court to modify a judgment to
subtract undisclosed and non-noticed trust claim payments that a
plaintiff had received after the judgment came down.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Years of Fibro Exposure Led to Builder's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Greaves, writing for Torquay Herald Express, reported that a
worker who spent many years fitting asbestos in factories, houses,
and schools across South Devon, in England, died from a cancer
related to the building material, the coroner has heard.

Kenneth Coish joined Staverton Builders (later Staverton
Contractors) when he left school in Totnes at the age of 14.

An inquest in his death has heard that from 1945 until the 1970s
he was exposed to asbestos while working for the firm on various
building projects in Paignton and across South Devon.  They
included homes at Windy Corner and White Rock; schools in
Dartmouth and Plymouth; and various factory sites in the region.

Mr Coish died at his home in Totnes in March, less than a year
after being diagnosed with mesothelioma.  Opposite his home in
Higher Westonfields stand houses which he helped to build and fit
with asbestos many years before.

Mr Coish left details of his working life in a statement which the
coroner read at the inquest in Torquay.  He said he initially
trained as a joiner with Staverton Builders and was exposed to
asbestos when the company began building its new factory.  He
could remember the dust from the material while the pipes were
being lagged.

In 1954 he worked on a private house at Windy Corner where he
drilled and cut pieces of asbestos used in the soffit or eaves of
the house.  He said he was exposed to asbestos at White Rock in
the 1950s installing the material in roofs.

Mr Coish also claimed he was in contact with asbestos at the
Tiverton Brewery; a lorry testing station in Plymouth; a school in
Paignton in 1969; a garage in Plymouth in 1973; and the Unigate
factory in 1973.

Cause of death was malignant mesothelioma.

South Devon, Plymouth and Torbay coroner Ian Arrow said: "For his
working career Mr Coish worked for Staverton Contractors and
during his working life with Staverton Contractors he was exposed
to asbestos on a number of occasions."

Kenneth Reginald Coish was widowed and was a retired maintenance
factory worker.

The coroner recorded death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Former Railway Workers Sue BNSF
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that three former employees have
sued BNSF Railway, claiming they suffer from lung disease caused
by job-related exposure to asbestos.  The lawsuit filed in
Portland says the men had to work with and around items that
contained asbestos while employed by the railway and its
predecessor, Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs -- Charles Anderson,
Harold Gjerman and Gary Sachtjen -- all spent at least 34 years in
the industry before leaving in the first decade of the 21st
Century.

Attorney Paul Bovarnick says BNSF was negligent in failing to
provide the men with a reasonably safe place to work, and each of
them seeks $300,000.

BNSF has faced similar lawsuits in recent years. A company
spokesman, Gus Melonas, declined comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Fibro at Alcoa's Refinery
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Weber, writing for ABC News, reported that seven maintenance
workers have been exposed to asbestos at Alcoa's Kwinana refinery,
south of Perth, in Australia, according to the Construction,
Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.

The exposure occurred in May during work on the plant's mud
thickener, CFMEU WA secretary Mick Buchan said.

"They were cutting away some roof sheets, they noticed a white
powdery substance from in between the sheets," he said.

"They called the relevant unions, they came and investigated,
asked for the substance to be tested; lo and behold, it came back
testing positive to asbestos."

However, Alcoa in a statement said the health risk to the workers
was extremely low, and the company was concerned about what it
considered to be misinformation regarding the potential asbestos
exposure to contractors at the refinery.

The men, who are back at work, are members of the CFMEU,
Manufacturing Workers Union and the Electrical Trades Union.

Mr Buchan said all three unions were calling for an urgent audit
of Alcoa's operations in Western Australia.  He said the unions
were concerned about possible secondary exposure to family
members.

"The workers involved are being given a letter of potential
exposure, which is set out amongst WorkCover and WorkSafe
legislation, [but] the damage is already done and in 2015, just
not good enough," he said.

"There was a hazardous substance register there as far as that
goes, but that should be updated and discussed at toolbox meetings
on a regular basis so new starters, new people to the industry,
everyone understands the dangers that could exist from your
occupation and your daily work duties on these plants.

"They have to be regularly brought to the workers' attention that
there is a potential hazard in that particular work area.

"Now that can be done by various means, a lot of the time you'll
see that they put a decal or a sticker on the sheets warning that
asbestos fibres are underneath and certain permits or procedures
have to be followed.

"We'd say that it'd be necessary to have identification at the
entrance explaining what potential hazards are within the vicinity
or in the area so workers can be alerted prior to any work
commencing."

Mr Buchan said the WA Government had a role in demanding that all
of the plants on the Kwinana strip ensured they had done a full
audit of asbestos registers, and that workers were fully aware of
potential hazards.

Low-level risk, Alcoa says

Alcoa said it was deeply concerned by the continued speculation
regarding the potential low-level asbestos exposure to a small
number of contractors at the refinery.

In a statement, the company said a contractor working at the
refinery identified insulation tape suspected of containing
asbestos that was covering weld seams in a tank roof that was
being removed for replacement.

It said work ceased immediately and steps were taken for a
licensed asbestos removal contractor to sample the material and
contain and clean-up the affected area.

Alcoa said the insulation tape was located in a sealed cavity
between two layers of the double-skinned steel roof that had been
installed in the late 1960s, and there was no prior evidence or
knowledge of its presence.

Independent analysis of the material confirmed it contained white
asbestos.

Alcoa's chief medical officer Michael Donoghue said the risk of
any health impact to the contractors working on the job was
considered extremely low due to the non-friable condition of the
material, the limited amount of the material, the type of asbestos
contained in the material and the short duration of the task.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Worker Gets GBP230,000 Payout for Disease
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Blackburn, writing for Gazette Live, reported that a granddad
from Middlesbrough, England, who developed an asbestos-related
disease from working in a steel mill 60 years ago has secured
GBP230,000 in compensation.

The 74-year-old, who does not want to be identified, has been
diagnosed with mesothelioma, an incurable cancer of the lungs.  He
was exposed to asbestos between 1955 and 1956 while working as a
labourer in a steelworks on Teesside after finishing school, aged
15.  He was never provided with any protection from asbestos and
his employer failed to warn him about its dangers.

Throughout his life the grandfather-of-three has been fit and
healthy, enjoying regular visits to the gym, swimming, golf and
gardening.  It was while playing golf that he suddenly became
breathless and was diagnosed two months later with mesothelioma.

Following his diagnosis, the pensioner contacted industrial
disease specialists, Thompsons Solicitors, who obtained a detailed
history of his exposure to asbestos and made a successful claim
against his former employer.

"When my consultant asked me if I'd ever worked with asbestos, I
had genuinely forgotten about the period of time I was at the
rolling mill all those years ago," he said.

"My father got me a job there as an office boy but I later worked
in the mill itself, which is where the asbestos was.

"My wife and family were shocked and distressed when we heard the
news.

"I was particularly angry because I developed mesothelioma through
no fault of my own, and after working for a company such a long
time ago.

"Thompsons were very supportive throughout the entire process,
offering expert legal advice all the way along."

Gill Connelly of Thompsons Solicitors, said: "The terrible legacy
of mesothelioma in the UK is set to continue for decades and this
case illustrates the lengthy period that can take place between
working with asbestos and being diagnosed with a terminal disease.

"Workers should never have been exposed to asbestos without a
warning of the dangers from employers and lack of proper
protection.

"Working alongside asbestos victim support groups and trade
unions, we will continue to hold negligent employers and their
insurers to account."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NWT Gov't Fined $115K for Workers' Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Hilary Bird, writing for CBC News, reported that the Northwest
Territories government has been fined $115,000 after workers
contracted to do repairs at Yellowknife's museum were exposed to
asbestos without proper protection.

At one point a government supervisor held a meeting about the
possibility of asbestos contamination in the room where the
asbestos contamination was suspected, and none of the people in
attendance was wearing protective clothing.

This is the second time in a year the territorial government has
been fined under the Safety Act. In July 2014, the government was
fined $75,000 and one of its contractors $7,500 in relation to a
2012 workplace accident on the Abraham Francis ferry near Fort
McPherson, N.W.T.

The territory pleaded guilty to one charge under the Safety Act in
relation to the incident at the museum. Charges against a
supervisor with the Department of Public Works and Services were
withdrawn.

The charges stemmed from repairs done after a December 2011 fire
caused extensive damage to the kitchen and boiler room at the
Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre. A local company, Wilf's
Renovations, was contracted to repair some of the damage.

The company sampled some of the drywall in some of the affected
areas and found asbestos. In January 2012, the company removed
that asbestos.

Later that year, the Department of Public Works and Services hired
Central Mechanical Systems to replace the chimney that caught
fire.

'Are you 100 per cent sure there is no asbestos?'

Before any work was done, Public Works tested a part of the
chimney for asbestos and found none. But when CMS employees began
removing parts of the old chimney, they suspected some of the
drywall contained asbestos.

Court documents state that one employee wrote an email to a
supervisor with Public Works stating "I know this was discussed
before, but are you 100 per cent sure there is no asbestos on the
chimney? The boys are bringing it up to us and really wondering
and we really can't tell from just looking at it."

It was later confirmed that a part of the chimney contained
insulating mud made of 75 per cent chrysotile asbestos. The CMS
employees handling it were not wearing protective clothing or
using safety equipment associated with asbestos removal.

Court documents state, "There was asbestos debris on the floor and
other surfaces of the boiler room. The boiler room was
contaminated with asbestos-containing material."

A supervisor with Public Works also held a meeting about the
possibility of asbestos in the boiler room. That meeting was held
in the boiler room at a time when asbestos-contaminated material
lay on the floor. None of the people in attendance was wearing
protective clothing.

The territorial government has 30 days to pay the fine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toledo Man, Firm Admit to Removing Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------
The Toledo Blade reported that a man from Toledo, Ohio, admitted
that he hired someone to illegally remove and dispose of asbestos-
containing materials from the former Champion Spark Plug property
on Upton Avenue in 2012.

Donzell Moore, 41, of 3301 Algonquin Pkwy., and his company,
Moorehouse Real Estate Development LLC, each pleaded guilty to
complicity to engaging in asbestos hazard abatement without a
license and complicity to illegal disposal of construction and
demolition debris.

Lucas County Common Pleas Judge Ian English scheduled sentencing
for July 14.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Challenges to Status as Special Admin. Rejected
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an asbestos plaintiff's
lawsuit has been amended sua sponte by a Wisconsin federal court,
which determined that the plaintiff "clearly" had standing to
bring the claim.

In the June 2 order, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin rejected Weyerhaeuser Co.'s attempts to
dismiss the case on grounds that the plaintiff had not been
appointed as the special administrator of his mother's estate when
the complaint was filed.

According to the court, Sharon Heckel was diagnosed with lung
cancer in 2012; she died seven months later.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Niagara County Union Head Claims Fibro Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Gambini, writing for Niagara Gazette, reported that the
president of Niagara County's blue collar union has filed a
grievance claiming his members were unwittingly exposed to
asbestos while performing work at a county-owned building in May.

The New York State Department of Labor has confirmed to the
Niagara Gazette that a pending investigation into the presence of
asbestos is under way at the Shaw Building, a county structure
located at 5467 Upper Mountain Road.

William C. Rutland, the president of the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees local 182, said he has
received verbal confirmation through the labor department's
division of Public Employment Safety and Health (PESH) that the
site materials tested positive as asbestos.

"In this day and age, everyone knows asbestos kills people,"
Rutland said. "I'm extremely upset that both my work crew members
and many members of other unions have been exposed to this deadly
agent."

It appears as though not only AFSCME affiliated workers faced
exposure. Ryan Mack, a resident of Niagara Falls and a recipient
of social services benefits who is part of the Work Relief
employment program, said he performed work at the Shaw Building
without notification or protection for four days at the end of
May.

Mack said that as many as 20 of his fellow Work Relief members
were present at the site on May 22, 26, 27 and 28. Mack and his
fellow crew members are without union representation.

"We're cheap labor and this is total exploitation," Mack said.
"They sent us in to a war-zone unprepared, no gloves, no masks -
nothing."

Mack reported stifling temperatures in the Shaw Building's cellar,
characterizing the space as a "horror movie." He described the
removal and transport of thermal system insulation, made to cover
piping, some of which was heavy enough to require two workers to
lift. Mack said his crew was not made to remove the insulation
from the pipes, but to collect the accumulated, decaying material
and dispose of it behind the Shaw Building in a dumpster.

Mack said the dust in the air caused him to leave the cellar on
multiple occasions, while the heat caused him to remove his shirt.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Seeks Justice After "Hideous" Fibro Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Glanvill, writing for East London and West Essex Guardia,
reported that the family of a former maintenance man who suffered
a "hideous" death decades after being exposed to asbestos have
hired specialist lawyers to investigate his employment at a
multinational company.

Stanley Giles, 87, who was originally from Edmonton, England, but
went on to live in Larkshall Road, Chingford, for 32 years, died
on March 16 from mesothelioma -- a lung cancer caused by exposure
to asbestos.   He lived for fifteen months after being diagnosed
and had moved to High Road in North Weald with his wife of 43
years, Marion, two years before his death.

Mrs Giles and her daughter Andrea believe their father was exposed
to asbestos while working for the British Oxygen Company (BOC) in
the 1960s and 70s.  He worked as a maintenance man from a building
based near Shadbolt Avenue, on the North Circular in Chingford,
where he was required to break up and work on asbestos panels and
pipe lagging.

The BOC became part of the German Linde Group in 2006, but the
company still has over 70 gas stores across the UK.

The Giles family have hired law firm Irwin Mitchell and are
appealing to anyone who worked with Mr Giles at the BOC.

Mrs Giles, 78, said: "Stanley was a much-loved husband and father
and we are still trying to come to terms with his death and the
nature of it.

"He first developed symptoms around December 2013 and was
diagnosed with mesothelioma a month later.

"His health deteriorated so rapidly after that and we knew at
Christmas that it was going to be his last.

"It was horrible to see the effect that mesothelioma had on him
and now we just want to know how he came to be diagnosed with the
illness. Any help or information would be hugely appreciated."

His daughter Andrea said he had mentioned asbestos to her mother
in the past.

"I used to visit him every Sunday and he would say to me as we
drove past the North Circular 'they (BOC) took 13 years of my
life,'" said the 42-year-old.

"Now it seems so ironic.

"He told my mother he used to break up panels that contained
asbestos and spoke at lengths at what he used to do.

"As a child, I didn't see a great deal of him, he was a real
grafter -- his work was his world.

"He suffered a hideous, painful death so if justice can be gained,
it should.

"I know my dad would have wanted us to get compensation because he
always wanted what was best for his family."

Mary Mulhall, who is representing the Giles family, said: "We are
now keen to hear from anyone who worked with Stanley or has
knowledge of the working conditions at British Oxygen Company to
get in touch and help us, as we ultimately look to secure vital
financial support for his family.

The BOC declined to comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philadelphia Tough Place to Fight Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reported that
Philadelphia was an especially tough jurisdiction for Garlock
Sealing Technologies to litigate asbestos claims, a lawyer who
worked for the company testified.

During a 2013 trial that would determine how much the company
would put in a bankruptcy trust to compensate asbestos victims,
John A. Turlik told a bankruptcy court that since-changed
procedures in Philadelphia and other parts of Pennsylvania put the
company and other defendants at a disadvantage.

Turlik, of Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney in Philadelphia,
began serving as Garlock's trial counsel in 1989. His testimony
took place on July 31-Aug. 1 in 2013 and was unsealed earlier this
year.

"Philadelphia was a very difficult jurisdiction for defendants for
a number of reasons," Turlik said during his testimony.

"Cases were brought in from other jurisdictions that were less
plaintiff-friendly and tried in Philadelphia, and then there were
consolidated trials where you could have up to 10 cases tried at
once.

"Generally, it wasn't that large but you would still have multiple
defendants or plaintiffs being tried together."

As a result of Turlik's and other arguments put forth by Garlock,
Judge George Hodges ordered the company to put $125 million in its
trust to compensate asbestos victims. The figure was more than $1
billion less than plaintiffs attorneys had argued for.

Hodges ruled that plaintiffs attorneys had been manipulating the
recovery system - telling one story regarding their clients'
exposures to asbestos in civil lawsuits while hiding claims
clients made to bankruptcy trusts.

Hodges' landmark January 2014 ruling was preceded by racketeering
lawsuits filed by Garlock against several asbestos firms,
including the Shein Law Center of Philadelphia.

Turlik testified about several issues that led the American Tort
Reform Association to name Philadelphia its No. 1 Judicial
Hellhole in its 2010 and 2011 annual reports.

A 2012 ruling by the state Supreme Court rejected the every
exposure theory that states every exposure to asbestos, no matter
how small, contributed to the plaintiff's disease.  That ruling
would have made Garlock's low-dose defense "even stronger than it
was," Turlik said.

The practice of finding defendants joint and severally liable was
another gripe for defendants in the state. It ended when the state
General Assembly passed the Fair Share Act.

The doctrine of joint and several liability requires defendants to
pay the share of a verdict that a co-defendant can't afford, no
matter what percentage of liability is assessed to both.

The Fair Share Act changed that. Now, a defendant that is less
than 60 percent liable only pays its share.

Also gone from Philadelphia asbestos lawsuits is reverse
bifurcation, which set up a trial to determine damages before a
trial to determine liability.

"When you had a defendant like Garlock in the case, there was -
there was no real defense in a mesothelioma case," Turlik said.

"The person has it, but the jury is hearing all this information
about how horrible asbestos is. It inflames their passions and it
allows the jury verdicts to become large.

"Verdicts in Pennsylvania were $8 (million), $12 million, they
were all over the place. There were low verdicts. There were high
verdicts.

"But it was very difficult for that jury then who has become
vested in this person, in this disease, in this verdict to then
turn around and throw that verdict out. It happened, but it was
very difficult."

Reverse bifurcation was started to help with a backlog of cases in
Philadelphia. Once there was a damages verdict, it was supposed to
encourage a settlement, Turlik said.

"But as the thermal insulation defendants left the litigation, the
liability trial was still needed," he added.

"And so the courts realized that this was prejudicial to these
defendants, that you - that you had these large verdicts that you
were having to negotiate off of, and that was not necessarily
saving the court any time."

Another development in Pennsylvania mentioned by Turlik is court
decisions that allow offsets in verdicts to reflect how much the
plaintiff has recovered from bankruptcy trusts.

In 2012, ATRA did not name Philadelphia to its Hellhole list. It
hasn't appeared on the annual report since.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builder Fined GBP50,000 for Fibro Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
The Construction Index reported that a British construction firm
has been fined after exposing workers to lethal asbestos fibres
during the conversion of an office block into residential flats in
Essex.

Marden Homes Ltd was commissioned to convert an office block into
residential flats in Witham in July 2012. Work involved removing a
disused boiler and its pipes from the building's former plant
room. During the refurbishment, employees of Marden Homes
disturbed pipe lagging, which contained asbestos fibres.

The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Marden Homes Ltd at
Chelmsford Magistrates Court after finding the company had not
arranged for a refurbishment and demolition asbestos survey to be
available to the workers on site.  One of the workers involved had
not received any training to enable him to identify whether the
materials he was removing were liable to contain asbestos.

Marden Homes Ltd of 275 Prince Avenue, Westcliff on Sea, Essex was
fined GBP50,000 with costs of GBP1,413 after pleading guilty to
three breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Co. Fined Over Dumping of Fibro Waste
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that an Australian demolition company operator
has been fined for dumping asbestos-contaminated waste on private
property at Two Wells on Adelaide's northern fringe, the
Environment Protection Authority says.

Troy Batters, from Davoren Park, faced the Environment, Resources
and Development Court and pleaded guilty to unlawful disposal of
waste last July on land next to Middle Beach Road, the EPA said.

The property owner contacted the EPA to investigate the waste,
saying he had not given anyone permission to dump it on his vacant
land.

An EPA investigation traced the waste to the company TDL
Demolition, which does housing demolition, asbestos removal and
site clean-ups.  Six loads of rubbish, amounting to about 54
tonnes, were dumped, the court heard.

The EPA said Batters was fined $9,600 plus court costs.  Authority
official Stephen Barry said the general community had a very low
tolerance for illegal waste dumping.

"This judgment will hopefully reinforce the severity of this
behaviour and that there are significant consequences for anyone
who is complacent towards their responsibilities and disregard the
law when it comes to dumping waste materials," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Contractor Fined for Airport Fibro Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corvallis Gazette-Times reported that environmental regulators in
the state of Oregon have fined a Wilsonville contractor $5,000 for
improper procedures during a minor asbestos removal job at the
Corvallis Municipal Airport in April, but the company plans to
appeal.

The Department of Environmental Quality assessed the civil penalty
against Rose City Contracting after an inspection revealed the
company had failed to install a viewing window in an asbestos
abatement enclosure as required by law, the DEQ said in a
statement announcing the fine.

The company, a licensed asbestos abatement contractor, was hired
to remove 160 square feet of vinyl floor tile that was presumed to
contain asbestos from a training room.

In an email to the newspaper, Jeff Thomas of Rose City Contracting
said the company stands behind its employees. Thomas noted that
the DEQ penalty notice classified the alleged infraction as minor
and that the agency determined there was no potential for asbestos
exposure to the public.

The company had until June 20 to file its appeal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Firm Fined for Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Insider Media reported that a construction company in Essex,
England, has been fined after exposing workers to potentially
deadly asbestos fibres.

In July 2012, Marden Homes Ltd was commissioned to convert an
office block in Witham to residential flats. The work involved
removing a disused boiler and its pipes from the building's former
plant room.

During the refurbishment work, employees of Marden Homes disturbed
pipe lagging which contained asbestos fibres.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted the company at
Chelmsford Magistrates Court after finding that it had not
arranged for a refurbishment and demolition asbestos survey to be
available to the workers on site.

The staff were therefore unable to identify the presence of
asbestos before removing the disused boiler and associated
pipework and potentially exposed themselves, and other workers, to
asbestos fibres.

One of the workers involved had not received any training to
enable him to identify whether the materials he was removing were
liable to contain asbestos.

In 2013, Marden Homes received advice from HSE regarding the need
for a refurbishment and demolition asbestos survey to be carried
out prior to work liable to disturb asbestos taking place. The
company also received an Improvement Notice requiring them to
provide their employees with asbestos awareness training.

Marden Homes of 275 Prince Avenue, Westcliff on Sea, was fined
GBP50,000 with costs of GBP1,413.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suits Make Up 3/4 of Cases in Madison
------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reported that lawyers resisting tort reform claim
asbestos cases "represent a fraction of total cases filed in
Madison County."

That fraction is three-fourths.

In 2013 and 2014, asbestos plaintiffs filed 2,978 suits at law in
Madison County Circuit Court, and other plaintiffs filed
approximately 1,015 suits in the Law division. That's 74.6 percent
for asbestos.

As president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, Chicago
attorney John Cooney -- who operates a substantial asbestos
practice primarily in Cook County -- omitted these numbers from a
statement he issued on April 29.  He opposed civil justice reforms
that Gov. Bruce Rauner promised but had not yet offered for
legislative action.

Cooney paid homage to victims of lung damage, accidents, and
mistakes, and acted as an advocate for Madison County.

"Madison County is a huge county with historically large
concentrations of industry," he wrote.

Yet, according to the most recent census figures, just two percent
of Illinois residents live in Madison County. Also, the county's
historic industries have dwindled to refineries and remnants of
steel.

"Defendants sued in Madison County typically are directly
connected to that county by virtue of having their principal place
of business, a sales office, corporate headquarters, warehouse,
factory or distribution center there."

Cooney wrote that asbestos represented a fraction of Madison
County cases.  That might apply in cases that don't involve
asbestos, but no such connections exist for the majority of
Madison County asbestos defendants.

"The important point to remember about this litigation is that it
involves legacy liability for conduct that occurred in the 1960s
and 1970s, and has no relevance to the operations of today's
Illinois businesses, which haven't used asbestos for decades," he
wrote.

"It is particularly farcical to suggest that big businesses need
additional advantages over working men and women."

He cited the profits of Caterpillar, Walgreen's and Boeing to show
that "business is thriving in Illinois."

Rauner's proposal reached the Senate on May 22, through Senate
Minority Leader Christine Radogno of Lemont.

The proposal provided that, "In any action in which none of the
parties is a resident of this state and over which another forum
has jurisdiction, the court shall on motion dismiss the action. .
.unless the cause of action primarily arose in this state or the
interests of justice require that the action proceed in this
state."

That would drastically curtail asbestos litigation in Madison
County, which draws 98 percent of its plaintiffs from other
states.

The bill provided that a court could award attorney fees and costs
in connection with the dismissal.  It provided that a defendant
seeking transfer to a different forum must accept service of
process and waive any statute of limitation there.  It provided
tighter standards for liability and proximate cause.

The bill failed on May 28, in the Senate judiciary committee, with
eight Democrats voting against it and four Republicans in favor.

Rauner did not give up, choosing to continue negotiations on tort
reform against the backdrop of a budget stalemate.  His opponents
depend heavily on Cooney's group, which kept "trial lawyers" in
its name when the national group changed to American Association
for Justice.

In the last half of last year, the association's political action
committee contributed $351,650 to Democratic candidates in
Illinois campaigns.  The association depends heavily on lawyers
who practice in Madison County and its judicial twin, St. Clair
County.

In the first quarter this year, 29 percent of the money flowing
into the association came from lawyers active in the two Metro
East counties.  Those lawyers contributed $84,500, out of $291,395
statewide.

Asbestos attorney John Simmons of East Alton and the asbestos firm
of Gori Julian in Edwardsville each gave the association $20,000,
a figure only four Chicago firms matched.

Tom Keefe of Swansea and the Korein Tillery firm of St. Louis each
gave $15,000, a figure that a single Chicago firm matched.

Former ITLA president Greg Shevlin, from the firm of Bruce Cook in
Belleville, gave the group $7,500.

The Cates Mahoney firm of Swansea and Tor Hoerman of Edwardsville
each gave $2,500, and David Galanti of Bethalto gave $2,000.

In the Chicago area, with about 15 times as many people, the
association barely doubled the amount it raised from Madison and
St. Clair.

From the rest of the state, home to millions, the association
raised $12,475, about a seventh of the amount from Madison and St.
Clair counties.

Money flowing from the association matters at key moments.

Seven of the eight Senators who defeated Rauner's proposal in the
Senate Judiciary received campaign contributions from the
association in the last half of last year.

The association gave committee chairman Kwame Raoul of Chicago
$1,050.

It gave $3,000 to John Mulroe of Chicago, $2,500 each to Michael
Noland of Elgin and Ira Silverstein of Chicago, and $1,000 each to
Bill Haine of Alton, Don Harmon of Oak Park, and Toi Hutchison of
Steger.

The trial lawyers of Madison and St. Clair don't expect much of
their cash to bounce back to local candidates.

In the last half of last year, Chicago area candidates and
Democratic committees received $304,650, or 87 percent of the
association's contributions.

Candidates from Madison and St. Clair received $13,000, four
percent of the total.

Senator James Clayborne of Belleville claimed the lion's share, at
$5,500.

The association gave $2,500 to state Rep. Jerry Costello, $2,000
each to legislative candidates Dan Beiser of Alton and Cullen
Cullen of Edwardsville, and $1,000 to state Rep. Eddie Jackson of
East St. Louis.

Cooney's term as president came to an end as Perry Browder of the
Simmons firm replaced him on June 5.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust Transparency Law Takes Effect in W.Va.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a key
piece of tort reform legislation passed and signed earlier this
year now is West Virginia law.

Senate Bill 411, also known as the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust
Claims Transparency Act and the Asbestos and Silica Claims
Priorities Act, took effect 60 days after being signed by Gov.
Earl Ray Tomblin.  The measure, which was sponsored by Kanawha
County Republican Senator Tom Takubo, establishes legal standards
and procedures for the handling of certain asbestos and silica
claims. Additionally, it creates medical criteria procedures,
statute of limitations standards, and requires disclosure of
existing and potential asbestos bankruptcy trust claims.

Takubo, who is a pulmonologist, had strong feelings about the
bill.

"I am so very pleased that the Legislature and governor have
followed my lead to rightly protect and preserve the trusts for
those suffering from asbestos disease so that the patients and
their families will be finally protected for generations to come,"
he said when the bill was signed.

A nationally known asbestos defense attorney heralded the law.

"The West Virginia asbestos bankruptcy trust transparency and
medical criteria law will improve West Virginia's legal climate,"
said Mark Behrens, an attorney with the Washington, D.C., office
of Shook, Hardy & Bacon. "Trust transparency will promote honesty
in trust claiming activity and in civil asbestos litigation.

"The law's medical criteria for nonmalignant asbestos and silica
claims will give priority to deserving claimants by requiring
plaintiffs to be sick to sue. The bill had broad bipartisan
support, and the Governor deserves credit for signing it into
law."

A statewide legal reform group also praised the signing of the
measure.

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

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

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

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

A legal reform group, however, applauded the measure, saying it
will bring needed transparency to the process and create medical
criteria for asbestos claimants.

Anthony Majestro, who was president of the West Virginia
Association for Justice when the bill was signed, said West
Virginia's current case management order for asbestos cases is
working well.

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Says Consolidation Led to $1M Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that for years,
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas employed an improper
practice of mandatory consolidation in asbestos cases despite
restrictions being in place on the process, an asbestos defendant
hit with a $1 million verdict is arguing.

Attorneys who are representing Ford Motor Co. in an appeal pending
before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court take issue with what they
call Philadelphia's "unique-in-the-Commonwealth practice of
automatically consolidating unrelated asbestos cases for trial, so
long as one criterion was met: all plaintiffs suffered from the
same disease."

Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, consolidation is
allowed as a matter of judicial discretion, but it is never
required as a condition of receiving a trial date, Ford's lawyers
maintain.  But for years, Philadelphia's asbestos docket was
handled in just such a way.

In this case, Ford says consolidation resulted in "extraordinary
prejudice that violated Ford's due process rights: Defendants with
nothing in common were consolidated in one trial, forced to
present defenses that contradicted one another, and foreclosed
from cross-examining adverse witnesses because those witnesses
were testifying for or against a different defendant in another
case."

The assertions were contained in a brief submitted to the state
Supreme Court earlier this year by attorneys Robert L. Byer and
Sharon L. Caffrey of the Philadelphia-based law firm Duane Morris.

The two are representing Ford Motor Co. in its appeal of a May
2014 Superior Court decision that affirmed a December 2011
Philadelphia Common Pleas Court ruling in favor of plaintiffs
Richard and Joyce Rost.

The couple sued in the fall of 2010 after Richard Rost developed
mesothelioma, a diagnosis he blamed on his exposure to asbestos
contained within various products, including some manufactured by
Ford.

In its brief to the high court, Ford seeks either judgment as a
matter of law or a new trial.

But Ford also seeks to have the Supreme Court remind trial courts
that "consolidation -- even in asbestos cases -- can come only
after a reasoned exercise of discretion on a case-by-case basis."

The defense lawyers point out in their brief that the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas subsequently ended up amending its
consolidation practice, but it was too-little-too-late for their
clients, since the Rost case was tried while mandatory
consolidation was still in effect at the local level.

Ford's lawyers argue that the motor company should have never been
lumped in with the other defendants in the first place.

According to the record, Richard Rost had a lengthy history of
asbestos exposure while working for three-plus decades at the
Metropolitan Edison power plant in Portland, Pa.

Rost admitted as much, saying he was exposed to "pretty high
levels" of asbestos during this time, the defense brief states.

Rost also maintained he may have been exposed to asbestos while
working for a vacuum tube manufacturer during the 1950s, the
record shows.

"Despite these prolonged and persistent exposures to asbestos, Mr.
Rost claimed that a substantial cause of his mesothelioma was a
summer job he had at a Ford dealership, Smith Motors, in 1950,"
the brief states.

Ford's attorneys argue that their client was unfairly tainted by
having to go through trial alongside the defendants in the cases
of Estate of Wasekanes v. Sears and Graver v. Foster Wheeler
Corp., in what was originally a three-case trial group.

Ford was never a party in Graver and it was not a party in
Wasekanes at the time of trial because it had previously been
granted summary judgment in that case, the brief notes.

Ford's lawyers maintain that the three cases not only lacked
common defendants, but that they also lacked common claims,
defenses, products, facts, worksites and legal counsel.

Ford objected to consolidation, the record shows, arguing that it
would be prejudiced if such dissimilar cases were tried together
and that consolidation would violate its due process rights, but
the trial court denied Ford's motion, it says, "with little
explanation."

One example of the anticipated prejudice surfaced at trial, Ford's
lawyers wrote in their brief, when the attorneys were unable to
cross-examine a witness in Wasekanes who used Ford brakes to
illustrate his testimony regarding asbestos release because Ford
was not a party to that case.

"In this case, consolidation cost Ford the right to cross-examine
adverse witnesses and forced Ford to present a defense theory that
conflicted with those of other defendants," the brief states.

In an interview, Sharon Caffrey, one of the Ford attorneys who
wrote the brief, said that Philadelphia was the only place she was
aware of in the Commonwealth that had a process of mandatory
consolidation in asbestos cases.

In other jurisdictions, cases might be consolidated for pretrial
workup, but not for trial, she said, something that makes
"Philadelphia unique as far as the handling of asbestos cases in
Pennsylvania."

And unique, in this sense, is not necessary a good thing, she
claimed.

"I still think that consolidation should never be automatic,"
Caffrey said. "Even though there may be some expediency . . . if
there's prejudice, you cannot proceed with consolidation. In my
view the court should make a rational determination before
consolidating."

Caffrey praised a move by Philadelphia Common Pleas Court
Administrative Judge John Herron to revamp the consolidation
process a few years back, but she still feels more could be done
to level the playing field for defendants in mass tort cases.

In February 2012, Herron instituted various changes in mass tort
cases, one of which was to do away with consolidation absent an
agreement of all parties.

"I feel that Judge Herron's order is a step in the right
direction," she said, "[but] I don't think it gives the parties
enough protection."

In Ford's brief, it was noted that the Pennsylvania Superior Court
-- a lower tier appellate body -- rejected the defense argument
that the trial court erred in refusing to sever the plaintiffs'
case from the Wasekanes and Graver cases because the Supreme
Court's past superintendence of the asbestos-case backlog in the
Philadelphia court left the Superior Court without "'authority to
address procedural issues' like Ford's complaint about
consolidation, at least 'absent of a claim of violation of
constitutional rights.'"

Caffrey, the defense lawyer, said oral argument was held before
the Supreme Court in early May.  She expects a decision to be
handed down in the appeal sometime in the next few months.

In their brief to the high court, Caffrey and her co-counsel also
argued that consolidation in the Rost case led to juror confusion
at trial since the trial court "sprinkled references" to Rost into
its instructions about the other two cases.

"It was implausible that jurors could keep the cases hermetically
sealed," the defense brief reads.

The brief notes that juror confusion was on display at trial, with
an example being that jurors at one point asked the court for
Rost's last annual income, even though the plaintiff had been
retired for years and had not asserted a claim for lost wages.

"The jury's question about income therefore suggested that it
could not keep the different plaintiffs and their different claims
straight," the brief states.

In her interview, Caffrey said research by jury consultants and
psychologists has shown that once three or more cases are
consolidated, the harder it becomes for jurors to keep facts and
expert opinions separate for each case.

"It becomes very confusing to juries," she said.

And the more diverse the cases are, "the more difficult that
becomes," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Stands by Ruling Favoring Policyholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Godoy, writing for Law360, reported that Pennsylvania state
judge stood by his previous ruling that, for insurance purposes,
asbestos injuries occur with a person's first exposure, a year
after he granted a motion for reconsideration by North River
Insurance Co. in declaratory judgment suit.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Stanton Wettick
rejected the insurer's argument that the latest scientific
research on the subject does not support the theory that the
progression of asbestos-related diseases begins at first exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children Continue Wrongful Death Fibro Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that an
asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit currently winding its way through a
Louisiana federal court is minus one claim after a federal judge
granted partial summary judgment to the defendant(s) and tossed a
claim made by the plaintiffs for mental anguish. A host of
remaining claims, however, are still at play.

The asbestos lawsuit is founded upon a rare, but not unprecedented
series of circumstances that involves a family member of an
asbestos worker coming into contact with lethal asbestos fibers
while doing the laundry.

According to court documents, Alton Gros toiled as a welder at the
Avondale Shipyard in Louisiana from 1943 until 1973. His daughter,
Sally Gros Vedros, would sort through her father's work clothes
and undertake his laundry chores. It is alleged she suffered
secondhand exposure to asbestos in this fashion, and was
subsequently diagnosed with asbestos cancer.

Gros Vedros succumbed to Mesothelioma in June 2011 -- but not
before she launched asbestos claims against Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding Inc., now Huntington Ingalls Inc. Following her death
four years ago, Gros Vedros's children assumed responsibility for
their mother's lawsuit on behalf of Gros Vedros and her estate.
Among the asbestos claims made in the asbestos lawsuit were
Lejeune damage claims for mental anguish experienced by having
witnessed Gros Vedros's decline in health subsequent to her
diagnosis for asbestos mesothelioma. Plaintiffs Gerald Vedros,
Lori Vedros Kravet and Valerie Vedros White sought Lejeune damages
for the "mental pain and anguish which endured from watching the
suffering and death of their mother," according to court
documents.

The provision for Lejeune damages evolved from Lejeune v. Rayne
Branch Hospital, a landmark decision by the Louisiana Supreme
Court in 1990 and codified into law by the Louisiana state
legislature following that ruling.

However, US District Judge Carl J. Barbier ruled that to qualify
for Lejeune damages, the plaintiffs would have had to witness the
actual incurrence of Gros Vedros's injury -- in other words, the
washing of her father's clothes -- and not the mental anguish
incurred over witnessing the slow and gradual demise of Gros
Vedros following her diagnosis of asbestos mesothelioma.

As such, according to the judge, the plaintiffs' claims don't
qualify under Lejeune. "Therefore, under the facts of this case,
the court concludes that plaintiffs lack a valid claim for
bystander damages under Lejeune and [the] Louisiana Civil Code."

With the Lejeune claim having failed, a number of other claims
remain at play, including wrongful death and loss of consortium.
Various other petitions for summary judgment by the defendants in
the case are still pending. Those defendants include Bayer
CropScience Inc., CBS Corp., McCarty Corp., Eagle Inc., and
insurers OneBeacon America Insurance Co. and American Employers
Insurance Co. General Electric Co. had been a defendant up until
2014, but managed to escape from the asbestos lawsuit as a
defendant in March of last year.

Most asbestos lawsuits are based on circumstances whereby an
industrial or asbestos worker is exposed to asbestos fibers
without his or her knowledge at the work site. However, there have
been occasions whereby industrial employees, unaware of the
dangers inherent to asbestos, wear their work clothes home and
thereby expose family members to the dangers. There have been
lawsuits previously that have alleged wrongful death when a spouse
has been exposed to the asbestos fibers contained on work clothes
during the process of doing laundry.

In this case, it was the industrial worker's daughter, undertaking
her father's laundry over several decades, that is alleged to have
served as primary, albeit secondary exposure. Gros Vedros, it is
claimed in the asbestos lawsuit, was also exposed directly for a
period of three years when she worked in the shipyard's purchasing
department from 1960 through 1963.

The case is Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:11-cv-01198, in the US District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards Moore Man $6-Mil. in Fibro Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Mize, writing for The Oklahoman, reported that a man from
Moore, Oklahoma, who sued more than a dozen companies for what he
described as decades of negligent workplace exposure to asbestos
prevailed against two of them for a judgment of $6 million in a
jury trial in Oklahoma County District Court.

Michael D. Galier, 51, filed the product liability lawsuit in 2012
after he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. A jury found
for him in his claims against Murco Wall Products of Fort Worth,
Texas, and Welco Manufacturing Co. of North Kansas City, Mo.

The jury found a third defendant, Red Devil Inc. in Tulsa, not
liable. Judge Bryan C. Dixon dismissed Oklahoma City's M-D
Building Products Inc., formerly Macklanburg-Duncan, from the suit
last year but did not bar Galier from filing another suit on the
same claims.

Jurors awarded no punitive damages in the case, which was decided
May 18.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Man Gets 3 Years for Illegal Fibro Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Baxter, writing for NJ Advance Media, reported that a
man from Parlin, New Jersey, was sentenced on June 12 to three
years in prison for using inmates from a halfway house to
illegally remove asbestos from a former South Jersey hospital,
causing the release of toxic dust and debris, the state Attorney
General's Office said.

Frank Rizzo, 57, who ran South Street Fillit Recycling of
Riverside, admitted in January of last year to using day laborers,
including inmates from Clinton House in Trenton, to remove
asbestos from the former Zurbrugg Memorial Hospital in Riverside
without a permit.

State authorities said Rizzo and Michael Kouvaras, 62, of
Maplewood, directed their unlicensed workers to remove the
asbestos, bury bags of it and dump other bags on a boiler room
floor to make it appear as if vandals had removed the asbestos
while stealing metal.

The workers did not wear protective equipment, except for paper
masks that are not authorized as safe for asbestos removal, and
they removed their masks because they made it difficult to
breathe, authorities said.

Rizzo pleaded guilty to conspiracy, and Kouvaras pleaded guilty to
violating the Asbestos Control and Licensing Act. Kouvaras was
sentenced last year to about a year in county jail as a condition
of probation.

Both men were indicted in 2012. The investigation began in early
2011 on a tip that inmates were being used for illegally asbestos
removal at the site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife Dies From "Take-Home" Cancer
--------------------------------------------------
Katie Davies, writing for Gazette Live, reported that wife Mary
Pointer who would regularly wash her husband's work clothes when
he returned home from work died from mesothelioma.  A devoted wife
died from cancer after washing her husband's work overalls for
more than a decade.

Mary Pointer died from mesothelioma -- a cancer caused by asbestos
-- after she breathed in dust when she cleaned the clothes.

The 85-year-old, from Saltburn-by-the-Sea, would regularly wash
her husband Ronald's overalls when he returned home from his job
in the boiler room at the Marchwood Power Station by the River
Test in Southampton, where he worked between 1955 and 1970.

Ronald's overalls were regularly covered in dust which she would
inhale as she washed.

Irwin Mitchell, which recently opened a consulting office in
Middlesbrough, launched legal proceedings against E.ON UK, which
took over the liabilities of the Central Electricity Generating
Board premises where Ronald worked.

A significant settlement has now been secured for Mary's son
Darryl and the rest of the family from the company after they
admitted they were in breach of duty in exposing Ronald and in
turn Mary to asbestos dust and fibres.

Darryl Pointer, 50, said: "It was absolutely devastating to watch
my mother suffer in the final months of her life. She should never
have been in a position to be exposed to asbestos and I am
delighted we now have justice.

"No amount of money will make up for the loss of my mum and it is
extremely upsetting that her life was cut short simply by
providing support to her husband and family.

"She had no idea of the dangers of asbestos and I feel like she
paid the ultimate price for my dad's company failing to protect
him and our family."

Roger Maddocks, a partner in the asbestos-related disease team at
Irwin Mitchell, who represented Mary's son Darryl, said: "This
tragic case in which a widow died of mesothelioma caused simply by
inhaling asbestos dust as she cleaned her husband's overalls shows
the risks asbestos dust and fibres pose to those exposed to them.

"Mesothelioma is an aggressive illness that causes a significant
amount of pain for victims, as well as their family and friends
who witness their deterioration. We are delighted to have been
able to provide Darryl with the answers he was looking for."

Marchwood Power Station has since been rebuilt.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plumber Dies from Prolonged Exposure to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mid Devon Gazette reported that a plumber whose career spanned
five decades died from prolonged exposure to asbestos, an inquest
found.

John Excell regularly inhaled the deadly dust while he was working
in the 1960s and '70s, a coroner was told.

Mr Excell started work as a plumbing apprentice in London at the
age of 15.  His work meant he came into regular contact with
asbestos when he was insulating properties.

The inquest heard he had said before his death neither he nor his
colleagues used masks and were unaware of the harm the chemicals
were doing.

In 1999, asbestos was finally banned but by that point, Mr Excell
had already been working in the industry for 35 years.

The 66 year old died on March 25 after suffering complications as
a result of his contact with asbestos.  He passed away peacefully
at home in Bradninch, with his wife Hazel by his side.

Mrs Excell praised the National Health Service and the doctors,
nurses and carers who had supported her husband.  She said: "The
help and service he received was first class."

Coroner John Tomalin ruled the cause of death to be industrial
disease.

People who work in trades are most at risk of exposure. An
estimated 20 tradespeople die each week from asbestos-related
conditions. It is the single biggest cause of work-related deaths
in the UK.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Appeals Court Won't Free Crane Co. from Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Godoy, writing for Law360, reported that industrial valve and
pump manufacturer Crane Co. can't dodge a suit over diseases
allegedly caused by the asbestos-containing gaskets used with its
valves even though the company did not manufacture the gaskets, a
New York appeals court said.

The five-judge panel unanimously upheld an April 2013 Erie County
Supreme Court ruling that declined the company's motion for
summary judgment in a suit by the estate of Lee Holdsworth, who
worked from 1956 to 1982 in a plant that used Crane valves to pipe
steam.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builder Jailed for Unlicensed Fibro Work
---------------------------------------------------------
North West Place reported that a builder from North Wales, in
England, has been jailed for exposing workers to asbestos at a
commercial unit on a Colwyn Bay industrial estate.

Brian Roberts of 123 Bryniau Road, Llandudno and three men working
with him, were exposed to potentially deadly asbestos fibres while
working in the unit at Eagle Farm Road, Mochdre Business Park
around 11 September 2012.

Llandudno Magistrates' Court heard on 12 June how Roberts had been
employed by the owner of the premises, trading at the time as
Light in Design, to remove asbestos from the building prior to
sale.

The Health & Safety Executive was alerted to the unlicensed work
by a contractor who was licensed to remove asbestos.

HSE's investigation found that Roberts removed a significant
quantity of asbestos insulating board from the premises despite
not holding a licence to work with such material.

Brian Roberts pleaded guilty to breaching the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2012, and was given a custodial sentence of 26 weeks.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Chris Wilcox said: "The
safe removal of asbestos requires a high level of skill and
technical knowledge and must be done by a contractor licenced by
HSE.

"Asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in
the UK. There are specific rules in place to make sure it is dealt
with safely and contractors have a duty to ensure they protect
their workers from risk of exposure.

"By undertaking the uncontrolled removal of asbestos, work for
which he was not licensed, Brian Roberts exposed himself and his
co-workers to the risk of inhaling asbestos fibres.

"The outcome of this exposure cannot easily be assessed but there
remains the possibility of ill health in the future. The workers
could also have posed a health risk to others, including, for
example, their families and loved ones, by taking home
contaminated clothing.

"Those involved now have to live with the fear of becoming ill
with this life-threatening lung disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Says Husband Was Not Warned of Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Roberts, writing for Hull Daily Mail, reported that the
widow of a man from Hull, England, who died from asbestos-related
lung cancer is appealing for information from his former
colleagues.

Peter Redman died in November 2013, aged 81, after he was
diagnosed with lung cancer.  Mr Redman worked as an electrician
for various companies during his career, which spanned from 1952
to 1997.

He worked for Humber Electrical Engineering Company in Goole and
Hull from 1952 to 1982, during which time he worked in various
locations where he might have been exposed to asbestos.

On more than one occasion, Peter was required to work alongside
boiler laggers who worked with asbestos insulation.

Mr Redman's widow, Shirley, said: "Peter was never warned about
the dangers of asbestos or provided with any protective clothing.

"If his employers were aware of the dangers, why did they not take
steps to keep him and his colleagues safe?"

During his career, Mr Redman also worked for Pride Electric,
Fairburns, and Beverley Electric at various locations.

Following his death, Mr Redman's family sought advice from
industrial disease specialists, Thompsons Solicitors, to
investigate a claim for compensation.

His family is now appealing for anyone who worked at any of Mr
Redman's employers, but particularly at Humber Electrical, to come
forward with information about the working conditions.

Anyone with information should call Oliver Collett at Thompsons
Solicitors on 0113 2056304.

'Bringing negligent employers to justice'

Oliver Collett, of Thompsons Solicitors, said: "We are seeking the
help of anyone who remembers Peter or working at Humber Electrical
so that we can find out the facts of Peter's asbestos exposure,
and bring his negligent employers to justice.

"The legacy of asbestos exposure is horrifying.

"Thompsons Solicitors is working to expose that legacy and to
fight hard on the behalf of workers and their families who should
never have had to deal with the awful consequences of employers'
negligence".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Children's Play Area
----------------------------------------------------------
William Vallely, writing for Port Phillip Leader, reported that a
cocktail of toxic materials including asbestos and zinc has been
dug up in a play area at a crÅ che in Port Melbourne, Australia.

During excavation work at the Clark Street Children's Centre,
which cares for children aged 0-6, a square of "suspect material"
was found and testing confirmed it contained asbestos.

Tests from ground surrounding the excavated area also found zinc,
lead and benzopyrene -- a hydrocarbon that is a byproduct of
incomplete combustion or burning of material such as cigarettes,
gasoline, and wood.

The substances were found just 30cm below the surface at the play
area, parts of which have been fenced off by the Port Phillip
Council.

However, Port Phillip Council stressed the level of asbestos
exposure was low and unlikely to cause any health impacts.

An Asbestos Management Plan is currently being prepared by an
occupational hygienist and children are still unable to play
outdoors.

Zinc and benzopyrene levels were also low, but required a
management and treatment plan, according to the council.

The council-managed child care centre was last tested in 2004 and
the investigation found low potential risk from soil
contamination, and soil tests did not uncover indicators of
commercial/ industrial wastes or soil contamination.

Port Phillip Council has been contacted for further comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Weighs in on Motions in Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Pennsylvania court has
weighed in on a number of motions asserted in an asbestos
insurance coverage dispute, deferring a ruling on one of the
issues until after the close of evidence in the upcoming trial.

In three separate June 12 orders, the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed motions brought by
General Refractories Co. and its insurer, Travelers Casualty and
Surety Co.

A manufacturer of asbestos-containing refractory products, General
Refractories filed the declaratory action, in which it argued that
its insurance carriers owed them excess insurance coverage for
underlying asbestos-related lawsuits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Ruins of Yampa Royal Hotel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Ross, writing for Steamboat Today, reported that a deadline
set by the Colorado state health department to secure residual
asbestos contained in the burned ruins of the Royal Hotel in the
town of Yampa has come and gone, and both town and Routt County
officials are uncertain of how the issue will ultimately be
resolved.

The Board of County Commissioners met to discuss a May 7 letter
from the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment to
Royal Hotel owner Reno "Bill" Ager confirming that the remaining
debris from the fire contains an estimated 200 cubic yards of
asbestos-containing materials, "exceeding the trigger levels of a
55-gallon drum for a commercial structure."

The letter from the CDPHE requires Ager to engage a certified
general abatement contractor to remove the material. In the case
that he was unable to immediately abate the asbestos in the fire
debris, he was instructed to take measures to secure the site
within 30 days.

County Commissioner Tim Corrigan, a resident of rural Yampa, told
his colleagues that the town had given Ager until Aug. 1 to do
something to improve the site and until Oct. 30 to clean it up.
Yampa Mayor Tom Yackey confirmed that the town had sent Ager a
certified letter to that effect, but he also hand-delivered it to
avoid it feeling impersonal.

Routt County Environmental Health Director Mike Zopf told county
commissioners that Ager has indicated he is not in a position to
abate the asbestos, a known carcinogen. Zopf, knowing that the
hotel was more than 100 years old, originally brought the
situation to the attention of the CDPHE.

"We've had conversations with him that suggest he's not
financially prepared to do anything," Zopf told the commissioners,
who also infrequently serve as the county Board of Health.

Yackey said the same.

"He told the town board he doesn't have the money to do it, and
the building wasn't insured," Yackey said.

Efforts to contact Ager through intermediaries by cell phone were
unsuccessful.

The fire that destroyed the 112-year-old hotel in early January
removed a significant community gathering place and a source of
sales tax revenue for the little town in South Routt County.
Within May, the town has done much to brighten up its appearance,
including new flower barrels. But it's hard to look beyond the
fire debris on Moffat Avenue, the town's main street.

One of the intermediate steps the CDPHE directed Ager to take was
installing a fence around the perimeter of his property. Yackey
said that job was completed June 12 through a collaborative effort
among the county and the town, which leased panels of chain link
fence, and Ager, who picked the fencing up from the Front Range
and assembled a crew to install it.

However, the state agency also gave Ager 30 days to retain a
certified contractor to either secure a layer of polyethylene over
the debris or spray it with magnesium chloride (the chemical used
to cut down dust on unpaved roads) to prevent disturbance of the
debris (presumably by the wind).

That has not yet happened, and County Manager Tom Sullivan told
commissioners that, "the state decided whatever risk there is,
they aren't going to spend any money on it."

Zopf said applying a coating of mag chloride would cost thousands
of dollars, and the permanent solution would likely cost tens of
thousands of dollars.

Commissioner Doug Monger said that, without documentation of the
health risk from the asbestos in this circumstance, he's dubious
about its existence.

"We still don't have anything telling us it's a hazard," he said.

"I don't believe that anyone can really assess the public health
risk from the material that remains onsite," Zopf told Steamboat
Today in an e-mail. "There are just too many variables. The
prudent thing is to comply with the CDPHE guidance."

Commissioner Cari Hermacinski said she would be opposed to the
county weighing in to tackle the problem -- either through its
building department, department of health or with financial
assistance -- until the problem is better understood.

"We ultimately need to know what is the worst case scenario,"
Hermacinski said.

Assistant County Attorney Erick Knaus said he would advise against
taking any steps outside those described by the state health
department.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Most Exposed to Fibro Losses
-------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reported that U.S.
property/casualty insurers' asbestos reserves were deficient by $5
billion to $12 billion as of year-end 2014, with Berkshire
Hathaway Inc. being most exposed, Fitch Ratings Inc. said in a
report issued on June 16.

Industry asbestos reserves now total $22 billion, representing
about 4% of industry loss reserves, according to the Chicago-based
rating agency's Asbestos Reserves Dashboard: 2015 report.

The agency said it has increased its maximum estimate of ultimate
industry insured losses for asbestos exposures to $90 billion as
of year-end 2014 from a previous estimate of $85 billion.  It said
incurred losses continue to materialize, tied partly to
mesothelioma claims and rising legal defense costs, which have
been only partially offset by a reduction in new claims filings.

The report said Fitch expects asbestos reserves to continue to
"bleed through" insurers' and reinsurers' earnings, rather than
"resulting in severe capital shocks."

"Industry practice remains largely to strengthen reserves as
claims are paid, thereby keeping reserve levels relatively flat.
The earnings drag from asbestos losses for insurers with the
greatest exposure has averaged almost 1 percentage point to the
group's combined ratio over the past five years," says the report.

Fitch said in its 2014 U.S. Asbestos Liability Dashboard that it
estimates U.S. property/casualty industry statutory asbestos
reserves to be deficient by $2 billion to $9 billion at year-end
2013.

Berkshire Hathaway has the most asbestos reserves of all
companies, with about $14 billion, according to the report. But it
has assumed $12 billion of asbestos losses through reinsurance
transactions, according to the report.

A spokesman for Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway could not
immediately be reached for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Fibro Settlements Disclosure Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, in an order dated June
11, 2015, denied, without prejudice, defendant Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company's motion to compel disclosure of Plaintiff Donna
McMann's settlements with other asbestos defendants.  Judge Settle
also denied defendant Crane Co.'s motion to preclude the Plaintiff
from using corporate representative deposition testimony in lieu
of live testimony.  Judge Settle further granted the Defendants'
unopposed motion to apply maritime law to the McManns' remaining
claims.

The case is DONNA McMANN, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the heirs and estate of ALAN McMANN, Plaintiff,
v. CRANE CO., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. C14-5429 BHS (W.D.
Wash.).  A full-text copy of Judge Settle's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/3jq526from Leagle.com.

Donna McMann, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett B Naman , THE
NEMEROFF LAW FIRM, Benjamin Robert Couture , WEINSTEIN COUTURE
PLLC, Brian Weinstein , WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Richard I Nemeroff
, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM & Christopher B Norris , THE NEMEROFF LAW
FIRM.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G William Shaw , K&L GATES
LLP, Michael J Ross , K&L GATES LLP & Geoffrey M Davis , K&L GATES
LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
David D Mordekhov , GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC & Ronald C
Gardner , GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Hammell" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Hammell, individually and as executrix of the estate of
Arthur Hammell, asserts that Arthur Hammell was exposed to
asbestos-containing products that were manufactured, distributed,
or supplied by certain defendants during his service in the United
States Navy.  Foster Wheeler, LLC, named in the case as Foster
Wheeler Energy Corp.; CBS Corporation, named in the case as
Westinghouse Electric Corporation; and General Electric Company
separately moves for summary judgment in its favor as to all
claims asserted against it on, among others, the following
grounds: (1) the government contractor defense; and (2) the bare
metal defense.  The Plaintiff opposes the motion and cross-moves
for summary judgment in her favor as to the government contractor
defense.

Judge Mary L. Cooper of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, dened the Plaintiff's cross motions and
granted the Defendants' motions for summary judgment based on the
bare metal defense.

The case is LINDA HAMMELL, individually and as executrix of the
estate of ARTHUR HAMMELL, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-13
(MLC)(D.N.J.).

A full-text copy of Judge Cooper's memorandum opinion dated
June 26, 2015, with respect to Foster Wheeler is available at
http://is.gd/TOnyobfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Cooper's memorandum opinion dated
June 26, 2015, with respect to CBS is available at
http://is.gd/LZnPZvfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Cooper's memorandum opinion dated June
26, 2015, with respect to GE is available at http://is.gd/Za2F3s
from Leagle.com.

ARTHUR HAMMELL, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY P. BLUMSTEIN ,
SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN, BLADER & LEHMANN, PC, ROBERT E.
LYTLE , SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC, ROBERT GANNON
STEVENS, JR. , SZAFERMAN LAKIND BLUMSTEIN & BLADER PC & JOSEPH J.
MANDIA , LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP.

LINDA HAMMELL, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY P. BLUMSTEIN ,
SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN, BLADER & LEHMANN, PC, ROBERT E.
LYTLE , SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC, JOSEPH J.
MANDIA , LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP, JEFFREY P. BLUMSTEIN , SZAFERMAN,
LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN, BLADER & LEHMANN, PC, ROBERT E. LYTLE ,
SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC & ROBERT GANNON STEVENS,
JR. , SZAFERMAN LAKIND BLUMSTEIN & BLADER PC.

LINDA HAMMELL, Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT E. LYTLE ,
SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
MICHAEL JOSEPH BLOCK , WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA.

ARVINMERITOR, INC., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH P. LASALA ,
MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP & DONNA DUBETH
GARDINER , MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP.

BORG WARNER MORSE TEC, Defendant, represented by MARC SCOTT
GAFFREY , HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, ESQS..

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
WILLIAM ALLEN GOLDSTEIN , COSTELLO, SHEA & GAFFNEY.

CARRIER CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by LINTON W. TURNER,
JR. , MAYFIELD, TURNER, O'MARA & DONNELLY.

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by RICHARD
DOMINICK PICINI , CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC.

CLARK RELIANCE CORP., Defendant, represented by STEVEN ALLEN
WEINER , O'TOOLE FERNANDEZ WEINER VAN LIEU LLC.

CRANE CO., Defendant, represented by TARA LYNNE PEHUSH , K&L GATES
LLP, LISA PASCARELLA , PASCARELLA DIVITA, PLLC & MICHAEL V.
GILBERTI , MCGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C..

EATON CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL DAVID JARDIM
, MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER & ROBERT M. GILMARTIN,
JR. , McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL DORON
GOLDKLANG , LECLAIR RYAN & ROBYN GNUDI KALOCSAY , LECLAIRRYAN.

FMC CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by ANGELA COLL CALIENDO ,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber, LLP.

GENLYTE GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by SANDRA K. STEINMAN
, DARGER ERRANTE YAVITZ & BLAU LLP.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, represented by ETHAN D.
STEIN , GIBBONS, PC.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH IRA FONTAK
, LEADER & BERKON LLP.

INTERNATIONAL TRUCK AND ENGINE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented
by ELIZABETH A. WEILL , ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOT, LLC &
ROBERT J. HAFNER , ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC.

JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, represented by DAWN DEZII , MARGOLIS
EDELSTEIN & JEANINE D. CLARK , MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

MAREMONT CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH
BLOCK , WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA.

NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by
KATHLEEN P. RAMALHO , BREUNINGER & FELLMAN & SUSAN B. FELLMAN ,
BREUNINGER & FELLMAN, ESQS..

NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, Defendant,
represented by ELIZABETH A. WEILL , ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN &
MELLOT, LLC & ROBERT J. HAFNER , ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN &
MELLOTT, LLC.

PEP BOYS-MANNY MOE & JACK OF DELAWARE, INC., Defendant,
represented by PAUL C. JOHNSON , MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PA.

PNEUMO-ABEX, LLC., Defendant, represented by ROY VIOLA, JR. ,
HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG.

PROGRESS LIGHTING, INC., Defendant, represented by DAVID H.
KOCHMAN , HARRIS BEACH, LLP.

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., Defendant, represented by DONNA DUBETH
GARDINER , MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP.

STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, represented by RICHARD
PATRICK O'LEARY , Troutman Sanders LLP.

SQUARE-D CO., Defendant, represented by ANGELA COLL CALIENDO ,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber, LLP.

TODD SHIPYARDS CORP., Defendant, represented by ERIC THOM EVANS ,
WILSON ELSER.

UNION CARBIDE CORP., Defendant, represented by RICHARD DOMINICK
PICINI , CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC.

WARREN PUMPS, Defendant, represented by PAUL C. JOHNSON ,
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PA.

CLARK-RELIANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOSEPH IRA
FONTAK , LEADER & BERKON LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: June 18 Ruling in "Greenberg" Suit Modified
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, in an order dated June 29, 2015, modified its June 18, 2015,
opinion to change "Sherman's" to "Greenberg's" on page 20, line 14
of the June 18 Opinion.

The June 18 Opinion granted a petition for writ of mandate in the
asbestos-related products liability lawsuit filed by David and
Gloria Greenberg.  The Greenbergs alleged that a brake lining
arching machine manufactured by predecessors of Hennessy
Industries, Inc., released asbestos dust that caused David
Greenberg's mesothelioma.  The trial court granted summary
judgment in Hennessy's favor on petitioners' claims, concluding
that Hennessy was not liable for injury caused by asbestos dust
from brake linings its predecessor in interest neither
manufactured nor distributed.  The Petitioners seek a writ
directing the trial court to vacate the grant of summary judgment
and to enter a new order denying Hennessy's motion for summary
judgment or adjudication.  The Court of Appeals, in the June 18
Opinion, directed the respondent trial court to vacate its order
granting Hennessy's motion for summary judgment, and enter a new
order denying summary judgment and summary adjudication.

The modification does not change the judgment, according to the
Court of Appeals.

The case is DAVID GREENBERG et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; HENNESSY INDUSTRIES,
INC., Real Party in Interest, NO. B262432 (Cal. App.).  A full-
text copy of the Order dated June 29, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/O51t5Pfrom Leagle.com.

Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett and Brian P. Barrow for
Petitioners.

No appearance by Respondent.

Gordon & Rees, Don Willenburg and Mitchell B. Malachowski for Real
Party in Interest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circ. Refuses to Stay "Wilde" Remand Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an
opinion dated June 19, 2015, declined to stay an order remanding
the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Mary Jane
Wilde pending its appeal from the remand order, holding that
without either a casual nexus or a strong showing of a colorable
federal contractor defense, Huntington cannot show a likelihood of
success.

The appeals case is MARY JANE WILDE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Northrop
Grumman Shipbuilding, Incorporated, formerly known as Northrop
Grumman Ship Systems, Incorporated, formerly known as Avondale
Industries, Incorporated, formerly known as Avondale Shipyards,
Incorporated, formerly known as Avondale Marine Ways,
Incorporated, Defendant-Appellant, NO. 15-30476 (5th Circ.).  A
full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/UhG6vPfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser's Bid to Dismiss "Prust" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In an opinion and order dated June 2, 2015, the United States
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, denied
defendant Weyerhaeuser Company's motion to dismiss in the action
styled VIRGINIA PRUST, Individually and as Special Administrator
on behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff, v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, NO. 14-CV-143-WMC
(W.D. Wis.) and in several other related asbestos actions.  In so
ruling, the court missed that defendant Weyerhaeuser raised a
challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5).  The
Defendant represents that it has not been properly served as
required under Federal Rule if Civil Procedure 4 because
Weyerhaeuser served the original complaint, rather than the
amended complaint which was the operative pleading at the time of
filing.  Since more than 120 days have lapsed since the filing of
the action, defendant urges the court to dismiss the action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

In an opinion and order dated June 3, 2015, U.S. District Judge
William M. Conley denied the defendant's motion, but required the
plaintiff to properly serve the amended complaint immediately.

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

Virginia Prust, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino ,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas Hoey , Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy , Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices, Ltd..

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Amend "Yates" Complaint Denied
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, in the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned GRAHAM YATES
and BECKY YATES, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, NO. 5:12-CV-752-FL (E.D.N.C.),
issued the following rulings:

   * Defendant Honeywell International Inc.'s motion to preclude
evidence suggesting that brake dust causes pleural mesothelioma or
that "every exposure counts,," together with motion of defendant
Ford Motor Company to exclude testimony of plaintiffs' experts
Eugene Mark, M.D., and Arnold Brody, Ph.D., is granted in part and
denied in part.  A full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's Order dated
June 28, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Bq8QnQfrom
Leagle.com.

   * The Plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint is denied as Judge
Flanagan ruled that the plaintiffs are bound by their judicial
admissions in the nature of factual assertions regarding asbestos
exposure in the Navy.  The Plaintiffs' proposed amendment seeking
to delete these and other assertions, at this late juncture, after
discovery has closed, is untimely and unduly prejudicial.  A full-
text copy of Judge Flanagan's Memorandum Opinion dated June 26,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/6PSPmRfrom Leagle.com.

   * The defendants' oral motions for protective order and to
quash subpoenas, are denied, as Judge Flanagan said the defendants
have not shown standing to challenge the subpoenas.  A full-text
copy of Judge Flanagan's Order dated June 5, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/eHVKQefrom Leagle.com.

Graham Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul , Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Tiffany N. Dickenson , Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Charles E. Soechting , Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Jeffrey B. Simon , Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black , Ward Black
Law.

Becky Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul , Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Tiffany N. Dickenson , Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Charles E. Soechting , Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Jeffrey B. Simon , Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black , Ward Black
Law.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Kiger
, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, Jessica Floyd
Middlebrooks , Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan,
LLP, Kirk G. Warner , Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell &
Jernigan, Thurston H. Webb , Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP,
Addie K.S. Ries , Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell &
Jernigan, LLP, Samuel Lewis Tarry , McGuireWoods, LLP & Shepherd
D. Wainger , McGuire Woods.

Honeywell International, Inc., successor-in-interest to Bendix
Corporation formerly known as Allied-Signal, Inc., Defendant,
represented by H. Lee Davis, Jr. , Davis & Hamrick, LLP, Bruce T.
Bishop , Willcox & Savage, PC, Holly A. Hempel , Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Jason Larry Walters , Davis & Hamrick,
LLP & Kevin P. Greene , Willcox & Savage, PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Ruling in "Vedros" Suit Issued
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, in the asbestos-related lawsuit
captioned SALLY GROS VEDROS v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING,
INC., ET AL, SECTION: J(4), CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1198 (E.D. La.),
issued the following rulings:

   * The Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Dr. Gail
Stockman Which Are Outside the Scope of Opinions Offered by Dr.
Robert Sawyer, Which Are Contrary to the Opinions of Dr. Robert
Sawyer, and Which Are Contrary to Prior Rulings Already Rendered
by This Court is granted; and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to
File Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike
is denied as moot.  A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Order
dated July 1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/7gKKSBfrom
Leagle.com.

   * The Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony of Danny
Joyce and Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony of Dennis J.
Paustenbach are denied.  A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Order
dated June 18, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/nI48OCfrom
Leagle.com.

   * Defendant The Continental Insurance Company's Motion in
Limine to Exclude Deposition Testimony of Sally Gros Vedros is
denied.  A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Order dated June 18,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/zjCZHwfrom Leagle.com.

   * Defendant Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc.'s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on La. C.C. Article 1821-1823 Claims is
granted.  A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Order dated June 17,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/bAJoCmfrom Leagle.com.

   * Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claim for
Lejeune Damages filed by Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc.;
OneBeacon America Insurance Company and American Employers
Insurance Company, as alleged insurers of Eagle, Inc.; McCarty
Corporation; and Eagle, Inc., is granted.  A full-text copy of
Judge Barbider's Order dated June 8, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/gr5MnBfrom Leagle.com.

Sally Gros Vedros, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel
, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement , Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement , Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr. , Roussel & Clement.

Lori Vedros Kravet, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel , Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement , Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement , Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr. , Roussel & Clement.

Valerie Vedros White, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel , Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement , Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement , Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr. , Roussel & Clement.

Gerald Vedros, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel ,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement , Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement , Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr. , Roussel & Clement.

Albert Bossier, Jr., Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff, Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee , Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Anita Ann Cates , Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Gordon Peter
Wilson , Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles ,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Onebeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Adam Devlin deMahy , Taylor, Wellons, Politz &
Duhe, APLC & Samuel Milton Rosamond, III , Taylor, Wellons, Politz
& Duhe, APLC.

American Employers Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Adam Devlin deMahy , Taylor, Wellons, Politz &
Duhe, APLC, Gary Allen Lee , Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Gordon
Peter Wilson , Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Samuel Milton
Rosamond, III , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

American Motorists Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Brian C. Bossier , Blue Williams, LLP, Gary Allen Lee , Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates , Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III , Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A.
Ellinghausen, III , Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd , Blue
Williams, LLP & Gordon Peter Wilson , Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler , Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Alexandra Lamothe , Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas , Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III ,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lee Blanton Ziffer ,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis
Richeson , Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H.
Abraham , Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Robert
Edward Guidry , Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC &
Sophia L. Lauricella , Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP.

Eagle, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth
Kohn , Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler ,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry , Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold , Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

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

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Thomas L. Cougill , Willingham, Fultz & Cougill,
LLP, Jamie M Zanovec , Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette
Seraile-Riggins , Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, LLP & Jennifer D.
Zajac , Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot , Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, Jevan Smoot Fleming , Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr. , Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann
& Papale.

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

Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Edward T. Hayes , Leake & Andersson, LLP, Adam D Whitworth ,
Leake & Andersson, LLP & Marc E. Devenport , Leake & Andersson,
LLP.

Continental Insurance Co, Defendant, represented by Glenn Gill
Goodier , Jones Walker, Hansford P. Wogan , Jones Walker, William
C. Baldwin , Jones Walker & William P. Wynne , Jones Walker.

Uniroyal Inc, Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes ,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Jason K. Elam ,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Dismissed in Ill. Fibro Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois granted the motions filed by General
Electric Company, Johnson Controls, Inc., and Union Carbide
Corporation to dismiss the lawsuit initiated by Dennis Rozumek,
who alleged he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise
absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers from products
manufactured, sold, distributed, installed or promoted by the
Defendants.

Judge Yandle granted the motions to dismiss after finding that the
Plaintiff has alleged insufficient facts to establish that the
Defendants' affiliation with Illinois is "so continuous and
systematic as to render" it at home in Illinois.

The cases are:

   * DENNIS ROZUMEK, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et
     al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-441-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A
     full-text copy of Judge Yandle's memorandum and order dated
     July 1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/KVV2hEfrom
     Leagle.com.

   * DENNIS ROZUMEK, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., et al.,
     Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-441-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A
     full-text copy of Judge Yandle's memorandum and order dated
     July 1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/JKfmoefrom
     Leagle.com.

   * DENNIS ROZUMEK, Plaintiff, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et
     al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-441-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A
     full-text copy of Judge Yandle's memorandum and order dated
     July 1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Px4Nr5from
     Leagle.com.

Dennis Rozumek, Plaintiff, represented by Erica Mynarich , Carver,
Cantin & Grantham & Ben A. Vinson, Jr. , Vinson Law.

Air & Liquid Systems, Inc, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill , Heyl, Royster et al. & James R. Grabowski ,
Heyl, Royster et al..

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman , Segal, McCambridge et al..

CBS Corporation, sor-in-Interest to BF Sturtevant Co., Defendant,
represented by Michael R. Dauphin , Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Crane Co., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Deming
Pump Co., Cochrane Corporation and Chapman Valve Co.,, Defendant,
represented by Carl J. Geraci , HeplerBroom LLC & Benjamin J.
Wilson , HeplerBroom LLC.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Daniel W. McGrath , Hinshaw & Culbertson,
Dennis J. Graber , Hinshaw & Culbertson, Haley Marie Schumacher ,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, James M. Brodzik , Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, Mark D. Bauman , Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice ,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag , Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP.

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

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

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Dennis J. Graber , Hinshaw & Culbertson, Haley
Marie Schumacher , Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, 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, Cross
Claimant, represented by Kathleen Ann Hardee , Polsinelli PC &
Kirra N. Jones , Polsinelli PC.

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by
Keith B. Hill , Heyl, Royster et al. & James R. Grabowski , Heyl,
Royster et al..

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

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

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

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

Strahman Valves, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman , Segal, McCambridge et al..

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

Warren Pumps, L.L.C., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Keith B. Hill , Heyl, Royster et al. & James R.
Grabowski , Heyl, Royster et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Refuses to Remand "Smith" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Tynan Smith suffers from head and neck cancer, asbestosis, and
non-malignant pleural changes.  He and his spouse, Mary Ellen
Smith, sue the Wayne Manufacturing Corporation, the Lofton
Corporation, and several other firms, alleging under a host of
state law theories that those businesses are responsible for
exposing him to the asbestos that allegedly caused his
afflictions.  Wayne and Lofton removed the case from the Circuit
Court of Baltimore City, asserting federal officer jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1) on the basis of the federal
contractor defense.

Smith now moves to remand, which Judge Catherine C. Blake of the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied,
finding that Wayne and Lofton have alleged facts sufficient to
satisfy each of the requirements of Section 1442(a)(1), so that
the District Court has jurisdiction over the case.

The case is TYNAN SMITH, et al. v. UNION CARBIDE CORP., et al.,
CIVIL NO. CCB-14-3742 (D. Md.).  A full-text copy of Judge Blake's
Memorandum dated July 2, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/6SplUd
from Leagle.com.

Tynan Smith, Plaintiff, represented by James Edward Garland , Law
Offices of Peter Angelos & Mary Cina Chalawsky , Law Offices of
Peter G Angelos.

Mary Ellen Smith, Plaintiff, represented by James Edward Garland ,
Law Offices of Peter Angelos & Mary Cina Chalawsky , Law Offices
of Peter G Angelos.

John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., Defendant, represented by Leianne S
McEvoy , Miles and Stockbridge PC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Clare Marie Maisano ,
Evert Weathersby Houff.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David J Quigg,
Esq. -- dquigg@meringerlaw.com -- Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Leianne S
McEvoy , Miles and Stockbridge PC.

International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by Clare Marie
Maisano , Evert Weathersby Houff.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Leianne S McEvoy ,
Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Selby, Battersby & Co., Defendant, represented by Leianne S McEvoy
, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Foseco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Leianne S McEvoy , Miles
and Stockbridge PC.

Wayne Manufacturing Corporation, Defendant, represented by David W
Allen, Esq. -- dwa@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann
LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Esq. -- tgoldberg@gdldlaw.com --
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Lofton Corporation, Defendant, represented by David W Allen,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell
DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Payne" Remanded for Hearing on Damages
--------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Knoxville, remanded a lawsuit
filed by a railroad employee who was diagnosed with lung cancer
against the railroad under the Federal Employers' Liability Act to
the trial court for a hearing on damages.

In this case, by special verdict, the jury awarded the plaintiff
$8.6 million, finding that the employee's cancer and subsequent
death were caused not only by the railroad's negligence but also
by its negligence per se. The jury also found that the employee
was sixty-two percent at fault due to his history of cigarette
smoking. After the return of the verdict, the trial court
instructed the jury that because of its finding that the railroad
had violated safety regulations, the Federal Employers' Liability
Act did not allow for a reduction of the amount of damages based
upon the employee's contributory fault, meaning that the plaintiff
would receive the entire $8.6 million. The jury then deliberated
for an additional eight minutes and returned with an amended
verdict awarding the plaintiff $3.2 million "at 100%." The trial
court entered judgment on the amended verdict but later granted a
new trial and entered an order of recusal. A substitute judge
granted the railroad's motion for summary judgment after excluding
the plaintiff's expert proof on the issue of causation.  On appeal
by the plaintiff, the Court of Appeals reversed the summary
judgment and remanded with directions for the original trial judge
to review the evidence and enter judgment on either the original
$8.6 million verdict or the amended $3.2 million verdict.

According to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the original trial judge
erred by granting the Defendant's motion for a new trial based
upon the asserted evidentiary and instructional issues, all of
which were either not error at all or were errors so insubstantial
that they did not warrant a new trial as to liability.

The Tennessee Supreme Court said the only prejudicial errors in
the trial were the improper instructions provided after the jury
had returned its initial verdict, which resulted in a reduction of
the amount of damages awarded, and the failure of the trial court
to independently assess the amount of damages initially awarded by
the jury.  Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is a
new trial only as to the issue of damages, the Tennessee Supreme
Court held.

The case is ANNE PAYNE, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., NO. E2012-
02392-SC-R11-CV (Tenn.).  A full-text copy of the Tennessee
Supreme Court's opinion dated July 1, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/T1Z1Zlfrom Leagle.com.

Randall A. Jordan , Grant C. Buckley , Karen Jenkins Young , and
Christopher R. Jordan , St. Simons Island, Georgia; John W. Baker
Jr. and Emily L. Herman-Thompson , Knoxville, Tennessee; and Evan
Mark Tager and Carl J. Summers , Washington, DC, for the
appellant, CSX Transportation, Inc.

Richard N. Shapiro , Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Sidney W.
Gilreath , Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Anne Payne.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Dismissed from "McAlvey" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in the asbestos-related lawsuit
captioned GERALD D. McALVEY, Plaintiffs, v. ATLAS COPCO
COMPRESSORS, L.L.C., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-00064-SMY-
SCW (S.D. Ill.), denied defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s motion
for summary judgment and granted defendant Honeywell
International, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

With respect to Owens-Illinois' motion, Judge Yandle found that,
in this case, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence of
exposure to avoid summary judgment.  Other witnesses present on
the ships at or around the same time the Plaintiff was on the
ships have testified that Owens-Illinois insulation contained
asbestos and was used in work on machinery and equipment,
specifically on the Roosevelt.  A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's
Memorandum and Order, dated July 1, 2015, with respect to Owens-
Illinois is available at http://is.gd/ENL1ahfrom Leagle.com.

With respect to Honeywell, Judge Yandle found that the Plaintiff
has alleged insufficient facts to establish that Honeywell's
affiliation with Illinois is "so continuous and systematic as to
render" Honeywell at home in Illinois.  A full-text copy of Judge
Yandle's Memorandum and Order, dated July 1, 2015, with respect to
Honeywell is available at http://is.gd/2EKh3Ofrom Leagle.com.

Gerald D McAlvey, Plaintiff, represented by Ben A. Vinson, Jr.,
Vinson Law, Zane T. Cagle, Cagle Law Firm, LLC & John D Sloan, Jr,
Sloan, Bagley, Hatcher & Perry.

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

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

CBS Corporaton, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel
G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

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

Ford Motor Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Mark E.
Winters, Sanchez, Daniels & Hoffman, LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..

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

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

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP, James R.
Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., 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, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura
K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

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

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP & Matthew J. Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Warren Pumps, L.L.C., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Keith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al., Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al.
& Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP.


                            *********

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  * * *