CAR_Public/150904.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, September 4, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 177


                            Headlines


126 BAKE: Faces "Sampedro" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
675 NINTH: Faces "Cando" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ABC CORP: Faces "Castro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AEROGROUP RETAIL: Faces "Roy" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Defendant in 10 Heath Care Recovery Actions

ALTRIA GROUP: 18 Tobacco-Related Cases Set for Trial in 2015
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Paid $276MM in Tobacco-Related Judgments
ALTRIA GROUP: 3,125 State Court Cases Pending vs. PM at July 24
ALTRIA GROUP: Court Approved Proposed Distribution Plan
ALTRIA GROUP: 81 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts

ALTRIA GROUP: Still Defending Seven Class Actions in Canada
ALTRIA GROUP: January 2016 Trial in Medical Monitoring Action
ALTRIA GROUP: 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending at July 24
ALTRIA GROUP: Courts Refused to Certify 19 "Lights" Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Begin October 19 in Aspinall Case

ALTRIA GROUP: Re-Trial to Begin February 2016 in Larsen Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Scheduled for August 2016 in Miner Case
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Filed Summary Judgment Bid in Carroll Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Occurred in Price Lawsuit
ALTRIA GROUP: Kansas Supreme Court Denied Petition for Review

ALTRIA GROUP: Proceedings in Five Argentine Grower Cases Stayed
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Commence in Q1 2016 in UST Litigation
AMERICAN EXPRESS: September 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ANAMIAS TEX-MEX: "Orozco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ANGLOGOLD: Faces Class Suit Over African Miners with Silicosis

ANTHEM BLUE: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Claims Handling Practices
ANTHEM INC: Plaintiffs Filed Notice of Appeal From Judgment
ANTHEM INC: Jan. 2016 Deadline for Filing Summary Judgment Bids
ANTHEM INC: Discovery Commenced in Blue Cross Antitrust Suit
AVID LIFE: "Doe" Privacy Breach Suit Transferred to E. D. Mo.

BASS FISHING: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
BIG 5: October 20 Hearing to Consider Final Settlement Approval
BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy
BLUE CROSS: Hospital Service Asserts Market Allocation Conspiracy
BLUESTEM BRANDS: Overly Charges Interest Rates, "Parm" Suit Says

BREATHLESS INC: Faces Suit Over FLSA, N.J. Labor Law "Violation"
BRICK TAVERN: Faces "Pavich" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
C & S CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Contract Balance
CARRIER ONE: Faces "Lewis" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA, IWPCA
CBS CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Unauthorised Use of Music

CELLADON CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
COOPER VISION: Faces "Lanzarotti" Suit Over Lenses-Price Fixing
DOT HILL: Firm Announces Securities Class Suit Periods
DOT HILL: Faces "Trager" Suit Over Proposed Seagate Takeover
EDGAR ADULT: Ontario Institutions File Suit After Huronia Deal

EL CASTILLO: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Moraga" Suit Claims
EL POLLO: Faces "Turocy" Shareholder Suit in C.D. Cal. Court
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Judge Grants Final Approval to $40MM Settlement
EMERGENCY STAFFING: Faces "Reid" Suit Over Labor Law Breaches
EXELON CORPORATION: Final Approval Hearing to Be Held This Fall

FORMFACTOR INC: Mediation Sessions Did Not Result in Settlement
GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified in Andrea Katz Lawsuit
GARMIN LTD: Opposed Motion to Certify Brian Meyers Class Suit
GUESS? RETAIL: Faces "Burgos" Suit for Labor Code Violations
HILLTOP HOLDINGS: To Defend Actions Related to SWS Acquisition

HOSPIRA INC: Named as Defendants in 5 Class Actions
HUNTSMAN CORP: Feb. 2016 Trial Set in Opt-Out Litigation
HUNTSMAN CORP: Civil Antitrust Suit Still Pending
IBM CORP: Faces "Sa Vu" Suit Seeking to Enjoin Merge Acquisition
JAGUAR HYDROSTATIC: "Shaw" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

JUICE GENERATION: Faces "Dorge" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Class Suit Over 'Natural' Diapers and Wipes
LABEL HOSPITALITY: "Weaver" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LA CANASTA: "Sarria" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LIQUIDATION CHANNEL: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Ads

LOWE'S HOME: Removed "Acevedo" Class Suit to C.D. California
LU WOODSIDE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
MADISON COUNTY, TN: "Powell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $722 Million Liability as Reserve
MASTERCARD INC: Class Suits Filed in Saskatchewan and Alberta

MASTERCARD INC: ATM Surcharge Complaints Still Pending
MERCK SHARP: 9th Circ. Eviscerates 2014 'En Banc' Decision
MIKE SCOTT: Bid for Sanctions Protections Denied
NESTLE USA: Sued Over Alleged Suppliers' Use of Forced Labor
NTELOS HOLDINGS: Faces "Westen" Suit Over Shentel Merger Plans

OC FREDDIE'S: "Dale" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OHIO TECHNICAL: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Green" Suit Says
PLAINS ALL: Saxena White Files Securities Class Suit
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend McCaffree Action
PTG ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

REFINISHING TOUCH: Faces "Crawford" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RENT MAX: Faces "De Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SOLAZYME INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
ST. LOUIS, MO: To Refund $5.6-Mil. Over Red-Light Tickets

TD BANK: "Searcy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TENARIS GLOBAL: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNISUPER: Criticises Class Suit Funders Over Fees
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Panel Prefers Arbitrator to Resolve Claim
VITAL SUPPORT: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

WHOLE FOODS: Sued in California Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
XOOM CORP: Liu, Barrett Actions Remanded to San Francisco Court
XOOM CORP: Actions Consolidated in Delaware Chancery Court
ZULILY INC: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Proposed Liberty Takeover

* CFPB Arbitration May Unlock Floodgates of Consumer Class Suits


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Has No Authority Over Insurers' PCC Bids
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Industries Has $100.7MM Fibro Coverage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Sealing Has Two Pending Fibro Appeals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $500-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,150 Fibro Cases at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Has 12,000 Fibro Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 3,813 PI Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Unit Has 7,730 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $993MM Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 395 Fibro Cases at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Continues to Insure Unti Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Completes Re Deal on A&E Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 54,000 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Has $268MM Accrual for PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 4 Fibro Suits in Louisiana

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Subsidiary Defends 693 PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Kalahar"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Liability in "Oddo" Revised to $2.5MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Raytheon's Bid to Dismiss "McCourt" Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Dismisses Inmate's Pro Se Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Verdict in "Hellam"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court Flips Fluor Insurance Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Testimony Partially OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $32MM Punitive Damages Award in PI Suit Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Treadwell's Bid to Dismiss "Koulermos" Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Deaths Above Average in Maine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exec Sentenced for Exposing Children in Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Atty Raises Concerns About NJ Locomotive
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Factors in Former Miner's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Reaches Defense Verdict for Lockheed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gran Exposed to Fibro by Washing Overalls
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,300+ Claims Filed in Akron Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Spent GBP50,000 for Fibro Defense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man's Death Caused by Exposure to RAF Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.Va. High Ct. Reaffirms Diagnoses Requirements

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Suit Targets Dozens of Companies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns Keep Tulsa Airport Tower Closed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Court Commanded to Nix $2.6MM Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Parish Accused of Covering Up Fibro Danger
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $5MM Verdict Hangs on Ga. High Court Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auckland Director Fined $25K for Fibro Site Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim Launches Suit vs. Wunderlich Factory
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Jurors Award $11.5MM at End of Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victim Seeks Support from Co-Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Worker Sues Fibro Firm for Cancer Pain

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victorian Wildlife at Risk Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Nurse Diagnosed with Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Sufferer Seeks Help from Colleagues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Workers' Overalls Causes Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Homebuilder Awarded $6-Mil. in Fibro Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potential Fibro Suit Filed for "Beau" Hicks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Golden Wonder Factory Builders Warned of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Outdated EPA Rules May Increase Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dads Fears for Family's Health Over Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moorhead Man Develops Disease from Fibro Work

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Accused Firm of Gaming Fibro Recovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCAW Applauds Changes on Position in Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US EPA to Update Fibro Standard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coventry Hospital Handyman Wins GBP150,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Cedar Rapids School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Timaru Hospital Basement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Kills Allestree Builder
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joiner Dies of Lung Cancer Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Ct. Flips Dismissal of Broker from Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Rejects Challenges to Testimony

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Transparency Bill Proposed in Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafeBC Cracks Down on Renos Over Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Solons Urge Retailers to Pull Crayons with Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Fibro Victim Seeks Help in Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Research Foundation Deposed in NY Fibro Trial

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Alleges Wife Suffers Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MassDEP Fines UMass Memorial for Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pirelli Execs Convicted for Fibro-Linked Deaths
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Seeks Justice for Pa's Fibro Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Fibro Filings Down in 1H 2015

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Fibro Victim Seeks Witnesses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa Man Sentenced to Prison for Fibro Violation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. High Court Remands Fibro Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Didn't Warn About Fibro, Jury Told
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Niece Raises Awareness After Fibro Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Alleges Years of Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co., Owner Sentenced in Fibro Dumping Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salem Company Fined for Fibro Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eternit Put to Italy's Constitutional Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Battles Exeter Uni for Compensation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idaho Fined After Demolishing Bldg. with Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Issues Fibro Violations at Shaw Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Shipbuilder Dies from Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Diagnosed with Fibro-related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lichfield Man Dies of Fibro-related Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane Hit with $1.4-Mil. Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Solons Attack Niagara County Officer Over Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metro Cars Contain Fibro, Documents Show
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Probe Leads to Jail Term in Ohio
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idaho Dept. Fails to Perform Fibro Inspection

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builder Denies Exposing Workers to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Rejects $1.4MM Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Heating Engineers in Court Over Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dalton Granddad Dies Due to Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Claims Cigars with Fibro Causes Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dec. 14 Set as EFH Fibro Claims Filing Date
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Exeter Univ Worker Wins Fibro Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Pipefitter Dies of Fibro Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Mechanic Ask for $19MM in Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lothian Councils Pay GBP700K to Fibro Victims


                            *********


126 BAKE: Faces "Sampedro" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Sampedro, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. 126 Bake Corp. d/b/a Tasty Cafe, 128 Bake
Corp. d/b/a Tasty Cafe, Kamal Khadr, Ahmed Zabady, Mohammed
Zabady, and John Does #1-10, Case 1:15-cv-06537 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
19, 2015), seeks compensation for wages paid at less than the
statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from defendants for overtime
work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as
required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Stein, Esq.
     David Nieporent, Esq.
     SAMUEL & STEIN
     38 West 32nd Street
     Suite 1110
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: (212) 563-9884


675 NINTH: Faces "Cando" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Cando, Rosalino Roman, Vicente Perez, Javier Pilco, Felipe
Och Suy and Modesto Flores, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. 675 Ninth Avenue Corp., d/b/a Scarlatto,
LJ202 LLC, d/b/a Bocca East, Tom Bifulco, Sam Doe, and Tari Doe,
Case No. 1:15-cv-06814 (S.D.N.Y, August 27, 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 two Italian restaurants in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


ABC CORP: Faces "Castro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matilde Castro, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. ABC Corp. d/b/a Phils Landscaping Inc., Philip Deluca and John
Does 1-2, Case No. 15-004008 (D.N.Y., August 27, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping company located at
3403 Stratford Road, Wantagh. NY 11793.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
      MONTEIRO & KISHMAN U.P
      91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
      Hempstead, NY 11550
      Telephone: (516) 280-4600
      Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
      E-mail: iiunonteiro@mflawny.com


AEROGROUP RETAIL: Faces "Roy" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Jodi Roy f/k/a Jodi Martin, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Aerogroup Retail Holdings, Inc., Case
1:15-cv-02941-CAP (N.D.Ga., Aug. 19, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Aerogroup Retail Holdings, Inc. is an apparel industry that
engages in the manufacturing and retailing of shoe sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason R. Doss, Esq.
     Samuel T. Brannan, Esq.
     THE DOSS FIRM, LLC
     36 Trammell Street, Suite 101
     Marietta, Georgia 30064
     Tel: (770) 578-1314
     Fax: (770) 578-1302
     E-mail: jasondoss@dossfirm.com


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Defendant in 10 Heath Care Recovery Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of July 24, 2015,
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), is a named defendant in ten
health care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight of which also
name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc. are also named defendants in seven smoking and health class
actions filed in various Canadian provinces.


ALTRIA GROUP: 18 Tobacco-Related Cases Set for Trial in 2015
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of July 24, 2015, 16
Engle progeny cases, one "Lights/Ultra Lights" class action and
two individual smoking and health cases against Philip Morris USA
Inc. ("PM USA"), are set for trial in 2015. Cases against other
companies in the tobacco industry are also scheduled for trial in
2015. Trial dates are subject to change.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Paid $276MM in Tobacco-Related Judgments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that since October 2004,
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") has paid in the aggregate
judgments (and related costs and fees) totaling approximately $276
million and interest totaling approximately $144 million as of
July 24, 2015, associated with tobacco-related litigation.

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 56 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights"
and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a
defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were
returned in 38 of the 56 cases. These 38 cases were tried in
Alaska (1), California (6), Florida (10), Louisiana (1),
Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (3), New Hampshire
(1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1),
Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion
for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in
the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court
withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for
reconsideration. Oral argument of plaintiff's appeal of this
ruling occurred in September 2014.

Of the 18 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 15 have reached final resolution. A
verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were
dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against
defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois
(Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in
December 2006, but plaintiff is seeking to reinstate the verdict,
which an intermediate appellate court ordered in April 2014. PM
USA filed a petition for leave to appeal, which automatically
stayed the April 2014 order. In September 2014, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal. Oral
argument occurred on May 19, 2015.

As of July 24, 2015, 81 state and federal Engle progeny cases
involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision as follows: 43 verdicts were
returned in favor of plaintiffs; 36 verdicts were returned in
favor of PM USA; and two verdicts that were initially returned in
favor of plaintiffs were reversed on appeal and remain pending.

After exhausting all appeals in those cases resulting in adverse
verdicts associated with tobacco-related litigation, since October
2004, PM USA has paid in the aggregate judgments (and related
costs and fees) totaling approximately $276 million and interest
totaling approximately $144 million as of July 24, 2015. These
amounts include payments for Engle progeny judgments (and related
costs and fees) totaling approximately $19 million and interest
totaling approximately $3 million.


ALTRIA GROUP: 3,125 State Court Cases Pending vs. PM at July 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of July 24, 2015,
approximately 3,125 state court cases were pending against Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") or Altria Group, Inc. asserting
individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 4,100 state
court plaintiffs.  Furthermore, as of July 24, 2015, approximately
425 cases were pending against PM USA in federal district court
asserting individual claims by or on behalf of a similar number of
federal court plaintiffs.

Engle Class Action

In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health
class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing
punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against
various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA.
Following entry of judgment, PM USA appealed.

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that
execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment
will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating
defendants through the completion of all judicial review. As a
result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into an
interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the outcome of
the judicial review, was to be paid to the court and the court was
to determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent with
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In May 2003, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the
trial court and instructed the trial court to order the
decertification of the class. Plaintiffs petitioned the Florida
Supreme Court for further review.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the punitive
damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial
court be decertified and that members of the decertified class
could file individual actions against defendants within one year
of issuance of the mandate. The court further declared the
following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in
such individual actions brought within one year of the issuance of
the mandate: (i) that smoking causes various diseases; (ii) that
nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants'
cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that
defendants concealed or omitted material information not otherwise
known or available knowing that the material was false or
misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the
health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that defendants
agreed to misrepresent information regarding the health effects or
addictive nature of cigarettes with the intention of causing the
public to rely on this information to their detriment; (vi) that
defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the
health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the
intention that smokers would rely on the information to their
detriment; (vii) that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes
that were defective; and (viii) that defendants were negligent.
The court also reinstated compensatory damages awards totaling
approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found
that a third plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of
limitations. In February 2008, PM USA paid approximately $3
million, representing its share of compensatory damages and
interest, to the two individual plaintiffs identified in the
Florida Supreme Court's order.

In August 2006, PM USA sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme
Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling that
certain jury findings have res judicata effect in subsequent
individual trials timely brought by Engle class members. The
rehearing motion also asked, among other things, that legal errors
that were raised but not expressly ruled upon in the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal or in the Florida Supreme Court now be
addressed. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for rehearing in August
2006 seeking clarification of the applicability of the statute of
limitations to non-members of the decertified class. In December
2006, the Florida Supreme Court refused to revise its July 2006
ruling, except that it revised the set of Phase I findings
entitled to res judicata effect by excluding finding (v) listed
(relating to agreement to misrepresent information), and added the
finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the
time of sale or supply, did not conform to the representations of
fact made by defendants.

In January 2007, the Florida Supreme Court issued the mandate from
its revised opinion. Defendants then filed a motion with the
Florida Third District Court of Appeal requesting that the court
address legal errors that were previously raised by defendants but
have not yet been addressed either by the Florida Third District
Court of Appeal or by the Florida Supreme Court. In February 2007,
the Florida Third District Court of Appeal denied defendants'
motion. In May 2007, defendants' motion for a partial stay of the
mandate pending the completion of appellate review was denied by
the Florida Third District Court of Appeal. In May 2007,
defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court, which the United States Supreme Court denied
later in 2007.

In February 2008, the trial court decertified the class, except
for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and formally
vacated the punitive damages award pursuant to the Florida Supreme
Court's mandate. In April 2008, the trial court ruled that certain
defendants, including PM USA, lacked standing with respect to
allocation of the funds escrowed under the May 2001 bond
stipulation and would receive no credit at that time from the $500
million paid by PM USA against any future punitive damages awards
in cases brought by former Engle class members.

In May 2008, the trial court, among other things, decertified the
limited class maintained for purposes of the May 2001 bond
stipulation and, in July 2008, severed the remaining plaintiffs'
claims except for those of Howard Engle. The only remaining
plaintiff in the Engle case, Howard Engle, voluntarily dismissed
his claims with prejudice.

Engle Progeny Cases

The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases, as required by the
Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision, expired in January 2008.
As of July 24, 2015, approximately 3,125 state court cases were
pending against PM USA or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual
claims by or on behalf of approximately 4,100 state court
plaintiffs.  Furthermore, as of July 24, 2015, approximately 425
cases were pending against PM USA in federal district court
asserting individual claims by or on behalf of a similar number of
federal court plaintiffs. Most of these federal cases are pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Moreover, most of these federal cases are subject to resolution
pursuant to the agreement under Tentative Agreement to Resolve
Federal Engle Progeny Cases. Because of a number of factors,
including, but not limited to, docketing delays, duplicated
filings and overlapping dismissal orders, these numbers are
estimates.

In July 2013, the district court issued an order transferring, for
case management purposes, all the Middle District of Florida Engle
progeny cases to a judge presiding in the District of
Massachusetts. The order directed that the cases will remain in
the Middle District of Florida and that such judge will be
designated a judge of that district for purposes of managing the
cases. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed a significant number of cases, of which approximately
750 were appealed by plaintiffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit. In September 2014, the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed those dismissals.


ALTRIA GROUP: Court Approved Proposed Distribution Plan
-------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court in Florida has
approved plaintiffs' proposed plan for distribution.

In February 2015, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company ("R.J. Reynolds") and Lorillard Tobacco Company
("Lorillard") reached a tentative agreement to resolve
approximately 415 pending federal Engle progeny cases (the
"Federal Engle Agreement"). Under the terms of the Federal Engle
Agreement, PM USA paid into escrow approximately $43 million in
March 2015, which was included in other current assets on Altria
Group, Inc.'s condensed consolidated balance sheet at June 30,
2015. PM USA recorded a pre-tax provision of approximately $43
million in the first quarter of 2015.

Federal cases that were in trial as of February 25, 2015 and those
that have previously reached final verdict are not included in the
Federal Engle Agreement. Engle progeny lawsuits pending in Florida
state courts are also not part of the Federal Engle Agreement.

The Federal Engle Agreement is conditioned on approval by all
federal court plaintiffs in the cases resolved by the Federal
Engle Agreement or as the parties otherwise agree.

In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida issued an order staying all upcoming federal trials
pending final approval of the Federal Engle Agreement and, on May
11, 2015, approved the plaintiffs' proposed plan for distribution
among the plaintiffs of the amount in escrow.


ALTRIA GROUP: 81 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts
---------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of July 24, 2015, 81
federal and state Engle progeny cases involving Philip Morris USA
Inc. ("PM USA") have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court Engle decision. Forty-three verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs and two verdicts (Graham and Skolnick) that
were initially returned in favor of plaintiffs were reversed on
appeal and remain pending.

Thirty-six verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA, of which 27
were state cases (Gelep, Kalyvas, Gil de Rubio, Warrick, Willis,
Russo (formerly Frazier), C. Campbell, Rohr, Espinosa, Oliva,
Weingart, Junious, Szymanski, Hancock, D. Cohen, LaMotte, J.
Campbell, Dombey, Haldeman, Blasco, Gonzalez, Banks, Surico, Baum,
Bishop, Vila and McMannis) and 9 were federal cases (Gollihue,
McCray, Denton, Wilder, Jacobson, Reider, Davis, Starbuck and
Sowers). In addition, there have been a number of mistrials, only
some of which have resulted in new trials as of July 24, 2015. The
juries in the Reider and Banks cases returned zero damages
verdicts in favor of PM USA. The juries in the Weingart and
Hancock cases returned verdicts against PM USA awarding no
damages, but the trial court in each case granted an additur. In
the Russo case (formerly Frazier), however, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in defendants'
favor in April 2012 and remanded the case for a new trial.
Defendants sought review of the case in the Florida Supreme Court,
which was granted in September 2013.

In April 2015, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the reversal,
rejecting defendants' argument that the statute of repose applies
to fraud and conspiracy claims in Engle progeny cases, and
defendants moved for a rehearing in the Florida Supreme Court. In
the trial court, the case was retried and, on April 23, 2015, the
jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants.


ALTRIA GROUP: Still Defending Seven Class Actions in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of July 24, 2015,
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and Altria Group, Inc. are named
as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.
In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases).

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York
(2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1),
South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of July 24, 2015, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as
defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.
In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the
actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs
seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked
defendants' cigarettes.


ALTRIA GROUP: January 2016 Trial in Medical Monitoring Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that trial is scheduled to
start January 25, 2016 and will take place in multiple phases in a
medical monitoring class action.

In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs seek to recover the cost
for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised programs
for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a class of
individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose
liability under various product-based causes of action and the
creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the
purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in order to identify
and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek
punitive damages, although plaintiffs in Donovan have sought
permission from the court to seek to treble any damages awarded.
The future defense of these cases may be negatively impacted by
evolving medical standards and practice.

One medical monitoring class action is currently pending against
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"). In Donovan, filed in December
2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
plaintiffs purportedly brought the action on behalf of the state's
residents who are: age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand
for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with
lung cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for
suspected lung cancer. The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, in answering questions certified to it by the
district court, held in October 2009 that under certain
circumstances state law recognizes a claim by individual smokers
for medical monitoring despite the absence of an actual injury.
The court also ruled that whether or not the case is barred by the
applicable statute of limitations is a factual issue to be
determined at trial. The case was remanded to federal court for
further proceedings.

In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, certifying the class as to
plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying
certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM
USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for
appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition
was denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have
proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with a cost in
excess of $190 million. In October 2011, PM USA filed a motion for
class decertification, which motion was denied in March 2012. In
February 2013, the district court amended the class definition to
extend to individuals who satisfy the class membership criteria
through February 26, 2013, and to exclude any individual who was
not a Massachusetts resident as of February 26, 2013.

Trial is scheduled to begin January 25, 2016 and will take place
in multiple phases. Phase I will be tried to a jury and address
liability and any individual issue regarding class
representatives. To the extent a Phase II is necessary, it would
be tried to the court and address common questions of remedies and
costs. On July 1, 2015, both parties filed various motions
relating to Phase I, including motions for partial summary
judgment and to exclude certain evidence.


ALTRIA GROUP: 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending at July 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of July 24, 2015, a total of 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" cases are
pending in various U.S. state courts, Altria Group, Inc. said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2015.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been
brought against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and, in certain
instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of
individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of
cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights,
Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge
Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the
statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory
provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory
directives, and the First Amendment.


ALTRIA GROUP: Courts Refused to Certify 19 "Lights" Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of July 24, 2015, in
addition to the federal district court in the MDL proceeding, 18
courts in 19 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class actions,
dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class
certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA").

Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to
grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class
action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in
Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs
asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection
Act. Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either
affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or
reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs.

In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order by
a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The
Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme
Court of Illinois overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a
certified class in the Price case, although plaintiffs are seeking
reinstatement of the judgment.

In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
dismissed a purported "Lights" class action (Sullivan) on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA.

In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
overturned a trial court decision in Schwab that granted
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all
U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United States that
were labeled "Light" or "Lights."

In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case
with prejudice.

In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class certifications in
the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
both cases without prejudice in August 2009, but refiled in
federal court as the Phillips case. The Supreme Court of
Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed by the
plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an order by
the trial court that refused to certify a class. Plaintiffs
subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with prejudice.

In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the Illinois federal district court's dismissal of
"Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary case.

In Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the Minnesota
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment
in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation.

In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and
subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October
2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Begin October 19 in Aspinall Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that trial is scheduled to
start October 19, 2015, in the Aspinall case.

In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court
denied Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for summary
judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment
on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to
Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the
parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to
deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed
further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review.

In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the
plaintiffs' cross-motion.

In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as
to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the
case brought by the Department of Justice.

In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In
February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties,
dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria
Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case.

In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business
Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in
September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the
Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding
that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an
equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual
damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual
damages greater than $25. Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the
trial court to report its February 2014 ruling to the
Massachusetts Appeals Court for review, which the trial court
denied.

In March 2014, plaintiffs petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals
Court for review of the ruling, which the appellate court denied.

On July 2, 2015, PM USA filed various motions, including a motion
for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs have no proof
of injury. Trial is scheduled to begin October 19, 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: Re-Trial to Begin February 2016 in Larsen Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that re-trial is scheduled
to begin on February 29, 2016, in the Larsen lawsuit.

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which
potential class members can qualify to become part of the class.
The class period remains 1995-2003.

In June 2010, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for
partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for
punitive damages was denied.

In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to
an element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel
from the findings in the case brought by the Department of
Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010.

In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling
that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment
motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October
2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach
a verdict.

In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling
granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more
dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In
October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for
partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim,
which the court denied on June 26, 2015. Re-trial is scheduled to
start on February 29, 2016.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Scheduled for August 2016 in Miner Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that trial is currently
scheduled for August 2, 2016, in the Miner case.

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower
court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that denied
plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed
to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants'
contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the
"federal officer" statute. Following remand, the case was removed
again to federal court in Arkansas and transferred to the MDL
proceeding.

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding
remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria
Group, Inc. without prejudice.

In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In
November 2013, the trial court granted class certification. The
certified class includes those individuals who, from November 1,
1971 through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights, including
Marlboro Ultra Lights, for personal consumption in Arkansas.

Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") filed a notice of appeal of the
class certification ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court in
December 2013. In February 2015, the Arkansas Supreme Court
affirmed the trial court's class certification order.

On May 26, 2015, PM USA filed a motion for partial summary
judgment seeking to foreclose any recovery for purchases of
Marlboro Lights prior to 1999, when a private right of action was
added to the consumer protection statute under which plaintiffs
are suing. The trial court denied the motion on July 23, 2015.
Trial is currently scheduled for August 2, 2016.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Filed Summary Judgment Bid in Carroll Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Philip Morris USA Inc.
("PM USA") has filed a summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims in their entirety on preemption grounds in the
Carroll case.

In December 2009, the state trial court in Carroll (formerly known
as Holmes) (pending in Delaware) denied PM USA's motion for
summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act.

In January 2011, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint substituting class representatives and naming
Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as additional defendants.

In February 2013, the trial court approved the parties'
stipulation to the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group,
Inc. and PMI, leaving PM USA as the sole defendant in the case. In
March 2015, plaintiffs moved for class certification.
On July 15, 2015, PM USA filed a summary judgment motion seeking
to dismiss plaintiffs' claims in their entirety on preemption
grounds.


ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Occurred in Price Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that oral argument occurred
on May 19, 2015, in the Price lawsuit.

Trial in Price commenced in state court in Illinois in January
2003 and, in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff
class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3.0
billion in punitive damages against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM
USA").

In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial
court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In November 2006, the
United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for writ
of certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison
County enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate and dismissed
the case with prejudice.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition
for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM
USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the judgment
entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005 Illinois
Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the ground that
the United States Supreme Court's December 2008 decision in Good
demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was
"inaccurate." PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
petition and, in February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's
motion on the basis that the petition was not timely filed.

In March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois. In
February 2011, the intermediate appellate court ruled that the
petition was timely filed and reversed the trial court's dismissal
of the plaintiffs' petition and, in September 2011, the Illinois
Supreme Court declined PM USA's petition for review. As a result,
the case was returned to the trial court for proceedings on
whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' petition to reopen
the prior judgment.

In February 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended petition, which PM
USA opposed. Subsequently, in responding to PM USA's opposition to
the amended petition, plaintiffs asked the trial court to
reinstate the original judgment.  The trial court denied
plaintiffs' petition in December 2012.

In January 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Fifth Judicial District. In January 2013, PM USA filed a motion
asking the Illinois Supreme Court to immediately exercise its
jurisdiction over the appeal. In February 2013, the Illinois
Supreme Court denied PM USA's motion. Oral argument on plaintiffs'
appeal to the Fifth Judicial District was heard in October 2013.

In April 2014, the Fifth Judicial District reversed and ordered
reinstatement of the original $10.1 billion trial court judgment
against PM USA. In May 2014, PM USA filed in the Illinois Supreme
Court a petition for a supervisory order and a petition for leave
to appeal. The filing of the petition for leave to appeal
automatically stayed the Fifth District's mandate pending
disposition by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Also in May 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking recusal of
Justice Karmeier, one of the Illinois Supreme Court justices,
which PM USA opposed. In September 2014, the Illinois Supreme
Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal and took no
action on PM USA's motion for a supervisory order. Justice
Karmeier denied plaintiffs' motion seeking his recusal.

In February 2015, plaintiffs filed a new motion seeking recusal or
disqualification of Justice Karmeier. In March 2015, the Illinois
Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' request that it order the
disqualification of Justice Karmeier and referred the recusal
request to Justice Karmeier to decide. Oral argument occurred on
May 19, 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: Kansas Supreme Court Denied Petition for Review
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Kansas Supreme
Court denied Plaintiffs' petition for review in the tobacco price
case.

In a Kansas case (Smith), plaintiffs alleged that defendants,
including Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and Altria Group,
Inc., conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust
laws. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted. In
March 2012, the trial court granted defendants' motions for
summary judgment. Plaintiffs sought the trial court's
reconsideration of its decision, but in June 2012, the trial court
denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs appealed
the decision, and defendants cross-appealed the trial court's
class certification decision, to the Court of Appeals of Kansas.
In July 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of summary
judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs filed a petition for
review in the Kansas Supreme Court in August 2014, which the court
denied on June 29, 2015, thereby concluding this litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: Proceedings in Five Argentine Grower Cases Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that all proceedings in five
Argentine Grower cases are currently stayed pending the court's
resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in the Hupan case.

Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") is a defendant in six cases
(Hupan, Chalanuk, Rodriguez Da Silva, Aranda, Taborda and Biglia)
filed in Delaware state court against multiple defendants by the
parents of Argentine children born with alleged birth defects.
Plaintiffs in these cases allege that they grew tobacco in
Argentina under contract with Tabacos Norte S.A., an alleged
subsidiary of PMI, and that they and their infant children were
exposed directly and in utero to hazardous herbicides and
pesticides used in the production and cultivation of tobacco.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages against all
defendants.

In December 2012, Altria Group, Inc. and certain other defendants
were dismissed from the Hupan, Chalanuk and Rodriguez Da Silva
cases. Altria Group, Inc. and certain other defendants were
dismissed from Aranda, Taborda and Biglia in May 2013, October
2013 and February 2014, respectively. The three remaining
defendants in the six cases are PM USA, Philip Morris Global
Brands Inc. (a subsidiary of PMI) and Monsanto Company. Following
discussions regarding indemnification for these cases pursuant to
the Distribution Agreement between PMI and Altria Group, Inc., PMI
and PM USA have agreed to resolve conflicting indemnity demands
after final judgments are entered.

In April 2014, all three defendants in the Hupan case filed
motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and PM USA and
Philip Morris Global Brands filed separate motions to dismiss
based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. All proceedings in
the other five cases are currently stayed pending the court's
resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in Hupan.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Commence in Q1 2016 in UST Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has entered a
scheduling order setting trial to commence in the first quarter of
2016 in the UST Litigation.

Claims related to smokeless tobacco products generally fall within
the following categories:

First, UST LLC and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in
certain actions in West Virginia brought by or on behalf of
individual plaintiffs against cigarette manufacturers, smokeless
tobacco manufacturers and other organizations seeking damages and
other relief in connection with injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of tobacco usage, including smokeless tobacco products.
Included among the plaintiffs are five individuals alleging use of
USSTC's smokeless tobacco products and alleging the types of
injuries claimed to be associated with the use of smokeless
tobacco products. USSTC, along with other non-cigarette
manufacturers, has remained severed from such proceedings since
December 2001.

Second, UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries has been named in a
number of other individual tobacco and health suits over time.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict
liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to
warn, breach of implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer
protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief,
including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable
relief, including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised
in these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk,
comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of
limitations. USSTC is currently named in one such action in
Florida (Vassallo). In December 2014, the court entered a
scheduling order setting trial to commence in the first quarter of
2016.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: September 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law
firm, reminds investors of the September 28, 2015 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed
against American Express Company (NYSE:AXP) ("American Express" or
"the Company") over the failure to provide information regarding
its dealings with Costco.

If you have losses in American Express securities during the Class
Period contact Hagens Berman Partner Reed Kathrein, who is leading
the firm's investigation, by calling (510) 725-3000, emailing
AXP@hbsslaw.com or visiting http://hb-
securities.com/investigations/AXP.

The lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, is filed on behalf of investors who
purchased American Express securities between October 16, 2014 and
February 11, 2015, inclusive, (the "Class Period").

In September 2014, American Express announced that it was ending
its co-branding relationship with Costco Canada.  Then on February
12, 2015, American Express announced that it had lost the U.S.
Costco co-branding relationship, which generated 8% of the
Company's revenues in 2014 and that one in ten U.S. Amex cards was
issued pursuant to the U.S. Costco co-branding arrangement.
Additionally, 20% of the Company's outstanding loans had been made
pursuant to that agreement. As a result, American Express
predicted that its 2015 and 2016 profits would suffer and it would
not be able to make any headway on its previous efforts to
increase earnings per share until 2017.

On this adverse news, the price of American Express stock fell
7.87, more than 9%, to close at 77.55 on February 13, 2015. The
complaint alleges that Defendants issued false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse information
regarding the Company's business and prospects, including the
materiality and status of its negotiations with Costco.

If you were negatively impacted by your investment in American
Express securities between October 16, 2014 and February 11, 2015,
and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability
to participate as a lead plaintiff, please contact us for your no-
cost evaluation.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
American Express should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the SEC whistleblower program, whistleblowers who provide
original information may receive rewards up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information
concerning your whistleblower options, call Reed Kathrein at (510)
725-3000 or email AXP@hbsslaw.com.

Reed Kathrein, Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101
Tel. (206) 623-7292
Fax. (206) 623-0594
http://www.hbsslaw.com/


ANAMIAS TEX-MEX: "Orozco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Orozco, Karina Martinez, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated employees and former employees v. Anamias Tex-
Mex, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02800-L (N.D. Tex., August 27, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Anamias Tex-Mex, Inc. operates various Tex-Mex restaurants in
Coppell, Plano, South Lake, and Flower Mound, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caroline A. Ibironke, Esq.
      Rhoda B. Appiah-Boateng, Esq.
      AI LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
      6060 North Central Expressway STE 560
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (866) 496-5015
      Facsimile: 866-496-5041
      E-mail: caroline@ailegalgroup.com
              Rhoda@ailegalgroup.com


ANGLOGOLD: Faces Class Suit Over African Miners with Silicosis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicolson, writing for Daily Maverick, reported that "for
decades gold mines have treated their workers as inferior human
beings and shown a shocking disregard for the health of these
workers," Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) general secretary Anele
Yawa said. "The exploitation of, mostly poor black workers,
mirrors the apartheid and colonialist exploitation of workers that
we have seen throughout the continent. That even in post-apartheid
South Africa the rights of mineworkers are routinely violated is a
national disgrace."

Yawa was speaking as TAC and Sonke Gender Justice announced their
intention to join a class action lawsuit against South African
gold mining companies as friends of the court. A decision will be
made as to whether it should proceed in court in October. The
class action includes 56 class representatives of more than 25,000
people. But up to 200,000 people across Southern Africa could
stand to benefit from the legal action.

The claimants, represented by Richard Spoor Attorneys, Abrahams
Kiewitz Attorneys, and the Legal Resources Centre, believe 32 gold
mining companies are liable for failing to protect employees from
silica dust inhalation that has led to their contracting
occupational lung diseases. Within the class action there are two
classes: gold miners and the dependants of those who have died as
a result of silicosis, and gold miners with pulmonary tuberculosis
and the relatives of those who have died of pulmonary
tuberculosis. The class includes miners with cases from 1965
onwards.

TAC and Sonke want to join the application to question the denial
of the mineworkers' constitutional rights and show the negative
impact the gold industry has had on labour-sending areas. Sonke
policy specialist Tanya Charles said: "This is the story of how
gold mining impacts on girls, women and communities." The
applicants want to make that impact visible. Women in communities
are left to care for their sick men, perpetuating the cycle of
poverty facing black women in rural areas. Charles said complete
displacement and a disregard for and neglect of mineworkers has an
impact on women and girls. Sonke has been investigating the impact
silicosis and tuberculosis among mineworkers has on communities
and will use the information to explain the broader implications
of occupational lung diseases.

"Are we not all human beings? We demand justice for the hundreds
of thousands of workers whose lungs have been ruined in the gold
mines," Yawa said. "These mining companies are running away with
murder. When these miners get sick they get kicked out. The state
inherits the burden."

Mineworkers with silicosis can claim compensation, but the
institutions and process behind it are in disarray. Section 27's
John Stephens said that the civil society groups trying to join
the case will look at the impact occupational lung diseases have
had, the responsibilities of the companies and the lack of other
recourse. He pointed out the challenges in accessing that
compensation, both institutional and socio-economic. "There are no
other alternatives. If these people cannot proceed in a class
action they have no redress. There is no other way to hold these
mining companies to account," said Stephens.

There might be one way, however. Or more correctly, 25,000 other
ways. If the class action is not permitted to proceed, attorneys
for the clients have the option of lodging all of the claims
individually.

"The companies will be defending the action because they don't
believe they are liable," Alan Fine from Russell and Associates
said on behalf of eight large gold producers. They are aware it is
a serious issue, he said, as indicated by an initiative launched
to address the matter. Anglo American South Africa, AngloGold
Ashanti, Gold Fields, Harmony and Sibanye announced they would
engage all stakeholders to "design and implement a comprehensive
solution that is both fair to past, present and future gold mining
employees, and also sustainable for the sector".

While opposing the court action, the companies have been working
with the government to try to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the current compensation options while also
establishing one-stop centres to diagnose and treat silicosis.
Fine said they are still committed to finding a fair but
sustainable solution.

Stephens said that the mining companies, particularly AngloGold
Ashanti, Harmony and Gold Fields, were aggressively opposing the
civil society groups' attempts to join the class action. Georgina
Jephson from Richard Spoor Attorneys said they tried to engage
with the mining companies but had not had any luck getting them to
accept the class action, which would prevent an onslaught of
individual claims.

TAC and Sonke Gender Justice's efforts to join the case will be
heard in the South Gauteng High Court. Pickets are planned at the
court as well as Teba's offices in Lusikisiki.


ANTHEM BLUE: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Claims Handling Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric M., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Anthem Blue Cross Life And Health Insurance Company, Case No.
2:15-cv-06559 (C.D. Cal., August 27, 2015), arises from the
Defendant's unreasonable and egregious claims handling practices
which are flatly inconsistent with the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act statutes and regulations.

Anthem Blue Cross Life And Health Insurance Company is a
California corporation that provides life insurance, medical plans
and dental plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
      Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq.
      KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
      19839 Nordhoff Street
      Northridge, CA 91324
      Telephone: (818) 886 2525
      Facsimile: (818) 350 6272
      E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net
              trozelle@kantorlaw.net


ANTHEM INC: Plaintiffs Filed Notice of Appeal From Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal from the judgment entered for Anthem Insurance.

The Company is defending a certified class action filed as a
result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance Companies,
Inc., or Anthem Insurance.

The Company said, "The lawsuit names Anthem Insurance as well as
Anthem, Inc. and is captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc.
et al. Anthem Insurance's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan,
provided for the conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual
insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to
Indiana law. Under the Plan, Anthem Insurance distributed the fair
value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible
Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common
stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual
company. Plaintiffs in Gold allege that Anthem Insurance
distributed value to the wrong ESMs.

"Cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and
denied in part on July 26, 2006 with regard to the issue of
sovereign immunity asserted by co-defendant, the state of
Connecticut, or the State. The trial court also denied our motion
for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims on January 10, 2005.
The State appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut
Supreme Court. We filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity
issue.

"On May 11, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the
trial court denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
claims under sovereign immunity and dismissed our cross-appeal.
The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted on December
15, 2011. We and the plaintiffs filed renewed cross-motions for
summary judgment on January 24, 2013. On August 19, 2013, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The
trial court deferred a final ruling on our motion for summary
judgment.

"On March 6, 2014, the trial court denied our motion for summary
judgment finding that an issue of material fact existed. A trial
on liability commenced on October 14, 2014 and concluded on
October 16, 2014.

"On June 12, 2015, the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance
on all issues, finding that (1) Anthem Insurance correctly
determined the State to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (2) Anthem
Insurance acted in good faith in making this determination, while
Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to override a
presumption that Anthem Insurance's ESM determination was correct;
and (3) Plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of any contractual
obligation. On July 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
from the judgment entered for Anthem Insurance."


ANTHEM INC: Jan. 2016 Deadline for Filing Summary Judgment Bids
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that parties have a January
2016 deadline for filing motions for summary judgment.

"We are currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions
relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were
consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re
WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates
Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California," the Company said.

"The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The plaintiffs include current
and former members on behalf of a putative class of members who
received OON services for which the defendants paid less than
billed charges, the American Medical Association, four state
medical associations, OON physicians, OON non-physician providers,
the American Podiatric Medical Association, California
Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological
Association on behalf of putative classes of OON physicians and
all OON non-physician health care providers.

"The plaintiffs have filed several amended complaints alleging
that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA,
federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement
database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement
methodologies.

"We have filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those
amended complaints. Our motions to dismiss have been granted in
part and denied in part by the court. The most recent pleading
filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which we
filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the claims.

"In July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part our motion. The court held that the state and
federal anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be
dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The court further
found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-
Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged
non-disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also
dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state law claims with prejudice.
The only claims that remain after the court's decision are an
ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a
breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a
breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber
plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the
California Unfair Competition Law.

"The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion
to dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in
part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that
one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted
administrative remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based
on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff so those claims are
back in the case. Fact discovery is complete.

"The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November
2013 seeking the following classes: (1) a subscriber ERISA class
as to OON claims processed using the Ingenix database as the
pricing methodology; (2) a physician provider class as to OON
claims processed using Ingenix; (3) a non-physician provider class
as to OON claims processed using Ingenix; (4) a provider ERISA
class as to OON claims processed using non-Ingenix pricing
methodologies; (5) a California subscriber breach of
contract/unfair competition class; and (6) a subscriber breach of
implied covenant class for all Anthem states except California.

"Following expert discovery and briefing, oral argument was held
on the motion. In late 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in its entirety. The California
subscriber plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a renewed
motion for class certification with more narrowly defined proposed
classes, which the court denied.

"The parties have a January 2016 deadline for filing motions for
summary judgment.

"Earlier in the case, in 2009, we filed a motion in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or the
Florida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the physician
plaintiffs and certain medical association plaintiffs based on
prior litigation releases, which was granted in 2011. The Florida
Court ordered those plaintiffs to dismiss their claims that are
barred by the release. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for
declaratory judgment asking the court to find that these claims
are not barred by the releases from the prior litigation.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action,
which was granted. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the
declaratory judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, but the dismissal was upheld. The enjoined
physicians and some of the medical associations did not dismiss
their barred claims. The Florida Court found those enjoined
plaintiffs in contempt and sanctioned them in July 2012. Those
plaintiffs appealed the Florida Court's sanctions order to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The
Eleventh Circuit upheld the Florida court's enforcement of the
injunction as it relates to the plaintiffs' RICO and antitrust
claims, but vacated it as it relates to certain ERISA claims.

"The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc as to the
antitrust claims only, which was denied. The plaintiffs then filed
a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The
American Medical Association filed an amicus brief in support of
the petition. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition on
February 23, 2015.

"We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their
ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."


ANTHEM INC: Discovery Commenced in Blue Cross Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that discovery has commenced
in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation.

"We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed
in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield
licensees across the country," the Company said. "The cases were
consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re
Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have
engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic
markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which
limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan),
restrictions on acquisitions and other arrangements in violation
of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases
were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs,
health plan subscribers and providers."

"Subscriber and provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated
amended complaints on July 1, 2013. The consolidated amended
subscriber complaint was also brought on behalf of putative state
classes of health plan subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas,
California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013, which were
argued in April 2014.

"In June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions,
ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage
of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims.

"Following the subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of
the subscriber and provider plaintiffs, we filed our answer and
asserted our affirmative defenses in December 2014. Discovery has
commenced. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however,
their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."


AVID LIFE: "Doe" Privacy Breach Suit Transferred to E. D. Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avid Life Media, Inc.,
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
MDL-2669 to the proceeding.

The case asserts causes of action for the Defendant's unauthorized
release of putative class members' confidential personal and
financial data submitted to the website AshleyMadison.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John J. Driscoll, Esq.
      Gregory J. Pals, Esq.
      Christopher J. Quinn, Esq.
      THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
      211 N. Broadway, 40th Floor
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Telephone: (314) 932-3232
      Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
      E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
              greg@thedriscolllfirm.com
              chris@thedriscollfirm.com

         - and -

      Douglas P. Dowd, Esq.
      William T. Dowd, Esq.
      Alex R. Lumaghi, Esq.
      DOWD & DOWD, P.C.
      211 N. Broadway, Ste. 4050
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Telephone: (314) 621-2500
      Facsimile: (314) 621-2503
      E-mail: doug@dowdlaw.net
              bill@dowdlaw.net
              alex@dowdlaw.net


BASS FISHING: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Tingey and Allen C. Stevens v. Bass Fishing & Rentals, LLC,
Case 5:15-cv-00705 (w.D.Tex., Aug. 19, 2015) seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, civil penalties and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

BF&R provides products and services in the oil and gas industry,
throughout the United States in those areas in which fracking is a
viable business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
     Tel: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


BIG 5: October 20 Hearing to Consider Final Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the court
has scheduled a hearing for October 20, 2015, to consider granting
final approval of the settlement in the case, Pedro Duran v. Big 5
Corp., et al.

On September 10, 2014, a complaint was filed in the California
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, entitled Pedro Duran
v. Big 5 Corp., et al., Case No. BC557154. On October 7, 2014, an
amended complaint was filed. As amended, the complaint alleges the
Company violated the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code. The complaint was brought as a
purported class action on behalf of certain of the Company's
hourly employees who worked as "warehousemen" in the Company's
distribution center in California for the four years prior to the
filing of the complaint. The plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that the Company failed to pay such employees for all time
worked, failed to provide such employees with compliant meal and
rest periods, failed to properly itemize wage statements, and
failed to pay wages within required time periods during employment
and upon termination of employment. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf
of the purported class members, an award of statutory and civil
damages and penalties, including restitution and recovery of
unpaid wages; pre-judgment interest; an award of attorneys' fees
and costs; and injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit. The
Company has not yet been served with the complaint or the amended
complaint.

In an effort to negotiate a settlement of this litigation, the
Company and plaintiff engaged in mediation on January 28, 2015.

On April 1, 2015, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. On
June 22, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement. The court has scheduled a hearing for October
20, 2015, to consider granting final approval of the settlement.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company agreed to
pay approximately $1.4 million, which includes payments to class
members, plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses, an enhancement
payment to the class representative, claims administration fees
and payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency.

The Company's anticipated total payments pursuant to this proposed
settlement have been reflected in a legal settlement accrual
initially recorded in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014 prior to
the proposed settlement and subsequently adjusted in the first
quarter of fiscal 2015 to reflect the proposed settlement. The
Company admitted no liability or wrongdoing with respect to the
claims set forth in the lawsuit. Once final approval is granted,
the settlement will constitute a full and complete settlement and
release of all claims related to the lawsuit. If the court does
not grant final approval of the proposed settlement, the Company
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. If the proposed
settlement is not finally approved by the court and the lawsuit is
resolved unfavorably to the Company, this litigation could have a
material negative impact on the Company's financial condition, and
costs associated with any judgment, defense of this litigation as
well as any required change in the Company's labor practices,
could have a material negative impact on the Company's results of
operations.


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Conway, D.C., et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Alabama, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01475-RDP (D.P.R., August 27,
2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged market allocation
conspiracy by entering into a price fixing and boycott conspiracy,
to significantly decrease competition in the markets for
healthcare financing including the markets for healthcare
insurance and in the health services.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance
company operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks
and trade names in Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric M. Quetglas Jordan, Esq.
      QUETGLAS LAW OFFICES
      P.O. Box 16606
      San Juan, PR 00908-6606
      Telephone: (787) 722-0635
      Facsimile: (787) 725-3970
      E-mail: quetglaslaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 447-7060
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
      W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      2001 Park Place North
      1000 Park Place Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 488-1200
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
              tbrown@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      60 State Street, 7th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 573-5118
      Facsimile: (617) 371-2950
      E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      159 Middle Street, Suite 2C
      Portsmouth, NH 03801
      Telephone: (603) 294-1591
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Debra B. Hayes, Esq.
      Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq.
      THE HAYES LAW FIRM
      700 Rockmead, Suite 210
      Kingwood, TX 77339
      Telephone: (281) 815-4963
      Facsimile: (832) 575-4759
      E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com
              chunter@dhayeslaw.com

         - and -

      Deborah J. Winegard, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1068 Virginia Avenue, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30306
      Telephone: (404) 607-8222
      Facsimile: (404) 607-8451
      E-mail: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      E. Kirk Wood Jr., Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM LLC
      P. O. Box 382434
      Birmingham, AL 35238
      Telephone: (205) 612-0243
      Facsimile: (205) 705-1223
      E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
      Peter Prieto, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 358-2800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
      E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com
              pprieto@podhurst.com


BLUE CROSS: Hospital Service Asserts Market Allocation Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hospital Service District 1 of the Parish of East Baton Rouge,
Louisiana d/b/a Lane Regional Medical Center v. Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01476-RDP (M.D.
La., August 27, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged
market allocation conspiracy by entering into a price fixing and
boycott conspiracy, to significantly decrease competition in the
markets for healthcare financing including the markets for
healthcare insurance and in the health services.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance
company operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks
and trade names in Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lance C. Unglesby, Esq.
      UNGLESBY LAW FIRM
      246 Napoleon Street
      Baton Rouge, LA 70802
      Telephone: (225) 387-0120
      Facsimile: (225) 336-4355
      E-mail: lance@unglesbylaw.com

         - and -

      Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 447-7060
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
      W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      2001 Park Place North
      1000 Park Place Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 488-1200
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
              tbrown@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      60 State Street, 7th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 573-5118
      Facsimile: (617) 371-2950
      E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      159 Middle Street, Suite 2C
      Portsmouth, NH 03801
      Telephone: (603) 294-1591
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Debra B. Hayes, Esq.
      Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq.
      THE HAYES LAW FIRM
      700 Rockmead, Suite 210
      Kingwood, TX 77339
      Telephone: (281) 815-4963
      Facsimile: (832) 575-4759
      E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com
              chunter@dhayeslaw.com

         - and -

      Deborah J. Winegard, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1068 Virginia Avenue, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30306
      Telephone: (404) 607-8222
      Facsimile: (404) 607-8451
      E-mail: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      E. Kirk Wood Jr., Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM LLC
      P. O. Box 382434
      Birmingham, AL 35238
      Telephone: (205) 612-0243
      Facsimile: (205) 705-1223
      E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
      Peter Prieto, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 358-2800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
      E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com
              pprieto@podhurst.com


BLUESTEM BRANDS: Overly Charges Interest Rates, "Parm" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Parm, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-03437-JRT-JJK
(D. Minn., August 27, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged
deceptive sales practices, through its online marketplace
Fingerhut.com, including: the assessment of hidden finance charges
disguised as massive price markups on exorbitantly priced
electronics and household goods and the charging of usurious rates
of interest.

Bluestem Brands, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that offers goods
for sale on two different websites it owns and operates; Fingerhut
and Gettington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
      Melissa Wolchansky, Esq.
      Charles D. Moore, Esq.
      HALUNEN LAW
      1650 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 605-4098
      Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
      E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
              wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
              moore@halunenlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L. St., N.W., Suite 808
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com


BREATHLESS INC: Faces Suit Over FLSA, N.J. Labor Law "Violation"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alissa Moon and Yasmeen Davis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Breathless, Inc. a/k/a Vision Food &
Spirits d/b/a Breathless Men's Club, Case 2:15-cv-06297-SDW-SCM
(D.N.J., Aug. 19, 2015), alleges violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and Wage and Hour
Law.

Breathless, Inc. operates a night club.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jeremy E. Abay, Esq.
     John K. Weston, Esq.
     SACKS WESTON MILLSTEIN DIAMOND, LLC
     1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 925-8200


BRICK TAVERN: Faces "Pavich" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Pavich v. Brick Tavern, Inc. and Dan Reichelderfer, Case
No. 5:15-cv-01728 (N.D. Ohio, August 27, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant bar in Garrettsville,
Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
      Fred M. Bean, Esq.
      THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
      Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
      Telephone: (216) 291-4744
      Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
      E-mail: Brian.Spitz@SpitzLawFirm.com
              Fred.Bean@SpitzLawFirm.com


C & S CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Contract Balance
-------------------------------------------------------------
I.K.E. Electrical Corp. v. C & S Construction and Consulting Group
LLC, et al., Case No. 510576 (D.N.Y., August 27, 2015), arises
from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract, specifically by
failure and refusal to make payment of the contract balance in the
amount of $934,566.00 for the certain improvements and renovations
and related work the Plaintiff performed at the Property located
at 444-450 Neptune Avenue and 2915-2935 West 5th Street, Brooklyn,
NY.

C & S Construction and Consulting Group LLC owns and operates a
construction company located at 110 York Street, 6th Floor,
Brooklyn, New York 11201.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark F. Heinze, Esq.
      OFECK & HEINZE, L.L.P.
      85 Main Street, Suite 204
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 488-9900
      Facsimile: (201) 488-4475
      E-mail: markfheinze@gmail.com


CARRIER ONE: Faces "Lewis" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA, IWPCA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Devon Lewis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Carrier One, Inc., Case: 1:15-cv-07402 (N.D.Ill., Aug.
24, 2015), alleges violation by the Defendant of the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Carrier provides transportation services to clients in Chicago,
Illinois and the surrounding areas and states, in addition to
servicing other parts of the nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
     Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
     CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
     224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Tel: (312) 763-6880


CBS CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Unauthorised Use of Music
---------------------------------------------------------
Randy Stine, writing for Radio World, reported that radio execs
playing older music will no doubt be keeping a close eye on class
action suit filed in California.

As RW reported earlier, three major broadcast groups were served a
class action suit by ABS Entertainment that targets the digital
rights to music the broadcasters play produced prior to Feb. 15,
1972, that isn't covered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Here's more about it.

Three separate suits filed in federal court in California court
target iHeartMedia, CBS Corp. and Cumulus Media and seek
injunctive relief and monetary damages. The suit claims the
defendants "delivered music content through broadcast radio
channels, HD radio channels, the Internet and mobile devices
without consent."

The suit against Cumulus states that the company "has chosen to
copy tens of thousands of pre-1972 recordings to its servers and
to transmit, copy, perform, broadcast and stream them to millions
of users daily without authorization."

ABS, which filed on its own behalf and all other similarly
situated owners of sound recordings, says Cumulus and the other
broadcasters are liable under California law for the unauthorized
pre-1972 reproductions. The three lawsuits contain the same
complaint language and demand jury trials with $5 million each in
compensatory damages and an injunction to prevent use of pre-1972
music.

"By selling advertisements and through other means, the
broadcaster profits handsomely from its exploitation of pre-1972
recordings," according to the lawsuit.

ABS alleges the broadcasters are liable for violation of the
California Civil Code, misappropriation and violation of
California Business and Professional Code.

The lawsuits, which have been assigned to U.S. District Court
Judge Percy Anderson in the Central District of California, are
similar to several others filed against Sirius/XM concerning pre-
1972 music, including the "Flo and Eddie" suit that found the
company liable for playing songs by The Turtles. The satellite
radiocaster settled a lawsuit earlier brought by Capitol Records.

(No doubt with just such a situation in mind, the National
Association of Broadcasters and New York State Broadcasters
Association only recently had filed "friend of the court" briefs
in the "Flo and Eddie" controversy. In that filing, NAB said that
although a district court had "stopped short" of a ruling that
would encompass over-the-air broadcasting, the association asked
the appeals court to "reject the ruling . . . and eliminate any
doubt.")

ABS Entertainment is an Arkansas-based company that has ownership
to the sound recordings of Al Green, Ann Peebles, Otis Clay and
several other artists, according to court documents.

CBS and iHeartMedia declined RW's request seeking comment on the
lawsuits.


CELLADON CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of those who purchased shares of Celladon Corporation ("Celladon"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq:CLDN), during the period between July 7,
2014 and June 25, 2015 inclusive.

The Lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made
false and misleading statements regarding and/or failed to
disclose adverse information regarding the prospects for MYDICAR.
Specifically the complaint alleges that: (i) success in the CUPID1
trial was not indicative of any success in the CUPID2 trial since
the CUPID1 trial was extremely small; and (ii) the Company's
existence was tied to the trial results and defendants were aware
of their limitations.

On April 26, 2015, the Company announced that "its Phase 2b CUPID2
trial did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints. CUPID2 is
a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational
trial evaluating a single, one-time, intracoronary infusion of the
cardiovascular gene therapy agent MYDICAR(R) (AAV1/SERCA2a) versus
placebo added to a maximal, optimized heart failure drug and
device regimen."

Following this news, shares of Celladon fell $10.78 or 78.80%,
during intraday trading to trade at $2.90 on April 27, 2015.

Then on June 26, 2015, Celladon announced the suspension of
research and development of its MYDICAR program and the possible
liquidation of the company.

Following this news, Celladon stock fell $0.85 or 38% to close at
$1.35 per share.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in Celladon you have until August 31, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Eitan Kimelman, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
144 N Beverwyck Rd, Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034
212-697-6484
info@bgandg.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Lanzarotti" Suit Over Lenses-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Lanzarotti, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb,
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Cooper Vision, Inc., and ABB
Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-03920-EDL (N.D. Cal., August 27,
2015), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to impose minimum resale
prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so
called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price
competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and
internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (877) 500-8780
      Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
      E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
              caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
      Kirsten D. Hedberg, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      1100 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
      E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
              kirsten.hedberg@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
      MURRAY LAW FIRM
      650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 525-8100
      Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
      E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com


DOT HILL: Firm Announces Securities Class Suit Periods
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (www.henzellaw.com), a firm
focusing on shareholder litigation, gives notice to purchasers of
the following securities for the following class periods:

   COMPANY                                         CLASS PERIOD
   -------                                         -------------
   Dot Hill Systems Corp. (Nasdaq: HILL)
   Planar Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: PLNR)
   Southcoast Financial Corp. (Nasdaq: SOCB)
   Zulily Inc. (Nasdaq: ZU)
   Abengoa, S.A. (Nasdaq: ABGB)                    11/12/14-8/2/15
   Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. (NYSE: WMS)      9/5/14-7/14/15
   Constant Contact, Inc. (Nasdaq: CTCT)          10/23/14-7/23/15
   EZCORP, Inc. (Nasdaq: EZPW)                    10/27/14-7/16/15
   IDI, Inc. (NYSE: IDI)                           4/30/15-7/21/15
   Investment Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE: ITG)    2/28/11-8/3/15
   LifeLock, Inc. (NYSE: LOCK)                     7/30/14-7/20/15
   MDC Partners, Inc. (Nasdaq: MDCA)               9/24/13-4/27/15
   On Deck Capital, Inc. (NYSE: ONDK)              IPO of 12/17/14
   Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (NYSE: PAA)   2/27/13-8/4/15
   SolarWinds, Inc. (NYSE: SWI)                    4/28/15-7/16/15
   TriNet Group, Inc. (NYSE: TNET)                   5/5/14-8/3/15
   VASCO Data Security Int'l, Inc. (Nasdaq: VDSI)  2/18/14-7/21/15
   Whole Foods Market (Nasdaq: WFM)                 8/9/13-7/30/15
   XOMA Corporation (Nasdaq: XOMA)                 11/6/14-7/21/15

If you purchased securities in any of the companies during the
class periods described above and/or own shares in any of the
companies and would like to learn more about any potential claims
or you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights, please contact Marc
S. Henzel (610) 660-8000, email at Mhenzel@Henzellaw.com, or to
sign up online, visit the firm's website at www.henzellaw.com.

Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel
230 Old Lancaster Road, Suite B
Merion Station, PA 19066
610.660.8000
Fax: 610.660.8080
E-Mail: mhenzel@henzellaw.com


DOT HILL: Faces "Trager" Suit Over Proposed Seagate Takeover
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Trager, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dot Hill Systems Corp., et al., Case No. 11439 (D.
Del., August 27, 2015), is brought on behalf of all public
stockholders of Dot Hill Systems Corp. to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of Dot Hill by Seagate Technology PLC at an inadequate
price through a flawed process.

Dot Hill Systems Corp. is a Delaware corporation that provides
software and hardware solutions for storing, sharing, protecting,
and managing data.

Seagate Technology PLC is a provider of electronic data storage
technology and solutions, which provides products such as hard
disk drives, solid state hybrid drives, solid state drives, PCIe
cards, and SATA controllers.

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 -

      Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
      Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
      Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      E-mail: kaufman@whafh.com
              nespole@whafh.com


EDGAR ADULT: Ontario Institutions File Suit After Huronia Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Carson, writing for Simcoe.com, reported that in  wake of the
$35-million Huronia Regional Centre settlement, residents of 12
similar Ontario institutions have launched their own class action
lawsuit.

Among the named institutions is the Edgar Adult Occupational
Centre in Oro-Medonte, which housed more than 260 people at its
peak.

"The same bad decisions that were made for Huronia were made for
each of these 12," said Jody Brown, associate lawyer with Toronto
law firm Koskie Minsky LLP.

Koskie Minsky is class counsel for the former residents.

The class action was certified by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice. The case began with former Edgar resident Marlene
McIntyre, who lived in the institution between August 1973 and
December 1974. She was also housed in the Huronia Regional Centre
(HRC).

Brown said this class action is an offshoot from three 2013
settlements against the province by residents of HRC, Rideau
Regional Centre and Southwestern Regional Centre.

"There were individuals who actually went to those institutions
who also went to other institutions that weren't included. The
basic sentiment was, 'Hey, what about these other places?'" Brown
said.

The 12 institutions in this class action include: the St. Lawrence
Regional Centre, D'Arcy Place, the Edgar Adult Occupational
Centre, Pine Ridge, Muskoka Centre, Oxford Regional Centre,
Midwestern Regional Centre, L.S. Penrose Centre, Bluewater Centre,
Durham Centre for Developmentally Handicapped, Prince Edward
Heights and Northwestern Regional Centre.

"They were all part of the province's program in the early 60s up
until the 90s of institutionalization," Brown said. "They all
played a role in that and they all served to house individuals at
the time who were labeled as developmentally delayed."

Former residents of the 12 institutions allege they were
physically and verbally assaulted, Brown said.

The class action also alleges institutions were overcrowded and
understaffed and it is alleged, the province failed to address
abuse properly, Brown said.

These allegations have not been proved in court.

It is estimated 8,000 people lived at the 12 institutions at some
point, Brown said. Many of the former residents attended as
children and young adults.

The population of all 12 institutions combined is similar to the
numbers housed at the HRC alone. HRC was the largest institution
in Ontario, Brown said.

"All these other ones were, geographically and population-wise,
smaller and they operated for often shorter periods of time," he
said.

Koskie Minsky has not put a dollar figure on the class action
lawsuit.

"It's mainly because it's hard to estimate how much an abuse case
is necessarily worth because it depends on the type of abuse that
occurred," he said.

Koskie Minsky is now in the process of gathering paperwork from
the province related to the case.

"These include things like policies, abuse investigations, any
number of things that would relate to our allegations. We
basically use that to prove our case and move toward trial," Brown
said.

Brown is unsure how long the case could take. The HRC class action
was settled in five years.

"We would hope this case will be resolved earlier," Brown said.

Former residents are encouraged to contact Koskie Minsky LLP.
Formal notice will be sent to residents in about three months.

Koskie Minsky LLP
20 Queen St W #900, Toronto, ON M5H 3R3, Canada
Phone:+1 416-977-8353
www.kmlaw.ca


EL CASTILLO: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Moraga" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Alberto Hernandez Moraga and all others similarly situated
v. El Castillo De Las Frutas II, Corp. and Ricardo Largo Perez,
Case No. 1:15-cv-23231-JAL (S.D. Fla., August 27, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.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: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


EL POLLO: Faces "Turocy" Shareholder Suit in C.D. Cal. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Turocy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., Stephen J. Sather,
Laurance Roberts, Edward J. Valle, Trimaran Pollo Partners,
L.L.C., Trimaran Capital Partners and Freeman Spogli & Co., Case
8:15-cv-01343 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2015), was filed on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of El Pollo Loco between May
15, 2015 and August 13, 2015, inclusive.

El Pollo Loco, headquartered in Costa Mesa, California, through
its subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc., develops, franchises,
licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under the El
Pollo Loco name in the United States.

Defendant Trimaran Pollo is owned by defendant Trimaran Capital
Partners, a private asset management firm headquartered in New
York, New York. Defendant Freeman Spogli & Co is a private equity
firm based in Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: 619/231-1058
     Fax: 619/231-7423

        - and -

     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Tel: 631/367-7100
     Fax: 631/367-1173

        - and -

     Amber L. Eck, Esq.
     ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
     225 Broadway, Suite 2050
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: 619/342-8000
     Fax: 619/342-7878


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Judge Grants Final Approval to $40MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge granted final approval to a $40 million settlement
between current and former college athletes and video game maker
Electronic Arts.

The agreement encompasses NCAA basketball and Division I football
players whose names, images or likenesses appeared in EA video
games between May 4, 2003 and Sept. 3, 2014, and includes several
major lawsuits against EA and the Collegiate Licensing Company
over the use of student-athletes' identifies in NCAA-themed games
without compensation.

One of these was an antitrust class action against the NCAA, its
member schools and Electronic Arts led by former UCLA basketball
player Ed O'Bannon, alleging a conspiracy that kept student-
athletes from receiving a share of the television broadcast
revenue for their names, images and likenesses.

The case was filed in 2009 and took five years to get to trial.
But in a victory for the athletes, U.S. District Judge Claudia
ruled in August 2014 that the NCAA violated antitrust law by
imposing rules that prohibited athletes from being paid such
compensation.

Another was a 2009 right-of-publicity class action against EA and
the NCAA, fronted by Arizona State and Nebraska quarterback Sam
Keller. The Keller action successfully defeated EA's claim that
its use of player images and likenesses is First Amendment-
protected speech, both in the district court and the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

Hours before the O'Bannon trial began, the NCAA announced that it
had settled the Keller claims for $20 million.

Claims against EA in both cases were dropped as part of the $40
million deal. In its motion for approval, EA noted that the
parties had been working on an agreement since 2011, although the
initial mediation sessions were fruitless.

Sathya Gosselin with Hausfeld LLP, one of the lead player
attorneys, said in an email, "The court's order of affirms that
this settlement is a significant achievement for the class. For
the first time ever, college athletes (current and former) will
receive compensation for the use of their names, images, and
likenesses. This is a historic moment in the fight for college
athletes' rights, and we are proud to be a part of it."

Attorneys for the players will receive $12 million of the $40
million fund, Wilken ruled, citing the successful result of the
case and the amount of work and risk involved.

The award will be divided among Hausfeld LLP, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, The McKenna Law Firm LLC, and Lum, Positan & Drasco
LLP. The four firms will also share in a $2.1 million award for
expenses.

O'Bannon and Keller will each receive incentive awards of $15,000.


EMERGENCY STAFFING: Faces "Reid" Suit Over Labor Law Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Louise M. Reid, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Emergency Staffing, Inc. d/b/a House Calls
Home Care, David Lipschitz and John Does #1-10, Case 1:15-cv-06671
(Aug. 23, 2015), alleges violation by the Defendants of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Wage Parity Act, the New York Labor Law,
New York State Department of Labor regulations and the New York
Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Emergency Staffing, Inc. is categorized as a nursing recruitment
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by

     William C. Rand, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
     488 Madison Ave., Suite 1100
     New York, New York 10022
     Tel: (212) 286-1425
     Fax: 646) 688-3078
     E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


EXELON CORPORATION: Final Approval Hearing to Be Held This Fall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth
Edison Company, Peco Energy Company, and Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a final approval
hearing will be held in the fall of 2015 in the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Lawsuit against ComEd.

On November 19, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a single individual and
a presumptive class that would include all customers that ComEd
enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program. The complaint
alleges that ComEd violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) by sending approximately 1.2 million text messages to
customers without first obtaining their consent to receive such
messages. The complaint seeks certification of a class along with
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and an order prohibiting ComEd
from sending additional text messages. Such statutory damages
could range from $500 to $1,500 per text.

In February 2014, ComEd filed a motion to dismiss this class
action complaint, which was denied in June 2014. On February 19,
2015, ComEd and the plaintiff agreed in principle to settle the
suit for $5 million, which ComEd has recorded as a liability as of
June 30, 2015.

On June 8, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. A final approval hearing will be held in the fall of
2015.

As ComEd is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this
proceeding, actual damages may differ from the estimated amount
recorded, which may be material to ComEd's results of operations,
cash flows, and financial position


FORMFACTOR INC: Mediation Sessions Did Not Result in Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that mediation sessions in a
class action lawsuit have not resulted in a settlement.

In August 2013, a former employee ("Plaintiff") filed a class
action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of
California, alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws
and unfair business practices on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees at the Company's
Livermore facilities from August 21, 2009 to the present.

In February 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to strike
portions of the Plaintiff's first amended complaint, clarifying
the scope of the putative class. A second amended complaint was
filed. The parties have participated in two mediation sessions,
the most recent of which took place during the second quarter of
fiscal 2015 and which did not result in a settlement.

Procedurally, the case is still in the early stages of litigation.
A motion to certify a class has been entered but no defined class
has been certified. The Company currently believes that any
settlement reached would be in an amount that is not material to
the Company's financial statements. The Company denies the
allegations contained in the lawsuit and, based on available
information, believes it has significant defenses to the
allegations of the lawsuit. If the matter is not settled, the
Company could incur material attorneys' fees in defending the
lawsuit.


GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified in Andrea Katz Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Garmin Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 27, 2015, that no class has been certified at this time
in the case, Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. Garmin Ltd. and Garmin International, Inc.

On December 18, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The lead
plaintiff was Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated.  The class of plaintiffs that Andrea Katz
purported to represent includes all individuals who purchased any
model of Forerunner watch in the State of Illinois and the United
States. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Illinois statutory
law. Plaintiff alleged that Forerunner watch bands have an
unacceptable rate of failure in that they detach from the watch.
Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief.

On January 29, 2014 the court dismissed the lawsuit without
prejudice. On January 30, 2014, the plaintiff re-filed the lawsuit
with the same claims for relief as the earlier action and adding
an additional claim for unjust enrichment.  On February 4, 2014,
the court ordered the case to be transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Utah.

The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case filed in Illinois
and, on March 6, 2014, she refiled the lawsuit in the District
Court for the District of Utah with the same claims, but with
additional claims for violations of the Utah Consumers Sales
Practice Act, Lanham Act, and Utah Truth in Advertising Act.  The
relief she requested is the same.

On March 31, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to transfer the venue of
the Utah action back to the Northern District of Illinois.  On
October 21, 2014, the United States District Court for the
District of Utah denied Garmin's motion to transfer venue.

On December 26, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to dismiss certain
counts of the complaint. On April 16, 2015, the court granted
Garmin's motion in part and dismissed with prejudice (1) Mr.
Katz's (but not Mrs. Katz's) claim for breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, (2) the plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim,
(3) the plaintiffs' negligence claim and (4) the plaintiffs'
negligent misrepresentation claim.

No class has been certified at this time.

"Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of
this litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our
operating results, liquidity, or financial position, Garmin
believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend this action," the Company said.


GARMIN LTD: Opposed Motion to Certify Brian Meyers Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Garmin Ltd. has filed its opposition to the motion for class
certification in the case, Brian Meyers, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, v. Garmin International, Inc.
Garmin USA, Inc. and Garmin Ltd., the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015.

On August 13, 2013, Brian Meyers filed a putative class action
complaint against Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc. and
Garmin Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District
of Kansas. Meyers alleges that lithium-ion batteries in certain
Garmin products are defective and alleges violations of the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act, breach of an implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
express warranty and also requests declaratory relief that the
batteries are defective and must be covered by Garmin's
warranties. The complaint seeks an order for class certification,
a declaration that the batteries are defective, an order of
injunctive relief, payment of damages in an unspecified amount on
behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of certain Garmin
products, and an award of attorneys' fees.

On September 18, 2013 the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Garmin
Ltd. as a defendant without prejudice. On October 18, 2013 the
plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. On November 1,
2013 the remaining Garmin defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted.

On January 24, 2014, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in
part and denied it in part, dismissing the count for declaratory
relief and the prayer for a declaration that the batteries are
defective, but allowing the case to proceed on other substantive
counts.

On March 17, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint. On April 7, 2015, Garmin filed an
opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint. On April 28, 2015 the court granted plaintiff's
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

On May 11, 2015 the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On July 10, 2015 Garmin filed its opposition to the
motion for class certification. No class has been certified at
this time, and Garmin believes that its defenses to Plaintiff's
motion for class certification are meritorious and that no class
will be certified.

"Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of
this litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our
operating results, liquidity, or financial position, Garmin
believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend this action," the Company said.


GUESS? RETAIL: Faces "Burgos" Suit for Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Kriss C. Burgos v. Guess? Retail, Inc., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. BC592087 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles,
Aug. 24, 2015), was brought by Plaintiffs for alleged violations
of Labor Code.

Guess? Retail, Inc. is a clothing retail store.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roman Otkupman, Esq.
     Rita Leong, Esq.
     OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM
     5950 Canoga, Ave., Suite 550
     Woodland Hills, CA, 91367
     Tel: (818) 293 5623
     Fax: (888) 850-1310


HILLTOP HOLDINGS: To Defend Actions Related to SWS Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hilltop Holdings Inc. intends to vigorously defend actions related
to Hilltop's acquisition of SWS, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

Each of Hilltop, Hilltop Securities (a wholly owned subsidiary of
Hilltop), SWS and the individual members of the board of directors
of SWS have been named as defendants in two purported stockholder
class action lawsuits arising out of the SWS Merger. Both lawsuits
were filed in Delaware Chancery Court (Joseph Arceri v. SWS Group,
Inc. et al and Chaile Steinberg v. SWS Group, Inc. et al filed
April 8, 2014 and April 11, 2014, respectively).

On May 13, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the two
actions (the "Consolidated Action") for all purposes. On June 10,
2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The
complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the SWS
board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to stockholders
by failing to take steps to maximize stockholder value or to
engage in a fair sale process before approving the merger, that
the SWS board of directors labored under conflicts of interest,
that certain provisions of the merger agreement unduly restrict
SWS's ability to negotiate with other potential bidders, and that
the other defendants aided and abetted the SWS board of director's
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint further alleges, among
other things, that the proxy statement/prospectus filed by Hilltop
on May 29, 2014 omits or misstates certain material information.
The complaints seek relief that includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the SWS Merger,
rescission to the extent the merger terms have already been
implemented, damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty,
and the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 13, 2014, the parties to the Consolidated Action
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting
the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the Court
and certain other conditions, to settle the Consolidated Action.
Pursuant to the MOU, defendants, without admitting any wrongdoing,
agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures requested by
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, as set forth in SWS's
Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 14, 2014. In addition,
Hilltop agreed to forbear from asserting certain rights under the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 31, 2014, by and
among Hilltop, Hilltop Securities and SWS. The MOU further
contemplates that, following confirmatory discovery, the parties
will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject
to customary conditions, including court approval following notice
to the former stockholders of SWS. If the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy
of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the
applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any
eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those
contemplated by the MOU.

Following completion of Hilltop's acquisition of SWS, several
purported holders of shares of SWS common stock, representing a
total of approximately 8.43 million shares of common stock of SWS,
filed petitions in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
seeking appraisal for their shares pursuant to Section 262 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law. The actions are captioned as
follows:  Highland Select Equity Master Fund, L.P. et al. v. SWS
Group, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 10554-VCG; Lone Star Value Investors,
LP et al. v. SWS Group, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 10572-VCG; and
Merlin Partners, LP et al. v. SWS Group, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
10578-VCG. The Company believes these claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend these actions.


HOSPIRA INC: Named as Defendants in 5 Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Hospira and members of
its Board of Directors are named as defendants in five class
action lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Merger
Agreement.  Pfizer and Merger Sub are also named as defendants.
The lawsuits, which seek to enjoin the proposed transaction,
allege generally that the Merger Agreement resulted from an unfair
process and fails to maximize value for Hospira stockholders. The
lawsuits were filed by the following named plaintiffs, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated: Robert J. Casey
II, Samuel Montini, Charles Zimmerman, Jason Chen and Patricia
Takach.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Feb. 2016 Trial Set in Opt-Out Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that trial is scheduled for
February 22, 2016, in the so-called Opt-Out Litigation.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in consolidated
class action civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12,
2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
alleging that we and our co-defendants and other alleged co-
conspirators conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in
the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002 and the present. The other
defendants named in this matter were DuPont, Kronos and Cristal
(formerly Millennium). On August 28, 2012, the court certified a
class consisting of all U.S. customers who purchased titanium
dioxide directly from the defendants (the "Direct Purchasers")
since February 1, 2003. We and all other defendants settled the
Direct Purchasers litigation and the court approved the settlement
on December 13, 2013. We paid the settlement in an amount
immaterial to our condensed consolidated financial statements
(unaudited).

"On November 22, 2013, we were named as a defendant in a civil
antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the
Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out Litigation"). On
April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against us from the
other defendants and ordered our case transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently,
Kronos, another defendant, was also severed from the Minnesota
case and claims against it were transferred and consolidated for
trial with our case in the Southern District of Texas. Trial is
scheduled for February 22, 2016. It is possible that additional
claims will be filed by other Direct Purchasers who opted out of
the class litigation.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Civil Antitrust Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that, "We were also named as
a defendant in a class action civil antitrust suit filed on March
15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by the purchasers of products made from titanium
dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers") making essentially the same
allegations as did the Direct Purchasers. On October 14, 2014,
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint
narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those merchants and consumers
of architectural coatings containing titanium dioxide. Plaintiffs
have raised state antitrust claims under the laws of 16 states,
consumer protection claims under the laws of 10 states, as well as
unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 20 states. The Opt-Out
Litigation and Indirect Purchasers plaintiffs seek to recover
injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum damages allowed
by state law, costs of suit and attorneys' fees. We are not aware
of any illegal conduct by us or any of our employees.
Nevertheless, we have incurred costs relating to these claims and
could incur additional costs in amounts which in the aggregate
could be material to us. Because of the overall complexity of
these cases, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible
loss or range of loss associated with these claims and we have
made no accruals with respect to these claims."

No further updates were provided in the Company's 10-Q report.


IBM CORP: Faces "Sa Vu" Suit Seeking to Enjoin Merge Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrei Sa Vu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated V. Michael P. Cole, Justin C. Dearborn, William J.
Devers, Jr., Michael W. Ferro, Jr., Matthew M. Maloney, Richard
A. Reck, Neele E. Stearns, Jr., International Business Machines
Corporation, and Datong Acquisition Corp., Case No. 2015CH12408
(Ill. Circ., Cook County, Aug. 19), seeks to enjoin IBM's proposed
acquisition of Merge Healthcare Inc.

IBM manufactures and markets computer hardware, middleware, and
software, and offers infrastructure, hosting, and consulting
services in areas ranging from mainframe computers to
nanotechnology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward T. Joyce, Esq.
     Rowena T. Parma, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     135 South La Salle Street, Suite 2200
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 641-2600
     Fax: (312) 641-0360

        - and -

     Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
     Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
     Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
     BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
     7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Tel: (858) 914-2001
     Fax: (858) 914-2002


JAGUAR HYDROSTATIC: "Shaw" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerome Shaw, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
Persons v. Jaguar Hydrostatic Testing, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00363
(S.D. Tex., August 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Jaguar Hydrostatic Testing, LLC owns and operates a bonded freight
shipping and trucking company in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940


JUICE GENERATION: Faces "Dorge" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Randol Dorge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Juice Generation Inc., Cooler Cleanse LLC, and Eric S.
Helms, Case No. 1:15-cv-06821 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 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 fresh juice, smoothies and raw
food business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Durga P. Bhurtel, Esq.
      BHURTEL LAW FIRM PLLC
      3749 75th Street, 2nd Floor
      Jackson Heights, NY 11372
      Telephone: (718) 509-6181
      Facsimile: (917) 396-4622
      E-mail: info@attorneybhurtel.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Class Suit Over 'Natural' Diapers and Wipes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Watch reported that two women have brought a class action
lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark over the company's representation
of "natural" diapers and wipes, which they claim contained
"potentially hazardous" chemicals.

The complaint, filed in New York on 6 August, attests that the
manufacturer's branding of Huggies "Pure and Natural" diapers and
Huggies "Natural Care" wipes is "deceptive".

In a cover letter to the company, the plaintiffs demand that it
"immediately makes full restitution to all purchasers of the
diapers and wipes of all purchase money obtained from sales
thereof".

According to the complaint, the "natural" diapers, like the
company's traditional diapers, contained "unnatural and
potentially harmful ingredients such as polypropylene and sodium
polyacrylate". The complaint states that neither substance's
presence was disclosed on packaging.

Sodium polyacrylate is a "super-absorbent material", designed to
pull moisture away from the baby's skin, according to the company.
The substance is approved by the US FDA as a food additive under
prescribed conditions. Kimberly-Clark says that polypropylene, a
synthetic material, is used to "enhance the fit of the diaper and
help stop leaks".

Also named in the suit are Huggies Natural Wipes, which the
complaint says contained sodium methylparaben and
methylisothiazolinone (MIT), substances it describes as "not
natural" and "hazardous".

The complaint says: "Studies have found that sodium methylparaben
is a harmful ingredient that can act as a '[h]uman endocrine
disruptor' and '[h]uman immune toxicant or allergen'", citing an
analysis of methylparaben by activist nonprofit organisation, the
Environmental Working Group.

Methylparaben has been the subject of investigation in France as a
suspected endocrine disrupting chemical (CW 1 May 2014) and has
been shown to increase the risk of cancer (CW 14 September 2011).
Sodium methylparaben is permitted for use in cosmetics in the EU,
in concentrations up to 0.4%.

In the EU, the European Commission has proposed banning MIT in
cosmetic leave-on products becuse of its sensitising potential,
and it is listed on the Canadian cosmetic ingredient hotlist (CW
31 July 2015). According to the plaintiffs, it has been linked to
immune system and skin toxicity, and to allergic reactions.

"Because the products contain unnatural ingredients, Kimberly-
Clark's claim that the products are 'natural' is false,
misleading, and designed to deceive consumers into purchasing the
products," says the complaint.

"We set high quality, safety and performance standards for our
products and are constantly evaluating the materials to ensure
their continued safety and effectiveness," said a Kimberly-Clark
spokesperson. The company declined to comment on the ongoing
litigation.

In the suit, Kimberly-Clark has been accused of violating a number
of federal and state laws, involving false advertising,
environmental marketing claims, breach of express warranty, and
deceptive trade practices.

The complaint also alleges that the company's claims are "in
contravention" of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) green
guides, which "caution marketers not to make unqualified general
environmental benefit claims".

However, the guides are not enforceable and do not address
'natural' claims because the commission says it "lacks sufficient
evidence on which to base general guidance".

The suit seeks to represent a nationwide class of individuals,
defined as anyone who purchased Huggies Natural Diapers or Natural
Wipes.

Separately, a class action suit has been brought against Earth
Friendly Products over its "natural" household cleaners, which
plaintiffs say contain "non-natural" ingredients. Substances named
by the plaintiffs include MIT, phenoxyethanol and potassium
sorbate.


LABEL HOSPITALITY: "Weaver" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Weaver, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Label Hospitality Group, LLC d/b/a Rooster's Bar and Grill and
Erez Sukarchi, Case No. 4:15-cv-03456-RBH (D.S.C., August 27,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime
wages, for liquidated damages, and for other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in the Broadway on the
Beach area of Myrtle Beach, County of Horry, South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      BRUCE E.MILLER, P.A.
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Telephone: (843) 579-7373
      Facsimile: (843) 614-6417
      E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


LA CANASTA: "Sarria" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Carolina Sarria v. La Canasta Latina Corp. and Roberta Chavez,
Case No. 1:15-cv-23214-UU (S.D. Fla., August 27, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing security and
making their services to customers from throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      K. Brian Roller, Esq.
      SCHWARTZ ROLLER LLP
      3876 Sheridan Street
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 966-2483
      Facsimile: (954) 966-2566
      E-mail: broller@szalaw.com
              pleadings@szalaw.com
              pespinosa@szalaw.com


LIQUIDATION CHANNEL: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
Equity Bulls reported that two individuals filed a class action
lawsuit against Liquidation Channel (a Vaibhav Global Ltd
subsidiary) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles Division.

The individuals seek class certification on behalf of other
consumers in United States as well who were allegedly deceived by
Liquidation Channel's allegedly false and misleading "Estimated
Retail Values" ("ERVs") and discounts based on the ERVs.

Liquidation Channel has robust processes to come to the ERVs and
management believes the lawsuit is meritless. Liquidation Channel
will be defending against the lawsuit vigorously. As part of its
defense strategy, Liquidation Channel filed a motion to dismiss
the lawsuit in July 2015.


LOWE'S HOME: Removed "Acevedo" Class Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Arthur Acevedo, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Lowe's Home Centers,
LLC and Lowe's Companies, Inc., Case No. BC589198, was removed
from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:15-cv-06593-SJO-PJW to the proceeding.

The case contends that the Defendants failed to provide an
individual with a disability an equal access to their business
establishment.

The Defendant is represented by:

      M. Brett Burns, Esq.
      Susan S. Joo, Esq.
      HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
      575 Market Street, Suite 3700
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 975-3700
      Facsimile: (415) 975-3701
      E-mail: mbrettburns@hunton.com
              sjoo@hunton.com


LU WOODSIDE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Antonio Romero, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Lu Woodside Mini Mall Inc. d/b/a Woodside Mini Mall,
and Yu Ya Lu, Case No. 1:15-cv-05030 (E.D.N.Y., August 27, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a retail store with a principal
place of business at 60-19 Roosevelt A venue, Woodside, New York
113 77.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


MADISON COUNTY, TN: "Powell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ovester Powell, and Chloe Mercer, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Madison County, Tennessee, Case No.
1:15-cv-01218-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn., August 27, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid straight time and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Madison County is a Tennessee governmental entity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Jonathan O. Steen, Esq.
      464 N. Parkway, Suite A
      Jackson, TN 38305
      Telephone: (731) 660-2332
      E-mail: jsteen@rsslawfirm.com


MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $722 Million Liability as Reserve
---------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2015, MasterCard Incorporated had accrued a
liability of $722 million as a reserve for both the merchant class
litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in
the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of
these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state
law. The complaints allege, among other things, that MasterCard,
Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the
price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules
(including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws
and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and
services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in
MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
MasterCard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent
conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted
to release, without adequate consideration, MasterCard's right to
assess them for MasterCard's litigation liabilities. The class
plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including,
but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.
In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.  The agreements
provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities
which MasterCard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions
may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse
judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant
litigations.  Among a number of scenarios addressed by the
agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa
parties, the financial institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard
would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the
event of a settlement involving only MasterCard and the financial
institutions with respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards,
MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that
were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus
judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above.
MasterCard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term
reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify
certain of its business practices, including its No Surcharge
Rule. Objections to the settlement were filed by both merchants
and certain competitors, including Discover. Discover's objections
include a challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain
of the rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a
restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013, which has been appealed by objectors to the settlement.
Merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the MasterCard
and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out
of the class settlement. MasterCard anticipates that most of the
larger merchants who opted out of the settlement will initiate
separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out
complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in
various jurisdictions. The defendants have consolidated all of
these matters (except for one state court action in New Mexico) in
front of the same federal district court that is overseeing the
approval of the settlement. In July 2014, the district court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the opt-out merchant
complaints for failure to state a claim.

MasterCard recorded a pre-tax charge of $770 million in the fourth
quarter of 2011 and an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in
the second quarter of 2012 relating to the settlement agreements.

In 2012, MasterCard paid $790 million with respect to the
settlements, of which $726 million was paid into a qualified cash
settlement fund related to the merchant class litigation. As of
June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, MasterCard had $541 million
and $540 million, in the qualified cash settlement fund classified
as restricted cash on its balance sheet. The class settlement
agreement provided for a return to the defendants of a portion of
the class cash settlement fund, based upon the percentage of
purchase volume represented by the opt-out merchants. This
resulted in $164 million from the cash settlement fund being
returned to MasterCard in January 2014 and reclassified at that
time from restricted cash to cash and cash equivalents. In the
fourth quarter of 2013, MasterCard recorded an incremental net
pre-tax charge of $95 million related to the opt-out merchants,
representing a change in its estimate of probable losses relating
to these matters.  MasterCard has executed settlement agreements
with a number of opt-out merchants and no adjustment to the amount
previously recorded was deemed necessary.

As of June 30, 2015, MasterCard had accrued a liability of $722
million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and
the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases.

The portion of the accrued liability relating to the opt-out
merchants does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the
opt-out merchant matters were litigated to a final outcome, in
which case MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability.
MasterCard's estimate involves significant judgment and may change
depending on progress in settlement negotiations or depending upon
decisions in any opt-out merchant cases. In addition, in the event
that the merchant class litigation settlement approval is
overturned on appeal, a negative outcome in the litigation could
have a material adverse effect on MasterCard's results of
operations, financial position and cash flows.


MASTERCARD INC: Class Suits Filed in Saskatchewan and Alberta
-------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that additional proposed
class action complaints have been filed in Saskatchewan and
Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in the British
Columbia and Ontario suits.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in MasterCard's
favor) related to certain MasterCard rules related to point-of-
sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no
surcharge" rules. The suit sought compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In
the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits
containing similar allegations to the Quebec class action were
commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against MasterCard, Visa
and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British
Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts,
and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5 billion. The
British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and
legal costs.

In April 2012, the Quebec suit was amended to include the same
defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia and
Ontario suits. With respect to the status of the proceedings: (1)
the Quebec suit has been stayed, (2) the Ontario suit is being
temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds,
and (3) the British Columbia court issued an order in March 2014
certifying a number of the merchants' causes of action. The
parties have appealed the certification decision. Additional
proposed class action complaints have been filed in Saskatchewan
and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in the British
Columbia and Ontario suits. If the class action lawsuits are
ultimately successful, negative decisions could have a significant
adverse impact on the revenue of MasterCard's Canadian customers
and on MasterCard's overall business in Canada and could result in
substantial damage awards.


MASTERCARD INC: ATM Surcharge Complaints Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the
discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the
terminals they operate.

Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa have violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to
charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions
processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective networks that
are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other
networks accepted at the same ATM.  Plaintiffs seek both
injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they
claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and
their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have
not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect
damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.
Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").

The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek
damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly
inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a
result of the defendants' ATM rules.  Plaintiffs seek both
injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they
claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and
their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have
not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect
damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim, and in December 2013
denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaints. The
plaintiffs have appealed these actions.

No further updates of the ATM Non-Discrimination Rule Surcharge
Complaints were provided in MasterCard's Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.


MERCK SHARP: 9th Circ. Eviscerates 2014 'En Banc' Decision
----------------------------------------------------------
Rich Samp, writing for Forbes, reported  that congress adopted the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005 in response to concerns
that plaintiffs' lawyers were gaming the system to prevent removal
of class actions and "mass actions" (lawsuits with more than 100
named plaintiffs) from state court to federal court.

CAFA provided state-court defendants the option of removing a case
to federal court when the suit is both substantial and involves
numerous plaintiffs, even when complete diversity of citizenship
is lacking.

Immediately thereafter, the plaintiffs' bar began to undermine
CAFA by coming up with new ways to keep their mass lawsuits in
state courts. Among other schemes, plaintiffs' lawyers divided
their clients (often numbering in the thousands) among multiple
lawsuits in the same state court, thereby ensuring that CAFA's
100-plaintiff threshold would not be surpassed in any one lawsuit.
An excellent 2014 en banc decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit imposed strict limits on use of this
removal-defeating tactic. The court held in Corber v. Xanodyne
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that if, after filing their separate
lawsuits, the plaintiffs ask the state court to coordinate the
cases for all purposes, the cases should be deemed unified and
thus removable under CAFA's mass-action provision. But a Ninth
Circuit panel decision, Briggs v. Merck Sharp & Dohme, creates a
roadmap that allows plaintiffs to coordinate their lawsuits yet
avoid removal -- thereby eviscerating Corber. The decision
suggests that the panel (Judges Fletcher, Berzon, and Paez) feels
free to thumb their collective nose at Ninth Circuit en banc
decisions; it ought to be reversed.

The panel decision involved product-liability claims filed against
several pharmaceutical companies that market incretin-based drugs
designed to treat diabetes. Thousands of such suits are pending in
both state and federal court in California. Among the lawsuits at
issue in Briggs was one filed by "the Kreis plaintiffs," a suit
filed in 2014 in California state court by just fewer than 100
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' lawyers soon thereafter filed a
petition asking that their lawsuit be consolidated with hundreds
of similar tort claims then pending before a state court judge in
San Diego. The petition was filed under Section 404, a California
statute that provides for coordination of similar lawsuits before
a single judge.

The drug companies removed the case to federal court under CAFA,
asserting that the effect of the Section 404 petition was to
increase the number of plaintiffs whose claims were to be tried
jointly to more than 100. The district court denied the
plaintiffs' remand motion in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision
in Corber. That en banc decision held that plaintiffs should be
deemed to intend that their cases be "tried jointly" (a
prerequisite for CAFA mass action removal) if they petition to
have the cases coordinated and there is no indication that
individual cases will be returned (following completion of
discovery) to the originating judge for trial.

The panel's August 6 decision reversed the district court and
ordered that the claims of the Kreis plaintiffs be remanded to
state court. How did the panel seek to distinguish the seemingly
controlling Corber precedent? Simple. Counsel for the Kreis
plaintiffs made the the following statement when filing their
Section 404 coordination petition, words that plaintiffs' counsel
in Corber had not uttered when they filed their similar Section
404 petition: "Petitioners do not seek joint trials of any cases
or plaintiffs, but rather, all claims shall be tried
individually."

If uttering those magic words is now deemed sufficient in the
Ninth Circuit to defeat mass-action removal, mass-action removals
will cease to exist -- every plaintiffs' attorney will recite an
identical incantation in all future Section 404 petitions. They
will be able to make such claims because the phrase "joint trials"
has multiple meanings depending on the context in which it is
used. When plaintiffs' lawyers state that they do not intend joint
trials, they mean that they will not ask the coordinating judge to
conduct one proceeding at which a single jury will hear the claims
of 100 or more plaintiffs simultaneously.


MIKE SCOTT: Bid for Sanctions Protections Denied
------------------------------------------------
News-press.com reported that a federal judge has denied a motion
for protection and sanctions in a lawsuit filed against Lee County
Sheriff Mike Scott by deputies.

An emergency order for protection and sanctions was filed July 28
and claimed Scott tried to intimidate and coerce deputies involved
in the suit.

Judge Carol Mirando denied the motion, saying it was not
warranted.

"The court found that I did nothing improper," the sheriff said in
a statement issued about the case.

The federal lawsuit, filed in September 2014 in U.S. District
Court and received certification by Judge John Steele on July 16,
will continue, Attorney Ben Yormak, representing the deputies,
said. Denial of the motions does nothing to the case, he added.

"This is a federal collective action under the Fair Labor Act,"
Yormak said, as well as a violation of the Florida Minimum Wage
Act. The suit also sought class certification but was denied by
the judge.

The Bonita Springs attorney said the case is twofold: "To recover
wages owed to the deputies and to change the policies to be in
line with state and federal law."

Yormak and Kevin Calderone, one of the four original complainants,
said the crux is an aspect called "donning and doffing."

Calderone said deputies are seeking to be paid for their time from
when they enter their patrol cars, not when they actually start
their shifts at a Lee County Sheriff's Office facility. Some
deputies are allowed to drive a sheriff's office vehicle home and
are allowed to use it for nonwork activities.

Calderone said the distinction between starting work from the
point of entry into the vehicle and arriving at a facility is
usually about a 15-minute difference, which can add up.

Sheriff Mike Scott responded to the suit via a statement.

"I typically refrain from commenting on matters pending
litigation; however, I believe our taxpayers and my co-workers
deserve some perspective on recent media stories regarding a
class-action lawsuit wherein 33 employees (2.2 percent) of our
total membership want to be paid from the time they put on their
uniform until the time they take it off," Scott said.

Scott said many law enforcement agencies, including the LCSO,
subscribe to "take-home vehicles." The sheriff said the lawsuit
deals with official activity a deputy may engage in during the
commute to or from their shift, such as rolling up on an incident
and starting their work early. "It is up to that deputy to notify
their supervisor and reflect same on their time sheet," he said in
the statement. "They would then be compensated accordingly."

Scott said that the sheriff's office's compensation practices have
been, remain and always will be consistent with all applicable
state and federal laws.

"It is important to note that the plaintiffs in the current
litigation completed their own time sheets and certified their
time sheets to be true and accurate. Consequentially, the
plaintiffs were paid based upon what they themselves presented and
certified as the hours they worked," his statement said. "The
plaintiffs now contend that they should be paid for time they did
not report on the very time sheets they themselves prepared and
certified as accurate."

Additionally, the sheriff's statement said, "The law is well-
settled that plaintiffs are not entitled to the additional
compensation they now seek."

However, Calderone said that while there is a process for
recording and submitting the time as the sheriff described, many
deputies don't push the issue for fear of being branded a
troublemaker.

"You have to push the issue. Some guys won't. They don't want to
get a name," he said. "I'm one who pushes the issue. I don't work
for free."

Calderone and Yormak said there are other law enforcement agencies
in Florida who do pay in the "donning and doffing" manner,
including the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and Florida
Highway Patrol.

Yormak said the court recently denied class certification and an
appeal will be filed on that aspect. Additionally, he said, since
the suit was filed there have been 34 names added.

Yormak said he is awaiting a list from the sheriff of the names
and emails of all deputies at the LCSO who could be affected.


NESTLE USA: Sued Over Alleged Suppliers' Use of Forced Labor
------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Barber, Robert and Esther Malone, and R. Grace
Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Nestle USA, Inc. and Nestle Purina Petcare Co., Case
No. 8:15-cv-01364 (C.D. Cal., August 27, 2015), is brought on
behalf of all consumers who purchased the Defendants' Fancy Feast
that was not disclosed as likely sourced from suppliers using
forced labor.

Nestle USA, Inc. is a nationwide manufacturer and distributor of
food and beverage products. Its corporate headquarters is located
at 800 Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203.

Nestle Purina PetCare Co. is a nationwide manufacturer and
distributor of pet foods. Its corporate headquarters is located at
1 Checkerboard Sq., St. Louis, Missouri 63164.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


NTELOS HOLDINGS: Faces "Westen" Suit Over Shentel Merger Plans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Westen, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Michael A. Huber, Rodney D. Dir, David A.
Chorney, Stephen C. Duggan, Michael Gottdenker, Daniel J.
Heneghan, Ruth Sommers, Ellen O'Connor Vos, Ntelos Holdings Corp.,
Shenandoah Telecommunications Company (Shentel), and Gridiron
Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 11421 (Del.Ch., Aug. 24, 2015), seeks
to enjoin defendants from taking any steps to consummate a propose
merger with Shenandoah Telecommunications.

Ntelos, through its wholly-owned subsidiary NTELOS Inc. and its
subsidiaries, is a provider of digital wireless communication
services to consumers and businesses, primarily in Virginia and
West Virginia, as well as parts of Maryland, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky.

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
     Tel: (302) 295-5310

        - and -

     Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 363-7500


OC FREDDIE'S: "Dale" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Desmond Dale, Mr. Salman Afridi, and Ms. Melanie Mason, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. OC
Freddie's, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02543 (D. Md., August  27, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a bar and restaurant in Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard B. Hoffman, Esq.
      600 Jefferson Plaza, Ste. 304
      Rockville, MD 20852
      Telephone: (301) 251-3752
      Facsimile: (301) 251-3753
      E-mail: hhoffman@hoholaw.com

         - and -

      Bradford W. Warbasse, Esq.
      401 Washington Avenue, Ste. 200
      Towson, MD 21204
      Telephone: (410) 337-5411
      Facsimile: (410) 938-8668
      E-mail: warbasselaw@gmail.com


OHIO TECHNICAL: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Green" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglass Green, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ohio Technical College, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01729-
DCN (N.D. Ohio, August 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Ohio Technical College, Inc. owns and operates a private, for-
profit postsecondary technical college where its customers receive
training in automotive, diesel, and motorcycle technology, as well
as welding and high-performance racing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
      Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
      COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
      The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400
      700 West St. Clair Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 781-7956
      Facsimile: (216) 781-8061
      E-mail: jbristol@crklaw.com
              jfuchs@crklaw.com


PLAINS ALL: Saxena White Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.
("Plains" or the "Company") (NYSE: PAA) on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common units of the Company
during the period from February 27, 2013 through August 4, 2015
(the "Class Period).

The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that Plains issued false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's pipeline monitoring,
maintenance and spill response measures, as well as its compliance
with federal regulations governing its pipeline operations.
You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action
at www.saxenawhite.com.

If you purchased Plains common units between February 27, 2013 and
August 4, 2015, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker
(lhooker@saxenawhite.com) at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased Plains common units during the Class Period of
February 27, 2013 through August 4, 2015, and wish to apply to be
the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court no later than October 16, 2015. You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel
in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm
has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured
investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and
state courts throughout the United States.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend McCaffree Action
---------------------------------------------------------
McCaffree Financial Corp. Employee Retirement Program
("McCaffree") filed on March 18, 2014, a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa against Principal Financial Group, Inc. The
complaint alleged, among other things, breach of duty of loyalty,
breach of duty of prudence and prohibited transactions under
ERISA. McCaffree seeks a nationwide class action on behalf of all
participants and beneficiaries of defined contribution retirement
plans that invested in any Principal Separate Account in the last
six years. McCaffree seeks disgorgement of all fees it alleges
Principal Life improperly retained in addition to other general
claims for relief. Principal Life filed a motion to dismiss the
case and on December 11, 2014, the court granted the motion.
McCaffree filed a notice of appeal on December 22, 2014. Principal
Life will continue to aggressively defend the case.

No further updates were provided in Principal Financial's Form 10-
Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.


PTG ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Stevenson and Misty Dew, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. P.T.G. Entertainment, Inc. and Booby
Trap, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-61792-JIC (S.D. Fla., August 27,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club located
at 2840 Hammondville Rd., Pompano Beach, FL 33069.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cullin A. O'Brien
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 NE 21st Way Ft.
      Lauderdale, FL 33308
      Telephone: (561) 676-6370
      Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com


REFINISHING TOUCH: Faces "Crawford" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Crawford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Refinishing Touch, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03027-
SCJ (N.A. Ga., August 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Refinishing Touch, Inc. is in the business of providing
furniture upholstering to commercial clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda A. Farahany, Esq.
      V. Severin Roberts, Esq.
      BARRETT & FARAHANY, LLP
      1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 214-0120
      Facsimile: (404) 214-0125


RENT MAX: Faces "De Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Ponce De Leon, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Rent Max Miami, Inc., Nancy C. Valcarce, and
Ari P. Weingrad, Case No. 1:15-cv-23218-JAL (S.D. Fla., August 27,
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 car rental company in Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.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: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


SOLAZYME INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
Solazyme, Inc. (NASDAQ:SZYM) securities from February 27, 2014
through November 5, 2014, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period") including its March 27, 2014 follow-on public stock
offerings ("the Offerings"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Solazyme investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Solazyme class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-650.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.

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, during the Class Period, Solazyme
misstated and/or failed or disclose unfavorable news about its new
renewable oils production facility in Moema, Brazil. Solazyme
initially failed to report that the Moema Facility suffered
construction delays stemming from the inadequate availability of
electricity and steam utilities. As a result, the lawsuit claims
that Solazyme was prevented from increasing output to its
previously projected levels. When the true details entered the
market, the complaint asserts that Solazyme's share price declined
and 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 directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-650.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.

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY  10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
www.rosenlegal.com


SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Spectranetics Corporation, Scott Drake, and Guy A.
Childs, Case No. 1:15-cv-01857-KLM (D. Colo., August 27, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

The Spectranetics Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, and
distributes medical devices used in minimally invasive procedures
within the cardiovascular system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
      Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      885 Arapahoe Avenue
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
      E-mail: Kip@Shumanlawfirm.com
              Rusty@Shumanlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


ST. LOUIS, MO: To Refund $5.6-Mil. Over Red-Light Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas J.C. Pistor, writing for STL Today, reported that the
city pledged that it will refund roughly $5.6 million to motorists
who paid red-light camera tickets.

The Missouri Supreme Court struck down the ordinance governing
red-light cameras in St. Louis. The city immediately stopped the
red-light camera program and dismissed all pending cases.

Now, St. Louis begins the daunting task of returning the money
paid over the last 18 months by offending drivers. Officials say
they are still considering the best way to do it -- all while
contemplating the creation of a new red-light camera ordinance
that can pass legal muster.

Full refunds will go only to motorists who paid tickets between
Feb. 14, 2014. Anyone who paid a ticket before that period will
not receive a refund, the city said. Motorists who paid red-light
tickets prior to that were eligible for a class-action settlement
that amounted to about $20 per ticket.

Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer invalidated the city's red-light
ordinance in a case brought by Sarah Tupper and Sandra Thurmond
after their vehicles were photographed running red lights. Both
said someone else had been driving at the time.

Ohmer placed his order on hold to allow proponents of the St.
Louis ordinance to mount an appeal. On Feb. 14, 2014, Ohmer
allowed the city to continue issuing tickets, but ordered that the
money collected be placed in an escrow account that could be
returned if the city lost the appeal.

"The ordinance was essentially valid until it was found invalid,"
said Maggie Crane, the spokeswoman for St. Louis Mayor Francis
Slay. "We can only give refunds to the backdate of when the escrow
account was created."

The state's high court ended all debate on when it said the
ordinance "is unconstitutional because it creates a rebuttable
presumption that improperly shifts the burden of persuasion onto
the defendant to prove that he or she was not operating the motor
vehicle at the time of the violation."

Crane said it could take a while for the city to establish a
system for refunds.

"We will follow the spirit of the law," Crane said. "We just don't
know how the mechanics will work."

Crane said that while the city could contact people by mail, that
could prove complicated because some people have moved to
different addresses. She said the city is considering setting up a
website where motorists could go to claim refunds, similar to how
governments return unclaimed property.

Crane said the city will return any payments that might have been
mailed before the ruling came down.

But red-light cameras in the city aren't going anywhere. While
their use is temporarily halted, the mayor's office is considering
a new ordinance to fit with judicial ruling.

Crane said the cameras are a public safety help because statistics
show they reduce accidents at high-traffic intersections and can
also be used by police to help solve crimes. She said they expect
there is political support for keeping the program because money
generated from the cameras would be used to hire additional police
officers in the city.

Tom Shepard, the chief to staff to Aldermanic President Lewis
Reed, said his office doesn't yet have an opinion on any future
ordinance.

American Traffic Solutions, the company that operates the cameras,
said it will begin working with Missouri municipalities to restart
the programs, which because of the court ruling must have a way to
identify the driver behind the wheel.

Across the state in Kansas City, which suspended its red-light
ticket program in 2013, official told the Kansas City Star that
the plans to re-establish a camera program that conforms with the
law at its most dangerous intersections.

Meanwhile in St. Peters, city officials reiterated their decision
announced last February to keep red-light cameras turned off for
good.

However, 35 people with pending camera-generated tickets issued
under a revised version of the city ordinance passed in 2013 still
must deal with them, officials said.


TD BANK: "Searcy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Searcy, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. CACE-15-015378 (D.
Fla., August 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime premium pay in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

TD Bank, N.A. has more than 1,300 bank locations throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 977-4005

         - and -

      Brian Schaffer, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Ave South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212)481-1333


TENARIS GLOBAL: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Perez, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tenaris Global Services (U.S.A.)
Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00228 (S.D. Tex., August 27, 2015),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a single week.

Tenaris Global Services (U.S.A.) Corporation operates numerous
manufacturing facilities in the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com

         - and -

      John A. Neuman, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: jneuman@kennedyhodges.com


UNISUPER: Criticises Class Suit Funders Over Fees
-------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that one of Australia's largest institutional investors, the $50.3
billion industry superannuation fund UniSuper, has strongly
criticised funders of class actions, saying there is little
justification for them taking such a handsome share of
settlements.

UniSuper head of legal and risk Luke Barrett said Australia's
litigation funding landscape was dominated by a few players that
quickly partnered with the law firms leading class actions, which
meant that when a class action was put to shareholders there was
only ever the option of one litigation funder.
"The big question is, why are litigation funders able to charge 30
per cent to 40 per cent of the recovery amount?," said Mr Barrett,
who will be speaking at the Maurice Blackburn and BusinessDay
corporate conduct and class actions symposium in Melbourne,

"That can often be a multiple of what the legal fees were, and
then in the big shareholder class action normally they will be."

Mr Barrett said he was yet to see evidence of any need for
litigation funders to take such a big slice of class action
settlements.

Their fair share?

"The litigation funders will say that their 30 to 40 per cent
commission -- for want of a better word -- is fair compensation
for their value add.

"My question back to them is what is the value add and is 30 to 40
per cent of the compensation a fair amount of compensation for
that?"

However, Mr Barrett said bringing in more litigation funders to
Australia was not "always a positive development" as it was hard
to compare their fee structures to the incumbents and would not go
to the heart of the issue surrounding the lack of competition in
the industry.

"At the moment, even though there may be multiple litigation
funders, the first litigation funder to partner up with a law firm
to bring a particular class action enjoys a formidable position,"
he said.

Mr Barrett confirmed UniSuper has participated in class actions in
the US and in Australia, but he would not be drawn on what actions
the fund had joined.

Mr Barrett also revealed UniSuper had lobbied litigation funders
in the past to get a lower fee for participating in a class action
than what was being offered to retail investors.

"With some irony, we are often rebuffed by the litigation funder
that it would unfair for them to charge a lower fee scale to a
particular subset of investors. Now at first glance that sounds
fair, but if the standard scale of fees is so generously in their
favour, is the position really that the right thing to do is to
charge an unfair amount to everyone?"

Mr Barrett also addressed the perception that institutional
investors participating in class actions were effectively suing
themselves (by owning stakes in the sued companies) and putting
their dividend payments at risk.

"That concern simply does not apply if you're no longer a
shareholder. And even if you are still a shareholder, the class
action might actually go ahead with or without you anyway, so your
dividends might be impacted to a similar extent even if you don't
go into it."


UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Panel Prefers Arbitrator to Resolve Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgang, writing for Metropolitan News, reported that an
arbitration agreement's incorporation of American Arbitration
Association rules requires that an arbitrator, rather than a
court, determine the applicability of the agreement to class-wide
claims, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled.

The panel said that Universal Protection Service, a security firm
whose clients include the Yolo Superior Court, must allow an
arbitrator to decide all issues in its dispute with courthouse
security guards, including whether their claims can be heard on a
class-wide basis.

Five guards sued UPS, with all five contending that they were not
paid their wages and that they were not reimbursed for mandatory
equipment expenses. Four of the guards also claimed they were
illegally terminated in retaliation for filing an administrative
complaint under the Labor Code Private Attorney Generals Act of
2004.

Following the ruling in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los
Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 -- that an employment agreement
may preclude class actions and class-wide arbitration claims, but
not representative actions under PAGA -- the employees filed an
amended complaint under PAGA. They also requested arbitration of
their claims on behalf of two classes, one made up of workers who
were not reimbursed for training and equipment expenses and one of
those who they claim were improperly fired.
Clause Cited

They cited the arbitration clause, drafted by UPS, in which each
plaintiff agreed that "any controversy, claim or dispute between
me and the Company . . . relating to or arising out of my
employment or the cessation of that employment will be submitted
to final and binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator . . .
for determination in accordance with the American Arbitration
Association's [AAA] National Rules for the Resolution of
Employment Disputes as the exclusive remedy for such controversy,
claim or dispute."

UPS responded that class claims were barred by the agreement, and
brought a cross-claim seeking a judicial declaration to that
effect. Yolo Superior Court Judge Timothy L. Fall took judicial
notice of the AAA rules and held it would be up to the arbitrator
to decide whether the arbitrable claims could proceed on behalf of
a class.

In denying the company's petition for a writ of mandate, the Court
of Appeal, which had stayed the arbitration, said the employer was
bound by the agreement that it drafted to submit the issue of
class arbitration to the arbitrator.

AAA Rules

The AAA rules, Justice Elena J. Duarte noted, grant arbitrators
the right to rule on "any objections with respect to the
existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement." They
also provide that if a claim is brought on behalf of or against a
class, "the arbitrator shall determine as a threshold matter, in a
reasoned, partial final award on the construction of the
arbitration clause, whether the applicable arbitration clause
permits the arbitration to proceed on behalf of or against a
class" and shall then stay the action for at least 30 days to
permit an aggrieved party to seek judicial review of the ruling.
She distinguished cases in which courts ruled on the scope of
arbitration in the absence of a provision in the arbitration
agreement committing such issues to the arbitrator, or where the
agreement referred to AAA rules but was ambiguous as to whether
they were binding.

There were no ambiguities in the clause relied on by the
plaintiffs in this case, Duarte said.

The jurist also distinguished contrary federal cases, noting they
"did not fully apply he contractual incorporation rule" that is
clearly part of California law, and which federal courts in
California have applied.

The case is Universal Protection Service, L.P. v. Superior Court
(Parnow), 15 S.O.S. 4258.


VITAL SUPPORT: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeniffer Santiago Rivera, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Vital Support Home Health Care
Agency, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04857-GP (E.D. Penn., August 27,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Vital Support Home
Health Care Agency, Inc., provides of integrated healthcare
services, offering home services to individuals with disabilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Berger, Esq.
      Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
      Camille Fundora, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              sschalman-bergen@bm.net
              apiazza@bm.net
              cfundora@bm.net

         - and -

      Michael Hollander, Esq.
      COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
      1424 Chestnut St
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 981-3794
      Facsimile: (215) 981-0434
      E-mail: MHollander@clsphila.org


WHOLE FOODS: Sued in California Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maximo Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Whole Foods Market California, Inc. and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. BC592895 (D. Cal., August 27, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to provide accurate
wage statements.

Whole Foods Market California, Inc. is a grocery market that
operates several stores within California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombache, Esq.
      Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 991-8080
      Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
      E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
              kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
              ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com


XOOM CORP: Liu, Barrett Actions Remanded to San Francisco Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xoom Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a federal court
remanded the Liu and Barrett actions back to the San Francisco
Superior Court.

On January 6, 2015, the Company, John Kunze and Ryno Blignaut were
sued in a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Alexander Liu
v. Xoom Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-15-543531, filed in San
Francisco Superior Court by purported stockholders of the Company,
in connection with its January 5, 2015 announcement that the
Company was the victim of criminal fraud resulting in the transfer
of $30.8 million in corporate cash to overseas accounts.

On February 6, 2015, the lawsuit was removed to federal court in
the Northern District of California, and assigned the case number
5:15-cv-00602-LHK. On March 11, 2015, the Company, John Kunze and
Ryno Blignaut were sued in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Patrick Andrew Barrett v. Xoom Corp., et al., Case No.
CGC-15-544655, also filed in San Francisco Superior Court by
purported stockholders of the Company.

On March 20, 2015, the lawsuit was removed to federal court in the
Northern District of California, and assigned the case number
5:15-cv-01319. On June 25, 2015, the federal court remanded the
Liu and Barrett actions back to the San Francisco Superior Court.

The Liu and Barrett lawsuits allege that the Company and Messrs.
Kunze and Blignaut violated federal securities laws by
misrepresenting and/or omitting information in the offering
materials distributed in connection with the Company's February
2013 initial public offering.  The lawsuits seek unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.


XOOM CORP: Actions Consolidated in Delaware Chancery Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Xoom Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Delaware Court of
Chancery has issued an order consolidating all of the actions into
one matter captioned In re Xoom Corporation Stockholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11263-VCP.

Between July 8, 2015 and July 13, 2015, four purported class
action lawsuits were filed against Xoom and its directors, PayPal,
Inc., Timer Acquisition Corp. and PayPal Holdings, Inc. in
connection with the proposed Merger between Xoom and PayPal in the
Delaware Chancery Court, captioned Booth Family Trust v. Xoom
Corporation et al., C.A. No. 11263 (July, 8, 2015), King v. Xoom
Corporation et al., C.A. No. 11273 (July 9, 2015), Beverly v.
Kunze et al., C.A. No. 11285 (July 13, 2015) and Torres v. Xoom
Corporation et al., C.A. No. 11301 (July 16, 2015).

On July 17, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order
consolidating all of the actions into one matter captioned In re
Xoom Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
11263-VCP.

The lawsuits allege that Xoom's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Xoom stockholders, and that the other defendants aided
and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Xoom through an
allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair
terms.  The lawsuits seek, among other things, equitable relief
that would enjoin the consummation of the Merger, rescission of
the Merger Agreement (to the extent it has already been
implemented) or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The King and Beverly actions further seek an order directing the
defendants to account for alleged damages suffered by the
plaintiffs and the purported class as a result of the defendants'
alleged wrongdoing.

Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted
with certainty, the Company believes that these lawsuits are
without merit and intends to defend against the actions
vigorously.


ZULILY INC: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Proposed Liberty Takeover
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Zulily, Inc., et al., Case No. 11440 (D. Del., August
27, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of
Zulily, Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Zulily by
Liberty Interactive Corporation through a flawed process and
inadequate consideration.

Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, Zulily, Inc., operates as an
online retailer in the United States, Canada, Australia, the
United Kingdom, and internationally.

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
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
              stornatore@zlk.com


* CFPB Arbitration May Unlock Floodgates of Consumer Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conrad Anderson IV, Esq. -- canderson@balch.com -- and Gregory
Cook, Esq. -- gcook@balch.com -- at Balch & Bingham LLP, in an
article for JD Supra, reported that banks already looking over one
shoulder to maintain compliance with regulatory reforms coming at
them from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act may soon need to start looking over the other.
Class action lawsuits by customers are likely coming, despite
contracts to the contrary.

Many banks and other financial service providers include
arbitration clauses in their consumer contracts; because
arbitration is generally much less expensive (and quicker) than
litigating in court, the cost of resolution is more in line with
the minimal amounts often at issue. Class-action claims, however,
can disrupt this balance -- the cost to defend the most frivolous
complaint is overshadowed by the potential exposure where these
otherwise "minimal amounts" are aggregated.

In an effort to maintain the balance, lenders frequently require
customers to waive any right to participate in a class-action
lawsuit. In passing Dodd-Frank, Congress directed the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to conduct a comprehensive
study on the impact of mandatory arbitration clauses and class-
action waivers in consumer financial products (including checking
accounts, debit cards, auto loans, and payday loans). And going
one step further, Congress authorized the CFPB to "prohibit or
impose conditions or limitations on the use of" arbitration
clauses if it finds that such actions are "in the public interest
and for the protection of consumers" and are "consistent with the
study."

What did the CFPB find in its study? After spending over two years
to review hundreds of consumer finance agreements and thousands of
arbitration disputes, individual consumer lawsuits and class
actions, the CFPB issued a 728-page report. Among the conclusions
of the report:

Consumers rarely pursue claims -- either in arbitration or court -
- for small disputes ($1,000 or less). In contrast, millions of
consumers were eligible for monetary relief through class action
settlements where such relief was permitted by the relevant
contracts.

Lenders frequently waive the right to compel arbitration of
individual lawsuits, but routinely invoke the arbitration clause
to block class actions.

There was no statistically significant evidence of lower borrowing
costs or increased access to credit for consumers by requiring
arbitration and prohibiting class action lawsuits.

The vast majority of consumers do not know whether they agreed to
arbitration, do not understand that they cannot file a lawsuit,
and do not consider arbitration or dispute resolution when
selecting financial service providers.

What can banks expect? Based on the CFPB's report, banks should
expect significant regulation -- if not elimination -- on their
use of mandatory arbitration clauses and class action waivers. The
CFPB clearly believes that these practices lead to an uneven
playing field for consumers, and that the justifications are not
supported by the evidence they gathered. Formal rulemaking is
undoubtedly soon to commence.

What can banks do to prepare?

Be heard. In submitting public comment, trade groups and industry
stakeholders will need to provide hard data evidencing a
commitment to consumers.

Increase customer satisfaction efforts. Banks can expect fewer
customer disputes -- whether in arbitration, individual lawsuits,
or class actions -- if there are fewer unhappy customers. Increase
employee training and internal resolution processes.
Monitor customer disputes. Although it is impossible to foresee
and prevent every lawsuit, frequent and repetitious disputes of
the same type can signal a larger problem that may require
priority.

Stay informed. Many class-action lawsuits follow on the heels of
smaller consumer victories that are under the radar. Work with
counsel to stay abreast of developments, including whether your
practices or contract terms should be modified to reduce exposure.
Do not overreact. Any regulation by the CFPB may be prospective as
to future contracts and may provide for at least some field of
operation for arbitration, depending on the rules of the
arbitration forum (e.g., is the forum "consumer friendly") and the
contract formation (is the arbitration clause sufficiently
prominent, and can the consumer "opt out"). If/when such
regulations are finalized, banks should make a fully-informed
decision on how to move forward.

                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Has No Authority Over Insurers' PCC Bids
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled that the motion for
relief from judgment filed by Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and
Everest Reinsurance Company will be denied if the case was
remanded for the purpose of considering the motion.

Mt. McKinley objected to the Modified Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation and appealed the
bankruptcy court's confirmation order to the district court.  The
district court held that McKinley lacked standing to challenge the
plan.  On September 30, 2014, the district court adopted the
bankruptcy court's opinion and confirmation order and issued the
accompanying asbestos channeling injunction.  The parties
stipulated that the plan would not take effect until after the
resolution of Mt. McKinley's appeal to the Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.

On October 28, 2014, Mt. McKinley filed a notice of appeal, and on
March 26, 2015, it filed its motion for relief from judgment.

Judge Conti held that because an appeal is pending before the U.S.
Court for Appeals for the Third Circuit, she had no authority to
grant Mt. McKinley's motion for relief from judgment.  However, if
the case was remanded by the Third Circuit for the purpose of
considering the motion, Judge Conti concluded that she will deny
the motion because the evidence relied upon by Mt. McKinley does
not show the confirmation order was procured by fraud and the
court cannot revoke the confirmation order for any other reason.

Mt. McKinley also sought to have the district court reconsider its
decision that Mt. McKinley lacks standing, but Judge Conti held
that she has no legal authority to reconsider the decision at this
time.

The case is MT. McKINLEY INSURANCE COMPANY and EVEREST REINSURANCE
COMPANY, Appellants, v. PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION, et al.,
Appellees, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-1639 (W.D. Pa.).

A full-text copy of Judge Conti's August 12, 2015 memorandum
opinion is available at http://is.gd/XtjcQUfrom Leagle.com.

Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company are
represented by:

          James R. Walker, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY
          One Oxford Centre
          301 Grant Street, 20th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1410
          Tel: (412) 562-8800
          Fax: (412) 562-1041
          Email: james.walker@bipc.com

            -- and --

          Tony L. Draper, Esq.
          Charles B. Walther, Esq.
          WALKER WILCOX MATOUSEK LLP
          1001 McKinney Street Suite 2000
          Houston, TX 77002
          Tel: (713) 654-8001
          Fax: (713) 343-6571
          Email: tdraper@wwmlawyers.com
                 bwalther@wwmlawyers.com

            -- and --

          Fred L. Alvarez, Esq.
          WALKER WILCOX MATOUSEK LLP
          One North Franklin Street Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL, 60606
          Tel: (312) 244-6700
          Fax: (312) 244-6800
          Email: falvarez@wwmlawyers.com

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation is represented by:

          James J. Restivo, Jr., Esq.
          Andrew J. Muha, Esq.
          David Ziegler, Esq.
          Douglas E. Cameron, Esqs.
          REED SMITH
          Reed Smith Centre
          225 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Tel: (412) 288-3131
          Fax: (412) 288-3063
          Email: jrestivo@reedsmith.com
                 amuha@reedsmith.com
                 dziegler@reedsmith.com
                 dcameron@reedsmith.com

            -- and --

          Rosalie J. Bell, Esq.
          PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION
          800 Presque Isle Drive
          Pittsburgh, PA 15239

Official Committee of Asbestos Creditors is represented by:

          Peter Van N. Lockwood, Esq.
          CAPLIN & DRYSDALE
          One Thomas Circle, NW, Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20005-5802
          Tel: (202) 862-5000
          Fax: (202) 429-3301
          Email: plockwood@capdale.com

            -- and --

          David B. Salzman, Esq.
          Philip E. Milch, Esq.
          CAMPBELL & LEVINE
          310 Grant Street, Suite 1700
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Tel: (412) 261-0310
          Fax: (412) 261-5066
          Email: dbs@camlev.com
                 pem@camlev.com

Lawrence Fitzpatrick is represented by:

          Joel M. Helmrich, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL
          One Oxford Centre
          301 Grant St., Suite 2800
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Tel: (412) 281-5000
          Fax: (412) 281-5055
          Email: joel.helmrich@dinsmore.com

            -- and --

          Edwin J. Harron, Esq.
          Sara Beth A.R. Kohut, Esq.
          YOUNG, CONAWAY, STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP
          Rodney Square 1000 North King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Tel: (302) 571-6600
          Fax: (302) 571-1253
          Email: eharron@ycst.com
                 skohut@ycst.com

            About Pittsburgh Corning

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Case No. 00-22876) on April 16, 2000,
to address numerous claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos.  At the time of the bankruptcy filing, there were
about 11,800 claims pending against the Company in state court
lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure
to Pittsburgh Corning's asbestos products and typically requesting
monetary damages in excess of $1 million per claim.

Judge Thomas Agresti handles the bankruptcy case.  Reed Smith LLP
serves as counsel and Deloitte & Touche LLP as accountants to the
Debtor.

The U.S. Trustee appointed a Committee of Unsecured Trade
Creditors on April 28, 2000.  The Bankruptcy Court authorized the
retention of Leech, Tishman, Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLC, as counsel to
the Committee of Unsecured Trade Creditors, and Pascarella &
Wiker, LLP, as financial advisor.

The U.S. Trustee also appointed a Committee of Asbestos Creditors
on April 28, 2000.  The Bankruptcy Court authorized the retention
of these professionals by the Committee of Asbestos Creditors: (i)
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered as Committee Counsel; (ii) Campbell &
Levine as local counsel; (iii) Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C. as
special insurance counsel; (iv) Legal Analysis Systems, Inc., as
Asbestos-Related Bodily Injury Consultant; (v) defunct firm, L.
Tersigni Consulting, P.C. as financial advisor, and (vi) Professor
Elizabeth Warren, as a consultant to Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered.

On Feb. 16, 2001, the Court approved the appointment of Lawrence
Fitzpatrick as the Future Claimants' Representative.  The
Bankruptcy Court authorized the retention of Meyer, Unkovic &
Scott LLP as his counsel, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, as
his special counsel, and Analysis, Research and Planning
Corporation as his claims consultant.

In 2003, a plan of reorganization was agreed to by various
parties-in-interest, but, on Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court
issued an order denying the confirmation of that plan, citing that
the plan was too broad in addressing independent asbestos claims
that were not associated with Pittsburgh Corning.

On Jan. 29, 2009, an amended plan of reorganization (the Amended
PCC Plan) -- which addressed the issues raised by the Court when
it denied confirmation of the 2003 Plan -- was filed with the
Bankruptcy Court.

As reported by the TCR on April 25, 2012, Pittsburgh Corning,
which is a joint venture between Corning Inc. and PPG Industries
Inc., filed another amendment to its reorganization plan designed
to wrap up a Chapter 11 begun 12 years ago.

PCC's balance sheet at Sept. 30, 2012, showed $29.4 billion in
total assets, $7.52 billion in total liabilities and $21.9 billion
in total equity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Industries Has $100.7MM Fibro Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc., had $100.7 million of insurance coverage
to cover current and future asbestos claims payments and certain
expense payments at March 31, 2015, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company states: "The historical business operations of GST LLC
and Anchor resulted in a substantial volume of asbestos litigation
in which plaintiffs alleged personal injury or death as a result
of exposure to asbestos fibers in products produced or sold by
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC ("GST LLC") or Anchor, together
with products produced and sold by numerous other companies. GST
LLC and Anchor manufactured and/or sold industrial sealing
products that contained encapsulated asbestos fibers. Other of our
subsidiaries that manufactured or sold equipment that may have at
various times in the past contained asbestos-containing components
have also been named in a number of asbestos lawsuits, but neither
we nor any of our subsidiaries other than GST LLC and Anchor have
ever paid an asbestos claim.

"Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against GST
LLC in 1975, GST LLC and Anchor have processed more than 900,000
claims to conclusion, and, together with insurers, have paid over
$1.4 billion in settlements and judgments and over $400 million in
fees and expenses. Our subsidiaries' exposure to asbestos
litigation and their relationships with insurance carriers have
been managed through Garrison.

"On the Petition Date, GST LLC, Garrison and Anchor filed
voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court. The filings
were the initial step in a claims resolution process, which is
ongoing.

"During the pendency of the Chapter 11 proceedings, certain
actions proposed to be taken by GST not in the ordinary course of
business are subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court. As a
result, during the pendency of these proceedings, we do not have
exclusive control over these companies. Accordingly, as required
by GAAP, GST was deconsolidated beginning on the Petition Date.
As a result of the initiation of the Chapter 11 proceedings, the
resolution of asbestos claims is subject to the jurisdiction of
the Bankruptcy Court. The filing of the Chapter 11 cases
automatically stayed the prosecution of pending asbestos bodily
injury and wrongful death lawsuits, and initiation of new such
lawsuits, against GST. Further, the Bankruptcy Court issued an
order enjoining plaintiffs from bringing or further prosecuting
asbestos products liability actions against affiliates of GST,
including EnPro, Coltec and all their subsidiaries, during the
pendency of the Chapter 11 proceedings, subject to further order.
As a result, except as a result of the resolution of appeals from
verdicts rendered prior to the Petition Date and the elimination
of claims as a result of information obtained in the Chapter 11
proceedings, the numbers of asbestos claims pending against our
subsidiaries have not changed since the Petition Date, and those
numbers continue to be as reported in our 2009 Form 10-K and our
quarterly reports for the first and second quarters of 2010.
On the Petition Date, according to Garrison's claim records, there
were more than 90,000 total claims pending against GST LLC, of
which approximately 5,800 were claims alleging the disease
mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a rare cancer of the protective
lining of many of the body's internal organs, principally the
lungs. The primary cause of mesothelioma is believed to be
exposure to asbestos. As a result of asbestos tort reform during
the 2000s, most active asbestos-related lawsuits, and a large
majority of the amount of payments made by our subsidiaries in the
years immediately preceding the Petition Date, have been of claims
alleging mesothelioma. In total, GST LLC has paid $563.2 million
to resolve a total of 15,300 mesothelioma claims, and another
5,700 mesothelioma claims have been dismissed without payment.

"In order to estimate the allowed amount for mesothelioma claims
against GST, the Bankruptcy Court approved a process whereby all
current GST LLC mesothelioma claimants were required to respond to
a questionnaire about their claims. Questionnaires were
distributed to the mesothelioma claimants identified in Garrison's
claims database. Many of the 5,800 claimants (over 500) did not
respond to the questionnaire at all; many others (more than 1,900)
clarified that: claimants do not have mesothelioma, claimants
cannot establish exposure to GST products, claims were dismissed,
settled or withdrawn, claims were duplicates of other filed
claims, or claims were closed or inactive. Still others responded
to the questionnaire but their responses were deficient in some
material respect. As a result of this process, less than 3,300
claimants presented questionnaires asserting mesothelioma claims
against GST LLC as of the Petition Date and many of them did not
establish exposure to GST products or had claims that are
otherwise deficient.

"Since the Petition Date, many asbestos-related lawsuits have been
filed by claimants against other companies in state and federal
courts, and many of those claimants might also have included GST
LLC as a defendant but for the bankruptcy injunction. Many of
those claimants likely will make claims against GST in the
bankruptcy proceeding.

"We believe that the asbestos-containing products manufactured or
sold by GST could not have been a substantial contributing cause
of any asbestos-related disease. The asbestos in the products was
encapsulated, which means the asbestos fibers incorporated into
the products during the manufacturing process were sealed in
binders. The products were also nonfriable, which means they could
not be crumbled by hand pressure. The U.S. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, which began generally requiring warnings on
asbestos-containing products in 1972, has never required that a
warning be placed on products such as GST LLC's gaskets. Even
though no warning label was required, GST LLC included one on all
of its asbestos-containing products beginning in 1978. Further,
gaskets such as those previously manufactured and sold by GST LLC
are one of the few asbestos-containing products still permitted to
be manufactured under regulations of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Nevertheless, GST LLC discontinued all
manufacture and distribution of asbestos-containing products in
the U.S. during 2000 and worldwide in mid-2001.

"At March 31, 2015 we had $100.7 million of insurance coverage we
believe is available to cover current and future asbestos claims
payments and certain expense payments. GST has collected insurance
payments totaling $95.6 million since the Petition Date. Of the
$100.7 million of available insurance coverage remaining, we
consider $100.0 million (99%) to be of high quality because the
insurance policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-based
carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or
better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or better. Of
the $100.7 million, $64.6 million is allocated to claims that were
paid by GST LLC prior to the initiation of the Chapter 11
proceedings and submitted to insurance companies for
reimbursement, and the remainder is allocated to pending and
estimated future claims. There are specific agreements in place
with carriers covering $66.2 million of the remaining available
coverage. Based on those agreements and the terms of the policies
in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we believe that
substantially all of the $100.7 million of insurance proceeds will
ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance that
the insurance companies will make the payments as and when due.
The $100.7 million is in addition to the $0.2 million collected in
the first three months of 2015. Based on those agreements and
policies, some of which define specific annual amounts to be paid
and others of which limit the amount that can be recovered in any
one year, we anticipate that $38.7 million will become collectible
at the conclusion of GST's Chapter 11 proceeding and, assuming the
insurers pay according to the agreements and policies, that the
following amounts should be collected in the following years
regardless of when the case concludes:

   2015 -- $20 million (in the remaining nine months of 2015)
   2016 -- $18 million
   2017 -- $13 million
   2018 -- $11 million

"GST LLC has received $8.3 million of insurance recoveries from
insolvent carriers since 2007, including a $185,000 payment
received in the first quarter of 2015, and may receive additional
payments from insolvent carriers in the future. No anticipated
insolvent carrier collections are included in the $100.7 million
of anticipated collections. The insurance available to cover
current and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general
liability policies that cover Coltec and certain of its other
subsidiaries in addition to GST LLC for periods prior to 1985 and
therefore could be subject to potential competing claims of other
covered subsidiaries and their assignees.

"Our recorded asbestos liability as of the Petition Date was
$472.1 million. We based that recorded liability on an estimate of
probable and estimable expenditures to resolve asbestos personal
injury claims under generally accepted accounting principles, made
with the assistance of Garrison and an estimation expert, Bates
White, retained by GST LLC's counsel. The estimate developed was
an estimate of the most likely point in a broad range of potential
amounts that GST LLC might pay to resolve asbestos claims (by
settlement in the majority of the cases except those dismissed or
tried) over the ten-year period following the date of the estimate
in the state court system, plus accrued but unpaid legal fees. The
estimate, which was not discounted to present value, did not
reflect GST LLC's views of its actual legal liability. GST LLC has
continuously maintained that its products could not have been a
substantial contributing cause of any asbestos disease. Instead,
the liability estimate reflected GST LLC's recognition that most
claims would be resolved more efficiently and at a significantly
lower total cost through settlements without any actual liability
determination.
From the Petition Date through the first quarter of 2014, neither
we nor GST endeavored to update the accrual except as necessary to
reflect payments of accrued fees and the disposition of cases on
appeal. In each asbestos-driven Chapter 11 case that has been
resolved previously, the amount of the debtor's liability has been
determined as part of a consensual plan of reorganization agreed
to by the debtor, its asbestos claimants and a legal
representative for its potential future claimants. GST did not
believe that there was a reliable process by which an estimate of
such a consensual resolution could be made and therefore believed
that there was no basis upon which it could revise the estimate
last updated prior to the Petition Date.

"Given the Bankruptcy Court's January 2014 decision estimating
GST's liability for present and future mesothelioma claims at $125
million and GST's filing in May 2014 of its first amended proposed
plan of reorganization setting out its intention to fund a plan
with total consideration of $275 million, GST undertook to revise
its estimate of its ultimate expenditures to resolve all present
and future asbestos claims against it to be no less than the
amounts required under its amended proposed plan. Similarly, while
GST believed it to be an unlikely worst case scenario, GST
believed its ultimate expenditures to resolve all asbestos claims
against it could be no more than the total value of GST. As a
result, GST believed that its ultimate asbestos expenditures would
be somewhere in that range between those two values and therefore
revised its estimate to the low end of the range. Accordingly, at
June 30, 2014, GST revised its estimate of its ultimate
expenditures to resolve all present and future asbestos claims to
$279.6 million, the amount of expenditures necessary to resolve
all asbestos claims under that amended plan.

"In light of the filing of the second amended proposed plan of
reorganization by GST on January 14, 2015, GST undertook to
further revise its ultimate costs to resolve all asbestos claims
against it. Under this revised plan, not less than $367.5 million
will be required to fund the resolution of all GST asbestos
claims, $30 million of which will be funded by Coltec. As a
result, GST believes the low end of the range of values that will
be necessary for it to fund to resolve all present and future
claims is now $337.5 million. Accordingly, GST has revised its
estimate of its ultimate asbestos expenditures to $337.5 million
and has recorded its liability at March 31, 2015 at that amount.
GST's estimate of its ultimate asbestos expenditures of $337.5
million does not include any amount with respect to the contingent
supplementary contributions to the litigation fund contemplated by
the revised plan as GST believes that initial contributions to the
litigation fund may likely be sufficient to permit the balance of
that facility to exceed the specified thresholds over the 40-year
period for such contributions and, accordingly, that the low end
of a range of reasonably possible loss associated with these
contingent supplementary contributions is $0.

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

"GST's Second Amended Proposed Plan of Reorganization. On January
14, 2015, we announced that GST and we had reached agreement with
the Future Claimants' Representative that includes a second
amended proposed plan of reorganization. The Future Claimants'
Representative agreed to support, vote for and help GST gain
confirmation of this revised plan of reorganization in exchange
for an increase in the funds available for settlements, limited
revisions to the criteria and procedures for settlements, and a
limited funding backstop to the litigation option that the plan
offers to claimants who choose not to accept the plan's settlement
option. Terms of the second amended proposed plan of
reorganization, including the $30 million contribution to be made
by Coltec to the settlement facility under the revised plan and
our guarantee of GST's obligations to make contributions to the
settlement facility and the litigation fund under the plan after
the consummation of the plan.

"The revised plan would establish two facilities to resolve
unliquidated present and future asbestos claims -- a settlement
facility and a litigation fund. The settlement facility,
administered by an independent trustee, will handle settlement
offers under the plan. Claimants will be able to compute their
offers from a matrix in the plan that contains objective criteria
such as disease, age, whether the injured party left or will leave
a spouse, and whether there are dependents. The amounts of the
matrix values have been set based on an economic analysis and are
designed to ensure that the funding provides future claimants the
same recoveries as comparable current claimants.
The settlement facility will provide claimants with both an
expedited review option and an individual review option. Under
expedited review, a claimant can receive a quick and efficient
settlement once he or she provides required evidence of a
compensable disease and meaningful exposure to GST asbestos
products. Under individual review, a claimant can potentially
receive a significantly higher settlement offer if he or she can
demonstrate certain additional factors. In order to receive a
higher amount than the expedited option offers, claimants or their
representatives will have to certify to the claimants' complete
exposure histories and authorize Garrison to investigate and
monitor both their tort and trust claims.

"Garrison, as reorganized under the plan, will receive a $30
million contribution from GST LLC to maintain and administer the
litigation fund separate from the settlement facility. Garrison
will manage the litigation of claims from claimants who reject
settlement offers from the settlement facility and choose instead
to pursue a remedy in court. A case management order will govern
the way those claims can be pursued.

"Claimants who choose to litigate must file their claims in the
Bankruptcy Court in North Carolina. The Bankruptcy Court will
oversee discovery and other pre-trial matters before referring
cases to the federal district court in Charlotte for trial under
the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Charlotte federal court will
have discretion about where to send each case for the actual
trial. The case management order will also require that claimants
identify and disclose all trust claims and provide authorization
for Garrison to retrieve all their trust submissions directly from
trusts.

"The second amended plan includes provisions referred to as the
"Parent Settlement" for the resolution and extinguishment of any
and all alleged derivative claims against us based on GST asbestos
products and entry of an injunction permanently protecting us from
the assertion of such claims. As consideration for the Parent
Settlement, (a) Coltec will contribute $30 million of the amount
proposed to be paid into the settlement facility to pay future
claimants, (b) Coltec will fund Anchor's costs of dissolution (up
to $500,000), (c) EnPro will guarantee all contributions to the
settlement facility and litigation fund by GST after the effective
date of the second amended plan, and (d) Coltec and its affiliates
will subordinate their interests in certain insurance coverage to
GST's obligations to make payments to the settlement facility and
litigation fund after the effective date of the second amended
plan. Those provisions are incorporated into the terms of the
second amended plan only in the context of the specifics of the
plan, which would result in the equity interests of GST LLC being
retained by the reconsolidation of GST LLC into the Company with
substantial equity above the amount of equity currently included
in our consolidated financial statements, and an injunction
protecting us from future GST claims. As a result of Coltec's
agreement to fund a contribution of $30 million to the settlement
facility pursuant to the revised plan of reorganization, we
recorded a $30 million charge to establish this liability in our
2014 results.
Confirmation and consummation of the second amended plan are
subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including the
actions and decisions of creditors and other third parties that
have an interest in the bankruptcy proceedings, delays in the
confirmation or effective date of a plan of reorganization due to
factors beyond GST's or our control, which would result in greater
costs and the impairment of value of GST, challenges to
confirmation of the plan, including appeals, and risks and
uncertainties affecting GST and Coltec's ability to fund
anticipated contributions under the plan as a result of adverse
changes in their results of operations, financial condition and
capital resources, including as a result of economic factors
beyond their control. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that GST
will be able to obtain final approval of its second amended plan
of reorganization and the settlement and resolution of claims and
related releases of liability embodied therein, and the time
period for the resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings is not
presently determinable."

Enpro Industries, Inc., (Enpro) is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered industrial
products. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had 62 primary
manufacturing facilities located in 13 countries, including the
United States. The Company operates in three segments: Sealing
Products segment, Engineered Products segment and Engine Products
and Services segment. Sealing Products segment includes sealing
products, heavy-duty wheel end components, polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE) products and rubber products. Engineered Products Segment
includes its bearings, aluminum blocks for hydraulic applications
and reciprocating compressor components. Engine Products and
Services segment manufacture, sells and services heavy-duty,
medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating
engines. In April 2012, it acquired Motorwheel Commercial Vehicle
Systems, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Sealing Has Two Pending Fibro Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC, had two pending asbestos-related appeals, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

GST LLC has a record of success in trials of asbestos cases,
especially before the bankruptcies of many of the historically
significant asbestos defendants that manufactured raw asbestos,
asbestos insulation, refractory products or other dangerous
friable asbestos products. However, it has on occasion lost jury
verdicts at trial. GST has consistently appealed when it has
received an adverse verdict and has had success in a majority of
those appeals. At March 31, 2015, two GST LLC appeals are pending
from adverse decisions totaling $1.5 million.

Enpro Industries, Inc., (Enpro) is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered industrial
products. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had 62 primary
manufacturing facilities located in 13 countries, including the
United States. The Company operates in three segments: Sealing
Products segment, Engineered Products segment and Engine Products
and Services segment. Sealing Products segment includes sealing
products, heavy-duty wheel end components, polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE) products and rubber products. Engineered Products Segment
includes its bearings, aluminum blocks for hydraulic applications
and reciprocating compressor components. Engine Products and
Services segment manufacture, sells and services heavy-duty,
medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating
engines. In April 2012, it acquired Motorwheel Commercial Vehicle
Systems, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $500-Mil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Union Carbide
Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future
claims was $500 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

Based on Union Carbide's review of 2015 activity, Union Carbide
determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at March
31, 2015. Union Carbide's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $500 million at March 31, 2015.
Approximately 20 percent of the recorded liability related to
pending claims and approximately 80 percent related to future
claims.

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

In September 2003, Union Carbide filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "Insurance
Litigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers
that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not
otherwise have agreements in place with Union Carbide regarding
their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate
an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies
and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. Since
the filing of the case, Union Carbide has reached settlements with
most of the carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation and
continues to pursue a settlement with the remaining carrier. Union
Carbide's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its
asbestos liability was $10 million at March 31, 2015 and December
31, 2014.

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

Total receivables for asbestos-related costs was $64 million at
March 31, 2015.

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

The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs was $24 million
in the first quarter of 2015 ($25 million in the first quarter of
2014) and was reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated
statements of income.

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,150 Fibro Cases at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., had 2,150 outstanding asbestos-
related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company states: "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the
seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate
exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on
or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and
defense thereof. At March 31, 2015, approximately 2,150 cases were
outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related
liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through March 31,
2015, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately $17.7
million.

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Has 12,000 Fibro Liability Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company had 12,000 pending asbestos-
related product liability cases, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 27, 2015.

Starting with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is also
named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases
involve product liability claims based principally on allegations
of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited
number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that
individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the Company's
property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants
in addition to the Company. The complaints generally seek monetary
damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from
alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's
involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because it did not
mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's
experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been
substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company
has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding
related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these
lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company settles claims; however,
amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been
immaterial. As of March 27, 2015, there were approximately 12,000
asbestos-related cases pending against the Company.

The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that were
incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which
are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of its
liability for pending and future claims is based on claims
experience over the past five years and covers claims either
currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years.
The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related
to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to
determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos-
related proceedings, the Company believes, given the information
currently available, that the ultimate resolution of all known and
anticipated future claims, after taking into account amounts
already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will not
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows.

Mallinckrodt public limited company (Mallinckrodt) is a global
specialty pharmaceuticals company. The Company develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes both branded and generic
specialty pharmaceuticals, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API)
and diagnostic imaging agents. The Company uses its API products
in the manufacture of its generic pharmaceuticals and also sells
them to other pharmaceutical companies. The Company operates
through two segments: Specialty Pharmaceuticals and Global Medical
Imaging. The Company's Specialty Pharmaceuticals segment develops,
manufactures and sells, through its Brands business, drugs,
including EXALGO (hydromorphone HCl) Extended-Release Tablets and
GABLOFEN. The Company's Global Medical Imaging segment develops,
manufactures and markets contrast media and delivery systems
(CMDS). The Company offers INOMAX Total Care (inhaled nitric
oxide), a neonatal critical care product.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 3,813 PI Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., was defending 3,813 asbestos-related
personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

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

The Company states: "We were defending 3,813 claims as of March
31, 2015.

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

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

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer,
Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements
under a standard reservation of rights. As of March 31, 2015 we
had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,247 claims.
The total cost of resolving all claims was $9.3 million. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The
Company's insurer has confirmed that although the coverage limits
under two (of approximately 23) primary insurance policies have
been exhausted, there still remains approximately $3 million in
coverage limits under other applicable primary policies, and $140
million in coverage under excess umbrella coverage policies that
should be available with respect to current and future asbestos
claims."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Unit Has 7,730 Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., was defending against 7,730 asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), a subsidiary of Geschmay
Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate
defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named
as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,730 claims as of
March 31, 2015.

The Company states: "We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as
Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain
assets from Abney Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile
manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were
assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc.
which had sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing
asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured
and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset
purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon
did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it
does not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise
responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products
manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the
claims that have been asserted against it. "As of March 31, 2015,
Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 9,875
claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance carriers
initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and
defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the
standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs
had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's
insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and
defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard
reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity
and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these
proceedings.

"For the same reasons set forth with respect to Albany's claims,
as well as the fact that no amounts have been paid to resolve any
Brandon claims since 2001, we do not believe a meaningful estimate
can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to
these remaining claims.

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $993MM Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were $993
million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were $993 million and
$1.01 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of $467 million and
$478 million, as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014,
respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were $199 million
and $203 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $64 million
and $64 million, as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014,
respectively. Approximately 56% and 57% of the total net asbestos
and environmental reserves as of March 31, 2015 and December 31,
2014, respectively, were for incurred but not reported estimated
losses.

Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are
appropriately established based on available facts, technology,
laws and regulations. However, establishing net loss reserves for
asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is
subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those
presented by other types of claims. The ultimate cost of losses
may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on
management's best estimate. Among the complications are lack of
historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the
number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and
unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved
legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing
of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding
theories of liability; availability and collectability of
recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums
and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and
timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy
protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos
defendants; and other uncertainties. There are also complex legal
issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy
provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever
intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through
retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other
contractual agreements. Courts have reached different and
sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to
have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of
losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to
defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions
and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up
costs represent insured property damage. Management believes these
issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and the
ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently
recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves. In
addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial
techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate
asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss
reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be
inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due to the
uncertainties and certain factors, management believes it is not
practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional
net loss reserves that may be required.

The Allstate Corporation is a holding company for Allstate
Insurance Company. The Company and its subsidiaries, including
Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and
other subsidiaries (collectively, Allstate) are engaged in the
property-liability insurance and life insurance business. It
offers its products in the United States and Canada. Allstate
operates in four business segments: Allstate Protection,
Discontinued Lines and Coverages, Allstate Financial, and
Corporate and Other. The principal geographic markets for its
auto, homeowners, and other personal property and casualty
products are in the United States. Through its subsidiaries, it
sells various types of personal property and casualty insurance
products in around 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico. It sells private passenger auto and homeowners insurance
through agencies, contact centers and Internet. It sells these
products under Allstate, Esurance and Encompass brand names.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 395 Fibro Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation had a total of 395 pending asbestos
cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

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

At March 31, 2015, the Company had a total of 395 pending asbestos
cases.

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

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

AK Steel Holding Corporation is an integrated producer of flat-
rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels and tubular
products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation. Its operations consist of 10 steelmaking and
finishing plants and tubular production facilities located in
Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania. It also owns and
operates a cokemaking facility in West Virginia. The Company's
operations produce flat-rolled value-added carbon steels,
including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled carbon steel
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels. It also
produces carbon and stainless steel that is finished into welded
steel tubing. Its operations also include European trading
companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other
materials, AK Coal Resources, Inc., which produces metallurgical
coal from reserves in Pennsylvania, and a 49.9% equity interest in
Magnetation LLC, a joint venture that produces iron ore
concentrate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Continues to Insure Unti Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., reported that it has maintained and
will continue to provide insurance coverage for asbestos-related
claims arising from its former Allen-Bradley subsidiary throughout
the remaining life of the asbestos liability, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The company states: "Various lawsuits, claims and proceedings have
been or may be instituted or asserted against us relating to the
conduct of our business, including those pertaining to product
liability, environmental, safety and health, intellectual
property, employment and contract matters. Although the outcome of
litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and some lawsuits,
claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to us, we
believe the disposition of matters that are pending or have been
asserted will not have a material effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations.

"We (including our subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos that was used in certain components of our products many
years ago. Currently there are a few thousand claimants in
lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of
other companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most of the costs.
However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims
associated with products manufactured or sold by our former Dodge
mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services
businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which occurred on
January 31, 2007. We are also responsible for half of the costs
and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former
Rockwell International Corporation's (RIC's) divested measurement
and flow control business. But in all cases, for those claimants
who do show that they worked with our products or products of
divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless
believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to
the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any
asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing
medical condition on the part of many claimants. We defend those
cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed from the
vast majority of these claims with no payment to claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary. Our insurance carrier entered into a cost share
agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future
defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. We
believe that this arrangement will continue to provide coverage
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
the asbestos liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our financial
condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims
and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related
to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we
agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or
because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some
instances, the divested business has assumed the liabilities;
however, it is possible that we might be responsible to satisfy
those liabilities if the divested business is unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
component systems business, semiconductor systems business and
Rockwell Collins avionics and communications business, the spun-
off companies have agreed to indemnify us for substantially all
contingent liabilities related to the respective businesses,
including environmental and intellectual property matters.

"In connection with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale.

"In many countries we provide a limited intellectual property
indemnity as part of our terms and conditions of sale. We also at
times provide limited intellectual property indemnities in other
contracts with third parties, such as contracts concerning the
development and manufacture of our products. As of March 31, 2015,
we were not aware of any material indemnification claims that were
probable or reasonably possible of an unfavorable outcome.
Historically, claims that have been made under the indemnification
agreements have not had a material impact on our operating
results, financial position or cash flows; however, to the extent
that valid indemnification claims arise in the future, future
payments by us could be significant and could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations or cash flows in a
particular period."

Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Rockwell Automation) is a provider of
industrial automation power, control and information solutions
that help manufacturers achieve a competitive advantage for their
businesses. The Company operates in two segments: Architecture &
Software and controls Products & Solutions. In the United States,
Canada and certain other countries, the Company sells primarily
through the independent distributors in conjunction with its
direct sales force. In the remaining countries, the Company sells
through a combination of its direct sales force.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Completes Re Deal on A&E Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corporation completed a retrospective reinsurance
transaction to cede a portfolio of policies comprised of
liabilities arising from asbestos and environmental exposures in
exchange for payments totaling $89.0 million, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On March 9, 2015, the Company completed a retrospective
reinsurance transaction to cede a portfolio of policies comprised
of liabilities arising from asbestos and environmental exposures
that originated before 1992 in exchange for payments totaling
$89.0 million, which included cash paid at closing of $69.9
million. At the time of the transaction, reserves for unpaid
losses and loss adjustment expenses on the policies ceded totaled
$94.1 million, resulting in a deferred gain of $5.1 million which
will be recognized in earnings in future periods in proportion to
actual reinsurance recoveries received pursuant to the
transaction. The ceded reserves represented approximately 35% of
the Company's net asbestos and environmental reserves for losses
and loss adjustment expenses as of December 31, 2014.

Markel Corporation is a financial holding company serving variety
of markets. The Company markets and underwrites specialty
insurance products. The Company also owns interests in various
industrial and service businesses that operate outside of the
specialty insurance marketplace. The Company operates in three
segments: U.S. Insurance, International Insurance and Reinsurance.
The U.S. Insurance segment includes all direct business and
facultative placements written by the Company's insurance
subsidiaries domiciled in the United States. The International
Insurance segment includes all direct business and facultative
placements written by the Company's insurance subsidiaries
domiciled outside of the United States, including the Company's
syndicate at Lloyd's. The Reinsurance segment includes all treaty
reinsurance written across the Company. In the United States, it
writes business in the excess and surplus lines (E&S) and
specialty admitted insurance and reinsurance markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 54,000 Claims at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., it had 54,000 asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown Cork") is one of many
defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout
the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation
operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown
Cork purchased in 1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock
purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was
later merged into Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation
that limits asbestos-related liabilities under state law of
companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these
liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to
companies that had been involved with asbestos. The legislation,
which applies to future and, with the exception of Arkansas,
Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming, pending claims,
caps asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation. Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for
inflation. Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its
claims defense strategy. The Company cautions, however, that the
legislation may be challenged and there can be no assurance
regarding the ultimate effect of the legislation on Crown Cork.

In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related
liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that
the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003.
The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court
is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld.

The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-
related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have
a material impact on the Company.

During the three months ended March 31, 2015 , the Company paid $5
million to settle outstanding claims. As of March 31, 2015, the
Company had 54,000 claims.

The outstanding claims in each period exclude approximately 19,000
inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers
it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further
action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims
had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual as the
claims were filed in states, where the Company's liability is
limited by statute.

With respect to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlements in states where the Company's
liability is limited by statute except for certain pending claims
in Texas as described earlier.

With respect to post-1964 claims, regardless of the existence of
asbestos legislation, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlement of these claims because of increased
difficulty of establishing identification of relevant insulation
products as the cause of injury. Given the Company's settlement
experience with post-1964 claims, it does not believe that an
adverse ruling in the Texas or Pennsylvania asbestos litigation
cases, or in any other state that has enacted asbestos
legislation, would have a material impact on the Company with
respect to such claims.

As of December 31, 2014, the percentage of total claims related to
claimants alleging serious diseases (primarily mesothelioma and
other malignancies) was 22 percent.

Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel
in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet
filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims
under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown
Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is
included in the Company's estimated liability as of March 31,
2015.

Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and sells packaging
products for consumer goods. The Company's products include steel
and aluminum cans for food, beverage, household and other consumer
products and metal vacuum closures and caps. The Company's
products are sold to the soft drink, food, citrus, brewing,
household products, personal care and various other industries.
The Company operates 147 plants with service facilities throughout
40 countries. The Company's business  is organized geographically
within three divisions, Americas, Europe and Asia Pacific. The
Company's segments within the Americas Division are Americas
Beverage and North America Food. The Company's segments within the
European Division are European Beverage and European Food. The
Company's Asia Pacific Division is a segment which consists of
beverage can operations and non-beverage can operations, primarily
food cans and specialty packaging.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Has $268MM Accrual for PI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s accrual for pending and future asbestos-
related claims and related legal costs was $268 million, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $268 million,
including $221 million for unasserted claims. The Company's
accrual includes estimated probable costs for claims through the
year 2024. The Company's accrual excludes potential costs for
claims beyond 2024 because the Company believes that the key
assumptions underlying its accrual are subject to greater
uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.

It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual. The Company is unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to
uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 88% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2014), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate
the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed).

Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and sells packaging
products for consumer goods. The Company's products include steel
and aluminum cans for food, beverage, household and other consumer
products and metal vacuum closures and caps. The Company's
products are sold to the soft drink, food, citrus, brewing,
household products, personal care and various other industries.
The Company operates 147 plants with service facilities throughout
40 countries. The Company's business  is organized geographically
within three divisions, Americas, Europe and Asia Pacific. The
Company's segments within the Americas Division are Americas
Beverage and North America Food. The Company's segments within the
European Division are European Beverage and European Food. The
Company's Asia Pacific Division is a segment which consists of
beverage can operations and non-beverage can operations, primarily
food cans and specialty packaging.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 4 Fibro Suits in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd., reported that eight plaintiffs have asbestos-
related claims pending against one or more of its subsidiaries in
four different lawsuits filed in Louisiana, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

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

"During the year ended December 31, 2014, a group of lawsuits
premised on the same allegations as those in Mississippi were
filed in Louisiana. As of March 31, 2015, eight plaintiffs have
claims pending against one or more of our subsidiaries in four
different lawsuits filed in Louisiana.

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

Transocean Ltd. is an international provider of offshore contract
drilling services for oil and gas wells. The Company's primary
business is to contract its drilling rigs, related equipment and
work crews primarily on a day rate basis to drill oil and gas
wells. The Company specializes in technically demanding regions of
the global offshore drilling business with a particular focus on
deepwater and harsh environment drilling services. The Company's
mobile offshore drilling fleet consists of floaters and high-
specification jackups used in support of offshore drilling
activities and offshore support services on a worldwide basis. The
Company owned or had partial ownership interests in and operated
71 mobile offshore drilling units and its fleet consisted of 44
high-specification floaters (ultra-deepwater, deepwater and harsh
environment semisubmersibles and drillships), 17 midwater floaters
and 10 high-specification jackups.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Subsidiary Defends 693 PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd., disclosed that one of its subsidiaries was a
defendant in 693 lawsuits alleging bodily injury or personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company states: "One of our subsidiaries was involved in
lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the
design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial
complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and
its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its
litigation, with its insurers and, either directly or indirectly
through a qualified settlement fund. The subsidiary has been named
as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits
alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure
to asbestos. As of March 31, 2015, the subsidiary was a defendant
in approximately 693 lawsuits, some of which include multiple
plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 945
plaintiffs in these lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, we have
not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs
to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims
against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the
nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-
related lawsuits was filed against the subsidiary in 1990. Through
March 31, 2015, the costs incurred to resolve claims, including
both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs, have not been
material, all known deductibles have been satisfied or are
inapplicable, and the subsidiary's defense fees and expenses and
settlement costs have been met by insurance made available to the
subsidiary. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in
additional lawsuits, and we cannot predict the number of
additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can we
predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to
resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess
of $1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the
subsidiary. Although not all of the policies may be fully
available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe
that the subsidiary will have sufficient funding directly or
indirectly from settlements and claims payments from insurers,
assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement
agreements with insurers to respond to these claims. While we
cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these
matters, we do not believe that the ultimate liability, if any,
arising from these claims will have a material impact on our
consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

Transocean Ltd. is an international provider of offshore contract
drilling services for oil and gas wells. The Company's primary
business is to contract its drilling rigs, related equipment and
work crews primarily on a day rate basis to drill oil and gas
wells. The Company specializes in technically demanding regions of
the global offshore drilling business with a particular focus on
deepwater and harsh environment drilling services. The Company's
mobile offshore drilling fleet consists of floaters and high-
specification jackups used in support of offshore drilling
activities and offshore support services on a worldwide basis. The
Company owned or had partial ownership interests in and operated
71 mobile offshore drilling units and its fleet consisted of 44
high-specification floaters (ultra-deepwater, deepwater and harsh
environment semisubmersibles and drillships), 17 midwater floaters
and 10 high-specification jackups.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Kalahar"
----------------------------------------------------------
The Kalahars appeal the summary judgment dismissal of their
personal injury action against Alcoa, Inc.  John M. Kalahar and
his wife sued Alcoa claiming that Kalahar's mesothelioma was
caused by asbestos exposure during his employment at an Alcoa
plant.  Because RCW 51.04.010 provides employers immunity from
civil suits by workers for injuries on the job, the Kalahars
brought suit under the intentional injury exception outlined in
RCW 51.24.020.  The trial court dismissed the Kalahars' action
reasoning that Alcoa did not have actual knowledge that injury was
certain to occur as required by the intentional injury exception.

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, in an opinion
dated Aug. 24, 2015, affirmed, holding that like the expert in
Walston v. Boeing Co., 181 Wn.2d 391, 334 P.3d 519 (2014), the
Kalahars' expert admitted that asbestos exposure, at any level, is
never certain to cause mesothelioma or any other disease.  The
Court of Appeals said it is bound by the Supreme Court's decision
in Walston.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that the
Kalahars have not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Alcoa had actual knowledge that the injury -- mesothelioma
-- was certain to occur.

The case is JOHN M. KALAHAR and PEGGY L. KALAHAR, husband and
wife, Appellants, v. ALCOA, INC., Respondents. CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION; HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., f/k/a KAISER CEMENT
CORPORATION; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; PFIZER INC.; RILEY
POWER, INC., f/k/a RILEY STOKER CORP., f/k/a BABCOCK BORSIG POWER,
INC., f/k/a D.B. RILEY, INC.; SABERHAGEN HOLDINGS, INC.; and UNION
CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendants, NO. 72635-8-I (Wash. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/PouuB4
from Leagle.com.

Matthew Phineas Bergman, Esq. -- matt@bergmanlegal.com -- Bergman
Draper Ladenburg, PLLC, 614 1st Ave Fl 4, Seattle, WA, 98104-2233;
Kaitlin Tess Wright, Bergman Draper Ladenburg, PLLC, 614 1st Ave
Fl 4, Seattle, WA, 98104-2233; Colin Mieling, Bergman Draper
Ladenburg Hart, PLLC, 614 1st Ave Ste 400, Seattle, WA, 98104-
2255, Counsel for Appellants.

Mark Bradley Tuvim, Esq. -- mtuvim@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees
LLP, 701 5th Ave Ste 2100, Seattle, WA, 98104-7084; Kevin James
Craig, Esq. -- kcraig@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, 701 5th
Ave Ste 2100, Seattle, WA, 98104-7084, Counsel for Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Liability in "Oddo" Revised to $2.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Clariant Corporation and Ford Motor Company
suspensively appeal the judgment rendered against them in favor of
William Oddo, Jr.'s wife and sons following trial of an asbestos-
related wrongful death/survival action based on his death from
mesothelioma.

Judge Madeleine M. Landrieu, penning an opinion for a three-judge
panel of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit,
reversed the trial court's judgment insofar as it finds Sud-
Chemie, Inc. (Clariant Corporation/Southern Talc) liable in the
survival action; finds Sud-Chemie, Inc. liable in the wrongful
death action; assigns fault to Sud-Chemie, Inc.; and awards the
plaintiffs survival and wrongful death damages against Sud-Chemie,
Inc.

Judge Landrieu affirmed the trial court's judgment insofar as it
finds Ford Motor Company liable in the survival and wrongful death
actions, and amended the trial court's judgment to assign fault as
follows: Ford Motor Company - 65%; Union Carbide - 25%; and
Higgins Industries, Inc. -- 10%.

Judge Landrieu also affirmed the trial court's judgment insofar as
it awards the plaintiffs the following wrongful death damages
against Ford Motor Company, which amounts represent 65% of the
total wrongful death damages found by the jury: Doris T. Oddo
$585,000; William A. Oddo, III - $390,000; and Steven J. Oddo
$390,000.

Judge Landrieu amended the trial court's judgment to delete the
amount of survival damages awarded against Ford and to instead
award the plaintiffs the sum of $1,150,696 in survival damages
against Ford, which sum represents one-half (Ford's virile share)
of the total survival damages found by the jury ($2,301,393), and
affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other respects.

The case is WILLIAM ODDO, JR., v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD., ET
AL., NO. 2014-CA-0004 (La. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated August 20, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/0OkTY6from Leagle.com.

Deborah Kuchler, Esq. -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Janika D.
Polk, Esq. -- jpolk@kuchlerpolk.com -- Monique M. Weiner, Esq. --
mweiner@kuchlerpolk.com -- Lee B. Ziffer, Esq. --
lziffer@kuchlerpolk.com -- and Amber B. Barlow, Esq. --
abarlow@kuchlerpolk.com -- KUCHLER POLK SCHELL WEINER & RICHESON,
LLC, 1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1300, New Orleans, LA 70112,
Tennille Jo Checkovich, Esq. -- tcheckovich@mcguirewoods.com --
(PRO HAC VICE), John Tracy Walker, IV, Esq. --
twalker@mcguirewoods.com -- (PRO HAC VICE), McGuire, Woods, LLC,
One James Center, 901 East Cary Street, Richmond, VA 23219-4030,
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANT, FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

Andrew D. Weinstock, Esq. -- andreww@duplass.com -- Ryan M.
Malone, Esq. -- rmalone@duplass.com -- DUPLASS ZWAIN BOURGEOIS
PFISTER & WEINSTOCK, 3838 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 2900,
Metairie, LA 70002, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT CLARIANT
CORPORATION.

Mickey P. Landry, Frank J. Swarr, Philip C. Hoffman, LANDRY &
SWARR L.L.C., 1010 Common Street, Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA
70112, Robert E. Arceneaux, 47 Beverly Garden Drive, Metairie, LA
70001, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Raytheon's Bid to Dismiss "McCourt" Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey in an opinion dated Aug. 20, 2015,
granted defendant Raytheon Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs
James McCourt and Mabel McCourt's asbestos-related personal injury
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The case is JAMES McCOURT and MABEL McCOURT, Plaintiffs, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-
221 (D.N.J.).  A full-text copy of Judge Arleo's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/ToE3lxfrom Leagle.com.

JAMES MCCOURT, Plaintiff, represented by F. ALEXANDER EIDEN, WEITZ
& LUMENBERG PC & ROBERT MICHAEL SILVERMAN, WEITZ & LUXENBERG.

MABEL MCCOURT, H/W, Plaintiff, represented by F. ALEXANDER EIDEN,
WEITZ & LUMENBERG PC & ROBERT MICHAEL SILVERMAN, WEITZ &
LUXENBERG.

A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by JOSEPH D. RASNEK, MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY &
CARPENTER, LLP.

ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, Individually and as successor in interest to
WESTER ELECTRIC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by GEORGE R. TALARICO, LOCKE LORD LLP & AILEEN E.
MCTIERNAN, Locke Lord LLP.

BRYANT HEATING & COOLING SYSTEMS, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by LINTON W. TURNER, JR., MAYFIELD, TURNER, O'MARA &
DONNELLY.

BALTIMORE ENNIS LAND COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by ERIC JOHN KADISH, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY &
ANDERSON LLC & LINA MARIA CARRERAS, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY &
ANDERSON LLC.

DAP, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by MARC J.
WISEL, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C..

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
Defendant, represented by MICHAEL A. TANENBAUM, SEDGWICK LLP.

GUARD-LINE, INC., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant,
represented by JASON T. SCHEETS, KELLEY JASONS.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., formerly known as ALLIED SIGNAL,
INC./BENDIX, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by ETHAN D.
STEIN, GIBBONS, PC.

PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by ANGELA A. IUSO, CONNELL FOLEY, LLP &
GEORGE W. KEEFER, WILLIAM E. FRESE, ESQ..

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by RICHARD DOMINICK PICINI, CARUSO SMITH
EDELL PICINI, PC.

RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by LISA PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA, PLLC.

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
Defendant, represented by JOHN S. MCGOWAN .

WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY INC., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
Defendant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER
& BUBA.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by RICHARD V. JONES, LAW OFFICES OF ROGER V. JONES,
LLP.

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by RICHARD DOMINICK PICINI, CARUSO SMITH
EDELL PICINI, PC.

CRANE CO., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by TARA LYNNE
PEHUSH, K&L GATES LLP, MARK J. SKINNER, SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC & LISA
PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA, PLLC.

BORG WARNER MORES TEC, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP.

BOEING NORTH AMERICAN, INC., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
Defendant, represented by MARC SCOTT GAFFREY, HOAGLAND, LONGO,
MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, ESQS..

EXXON MOBILE CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by JOSEPH D. RASNEK, MCELROY, DEUTSCH,
MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP.

VIKING PUMP, INC., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant,
represented by MARK F. MACDONALD, BAGINSKI MEZZANOTTE HASSON &
RUBINATE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Dismisses Inmate's Pro Se Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Carlos Herrera, who is confined in the Durango Jail in
Phoenix, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and an Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis.  Plaintiff alleges, among others, the following
in his Complaint: Defendants have housed Plaintiff in buildings
containing or exposing him to toxic materials, including asbestos,
which he contends is flaking and friable.

Judge David G. Campbell of the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona, in an order dated Aug. 19, 2015,
dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim with leave to
amend.

The case is Carlos Herrera, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et
al., Defendants, NO. CV 15-1285-PHX-DGC (JZB)(D. Ariz.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Campbell's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/R1J3T2from Leagle.com.

Carlos Herrera, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Verdict in "Hellam"
---------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. appeals from an amended judgment entered after a jury
found it liable for personal injuries to James Hellam resulting
from his exposure to asbestos products.

Hellam had reached settlements with several defendants and Crane
was the only defendant still actively litigating the case.  In
November 2012, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of
Hellam on his design-defect claim and awarded him $937,882 in
economic damages and $4.5 million in noneconomic damages.  It
allocated 75 percent of the fault to Monterey Boiler Service, 13
percent to Western Plumbing Supply, 7 percent to Crane, 2 percent
to Central Supply, 0.5 percent to Bendix, 0 percent to Hellam and
General Motors, and 2.5 percent to "All Others."

The trial court entered the original judgment against Crane in
December 2012.  That judgment required Crane to pay the full
$937,882 in economic damages, although the court noted that the
figure "may be adjusted following the Court's determination of a
motion for allocation of settlement credits."  The court also
reduced the judgment against Crane for noneconomic damages to
$315,000 (7 percent of $4.5 million) to reflect Crane's
proportionate liability.

In a prior unpublished opinion (Hellam v. Crane Co. (Apr. 16,
2014, A138013, A139141)), the Court of Appeals of California,
First District, Division Four, affirmed the original judgment, and
the only claims Crane raises in its appeal relate to the
application of credits, or setoffs, to reduce its liability for
damages based on Hellam's settlements with several other
defendants.

In particular, Crane argues the trial court improperly (1)
accepted the settling parties' 50/50 allocation of the settlement
proceeds between the personal-injury claims in this suit and
future wrongful-death claims; (2) calculated the setoff for
preverdict settlements; (3) denied Crane's request to review
unredacted versions of the settlement agreements; (4) treated a
settlement with Rheem Manufacturing Company as a preverdict
instead of postverdict settlement; and (5) refused to apply a
setoff for possible recoveries from asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

The Court of Appeals agree that the settlement with Rheem was a
postverdict settlement and remanded for recalculation of its
setoff, but otherwise affirmed the jury judgment.

The case is JONATHAN HELLAM, as Successor in Interest, etc.,
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CRANE CO., Defendant and Appellant,
NO. A140326 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated
Aug. 20, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/ExH9iRfrom
Leagle.com.

Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood, Francis E. Fernandez, Ted
W. Pelletier, Ian A. Rivamonte, Counsel for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

K&L Gates LLP, Michele C. Barnes, Esq. --
michele.barnes@klgates.com -- Daniel W. Fox, Esq. --
daniel.fox@klgates.com -- Nicholas P. Vari, Esq. --
nick.vari@klgates.com -- Michael J. Ross, Esq. --
michael.ross@klgates.com -- Michael J. Sechler, Esq. --
Michael.Sechler@klgates.com -- Counsel for Defendant and
Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court Flips Fluor Insurance Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of California, in a decision dated Aug. 20,
2015, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal rejecting Fluor
Corporation's contention concluding that Insurance Code section
520 does not apply to liability insurance issued by Hartford
Accident & Indemnity Company.

For many decades the original Fluor Corporation performed
engineering, procurement, and construction operations through
various corporate entities and subsidiaries.  Beginning in 1971,
Hartford became one of numerous insurers of the original Fluor,
issuing to it 11 "comprehensive general liability" policies from
mid-1971 to mid-1986.2

Each policy covered, among other things, "personal injury
liability." In that respect Hartford agreed "[t]o pay on behalf of
the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally
obligated to pay as damages because of personal injury, sustained
by any person and caused by an occurrence."  "Occurrence" is
defined in the policies as "an accident, including injurious
exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period,
in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended
from the standpoint of the insured." Each of the policies contains
a consent-to-assignment clause reading: "Assignment of interest
under this policy shall not bind the Company until its consent is
endorsed hereon."

The original Fluor Corporation operated at sites where asbestos
allegedly was used.  Beginning in the mid-1980s and continuing
until the present, various Fluor entities were named as defendants
in numerous lawsuits alleging liability for personal injury caused
over many preceding years by exposure to asbestos.  Currently,
Fluor entities are facing approximately 2,500 those suits in
California and elsewhere.

Fluor Corporation tendered these early suits to Hartford and its
other liability insurers, all of which subsequently accepted the
defense of the claims.  Hartford led the defense and settlement of
those actions -- ultimately expending and paying, over the course
of more than 25 years, millions of dollars in the defense and
indemnity of those actions.

The case is FLUOR CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY
COMPANY, Real Party in Interest, NO. S205889 (Cal.).  A full-text
copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/cSrxYMfrom
Leagle.com.

Latham & Watkins, G. Andrew Lundberg, Esq. -- andy.lundberg@lw.com
-- Brook B. Roberts, Esq., and John M. Wilson for Petitioner.

Alok K. Gupta, Esq. -- pgupta@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, James
C. Martin, Esq. -- jcmartin@reedsmith.com -- David H. Halbreich,
Esq., and Traci S. Rea for Henry Company LLC and Parsons
Corporation as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Dickstein Shapiro and Kirk A. Pasich for United Poliyholders as
Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Perkins Coie and Timothy L. Alger, Esq. -- TAlger@perkinscoie.com
-- for Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf
of Petitioner.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Susan Duncan Lee, Acting State
Solicitor General, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Paul Gifford, Assistant Attorney General, Joyce E. Hee
and Anne Michelle Burr, Deputy Attorneys General, for The
California Insurance Commissioner as Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Horvitz & Levy, Jason R. Litt, Esq. -- jlitt@horvitzlevy.com --
John A. Taylor, Jr., Esq. -- jtaylor@horvitzlevy.com -- Gaims,
Weil, West & Epstein, Alan Jay Weil, Jeffrey B. Ellis ; Shipman &
Goodwin, James P. Ruggeri, Esq. -- jruggeri@goodwin.com -- and
Joshua D. Weinberg, Esq. -- jweinberg@goodwin.com -- for Real
Party in Interest.

Troutman Sanders, Thomas H. Prouty, Esq. --
thomas.prouty@troutmansanders.com -- and Patrick F. Hofer, Esq. --
patrick.hofer@troutmansanders.com -- for Stonewall Insurance
Company as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Gordon & Rees, Dave C. Capell, Esq. -- dcapell@gordonrees.com --
and Dawn N. Valentine, Esq. -- dvalentine@gordonrees.com -- for
Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association and America
Insurance Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in
Interest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Testimony Partially OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated Aug.
4, 2015, granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude
certain testimony of Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus filed by defendants
Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., et al., 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.).

A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/qRUb72from 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, Michael Scott Minyard,
Barfield & Associates & 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, Michael A. Olsen, Mayer Brown, LLP,
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, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Robert Edward Guidry, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC & Sophia L. Lauricella, Thompson, Coe, Cousins &
Irons, LLP.

CBS Corporation, 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..

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.

General Electric Company, 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..

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita
Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Brian C. Bossier, Blue
Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP &
David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Michael Scott
Minyard, Barfield & Associates & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow & Lewis.

J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen
Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP,
Michael Scott Minyard, Barfield & Associates & Richard Marshall
Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jonathan Paul Hilbun, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Louis
Oliver Oubre, 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 & Michael David Harold,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

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.

Reilly-Benton, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Diane Sweezer Davis,
Funderburk Finderburk Courtois, LLP, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins,
Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham
Fultz & Cougill & Kenneth R. Royer, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill,
LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., 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.

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: $32MM Punitive Damages Award in PI Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, in a decision dated Aug. 5, 2015, reversed the award of
punitive damages in the amount of $32.5 million to the estate of
Secundino Medina, and affirmed the remainder of the judgment,
which includes $60,000 in economic damages to the Medina's estate
and $130,455 to each of Medina's daughters; $2.0 million in
noneconomic losses for each of Medina's daughters.

The case is PATRICIA SOTO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC., Defendant and Appellant, NO. B252995
(Cal. App.).

A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/SGIAt6from Leagle.com.

The Arkin Law Firm, Sharon J. Arkin; Farrise Firm, Simona A.
Farrise, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Selman Breitman, Jerry C. Popovich ; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com --
Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq. -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- and Joseph
C. Hansen, Esq. -- jhansen@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant and
Appellant.

Fred J. Hiestand, Civil Justice Association of California as
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Treadwell's Bid to Dismiss "Koulermos" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision dated Aug. 13, 2015, denied defendant Treadwell
Corporation' summary judgment motion in the asbestos-related
lawsuit filed by Micheal Koulermos to the extent that the motion
seeks dismissal of any cross-claims against it.

The case is captioned IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to MICHAEL KOULERMOS and MARIAN KOULERMOS, Plaintiffs, v.
A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190406/2014, SEQ. NO. 004 (N.Y. Sup.).

A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/FcX4n3from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Deaths Above Average in Maine
------------------------------------------------------------
WCSH6.com reported that a new study found that in Maine the number
of asbestos-related deaths were higher than the national average.

Asbestos was a common material used in just about everything from
flooring to plastering, and was even used in oven mitts at one
point. Then 50 years ago, it was determined that it caused lung
cancer and other serious illnesses. The exact number of deaths
related to asbestos is unknown.

The study by the Environmental Working Group Action Fund found
between 1999 and 2013, more than 2,000 people died due to
asbestos-related causes in Maine. When researchers looked at each
county their found York and Cumberland had the highest number of
cases.

According to the EWG Action Fund:

   -- York County: 300
   -- Cumberland County: 264
   -- Sagadahoc County: 202
   -- Kennebec County: 195
   -- Androscoggin County: 181

Bob Rickett with Abatement Professionals of Westbrook has spent
the last 30 years removing asbestos and lead paint from homes and
buildings around the state.

"It is not like a fire where if you put your hand over a fire it
burns you. This is something that exposure over time," said
Rickett.

He points to Maine's old housing stock and the fact that asbestos
was used in more than 2,000 products as the reason behind the
study's findings.

"It is going to take a long time to get rid of it. It isn't
something that is going to happen overnight," he said.

According to Rickett, some homes still have the asbestos sidings
or even an asbestos roof, which was used because it supposedly
lasts longer. Even as he works to remove the deadly material, he
knows the damage is done. He experiences it in his own home, his
father who spent years plastering in and around the state, now
suffers from asbestosis.

"It is a serious issue, and I deal with it now but I am also very
sad that my father is a victim or is going to be a victim of this.
And there is nothing they can do to fix it or correct it,"
explained Rickett.

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is involved with
almost every project where asbestos is removed.

Rickett said to be safe, if you are in a home or building built
before 1980, assume asbestos is there unless a test proves
otherwise.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exec Sentenced for Exposing Children in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merced Sun-Star reported that the third and final defendant
convicted of exposing Merced County, California high school
students to asbestos was sentenced to serve time in federal
prison.

Joseph Cuellar was ordered to serve 44 months in state prison and
22 months in federal prison. The terms will be served
concurrently, making Cuellar eligible for parole in less than two
years, prosecutors from the Merced County District Attorney's
Office said.

Cuellar, Patrick Bowman and Rudy Buendia III were executives of a
now-defunct nonprofit, Firm Build. The company contracted with the
Merced County Office of Education to provide job training to high
school students.  Bowman was Firm Build's president, Cuellar was
its administrative manager, and Buendia was its construction
project site manager.

Prosecutors said Bowman, Buendia and Cuellar cut corners on a
renovation project, intentionally using students in September 2005
to March 2006 to remove the cancer-causing substance at Castle
Commerce Center's Automotive Training Center.

"It's been a long and difficult road to justice," said Walter
Wall, Merced County deputy district attorney. "I'm glad to see it
finally come to an end and to them receive some justice."

During a federal court hearing in 2013, many of the students, who
are now in their mid-20s, testified their clothes were covered in
dust while removing the materials.

Some said the debris from breaking up the material caused a
foglike cloud inside the building, and others said the dust
entered their noses and mouths. Some of the former students have
complained of suffering from frequent nose bleeds, chest pains and
other issues.

In addition to the federal case, the trio in 2013 also pleaded no
contest in Merced County Superior Court to state charges of
treating, handling or disposing of asbestos in a manner that
caused an unreasonable risk of serious injury to students, with
reckless disregard for their safety. Under the terms of their plea
deals, the time they spend in federal prison will cover the
convictions in both state and federal court.  They have also been
ordered to pay a total of $1.8 million to dozens of victims who
were exposed to asbestos while working for the group.

Bowman and Buendia began their prison sentences last year. Cuellar
was ordered to surrender to the U.S. Marshal's Office to begin his
sentence, prosecutors said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Atty Raises Concerns About NJ Locomotive
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Malinconico, writing for Paterson Press, reported that an
attorney who has handled asbestos-related litigation for more than
three decades says he is concerned that one of the two locomotives
outside the Paterson Museum, New Jersey, may contain the disease-
causing mineral.

The lawyer, Jon Gelman, said he was photographing the locomotive
during a recent visit to the museum when he spotted whitish-grey
fibers that he said he believes to be asbestos. Gelman said it was
common for steam locomotives of that vintage to have asbestos as
part of the insulation around the boilers.

About 20 years ago, the city spent $22,000 to have asbestos
removed from the larger of the two locomotives at the site, said
the museum's director, Giacomo Destefano. "We took care of that
right away," said Destefano.

But officials said they are not sure whether the smaller
locomotive ever was evaluated for asbestos. The smaller locomotive
is the one on which Gelman said he saw the suspicious fibers. But
the city only owns the larger of the two, Destefano said. The
other one is owned by the Great Falls Preservation and Development
Corporation, a private group that rents space at the museum, he
said.

After Paterson Press inquired about the asbestos earlier in early
June, Destefano said he sent the Great Falls development a letter
about the situation. Great Falls development did not respond to
phone messages left by Paterson Press.

Officials at City Hall said it was important to note that there's
been no determination that the locomotive contains asbestos. But
Gelman said the city ought to cordon off the smaller locomotive
until tests are done to determine whether the equipment had any
toxic material.

The locomotives stand near the museum's parking lot and are easily
accessible to anyone who wants to climb aboard and explore them.

"I can't see kids being exposed like this," said Gelman, whose
offices are in Wayne.  "It's unconscionable."

Gelman acknowledged that he cannot say for certain that the
material near the locomotive's boiler is asbestos. "Of course, it
would have to be tested," he said.

Gelman initially reached out to the media with his concerns
instead of contacting museum officials directly.

"I figured they wouldn't take any action and would never tell the
people who might have been exposed," he said.

Now, the lawyer said, he would alert local health officials.

Asbestos generally poses the most danger to people exposed to its
fibers in confined spaces, like factories or mines, for prolonged
periods of time. But Gelman said asbestos on the locomotive would
pose a threat even though it is in open air and visitors only
spend a short time around it.

"All you need is to inhale one fiber and years later you can get
sick from it," he said.

Mayor Jose "Jose" Torres and Paterson Law Director Domenick
Stampone said it was not clear to what degree -- if at all -- the
city was responsible for a privately-owned locomotive on
municipally-owned property.

"Obviously, ownership is usually nine-tenths of the law," Torres
said.

Gelman said he was dismayed that officials were not blocking off
the locomotive, especially because of Paterson's legacy in
asbestos litigation. He said the former Union Asbestos and Rubber
Company (UNARCO) plant, which he said operated from 1943 to 1953
was the subject of a landmark asbestos study by prominent Paterson
physician Irving Selikoff.

Gelman said he represented many UNARCO plant workers who became
ill with asbestos-related diseases.  "A lot of my clients died
from asbestos," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Factors in Former Miner's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Naylor, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a former
miner who spent 30 years at the coal face died of an industrial
disease.

An inquest heard how 90-year-old Ernest Harvey worked at various
pits in Derbyshire and Leicestershire, England.  But it was during
11 years as a carpenter and joiner on building sites that he was
exposed to asbestos, which a coroner concluded had contributed to
the lung cancer he developed after his retirement.

Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court was told that Mr Harvey
was admitted to the Royal Derby Hospital on Christmas Eve last
year with breathing difficulties and died there January 2.

A post mortem examination revealed scarring in his lungs due to
exposure to coal dust, a "massive" tumour and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease.

Dr Gurprit Atwal, who carried out the examination, said:
"Histology revealed there was also a heavy concentration of
asbestos bodies, four per 1cm squared, which would indicate a
heavy exposure to asbestos at some time during his lifetime.

"It could have been a high concentration over a short period or a
lesser concentration over a longer period, most likely decades
prior to death. I think that is a key factor (into Mr Harvey's
death)."

Dr Atwal gave a cause of death as bronchial pneumonia due to the
cancer tumour in the lung.

Dr Robert Hunter, senior coroner for Derbyshire, said the father-
of-five, of The Close, Albert Village, Swadlincote, had worked at
various mines between 1939 and 1982, when he retired.

He was also in the army from 1946 to 1947 and he worked as a
joiner and carpenter on various building sites between 1964 and
1975.

One of Mr Harvey's daughters told the court that her father had
previously been a smoker but had stopped 50 years ago and that
prior to the final 12 months before he died he was "an active
person with a good quality of life."

Dr Hunter reached a conclusion that Mr Harvey died due to an
industrial disease.

He said: "Dr Atwal has said that one of the main causes of lung
cancer is smoking, but after 10 years of stopping the risk of
dying from the disease is the same as someone who has never smoked
before.

"As Mr Harvey stopped smoking 50 years ago his risk of developing
lung cancer due to him previously being a smoker is negligible.

"But in reaching a conclusion of industrial disease I do not have
to satisfy myself that asbestos exposure was the sole cause of the
lung cancer, just one of them. It is clear that during his time
working on building sites he would have been exposed to asbestos
in high levels."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Reaches Defense Verdict for Lockheed
----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Missouri jury has reached
a defense verdict in favor of Lockheed Martin Corp., rejecting
claims that the aircraft manufacturer was liable for a decedent's
mesothelioma, which was allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-
containing ovens contained in airplanes on which the decedent
worked.

The Missouri Circuit Court for Clay County jury reached the
verdict on June 22 after a six-day trial, allocating 0 percent
liability to the defendant. Judge Janet Sutton presided over the
trial, which ended after two hours of jury deliberations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gran Exposed to Fibro by Washing Overalls
----------------------------------------------------------
Allison Coggan, writing for Hull Daily Mail, reported that a woman
dying of cancer believes washing her husband's work overalls
exposed her to deadly asbestos.

Gwen Gouland, 78, developed a persistent cough and flu-like
symptoms in November and was sent for tests.

However, doctors broke the news she was suffering from
mesothelioma, a terminal cancer.

Mrs Gouland, of Gilberdyke, England, thinks she was exposed to the
dust throughout the 1960s and 1970s while washing her father Dunc
Parkin and her husband Norman's overalls.

She said: "My husband worked as a turner and he used to come home
at least once a week with two sets of overalls for me to clean.

"They were always incredibly dirty and dusty -- I used to joke
with him they could stand up on their own.

"I would take them outside and hit them against the side of the
wall to help get all the dirt and dust from them. Clouds of dirt
and dust used to fill the air."

When her mother became ill, she used to wash overalls belonging to
her father, who worked for the same firm as her husband.

Mrs Gouland has four children, six grandchildren and one great-
grandchild and said her diagnosis has stunned her family. She
said: "I become tired and breathless from simple tasks. I am not
having chemotherapy at the moment but have been referred for
palliative care.

"My family and I have found my diagnosis very difficult to come to
terms with, especially as it has all happened so suddenly."

Mrs Gouland's husband worked in the tool room at Hawker Siddeley,
now run by BAE Global Systems in Brough, in the 1960s and 1970s
until he left in the 1990s. Her father worked in the maintenance
team in the 1960s until he left in 1974. Both men have since died.

'Help Gwen get justice'

LEGAL firm Irwin Mitchell is investigating Mrs Gouland's exposure
to asbestos.

Specialist lawyer Ian Toft said: "We would urge her husband and
father's former workmates to come forward with the information we
need to secure justice for Gwen."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,300+ Claims Filed in Akron Fibro Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that more than 1,300 damage claims
were filed in a northeast Ohio court on behalf of the heirs of
Akron-area rubber and auto workers who died or developed serious
illnesses from exposure to asbestos.

The claims in Summit County Probate Court range from $2,100 to
$23,000 depending upon the severity of medical diagnoses.

A fund totaling $80 million was set up in 2004 after insurer
Travelers Cos. reached a settlement with attorneys representing
tens of thousands of U.S. rubber workers, boilermakers and other
laborers who had filed asbestos-related claims from as far back as
the 1980s, The Akron Beacon Journal reported.

The court appointed an independent administrator to begin
finalizing paperwork that will go to the special claims company
handling the payout fund.

A lengthy series of appeals delayed payments until the 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court in New York, where claims had been consolidated,
ordered Travelers to the damages.

Travelers insured Johns Manville Corp. of Denver, the largest U.S.
manufacturer of asbestos-containing products for more than half a
century.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Spent GBP50,000 for Fibro Defense
----------------------------------------------------------
Zoie O'Brien, writing for Guardian, reported that the legal bill
paid by the council of Waltham Forest, England, during its
prosecution for failing to protect its staff from deadly asbestos
cost the taxpayer GBP50,500, it has emerged.

The authority was fined GBP66,000 in May after pleading guilty to
four charges relating to asbestos in the basement of the Forest
Road town hall.  Despite warnings dating back to 2002 the council
failed to act, leaving staff and visitors exposed to the cancer-
causing substance.   The authority was also ordered to pay court
costs of GBP16,000 to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which
brought the prosecution.

A Freedom of Information Act disclosure has now revealed the
council paid GBP50,500 to hire QC Mr Richard Matthews to represent
it in court.

Dr Nick Tiratsoo and Trevor Claver submitted the original freedom
of information request which eventually led to the discovery of
the asbestos.

They were told documents requested could not be disclosed because
they were contaminated by the deadly substance.

Mr Tiratsoo said he believes the overall legal costs incurred by
the council would have been higher than the disclosed figure.

He said: "I bet the true figure is a lot higher, but whatever the
case, this is yet another appalling waste of public money.

"The council was banged to rights, and pleaded guilty on all
counts.

"Why then did it need to employ a barrister who is apparently
'widely regarded as the foremost regulatory and corporate defence
Queen's Counsel in England and Wales'?

Share article

"Talk about throwing good money after bad."

It was revealed in court that the council spent more than
GBP300,000 repairing the basement and clearing the asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man's Death Caused by Exposure to RAF Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
Sleaford Target reported that a man died from a type of cancer
that was caused by being exposed to asbestos while serving in the
RAF an inquest has heard.

Frank Tate, of Spring Lane, Horbling, England, was exposed to
asbestos when it was being sprayed on to aircraft during his
service at either North Luffenham between 1965 and 1966 or
Cottesmore between 1967 and 1974.

An inquest into the death of the 67-year-old heard how Mr Tate had
contracted a cough and clinical research showed he had a tumour on
the right side of his lung which led to a diagnosis of epithelioid
mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer.

A letter written by Mr Tate before his death read at the inquest
said that he and others were fascinated by the process as the
watched on at the aircraft being sprayed.

His letter said: "We were exposed to fibres and asbestos dust. All
storage bins had dust on them and in them and we had to empty the
bins. We were not told of the dangers of asbestos."

Mr Tate underwent clinical trials after being diagnosed which
involved chemotherapy.

Professor Robert Forrest, coroner for South Lincolnshire, said:
"Epithelioid mesothelioma is almost always caused by exposure to
asbestos.

"Mr Tate was asked if he had been exposed to asbestos and he said
he had. He saw a practitioner on December 14, 2013 and then
attended an appointment at Grantham Hospital in January, 2014 and
fluid was drained from his lung. This was consistent with the
diagnosis of mesothelioma.

"During the course of employment he was exposed to asbestos and
was diagnosed with epithelioid mesothelioma and this led to his
death at his home address."

Retired systems manager Mr Tate left the RAF in the 70s and worked
for Geest in Spalding and then Future Key Products.

The coroner ruled Mr Tate's death was due to industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.Va. High Ct. Reaffirms Diagnoses Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Moses and James J. A. Mulhall of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC,
in an article for The National Law Review, said the West Virginia
Supreme Court has recently held that a diagnosis of asbestosis, or
evidence of asbestos bodies in the lungs, must be found before a
diagnosis of asbestos-related lung cancer can be made in a
workers' compensation claim. In a pair of opinions issued on May
7, 2015, the Court reaffirmed that holding.

Both opinions revisited the issue of asbestos-related lung cancer
diagnoses.  Both claimants appealed the Board of Review's
affirmation of the Workers' Compensation Office of Judges' denial
of workers' compensation benefits based on the claimants' lung
cancer diagnoses.  Both claimants had evidence of a prior smoking
history, neither claimant had pleural plaques or parenchymal
changes, and asbestos bodies were not found in either claimant's
lung tissue samples.

On review, the Court affirmed the Board of Review's affirmation of
the denial of the claims, holding that claimants cannot receive
compensation for asbestos-related lung cancer without a diagnosis
of asbestosis or evidence of asbestos bodies in the claimant's
lungs.  The Court held that in the absence of occupational
pneumoconiosis and asbestosis, lung cancer cannot be causally
attributed to occupational exposure.

These two decisions reinforce concrete precedent regarding the
diagnosis of asbestos-related lung cancer.  For example, the Court
has previously affirmed benefit denials due to an absence of a
diagnosis of asbestosis noting that the claimant's lung cancer
"was a result of his significant smoking history and not
materially contributed to by occupational pneumoconiosis and/or
asbestos exposure."  Further, the Court previously affirmed a
denial of benefits despite a claimant's prior award of 10%
disability for occupational pneumoconiosis because the claimant
"did not have asbestosis or physical evidence of asbestos
exposure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Suit Targets Dozens of Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacksonville Journal-Courier reported that a resident from
Merritt, Illinois, is suing more than 50 companies, corporations
and businesses he claims played a role over the past 65 years in
his development of an asbestos-related illness.

Melvin Grady filed the lawsuit in Morgan County court through
attorneys with Wylder Corwin Kelly of Bloomington, a firm that
regularly represents clients in Illinois who have been injured by
exposure to asbestos.

Grady, 87, claims in the lawsuit that exposure to asbestos during
his employment as a farmer and farm equipment mechanic in the
1950s and 1960s, as a utility man at Wood River Power Station in
Alton in the early 1950s, as an automobile repairman in the early
and mid-1960s, and as a service technician for GTE in the late
1960s caused him to develop asbestosis. He said he was routinely
exposed to asbestos through his contact with products that
contained asbestos and work sites where asbestos was present.

Asbestosis is a chronic lung disease caused by inhalation of
asbestos fibers. Grady was diagnosed with asbestosis in November
2013.

Grady claims the companies and businesses named in the lawsuit
knew of the dangers of exposure to asbestos, but failed to warn
him -- as a consumer of asbestos-containing products or as an
employee with a group that was frequently invited to do work at
locations where asbestos was present -- of the dangers.

Grady's wife, Louise, is also named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
The Gradys are seeking at least $50,000.

Assertions made in a lawsuit present only one side of a case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns Keep Tulsa Airport Tower Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newson6.com reported that asbestos concerns prompted the Federal
Aviation Administration to send a portable control tower to Tulsa
International Airport.  It was to be fully operational sometime
July 3.

Until then, air traffic controllers worked from the ground floor
of the current tower. Because of that they're only able to operate
one runway.

The trouble at the tower started June 24 when a contractor using a
solvent to remove tiles created fumes that forced workers to
abandon the top floor.

Environmental experts said the fumes are not hazardous, but the
airport is waiting for air sample tests before giving the all
clear.

The airport did release a statement June 25 regarding the air
quality, saying:

"Environmental consultants analyzing the air quality of Tulsa
International Airport's air traffic control tower have determined
that the facility's air quality tests below detection limits for
any hazardous particles. The consultant gathered 10 total samples,
five in the tower cab and five in the tower break room.

The tests were conducted during the early morning hours following
a request from the air traffic controllers union for assurance
that the air quality in the tower was safe for controllers.
Controllers were evacuated from the tower because of fumes
generated from a cleaning solvent used by a contractor removing
floor tiles.

Aircraft operations have continued at TUL throughout the day with
minimal disruption. Airport officials are now waiting on the FAA
and NATCA to determine when the upper level of the control tower
will resume operation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Court Commanded to Nix $2.6MM Verdict
------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reported that
the Texas Supreme recently commanded a Dallas District Court to
wipe a $2.64 million asbestos verdict against Dow Chemical.

In January, justices heard oral arguments in the case of Magdalena
Abutahoun et al v. Dow Chemical and were tasked to decide whether
Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Code prevents Dow Chemical's alleged
liability.

Chapter 95 states a property owner is not liable for injury,
death, or property damage to a contractor for failure to provide a
safe workplace, unless the property owner exercises or retains
some control or had actual knowledge of the danger and failed to
adequately warn.

The issue the Supreme Court had to decide was a property owner's
liability for independent contractors, opining on May 8 that an
appellate court was right to hold plain meaning of the text of
Chapter 95 does not preclude its applicability where a claim is
based upon negligent actions of the premises owner.

"The sole issue in this appeal is whether Chapter 95 applies to an
independent contractor's negligence claims against a property
owner when the claims are based on injuries arising out of the
property owner's negligent activities and not the independent
contractor's own work," states the high court's opinion.

"Applying the plain meaning of the statute, we hold that Chapter
95 applies to all independent contractor claims for damages caused
by a property owner's negligence when the requirements
. . .  are satisfied."

Justices affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, which reversed
the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in
Dow's favor.

However, court records show that on June 18 the Supreme Court had
to issue a mandate to the trial court, the 160th District Court of
Dallas County, to obey the ruling.

"Wherefore we command you to observe the order of our said Supreme
Court in this behalf, and in all things to have recognized,
obeyed, and executed," the mandate states.

The case stems from a suit brought by Robert Henderson, now
deceased.

Court records show that on June 11, 2010, Henderson, 68 at the
time of his death, filed suit in Dallas County District Court
against more than a dozen defendants, including Dow Chemical.

Henderson, an insulator helper contractor, alleged he was exposed
at Dow Chemical's Freeport facility from 1967-1968 while tearing
off asbestos insulation.

At trial, a jury found Dow Chemical was 30 percent at fault for
Henderson's asbestos-related cancer, levying a $9 million verdict.

On Aug. 16, 2011, the trial court entered a second amended final
judgment of $2.64 million.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals reviewed the award and
reversed the judgment, finding that Chapter 95 barred the
plaintiffs' claim based on Dow Chemical's alleged negligence as
the premise owner.

In their appellate brief, the plaintiffs contend that even though
Chapter 95 was enacted 18 years ago, the Texas Supreme Court has
never analyzed the scope of Chapter 95's applicability.

"Commentators on both sides of the bar have remarked on the need
for this Court's review and the increasing unlimited expansion of
the applicability of Chapter 95 by the courts of appeal," the
brief states.

Baron & Budd attorneys Denyse Clancy, John Langdoc and Christine
Tamer are representing the plaintiffs.

Dow is represented in part by Stephen Tipps, attorney for the
Houston law firm Baker Botts.

Supreme Court case No. 13-0175


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Parish Accused of Covering Up Fibro Danger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for Louisiana Record, reported that the
Parish of Jefferson is being sued by man who claims his lung
cancer is due to being exposed to asbestos while employed by the
Parish and construction companies.

C.J. Mayfield, and wife Dorothy Mayfield, filed suit against the
Parish of Jefferson in the 24th Judicial District Court on May 8.

Mayfield asserts he was employed by Jefferson Parish from 1950 to
1958, R.J. Lacoste Company from 1958 to 1974 and C.J. Claim
Construction Company Inc. from 1974 to 2005. The plaintiff claims
that while working for Jefferson Parish and while working on
projects on Jefferson Parish projects when working for R.J.
Lacoste Company and C.J. Claim Construction Company Inc. he
engaged in the installation and removal of underground water and
sewage pipes and worked with cement containing asbestos. Mayfield
alleges through the work he was exposed to asbestos dust and
fibers and in March 2015 was diagnosed with malignant squamous
cell carcinoma lung cancer which has been linked to asbestos
exposure. The plaintiff further contends the exposure to the
asbestos materials was particularly harmful to him because he is
an addicted smoker.

Mayfield claims that throughout his work with and for Jefferson
Parish he was never warned of the hazard of working with asbestos.
He further claims the defendant misrepresented and suppressed
information about the potential for disease caused by asbestos
exposure.

The defendant is accused of negligence.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought for physical pain and
suffering, mental pain and anguish, loss of income, medical
expenses and loss of enjoyment of life.

Mayfield is represented by Matthew G. Greig of New Orleans-based
Didrikson Law Firm.

The case has been assigned to Division F Judge Michael P. Mentz.

Case no. 749-511.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $5MM Verdict Hangs on Ga. High Court Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reported that
five years after he won a $10.5 million verdict, a man with a
fatal form of lung cancer called mesothelioma awaits a decision
from the Georgia Supreme Court on whether it will hear an appeal
brought by a manufacturing company where he worked that used
asbestos.

A $4 million portion of the verdict -- now over $5 million with
interest -- hangs in the balance, along with either reversal or
vindication of a South Georgia trial court judge.

The 2010 trial in Ware County Superior Court over claims by Roy
Knight and his wife took a month. The verdict went against three
defendants who either made or used asbestos. One of them, Scapa
Dryer Fabrics Inc. -- whose portion of the judgment was just over
$4 million -- appealed, claiming a long list of errors by Waycross
Circuit Judge Michael DeVane.

The judge took harsh criticism from Scapa's defense attorney, H.
Lane Young II of Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young. In a Daily
Report article after the verdict, Young called the jury
"uneducated, improperly charged by the court and hopelessly
confused." The veteran asbestos defense attorney described the
trial as the "most frustrating experience" of his career because
of the judge's inexperience with such complex litigation.

The criticism of the judge was unfair and unfounded, according to
Knight's attorney, Robert Buck of the Buck Law Firm in Atlanta,
who tried the case with Christian Hartley of Mount Pleasant, South
Carolina. Both are experienced asbestos plaintiffs attorneys.

"He showed immense patience with the entire process," Buck said of
the judge. He added that DeVane never once lost his judicial
temperament in a month of long days of testimony and evenings of
hearing opposing lawyers argue over what was to be presented to
the jury the next day.

By a 5-2 vote, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict
on March 30, backing up the judge's calls on 11 of Scapa's 13
claims of error, and saying the other two were harmless.

Scapa challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the scientific
reliability of an expert witness' testimony, the lack of a hearing
prior to the admission of that expert testimony, the jury's
failure to allocate fault to other nonparties submitted on the
verdict form, and some of the jury charges and DeVane's
evidentiary rulings.

Judge Christopher McFadden wrote for the majority that "there was
sufficient evidence to support the verdict, the expert witness'
testimony was scientifically reliable, a hearing as to the
admissibility of the testimony was not mandatory, the jury was not
required to allocate fault to others, and there has been no
showing of both harm and error as to any jury charge or
evidentiary rulings. Accordingly, we affirm."

Presiding Judge Anne Barnes, Presiding Judge Sara Doyle, Judge
Michael Boggs and Judge William Ray II joined McFadden.

Presiding Judge Gary Andrews dissented, joined by Judge Elizabeth
Branch. Andrews framed his concerns around the testimony of the
plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Jerrold Abraham, who said there is
no safe level of exposure to asbestos and that all exposures to
asbestos contribute to a diagnosis of mesothelioma.

"The Knights failed to produce reliable scientific testimony to
prove on the issue of specific causation that Mr. Knight's
exposure to asbestos at the Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc. plant was a
contributing cause of his mesothelioma," Andrews wrote. He also
asserted that "the trial court erred by admitting unreliable
expert testimony on the issue of specific causation." Andrews said
the judgment should be reversed and the case should be remanded
for a new trial.

Knight, who is 75 and increasingly weakened by the disease and
chemotherapy, may not be able to endure a new trial, according to
his attorney. "Most of my clients die before I can ever get their
case to trial," Buck said. He added that delay is a defense
strategy because the amount awarded to the family drops after the
plaintiff's death.

If the high court approves Scapa's request to review the Court of
Appeals' decision, arguments will likely revolve around the expert
testimony that formed the basis of Andrews' dissent.

In an interview, Young said Buck's expert dispensed "junk
science."

"It's absolutely dead wrong that there is no safe level of
exposure to asbestos," he said. "I think the issue is can you get
to the jury by saying all exposures contribute" to mesothelioma.
Buck responded that Young's scientific evidence is "fiction."

"If you look at real-world scientists, we cite 109 different
uncompensated leading scientists who all agree with Dr. Abraham."
They will have a chance to argue again if the high court decides
to hear the appeal. If the Supreme Court says no, "Then it's
over," Young said. The Court of Appeals decision -- and the
verdict reached in DeVane's court -- will stand.

The Supreme Court case is Scapa v. Knight, A14A1587.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auckland Director Fined $25K for Fibro Site Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Day reported that the director of a building company has
been convicted and fined for working in an asbestos-ridden
construction site, after being warned not to.

Nihal Homes sole director Ranjit Singh was fined $25,000 at the
Auckland District Court, after being charged under the Health and
Safety in Employment Act.  It was found that after Singh was
issued a prohibition notice to cease work on a Symonds St property
in central Auckland, he returned to the site with a contractor to
conduct work.

The court heard that a prohibition notice for the site was issued
by a WorkSafe inspector on March 14, 2014. The Auckland
Environmental Health team had tested the site and found it
contained asbestos.

Singh was at the site when the notice was issued, and it was
explained to him that work must cease.

Additionally, "he was advised of this on two more occasions",
WorkSafe said in a statement.

"The prohibition notice was clearly visible. It was attached to a
fence around the work site and stated that no further work could
continue until the notice was lifted by an inspector."

However, on March 22, eight days later, "Mr Singh went to the work
site with a contractor who removed a wooden ramp from the site. A
neighbour told Mr Singh that he was not supposed to be there and
that the site was closed. The neighbour then advised WorkSafe".

When interviewed by the inspector, Singh said he was only removing
items from the site to prevent them getting wet.

But the court found that removal of the ramp required physical
exertion and was part of the contractor's job - therefore it
constituted work and was contravening the prohibition order.

WorkSafe's chief inspector Keith Stewart said prohibition orders
were important for keeping workers safe.

"WorkSafe inspectors issue prohibition notices if they believe
there is a likelihood of serious harm to any person. In this case,
the work site had tested positive for asbestos.

"Prohibition notices are issued to keep people safe and should not
be ignored," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim Launches Suit vs. Wunderlich Factory
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Toscano, writing for The Age, reported that a Melbourne man
suffering lung disease has launched legal action against operators
of the notorious Wunderlich cement factory in Sunshine North for
allegedly exposing him to deadly asbestos dust.

Law company Slater & Gordon filed the lawsuit, representing the
man who lived near the western suburbs factory site for 15 years.
He now suffers asbestosis and has severe lung damage.

The man's lawsuit against factory operator Seltsam Pty Ltd
coincides with the release of a state government audit
identifying  25 people who lived near the Wunderlich factory had
died or become ill with asbestos-related diseases.

"Victoria's health department has acknowledged the terrible legacy
caused by the Wunderlich factory. Sadly, it has confirmed that
there have been a higher than normal number of cases of
mesothelioma in the area," Slater & Gordon lawyer Michael
Magazanik said.

". . . we have issued proceedings for another man with
asbestosis."

The company previously represented the family of grandfather-of-
six Marian Ciopicz, who lived about 600 metres from the McIntyre
Road factory and died due to breathing in asbestos while playing
in the area as a young boy.

A Supreme Court jury awarded damages of almost $500,000 after Mr
Ciopicz's illness was attributed to his exposure.

The trial heard that asbestos waste including dust, scraps and
off-cuts had been dumped in the backyard of the factory, into a
pond, trenches and towards a railway line.

Silvio Comin, who worked at the Wunderlich factory, told the trial
there was so much asbestos waste piled behind the factory that he
had to wear sunglasses to cope with the glare. He said that dust
at times escaped four to five metres into the air above the
factory and when it was windy it was "just like a snowstorm".

The Victorian Health and Human Services Department investigation,
which recently identified the extent of the factory's asbestos
health risk, also deemed all 54 homes near the site were now safe
and suitable to live in. The factory was shut in the early 1980s.

"Slater and Gordon has, for many years now, seen the devastation
caused by the former Wunderlich asbestos factory in Sunshine North
and we continue to act for those affected," Mr Magazanik said.

"While we cannot change the past, it is important that the current
residents of Sunshine North are kept fully informed and are able
to go about their lives safely."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Jurors Award $11.5MM at End of Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that jurors in Missouri have
awarded $11.5 million to the family of a former machinist's mate
who was allegedly exposed to asbestos-containing gaskets and
packing in Crane Co.'s valves.

The Missouri 22nd Judicial Circuit Court reached the verdict on
July 2 after two weeks of trial and six hours of deliberations.
Crane Co. was the lone remaining defendant at the time of the
verdict, sources said.

Honorable Rex Burlison presided over the trial.

Jurors voted 9-3 to award the plaintiffs $1.5 million in
compensatory damages. The jury also awarded $10 million in
punitive damages, sources said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victim Seeks Support from Co-Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Lewis, writing for Penarth Times, reported that a
pensioner who has suffered from an asbestos related disease for
most of his life is calling for support from former colleagues.

Colin Morgan, 68, from Penarth, England, was exposed to asbestos
dust and fibres throughout his working life at the former Brains
brewery on Caroline Street and now wants other employees to come
forward.  Colin has since suffered a serious lung disease which
has caused breathlessness and limited his daily movement.

The brewery contained a large network of asbestos-insulated pipes
which ran throughout the premises, including the cellars, steam
room and boiler room.  It was Colin's job to sand and paint the
asbestos lagged pipes during refurbishment.

Helen Bradley, an experienced industrial disease specialist and
partner with Birchall Blackburn Law, says:

"We'd like to know exactly where all the asbestos lagged pipes
where within the brewery, and any details about the laggers and
the work carried out on the pipes.

"We also know that an old mash tun -- a type of vat in which malt
is mashed during the brewing process -- was removed from the
premises while Colin worked there.

"These huge vats were insulated with asbestos to help maintain a
constant temperature. We're hoping that former employees with more
information like this will come forward to help Colin."

Jan Garvey, from the National Asbestos Helpline, says: "Asbestos-
related diseases, like asbestosis and pleural thickening, can take
10 to 50 years to develop after exposure to the deadly dust and
fibres.

"When the symptoms finally take hold they can make retirement a
misery. Simply walking a short distance can leave a person
struggling for breath and they can develop a debilitating cough,
tiredness and weight loss.

"Colin needs his former colleagues to come forward or he will
struggle if he can't get the right support to help him cope with
the lung disease."

Brewery spokesman Charles Brain said he was unaware of anyone
being exposed to asbestos at the old brewery saying: "Mr Morgan
did not work there for long, so he may have been exposed to
asbestos somewhere else."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Worker Sues Fibro Firm for Cancer Pain
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tallentire, writing for The Northern Echo, reported that a
former asbestos worker who is fighting cancer for a third time is
suing his old employer for his "five years of pain and suffering".

Colin Stephenson, 66, had his voicebox removed due to cancer in
2009, lost part of his lung to the disease six months later and is
now fighting lung cancer a second time.  He is seeking
compensation from Cape Insulation, better known as Cape Asbestos,
which employed hundreds of people in Bowburn, County Durham and
where Mr Stephenson worked from 1967 to 1991.

The grandfather-of-two, from Ferryhill, England, said: "I have
suffered five years of pain and suffering and have undergone a
variety of procedures and treatments, I believe, as a result of
inhaling asbestos dust and fibres over the years I worked closely
with the material.

"I hope that my legal team at Irwin Mitchell will be able to get
justice for me and provide the answers I need about why more was
not done to protect me, and my colleagues, from the risks
associated with asbestos."

In 2013, The Northern Echo reported how cancer sufferer Caroline
Wilcock, who grew up in Bowburn, had become the first person to
successfully sue Cape's successors for damages without having
worked in the factory.  She recalled happily playing snowball
fights with friends as a child -- blissfully unaware the "snow"
they were throwing at each other was deadly asbestos dust.

Mr Stephenson, who made asbestos sheeting and insulation, said the
factory floor was extremely dusty and dust and fibres were
released into the air and covered his hands and overalls.

Roger Maddocks, from Irwin Mitchell, said: "Colin has suffered a
significant amount of pain and a number of invasive procedures and
understandably he wants to know the reasons behind the illness he
has suffered.

"Sadly, many employers fail to act to protect their workers from
the consequences of exposure to asbestos, despite knowing how
dangerous it is, and we hope that by issuing court proceedings we
can secure justice for Colin and get the answers he so desperately
needs."

Cape did not respond to the Echo's request for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victorian Wildlife at Risk Due to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reported that the health of native wildlife is being
put at risk by the careless dumping of asbestos in a Victorian
state forest.

Asbestos has been found dumped in the Yarra State Forest on three
separate occasions, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning says.

DELWP Forest Officer Joy Harte said the illegal dumping was
putting wildlife and park visitors at risk and patrols had been
increased to try and catch the culprits.

"This behaviour presents a risk to the wellbeing of all native
animals including the koalas and their joeys we see living near
where the rubbish has been dumped," Ms Harte said in a statement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Nurse Diagnosed with Mesothelioma
---------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Telegraph reported that a former nurse from Rotherham
diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a terminal cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos -- is speaking out to raise awareness of the
disease on Action Mesothelioma Day.

Kalliopi Copley, aged 68, from Wickersley, was diagnosed in
November 2012 and said she is determined to raise awareness of the
disease, which claims 2,500 lives in the UK every year.

The mum-of-two believes she may have come into contact with
asbestos during her work at hospitals in Rotherham and Sheffield
and is taking legal action.

She said: "Asbestos is still present in public buildings like
hospitals, schools and universities and this must be removed and
made safe."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Sufferer Seeks Help from Colleagues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brown, writing for Chronicle Live, reported that a cancer
sufferer is appealing to his former colleagues to try and help
prove he was exposed to deadly asbestos.

Brian Coffey, 67, from Walkergate in Newcastle, England, was
diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a cancer believed to be caused by
asbestos fibres being inhaled and causing mutations in the lining
of the lungs and gut -- in April.  And now he is seeking fellow
workers from the Morley Coachworks in Byker and the Prescription
Pricing Authority in central Newcastle to back his bid for
compensation.

"My mesothelioma diagnosis absolutely knocked us for six and I'm
worried about what the future holds for me and Patricia as my
condition gets worse," said Brian, who has been married to his
wife Patricia for almost 45 years.

"I suffer a lot of pain in my chest and stomach and struggle to do
a lot of things for myself as I'm constantly struggling for
breath.

"And to find out my mesothelioma may have been caused by my
exposure to asbestos while working simply added insult to injury.

"I want to know where I was exposed to the material and if my
former employers could have prevented my exposure by taking the
appropriate safety measures.

"Nothing will change my situation, but I hope my former colleagues
will come forward with the information my legal team needs to get
the answers I'm looking for."

Brian believes he came into contact with the deadly dust and
fibres while employed by Morley Coachworks in Byker between 1985
and 1986 and at the Prescription Pricing Authority from 1987 to
1994.

His colleagues at Morley Coachworks worked on brake and clutch
linings, which were made from asbestos, and he would regularly
sweep the floor at the end of the day.

While he also says he worked as a porter in the basement of the
PPA where pipework was lagged with asbestos.

Roger Maddocks, a partner at solicitors Irwin Mitchell and
specialist asbestos-related disease lawyer, said: "Exposure to
asbestos can cause a wide range of serious conditions decades
after exposure to the material, including mesothelioma, which is
sadly an incurable cancer of the lung lining.

"Victims like Brian often struggle to recall the exact details of
their exposure to asbestos, but understandably want answers as to
how and why they were exposed to the material responsible for
their illness.

"We hope that his former colleagues from Morley Coachworks or the
Prescription Pricing Authority who remember Brian will come
forward with the information we need to get him and his wife the
answers they deserve.

"We would like to hear from anyone who worked at, or has
information about the conditions at Morley Coachworks in the mid
1980's.

"We would also like to hear from anyone who carried out the
removal of asbestos lagging at the PPA facility in Newcastle."

Mr Coffey's appeal coincided with Action Mesothelioma Day, which
took place on July 3, and which was dedicated to remembering
victims of this asbestos-related disease.

Mesothelioma causes around 2,500 deaths every year, according to
the latest Health and Safety Executive (HSE) figures, with the
numbers continuing to rise.

"The number of victims of mesothelioma has yet to peak and we have
seen that the disease is now affecting those outside of the
traditional heavy industries associated with diseases caused by
asbestos exposure," Mr Maddocks said.

"Recent years have seen a rise in the number of people affected by
asbestos who have spent their working lives in public buildings,
hospitals, schools and other academic institutions. It is
absolutely crucial that more is done to make these buildings safer
for employees, which means monitoring asbestos and the eventual
removal of the hazardous material, before it becomes dangerous.

"The Palace of Westminster and Buckingham Palace have recently
been the subject of asbestos investigations and removal. A full
risk register is now needed for public buildings across the
country so that the safe removal of the harmful asbestos can be
carried out, and a stringent monitoring programme can be put in
place.

"Mesothelioma is a very aggressive, and sadly, incurable disease
and those who fall victim suffer simply because the appropriate
precautions were not taken to keep them safe, they were not warned
of the dangers of asbestos or provided with the correct protective
equipment.

"We hope that by supporting Action Mesothelioma Day we will help
to raise awareness of the dangers of asbestos and mesothelioma, as
well as encouraging employers and the government to take action to
protect future generations from further suffering."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Workers' Overalls Causes Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scunthorpe Telegraph reported that a woman died as a result of
exposure to asbestos, an inquest heard.

Cecilia Florence Cosgrove, 73, of Weymouth Crescent, Scunthorpe,
died of mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lining of the lungs -- on
January 10.

An inquest held at the Civic Centre in Scunthorpe heard Mrs
Cosgrove had worked at an industrial site pressing overalls
between 1978 and 1979.

A statement read on behalf of Mrs Cosgrove's son, Barrie Cosgrove,
said that the steam presses used for cleaning contained asbestos
dust, as well as the pipes to the presses and a corrugated roof.

Coroner Paul Kelly recorded a verdict of death as the result of an
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Homebuilder Awarded $6-Mil. in Fibro Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that a
plaintiff who filed asbestos lawsuits against more than 10
companies has been awarded $6 million. Michael Dalier filed
lawsuits against the companies after he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma. Although the award was only made against two
companies, and did not include punitive damages, the jury still
awarded Dalier millions of dollars.

Galier filed the lawsuits alleging negligent workplace exposure
was the cause of his mesothelioma. Galier had worked in
construction as a homebuilder and as a contractor at rental
properties and was allegedly exposed to asbestos through products
that contained the carcinogen. His lawsuit also claimed asbestos
exposure when he was an auto mechanic and through secondary
exposure via his father.

Two companies -- Murco Wall Products and Welco Manufacturing Co
-- were held liable for Galier's asbestos exposure.

Initially, lawsuits were filed against more than 10 companies but
some of those lawsuits were settled before going to court. A claim
against one company was dismissed and a different company was
found not liable for Galier's exposure.

Asbestos exposure has been linked to asbestosis, mesothelioma and
lung cancer, all of which can take decades to appear following
initial exposure. Lawsuits filed against companies that used
asbestos in their products allege they knew about the risks but
continued to use the potentially harmful drug in their goods.
Lawsuits have also been filed against employers, alleging
employees were not given proper safety gear or training and were
not warned about the hazards of working with asbestos or asbestos-
containing products.

In some cases, lawsuits alleging secondary exposure have also been
filed. Those lawsuits allege the family members of people who
worked with asbestos were put at risk of developing life-
threatening diseases. According to those lawsuits, asbestos fibers
became attached to their loved one's clothing and were carried
into the home where they came loose.

A recent study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Action
Fund suggests that 15,000 Americans die every year from asbestos
exposure. That study drastically increased the number of deaths
with a suspected link to asbestos from around 5,000 annually. The
EWG Action Fund's study included deaths from asbestosis,
mesothelioma and lung cancer attributed to asbestos exposure.

"Clearly, asbestos kills more Americans each year than we
thought," said Sonya Lunder, a senior research analyst with the
EWG and EWG Action Fund.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potential Fibro Suit Filed for "Beau" Hicks
------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for SETexas Record, reported that a former
district judge who gave up the bench to become Jefferson County's
district attorney recently filed a petition to perpetuate
testimony to investigate the asbestos exposure of the late
referring legend H.T. "Beau" Hicks Jr.

District Attorney Bob Wortham, formerly of the 58th District Court
in Beaumont, filed the petition on June 30 in Jefferson County
District Court.

The anticipated defendants include Atlantic Richfield, Chevron
USA, ExxonMobil, Beazer East, John-Shir, Koppers and Owens-
Illinois.

Hicks, 83, died last August. Since 1957, he officiated high school
and college football, and moonlighted as a scout for the NFL.

In his petition, Wortham, who officiated with Hicks for a time,
says Hicks was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2014.

The former judge seeks testimony from several individuals
regarding Hicks' asbestos exposure during his employment with
Mobil in Beaumont from 1952 to 1968, and also Sinclair Koppers in
Port Arthur from 1968 to 1970.

Wortham specifically seeks the testimony of Charlie Best, Joe
Bonura, Herbie Broussard and Boyd Ladd, stating the individuals
are advancing in age and that their testimony must be preserved
while the investigation continues.

Tina Bradley of the Beaumont law firm Hobson & Bradley represents
Wortham.

Judge Kent Walston, the current judge of the 58th District Court,
has been assigned to the case.

Case No. A-1972


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Golden Wonder Factory Builders Warned of Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Burkett, writing for Northamptonshire Telegraph, reported
that the daughter of a man who helped to build the Golden Wonder
factory in Corby, England, in the 1960s is urging his former
colleagues to get themselves checked out after he died from
mesothelioma.

George Usher, of Cumbria, who was 77, died last month after a
short battle with the disease -- a form of cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos dust and fibres.

The former electrician believed he was exposed to asbestos dust
during his short period of employment with Yorkshire-based
engineering and construction firm NG Bailey in 1964.

He worked for the firm for about six months, during which he
worked on the construction of the original Golden Wonder crisp
factory in Rockingham Road, Corby.

When it opened it was the world's largest crisp and snack factory.

The firm moved to its current location in Princewood Road in 1989
following a fire.

Mr Usher's role involved the installation of electrical systems at
the factory, a job which required him to work side by side with
laggers, who would mix asbestos paste to lag the pipework used in
the factory.

He recalled the atmosphere in the boiler house, where he was
posted for the majority of his time, as very dusty, with plumes of
asbestos dust rising into the air regularly.

Now Mr Usher's daughter, Charlotte, 48, of West Yorkshire, has
instructed lawyers to investigate how and where her father was
exposed to asbestos.

Roger Maddocks, a partner and expert asbestos-related disease
lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, representing Charlotte, said:

"Mesothelioma is an aggressive and incurable cancer that causes a
significant amount of suffering for victims like George.

"Action Mesothelioma Day, which took place on July 3 aims to raise
awareness of the terrible disease and the importance of diagnosing
the disease early so treatment can be provided.

"It can take decades for the symptoms of the disease to become
apparent, so we need to hear from George's former colleagues, and
anyone who worked as a contractor on the Golden Wonder crisp
factory construction, about the working conditions they were
exposed to and details of the lagging process.

"Charlotte, her sister Caroline and their mother, Jean, want
answers about why this happened to their husband and father, as
well as to encourage those who worked with George, or anyone who
may have been exposed to asbestos to visit a doctor as soon as
possible to be X-rayed.

"Employers have known of the dangers of asbestos for decades and
should have taken action to protect workers and contractors, such
as George, from the deadly substance.

"Therefore, we would urge his former workmates and contractors who
worked on the construction of the factory to come forward with the
crucial information we need."

Charlotte said: "Mesothelioma is a terrible disease and we would
urge anyone who worked with Dad to go to a doctor and get a chest
X-ray as soon as possible.

"We hope raising awareness of mesothelioma will lead to more
people getting checked out for the effects of asbestos exposure.

"If we help convince one person to visit their doctor, have a
chest X-ray and access the treatment they need so they can live
longer and spend more time with their family then something good
will have come from the experience our family has had."

NG Bailey declined to comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Outdated EPA Rules May Increase Fibro Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has an antiquated and inadequate
policy in place that allows the release of asbestos-contaminated
wastewater and threatens public health, according to the Office of
Inspector General.

The EPA's National Emission Standard for Asbestos, first issued in
1973, includes a provision that still permits the demolition of
structurally unsound buildings without first removing asbestos
products -- often resulting in toxic runoff and contaminated soil.

"Demolitions may be releasing potentially harmful amounts of
asbestos into the environment," said Michael Wilson, toxicologist
who helped author the June OIG report. "The amount of asbestos
released into runoff wastewater can often exceed the legally
reportable quantity."

The renovation, remodeling or demolition of older structures
becomes particularly dangerous if microscopic asbestos fibers are
disturbed. An exposure can lead to serious asbestos-related health
issues such as mesothelioma, asbestosis or lung cancer.

The report is based on the EPA's Alternative Asbestos Control
Method (AACM) experiments from 2005 to 2011 that included
demolition procedures and collection of data on the release of
asbestos into the environment.

It also was based on buildings that were constructed with asbestos
cement products and asbestos-containing joint compound. Both
building materials were common in new construction before 1980.

Wilson said the result of the demolitions likely would violate the
EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act if the reportable quantity of asbestos was released.

Public Health Risk Needs Reassessment

He believes the EPA should reassess the public health risk from
the contaminated wastewater caused by the demolitions.

The report made four recommendations:

Evaluate the potential public health risk from the release of
asbestos fibers through untreated discharge of runoff wastewater.
Issue a technical report that details the findings and is
available to the public.
Based on the technical report, implement any action needed in a
timely manner.
Share and discuss any regulatory changes and enforcement.
Asbestos was a common building material throughout much of the
20th century. It was once lauded for its ability to strengthen and
fireproof at a reasonable cost. However, research showed it also
was toxic, becoming a serious health risk as it aged and became
airborne.

The EPA and its regulations are credited for the dramatic decline
in the use of asbestos products in commercial and residential
construction over the last 40 years.

EPA Disagrees with Critics

The EPA responded to the report by disagreeing with the OIG
findings, believing the AACM experiments did not provide an
appropriate basis for comparison.

"We disagree with the recommendations in this draft report . . .
However, we share the OIG's concern regarding the potential for
asbestos exposure," wrote Janet McCabe, EPA acting assistant
administrator, in an accompanying attachment to the report. "We
recognize asbestos as a known human carcinogen, and note that
there is no known safe level of exposure to asbestos."

McCabe said the original National Emission Standards for Asbestos
regulation was last amended in 1990, and a variety of work
practices have been developed to prevent contamination of nearby
properties. She also admitted a lack of clarity in the amendment.

"These documents are disparate and dated, and we believe could be
reviewed, revised and consolidated into a single guidance
document," she wrote.

She also said the EPA will complete the project before April 2016
and take the following actions:

Assemble a team of asbestos experts and inspectors to advise and
assist.
Review the rule applicability regarding containment of asbestos-
contaminated waste materials and revise existing guidance
documents.
Compile implementation guidelines.
Review applicability determinations issued by regional offices.
Review existing sampling and analysis methods that are applicable
to asbestos in various media and incorporate into the guidance.
Consolidate into a single set of guidance materials and implement
them.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dads Fears for Family's Health Over Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bagnall, writing for Daily Post, reported that a dad fears
for his family's health after potentially dangerous asbestos was
spread around their house after a mistake by blundering
contractors.

Kevin Henry complained to Wrexham council, in England, when old
floor tiles containing asbestos were removed after a new kitchen
had been fitted on top of them.  Dust and shards from the tiles
were dispersed around the kitchen of Mr Henry's Chirk council
house and found their way into the lounge, following work at the
end of May.

An Emergency Asbestos Contractor was sent to the property after
the 42 year-old, who is married with an eight month-old boy Noah
and two year-old girl Jai, raised concerns.

Now Mr Henry, who lives on Highfields, fears for his family's
health after a letter by Wrexham council's head of corporate and
customer services, Trevor Coxon, told them there was "no
substantial risk" and the property was "deemed safe" to live in.

Apologising to the family Mr Coxon wrote: "The tiles should have
been removed prior to the new kitchen being installed.

"The contractor acknowledges this and internal actions have been
taken by the contractor in terms of processes and actions against
individual operatives."

Mr Henry, a maintenance manager, said: "What does that mean there
is 'no substantial risk'? Does that mean there is some sort of a
risk?

"Asbestos is dangerous and I am seriously worried about my
family's health now.

"It was very upsetting and I just do not want anybody else to go
through this."

In a letter of complaint to Wrexham council, Mr Henry said: "We
believe the standard of asbestos removal from our kitchen has been
so low, that without doubt we have been exposed to unquantified
levels of airborne asbestos fibre concentration.

"We have been advised to record this incident with our GP with
specific interest to our children's future health."

He added: "I discovered pieces that had been brought in to our
lounge by our family on the floor in the lounge, beneath the
couches and on and in the couches.

"I am extremely angry at the fact my tiny children have been
touching this material, which -- while once being in a good
condition -- is now in a very poor condition."

Wrexham council's lead member for housing, Cllr Ian Roberts, said:
"An investigation has taken place involving all parties including
the Health and Safety Executive.

"The council has been guided by the Emergency Asbestos Contractor
who attended the property, and provided the council with an
'asbestos handover' certificate confirming that the property was
left safe for the residents to remain.

"This has been explained to the tenant."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moorhead Man Develops Disease from Fibro Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Millerbernd, writing for InfoRum, reported that Steve Lemke
rode his bike 15 miles a day last summer, but the man from
Moorhead, Minnesota, can't even make it to the end of the block
this year.

Lemke, 62, says he doesn't know when exactly he developed
pulmonary fibrosis from asbestosis, but it's likely linked to his
work in the flooring business here in the 1970s and '80s.

At the time, those who worked with asbestos didn't know about the
risks it came with.

"Nobody even knew anything about asbestos, we never wore masks,"
Lemke said. "I mean, a lot of the floors we were taking out were
installed in the '50s and '60s."

He has seen a brother and two uncles, all of whom he worked with
in the Fargo-Moorhead area, die from diseases that developed as a
result of asbestos exposure.

Once he was no longer able to work in the flooring business in
2010, Lemke started delivering pizzas -- a job he kept for about
five years.

Then, in December, he was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis and
emphysema. He's now on oxygen full-time and is fourth in a line of
15 people in the region to get a new set of lungs.

His family is working to pull together funds to pay for the
estimated $500,000 procedure and the medication required after the
surgery that costs about $45,000 per year.  His stepdaughter,
Ashley Young, said her parents' insurance "doesn't put a dent" in
the cost of the procedure.

"It's not really a choice to not go through with it, we just have
to find a way to pay for it," she said.

Once Lemke travels to the Mayo Clinic for his procedure, he could
stay for anywhere from three to six months, he said. In that case,
he will have to find a place for his family to live in Rochester,
Minn., and enroll his two teenage children in school there.

A benefit and silent auction for Lemke will be held at First
Congregational Church at 406 8th St. S. here on July 12 from 4 to
7 p.m.

Cash and check donations can also be made payable to Steve Lemke
Benefit Fund at Alerus Financial at 51 N. Broadway in Fargo. Lend
A Hand will provide up to $5,000 in matching funds. Online gifts
can be made at www.dmflendahand.org under the "benefit events"
tab.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Accused Firm of Gaming Fibro Recovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that last
summer, Ford Motor Company accused a major New York City asbestos
firm of engaging in the same type of misleading behavior that led
to a landmark 2014 ruling and a handful of racketeering lawsuits,
court records show.

On Aug. 7, Ford asked New York City Asbestos Litigation Judge
Barbara Jaffe to reduce a once-$11 million verdict by the amount
it felt should have been paid to plaintiff Arthur Juni by the
bankruptcy trusts covering exposure caused by Raybestos and Wagner
products.

The letter created a testy exchange with plaintiffs firm Weitz &
Luxenberg. One of the firm's lawyers wrote that it was difficult
to remain civil while responding to the claims, labeling Ford's
move an "outburst."

Ford claimed Juni repeatedly referred to exposure from two other
companies' brake products, but Weitz & Luxenberg never submitted
claims to their trusts while pursuing his lawsuit against Ford and
other defendants.

Juni was entitled to $125,000 from the Raybestos trust and between
$100,000 and $300,000 from the Wagner trust, Ford claimed. It was
later shown that the Wagner trust was not accepting claims at the
time.

"Plaintiffs' counsel was under a duty to their clients, litigants
and the Court to mitigate damages by filing all viable claims with
asbestos bankruptcy trusts," Ford's attorneys wrote.

"The only conceivable motive for plaintiffs' counsel's failure to
file such meritorious claims is gamesmanship, pure and simple.

"Plaintiffs' attorneys know that any amount received from such
trusts would be set-off from a judgment."

Ford attached a 2014 ruling from Judge George Hodges, of a
bankruptcy court in North Carolina, that said plaintiffs attorneys
at other firms had been delaying filing their clients' trust
claims while lawsuits against Garlock Sealing Technologies were
pending.  By doing so, Hodges ruled, plaintiffs attorneys had
unfairly maximized recovery against Garlock, which eventually
filed for bankruptcy in 2010 and is in the process of setting up
its own trust.

Garlock made its argument after being permitted discovery into 15
cases. It has filed racketeering lawsuits against the plaintiffs
firms involved in those cases.

Weitz & Luxenberg is not among the firms sued by Garlock.

The firm's Juni case is notable in that the multimillion-dollar
verdict was overturned earlier this year, and an appeal of that
decision is pending.

In April, Jaffe granted Ford's motion for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict and dismissed the complaint.

"The Court misapprehended the relevant law and overlooked the
critical facts, improperly invaded the jury's province, and
erroneously failed to view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant," Alani Golanski of Weitz & Luxenberg
wrote.

Ford argued that the opinions of Juni's expert witnesses on
causation lacked a sufficient foundation and were based on invalid
assumptions.

Another noteworthy aspect of the case is that court records show
Juni was treated by Dr. Richard Taub, who headed a Columbia
University mesothelioma research center at the time.

Taub has been identified as the doctor at the center of the
indictment of former New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Silver is accused of trading state research funds to Taub in
exchange for referrals to mesothelioma patients like Juni. Silver
was of counsel at Weitz & Luxenberg for years and is accused by
federal prosecutors of using his position in state government to
illegally earn millions of dollars in referral fees at the Weitz
firm and another firm.

The Weitz firm has denied any knowledge of the alleged scheme.
Taub has since been let go by Columbia and has filed a lawsuit
against his former employer.

Golanski responded to Ford's claims of gaming the asbestos
recovery system in an Aug. 13 letter to Jaffe.

"Wow. Where to begin?" Golanski wrote. "And more of a dilemma, how
to begin while remaining civil?

"Another explanation that is both 'conceivable' and,
coincidentally, true is that the Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal
Injury Trust is not yet open for, and not yet accepting, any
claims arising from asbestos exposures to Wagner Electric
Corporation products."

Golanski called Ford's Warner allegation a "gaffe" and defended
the firm's election not to file a Raybestos claim. He said the
company's estimation of the worth of Juni's claim is not reliable.

The figure Ford used would be subject to a massive reduction,
leaving it at a worth of $1,050, he said.

"(T)here is simply no basis in New York law for any reduction from
a verdict for sums that speculatively or hypothetically might be
realized -- here $1,050 -- from a settlement that has not yet
occurred," Golanski wrote.

Ford didn't back off in its reply letter to Jaffe, claiming
Golanski did not explain why no claim was filed to the Raybestos
trust. It also disagreed with his $1,050 figure.

And though Golanski was correct that the Wagner trust was not
accepting claims at the time, he is wrong that no set-off could be
ascribed to that entity, Ford claimed.

A day later, Golanski wrote to Jaffe that Ford's admittance that
he was correct about the Wagner trust renders its "initial
outburst . . .  wholly irresponsible."

It is unclear from court documents what affect the exchange had on
the case. Ford's post-trial motion did not ask for an offset in
the amount of what it felt would have been recovered from the
trusts.

Instead, the company asked for an offset of the amount the
plaintiff earned in settlements with other solvent civil
defendants -- roughly $1.7 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCAW Applauds Changes on Position in Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Conference of Asbestos Workers (CCAW) welcomes a
significant revision of Health Canada's position on the
harmfulness of asbestos. However, the CCAW is also calling on the
federal government to implement a Canada-wide ban on asbestos as
well as to ban the use of asbestos in products like drywall and
water pipes.

"The harmful health effects resulting from exposure to asbestos
are an immediate concern for our workers," said Louis Dugay,
President of the CCAW. "Certainly, the public acknowledgement of
the dangers associated with these products and materials are a
welcome step forward."

Updated language from Health Canada now acknowledges that
"asbestos, if inhaled, can cause cancer and other diseases." While
the health consequences associated with all types of asbestos have
been recognized globally, this strengthened language marks a
definitive shift in the treatment of asbestos by the Canadian
government.

The World Health Organization has stated that asbestos of all
types can cause diseases such as lung, larynx and ovary cancer as
well as mesothelioma and asbestosis. Certain types of asbestos
continue to be manufactured in Canada, despite the health risks
posed.

CIO, CTO & Developer Resources

The CCAW would like to see the federal government move forward
with a ban on all asbestos products, thereby enhancing the safety
of workers in Canada. This would bring Canada's standards in line
with other countries including Australia, the United Kingdom, and
Japan.

"Asbestos workers in Canada should be afforded the same health and
safety regimes as their counterparts in other skilled trades in
Canada, and around the world," said Vince Engel of the
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied
Workers. "It is time for the federal government to join the 50+
countries that have banned asbestos globally and remove this toxic
products from commercial, industrial and residential
environments."

            About the Canadian Conference of Asbestos Workers

The CCAW is an association consisting of nine local unions in
Canada affiliated with the International Association of Heat and
Frost Insulators and Allied Workers. The CCAW represents
approximately 6000 Insulators and Asbestos workers in Canada.

Contacts:

Vince Engel
Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers

Kate Harrison
Summa Strategies Canada
613-235-1400 x 226


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US EPA to Update Fibro Standard
------------------------------------------------
Chemical Watch reported that the US EPA has agreed to update its
Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
in response to a recommendation by its Office of Inspector
General.

Since 1973, under the NESHAP Regulation, the EPA has allowed
buildings that are structurally unsound and in imminent danger of
collapse to be demolished, without first removing regulated
asbestos-containing materials, the OIG said in a report.

The agency's alternative asbestos control method experiments show
that this can result in the release of significant amounts of
asbestos into runoff wastewater. The experiments also demonstrate
that the amount of released asbestos "often exceeds the legally
reportable quantity" of one pound in a 24-hour period, the OIG
said, and recommended that the EPA should update its guidance to
address such potentially harmful releases and assess the potential
public health risk posed by them.

In response, the agency agreed that its guidance in the area was
"dated and disparate" and said it would put together a team of
asbestos experts to advise it in producing an "updated
consolidated guidance document, which has practical application to
the regulated community."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coventry Hospital Handyman Wins GBP150,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Eccleston, writing for Coventry Telegraph, reported that a
grandad has been awarded GBP150,000 after working with asbestos
for just a few days at Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital in the
1970s left him with incurable lung cancer.

Thomas Pritchard was a handyman at the hospital in Stoney Stanton
Road, Hillfields, for around nine months during 1970-71 when he
came into contact with the deadly substance.

A persistent and worsening cough saw the 71-year-old go to his
doctor in November 2013.

Medics drained four pints of fluid from his lungs and discovered
he had mesothelioma, a terminal lung condition, associated with
exposure to asbestos.

During the early 1970s, Mr Pritchard had spent a day working on
the task of removing and replacing old asbestos-based insulation
padding from a boiler and its pipes at the hospital.

He then spent another day on the same duties in the pump room and
also mixed powdered asbestos and water by hand, without any
personal protective equipment such as a dust mask or gloves.

Mr Pritchard also spent several days walking the corridors and
inspecting the asbestos-covered pipes for damage, possibly
breathing in the deadly fibres even further.

No other job throughout his life brought him into contact with
asbestos.

On the recommendation of his doctor, he approached Asons
Solicitors of Greater Manchester who investigated his work history
to find exactly how he contracted the disease.

Asons obtained his medical records, sent a letter of claim to the
hospital and the defendant in the case -- the Secretary of State
for the Department of Health -- refused to make an interim payment
until a medical report was available.

Instead, Mr Pritchard was awarded a GBP16,000 lump sum from the
government and then Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit,
before a final damages amount was negotiated for GBP150,000.

The compensation will allow Mr Pritchard to move from his home in
Londonderry to Gloucestershire to spend his remaining days among
his family.

Mr Pritchard was represented by Gavin Evans, solicitor and head of
the serious disease unit at Asons, who said: "This is a tragic
case in which our client was exposed to this deadly dust for only
a very short period in the early 1970s, but has many years later
developed mesothelioma.

"It is a horrible disease which could have been prevented in this
case, had my client's former employers taken adequate precautions
to prevent him inhaling the deadly dust.

"I am so glad, for his sake, that his claim was settled pretty
quickly once the medical evidence was obtained."

Latest figures from the Association of Personal injury Lawyers
indicates that there were 2,538 mesothelioma deaths in the UK
during 2013.

Much of the old hospital site has now been demolished and
redeveloped.

Figures also suggest that 80 out of every 100,000 people in the UK
are affected, and that 85 per cent of cases are due to workplace
exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Cedar Rapids School
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that the main building at Washington
High School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has been closed as officials
deal with the presence of asbestos.

A contractor working in the building raised concerns with the Iowa
Natural Resources Department, and the school district said in a
news release that testing showed one area of the building "is
currently above an acceptable level."

Tiny fibers of the carcinogen can be breathed in and lodge in the
lungs, leading to fatal illnesses such as asbestosis, lung cancer
and mesothelioma.

The building will remain closed while officials devise a solution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Timaru Hospital Basement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Montgomerie, writing for The Timaru Herald, reported that
asbestos found under Timaru Hospital is minimal and will be
removed, the South Canterbury District Health Board in New Zealand
says.

Chief executive Nigel Trainor said an audit of the hospital's
tunnels, clinical services building's basement and administration
block's basement on High St turned up "minimal" levels of asbestos
dust in all three areas.

The audit, which the health board carried out as part of a review
of the administration building's future, showed residual dust in
basement areas which were not publicly accessible.

Trainor said the asbestos was not airborne and the amount found
was "well below the workplace exposure standards" above which
people exposed to the substance risked lung problems. The dust
posed a "minimal" risk to staff and contractors' health, Trainor
said.

"We have informed staff, notified WorkSafe NZ and are actively
working with the local team as well as experts to conduct testing
of other sites and planning for the removal of the asbestos dust."

The health board had contained the affected areas, parts of which
stored up to 10 per cent of patients' paper records, as a
precaution.

Trainor said the board was seeking occupational health advice for
existing or previous staff who might be concerned about their
exposure to the asbestos.

The board held electronic records for all recent patients and did
not expect the restrictions to affect patients' treatment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Kills Allestree Builder
-------------------------------------------------------
Aly Walsh, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that kind,
perceptive and a true gentleman are just a few of the terms that
were used to describe a builder who died through his exposure to
asbestos as a young man.

John Kelly, who died aged 73 at his home in Crabtree Close,
Allestree, in January from malignant mesothelioma, came into
contact with the deadly fibres only in his first job as an
apprentice plumber, an inquest into his death was told.

Mr Kelly continued to work as a plumber up until his late 40s and
then turned his hand to building until he retired.

Assistant Deputy Coroner Paul McCandless said there was no
evidence that Mr Kelly had been exposed to asbestos at work after
the age of 21.

Mr McCandless said it was most likely Mr Kelly's exposure to
asbestos was when he was removing pipes covered with lagging
during his six years as an apprentice plumber.

"This may be one of the shortest work histories I have encountered
but no less compelling," said Mr McCandless.

He concluded that Mr Kelly's death was due to industrial disease.

Mr Kelly left his wife of 40 years, Val, three daughters and five
grandchildren -- all of Allestree.

His daughter, Clare Godfrey, 38, said cards from family and
colleagues after her dad's death had described him as "the most
honest and honourable man" but the word that appeared multiple
times was "kind".

She said: "Dad really was the kindest person we ever knew. He was
a perfectionist and took great pride in all his work. Not only was
he a very talented, clever and inventive man, he was modest with
it, too."

Mrs Godfrey said that, when she and her sisters were growing up,
her dad was always doing some DIY project at home.

She said: "There was no job he couldn't do. We'd often get home
from school to find a wall knocked down or a sink appearing in
each of our bedrooms -- although the sinks were probably due to
Dad having to live with four girls and were his only fighting
chance of getting into the bathroom! Mum never had to wait for
anything to be mended or built and Dad used to often joke that us
girls were bought up on a diet of brick dust sandwiches."

Mr Kelly had many other interests, including snooker, fishing and
music. Daughter Sarah Coyne, 38, said: "He adored music and taught
himself to play both the piano and guitar, beautifully. We have
fond childhood memories of him strumming along, singing silly
songs he'd made up to make us laugh."

Mr Kelly also loved to fly and had passed his private pilot's
licence.

Mrs Coyne said: "Mum has never been very good with heights but she
did go up with him -- because, if you could put your trust in
anyone, it would be Dad and, when flying with any of us, he called
us 'precious cargo'.

Mrs Coyne said her father was "a perceptive and sensitive man" and
that he "would see all and say nothing" but, she added: "Anything
he did say would be worth hearing.

"Nothing got past our dad. He knew when we were sad and always did
anything he could to help and protect us all. He was always there
for us."

She said that Mr Kelly had adored his grandchildren and they felt
the same about him.

Daughter Amy Kelly, 36, said: "The worst thing about losing dad,
apart from losing our idol and hero, is Mum losing Dad. They were
best friends. They did everything together. They loved travelling
and travelled a lot. In particular, Whitby was a favourite place
they shared with many happy memories, often visiting weeks at a
times in their caravan. He was a true gentleman and treated Mum so
well in the 40 years they were married.

"The world has lost one of the kindest, most decent people it ever
had. We like to think there will always be a part of Dad still
here with us, living on through his children and grandchildren,
and in all the memories we share."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joiner Dies of Lung Cancer Due to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------
Martin Naylor, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a joiner
who died from lung cancer caused by asbestos was exposed to the
deadly dust when he was a teenage apprentice.

Brian Johnson's inquest was told how workmates would cut sheets of
asbestos and he saw the dust "blowing around in the air" as he
swept up.

Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court also heard that Mr
Johnson would brush the dust from his overalls.

In a statement made before his death, he said he was exposed to
the asbestos while working at HA Bowering, in Wood Street,
Alfreton, in the late 1950s.

Mr Johnson, of Kilburn, said: "My work as an apprentice saw me
working at benches assembling window frames and various items were
taken in and out of the workshop.

"This included large sheets of asbestos, around 8ft by 4ft, which
would be cut with a circular saw so they could be used in ceiling
linings.

"My bench was around 20ft away and the cutting sent clouds of
asbestos dust into the air. The dust would settle on the machines
and if the doors were open the dust would be blown around."

Mr Johnson, who was 74 when he died at the Royal Derby Hospital on
June 26, said in his statement that as the apprentice at the firm
it would be his job to tidy up the workshop at the end of the day.

He said: "I would use a brush, shovel and wheelbarrow to sweep up
the asbestos dust which was then taken outside to be burned and it
was also my responsibility of cleaning the benches. I would brush
the asbestos dust into piles and leave it against the walls."

Mr Johnson, of Woodhouse Road, said the firm did not provide
protective masks or make him aware of the danger of exposure to
asbestos during the two years he worked there.

After leaving HA Bowering he went on to work for W Wood (Heanor)
Ltd, in Fletcher Street, Heanor, William Walkerdine, in Derby and
Creative Interiors, based at the West Meadows Industrial Estate,
also in Derby, but said he was not exposed to asbestos during any
of those jobs.

He was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in March this year
and underwent one dose of chemotherapy.

Dr Robert Hunter, senior Coroner for Derbyshire, said: "On April
28 he was admitted to the Royal Derby Hospital for treatment to a
chest infection and rapidly deteriorated.

"He did not want any more invasive treatment and was transferred
to the Nightingale Macmillan Unit, where he died on June 26."

A post-mortem examination gave his cause of death as bronchial
pneumonia due to malignant mesothelioma. Dr Hunter reached a
conclusion that Mr Johnson died as the result of an industrial
disease.

He said: "Mr Johnson was exposed to asbestos during his working
life and that exposure led to his diagnosis of malignant
mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Ct. Flips Dismissal of Broker from Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an appellate court has
reversed the dismissal of an asbestos broker from a lawsuit
pending in Washington, finding that the defendant's contacts with
the state were not random or isolated.

In the June 29 opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division
One, found that the defendant benefited indirectly from marketing
and sale laws in the state and "have accepted that benefit," it
cannot say its relationship with Washington "lacked purpose."

The plaintiffs asserted the claims on behalf of Donald Noll,
contending that he developed malignant pleural mesothelioma as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Rejects Challenges to Testimony
----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Frank Parker III will be
permitted to testify in an asbestos case, a Louisiana federal
court has ruled, explaining that his testimony was not speculative
or unreliable.

In the June 25 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana further rejected defendant Amchem Co.'s
challenges to the admissibility of Parker's testimony on the
ground that the expert was unqualified.

The underlying case involves the claims of Sally Vedros, who sued
numerous defendants after being diagnosed with mesothelioma that
she said was caused by exposure to asbestos at Avondale shipyard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Transparency Bill Proposed in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
California Assemblyman Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova) has
introduced and sponsored Assembly Bill No. 597, the Asbestos Tort
Claim Trust Transparency Act, which if passed would require
asbestos plaintiffs to disclose all asbestos bankruptcy trust
claim documents in asbestos tort actions. These mandated
disclosures would include "any communications between the
plaintiff and an asbestos trust and all proof of claims forms and
supplementary or supporting materials submitted to or required by
an asbestos trust." Plaintiffs would be required to submit a sworn
statement identifying the status of each claim, including all
monies requested and received.

Under the proposed legislation requiring such unilateral
disclosures, it would no longer be necessary for defendants to
seek discovery of relevant materials regarding any claim made by
plaintiffs to an asbestos trust. Any materials disclosed by
plaintiffs are potentially admissible evidence to prove alternate
causation or to apportion fault for plaintiffs' injuries.

Frequently, plaintiffs will claim attorney-client privilege, work
product or confidentiality as a means to prevent defendants from
obtaining these documents. However, the proposed bill would
prevent plaintiffs from using those objections to block discovery
of asbestos trust claim documents. If plaintiffs fail to disclose
asbestos trust claims, defendants are no longer left without other
means of discovering such documents. Further, if defendants
reasonably believe plaintiffs have a viable but unfiled claim
against any trust, defendants may file a motion requiring
plaintiffs to file such claims.

Moreover, if plaintiffs identify an asbestos trust in which they
could file a viable claim but then fail to do so, under the
proposed legislation the court could implement several remedies to
timely allow the necessary disclosures. Those could include
staying the state court action, denying a motion for an expedited
trial date, or vacating or continuing an existing trial date.

The proposed bill would apply to all asbestos tort claims filed on
or after the effective date of the approval of the bill and to all
asbestos tort actions pending on the date of the approval of the
bill if the initial trial date has not passed.

Oppositions to the bill have been filed by the Consumer Attorneys
of California, California Labor Federation, State Building &
Construction Trades Council of California, Sacramento Central
Labor Council, AFL-CIO, California Professional Firefighters,
State Teamsters and Environmental Working Group, and the National
Lawyers Guild Labor & Employment Committee.

It is anticipated that legislative hearings will be held in fall
2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafeBC Cracks Down on Renos Over Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Crawford, writing for Vancouver Sun, reported that work
safety officials say they are stepping up enforcement of home
renovations in B.C. over concerns about asbestos after a high
number of contractors were caught trying to cut corners last year.

Starting July, WorkSafeBC says prevention officers will be
increasing inspections at residential demolition and renovation
sites to ensure contractors are adhering to health and safety laws
when identifying and removing asbestos.

WorkSafeBC conducted 210 site inspections last year and found 43
per cent of hazardous material surveys done by contractors were
inadequate, the agency said Tuesday. WorkSafeBC officers wrote 257
orders for hazardous materials violations and imposed 20
penalties.

Al Johnson, vice-president of prevention services at WorkSafeBC,
said he didn't have a number for how many more inspections there
would be, but said they will be adding officers dedicated to
inspecting residential renovations and demolitions.

"We're making this a priority and our focus," he said. "Most of
the activity will take place in the Lower Mainland, but it is also
a provincial initiative."

If there is asbestos in a building, it is required by provincial
law that it be identified; however some contractors, in trying to
compete for business, won't identify all the areas that
potentially have asbestos so they can put in a lower bid for the
contract, Johnson said. He added that "although it's hard to
believe" some contractors have also claimed they didn't know
asbestos may have been in the building.

Buildings constructed before the late 1980s contained construction
materials with asbestos such as insulation, floor tiles, cement
pipes, drywall, linoleum and spray applied fire proofing.

"They are not doing complete surveys. They might identify one wall
. . . but what about the other walls? What about the floor tile,
duct material, taping compounds, installation? We need them to do
a thorough risk assessment."

Penalties vary depending on payroll, so larger companies pay more
for infractions. They can range from $1,000 up to $30,000.

Johnson said 77 workers died in 2014 from asbestos-related
diseases. "While asbestos does not pose a health risk when left
undisturbed, preventable exposures can cause fatal lung diseases
with symptoms developing many years later," he said.

WorkSafeBC says hundreds of houses are demolished and renovated
every month in B.C. with an increase over the summer months.

Five B.C. municipalities: Coquitlam, Vancouver, Saanich, Nanaimo
and Port Coquitlam are working with WorkSafeBC and require those
seeking demolition permits to provide results of an adequate
hazardous material survey before issuing a permit.

Health Canada made changes to the way it describes the health
risks associated with asbestos exposure. Chrysotile asbestos,
mined in Canada and exported until the last operation in Quebec
went bankrupt, used to be referred to on the department's website
as being less dangerous than other forms of the mineral.

But that section was removed, as was a reference to the risks
associated with inhaling "significant quantities" of asbestos
fibres.

The website now states "asbestos, if inhaled, can cause cancer and
other diseases."

The World Health Organization maintains all types of asbestos can
cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx and ovary,
and asbestosis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Solons Urge Retailers to Pull Crayons with Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Swantek, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that two U.S.
senators are pointing fingers at four retail giants -- Party City,
Dollar Tree, Toys "R" Us and Amazon.com -- for continuing to stock
and sell children's toys, including crayons, that allegedly
contain deadly asbestos.

Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., sent letters to
the chief executive officers at the four retailers last week after
the Environmental Working Group Action Fund (EWG) released a
report showing traces of asbestos in crayons and crime-scene kits.

"In light of the consumer safety concerns raised by this report,
we write to encourage you to voluntarily remove these items from
your shelves out of an abundance of caution to protect American
children from the serious health risks of asbestos exposure,"
Durbin and Markey wrote in the letters.

They asked the retailers to respond by July 22 on whether or not
they were willing to pull the items and on what date.

Durbin and Markey penned a fifth letter to the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission. That letter explained that "parents
should not have to play 'toy box roulette,' not knowing whether
the products they buy for their children will seriously sicken or
injure them."

Retailers Respond to Allegations of Asbestos in Toys

Representatives for Dollar Tree, Party City and Toy "R" Us issued
statements to CNN after the release of the EWG report.

Here are the comments from the different companies:

   * Amscan (owns Party City): "Amscan is dedicated to ensuring
that all of its products meet or exceed federal, state and
municipal requirements. To this end, Amscan conducts compliance
testing of its suppliers' products by using nationally recognized
product testing organizations. Any product that fails to meet
governmental or Amscan's standards will not be distributed or
sold. We take these types of matters very seriously and are
investigating further."

   * Toys "R" Us: "The safety of our customers is, and always has
been, our highest priority. We take this responsibility very
seriously. We require that every product we carry meets or exceeds
all applicable state and federal laws, industry standards, codes
and requirements," spokeswoman Kathleen Waugh said. "At this time,
we are reviewing the referenced report, along with supplier test
reports, to ensure full compliance to our strict safety
standards."

   * Dollar Tree: "The safety of our customers is paramount and we
work constantly to ensure our suppliers' products are compliant
and safe," Randy Guiler, vice president of investor relations,
wrote in a statement. "To that end, we have a very robust and
stringent test program, which includes working with independent
CPSC-accredited testing companies to ensure our suppliers'
products meet all safety and legal standards."

The CNN report shows Amazon and Buy-Rite, also mentioned in the
EWG report, could not be reached for comment at the time the news
organization published its story.

So far, none of the retailers have announced if they pulled the
allegedly contaminated merchandise from their inventories.

Tougher Proposals Against Asbestos Are Pending

Markey and Durbin's letters follow the Reducing Exposure to
Asbestos Database (READ) Act, a bill the two senators proposed
earlier this year.

If passed, the READ Act would require modernization of the
reporting requirements of the Asbestos Information Act so
consumers could have transparent, accessible, and up-to-date
information on which products contain asbestos and where they can
be found.

Most consumers are unaware many products in the U.S. legally
contain asbestos. The national database would make that
information available to everyone online.

In addition to those efforts, Markey and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-
Calif., in March introduced the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer
Toxic Chemical Protection Act. That bill seeks to ban asbestos in
the U.S. and calls for stronger safety standards and quicker
safety reviews of chemicals.

Reinstein, former president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization, died of mesothelioma in 2006. Schaefer is victim of
toxic exposure and a brain cancer survivor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Fibro Victim Seeks Help in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Tacey, writing for Liverpool Echo, reported that the family
of a former Merseyside, England, shipyard worker is appealing to
former colleagues for help after he died from mesothelioma which
they believed he contracted from asbestos when he was working on
Merseyside in the 1960s.

William Davidson worked at Birkenhead's Cammell Laird Shipbuilders
decades ago and now his family are appealing to Billy's former
workmates to help in a legal battle.  William died from
mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lining of the lungs caused by
exposure to asbestos -- in July 2014.

His family is asking anyone who worked with Billy to come forward
with any information they have on the presence of asbestos in
their former workplace and what measures, if any, were in place to
protect employees from the hazardous substance.

Leanne Leighton, industrial disease lawyer at Irwin Mitchell,
said: "Due to the length of time it can take for asbestos-related
diseases to develop it can be difficult to trace where victims
were exposed, particularly if they have passed away as a result of
their exposure.

"Sadly, Billy died before he was able to provide details on
exactly how he was exposed to asbestos during his working life and
we would now like to hear from any of his former colleagues at
Cammell Laird Shipbuilders on the presence of asbestos and the
protection or warnings in place to prevent workers from inhaling
the deadly dust and fibres.

"This information will be crucial in securing justice for Billy's
family and providing them with the answers they need about how he
was exposed to the material that caused his death."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Research Foundation Deposed in NY Fibro Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkins, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a local
research institute is being compelled to testify about the
relative dangers of cigarette smoke and asbestos-containing
products for ongoing asbestos litigation before the New York
Supreme Court.

In the New York case of Maria Ricci and Anthony J. Ricci, as
executor of the estate of Peter L. Ricci, versus the Aluminum Co.
of America, Mario and DiBono Plastering Co. Inc. and other
defendants, Mario and DiBono filed a petition for the issuance of
a local subpoena on July 14 in Cook County Circuit Court.

Mario and DiBono, the petition states, believes that the IIT
Research Institute's Armour Research Foundation has evidence
relating to Peter L. Ricci's asbestos-related injury prior to his
death. By compelling the institute to give a deposition, the
lawsuit states, the court will make way for testimony about the
Institute's 1955 report "regarding the physical properties of
cigarette smoke and the . . . respective knowledge concerning
manufacture and sale of asbestos-containing products. . . "

The institute's representative was petitioned to appear Aug. 10 at
the Chicago offices of Hinshaw and Culbertson LLP, which is
representing Mario and DiBono.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 2015L007127.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Alleges Wife Suffers Mesothelioma
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkins, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a
couple is suing nearly a dozen businesses, alleging the wife
contracted an asbestos-related disease during the course of
various auto repairs.

Nancy L. Surita and Rojelio Surita filed a lawsuit July 2 in Cook
County Circuit Court against more than a dozen auto repair-related
businesses, alleging negligence.

According to the complaint, from the 1980s to 2000, Nancy Surita
performed her own vehicle maintenance, such as removing and
replacing her brakes, and worked in proximity of asbestos-
containing tractors and trailers, as well as "Duralast brakes,
Caterpillar transmissions, Cummins engines, Eaton truck brakes,
Pneumo Abex brakes" and other auto parts supplied by Autozone
Inc., Advance Auto Parts, Blain Supply and O'Reilly Automotive
Stores. The suit says she also came into contact with asbestos
fibers produced by Union Carbide.

The lawsuit states on May 28, she learned she'd contracted
malignant mesothelioma, an asbestos-related disease. Nancy Surita
alleges negligence and Rojelio Surita, alleges loss of consortium.

The couple seeks damages in excess of the court's jurisdictional
limits, plus costs. They are represented by attorneys Robert N.
Wadington of Robert N. Wadington and Associates in Chicago, and
Gemma Geleoto of Simon, Greenstone, Panatier and Bartlett in
Dallas.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 2015L006799.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MassDEP Fines UMass Memorial for Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Conor Berry, writing for MassLive.com, reported that the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has issued a
fine against UMass Memorial Realty Inc. for asbestos violations at
the former Worcester City Hospital.

UMass Memorial Realty must pay $15,000 of a $45,412.50 penalty,
"with the remainder suspended for a year as long as they remain in
compliance with the regulations," MassDEP officials said Thursday.

Inspectors spotted violations at the site in November 2013, when
they observed improper removal and disposal of asbestos from the
former hospital at 26 Queen St., which closed in 1991.

"Prior to commencing any demolition or renovation activity,
property owners must identify asbestos-containing materials so
they can be properly removed and handled in accordance with the
regulations," said MaryJude Pigsley, director of MassDEP's Central
Regional Office in Worcester.

That didn't happen, according to MassDEP officials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pirelli Execs Convicted for Fibro-Linked Deaths
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a Milan court has convicted 11
former Pirelli managers, including two former CEOs, on charges of
manslaughter and gave them prison sentences for the deaths of
about 20 workers who developed tumors or lung disease after being
exposed to asbestos.

The news agency ANSA said the court issued sentences up to seven
years and eight months against the defendants, who were Pirelli
board members during the 1980s. Prosecutors said the workers at a
Milan factory were not properly protected against asbestos.

Pirelli lawyers pledged they would appeal, expressing confidence
in the managers' work "on the basis of scientific evidence
available to date."

The court also awarded more than 500,000 euros ($550,000) in
damages to one family and other injured parties. ANSA said most
families had settled out of court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Seeks Justice for Pa's Fibro Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kenilworth Weekly News reported that the devastated daughter of a
former Ford employee is seeking justice after her father died from
asbestos poisoning which she believes he developed at the
company's now-closed Leamington foundry.

At an inquest into the death of Ray Taylor, 57, Warwickshire's
Deputy Coroner Simon Charlton heard how Mr Taylor had been
diagnosed with mesothelioma in February this year and died in
June.

Mesothelioma is an incurable cancer and its only known cause is
historic exposure to asbestos. And the coroner's verdict was that
Mr Taylor died as a result of the disease.

A keen gardener, Mr Taylor kept two allotments which he worked on
daily, up to the time when he started to suffer from the symptoms
associated with the mesothelioma.

A statement from Mr Taylor's family says: "Ray was a loving
husband to Caroline and father to Louise, Emma and Susan.

"He will always be remembered as a kind caring and loving person,
always willing to help people in any way he could.

"We will never forget the short time we had with him and will
treasure all of the good memories we have.

"He will be sadly missed by all."

Emma was present when her father recalled his working conditions
while at the Ford factory where he was employed from 1978 and
worked for 28 years.

It was Mr Taylor's belief that he was regularly exposed to
asbestos during the time that he worked at the site and that this
was the only place he was ever exposed to the hazardous material.

Emma explained that her father initially worked on the mould lines
and described pipework running through the factory which was
insulated with asbestos.

He described how the insulation would be damaged by the daily wear
and tear of factory life and was left in poor repair.

He also described how fork lift trucks would regularly bang into
the pipes with their loads as they were moving between the storage
racking and moving pallets about -- knocking into the pipework and
causing the insulation to become damaged.

The asbestos which was knocked off the pipework fell to the floor
and would either be walked over and trodden in, or swept up, both
of which caused further dust and fibre to be re-circulated into
the area where he worked.

The area underwent significant re-configuration in about 1984
which caused further significant disturbance of asbestos.

After the 1984 upgrade, Mr Taylor moved to work on the new
vertical flask mould lines 4 and 5. The furnaces had seals made of
a thick rope with heat resistant properties to withstand
temperatures of 1,600 degrees centigrade.

For efficiency purposes, it was important there was a good seal on
the furnace.

It was Mr Taylor's belief that Ford used asbestos rope to obtain
that seal.  He would cut the rope and fit it underneath the lid of
the furnace.

All of this created asbestos dust to be released into the area
where Ray worked.

Alida Coates, an expert asbestos-related disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell who is representing Mr Taylor's family, said: "I met Ray
shortly after he had been diagnosed with mesothelioma to discuss
his recollections of asbestos exposure whilst employed at Ford.

"During my investigations I have also spoken with other men who
worked at the foundry, who have provided additional information
about the presence of asbestos at the site.

"More worryingly, it is my understanding that there are a number
of other similar cases among those who previously worked at the
site.

"Only a small proportion of those exposed to asbestos will go on
to develop mesothelioma. "However, once diagnosed, it is a very
aggressive and, sadly, incurable cancer.

"We hope that anyone who has information about the use of asbestos
at the site will come forward and provide additional evidence
about how Ray came into contact the material."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Fibro Filings Down in 1H 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Cunnginham and Ann Maher, writing for Madison Record,
reported that asbestos filings in Madison County through June 30
are down by 9 percent compared to the same period last year.

A total of 588 new asbestos lawsuits were filed in the first half
of 2015, compared to a total of 656 that were filed in the first
half of 2014.

If the pace of filings stays consistent through the end of the
year, the county's asbestos docket -- the largest in the country -
- will have scaled back for the second year in a row.

In 2014, a total of 1,300 cases were filed, which was down from
the record-setting number of 1,678 filed in 2013.

And while there have been notably fewer cases added to Madison
County's docket, there also are fewer local plaintiffs bringing
the suits.

Only three plaintiffs in the 588 new cases are from Madison
County, or half of 1 percent, and just 31 of them were
Illinoisans, or five percent of the total.

By contrast, 1.7 percent of last year's 1,300 plaintiffs were from
Madison County and 9 percent were Illinoisans.

In other findings, the vast majority of the claims -- 483 -- were
made on behalf of persons suffering from mesothelioma. Lung cancer
cases totaled 41; pleural mesothelioma cases totaled 22;
peritoneal mesothelioma cases totaled four; asbestosis cases
totaled two; colon cancer was listed in one case. In 35 cases, the
cause of illness could not be determined.

Two local firms filed more than half of the total.

The Simmons firm of Alton brought the most, as it typically does,
having filed 183 cases, or 31 percent of the total. Gori and
Julian of Edwardsville filed 139 cases, or 24 percent of the
total.

While the number of new cases in Madison County are down, they are
still statistically high.

In years past, records show there were 325 cases filed in 2006;
455 cases in 2007; 659 cases in 2008; 814 in 2009; 752 in 2010;
953 in 2011, 1,563 in 2012, 1,678 in 2013 and 1,300 in 2014.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Fibro Victim Seeks Witnesses
-------------------------------------------------------
Express & Star reported that Eileen Haynes, from Cannock Chase,
England, died in October 2014 after a short battle with the
disease, caused by exposure to asbestos decades ago. She was 83.

Now her niece Sandra Brough has instructed lawyers to investigate
how and where her aunt was exposed to asbestos.

Before her death, Mrs Haynes, who lived at New Street, Hednesford,
told her consultant at Stafford Hospital that she believed she
breathed in the chemical while working for the Copper and Asbestos
Washer Company, in Uxbridge Street, Hednesford, where she was
employed from around 1949 to 1955.  Her role at the firm was in
the manufacturing of copper-coated asbestos gaskets used in the
engines of motor vehicles

Industrial disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell, who are
investigating the case on the family's behalf, say they understand
she worked alongside a large number of other local women pressing
out the gaskets. Her family believe she was never provided with
face masks and that the working environment was very dusty.

Mrs Haynes' niece, also from Hednesford, is now appealing for
anyone who knew her aunt when she worked at the factory, or who
previously worked there, to come forward to provide details on the
working practices at the business and its use of asbestos
materials.

She said: "It was absolutely terrible to see my aunt suffer in the
final months of her life. She was unaware of the dangers of
asbestos and the horrendous impact it can have on workers' health.

"We would urge anyone who has information about working at the
Copper and Asbestos Washer Company and the protection put in place
for my aunt and others to come forward as soon as possible so we
can secure justice in her name."

Satinder Bains, a partner in the law firm, said: "Mesothelioma is
a very aggressive and, sadly, incurable disease that causes a
great deal of pain and suffering for victims, as well as their
families who witness its impact.

"The number of mesothelioma fatalities continues to grow."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa Man Sentenced to Prison for Fibro Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that the owner of the former Sioux
City YMCA building, in Iowa has been sentenced to a year in prison
and two years of supervised release for improperly removing
asbestos from the building.

The Sioux City Journal reports that 55-year-old Larry Wolf, of
Dakota City, was sentenced in Sioux City's federal court on
Thursday. He had pleaded guilty in December to one count of
violating the work practice standards of the Clean Air Act.
Wolf admitted during his plea hearing to knowing about the
asbestos ahead of removing material from the building.

Prosecutors say Wolf also removed asbestos-containing material
wrappings from metals inside the building then sold the metals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. High Court Remands Fibro Exposure Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the Tennessee Supreme Court
has instructed a trial court to hold a new trial in an asbestos
and diesel exhaust fume exposure suit on the issue of damages
only, agreeing with an intermediate appellate court that the trial
court judge improperly instructed the jury on contributory fault
after the verdict was reached.

In the July 1 opinion, the high court did affirm the other
appellate court findings, including that an order granting the
defendant's motion for a new trial was erroneous, since the cited
errors were "so insubstantial that they did not warrant a new
trial as. . ."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Didn't Warn About Fibro, Jury Told
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reported that the son of a
mechanic who died of cancer told Florida jurors that he often saw
his father exposed to dust while working on asbestos-containing
Caterpillar Inc. machines, but Caterpillar and an auto parts
manufacturer failed to provide warnings about the toxic material
that allegedly killed him.

Marcos Gonzalez, son of Pablo Gonzalez, testified in a Miami
courtroom that his father would often sand down certain parts in
the course of making repairs, leaving behind dust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Niece Raises Awareness After Fibro Death
---------------------------------------------------------
Eastbourne Herald reported that the niece of a 'happy family man'
who died from an asbestos-related illness has started a campaign
to raise awareness of such conditions.

Simone Lucas describes her uncle Terry Lucas as a 'happy family
man, who enjoyed the pub, motorbikes, football and loved his dog,
Reggie'.

Terry died in May of last year, after being diagnosed with an
asbestos-related disease.  He was a widower with three adult
children had lived in Bromley for most of his adult life and chose
to move to Eastbourne after his wife, Janice, sadly passed away.

Simone started the campaign to raise awareness in time for Action
Mesothelioma Day, which took place on July 3.  Simone and the
family also hope to inform other families of the options available
to sufferers once they are diagnosed.

Simone says that her uncle began to complain of pains in his chest
approximately four to six months before December 2013. Terry, who
was still working at this time, suffered a sudden pain when
lifting doors and thought at first he may have pulled a muscle in
his chest. When it didn't get better, he decided to see his doctor
and he was sent for an x-ray and blood tests.

He was diagnosed with mesothelioma, just prior to December 2013.

Simone said, "He was incredibly strong, despite the diagnosis and
was willing to fight, so much so he agreed to try a trial drug to
see if this would give him more time, but unfortunately his body
was not strong enough to cope."

Simone says that Terry was unable to continue to work and was very
concerned as to how he would manage financially.

The family contacted Moore Blatch solicitors to see if there may
be help available for Terry and to find out when he had become
exposed to asbestos. Nicky Howe of Moore Blatch, who represented
Terry, discovered after investigations that as a qualified
carpenter, Terry had become exposed to asbestos at work. Sadly,
Terry passed away before his claim was concluded, but as it had
been started prior to his death, it was possible to continue on
behalf of his estate.

Simone is now urging people diagnosed with asbestos-related
illnesses to contact a solicitor as soon as they have a diagnosis
to give them a chance of getting compensation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Alleges Years of Fibro Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkins, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a
longtime worker is suing more than 20 businesses, alleging
asbestos exposure from birth until retirement.

Robert J. Koohy filed a lawsuit July 17 in Cook County Circuit
Court against more than 20 businesses, alleging personal exposure
and secondary exposure.  According to the complaint, between 1961
and 1978, Koohy worked at various jobs that brought him into
contact with asbestos-containing products used, made, marketed or
transported by the defendants. The suit says he had secondary
exposure through his father from 1942 to 1961, and while in the
Navy from 1961 to 1978.

On Aug. 18, 2014, the lawsuit states, Koohy learned he'd
contracted mesothelioma, an asbestos-related disease.

Koohy seeks damages in excess of the court's jurisdictional
limits, plus costs. He is represented by attorney Timothy G.
Martin of Cooney and Conway in Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 2015L007283.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co., Owner Sentenced in Fibro Dumping Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Norwalk Reflector reported that a Toledo, Ohio man has been
sentenced for charges related to asbestos removal and disposal
during demolition of the former Champion Spark Plug facility on
Upton Avenue in Toledo.

Donzell Moore, 41, pleaded guilty on June 4 to charges of
complicity to remove asbestos without a certification or license
and illegal disposal of construction and demolition debris.  He
was sentenced in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas to 30 days
in jail (with work release eligibility), three years community
control, and 240 hours of community service. He also was ordered
to pay $25,274.37, jointly with his company, to Ohio EPA for
clean-up and investigative costs. The court also reserved a 12-
month prison sentence if Moore violates the terms of his community
control.

Separately, Moore's company, Moorhouse Real Estate Development
LLC, was ordered to pay fines totaling $10,750. The company
pleaded guilty to complicity to remove asbestos without a
certification or license, removing asbestos without notifying Ohio
EPA, and illegal disposal of construction and demolition debris.

In October 2012, Moore paid scrap worker Ronald Gibson, 57, to
illegally remove and dispose of friable asbestos pipe insulation
from the Champion facility in anticipation of demolishing the
boiler building. Gibson, of Holland, Ohio, illegally disposed of
the asbestos insulation in rural western Lucas County and in large
trash bins behind an apartment complex in West Toledo.

"Our communities are not dumping grounds," DeWine said. "Those who
dump dangerous materials illegally and on someone else's property
must be held accountable. In this case, Mr. Moore put Lucas County
residents at risk, and now he is facing the consequences of his
actions."

"I take illegal dumping and asbestos disposal crimes very
seriously. The people who commit this crime believe they are
saving a few dollars, but in the process they put public health at
risk," said Ohio EPA Director Craig W. Butler. "I appreciate the
public providing tips that led to the convictions, and thank our
local, state and federal partners who brought these men to
justice."

The dump site in western Lucas County was discovered in November
2012 on private property off Old Stateline Road in Monclova
Township. After evidence was collected, the asbestos insulation
was cleaned up and properly disposed of by an Ohio EPA contractor.

Ohio EPA worked with the Ohio Attorney General's Bureau of
Criminal Investigation and U.S. EPA and, with help from public
tips, the investigation led to Gibson. Gibson pleaded guilty to
removing asbestos without a license or certification, removing
asbestos without notifying Ohio EPA, and illegal disposal of
construction and demolition debris.

Gibson was sentenced on April 15 to one year and 90 days in jail
and a $750 fine on the latter two counts. He received three years'
community control including 160 hours of community service and was
ordered to pay $5,374.37 in restitution. The jail time was
suspended on the condition he completed the terms of his community
control and cooperated in the prosecution of Moore and his
company.

The criminal investigation was a collaboration of multiple
agencies at the local, state, and federal level as part of the
Northwest Ohio Environmental Crimes Task Force, which also
included assistance from the Toledo Division of Environmental
Services and Ohio Department of Health's Environmental Abatement
Section.

Attorneys with the Ohio Attorney General's Environmental
Enforcement Section, Criminal Prosecutions Unit, were appointed by
the Lucas County Prosecutor to serve as special prosecutors for
the cases.

Friable asbestos is easily crumbled and its fibers can become
airborne. If inhaled into the lungs, it can cause serious health
problems. For this reason, asbestos is a highly regulated material
with special handling and disposal requirements. More information
is available on the Ohio EPA's website.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salem Company Fined for Fibro Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Loew, writing for Statesman Journal, reported that state
environmental regulators have fined Salem-based Minority Abatement
Contractors Inc. $1,700 for violating asbestos abatement
regulations.  The violations took place during remodeling at the
Linfield College Apartments in McMinnville in May.

Minority Abatement Contractors failed to provide accurate
notification of the abatement project by not listing the amount of
asbestos-containing materials to be abated, the state Department
of Environmental Quality said.

The company has submitted improper notification numerous times in
the past. DEQ penalized the company for the same violation in
2011, and issued it warnings in 2014.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eternit Put to Italy's Constitutional Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Gazetta del Sud reported that the bitter and long-running Eternit
case into the asbestos poisoning deaths of 258 people was referred
to Italy's Constitutional Court to rule on whether the former
company owner could be tried a second time.

In the case's latest twist, a preliminary court judge has asked
for a ruling on the constitutionality of a second trial against
Swiss tycoon Stephan Schmidheiny. One of his lawyers said that he
was "pleased" the lower court accepted the defense's questions
about the constitutionality of trying their client twice. That
issue is the "crux" of the case, added Astolfo Di Amato.

But a spokesman for some of the families of the victims, who have
fought hard for years to see Schmidheiny prosecuted, said the
argument did not stand. "It would be as if citizens were given an
exemption for murder," said Bruno Pesce of Afeva, the association
of asbestos victims.

Schmidheiny had been charged with failing to provide adequate
safety measures at four Eternit cement plants in Italy, charges he
has denied. In 2012, Schmidheiny was found guilty of negligence at
the now-defunct Eternit's Italian factories in the 1970s and 1980s
and sentenced to 18 years in prison, a ruling applauded by
families of the victims. However, they were stunned last November
when Italy's highest appeals body overturned the 18-year sentence
against Schmidheiny, saying the case had timed out.

"Damages and compensation are also voided because the crime timed
out before the conviction," the chief justices of the Cassation
Court wrote in a decision released in February. The Court pointed
out that 15 years had passed since the Italian government outlawed
asbestos in 1993 and when it first indicted Schmidheiny in 2009.

"This was well over the 15 years required for the charges to time
out based on (a) 2005 law," the Court wrote. In fact, charges
against him had "timed out even before the trial had started", the
appeals court ruled.

Families of the victims were so outraged that the prosecution
announced they would not drop the case but would try to find other
avenues to follow. Asbestos-linked tumours have been reported
among Eternit staff, their families, and people living near the
factories affected by asbestos dust in the air, while hundreds
more are ill.

Mining of asbestos began in parts of the world in the 19th
century, and the mineral was prized for its insulating abilities.
However, as its dangers to health became better known including
the links between inhaled asbestos fibres and lung cancer,
authorities around the world started to ban its use.

Critics have said that some 2,000 people have died because of the
Eternit plants and their production, including its use as in
insulation. Asbestos-related illness continues, by some estimates
at a pace of about 50 new cases per year. Employees and their
families have long claimed that Eternit did little or nothing to
protect its workers and residents living around its factories from
the dangers of asbestos.

Premier Matteo Renzi last year pledged to change Italy's statute
of limitations amid widespread anger and dismay after
Schmidheiny's conviction was overturned. Meanwhile, Turin
prosecutors said they want to add new charges related to 94 other
deaths from asbestos poisoning, sources said outside the
preliminary hearing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Battles Exeter Uni for Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exeter Express and Echo reported that a retired electrician
"shockingly exposed" to asbestos while working at Exeter
University over 20 years ago is now battling for compensation.

Albert Carder, 85, is suing the University of Exeter for
substantial damages.  He was "routinely exposed" to asbestos while
working in the institution's boiler rooms between 1980 and 1994
his barrister, Harry Steinberg, told London's High Court.  He
described Mr Carder's exposure while working there as "quite
shocking".  He has now been diagnosed as suffering from
asbestosis, said Mr Steinberg, and must live with the possibility
that his condition will deteriorate.

Mr Carder, from Exeter, is afflicted by chronic respiratory
problems, must use oxygen to stay comfortable, and is all but
housebound.

Mr Steinberg explained that much of the electrician's exposure to
asbestos occurred earlier in his working life -- during the 1950s
when he was an apprentice.

But Mr Carder's chances of winning compensation from his then
employers are negligible as they were uninsured, he added.

This means he can only pursue his damages claim against Exeter
University.  That is despite it being agreed that his exposure at
the university represented only a small fraction of his "lifetime
exposure".

The university admits that it breached its duty as an employer by
exposing him to asbestos in the workplace.  But its lawyers are
arguing the relatively small dosage he received on university
premises has made "no discernible difference to his condition".

Mr Carder began developing early symptoms of his lung disease in
1998, the court heard, and by 2013 he could barely walk 100 yards
without feeling breathless.  His symptoms became more acute after
2007, said Mr Steinberg, who added: "This has been a devastating
illness.

"The effect on him has been broadly equivalent to a malignant
disease."

The hearing continues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idaho Fined After Demolishing Bldg. with Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Ridler, writing for The Associated Press, reported that the
Idaho Transportation Department has agreed to pay a $52,000 fine
after demolishing an asbestos-containing building in northern
Idaho and potentially exposing the public to the cancer-causing
fibers.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the agreement
involving the November demolition of the state-owned building in
Priest River.

The federal agency said the state agency failed to check for
asbestos before the demolition, and the EPA only learned of the
demolition after receiving a public complaint. An inspector
checked the debris pile and found materials with up to 55 percent
asbestos.

Asbestos causes lung cancer and other diseases.

"We don't know if workers were exposed in this case," said John
Pavitt of the EPA. "There was no monitoring going on."

He noted that the demolition took place at a well-traveled
intersection with gas stations, possibly exposing passers-by.

In a similar event, the state agency agreed to pay $57,000 in June
2014 after demolishing an asbestos-laden building in the eastern
Idaho city of Rigby.

"We share the EPA's concern regarding workers, supervisors and
public at large in terms of the health risks posed by asbestos,"
said Reed Hollinshead, ITD spokesman, in a statement via email.
"ITD is committed to public safety, and the department will take
every possible measure moving forward to ensure that safety."

Pavitt said in his conversations with the Idaho Transportation
Department there appeared to be some miscommunication between
districts, but state officials told him they were working to solve
that.

"I do have the impression that they are more aware of it now,"
Pavitt said. "They shared with me some changes they're making."

He said a state engineer will now sign off to make sure an
asbestos survey has been conducted before a demolition takes
place.

In the northern Idaho case, about two dump truck loads of
contaminated material had to be removed from the site. It's not
clear how much that cost.

Pavitt said it's often cheaper to do an asbestos survey first to
identify problem materials to be removed rather than have to
remove an entire debris pile after demolition.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Issues Fibro Violations at Shaw Bldg.
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Olenick, writing for Lockport Union-Sun & Journal, reported
that a division of the New York Department of Labor has issued a
"notice of violation and order to comply" containing eight items
identified as "serious," after an investigation into possible
exposure to asbestos-containing materials by workers at the
county-owned Shaw Building on Upper Mountain Road.

A notice from the Public Employee Safety and Health Bureau
describes the nature of the violations and assigns deadlines by
which the county must have them addressed to avoid financial
penalties. Seven of the violations were related to preventative
asbestos awareness, while the eighth stated an exposed electrical
box with live wires, in a basement crawl space in the Shaw
Building, jeopardized employee safety. The report stipulates
compliance deadlines ranging from Aug. 24 to Sept. 29.

The violations, all but one originally shared by PESH with county
officials at a July 9 meeting, ranged from a lack of signs and
labels, to a lack of asbestos testing, identification and a lack
of employee notice of the presence or presumption of asbestos-
containing materials in the building. Under state law, facilities
constructed prior to 1981 must be presumed to hold asbestos and
asbestos-containing materials.

PESH also found a lack of employee asbestos awareness training --
and a violation in the county failing to contain waste and debris
in sealed plastic bags. That last violation was not disclosed to
the county during the July 9 meeting.

In a written statement after the meeting between county and PESH
officials, the county's public information officer, Christian
Peck, called the known violations "minor" and said the county had
already complied with the corrective measures recommended by PESH.
As was pointed out in his statement and PESH's official report,
state investigators found no persistent airborne asbestos or
current health risk at the Shaw Building.

With the release of PESH's written report, Peck said county
administration stands by its characterization of the violations as
"minor." While under PESH terminology they are described as
"serious," PESH typically only terms violations as "serious" or
"non-serious," he said.

William Rutland, president of AFSCME Local 182, who filed a
grievance with the county in late May regarding possible asbestos
exposure by members of the local, asserted that PESH's written
report confirms the county may have put workers in harm's way.

"This union is very saddened that employees working at the Shaw
Building along with the workfare crews and their supervisors have
potential exposure to asbestos," he said in a written statement to
the Union-Sun & Journal. "We agree with the report issued, and
will press forward to ensure the corrections required are
completed by Niagara County in a timely manner. It is disturbing
how Niagara County has tried to deny this having occurred and the
great lengths they have gone to in deceiving county taxpayers."

The state's probe started after Rutland complained AFSCME members
and an unspecified number of Work Relief program participants --
Social Services recipients doing work for the county in exchange
for their benefits -- were possibly exposed to asbestos while the
Work Relief crew cleared junk out of a basement crawl space in the
Shaw Building.

In an attached narrative in the PESH report, it's said that of
five micro-vacuum samples, only one tested positive for asbestos
and that was found at the "foot of the crawl space door."

The narrative also indicates that Work Relief participants found
pieces of insulation interspersed with smaller items that they
transported to a dumpster, but they told state investigators that
they had not removed insulation from pipes in the crawl space.

Peck said a separate county investigation found no workers moved
insulation from the building to either of the nearby dumpsters
that the county had acquired to hold the junk -- old office
equipment, Christmas decorations, et cetera -- being cleared away.

In previous media statements, Peck confirmed that a dumpster
behind the Shaw Building had tested positive for asbestos
containing materials, which is noted in PESH's report. Peck said
administration is investigating to understand how the materials
ended up in the dumpster, suggesting the materials may not have
been placed there when the clean-up and maintenance work in
question was performed.

Dumpsters behind the Shaw Building have since been subject to
treatment by the abatement contractor 56 Services, Inc., a
licensed entity. Peck indicated that PESH approved the assessment
protocols undertaken to dispose of the dumpsters.

Other corrective measures include restricting access to the
basement crawlspace, where a Work Relief participant said he had
handled materials containing asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Shipbuilder Dies from Fibro Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a retired Hampshire ship worker
died from asbestos exposure after more than 25 years in
shipbuilding, an inquest heard.

Frederick Allen, 80, of Sherley Green, Bursledon, inhaled the
deadly fibres while working as a plumber's mate for Vosper
Thorneycroft, Winchester Coroner's Court was told.  He joined the
firm in 1973, fitting and repairing pipes which had been lagged
with asbestos on ships including HMS Southampton.

Mr Allen's breathing had suffered in recent years after retiring
in 1999.  Doctors confirmed last year that asbestos exposure had
damaged his lungs, and he died in Southampton General Hospital on
April 2. A verdict of death due to industrial disease was ruled.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Diagnosed with Fibro-related Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Ward, writing for Your Local Guardian, reported that an
81-year-old widow is appealing for information after she was
diagnosed with an asbestos-related cancer she believes is linked
to handling her late husband's work clothes.

Opal Gibson, had mesothelioma diagnosed in February last year
after experiencing increasing breathlessness and being urged to
visit a doctor by her children.

Mrs Gibson's husband Michael worked for Fry's Metals Ltd -- also
known as Fry's Metal Foundries Ltd and Alpha Fry Ltd, based at the
Tandem Works in Colliers Wood -- prior to his death in 1989 from
the same asbestos-related condition.

Mrs Gibson, who lives in Manor Road, West Wickham, Kent, said:
"Michael worked as a development engineer and supervisor at Fry's
Metals. His office was in a factory where asbestos sheets were cut
and his work clothes were often very dusty when he came home."

Mr Gibson successfully pursued a claim for his own condition
against the company before his death.

Jackie Wood, from Thompson's Solicitors, who is representing Mrs
Gibson, said: "We understand that before his death, Opal's husband
came into regular contact with asbestos dust while working at
Fry's Metals.

"The dust was taken home on his contaminated work clothes.

"We are seeking any information in relation to working conditions
at Frys Metals prior to Mr Gibson's death in 1989.

Mrs Gibson said: "It has been a huge blow to be diagnosed with
mesothelioma, the same condition from which Michael died.

If anyone has any information to help our family, please come
forward and speak to Thompsons."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lichfield Man Dies of Fibro-related Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andy Kerr, writing for Lichfield Mercury, reported that an appeal
is being made for former colleagues of a Lichfield man who died of
an asbestos-related cancer to come forward.

David Pettit, who worked in and around the Lichfield and Stafford
area, contracted mesothelioma, a cancer with symptoms that only
become apparent several decades after initial exposure to just one
asbestos fibre. He died on September 2013 aged 71.

Lawyers acting on behalf of Mr Pettit's family are keen to trace
anyone who worked with him when he was employed as a labourer by
Concrete (Midlands) Limited between 1967 and 1969.

That company subsequently changed its name to Bison Concrete
(Midlands) Limited and was based on Birmingham Road.

Mr Pettit's duties would require him to make pre-cast slabs for
the walls of flats, which Bison Concrete then erected.

As part of his work he would be required to go on site and it is
believed that, during this time he was exposed to asbestos as a
result of working in the vicinity of others working with the
lethal material.

Between approximately 1978 and 1981 Mr Pettit worked as an
Industrial Cleaner at GEC Stafford (now known as Ericson Limited).

As part of his duties there he was required to clean the inside of
boilers, often working inside the vessels for days at a time
scraping out the dirt and grime. It is believed that he was
exposed doing this work as the asbestos lagging on the boilers may
have been disturbed.

The fatal exposure may have occurred when he did other industrial
cleaning for the firm.  He was, for example, also required to
clean busbars (electrical conductors) which were all lagged with
asbestos and this, it is felt, would inevitably have been exposed
him to fibres.

Mr Pettit also worked at Bound Brook Ltd (which later became GKN
Bound Brook Limited) based in Eastern Avenue, Lichfield, between
approximately 1968 and 1980 where he was employed on the Sinter
line.  This work involved him having to put articles onto a wire
which had an asbestos sheet underneath.

These wires were then put into a furnace where the components and
the asbestos became brittle, releasing asbestos fibres in the
process.

The furnaces themselves were also lined with asbestos and
maintenance, which included stripping the asbestos out, was often
carried out while the Sinter operators were working nearby.

Sara Hunt, a partner and legal expert on asbestos claims with
national law firm Access Legal, says Mr Pettit was not provided
with any protective respiratory equipment or warned about the
dangers of working with asbestos.  She is appealing for anyone who
remembers working with David at any of those three companies to
get in touch as they may be able to confirm how and when he came
into contact with the lethal asbestos fibres.

"We hope that anyone who may remember working with David or
working at the companies gets in touch as they may have the
answers that David's wife Doris and his children David, Karen,
Dawn and Helen desperately need. Any information from his former
workmates will help us achieve some sort of justice for Mr Pettit
that recognizes his wholly undeserved suffering".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane Hit with $1.4-Mil. Verdict
------------------------------------------------------
Jody Godoy, writing for Law360, reported that a New York jury has
awarded $1.42 million to the widow of a man who died of
mesothelioma in an asbestos exposure suit against John Crane Inc.,
which the company says will be offset by medical bill payments and
settlements.

According to the report, after a nine-day trial in Erie County
court, Janet Voelker prevailed on her claims against John Crane,
the remaining defendant out of more than 50 companies she and her
husband, William Voelker, initially sued after he was diagnosed
with the fatal lung cancer in 2013.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Solons Attack Niagara County Officer Over Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Prohaska, writing for The Buffalo News, reported that
the leader of the Niagara County Legislature's Democratic minority
and a Democratic candidate for a Legislature seat are calling for
the abolition of the job of county Public Information Officer
Christian W. Peck, whom they accuse of issuing a false press
release over the Shaw Building asbestos case.

Minority Leader Dennis F. Virtuoso said that he may ask
legislators to fire Peck at the Aug. 4 meeting.

"I'm sure we'll talk about it," said Virtuoso, D-Niagara Falls.

After attending a July 9 meeting with officials from the state
Labor Department's Bureau of Public Employee Safety and Health,
Peck issued a news release that said the county would be flagged
for "six minor 'performance violations.' "

When the actual state report came out two weeks later, the county
was charged with eight violations, all of which the state deemed
"serious."

"I'm happy to say that I stand 100 percent by that release," Peck
said Monday.

Democratic politicians said that Peck should be fired for
allegedly giving out false information. Peck, a patronage
appointee, has been a longtime target of the Democratic minority
in the Legislature, which annually files an unsuccessful budget
amendment calling for the abolition of his $59,889-a-year job.

"I think he's misled the public," Virtuoso charged. "First of all,
he's a political hack." The job also is unnecessary, in Virtuoso's
opinion.

"The clerk of the Legislature should be qualified enough to write
press releases. That's what we used to do," Virtuoso said.

Meanwhile, Russell J. DeFranco, the Democratic candidate for 11th
District legislator, called on his opponent, Legislator Anthony J.
Nemi, I-Lockport, to use his clout as the chairman of the
Administration Committee to get rid of Peck, who has been sitting
in on the county's investigative interviews on the asbestos case.
County Manager Jeffrey M. Glatz has promised the Legislature that
he will hold accountable the persons or persons responsible for
allowing welfare workers to remove asbestos from the basement of
the Shaw Building, the headquarters of the Health and Mental
Health departments, without protective gear.

The asbestos was removed in late May, but the state report
indicated it appeared to be a small amount found on the floor,
apparently pipe wrapping that fell off. However, there was
significant asbestos in the basement crawl space.

DeFranco, a former Niagara Falls policeman, said he was "shocked"
to learn of Peck's attendance at the interviews. He criticized
Nemi for allegedly trying to belittle blue-collar union president
William Rutland, who reported the asbestos situation to state and
federal authorities.

"We should all expect my opponent to look out for the county
workers first and not his hired political operative," DeFranco
said. "As a fiscal conservative, it's clear to me that eliminating
this wasteful public information officer position should happen
immediately. The taxpayers should not have to foot the bill any
longer for a wasteful political position. I call on Chairman Nemi
to take the lead, eliminate this position, and put the taxpayers
first."

Nemi said, "I attended the same meeting Mr. Peck did. What he was
reporting is what we were told in the closure meeting. The word
'serious' never came up in the closure meeting."

He dismissed the motion of terminating Peck. "I think Mr. Peck's
doing a fine job," Nemi said.

As for sitting in on meetings, "It was my idea," Peck said. "This
has become a media story. If I have to speak credibly on this
issue, I want to speak from first-hand knowledge."

He said the violations the state cited were called serious only
because asbestos was involved.

Peck added, "We're getting dinged for a (lack of) labels in a
dirty crawl space. We're getting dinged for not having plastic
garbage bags. We're getting dinged for not having asbestos
training."

"They made up total falsehoods," Rutland charged. "I was accused
of scaring the public. The public should be scared that the county
hired someone to spread lies."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metro Cars Contain Fibro, Documents Show
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Tuss and Scott MacFarlane, writing for NBC Washington,
reported that as Metro works to retire the oldest railcars in its
fleet, known as the 1000-series railcars, a new issue has
surfaced: asbestos.

Metro's 1000-series railcars contain "a small amount of asbestos
in the heater box behind the evaporator in each railcar,"
according to a contract proposal from the transit agency (PDF).

Right now there are 280 1000-series railcars that run on every
line of the Metro system.

"These 40-year-old vehicles have a small amount of asbestos that
is sealed outside the passenger cabin and not accessible to
riders," Metro spokesperson Sherri Ly wrote in an email.

"It is also important to note that, aside from being completely
inaccessible to riders and outside the passenger cabin, the
material is also non-friable, meaning it cannot be crumbled and
will not release fibers unless it is abraded" -- that is, sawed or
drilled through," said Metro spokesman Dan Stessel.

"It does not pose a hazard to riders. The only reason for this
procurement action is due of the imminent disposal of the cars,"
Stessel said.

Metro also has three 1000-series railcars where the asbestos is
exposed. But those railcars -- numbers 1079, 1107 and 1170 -- have
not been in service since 2009, Ly said.

Metro is asking a contractor to safely remove and dispose of the
asbestos and then retire the railcars. Also, this new contract
proposal states, "if the Contractor discovers additional asbestos,
Contractor will remove it at no additional cost to the Authority."

While Metro would not say specifically where the equipment
containing the asbestos is located, a 2009 document (PDF) says the
evaporator units are located at the front and end of each 1000-
series railcar.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, exposure to
asbestos increases the risk of developing lung disease and lung
cancer.

Metro passengers can easily tell which series of railcar they're
riding on by looking at the number on the top corner outside the
railcar. On the inside of the 1000-series, the railcar number is
printed on the doors at the end of the railcars.

"I thought asbestos was completely gone almost everywhere," said
Metro rider Kon Yi Tuesday. "I'll be avoiding those (railcars) as
much as possible."

"Good gracious," said one train operator who asked to be kept
anonymous when told about the issue. "We are the ones constantly
in the trains."

A spokesperson for Amalgamated Transit Union local 689, which
represents most front line Metro workers, was looking over the
documents and not immediately available for comment.

Metro has been told by the National Transportation Safety Board to
get rid of the 1000-series railcars, which date back to the
opening of the transit system.

Metro says it is working on it.

"As the (new) 7000-series railcars enter service, Metro will begin
the process of retiring every 1000-series railcar," writes Ly. As
soon as the asbestos can be removed, that is.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Probe Leads to Jail Term in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Freedman, writing for Great Lakes Echo, reported that the
president of a Toledo development company has received a 30-day
jail term and must repay the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
for the costs of cleaning up illegally dumped asbestos from a
demolition project.

Lucas County Common Pleas Judge Ian English also ordered Donzell
Moore to perform 240 hours of community service and placed him on
probation -- called community control in Ohio -- for three years.
He had faced up to one year behind bars.

The company, Moorhouse Real Estate Development LLC, also pleaded
guilty, was fined $10,750 and is jointly liable with Moore to pay
$25,274 restitution to the state EPA.

The charges arose after pipe insulation containing asbestos was
discovered in November 2012 illegally dumped on vacant land west
of Nature Conservancy property in Monclova Township, the EPA said.
The insulation was friable, meaning it could be easily crumbled,
releasing asbestos fibers into the air.

"Our investigator spent a couple of months there collecting
leads," EPA press officer Dina Pierce said.

In addition, the agency issued a public request for assistance to
identify those responsible for the dumping, resulting in a citizen
tip that led to the man who did the actual illegal dumping, a
scrap worker named Ronald Gibson.

Pierce said Gibson admitted dumping the contaminated debris both
at the outdoor site and in trash bins at a West Toledo apartment
complex, according to Pierce. He was sentenced in April to one
year in jail, a fine of $750 and restitution of $5,374.

Gibson led investigators to Moore, who had paid him to remove the
pipe insulation from the former Champion Spark Plug facility in
Toledo in preparation for demolishing a building, authorities said
in a statement.

Pierce said Moore's company was a contractor doing demolition at
the time of the illegal dumping. The company later bought the
property.

The grand jury indictment alleged that Moore and his company "did
recklessly solicit or procure" Gibson to carry out the illegal
work

Moore and Moorhouse Development pleaded guilty to felony charges
of complicity to engage in asbestos hazard abatement activity
without a license and misdemeanor charges of complicity to
illegally dispose of construction and demolition debris. Nobody
else was charged in the case.

The Northwest Ohio Environmental Crimes Task Force carried out the
investigation with assistance from the Toledo Division of
Environmental Services and state Health Department's Environmental
Abatement Section. The state Attorney General's office prosecuted
the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idaho Dept. Fails to Perform Fibro Inspection
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has settled with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over federal asbestos
violations at a building demolition site near Priest River in
northern Idaho's Panhandle. According to the EPA, ITD failed to
inspect a former commercial building located in Priest River,
Idaho for possible asbestos contamination prior to its demolition
and failed to notify EPA of its intent to demolish the building.
The settlement includes a $51,986 penalty.

In November of 2014, the "Jachetta" building in Priest River,
Idaho was demolished by state workers without a thorough advance
asbestos inspection and without properly reporting the project to
the EPA. According to case documents, ITD hired a consultant only
after it demolished the building, in response to a public
complaint. The retained consultant found materials with a range of
2% -- 55% asbestos in the debris pile. ITD then hired a certified
asbestos clean-up contractor who completely removed a total of 14
cubic yards (two truckloads) of contaminated debris by early
December 2014.

Ed Kowalski, Director of EPA's Office of Enforcement, admitted
frustration with ITD's continuing lack of diligence in responsible
asbestos management.

"Despite assurance from ITD that they will closely follow asbestos
regulations and protect their workers, we are still issuing
penalties on what should be straightforward project management,"
said EPA's Kowalski. "We're confident that our enforcement and
compliance program will ultimately help them to realize the value
of doing the right thing."

Under federal asbestos law, building owners are required to
inspect and report the presence of any asbestos products before
starting demolition. ITD did not inspect the building prior to
demolition or report the planned demolition to the EPA.

Asbestos are fibers that occur in rocks and soil, commonly found
in building materials such as floor tiles, roofing shingles, paper
products, heat resistant fabrics, packaging, gaskets and coatings.
The release of asbestos fibers can negatively affect human health
causing lung disease, lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.

The EPA has regulated asbestos since the 1970's to protect public
health.

As recently as June 2014, the EPA settled another asbestos
enforcement case with ITD that involved similar charges at a
building in Rigby, Idaho. That case included a $55,800 penalty.
For more information on how to keep your family safe from asbestos
in your community and home, please visit EPA's asbestos website.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builder Denies Exposing Workers to Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that the company contracted to remove asbestos
from Hobart's Parliament Square development has denied exposing
its workers to the substance.

Macquarie Builders pleaded not guilty in the Magistrates Court in
Hobart to one charge of failing to comply with its health and
safety duty at the site.

The alleged breach relates to site workers being exposed to
asbestos fibres at the Salamanca Place site over nine days in
January and February, 2013.

The court heard at least 20 witnesses would be called if the
matter went to a hearing and it is likely to take more than a day
to get through all the evidence.

The matter has been adjourned until November.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Rejects $1.4MM Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric Stock, writing for WJBC.com, reported that an Illinois
appeals court has thrown out a $1.4 million verdict in a McLean
County asbestos case and called for a new trial.

A McLean County jury in January 2014 ordered Illinois Central
Railroad Company to pay the verdict for James Smith who suffers
from asbestosis, a chronic lung disease caused by inhaling
asbestos fibers.

The 4th District Appellate Court in Springfield ruled that
attorneys for the railroad company should have been allowed to
tell the jury that Smith had also worked at the (Union Asbestos &
Rubber Company) UNARCO facility at the Bloomington rail yard prior
to working for the railroad.

Dozens of former UNARCO workers and in some cases, their surviving
family members, have sued the company for asbestos exposure and
won verdicts totaling in the millions of dollars.

"While defendant had no obligation to do so, it should have been
allowed to present evidence of plaintiff's UNARCO work experience
in an attempt to establish plaintiff's exposure at UNARCO was to
blame for plaintiff's asbestosis should the jury find plaintiff
had asbestosis," presiding justice Carol Pope wrote in the
unanimous opinion. "Because the trial court did not allow
defendant to present this evidence, once the jury found plaintiff
had asbestosis, it could only conclude the asbestosis was caused
by plaintiff's exposure to asbestos while working for defendant."

UNARCO moved to Bloomington in 1951 and was closed in 1972. The
company filed for bankruptcy in 1982

No trial date has been set.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Heating Engineers in Court Over Toxic Dust
-----------------------------------------------------------
Health and Safety Executive reported that a Stockport, England
heating engineering firm were sentenced after two of its engineers
were exposed to asbestos while working at a Manchester school.

Trafford Magistrates' Court heard Flueclean were contracted to
replace boilers in the boiler room of the school.

However, two of Flueclean's gas engineers were exposed to asbestos
when they took the side panels off boilers which had asbestos
insulation on the boiler casing.

Flueclean Installations Services Limited Lytham Street Works, Shaw
Heath, Stockport, Cheshire, pleaded guilty to breaching
Regulations 6(1) and 11(1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations
2012 and was fined GBP4,000 for each breach with GBP3,517 costs.

HSE inspector Kevin Jones said after the hearing: "Asbestos is the
greatest cause of work related deaths in the UK with over 4,000
deaths arising from past exposure.

"Contractors have a duty to ensure they protect their workers from
the risk of exposure to asbestos and must properly plan any work
which is likely to disturb it.

"In this case, Flueclean Installations Services Limited failed to
carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment which if they
had would have clearly identified that the work should have been
carried out by a licensed asbestos contractor. As a result of this
failing, two of their operatives were exposed to asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dalton Granddad Dies Due to Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
North-West Evening Mail reported that the family of a former
shipyard manager who was made an MBE has paid tribute after the
inquest into his death showed he died as a result of working with
asbestos.

Retired boat manager Joe Bennett, aged 72, died at his Dalton home
in Barnes Avenue on February 2 this year.  The inquest was told Mr
Bennet had a history of "significant" asbestos exposure during his
time in Barrow shipyard, where he worked on around 20 vessels.
Assistant Cumbria coroner Robert Chapman recorded a conclusion of
death as a result of industrial disease.

Mr Bennett started his career with Vickers Armstrong in August
1958 as an electrical apprentice.  He was promoted through the
system to supervisory roles, and became boat manager, latterly
overseeing HMS Vengeance -- the last of the four Trident-carrying
Vanguard submarines.

The grandfather-of-four was married to Margaret for almost 50
years, passing away 18 days before their golden anniversary, and
was dad to Melanie and Gary.

Mr Bennett was awarded an MBE in 2000 -- the same year he retired
-- for services to the defence industry.

A family statement said: "The world will not be the same without
him. He was so brave and faced his illness head-on as he did every
challenge in his life.

"We are left with a collection of very happy, most precious
memories of the most amazing, wonderful man.

"To his children and his grandchildren, he was a hero and he was a
constant source of inspiration. To Margaret, he was Joe, her best
friend, her soulmate."

Mr Bennett was a talented crown green bowls player. He played for
West Shore Bowling Club and then Lindal Bowling Club, winning many
competitions and merit trophies and representing the county.

His family said: "The bowling club was a big part of Joe's life.

"We have been left with many a happy memory from being round the
side of the bowling green and all the children playing happily
together at the celebrations in the cricket/bowling."

The pathologist's report ruled the cause of death was malignant
mesothelioma and asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Claims Cigars with Fibro Causes Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Zinck, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a tobacco
company secretly included asbestos in one of its cigarette brands
in the 1950s and caused a woman's mesothelioma, her lawsuit says.

Katherine S. Jones filed the lawsuit July 9 in U.S. District Court
in Missouri against RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Hollingsworth &
Vose Co., claiming the Kent brand of cigarettes gave her
mesothelioma from the asbestos in the filter.

The cigarettes were manufactured between 1952 and 1957. The
lawsuit claims the asbestos was included in the Micronite filter
in the cigarette. Lorillard Tobacco Co., the name of the company
at the time the cigarettes were made, advertised the filter as a
"health protection" to smokers.

The suit further claims the company knew about the health risks
that asbestos carried, but didn't tell customers.

"Lorillard was during this time period engaged in a fraudulent
conspiracy to cover-up the health effects of smoking which
included..publicly stating that no harmful ingredient had been
identified in cigarette smoke," the lawsuit said.

Jones is seeking more than $10 million for compensatory damages,
$100 million in punitive damages, plus court costs in the lawsuit.

She is represented by Dawn M. Besserman, Esq. --
dbesserman@mrhfmlaw.com -- of Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd
LLC in St. Louis.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case
number 4:15-cv-01062.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dec. 14 Set as EFH Fibro Claims Filing Date
------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Future Holdings Corp., Ebasco Services, Inc., EECI, Inc.
and certain subsidiaries ("EFH") owned, operated, maintained, or
built certain power plants across the United States and in other
countries where asbestos was present.  Workers at these power
plants (and family members and others who came into contact with
these workers) may have been exposed to asbestos.

Anyone who has a claim today against EFH for asbestos-related
illness or who may develop an asbestos-related illness in the
future, must submit a claim by December 14, 2015 to be eligible
for compensation now or in the future.

Asbestos is a fiber which was used as insulation in walls, wires,
pipes, boilers, generators, steam traps, pumps, valves, electrical
boards, gaskets, packing material, turbines, compressors, cement
and cement pipes. Workers responsible for building and maintaining
power plants and equipment also wore insulated clothing or gear
that may have contained asbestos.  Virtually all power plants
built before 1980 used or contained asbestos-containing products.

Asbestos-related illnesses can be very serious or fatal and
include diseases such as mesothelioma, lung cancer, laryngeal
cancer, esophageal cancer, pharyngeal cancer, stomach cancer and
asbestosis. Even if an individual's exposure to asbestos was many
years ago and they are not sick today, this notice could affect
them. Asbestos-related illness can occur decades and even 50 years
after the exposure to asbestos that caused the illness.

Workers or a family member could have been exposed at any of the
power plants related to EFH.  These power plants were located
across the United States and some in foreign countries. For a list
of the included power plants, visit the website below or call 1-
877-276-7311.

Individuals could have been exposed to asbestos if they or a
family member worked at any of the included power plants as an
employee, a contractor, or in any other role. Individuals also
could have been exposed by coming in contact with another person
who worked at a power plant (for example, if asbestos was brought
home on a spouse or parent's clothing). Claims may also be filed
on behalf of a deceased family member.

For anyone who may have been exposed to asbestos at an included
plant, the deadline to submit a claim is December 14, 2015 at 5:00
P.M. Eastern. Claims can be filed online at
www.EFHAsbestosClaims.com. Paper claim forms can be downloaded
from the website or requested by calling 1-877-276-7311. If an
individual is not ill today, completing a claim form takes about
five minutes.

Those who do not submit a claim and later develop asbestos-related
disease will not be eligible for compensation from EFH. Even
workers who have not been diagnosed with disease or have not
experienced symptoms must file a claim to preserve their right to
compensation if they develop an asbestos-related illness in the
future.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Exeter Univ Worker Wins Fibro Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Exeter Express and Echo reported that a retired electrician
exposed to asbestos while working at Exeter University over 20
years has spoken of his "huge relief" after winning the right to
compensation.

Albert Carder, 85, sued the university after he was exposed to the
potentially fatal substance while working in boiler rooms between
1980 and 1994.

His barrister Harry Steinberg described the case as "quite
shocking".

He has been diagnosed with asbestosis, London's High Court heard,
and must live with the possibility that his condition will
deteriorate.

Mr Carder, from Exeter, is afflicted by chronic respiratory
problems, must use oxygen to stay comfortable and is all but
housebound.

Mr Carder said: "It's a huge relief for this case to have finally
settled and to also know that I can return to court, should my
condition deteriorate, which is of great comfort to me and my
family.

"In those days asbestos was thought to be a wonderful thing;
unfortunately we were not made aware of the dangers."

Mr Carder says that prior to his illness he was an incredibly
agile person and enjoyed dancing with his wife at least four times
a week. Previously he weighed 15 stone, but is now a mere six
stone and very much housebound.

The lawyers representing Mr Carder, Moore Blatch solicitors, said
the High Court decision is important and will influence other
asbestos cases.

Michael Osborne, Moore Blatch asbestos-related disease lawyer,
said it is very common for people to have been exposed to asbestos
by more than one employer.

The firm regularly handles these types of cases and in relation to
asbestosis claims, there are established principles that each
employer will be liable to contribute to any compensation for
their proportion of the exposure.

This contribution has always been subject to employers being able
to demonstrate that their proportion of the exposure was minimal
or too insignificant to have caused any damage and to warrant
compensation.

The difficulty for legal experts has always been what constitutes
insignificant exposure.

Mr Osborne said: "This case goes a long way to explain what
insignificant exposure means and we can now confidently say that
it must be less than 2.3 per cent of the total exposure to
asbestos.

"We believe that the outcome of this case will help other clients,
where the amount of asbestos exposure is assessed to be low, using
the current decision as an authority, encouraging earlier
settlements."

The court heard most of the Mr Carder's exposure occurred earlier
in his working life -- during the 1950s when he was an apprentice
electrician.

But Mr Carder's chances of winning damages from his then employers
were negligible as they were uninsured.

It was agreed that his exposure whilst working at the university
represented only a small fraction of his "lifetime exposure".

The university admitted it had breached its duty as Mr Carder's
employer.

But its lawyers claimed the relatively small dosage he received at
the university had made "no discernible difference to his
condition."

Mr Carder first began developing early symptoms of his lung
disease in 1998 and, by 2013, he could barely walk 100 yards
without feeling breathless.

His symptoms became more acute in 2007

Ruling on the case Judge Alan Gore QC said: "I find that he did
suffer damage and injury that was actionable.

"He has proved his case against the university -- even though its
contribution was very small."

The judge said that if the university had been entirely
responsible for Mr Carder's condition, he would have ordered it to
pay around GBP70,000 damages.

The fractitional exposure suffered by Mr Carder at the university
entitled him to just a proportion of that sum -- a total of
GBP1,552.

However, Judge Gore's ruling means that Mr Carder can return to
court to seek further compensation should his condition worsen in
future.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Pipefitter Dies of Fibro Disease
--------------------------------------------------------
Scunthorpe Telegraph reported that a former pipefitter died after
being exposed to asbestos more than 50 years ago, an inquest in
Scunthorpe heard.

Carl Hall, 81, of Newborn Court, Epworth, was helping to build a
new by-product plant in Scunthorpe from 1959 to 1961 when he was
exposed to the insulation material.  He was diagnosed with
"malignant Mesothelioma" -- a type of cancer predominantly caused
by exposure to asbestos and died on April 25 at the Lindsey Lodge
Hospice.

At an inquest into his death, held at the Civic Centre in
Scunthorpe, a letter written by Mr Hall before his death detailed
his work building a new by-product plant at Normanby.

Winterton headteacher John Fitzgerald retires after 25 years
He said the pipes would be insulated with Asbestos, which was
mixed with water and gave off dust next to where they were
working.  He said it was very bad when a breeze was blowing and it
would get into their overalls.

Mr Hall's wife Barbara told the inquest her husband had been
"perfectly well" up until the last year of his life when he
developed a cough.

Coroner Paul Kelly ruled Mr Hall died as the result of an
industrial disease following exposure to asbestos in a work-
related environment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Mechanic Ask for $19MM in Fibro Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that in perhaps the most
compelling example of how deadly Mesothelioma can be, and how
quickly it can kill, a former mechanic who was alleged to have
inhaled asbestos dust while in the workplace died from asbestos
mesothelioma just three months after his diagnosis. There was no
opportunity for the victim, Pablo Gonzalez, to file asbestos
claims. His surviving family did it for him.

According to court documents, Gonzalez was a lifelong mechanic who
worked on products manufactured by Caterpillar Inc. and Victor
Gasket Manufacturing Co. (now owned by Dana Holding Corp). The
plaintiffs in the asbestos lawsuit claimed that Caterpillar
manufactured and vended machines that contained parts made with
asbestos. The plaintiffs further alleged that Caterpillar sold
those products from the 1920s through 1990, and while allegedly
knowing that asbestos dust was toxic as early as 1959, the company
failed to affix asbestos warnings to its products until 1984.

As for Dana Holding Corp., the company had purchased Victor Gasket
Manufacturing Co., an enterprise that manufactured gaskets used in
machinery. It is alleged by the plaintiffs in their asbestos
claims that Victor had received customer complaints as early as
1970 about unacceptable levels of asbestos dust in gasket
packaging, yet failed to place warning labels on gasket packaging
until 1985 -- fifteen years later. It is also alleged by the
plaintiffs that Victor had developed an alternative to asbestos
gaskets in 1980, yet continued manufacturing and distributing
gaskets containing asbestos until 1988.

During closing arguments on July 31) in a Miami court, the family
asked for $19 million in asbestos compensation. "The reality is,
it's a simple case," said attorney Marc P. Kunen, who represented
the plaintiffs in the asbestos lawsuit. "Remember: It's asbestos.
They're not going to say that it's ever safe. It's a deadly
substance. It's a known human carcinogen.

"If you breathe it, it's going to kill you."

The Gonzalez family asserted that warnings on products
manufactured by Caterpillar and Victor/Dana failed to recommend
the use of a respirator while working with the products, and
failed to specifically warn against the possibility of asbestos
cancer or death.

Pablo Gonzalez died in 2011 at age 79. The jury assigned to the
case began deliberations in Miami July 31. As of August 3, there
had been no verdict in the asbestos injury lawsuit.

The case is Gonzalez v. Bennett Auto Supply, Case No. 2013-CA-
031838, in the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lothian Councils Pay GBP700K to Fibro Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edinburgh News reported that councils in the Lothians, in
Scotland, have forked out more than GBP700,000 in the past seven
years to victims of asbestos.

Compensation has been paid to council workers and their families
from Edinburgh, Midlothian and West Lothian following exposure to
the deadly powder.

Edinburgh paid out GBP325,000 in one single claim last year --
believed to be the largest asbestos compensation payment the local
authority has ever made.

Asbestos is a fibrous building material that can prove lethal when
disturbed, releasing tiny crystals which cause killer illnesses,
including chronic lung disease and some deadly forms of lung
cancer, if they are inhaled.  It was regularly used in buildings
from the 1950s until the late-1990s when it was banned.

With the number of people diagnosed with mesothelioma, an
asbestos-related cancer, in NHS Lothian more than doubling in the
past 20 years, experts warn the number of claims will continue to
rise.

New figures, released under Freedom of Information, show that the
city council has paid out GBP356,800 in the past five years to
victims of asbestos. Midlothian Council has paid out GBP152,700
since 2008 and West Lothian Council paid out GBP196,817 in a
settlement to an ex-council worker who developed asbestos-related
lung disease.

In 2004, Edinburgh spent millions of pounds to remove asbestos
from council buildings, including schools and public buildings.

Five years later, in 2009, the council was fined GBP14,000 after
exposing ten of its employees to asbestos dust at Castlebrae
Community High School.

Work on the new Royal Commonwealth Pool was delayed in 2012 after
the discovery of the deadly substance.

Professor John Cherrie, from the Institute of Occupational
Medicine and professor of human health at Heriot-Watt University,
said asbestos-related cancer was "essentially incurable".

He said: "There has been an increase in claims because it takes a
long time from when you are exposed to when you show symptoms, it
can take 40 years-plus.

"Someone who worked as an apprentice in their 20s may not have
symptoms till they are in their 60s.

"Unfortunately, all cancers in the lung are essentially incurable
and very few people survive for five years. With mesothelioma,
many people die within a year of being diagnosed.

"It is estimated there are around 2500 cases of mesothelioma in
the UK each year and this is projected to increase and then peak
around 2020.

"In the worst case -- of someone exposed to atrocious working
conditions -- we can predict they have around a one-in-ten chance
of developing asbestos-related disease."

A city council spokeswoman said: "The city council has provided
compensation to a small number of individuals in recent years in
relation to historical exposure to asbestos.

"We are unable to comment further on any individual cases."


                            *********

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.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, 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  * * *