CAR_Public/150918.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, September 18, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 187


                            Headlines


A AND L JANITORIAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Payroll Records
AIR CANADA: Class Suit Filed Over Discount Ticket Glitch
AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
AXA EQUITABLE: Removed "O'Donnell" Class Suit to D. Connecticut
BAJA INC: Recalls Mini Bikes Due to Fall and Crash Hazard

BLYTH INC: Marc Henzel Law Firm Probing Securities
BOSCH SECURITY: Recalls Wireless Smoke Alarms Due to Fire Hazard
BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Colberg" Suit Over Packaged Seafood Products
BUMBLE BEE: Faces 2nd "Colberg" Suit Over Seafood Products
BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Moon" Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing

BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Musgrave" Suit Over Packaged Seafood Products
BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing
CABRINHA KITES: Recalls Kiteboard Control Systems
CAH ACQUISITION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
CALIFORNIA: Prisons to Change Solitary Confinement Rules

CENTERLINE COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CHIPOTLE: Facing Class Action Suit Over GMO Claims
COOPERVISION: Faces "Izumoto" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COOPERVISION: Faces "Khanna" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
CR BARD: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Eclipse Filter Design

DCI BIOLOGICALS: 11 Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Blood Donor's Suit
DE'LONGHI AMERICA: Recalls Blenders Due to Laceration Hazard
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sued in Texas Over Pinnacle Device Design
DR HORTON: Appeals Court Revives Class Claims in "Chiang"
FLINT, MI: Judge Says Challenge to Water Rates Can Be Class Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Has $900MM Deal to Settle Ignition Switch Cases
GOOGLE: Hausfeld Launches Platform on Pursuing Claims
GRANGE INDEMNITY: Ohio High Court Reinstates Trial Court Judgment
HOVG LLC: Motion for Leave to Amend Suit Granted in Part
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Appeals Court Revives Class Cert. Bid

IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Crib Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard
JAMILY F. PEDRO: "Mello" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Xarelto Drug Safety
JURATOYS US: Recalls Fishing Games Due to Choking Hazard
LOS ANGELES, CA: Bus Drivers' Class Suit Settled for $1-Mil.

LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces "Albarran" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces "Carson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LOTA USA: Recalls  Kitchen Faucets Due to Fire & Burn Hazards
MARS INC: Faces "Wirth" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Slave Labor
MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit

MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
ME'KONG DELTA: Faces "Mims" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Stays Proceedings in "Murray"
MTN PRODUCTS: Recalls Water Dispensers Due to Fire Hazard
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Trims Claims in "Robinson" Suit

NORTH LAKE: "Velasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY: Bid to Amend Class Definition Okayed
ON DECK: October 5, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
OUR CHILDREN'S: "Villafana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PANASONIC CORPORATION: Recalls Cutter Saw Kits Due to Injury Risk

PEOPLE'S UNITED: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Activists Watch School District Suit Closely
PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Halogen Bulbs Due to Laceration Hazard
PINNACLE ENGINEERING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE: Circulation of Notice Granted in Part

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Houston" Suit Over Meal Breaks
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces 2nd "Houston" Suit Over Meal Breaks
REJUVENATION OF PORTLAND: Recalls Shaker Chairs & Bar Stools
RJ REYNOLDS: Faces "Feinman" Suit Over Alleged Breach of Contract
RUSTIC CANYON: Faces Class Suit Over Price-Fixing Accusations

SANJEL (USA): "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SEGWAY INC: Recalls Off-Board Charger Due to Shock Hazard
SENJU PHARMACEUTICALS: Delaware Court Dismisses Hartig Lawsuit
SOLARWINDS INC: September 29 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
STERICYCLE INC: Faces "Clemens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TECHNICAL CONSUMER: Recalls LED Downlights Due to Shock Hazard
THUNDER BAY, ONTARIO: 2nd Flood Class Action Discontinued
TOYS "R" US: Faces "Labenski" Suit Over Parking Lot Barriers
UBER: Labor Lawsuit Granted Class Status in California
WORLD OF PUPS: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

* Judges Say Watchdogs and Class Action Attys Could Unite Forces


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ch. 7 Trustee Directed to Refile Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Environmental Had 202 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,266 PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has 59,000 American Optical PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 40,090 Pending Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle Continues to Defend Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Has Adequate Reserve for Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $570-Mil. Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $617MM Fibro Receivables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 1,046 New Fibro Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 44,587 Fibro Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Settled 110,000 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Recorded $600MM Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. Unit Has 166 Pending PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,398 PI Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had $136.81MM Fibro Receivable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Brandies Uni Dormitories
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DIY Renos May Create New Wave of Fibro Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurance Firms "Buying Off" Fibro Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Fined $1.8MM Over Worker's Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Employee Files $1B Fibro Exposure Class Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Spill Causes Major Health Scare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Denies Fibro Firms' Bid to Junk RICO Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Fibro-Related Deaths On the Rise
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Ordered to Make New Rules for Fibro Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC Court Rejects Causation Arguments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TAS Primary Students Exposed to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Traces Found at Bundaberg Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovered at Marcellus Central School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Insurance to Pay $36MM in Fibro Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Custodian's Illness Caused by Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Officeworks Pulls Out Crayons Amidst Fibro Fears
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Conneaut Elem. School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: VA Hospital Exposed Workers to Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Fleet Settles $19.4MM Fibro Class Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peritoneal Mesothelioma Rates Higher in Italy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Seeks Answer to Father's Fibro Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found After Fire in Seaforth School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Rates in ACT Increases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Cites New Occupational Fibro Exposure Stats

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Church Thieves Exposed to Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverse Motorola Fibro Class Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Companies Reminded to Follow Fibro Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R&Q Sued Over Toxic Dust Injury Claims


                            *********


A AND L JANITORIAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Payroll Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension
Fund v. A and L Janitorial Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01485 (D.C., September 10, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide payroll review records to the
Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension
Fund, so that the SEIU Pension Fund may perform an audit to verify
that the Defendant has remitted the appropriate amount of
contributions to the SEIU Pension Fund.

A and L Janitorial Service, Inc. owns and operates a cleaning
services company located at 1301 Beacon Avenue, Pittsburg, CA
94401.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Olga Metelitsa, Esq.
      MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C.
      1920 L Street, NW, Suite 400
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 783-0010
      Facsimile: (202) 783-6088
      E-mail: ometelitsa@moonneygreen.com


AIR CANADA: Class Suit Filed Over Discount Ticket Glitch
--------------------------------------------------------
CTV Vancouver reported that a British Columbia law firm has filed
a proposed class action lawsuit over Air Canada's discount ticket
debacle in August.

Munroe & Company alleges the airline broke consumer protection
laws after it sold pricey business class packages at an enormous
discount then refused to honour them.


"After repossessing the flight passes, Air Canada deleted
information from its website and misrepresented its contractual
rights to consumers," the law firm said in its summary of action.

Customers flocked to the Air Canada website in late August after
it was discovered the airline was selling 10-leg Western Canada
flight passes for just $800 -- a 90 per cent discount from the
usual cost of $8,000.

Air Canada blamed the pricing on a computer glitch and apologized,
but said it would not be honouring the flight credits, save for
ones that had already been booked.

Munroe & Company alleges after the error was discovered, Air
Canada also removed a section of its Frequently Asked Questions
web page that promised flight pass prices are "guaranteed."

The firm said it has filed similar suits in both B.C. Supreme
Court and the Supreme Court of Quebec.

If the suit is certified as a class action, people who purchased
the discounted flight passes may be automatically included as
class members, Munroe & Company said.


AVALANCHE BIOTECH: 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 New York on behalf of
those who purchased shares of Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc.
("Avalanche Biotechnologies" or the "Company") (NasdaqGM: AAVL),
(1) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus (defined below) issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering on or about July 31, 2014
(the "IPO" or the "Offering"); (2) and/or on the open market
between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose that Phase 2a of the AVA-101 study was not
designed to show any statistical significance between the active
and control groups in the secondary endpoints.

On May 14, 2015, Avalanche issued the press release entitled,
"Avalanche Biotechnologies Presents Three Posters at American
Society of Gene & Cell Therapy (ASGCT) Annual Meeting." The press
release discussed Phase 2a of the AVA-101 study.

After the market closed on June 15, 2015, the Company issued a
press release entitled, "Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. Announces
Positive Top-Line Phase 2a Results for AVA-101 in Wet Age-Related
Macular Degeneration."  Avalanche said that the company's
treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration met its primary
endpoint, however, in a conference call to discuss Phase 2
clinical trial results, the company indicated that the study
wasn't designed to show statistically significant differences
between active and control groups.

Following this news, the Company's stock fell $21.83 per share, or
over 56% to close at $17.05 per share on June 16, 2015.

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 Avalanche you have until September 8, 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.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
60 East 42nd Street Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Fax: (212) 697-7296
info@bgandg.com


AXA EQUITABLE: Removed "O'Donnell" Class Suit to D. Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Axa Equitable Life
Insurance Company, Case No. NNH-CV15-6056844-S, was removed from
the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven to
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01347 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts a claim for violation of the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Slossberg, Esq.
      David L. Belt, Esq.
      HURWITZ, SAGARIN, SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC
      147 North Broad Street
      P.O. Box 112
      Milford, CT 06460
      Telephone: (203) 877-8000

The Defendant is represented by:

      David R. Schaefer, Esq.
      BRENNER, SALTZMAN & WALLMAN LLP
      271 Whitney Avenue
      New Haven, CT 06511
      Telephone: (203) 772-2600
      Facsimile: (203) 562-2098
      E-mail: dschaefer@bswlaw.com

         - and -

      Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
      Kurt Wm. Hemr, Esq.
      SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
      Four Times Square
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 735-3000
      Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
      E-mail: Jay.Kasner@skadden.com
              Kurt.Hemr@skadden.com


BAJA INC: Recalls Mini Bikes Due to Fall and Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Baja Inc. d/b/a Baja Motorsports, of Anderson, S.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,600 Mini bikes. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The front fork can separate from the wheel, posing fall and crash
hazards to riders.

This recall involves Baja Motorsports gas-powered mini bikes
manufactured during November 2014 and December 2014.  The recalled
mini bikes have a black frame with a black padded seat, a storage
tank and fenders that are camouflage, side reflectors, a headlight
and a tail light. A decal with model number "Baja Warrior 200"
inside a circle with wings attached is on both sides of the
storage tank. The date of manufacture is printed on the bottom
right of the Vehicle Emissions Control Information label in the
MM/YY format. The label is attached to the front side of the
engine.

The firm has received 22 reports of the front forks separating
from the wheel, including 11 reports of minor injuries.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Tractor Supply Company stores from February 2015 through August
2015 for about $650.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mini bikes
and contact Baja Motorsports to schedule a free repair.


BLYTH INC: Marc Henzel Law Firm Probing Securities
--------------------------------------------------
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
   -------                                       ------------
   Blyth, Inc. (NYSE: BTH)
   Cameron International
      Corporation (NYSE: CAM)
   AAC Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: ACC)             10/4/14 thru 8/3/15
   CaesarStone Sdot-Yam Ltd. (Nasdaq: CSTE)   3/25/13 thru 8/18/15
   Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras
      SA (NYSE: EBR)                          8/17/10 thru 6/24/15
   El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.
      (Nasdaq: LOCO)                          5/15/15 thru 8/13/15
   Pier 1 Imports, Inc. (NYSE: PIR)          12/19/13 thru 2/10/15
   Spectranetics Corporation (Nasdaq: SPNC)   2/19/15 thru 7/23/15

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.

The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel is a national shareholder
litigation firm representing shareholders & investors in various
areas of securities laws including but not limited to: class
actions, derivatives, transactional (buyouts/takeovers/mergers)
and FINRA & NYSE Arbitrations.

Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel
431 Montgomery Ave, Merion Station, PA 19066
Phone 610-660-8000
Website: www.henzellaw.com
Email: Mhenzel@Henzellaw.com


BOSCH SECURITY: Recalls Wireless Smoke Alarms Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bosch Security Systems Inc., Fairport, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 950 Radion wireless smoke alarms. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The alarms can fail to alert consumers to a fire, posing a fire
hazard.

This recall involves Bosch's Radion wireless round smoke alarms
installed as part of Bosch security systems. Bosch security alarm
systems use a control keypad labeled "Bosch" on the front surface.
The alarms are made of white plastic and measure 5.6 inches across
and 2.4 inches high. The alarms have a Bosch label on the back
with "RFSM-A," a bar code with "F01U263962" and a 17-digit serial
number starting with 0922320XXX. The XXX in the 8th through 10th
positions of the serial number designates the date code. Only
alarms with date codes 001 through 458 are included in the recall.

Bosch has received two reports that alarms failed to sound during
installation testing.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Security system dealers nationwide from November 2013 through
October 2014 for about $125.

Consumers should immediately contact their dealer/installer for a
free replacement alarm. Bosch has contacted dealers and installers
directly.


BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Colberg" Suit Over Packaged Seafood Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Colberg, Michael Juetten, and Carla Lown, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods
LLC, Starkist Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, and King Oscar,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02011-L-MDD (S.D. Cal., September 10,
2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
prices for packaged seafood products within the United States.

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
      Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
      Michael S. Christian, Esq.
      Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Esq.
      ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
      44 Montgomery St., Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 693-0700
      Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
      E-mail: cmicheletti@zelle.com
              jzahid@zelle.com
              mchristian@zelle.com
              ahou@zelle.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces 2nd "Colberg" Suit Over Seafood Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Colberg, Michael Juetten, and Carla Lown, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods
LLC, Starkist Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, and King Oscar,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04120 (S.D. Cal., September 10, 2015),
arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
prices for packaged seafood products within the United States.

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
      Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
      Michael S. Christian, Esq.
      Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Esq.
      ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
      44 Montgomery St., Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 693-0700
      Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
      E-mail: cmicheletti@zelle.com
              jzahid@zelle.com
              mchristian@zelle.com
              ahou@zelle.com

BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Moon" Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jinkyoung Moon, Corey Norris, Clarissa Simon, Nigel Warren, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Starkist Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC,
and King Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02006-H-JMA (September 10,
2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
prices for packaged seafood products within the United States.

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Gralewski Jr., Esq.
      KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 398-4340
      E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com

         - and -

      Timothy D. Battin, Esq.
      Nathan M. Cihlar, Esq.
      Christopher V. Le, Esq.
      STRAUS & BOIES, LLP
      4041 Fairfax Drive, Fifth Floor
      Fairfax, VA 22201
      Telephone: (703) 764-8700
      Facsimile: (703) 764-8704
      E-mail: tbattin@straus-boies.com
              ncihlar@straus-boies.com
              cle@straus-boies.com

         - and -

      Mario N. Alioto, Esq.
      Lauren C. Capurro, Esq.
      TRUMP, ALIOTO, TRUMP & PRESCOTT, LLP
      2280 Union Street
      San Francisco, CA 94123
      Telephone: (415) 563-7200
      Facsimile: (415) 346-0679
      E-mail: laurenrussell@tatp.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Musgrave" Suit Over Packaged Seafood Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Musgrave, individually, and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Starkist
Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, and King Oscar, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-02012-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal., September 10, 2015), arises from
the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for
packaged seafood products within the United States.

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 398-8700
      Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
      E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com

         - and -

      Michael G. McLellan, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      1077 30th Street NW, Suite 150
      Washington DC, 20007
      Telephone: (202) 337-8000
      Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
      E-mail: mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Joseph, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, TriUnion Seafoods, LLC,
Starkist Company, and King Oscar, Inc. , Case No. 3:15-cv-02017-
BTM-NLS (September 10, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize prices for packaged seafood products
within the United States.

The Defendants are largest producers of packaged seafood products
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Casey Jr., Esq.
      Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
      Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
      CASEY GERRY SCHENK
      FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
      110 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1811
      Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
      E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
              gmb@cglaw.com
              jrobinson@cglaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
      Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 440-0020
      Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
      E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
              matt@attorneyzim.com


CABRINHA KITES: Recalls Kiteboard Control Systems
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cabrinha Kites, a subsidiary of Pryde Group Americas, of Miami,
Fla., announced a voluntary recall of about 750 Cabrinha Kiteboard
control systems. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The point of connection between the kiteboard's trim line and the
depower mainline can break, and cause a loss of control, posing a
risk of injury.

This recall involves three TrimLite Cleat(TM) trim control systems
for Cabrinha kiteboards, including the Overdrive 1X with TrimLite,
the standard 1X with TrimLite and the Chaos 1X with TrimLite
models. A trim line connects the kite to the handle held by the
user, allowing the user to control the kite. Only trim lines with
white tape below the loop connecting the trim line to the cleat
are part of this recall.
The control systems are comprised of a light-weight control bar to
control and depower the kite, a set of flying lines and a harness
loop/quick release (QR) mechanism. The Overdrive 1X with TrimLite,
model number KS6CSODQC, was sold in two sizes 48 cm and 56 cm. The
standard 1X with TrimLite control system, model number KS6CSFXQL,
was sold in three sizes 42 cm, 52 cm and 60 cm. The Chaos 1X
control system, model number KS6CSCHFX, measures 44 cm. The model
numbers are located on a cloth tab attached to the bungee line
restrainers at the end of the bars.

The firm has received four reports of the kiteboard trim lines
breaking. No injuries have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Watersports stores nationwide from July 2015 through August 2015
for between $430 and $530 for the control systems.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled kiteboard
control systems and return them to the place of purchase to have a
free replacement part installed.


CAH ACQUISITION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Hutson, Jeanna Simmons, Jenifer Swanner, individually and
as class representatives v. CAH Acquisition Company 10, LLC d/b/a
Yadkin Valley Community Hospital, HMC/CAH Consolidated, Inc., and
Rural Community Hospitals of America, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-00742
(M.D.N.C., September 10, 2105), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice of layoff
and termination in violation of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.

The Defendants own and operate a hospital located at 624 W. Main
Street, Yadkinville, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Kornbluth, Esq.
      TAIBI KORNBLUTH LAW GROUP, P.A.
      3100 Tower Blvd., Suite 800
      Durham, NC 27707
      Telephone: (919) 401-4100
      Facsimile: (919) 401-4104
      E-mail: info@taibikornbluth.com

         - and -

      Lee Zachary, Esq.
      ZACHARY LAW OFFICES
      P.O. Box 1780
      Yadkinville, NC 27055
      Telephone: (336) 677-1777
      Facsimile: (336) 677-1778


CALIFORNIA: Prisons to Change Solitary Confinement Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
Bill Chappell, writing for NPR.org, reported that in a resolution
that could have wide effects, California's prison system has
agreed to change how it handles solitary confinement  --  and to
review the cases of nearly 3,000 prisoners who are currently in
solitary. The changes are part of the terms of a newly settled
class-action lawsuit.

As part of the settlement, the state is agreeing to a central
demand of the plaintiffs: to stop placing inmates in solitary
confinement solely because of a gang affiliation.

"Lawyers for the prisoners say more than 1,500 people could be
moved out of solitary," NPR's Carrie Johnson reports.

"Prisoners held in long-term solitary confinement filed the class
action lawsuit three years ago.

"Hundreds of inmates said they had been held in isolation for 5 or
10 years or more, with no chance to challenge their prison
conditions. They argued that treatment violates the Constitution's
ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"Prison officials say they will create a new high security unit
for serious rule breakers, but even those inmates will have some
interaction with others.

"A union that represents corrections officers objects to the
settlement and says it could increase violence behind bars."

Advocates for prison reform say the changes could become part of a
template for other states. California has one of the country's
oldest and largest isolation units in the country, at Pelican Bay
State Prison in the state's north.

In 2013, the prison was the origin point for a hunger strike that
was believed to have been orchestrated by the leaders of four
rival gangs. One of the men had been in solitary for more than 20
years.

Back in 2006, NPR's Laura Sullivan visited Pelican Bay as part of
a larger series, "Life in Solitary Confinement."

A prisoner nicknamed Wino, who was in his 40s, told Laura through
his cell door that he had been placed in isolation for being
involved with prison gangs.

"'The only contact that you have with individuals is what they
call a pinky shake,' he says, sticking his pinky through one of
the little holes in the door.

"That's the only personal contact Wino has had in six years."


CENTERLINE COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Lichy, Mark Bixler, Mark Walters, Frederick Speer, and Ryan
Niemeyer, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Centerline Communications LLC, Joshua Delman, Benjamin Delman,
Case No. 1:15-cv-13339-ADB (D. Mass., September 10, 2015), seek to
recover unpaid overtime compensation liquidated damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees, interest, and all other relief pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Centerline Communications LLC is a turnkey service provider to the
wireless industry located in Raynham, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hillary Schwab, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Telephone: (617) 607-3260
      Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
      E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com

         - and -

      Alan D. Meyerson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN DAVID MEYERSON
      100 State Street, Suite 900
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 444-9525
      E-mail: alan@alandavidmeyerson.com


CHIPOTLE: Facing Class Action Suit Over GMO Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Scott Sutton, writing for Sun Times, reported that Mexican-style
fast-casual chain Chipotle announced earlier this year that it was
taking genetically modified organisms off of its menu, but a
class-action lawsuit says that the restaurant is simply misleading
the public.

According to the complaint filed in the Northern District of
California by Kaplan, Fox and Kilsheimer, Chipotle's menu is still
full of foods that contain GMOs.

For instance, the restaurant's sour cream, cheese and meats all
come from animals that are fed with GMOs, and soft drinks use corn
syrup derived form GMOs despite ads that said the company was "G-
M-Over it."

Per Fortune:

"When reached for comment, King wrote in an email that beyond the
complaint, "we have no comment at this time; rather we will let
the complaint's allegations speak for themselves."

"Chipotle is similarly mum. Chris Arnold, the company's
communications director, said only: "Generally speaking, we do not
discuss details of pending legal action, though we do plan to
contest this."

"Consumers today are very concerned about what they eat, and
restaurants know that consumers place a premium on food that is
considered to be healthy or natural," said Laurence D. King, an
attorney for the proposed class, according to PR Newswire.  "As a
result, Chipotle's advertising in its stores should have
accurately informed customers about the source and quality of its
ingredients and should not mislead consumers that they are serving
food without GMOs when in fact they are."

However, Chipotle does acknowledge on its website that GMOs are
still present in many of its menu items. In fact, there is an
entire page dedicated to the topic. Here's what it says:

The meat and dairy products we buy come from animals that are not
genetically modified. But it is important to note that most animal
feed in the U.S. is genetically modified, which means that the
meat and dairy served at Chipotle are likely to come from animals
given at least some GMO feed. We are working hard on this
challenge, and have made substantial progress: for example, the
100% grass-fed beef served in many Chipotle restaurants was not
fed GMO grain -- or any grain, for that matter.

Many of the beverages sold in our restaurants contain genetically
modified ingredients, including those containing high fructose
corn syrup, which is almost always made from GMO corn.

The company also made sure to emphasize at the time of the
announcement in April that the breadth of the GMO ban would not
extend to items such as soft drinks, meats and dairy.

But the lawsuit cites specific ads that seem to imply that GMOs
are nowhere on the menu. The suit claims that one Chipotle
billboard reads, "Now, all of our food is non-GMO."

Chipotle has more than 1,800 locations globally and has become an
industry leader in part because it has been willing to brand
itself as a healthy alternative to fast-food, appealing to more
health-conscious and anti-GMOs demographics like millennials.


COOPERVISION: Faces "Izumoto" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaysha Izumoto, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Coopervision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch &
Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and
ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC a/k/a ABB Optical Group, Case No.
3:15-cv-01100-HES-JRK (S.D. Fla., September 10, 2015), arises from
the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices of Contact
Lenses by imposing Price Floor Policies ("PFPs").

The Defendants are distributors and manufacturers of eye care
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary C. Rosen, Esq.
      Michael C. Gongora, Esq.
      1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 987-7550
      Facsimile: (954)985-4176
      E-mail: grosen@becker-poliakoff.com
              mgongora@becker-poliakoff.com

         - and -

      M. Stephen Dampier, Esq.
      THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM P.C.
      55 N. Section Street
      P.O. Box 161 (36533)
      Fairhope, AL 36532
      Telephone: (251)929-0900
      Facsimile: (251) 929-0800
      E-mail: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com


COOPERVISION: Faces "Khanna" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gaurav Khanna, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Coopervision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch &
Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and
ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC a/k/a ABB Optical Group, Case No.
3:15-cv-01100-HES-JRK (S.D. Fla., September 10, 2015), arises from
the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices of Contact
Lenses by imposing Price Floor Policies ("PFPs").

The Defendants are distributors and manufacturers of eye care
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 515-0123
      Facsimile: 866-300-7367
      E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      35 E. State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
      E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 315-3454
      Facsimile: (954) 315-3455
      E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com


CR BARD: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Eclipse Filter Design
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Owens, JR. v. C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral
Vascular, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01970 (D. Colo., September 10,
2015), is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a
proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design and testing of Eclipse(R)
Filter.

Eclipse(R) Filter is an Inferior vena cava filter that is designed
to filter or "catch' blood clots that travel from the lower
portions of the body to the heart and lungs.

The Defendants are developers, manufacturers, and marketers of
innovative, life-enhancing medical technologies in the fields of
Vascular, Urology, Oncology, and Surgical Specialties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Zonies, Esq.
      REILLY POZNER LLP
      1900 16th Street, Suite 1700
      Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 893-6100
      E-mail: jzonies@rplaw.com


DCI BIOLOGICALS: 11 Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Blood Donor's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Jill Pryor of the United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit, affirmed the district court's opinion dismissing
a lawsuit against DCI Biologicals, Inc. et al.

The appellate case is, JOSEPH B. MURPHY, an individual, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. DCI BIOLOGICALS ORLANDO, LLC, a Delaware imited iability
company, DCI BIOLOGICALS, INC., a Delaware Foreign For Profit
Corporation, MEDSERV BIOLOGICALS, LLC, a Delaware Foreign Limited
Liability Company, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-10414 (11th
Cir.).

DCI buys and resells blood products through plasma collection
centers across the United States. Mr. Murphy was paid for multiple
blood plasma donations he made at a collection center during the
spring of 2010. Before donating, Mr. Murphy filled out medical
release and acknowledgement forms, as well as a "New Donor
Information Sheet," which asked for information required by
federal law and for personal information such as his telephone
number.

Mr. Murphy alleged that DCI stored donor record information on a
commercial database it operated and that it provided the donor
information to third party text message marketing/advertising
platforms. Mr. Murphy further alleged that DCI used the third
parties' automatic dialing equipment to send out mass automated
text advertising messages to donors such as himself.

Mr. Murphy brought this putative class action against Defendants-
Appellees DCI Biologicals Orlando, LLC; DCI Biologicals, Inc.; and
Medserv Biologicals, , LLC alleging that DCI violated the
Telephone Communications Practice Act (TCPA) buy providing his
telephone number without his prior consent. DCI moved to dismiss
the lawsuit on the ground that by providing his cell phone number
to DCI on the New Donor Information Sheet (as Mr. Murphy alleged
in his complaint), he gave prior express consent to be contacted
at that number, an affirmative defense to a claim under the TCPA.

In granting DCI's motion to dismiss, the district court concluded
that it lacked jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act to consider Mr.
Murphy's argument that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
incorrectly interpreted "prior express consent" in its initial
rulemaking following the TCPA's passage.

On appeal, Plaintiff challenged only the dismissal of the auto
dialer counts under the TCPA.

In the Order dated August 20, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/z0j1refrom Leagle.com, Judge Pryor concluded that
the district court rightly refused to consider Mr. Murphy's
argument that the interpretation under the 1992 FCC Order was
inapplicable and contrary to the plain language of the TCPA
because the effect would be to "set aside, annul, or suspend" the
FCC Order and thus a violation of the Hobbs Act. By voluntarily
providing his cell phone number to DCI, Mr. Murphy gave his prior
express consent to be contacted thus, his argument that prior
express consent must be given its plain language meaning fails
because it requires rejection of the FCC's interpretation of prior
express consent in FCC orders.


DE'LONGHI AMERICA: Recalls Blenders Due to Laceration Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
De'Longhi America, Inc., of Upper Saddle River, N.J., announced a
voluntary recall of about 150 Blenders in the U.S. (an additional
860 sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The lower blade can break during use, posing a laceration hazard.

The recalled blender is the Kenwood Blend-X PRO, BLM800. The glass
jar has a glass handle and a black plastic lid and sits on a grey
power unit with a motor and user control panel. On the front lower
portion of the base is the Kenwood logo on a silver plate. On the
bottom of the blender's base, the rating label of recalled units
has Type BLM80 and a date code ranging from 14X01 to 15X22 ("X"
being any letter) stamped on the label.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Jc1P9Q

The recalled products were manufactured in China and
Bloomingdales, Classic Cook, Frontgate, Good 4u Products, Kitchen
Appliances, Kitchen Couture, Kitchen Window, Kitchens With Jazz,
Las Cosas Cooking, Le Petite, M & K, Main Street Kitchens, Rolling
Pin-Neeve, Ralph's Thyme In The Kitchen, The Cooking Depot, The
Cupboard, The Kitchen Clique and online at Bllomingdales.com and
frontgate.com from August 2014 through July 2015 for approximately
$400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the blender and contact
Kenwood to arrange for a free replacement blade assembly kit to be
mailed to their homes.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sued in Texas Over Pinnacle Device Design
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bonita M. Goldberg and Michael Goldberg v. Depuy Orthopaedics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02950-K (N.D. Tex., September 10,
2015), is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a
proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling of
Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System.

Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System ("Pinnacle Device") is a hip
bearing system to be used in a total hip replacement or revision
surgery.

Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. is an Indiana corporation that designs,
manufactures, markets and distributes products for reconstructing
damaged or diseased joints and for repairing and reconstructing
traumatic skeletal injuries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alison De Villiers, Esq.
      Peter L. Cassady, Esq.
      Kristen M. Myers, Esq.
      BECKMAN WEIL SHEPARDSON LLC
      300 Pike Street, Suite 400
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 621-2100
      Facsimile: (513) 621-0106
      E-mail: adevilliers@beckman-weil.com
              petercassady@beckman-weil.com
              kmyers@beckman-weil.com


DR HORTON: Appeals Court Revives Class Claims in "Chiang"
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eileen C. Moore of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division Three reversed the trial court granting
Defendant's motion to strike the class allegations in the case
captioned, LILY CHIANG et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. D.R.
HORTON LOS ANGELES HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Defendant and
Respondent, Case No. G049755 (Cal. App. Ct.).

The complaint is filed by Plaintiffs Lily Chiang, Pamela Stephens,
and Donna Suhr  against Defendants for alleged claims for damages
based on theories including breach of express and implied
warranties, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, products
liability, violation of the standards of residential construction,
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and violations of
the UCL. Plaintiffs sought monetary, equitable, and declaratory
relief on behalf of the class. The complaint defined the class as
"All homeowners in the Class Area whose residences were
constructed by D.R. Horton, and which contain copper plumbing or
copper pipes in their plumbing systems."

On August 23, 2013, Horton filed a motion to strike the class
allegations. Horton argued most of the claims were not suitable
for class action treatment because common questions did not
predominate. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing the class allegations
were adequately pleaded. On January 24, 2014, the trial court
heard argument. On January 29, the court ruled, granting
defendant's motion.

On appeal, Plaintiffs argue they adequately pleaded a class action
and the issues of fact are properly determined upon an evidentiary
motion to certify the class.

In the Memorandum and Order dated August 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/6MvmPpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Moore agreed with the
Plaintiffs that the complaint is facially sufficient and conclude
plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to bring a motion for
class certification.

Plaintiffs are represented by Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. --
bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Richard L. Kellner, Esq. --
rlk@kbklawyers.com -- Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. --
jhh@kbklawyers.com -- KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, Richard K.
Bridgford, Esq. -- Richard.Bridgford@bridgfordlaw.com -- Michael
H. Artinian, Esq. -- Mike.Artinian@bridgfordlaw.com -- BRIDGFORD,
GLEASON & ARTINIAN

Defendant is represented by Stacey F. Blank, Esq. --
sblank@wshblaw.com -- Tracy M. Lewis, Esq. -- tlewis@wshblaw.com
-- WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN


FLINT, MI: Judge Says Challenge to Water Rates Can Be Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a judge says a lawyer
challenging Flint over water bills can turn the case into a class-
action lawsuit, potentially affecting 30,000 people.

Genesee County Judge Archie Hayman announced his decision in a
crowded courtroom. Judge Hayman has ordered Flint to stop cutting
off water to people with unpaid bills.

Hayman also lowered water rates and ordered the city to stop
collecting a special fee to replenish the water fund. Flint is
appealing to a higher court and predicting dire consequences if
the decisions are allowed to stand.

Meanwhile, three groups working to stop the use of the Flint River
for drinking water submitted a petition with 26,000 signatures
Monday. But officials say new carbon filters are effectively
removing organic carbons.

The city broke away from the Detroit system.


GENERAL MOTORS: Has $900MM Deal to Settle Ignition Switch Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Co. (NYSE: GM) confirmed Thursday that the company
has reached a settlement in the form of a Deferred Prosecution
Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of New York regarding the company's handling of the
ignition switch defect in certain older model vehicles.

Under the Agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office agrees to defer
prosecution of charges against GM related to the ignition switch
defect and recall for three years. If GM satisfies the terms of
the Agreement, federal prosecutors will then seek dismissal of the
charges with prejudice.

The Agreement includes a requirement that GM cooperate with the
federal government and establish an independent monitor to review
and assess the company's policies and procedures in certain
discrete areas relating to safety issues and recalls. GM will also
pay a $900 million financial penalty associated with this
Agreement and will record a charge for this amount in the third
quarter.

"The mistakes that led to the ignition switch recall should never
have happened. We have apologized and we do so again today," said
GM CEO Mary Barra in a statement Sept. 17. "We have faced our
issues with a clear determination to do the right thing both for
the short term and the long term. I believe that our response has
been unprecedented in terms of candor, cooperation, transparency
and compassion."

GM Chairman Theodore M. Solso said, "GM's Board of Directors took
swift action to investigate the ignition switch issue and we have
fully supported management's efforts to regain the trust and
confidence of customers and regulators, and to resolve the Justice
Department's investigation. GM's Board and leadership recognize
that safety is a foundational commitment, and the changes the
company has made in the last 15 months have made it much
stronger."

The Agreement states that the government's decision to defer
prosecution was based on the actions GM has taken to "demonstrate
acceptance and acknowledgement of responsibility for its conduct,"
including:

     -- Conducting a swift and robust internal investigation

     -- Furnishing investigators with information and a continuous
flow of unvarnished facts

     -- Providing timely and meaningful cooperation more generally
in the government's investigation

     -- Terminating wrongdoers

     -- Establishing a full and independent victim compensation
program that is expected to pay out more than $600 million in
awards

"Reaching an agreement with the Justice Department does not mean
we are putting the issue behind us," Barra said. "Our mission has
been to take the difficult lessons from this experience and use
them to improve our company. We've come a long way and we will
continue to build on our progress."

The Recall and GM's Response

Following the ignition switch recalls in February and March 2014,
GM pledged its full cooperation to authorities investigating the
matter. GM's Board also retained former U.S. Attorney Anton
Valukas to conduct an independent investigation.

In June 2014, the Valukas Report was provided to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the U.S. Department of
Justice, and members of both the U.S. House of Representatives and
Senate. The results of the investigation were later made public.

Barra also discussed the Valukas Report with GM employees in a
global town hall meeting, during which she said, "We aren't simply
going to fix this and move on. We are going to fix the failures in
our system . . .  and we are going to do the right thing for the
affected parties."

After the recall, GM began making far-reaching changes to its
vehicle quality and safety organizations:

     -- Decisions about vehicle safety and recalls are now
elevated to some of the highest levels of the company. GM created
a new position, vice president, Global Vehicle Safety, with global
responsibility for the development of GM vehicle safety systems,
confirmation and validation of safety performance, as well as
post-sale safety activities, including recalls.

     -- Approximately 200 employees joined the Global Safety
organization in 2014, including more than 30 new safety
investigators in North America whose roles are to help identify
and quickly resolve potential safety issues.

     -- A data analytics team was created to search for emerging
issues using internal and external sources, including those
reported to NHTSA.

     -- The company created a "Speak up for Safety" program,
designed to give employees and dealers an easy and consistent way
to report potential vehicle or workplace safety issues, or suggest
safety-related improvements.

     -- GM's Global Vehicle Engineering organization was
reorganized to improve cross-system integration, deliver more
consistent performance across vehicle programs, and address
functional safety and compliance in vehicle development.

     -- GM has implemented new policies and procedures to expedite
the repair of recalled vehicles, and to improve its certified pre-
owned vehicle program.

The company also established the GM Ignition Compensation Claims
Resolution Facility, which is independently administered by
attorney Kenneth Feinberg. The facility was designed to settle
claims brought by people who suffered physical injuries or lost
family members in accidents that may have been related to the
ignition switch. It has awarded settlements even to those whose
claims involved contributory negligence, as well as claims that
would have been barred by bankruptcy court rulings.

General Motors Co. (NYSE:GM, TSX: GMM) and its partners produce
vehicles in 30 countries, and the company has leadership positions
in the world's largest and fastest-growing automotive markets. GM,
its subsidiaries and joint venture entities sell vehicles under
the Chevrolet, Cadillac, Baojun, Buick, GMC, Holden, Jiefang,
Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling brands. More information on the company
and its subsidiaries, including OnStar, a global leader in vehicle
safety, security and information services, can be found at
http://www.gm.com/


GOOGLE: Hausfeld Launches Platform on Pursuing Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Foo Yun Chee, writing for Reuters, reported that U.S. law firm and
class action specialist Hausfeld launched a platform on to help
pursue claims against Google, posing a potential headache for the
world's No. 1 Internet search engine amid its regulatory troubles
in Europe.

Hausfeld has coordinated various high-profile class action cases,
including for companies affected by an air cargo pricing cartel,
investors impacted by currency-rigging by banks and firms fighting
fees levied by MasterCard and Visa Europe.

The law firm said the Google Redress & Integrity Platform (GRIP)
is aimed at those affected by alleged anti-competitive behavior by
Google in Europe.

It said the platform would build on the European Commission's
April charge sheet, which accuses Google of unfairly promoting its
own shopping service to the disadvantage of rivals.

"GRIP offers corporations, consumers and other entities harmed by
Google's anti-competitive business practices in Europe a mechanism
to evaluate their potential claims," Michael Hausfeld, chairman of
Hausfeld, said in a statement.

Google, which has criticized the EU accusations as unfounded and
incorrect, declined to comment on GRIP.

Public affairs consultancy Avisa Partners, which is helping French
Internet search firm 1plusV in its EU complaint against Google,
will jointly manage the platform.

Hausfeld
165 Broadway Suite 2301 New York, NY 10006
646-357-1100
212-202-4322 fax
http://www.hausfeld.com
info@hausfeld.com


GRANGE INDEMNITY: Ohio High Court Reinstates Trial Court Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Ann Lanzinger of the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed
the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals and
reinstated the judgment of the trial court in the case captioned,
LABOY ET AL., APPELLEES, v. GRANGE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY ET
AL; GRANGE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT, Case No. 2014-0708
(Ohio).

Grange Mutual Casualty Company issued an automobile policy to
Philip Laboy as the named insured. As part of Laboy's policy,
Grange provided up to $5,000 in medical care for each person
injured in any one accident. Appellees Heidi Laboy, Alexandrea
Laboy, and Gabrielle Laboy, also insureds under the policy, were
involved in an automobile accident on May 23, 2006. The Laboys
received medical treatment and submitted some of their bills both
to Grange and to their health-insurance provider, Medical Mutual.
Grange did not deny any part of the claim for medical expenses.
The Laboys did not exhaust their medical-payment coverage, nor did
they incur any out-of-pocket expenses. The Laboys reached a
settlement with the third-party tortfeasor for the May 2006
accident. When Grange exercised its contractual right to
subrogation against the Laboys, the Laboys objected, arguing that
Grange had overpaid the medical providers.

The Laboys filed a class-action lawsuit against Grange, alleging
claims for breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair
dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty. Grange filed a motion for
summary judgment. After noting that the Laboys had withdrawn their
claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the trial court determined
that the only reasonable interpretation of the language "any
negotiated reduced rate accepted by a medical provider" in Section
(B)(2) of the policy's medical-payments coverage was that Grange
had to have access to the negotiated rate through its own contract
with the medical provider. Because the claim for breach of good
faith and fair dealing was contingent on finding a breach of
contract, the trial court found that both claims failed as a
matter of law and entered summary judgment for Grange. The Laboys
filed an appeal at the Eighth District Court of Appeals that hold
that although it would be impossible for Grange to comply with
such an absurd interpretation, it disagreed with the trial court
that Grange's interpretation of the policy was the only reasonable
one. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for fact-
finding to determine whether Grange actually did have access to
the lower rates provided by the Laboys' healthcare insurer and to
ensure that was the most sensible and reasonable interpretation of
the policy.

On appeal, Grange argued that the only reasonable construction of
Section (B)(2) is to read the phrase "any negotiated reduced rate
accepted by a medical provider" as meaning a negotiated reduced
rate that Grange itself is contractually entitled to pay. The
Laboys disagree contending that under Section (B)(2), Grange is
contractually obligated to utilize the reduced rates accepted by
their health insurer when paying medical expenses.

In his Order dated August 19, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/S3DqPRfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lazinger agreed with
the trial court that the only reasonable interpretation of the
policy's contested language is that "any negotiated reduced rate
accepted by a medical provider" means a negotiated reduced rate
that Grange is contractually entitled to pay.

Plaintiffs are represented by Thomas J. Connick, Esq. --
tconnick@connicklawllc.com -- CONNICK LAW, L.L.C. & Edward W.
Cochran, Esq. -- ecochran@ccy.com -- COCHRAN & COCHRAN

Defendant is represented by Mark A. Johnson, Esq. --
mjohnson@bakerlaw.com -- Rand L. McClellan, Esq. --
rmcclellan@bakerlaw.com -- Michael K. Farrell, Esq. --
mfarrell@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER HOSTETLER, L.L.P.


HOVG LLC: Motion for Leave to Amend Suit Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States
District Court for Northern District of California granted in part
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend in the case captioned,
DESIREE ALVARADO, Plaintiff, v. HOVG, LLC dba BAY AREA CREDIT
SERVICE, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-02549-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

The putative class action stemmed from Defendant HOVG, LLC dba Bay
Area Credit Service's (BACS's) debt collection calls to Plaintiff
Desiree Alvarado.

Plaintiff seeks to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) to add:
(1) a new claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"); and (2) a new Defendant, AT&T Mobility, LLC.

Plaintiff asserts that her request to amend the FAC in order to
add a claim under the FDCPA is based on a revelation during a Rule
30(b)(6) deposition on March 10, 2015 wherein BACS violated the
FDCPA by continuing to contact her after being informed that she
was represented by counsel.

BACS opposes the amendment on several grounds: (1) BACS argues
that the amendment is untimely because Plaintiff knew what she
told BACS on the phone over a year before the March 10, 2015
deposition; (2) BACS argues that the amendment was brought in bad
faith; (3) BACS argues that the amendment will be prejudicial
because the new FDCPA claim would "greatly change the nature of
this litigation" by, for example, permitting the recovery of
attorneys' fees; and (4) BACS argues that amendment would be
futile because the FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations has
already run.

In the Order dated August 19, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/okXTWOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam held that at
least two of the four considerations strongly weigh against
granting leave to amend to add AT&T Mobility LLC as a defendant.
Plaintiff has no persuasive excuse for her failure to assert her
claims earlier in this litigation, and permitting the amendment
now would substantially delay the proceedings and prejudice BACS
and denied thr motion as to add AT&T Mobility LLC as a defendant.
The Court further held that Plaintiff's new FDCPA claim meets
lenient standard of a TCPA claim and granted the motion as to the
FDCPA claim against BACS.

Desiree Alvarado is represented by:

Brian J. Trenz, Esq.
David P Schafer, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SCHAFER PLLC
2139 NW Military Hwy # 200,
San Antonio, TX 78213
Tel: (210)348-0500

     - and -

Kira Meshawn Rubel, Esq. -- krubel@kmrlawfirm.com -- LAW OFFICES
OF KIRA M. RUBEL

HOVG, LLC is represented by David J. Kaminski, Esq. --
kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Martin Schannong, Esq. --
schannom@cmtlaw.com -- CARLSON MESSER & TURNER LLP


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Appeals Court Revives Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eileen C. Moore of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division Three, reversed the order granting the
motion of K. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian
Companies of California, Inc. to strike and sustaining the
demurrer to class allegations from the second amended complaint
filed by Plaintiff Kendall Brasch in the case captioned, KENDALL
BRASCH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. K. HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES,
INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case Nos. G050131 (Cal.
App. Ct.).

On February 7, 2014, Plaintiff Kendall Brasch filed a putative
class action after purchasing a home constructed by Hovnanian in
Ladera Ranch. He alleged Hovnanian used copper pipes that were
defective, based on local water conditions, in the new homes. They
also alleged Hovnanian and their contractors knew about the
defective copper pipe prior to incorporating it into the homes.
The complaint stated causes of action for violation of residential
construction standards (Civ. Code, Sec. 895 et seq.), violation of
the UCL, breach of implied warranties, breach of express
warranties, negligence, and strict products liability. Plaintiff
sought monetary, equitable, and declaratory relief on behalf of
the class.

The complaint defined the class as "All homeowners in the Class
Area whose residences were constructed by K. Hovnanian, and which
contain copper pipe." The class area was defined as homes in the
92694 zip code that contained copper pipe. Hovnanian filed a
motion to strike the class allegations, arguing "construction
defect actions are not suited for class actions," and the
complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to meet the criteria
for a class action and a demurrer to the complaint, which also
sought dismissal of the class allegations, along with the breach
of warranty claims. The court granted both the demurrer and motion
to strike favoring defendants.

On appeal, Plaintiff argues the complaint was legally sufficient
to pass muster at the pleading stage, and the factual issues of
whether they can establish a class should be addressed in an
evidentiary motion to certify the class.

In the Opinion dated August 19, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/eCEgxPfrom Leagle.com, Judge Moore agreed with
plaintiff that the complaint is facially sufficient and conclude
he should be given the opportunity to bring an evidentiary motion
for class certification.

Plaintiffs is represented by Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. --
bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Richard L. Kellner, Esq. --
rlk@kbklawyers.com -- Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. --
jhh@kbklawyers.com -- KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, Richard K.
Bridgford, Esq. -- Richard.Bridgford@bridgfordlaw.com -- Michael
H. Artinian, Esq. -- Mike.Artinian@bridgfordlaw.com -- BRIDGFORD,
GLEASON & ARTINIAN

Defendants are represented by William R. Warne, Esq. --
wwarne@downeybrand.com -- Meghan M. Baker, Esq. --
mbaker@downeybrand.com -- DOWNEY BRAND


IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Crib Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 38,400 VYSSA SPELEVINK crib mattresses
(VYSSA SPELEVINK crib mattresses were previously recalled in
January 2015 and again in May 2015 for entrapment hazards.).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The crib mattresses fail to meet the federal open flame standard
for mattresses, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves IKEA VYSSA SPELEVINK crib mattresses. The
recalled mattresses are 52 inches long and 27 1/2 inches wide.
The crib mattresses are white with a blue piping around the edge
and have an identification label attached to the mattress cover
has the date of manufacture in Month-DD-YY format or YY-W format
and the VYSSA SPELEVINK model name.  Mattresses made after July
2007 also have a federal tag at the foot of the mattress.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at IKEA
stores nationwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from October 2000
through May 2014 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled crib
mattresses and return them to any IKEA store for a full refund.
Mattresses that were given in an exchange to consumers for their
VYSSA SPELEVINK mattresses in the two previous recalls are
included in this recall program.


JAMILY F. PEDRO: "Mello" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Mello, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
Jamily F. Pedro, DMD, P.A., d/b/a Aqua Dental Loft, and Jamily F.
Pedro, DMD, Case No. 9:15-cv-81272-KAM (S.D. Fla., September 10,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of educating patients
on oral healthcare.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Xarelto Drug Safety
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Adams, et al. v. Janssen Research & Development LLC f/k/a
Johnson And Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04273 (E.D. Lo., September 10, 2015), is
an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants'
failure to investigate, research, study and define, fully and
adequately, the safety profile of Xarelto.

Xarelto is a prescription drug that that is used as prophylaxis of
Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism in patients undergoing
hip replacement or knee replacement surgeries.

Janssen Research & Development LLC is a New Jersey corporation
that is involved in the research, development, sales, and
marketing of pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randi Kassan, Esq.
      Marc Grossman, Esq.
      SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 741-5600
      Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
      E-mail: rkassan@thesandersfirm.com
              mgrossman@thesandersfirm.com


JURATOYS US: Recalls Fishing Games Due to Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Juratoys U.S. of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., announced a voluntary
recall of about 14,000 Sardines Fishing Game and Starfish Fishing
Game (In addition, about 200 were sold in Canada). Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The plastic worm at the end of the fishing pole line can separate,
producing small parts that pose a choking hazard to children.
Additionally, the small magnet inside the worm can liberate.
Swallowing multiple magnets can result in serious internal injury.

This recall involves two models of the Juratoys fishing game,
Sardines and Starfish. The fishing game user picks up a toy fish
using a play fishing rod with a magnetic worm. The Sardine fishing
game has a red and white sardine with a yellow eye painted on a
sardine-shaped tin and has product number J08152 printed on the
bottom of the container at the tail, and on the back of one of the
fish pieces. The Starfish fishing game has an orange starfish
painted on a starfish-shaped tin with a product number J08153
printed on the bottom of the container and on the back of one of
the fish pieces. Each set comes with two wooden fishing rods and
several wooden fish with a magnetic button in the middle. The lid
of each tin package contains the word "Janod(R)."

The firm has received about 417 reports of the plastic worm at the
end of the fishing pole line separating and releasing small parts,
including four reports of children ingesting a small part. No
injuries have been reported.

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

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled games and
keep them out of the reach of young children. Consumers should
contact Juratoys for a prepaid shipping envelope to return the
game. Juratoys will then send a $15 refund check for the Sardines
game and a $20 refund check for the Starfish game. Consumers who
paid more should include a receipt in the return to receive a full
refund.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Bus Drivers' Class Suit Settled for $1-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Sprague, writing for Whittier Daily News, reported that the
city has agreed to pay $1 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
brought on behalf of 168 bus drivers who claimed they were denied
meal and rest breaks.

Driver Cecilia Lopez said she is thrilled by the settlement.

"We're ecstatic," she said. "For me, it was always about making a
statement."

Hunter Pyle, the attorney who filed the lawsuit, said the city
typically provided 10 six-minute breaks in an eight-hour shift,
claiming the 60 minutes is more than the 30-minute meal and two
10-minute rest-breaks drivers are entitled to have.

But you can't do much in six minutes, he said at the time the
lawsuit was filed.

"You can't do anything but run off the bus, run into a store, use
the bathroom and grab a snack," Pyle said. "That's very different
from a 30-minute break when you can relax and take care of
personal business."

Drivers Rachel Burciaga, Cecilia Lopez and Ernesto Suazo filed the
lawsuit in July 2014.

The settlement still must be approved by Los Angeles Superior
Court Judge Jane L. Johnson.

Johnson will consider the issue on Sept. 23 but then -- if she
says yes -- notice will go to the bus drivers who can object or
opt out, Pyle said. Then, a final hearing will be held, he added.

"It's a great settlement," Pyle said. "It gets the drivers
reimbursed for their missed meals and rest breaks. It also avoids
years of protracted litigation and gets money in their pockets
sooner than later."

The money will be distributed based on how long the drivers worked
for the city, the number of breaks they missed and their hourly
wage dating back to 2010.

City Manager Francesca Tucker-Schuyler didn't return two phone
calls seeking comment.

The settlement isn't likely to affect the city's budget because
transit employees are paid from a different pot of money than what
provides for the rest of the city.

The bus system receives its money from bus riders as well as
special state, federal and Los Angeles County funds.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces "Albarran" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Albarran Jr., Jesse Franco, Raymond Hoffman, Brian Labrie,
Dale Robinson, Todd Sands, and Robert Stover III v. City of Los
Angeles, Case No. 2:15-cv-07056 (C.D. Cal., September 4, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiffs are employees or former employees of Los Angeles
Fire Department.

City of Los Angeles has a principal place of business within the
City of Los Angeles in the Central District of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lester G. Ostrov, Esq.
      LESTER G. OSTROV, PROFESSIONAL CORP.
      5757 Wilshire Blvd.
      Penthouse 5
      Los Angeles, CA 90036
      Telephone: (323) 424-3440
      Facsimile: (323) 424-3468
      E-mail: lostrov@lgolaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Woodley, Esq.
      WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY
      1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 833-8855
      Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
      E-mail: taw@wmlaborlaw.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces "Carson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Carson, Anthony Castillo, Heywood Chang, Keith Douglass,
Timothy Freeman, L. Scott Gibbons, Paul Gomez, Thomas Johnson,
Gerard Joya, Erick Lauridsen, Chris Lewis, Tobi Perkins, Todd
Porter, Colin Smith, Brent Spankroy, Michael Tobey, and Mary
Zahyna v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 2:15-cv-07057 (C.D. Cal.,
September 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiffs are employees or former employees of Los Angeles
Fire Department.

City of Los Angeles has a principal place of business within the
City of Los Angeles in the Central District of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lester G. Ostrov, Esq.
      LESTER G. OSTROV, PROFESSIONAL CORP.
      5757 Wilshire Blvd.
      Penthouse 5
      Los Angeles, CA 90036
      Telephone: (323) 424-3440
      Facsimile: (323) 424-3468
      E-mail: lostrov@lgolaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Woodley, Esq.
      WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY
      1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 833-8855
      Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
      E-mail: taw@wmlaborlaw.com


LOTA USA: Recalls  Kitchen Faucets Due to Fire & Burn Hazards
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lota USA, of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 4,500 Glacier Bay and Schon kitchen faucets. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The battery box used to power the faucet's sensor can short
circuit, overheat and/or melt, posing fire and burn hazards to
consumers.

This recall involves Glacier Bay and Schon brand touchless kitchen
faucets that allow the user to waive a hand in front of a sensor
to start and stop the flow of water, a pull-down sprayer head with
a white LED light and a single handle to manually turn the water
on and off.  The touchless feature is powered by four 1.5V
batteries installed into a battery box connected to the faucet.
The Glacier Bay faucets include a matching soap dispenser.
Glacier Bay is printed on the base of the Glacier Bay faucets.
Schon is printed on the base of the Schon faucets. The Glacier Bay
faucets were sold in chrome, Mediterranean bronze and stainless
steel. The Schon faucets were sold in chrome and stainless steel.
The model number and the manufacturing date are printed on the
faucet's black piping that connects the faucet to the kitchen's
water pipe under the sink. Manufacturing dates are the YY-MM-DD
format, e.g. 14-10-29 was manufactured on October 29, 2014. The
faucets have the following model numbers and manufacturing dates:

  Model Number   Manufacturing Date    Brand      Description
  ------------   ------------------    -----      -----------
  67536-1001     14-10-29 through      Glacier    Touchless
                 15-04-14              Bay        single-handle
                                                  Pull-down
                                                  sprayer kitchen
                                                  faucet with LED
                                                  light (chrome)
  67536-1027H2   14-10-29 through      Glacier    Touchless
                 15-04-14              Bay        single-handle
                                                  Pull-down
                                                  sprayer kitchen
                                                  faucet with LED
                                                  light
                                                  (Mediterranean
                                                  bronze)
  67536-1008D2   14-10-29 through      Glacier    Touchless
                 15-04-14              Bay        single-handle
                                                  Pull-down
                                                  sprayer kitchen
                                                  faucet with LED
                                                  light
                                                  (stainless
                                                  steel)
  67558-0101     14-10-29 through     Schon       Schon modern
                 15-04-14                         kitchen modern
                                                  sensor pulldown
                                                  (chrome)
  67558-0108D2   14-10-29 through     Schon       Schon modern
                 15-04-14                         kitchen sensor
                                                  pulldown
                                                  (stainless
                                                  steel)

The firm has received six reports of the faucet's battery box
overheating, melting and/or smoking, including one report of a
fire in the box and one report of a burn to a consumer's thumb.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Z6oJAo

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at The
Home Depot stores nationwide and online at www.homedepot.com from
March 2015 through May 2015 for about $225.

Consumers should immediately unplug and remove batteries from the
faucet's battery box and contact Lota USA for a replacement
battery box for the faucet.


MARS INC: Faces "Wirth" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Slave Labor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Wirth and Adam Wagner, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Mars, Inc., Mars Petcare US, Inc.,
and Iams Company, Procter & Gamble, Co., Case No. 8:15-cv-01470
(C.D. Cal., September 10, 2015), arises out of the Defendants
material omissions and failure to disclose the likelihood that
slave labor were used in its Iams supply chain.

Mars, Inc. is a global food and beverage company which through its
subsidiaries manufactures and sells food and beverages, including
pet foods.

Mars Petcare US, Inc. and Iams Company are nationwide
manufacturers of pet foods.

Procter & Gamble, Co. is a multinational consumer goods company
that manufactures products ranging from personal care to cleaning
agents.

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


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the  Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of MaxPoint Interactive, Inc. ("MaxPoint" or the "Company") MXPT,
+2.40% pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering (the "IPO") on or about March 6, 2015, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

The complaint is brought against MaxPoint, certain of its
executives and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the
Securities Act.  MaxPoint is a provider of business intelligence
and marketing automation software services designed to enable
national brands to drive local in-store sales.

On March 6, 2015, MaxPoint conducted the IPO, selling more than
6.5 million shares of MaxPoint common stock to the public at
$11.50 per share pursuant to a Registration Statement and
Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the IPO, raising more than $74 million.

The complaint charges that the Registration Statement used to
implement the IPO contained false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial condition and business
prospects.  According to the complaint, MaxPoint failed to
disclose that it was receiving  two-thirds of its sales from only
50 customers at the time of the IPO, and that as a result of its
reliance on these few customers, it was more exposed to the
budgetary and promotional problems and issues of these customers.
The complaint also alleges MaxPoint had been signing smaller
customers with smaller advertising budgets in the months leading
up to the IPO, and that as a result, the Company's sales growth
was shrinking at the time of the IPO, which would have a negative
impact on MaxPoint's profitability.  Since the IPO, the price of
MaxPoint common stock has declined approximately 60% and is
currently trading at below $5.00 per share.

The action seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
MaxPoint common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
IPO (the "Class).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 30, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
Gainey McKenna & Egleston LLP
440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 983-1300
Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
tjmckenna@gme-law.com
gegleston@gme-law.com


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
MaxPoint Interactive, Inc. securities pursuant and/or traceable to
MaxPoint's initial public offering on or about March 6, 2015 (the
"IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for MaxPoint
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the MaxPoint Interactive, Inc. class action, go to the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-710.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, MaxPoint's IPO offering documents were
inaccurate because MaxPoint failed to disclose that it was
deriving two-thirds of its sales from only 50 customers, and that
due to this high customer concentration, it was more exposed to
those 50 customers' budgetary proclivities and promotional
activities. The suit also claims that MaxPoint had been signing
smaller customers with smaller advertising budgets in the months
leading up to the IPO, and consequently, MaxPoint's sales growth
was declining at the time of the IPO. Since the IPO, the price of
Maxpoint stock has dropped approximately 60%. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
October 30, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-710.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016
Phone:+1 978-474-0100
toll-free: 866-767-3653
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com


ME'KONG DELTA: Faces "Mims" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shanon Mims, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Me'kong Delta, Inc. d/b/a Republic, Jonathan Morr, Michael
Callahan, and Huy Chi Le, Case No. 1:15-cv-07118 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 10, 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 Republic restaurant in Manhattan,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      32 Broadway, Suite 601
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640
      Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Stays Proceedings in "Murray"
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court
for District of Maryland ruled on Defendant Midland Funding, LLC's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned,
CASSANDRA A. MURRAY, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. JKB-15-0532 (D. Md.).

Plaintiff Cassandra Murray filed a putative class action alleging
Midland Funding, LLC (Midland), improperly filed actions in
Maryland state courts to collect on debts when it did not possess
a license from the State of Maryland to engage in the business of
debt collection. She further alleges that the judgments obtained
in those actions are void and, therefore, the existence of the
judgments in the public records "and/or the enforcement of the
judgments by garnishment, or payments collected through threat
based on the judgments caused, actually and proximately, the
injury for which the Plaintiff seeks redress.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's claim arguing that (1)
Plaintiff's claims are barred by Maryland's three-year statute of
limitations; (2) The amended complaint fails to state a claim
under the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) (Count
IV); (3) The amended complaint fails to state a claim for unjust
enrichment (Count III); and (4) The amended complaint fails to
state a claim for money had and received (Count V).

In his Memorandum and Order dated August 19, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Q8M6oTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bredar found that the
plaintiffs' arguments are without merits since Murray could not
convince the Court on her arguments on the statute of limitations
and she does not allege that she did not owe the debt for which
Midland obtained a judgment against her.  Further proceedings are
stayed pending ruling by the Maryland Court of Appeals on the
question certified to it.

Cassandra A. Murray is represented by:

Scott C. Borison, Esq.
LEGG LAW FIRM LLP
5500 Buckeystown Pike # 400,
Frederick, MD 21703
Tel: (301)620-1016

Midland Funding, LLC is represented by Amy Estelle Askew, Esq. --
aaskew@kg-law.com -- James P. Ulwick, Esq. -- julwick@kg-law.com
-- Steven Andrew Book, Esq. -- sbook@kg-law.com -- KRAMON AND
GRAHAM PA.


MTN PRODUCTS: Recalls Water Dispensers Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
MTN Products Inc., of La Verne, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 190 Water dispensers. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The screws holding the heat band in the dispensers can break or
detach and cause the unit to overheat, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves Nestle three and five gallon cold and hot
water dispensers. The units are white and silver in color and
measure about 38 inches tall by 13 inches wide. Water is dispensed
from the large plastic water bottle on the top of the unit through
the machine by pushing on the paddles below that are marked with
blue for cold water and red for hot water. The Nestle Waters North
America logo is on the front of the units. Only the following
model and serial numbers are included in this recall. The model
and serial numbers are printed on a white sticker on the back of
the units.

Model Numbers
  Serial Numbers
BW210EZ
BW210EZES
LB15A12606
LB15A12620
LB15A12622
LB15A12631
LB15A12670
LB15A12687
LB15A12690
LB15A12762
LB15A12763
LB15A12848
LB15A12849
LB15A12870
LB15A12888

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/cD4zz4

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at The
water dispensers were distributed to businesses and residential
customers in Florida, Massachusetts and New York as part of a
water delivery contract.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled water
dispensers, unplug the units and contact Nestle for a free pickup
of the recalled unit and delivery of a free replacement water
dispenser. Nestle is contacting renters of the water dispensers
directly.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Trims Claims in "Robinson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the United States District
Court for District of Kansas granted in part Nationastar Mortgage,
LLC's motion to dismiss count two of Plaintiffs' class action
complaint in the case captioned, DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA
ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant, Case
No. TDC-14-3667 (D. Kan.).

On January 26, 2007, Demetrius and Tamara Robinson received a
mortgage loan from Freemont Investment & Loan for $755,000.00,
with an interest rate of 7.990 percent, to purchase a home in
Damascus, Maryland. Shortly afterward, Nationstar became the
servicer of the loan. Plaintiffs own a home in Damascus, Maryland
that they purchased with a mortgage loan. After attempts to modify
their loan failed, the Robinsons filed a Class Action Complaint
against Nationstar for alleged violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act (MCPA). The Complaint asserts two claims: (1) Count
I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. Sec. 1024.41, a
regulation of RESPA that outlines loss mitigation procedures; and
(2) Count II, the Robinsons allege unfair or deceptive trade
practices in violation of the MCPA. The Robinsons also allege that
Nationstar violated another provision of the MCPA by failing to
respond to their loan modification application within 15 days.

In the motion, Nationstar moved to dismiss Count II arguing that
Robinsons cannot bring a claim under the definition of "unfair or
deceptive trade practices" in Section 13-301(5) because that
definition does not apply to a loan modification.

In his Order dated August 19, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/r3oXdpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chuang concluded that
the motion to dismiss Count II claims is granted as to the MCPA
claim under Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Sec.Sec. 13-301, 13-303
because the Robinsons cannot bring a claim alleging the forms of
"unfair or deceptive trade practices" defined in Section 13-301(5)
and denied in part as to the MCPA claim under Md. Code Ann., Com.
Law Sec. 13-316 because the Robinsons have sufficiently alleged
economic damages.

The Court directed the Robinsons to file a motion for leave to
amend the complaint as to the MCPA claim under Md. Code Ann., Com.
Law Sec.Sec. 13-301, 13-303.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq. --
jtycko@tzlegal.com -- Lorenzo Belmondo Cellini, Esq. --
lcellini@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP & Geoffrey Grant
Bestor, Esq. -- gbesq@bestorlaw.com -- THE BESTOR LAW FIRM

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC is represented by John Curtis Lynch, Esq.
-- john.lynch@troutmansanderr.com -- Jennifer Elle Bowen, Esq. --
Jennifer.bowen@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Erik
W. Kemp, Esq. -- ek@severson.com -- John B. Sullivan, Esq. --
jbs@severson.com -- SEVERSON & WERSON


NORTH LAKE: "Velasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fredesvinda Solivan Velasquez, and others similarly-situated v.
North Lake Retirement Home, Inc. and Guy Bergeron, Case No. 1:15-
cv-23428-UU (S.D. Fla., September 10, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a retirement home in Miami Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Mamane, Esq.
      MAMANE LAW LLC
      1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone (305) 773-6661
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY: Bid to Amend Class Definition Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge A. Joe Fish of the United States District
Court for Northern District of Texas granted Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend proposed class definitions in the case
captioned, MIRNA REYES, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY
AUTHORITY (NTTA), Defendant, Case No. 3:10-CV-0868-G.

On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs filed a putative class action suit
in the 191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas
against defendant, the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA)
alleging various illegal fees for using its roads. Following
removal of the case, the plaintiffs have filed numerous motions
for leave to amend their complaint. On July 9, 2014, the court
entered a scheduling order which set October 9, 2014 as the
deadline to amend pleadings and plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to file a third amdend complaint. The court denied the
motion because of inconsistencies between the proposed third
amended complaint and this court's prior rulings.  The plaintiffs
then edited their proposed third amended complaint and
subsequently filed and served it, with leave of court.

Plaintiffs proposed class definition to include other individuals
who possess potentially valid claims against NTTA for charged
administrative fees.

In the motion, plaintiffs seek for leave to file a fourth amended
complaint arguing that it would correct a clerical error that
improperly narrows the refund and injunctive classes. Currently,
the complaint establishes the beginning of the class periods as
two years prior to the removal of the case to this court; the
plaintiffs desire to amend this date to two years prior to the
case's initial filing in state court.  Presumably, the plaintiffs
seek the amendment to include in the classes all individuals who
possess claims within the applicable two-year statute of
limitations.

In the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 19, 2015
available at http://is.gd/dA2q2Lfrom Leagle.com, Judge Fish held
that by granting the motion for leave to would ensure those with
ostensibly valid claims the possibility of a remedy and promote
judicial efficiency by minimizing subsequent lawsuits arising out
of the same factual circumstances and that defendant has failed to
demonstrate prejudice, the court need not consider granting a
continuance to avoid prejudice.

Plaintiffs are represented by Joe Kendall, Esq. --
jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -- Jamie Jean McKey, Esq. --
jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com -- Jody Lynn Rudman, Esq. --
jrudman@kendalllawgroup.com -- KENDALL LAW GROUP LLP

North Texas Tollway Authority is represented by Jeffrey B. Mead,
Esq. -- jmead@lockelord.com -- Robert T. Mowrey, Esq. --
rmowrey@lockelord.com -- Thomas G. Yoxall, Esq. --
tyoxall@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP


ON DECK: October 5, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors who purchased On Deck Capital,
Inc. securities pursuant and/or traceable to On Deck's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
its December 16, 2014 Initial Public Offering.

Click here to learn about the case: http://docs.wongesq.com/ONDK-
Info-Request-Form-873. There is no cost or obligation to you.

According to the complaint, On Deck issued materially false and/or
misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose
information in the Company's registration statement issued in
connection with the IPO, including that: (1) the actual rate of
default for On Deck's loan portfolio was progressively rising; (2)
and the real value of On Deck's loan portfolio was in material
decline.

If you suffered a loss in On Deck you have until October 5, 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. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/ONDK-Info-
Request-Form-873.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Vincent Wong, Esq.
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong
39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: www.wongesq.com


OUR CHILDREN'S: "Villafana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Irais Villafana, and other similarly situated individuals v. Our
Children's Planet Corp. and Maria E. Caamano, Case No. 1:15-cv-
23432-RNS (S.D. Fla., September 10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a child care and day care center
located in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005


PANASONIC CORPORATION: Recalls Cutter Saw Kits Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Panasonic Corporation of North America, of Newark, N.J., announced
a voluntary recall of about 165 Metal Cutter Saw Kit and Metal
Cutter Combo Kit. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The lower blade guard can get stuck in the fully retracted
position and not automatically release to cover the blade. The
exposed blade poses a laceration hazard and risk of injury.

This recall involves the EY3530NQMKW 15.6V Cordless Metal Cutter
Kit and the EYC136NQK 15.6V Cordless Metal Cutter Combo Kit. The
model EY3530 metal cutter saw is a circular metal cutting saw in
black with yellow accents. "Panasonic" is printed in white letters
on the upper wrap around blade guard. "15.6 V" and "Metal Cutter
Saw" are printed in black letters with yellow highlights on the
blade guard. The recalled metal cutters are about 13 inches long
and 6.7 pounds.  The model EY136 combo kit includes the EY3530
circular metal cutting saw and also includes a drill and other
accessories. The model number and date code are located on the
bottom of the lower support, between the battery and the blade.
The first number in the date code is the year, the second and the
third are the month and the last four digits are the production
number.

Date Codes:

   --- 3120001 through 3120030
   --- 4010001 through 4010030
   --- 4030001 through 4030030
   --- 4080001 through 4080060
   --- 5010001 through 5010060

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/7zpZaz

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Japan and
sold at Industrial distributors nationwide from April 2014 through
June 2015 for about $400 for the saw kit and $500 for the combo
kit.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled saws and
contact Panasonic to receive a return prepaid shipping label.
Panasonic will replace the safety guard and return the saws to the
consumer.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Capilupi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. People's United Financial, Inc., and
People's United Bank, Case No. 2:15-cv-05247 (E.D.N.Y., September
10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate a community-based, regional bank in the
Northeast offering commercial and retail banking, as well as
wealth management services through a network of over 400 retail
locations in Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, New
Hampshire, and Maine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (646) 509-2057
      E-mail: og@outtengolden.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (800) 616-4000
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Gregg I. Shavitz, 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


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Activists Watch School District Suit Closely
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Schaefer, writing for Non Profit Quarterly, reported that
Barbara Galarza, a mother with a daughter in the School District
of Philadelphia, knew her daughter had learning issues. In 2013,
the charter school she had attended since 2010 evaluated her,
giving her a classification of ADHD and an individualized
education plan (IEP) that would serve as a roadmap for her
educational goals through the coming year.

Before she began receiving services, however, she had to transfer
back into a public school in the district, which decided to
conduct its own evaluation. Ms. Galarza, who has limited English
skills, signed a bilingual consent form. What she did not realize
at the time was that unlike the previous evaluation, which had
been conducted in her daughter's first language, Spanish, the
district's evaluation was conducted with a non-bilingual
psychologist.

When the re-evaluation report was sent to Ms. Galarza, it was
entirely in English. Thinking that it was the same diagnosis and
recommendation as the previous evaluation, which she had read and
understood thoroughly, she went in to a meeting with her
daughter's high school psychologist, a meeting that took place
entirely in English. Expecting to talk about her daughter's ADHD,
what she found out instead was that the re-evaluation classified
her daughter with an intellectual disability, a significantly more
involved diagnosis requiring an entirely different set of
services. Moreover, according to what she told writer Regina
Medina of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the psychologist went on to
reassure Ms. Galarza that "it's better this way," because her
daughter would "get a lot more benefits."

Ms. Galarza is now one of the lead plaintiffs in a federal class
action lawsuit alleging that thousands of similarly situated
families were denied the opportunity to fully participate in the
special education process on behalf of their children because of
limited English language skills. As one of the plaintiffs'
representatives, attorney Michael Churchill with the Public
Interest Law Center described Ms. Galarza's experience: "She has
never seen the document, has no way of comprehending what the full
scope of the meeting is. And she breaks out in tears at this
information that is being given to her for the very first time."

The issue is not an isolated or new one. According to the
complaint, the School District of Philadelphia routinely refuses
to provide parents with translated documents in a timely manner or
provide sufficient translation, effectively preventing them from
making informed decisions about their children's education.
Another of the plaintiffs' representatives, Maura McInerney of the
Education Law Center, claims the problem has persisted for many
years. "After years of trying to address this issue with the
District, we felt that the matter needed to be addressed by the
courts."

More than 70 percent of the nearly 26,000 families in the school
district who do not speak English as a first language have
requested documents in their native language. According to the
complaint, in the 2013-14 school year, there were close to 2,000
students with IEPs whose home language was not English.

In 1975, Congress passed federal legislation that came to be known
as the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The law, which
has been revised many times over the years, guarantees a free and
appropriate education to all students with disabilities, ages 3-
21. It specifically delineates the rights of children with
disabilities -- and their parents -- in the special education IEP
process, requiring that all decisions relative to a child's
evaluation, education plan and placement be made with the parents'
meaningful involvement. The law lays out procedural safeguards to
ensure parent involvement, which include explicit requirements
that all relevant information be presented to parents in their
native language.

What this means in Ms. Galarza's case is that, by law, she had the
right to receive her daughter's re-evaluation in Spanish in a
sufficient amount of time (at least ten days) prior to an in-
person meeting to discuss it. In her meeting with the school
psychologist, she had a right to an interpreter so that she could
have a meaningful and productive conversation about her daughter's
new diagnosis and IEP.

Another of the lead plaintiffs, "A.G.," was born in the Dominican
Republic and was enrolled in the ninth grade there when his mother
passed away suddenly. After moving to Philadelphia to live with
his extended family, he was placed in ninth grade for two more
years until his aunt requested that he be evaluated for special
education services. Despite requesting language assistance (and
despite A.G.'s enrollment in ESL classes), the District failed to
provide the appropriate documents in Spanish. Even after his aunt
filed a due process complaint, all subsequent documents were
barely translated and after receiving an IEP with only the section
headings written in Spanish, she had nothing to read at the
meeting or take home to review.

The special education process can be an arduous journey for
families in the best of circumstances. It is a complex, multi-
tiered process, requiring numerous IEP, placement and follow-up
meetings with school staff, psychologists, therapists, and
teachers. While Ms. Galarza and A.G.'s aunt, Margarita Peralta,
had the knowledge and self-assurance to advocate for their
children, despite the language barrier, many others in their
situations are unaware of the laws protecting them or are too
fearful to ask for what they need.

"Federal disability and civil rights laws mandate meaningful
participation by parents in the special education process," says
Attorney McInerny. "When parents are shut out, students suffer and
are denied access to critical services they need to make progress.
This is why our disability laws are so clear on the obligations of
schools to provide language assistance."

Ms. Galarza is more adamant. Reflecting back on the school
psychologist's insistence that her daughter's new diagnosis was
"better," she said, "Nobody would want news like that, it's not
logical. For me that's not normal, to be happy to get more
benefits."


PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Halogen Bulbs Due to Laceration Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Philips Lighting North America Corporation, of Somerset, N.J.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 370,000 Halogen Bulbs.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The lens of the bulb can shatter in the lamp or the lens can fall
and shatter, posing a laceration and burn hazard.

This recall involves Philips 60W PAR 16 120V halogen bulbs
manufactured from November 2013 to March 2015. Date codes that
represent the month and year of production are painted on the bulb
glass along with "PHILIPS Halogena PAR 16," "China" and
"60W/120/V." Recalled bulb date codes include:

Affected Date Codes:

  2013        2014          2015
  ----        ----          ----
3L, 3M      4A, 4B, 4C,    5A, 5B, 5C
             4D, 4E, 4F,
             4G, 4H, 4J,
             4K, 4L, 4M


Philips has received 13 reports of the lens of the bulb
shattering, including five reports of property damage totaling
about $700 and two laceration injuries.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Home
Depot stores and professional distributors nationwide and online
at www.Amazon.com from November 2013 through March 2015 for about
$10.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled bulbs,
remove them from any fixtures and contact Philips to request
packaging materials and instructions for returning the recalled
bulbs at no cost. Philips will provide free replacement bulbs.


PINNACLE ENGINEERING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Jesus Vasallo Garcia and all others similarly situated v.
Pinnacle Engineering & Development, Inc., William J. Way, Case No.
1:15-cv-23429-DPG (S.D. Fla., September 10, 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 civil engineering firm that
regularly transacts business within 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


PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE: Circulation of Notice Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen of the United States District Court
for District of Nevada granted in part Plaintiffs Willie Thurmond
and David Thomas' Motion for Circulation of Notice of the Pendency
of the Action in the case captioned, WILLIE THURMOND and DAVID
THOMAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:15-CV-01066-MMD-PAL (D. Nev.).

The action was filed by two named Plaintiffs who allege Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for failing to pay
limousine drivers minimum wage and overtime. Plaintiffs also
asserted state wage and hour claims. Plaintiffs seek an order
conditionally certifying and providing notice of pendency of an
FLSA collective action consisting of a class of similarly situated
limousine drivers who worked for the Defendants as limousine
drivers, performed limousine services in the State of Nevada, who
were not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, and or not paid minimum wage, and who were required to
improperly share a portion of their tips with Defendants and/or
their managers and owners. Plaintiffs ask that the Court order
notice in the form attached as Exhibit "C" to their motion and
that the court toll the statute of limitations for the period of
time this motions is pending until Defendants provide the names
and contact information for putative class members.

The Defendants ask the Court to defer conditional certification
until after it decides whether a Rule 23 class should be certified
on Plaintiffs' state claims. The Defendants also have numerous
objections to the form of notice the Plaintiffs proposed, and have
asked for additional terms in the notice including advising
potential opt-in plaintiffs that they may be liable for costs and
may be required to participate in discovery.  The Defendants also
ask for a shorter notification period and that the Court deny the
request to toll the statute of limitations.

In the Order dated August 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/FvkLYcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Leen found that
Plaintiffs have met their threshold burden of establishing that
they are similarly situated to a class of limousine drivers
employed by Defendant Presidential Limousine for the three year
period preceding the filing of this lawsuit who worked in Nevada
and did not receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week. Plaintiffs have not, however, met their burden of
showing they are similarly situated to a proposed class of drivers
who were not paid minimum wage and/or required to share a portion
of their tips with Defendants and/or their owners and managers.
Plaintiffs have also not met their burden of showing that
Presidential Limousine Concierge Service, Inc. or Mr. Brent J.
Bell are liable for the asserted wage and hour violations. Judge
Leen denies Plaintiffs' request for equitable tolling because
there is nothing in the record suggests that Defendants engaged in
any improper conduct or that circumstances beyond Plaintiffs
control make it impossible to file claims in a timely manner.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Dana Sniegocki, Esq.
Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq.
Richard Segerblom, Esq.
LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
633 S 4th St #4
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Tel: (702)383-6369

Defendants are represented by Anthony L. Hall, Esq. --
ahall@hllandhart.com -- R. Calder Huntington, Esq. --
rchuntington@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART LLP


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Houston" Suit Over Meal Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Terrilyn Houston, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15-
cv-01853 (N.D. Ohio, September 10, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly-
situated employees for meal periods during which they performed
work, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company owns and operates central
claims call centers located in Ohio, Florida, and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: chastity@larrarolawfirm.com
              anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces 2nd "Houston" Suit Over Meal Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terrilyn Houston, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15-
cv-01854 (N.D. Ohio, September 10, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly-
situated employees for meal periods during which they performed
work, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company owns and operates central
claims call centers located in Ohio, Florida, and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: chastity@larrarolawfirm.com
              anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


REJUVENATION OF PORTLAND: Recalls Shaker Chairs & Bar Stools
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rejuvenation of Portland, Ore., announced a voluntary recall of
about 780 Shaker Chairs and Bar Stools. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The legs and back of these products can break, causing the person
sitting on the chair or stool to fall.

This recall involves a Shaker chair and four different Shaker bar
stools identified as follows:

  Product Name   Item ID   Color    Dimensions       Description
  ------------   -------   -----    ----------       -----------
  Occasional     D0484     Walnut   24.5" W x 27.5"  Natural wax
  Shaker Chair                      H x 25.5" D      finish chair
                                                     in solid
                                                     American
                                                     walnut.
  Windsor Shaker D0485    Black     17" W x 39.75"   Painted,
  Stool                             H x 19.25" D     black oak
                                                     stool in
                                                     counter
                                                     height; seat
                                                     height is 29
                                                     inches
  Windsor Shaker D0485    Black     17" W x 36.5"    Painted,
  Stool                             H x 19.25" D     black oak
                                                     stool in bar
                                                     height; seat
                                                     height is 26
                                                     inches
  Windsor Shaker D0487    Walnut    17" W x 39.75"   Solid,
  Stool                             H x 19.25" D     American
                                                     walnut stool
                                                     in counter
                                                     height; seat
                                                     height is 29
                                                     inches
  Windsor Shaker D0487    Walnut    17" W x 36.5"    Solid,
  Stool                             H x 19.25" D     American
                                                     walnut stool
                                                     in bar
                                                     height; seat
                                                     height is 26
                                                     inches

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold at
Rejuvenation stores nationwide, online at www.rejuvenation.com and
through Rejuvenation Catalog nationwide from May 2015 through June
2015 for about $350 to $570.

Consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and bar stools.
Rejuvenation is contacting customers directly to arrange for the
product to be returned for a full refund.


RJ REYNOLDS: Faces "Feinman" Suit Over Alleged Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Feinman, Richard Holter, and Donald Wilson, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., Case No. 1:15-cv-07142 (S.D.N.Y., September 10,
2015), asserts a claim for breach of contract arising out of RJR's
"Camel Cash" consumer loyalty program, specifically by removing
all the merchandise from the Program, offering only RJR's own
cigarettes and coupons for discounts on RJR's cigarettes.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is the second largest manufacturer of
cigarettes in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
      Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
      David J. Stone, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
      E-mail: squire@bespc.com
              eagel@bespc.com
              stone@bespc.com


RUSTIC CANYON: Faces Class Suit Over Price-Fixing Accusations
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Los Angeles reported that some of Los Angeles' most popular
restaurants are being accused of price-fixing in a class-action
lawsuit filed.

The suit alleges the owner of Rustic Canyon in Santa Monica
started the discussions over a year ago with the owners of seven
other L.A. restaurants to add a three percent surcharge to bills,
money that they say helps pay for their employees' healthcare.

But the suit claims the owners of Animal, AOC, The Hungry Cat,
Lucques, Melisse, Rustic Canyon, Son of a Gun, and Trois Mec
conspired to raise their prices together, violating antitrust
laws.

The San Francisco attorney, who represents a lead LA-based
plaintiff, a customer upset by the charge, spoke to CBS2 via
Skype.

"Under California law, competitors cannot get together and agree
to increase the prices of the goods or services," said Daniel
Sterrett, an attorney.

The complaint alleges Josiah Citrin, a chef and co-owner of
Melisse, wrote an email that said in part: "We decided it would be
a good thing to do it as a group . . . usually when lots of people
do things it's easier to make change."

Sterrett says he doesn't dispute the money goes to employee's
healthcare, but adds: "At the end of the day, a 3 percent increase
is a 3 percent increase. We're not here to harm employees. We just
want accountability here for these restaurants to be honest with
their patrons."

Patrons CBS2 spoke with said they don't mind.

"I'm OK with it as long as you are aware of the fact that that's
gonna be charged, and they're upfront about it," said one patron.

Other customers say they appreciate the restaurants' actions.

"I think it's a great service that they do for their employees,"
said another patron.

A representative from Son of a Gun and Animal say they don't
charge that extra 3 percent, but the plaintiff's attorney says
they are still at fault because he claims they encourage other
restaurants to do so.

Other restaurant representatives either could not comment on the
allegations or didn't return CBS2's calls.


SANJEL (USA): "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darell Davis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Sanjel (USA) Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01980 (D. Colo.,
September 10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Sanjel (USA) Inc. owns and operates an energy service company
headquartered in Denver, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      Udyogi A. Hangawatte, Esq.
      KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


SEGWAY INC: Recalls Off-Board Charger Due to Shock Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Segway Inc., of Bedford, N.H., announced a voluntary recall of
about 17 Off-Board Charger for Segway Personal Transporter (PT).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

A wire inside the charger can detach and touch the side of the
charger, posing a shock hazard.

This recall involves Segway PT Off-Board Chargers manufactured
from November 2012 to November 2014 with part number 23288-00001.
The chargers are black, box-shaped and measure 8 inches wide by
13.75 inches deep by 4 inches high. Two wires used to connect the
unit to Segway PT batteries extend from one end. The Segway brand
name is on the charger above these wires. Chargers with the
following serial numbers are being recalled: 13240C000265,
13240C000266, 13240C000268, 13240C000269, 13240C000272,
14205C000275, 14205C000278, 14205C000280, 14205C000295,
14205C000296, 14205C000297, 14205C000298, 14205C000302,
14209C000313, 14209C000314, 14209C000321 and 14209C000324. The
serial number and part number are on a silver data plate attached
to the bottom of the charger.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Authorized Segway dealers and distributors and directly from
Segway Inc. from November 2012 through September 2015 for about
$920.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chargers,
unplug and contact Segway or the Segway dealer from whom it was
purchased to receive a free replacement power cord equipped with a
ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI). Segway is contacting
consumers directly.


SENJU PHARMACEUTICALS: Delaware Court Dismisses Hartig Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sue L. Robinson of the United States District Court
for District of Delaware granted Allergen Inc.'s motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and denied as
moot Defendants' joint motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim in the case captioned, HARTIG DRUG COMPANY INC., Plaintiff,
v. SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD., KYORIN PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD.,
and ALLERGAN INC., Defendants, Case No. 14-719-SLR (D. Del.).

On June 6, 2014, plaintiff Hartig Drug Company, Inc. filed the
complaint alleging certain antitrust violations concerning
defendants Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical
Co., Ltd. and Allergan, Inc.'s aqueous liquid gatifloxacin
ophthalmic products, Zymar(R) and Zymaxid(R). Defendants are the
owners or licensees of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,980,470 and 5,880,283
which are listed in the United States Food and Drug
Administration's publication titled "Approved Drug Products with
Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations" (known as the "Orange Book")
for Zymar(R) and Zymaxid(R).

Hartig asserts that the defendants engaged in unlawful
anticompetitive acts and practices including: (1) filing sham
patent lawsuits; (2) committing fraud upon the United States
Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO); and (3) "product hopping" to
preclude pharmacies from substituting generic gatifloxacin
ophthalmic formulations form defendants' more expensive branded
drugs. Hartig alleges that defendants: (1) monopolized in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (2) conspired to
monopolize in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; and (3)
contracted, combined, or conspired to restrain trade in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In the motion, Allergan alleges that it did not consent to the
assignment of any rights held by Amerisource under the
distribution services agreement or DSA and, therefore, any
purported assignment is invalid. Hartig argues that the DSA is
focused on setting the terms for permitting Amerisource to act as
an authorized distributor and, therefore, the anti-assignment
clause only restricts Amerisource from assigning its right to
serve as an authorized distributor of Allergan's products.

In the Memorandum Opinion dated August 19, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/jvaKHMfrom Leagle.com, Judge Robinson held that the
DSA forbids the assignment of the right to bring suit. As Hartig
does not allege that Amerisource sought the permission of Allergan
prior to executing the assignment, the court finds that such
assignment is invalid. Because the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the action is dismissed with respect to the
remaining defendants.

Plaintiff is represented by J. Clayton Athey, Esq. --
jcathey@prickett.com & Eric J. Juray, Esq. -- ejjuray@prickett.com
-- PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A., Brent W. Landau, Esq. --
blandau@hausfeld.com -- Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. --
mcoolidge@hausfeld.com --  HAUSFELD LLP

Defendants are represented by Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq. --
jblumenfeld@mnat.com -- MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP,
Ashley E. Johnson, Esq. -- ajohnson@gibsondunn.com -- Jason C.
McKenney, Esq. -- jmckenney@gibsondunn.com -- M. Sean Royall, Esq.
-- sroyall@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP


SOLARWINDS INC: September 29 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of SolarWinds, Inc. ("SolarWinds") SWI, -0.36% between
April 28, 2015 and July 16, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the Western District of Texas. If
you purchased or otherwise acquired SolarWinds securities between
April 28, 2015 and July 16, 2015, inclusive, your rights may be
affected by this action. To get more information go to
http://zlk.9nl.com/solarwinds-swior contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-
7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among others: (1) that the Company's domestic business was
struggling against the Company's expectations; (2) that the
Company's license sales growth of core license products and
resulting license revenue was lower than expectations and
guidance; (3) that the overall quality of the "demand capture" the
Company was garnering for certain core products was dropping; and
(4) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in SolarWinds you have until September 29,
2015to 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.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
30 Broad St., 24th FL New York, NY 10004
Toll free. 877-363-5972
T. 212-363-7500
F. 212-363-7171
Email: jlevi@zlk.com


STERICYCLE INC: Faces "Clemens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courtnie Clemens, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01432-
SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., September 10, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Stericycle, Inc. is a compliance company that specializes in
collecting and disposing regulated substances, such as medical
waste and sharps, pharmaceuticals, hazardous waste, and providing
services for recalled and expired goods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
      Philip J. Gibbons Jr., Esq.
      GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
      3091 E. 98th Street, Suite 280
      Indianapolis, IN 46280
      Telephone: (317) 706-1100
      Facsimile: (317) 623-8503
      E-mail: phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com
              rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com


TECHNICAL CONSUMER: Recalls LED Downlights Due to Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Technical Consumer Products Inc., of Aurora, Ohio, announced a
voluntary recall of about 24,400 LED Downlights for Recessed Cans
(in addition, 6,200 units were sold in Canada). Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The internal wiring in the LED downlights can contact the
downlight's metal trim, posing a shock hazard to consumers.

This recall involves Connected by TCP 5-inch and 6-inch LED
Downlight retrofits for recessed cans. These replacement
downlights are white and produce a soft white (2700 Kelvin) or
bright white (5000 Kelvin) color temperature. Affected units have
item number "CD611LC" and the date code printed directly on the
black base of the lamp. Consumers will need to shut off power to
the lights and disengage the lamp to check the item number and
date code. "Connected automated home lighting system" is printed
on the product packaging, along with the item number, UPC code and
date code.

  Item Number   UPC               Description       Date Codes
  -----------   ---               -----------       ----------
  CD611LC       UPC#              Connected 5"/6"   1410210
                7-62148-26168-1   Downlight         1424217
                                                    1428217
                                                    1439217
                                                    1444217
                                                    1451217

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at The
Home Depot stores and electrical distributors nationwide and
online at Amazon.com from June 2014 through June 2015 for about
$35.


THUNDER BAY, ONTARIO: 2nd Flood Class Action Discontinued
---------------------------------------------------------
Net News Ledger reported that the claimants have recently agreed
to discontinue a second flood class action against the City of
Thunder Bay, Ontario, which started about two years after the
initial action. Both actions arose out of the May 28, 2012 flood
disaster.

As a result, several of the allegations in the second claim have
now been incorporated in the first Class Action suit.
Specifically, the claimants allege that the City contributed to
the overloading of the Atlantic Avenue Plant by not enforcing its
Downspout Disconnection By-Law. The claimants now allege that the
City was negligent in failing to prosecute the claimants to
disconnect their rainwater leaders.

The City disputes this claim. An estimated 200 roof rainwater
leaders, or downspouts, had not yet been disconnected following
the City's efforts from 1999 to 2005 to bring about disconnection.
However, under the By-law, it is the owners' responsibility to
comply. Also, it is highly unlikely that the water from connected
downspouts contributed in any significant way to the overflows to
the plant. These issues are presently being addressed by experts
retained to assist the City in its defence.

Although the City does not accept the allegations, if a Court
finds merit in them, at all times it remained the responsibility
of the claimants to meet the Downspout Disconnection By-Law and,
for that reason, the third party proceedings would seek
contribution from them for damages incurred.

Claimants who receive the third party claim legal documents should
contact their insurer or lawyer for assistance.


TOYS "R" US: Faces "Labenski" Suit Over Parking Lot Barriers
------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald H. Labenski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06777-
MCA-LDW (September 10, 2015), arises from the accessibility
barriers in the parking lots at various public accommodations
owned, operated, controlled, and leased by the Defendant.

Toys "R" Us, Inc. is a toy and baby products retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Gluck, Esq.
      John D. Zaremba, Esq.
      ZAREMBA BROWN, PLLC
      40 Wall Street, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 380-6700
      E-mail: dgluck@zarembabrown.com
              jzaremba@zarembabrown.com

         - and -

      Benjamin Sweet, Esq.
      Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq,
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
              sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com


UBER: Labor Lawsuit Granted Class Status in California
------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Huffington Post, reported that Uber
drivers are entitled to class action status in litigation over
whether they are independent contractors or employees, a key
development in a case threatening Uber's business model and that
of other hot startups dependent on similar service workers.

Three drivers sued Uber in a federal court in San Francisco,
contending they are employees and entitled to reimbursement for
expenses, including gas and vehicle maintenance. The drivers
currently pay those costs themselves.

The results of Uber's legal battle could reshape the sharing
economy, which is built around Internet companies that serve as
marketplaces matching people who provide a service with others
looking to pay for it.

In the ruling on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San
Francisco said California drivers could sue as a group on the
question of whether they are employees or contractors, and over
their demand for payment of tips that were not passed on to them.
Drivers' attorneys must submit more evidence to sue as a group for
reimbursement of other expenses.

Chen also said Uber drivers who have worked for the service since
May 2014 must specifically opt out of an arbitration agreement in
order to sue the company.

Class action status generally gives plaintiffs more leverage to
negotiate a settlement. In a statement, Uber said it will appeal,
but that the arbitration portion of Chen's ruling means a "tiny
fraction" of a potential 160,000 California drivers are eligible
to be class members. Additionally, one of the three drivers who
sued is no longer eligible to represent the class, Uber said.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, a lawyer who represents drivers in the case,
said Uber's characterization of the size of the class is "not
correct," and that "many thousands" will be part of the lawsuit.

"This decision is a major victory for Uber drivers," Liss-Riordan
said.

Uber had argued that the drivers should not be allowed to sue as a
group because they have little in common and relate to the company
in different ways.

However, Chen wrote that there is an "inherent tension" in Uber's
argument.

"On one hand, Uber argues that it has properly classified every
single driver as an independent contractor," Chen wrote.

On the other, Chen wrote, Uber argues that individual drivers are
so unique that the court, "unlike, apparently, Uber itself,"
cannot make its own determination.

Uber and other companies, including Lyft and Handy, say the
contractor model allows for flexibility that many see as important
to their success.

An ultimate finding that drivers are employees could raise Uber's
costs beyond the lawsuit's scope and force it to pay Social
Security, workers' compensation, and unemployment insurance.

In June, a California labor commissioner ruled that an Uber driver
was an employee, not a contractor. Uber has appealed that
decision.

The debate has spilled into U.S. presidential politics, with
Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton in July saying
on-demand companies raise "hard questions" about workplace
protection and what a good job will look like in the future.

In arguing against class action status, Uber had submitted sworn
statements from hundreds of drivers supporting the company.
However, Chen rejected this evidence because the statements could
have been the product of biased questions.

There is simply "no basis," Chen wrote, to support Uber's claim
"that some innumerable legion of drivers prefer to remain
independent contractors rather than become employees."

The case is Douglas O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies Inc, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, No. 13-3826.


WORLD OF PUPS: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leroy Williams and Ghassan Jenbart, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Gary Nudelman a/k/a Gary Newman,
A World Of Pups Inc., A World Of Pets & Supplies, Ltd., A World of
Pups and Pets Inc., NY Breeders Ltd., and John and Jane Does 1 -
40, Case No. 1:15-cv-05242 (E.D.N.Y., September 10, 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 Puppy stores in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
      THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 400
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (212) 991-8960
      Facsimile: (212) 991-8952
      E-mail: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Adam Slater, Esq.
      SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
      445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 420-9300
      E-mail: aslater@sssfirm.com


* Judges Say Watchdogs and Class Action Attys Could Unite Forces
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that corporate watchdogs and class action lawyers could work much
more closely together, say senior judges and litigators.

Eminent US Judge Jed Rakoff pointed to a proposal from an American
academic, Professor Jack Coffee from Columbia Law School, which
would see regulators hire class action lawyers to bring class
actions on "behalf of the injured class but to be supervised by
the regulators".

Judge Rakoff told the Maurice Blackburn Fairfax Media Corporate
Conduct Symposium that the idea had already been put into practice
in the US in a few cases with good results, though he did note
those cases had not been brought by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The idea was supported by former Federal Court judge Ray
Finkelstein, said he wouldn't back the Coffee model but noted that
co-operation between the regulator and class action law firms had
not been "terribly satisfactory" in the past and could certainly
be improved

"The regulator, either ASIC or the ACCC, can gather together vast
stores of information which would be extremely valuable for the
private litigant to get their hand on ... not only would it be
valuable, it would save massive amounts of time and money," he
said.

"The idea that it should be done twice over is basically absurd."
ASIC chief legal counsel Michael Kingston said regulators and the
class action firm had very different aims when bringing legal
action.

"The aim of the class action is compensation. Regulatory action
can have a variety of aims, general deterrence, punishment,
education," he said.

Maurice Blackburn principal Rebecca Gilsenan supported greater co-
operation between class action law firms and ASIC, saying the
impact of increasing financial pressure on regulators could be
reduced by ASIC hiring class action law firms to work on cases.
Earlier, Maurice Blackburn national head of class actions Andrew
Watson said there should be greater protections under the
Corporations Act for whistleblowers, including broadening the
category of people disclosures can be made to include journalists,
and protecting whistleblowers who are not employees.

"The current whistleblower protection in the Corporations Act is
too narrow in scope.

"It think we should expand the category of protected workers to
include former employees and former officers of corporations and
to contractors as well," Mr Watson said.

Mr Watson said the protected disclosure by whistleblowers should
be expanded beyond just breaches of the Corporations Act to
include any criminal offence, any breach of legal obligations,
damage to the environment or any attempt to conceal any of those
things.

Judge Finkelstein also called for reform of Australia's penalty
regime, describing the $200,000 cap on pecuniary penalties under
the Corporations Act for a civil breach of directors duties as
"woefully inadequate" and that the system needed "dramatic
change".

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ch. 7 Trustee Directed to Refile Fibro Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Davis, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that Judge
Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania held that shipowners defending against a
claim brought by a debtor alleging that he developed an asbestos-
related illness from exposure aboard various ships failed to show
that the debtor's failure to disclose the asbestos claim in his
bankruptcy case was in bad faith or an attempt to play "fast and
loose" with the bankruptcy court.

According to the report, Judge Robreno denied defendant A-C
Product Liability Trust's motion for summary judgment, concluding
that plaintiff/debtor Francis W. Labrache, Jr.'s claim was not
barred because of judicial estoppel.  The doctrine of "judicial
estoppel," the court explained, "prevents a litigant from
asserting a position inconsistent with one that she has previously
asserted in the same or in a previous proceeding," the report
related.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff's claims were barred on
the grounds of judicial estoppel because the plaintiff took
"irreconcilably inconsistent positions in his bankruptcy
proceeding and the instant proceeding," the report further
related.  The plaintiff contended that the asbestos claims are not
barred on grounds of judicial estoppel because the defendants bear
the burden of establishing bad faith, but they have no evidence
that the plaintiff acted in bad faith when he did not list his
asbestos claim as an asset in his bankruptcy filing, the report
said.

The report said that the court noted that it is undisputed that
the plaintiff did not list asbestos claims, or any other legal
claims, as assets in his bankruptcy filing, then the plaintiff
began pursuing those same claims that he represented did not
exist.  There is no evidence, however, the court said, to show
that the plaintiff acted in bad faith or with an intent to "play
fast and loose with the court," the report added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Environmental Had 202 Cases at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. disclosed that it has 202 pending
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: "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002,
began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a
large number of industrial companies including, in particular,
those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management's
opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and
speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other
defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and
engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including
death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more
recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.
The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases where evidence has
been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through March 31, 2015
for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $0.7 million,
which, together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses, have been paid by the Company's insurers. The average
cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately
$25,000.

"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 202 cases pending
against the Company as of March 31, 2015 (with Connecticut, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 195 cases that were pending as of
December 31, 2014. During the three months ended March 31, 2015,
11 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was
dismissed from 4 cases and settled zero cases. Most of the pending
cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery,
although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are
scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance
coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the
Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of
the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts.
However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of
cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of
its insurers or their position as to coverage. The Company also
presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a
material adverse impact upon the Company's results of operations,
liquidity or financial condition."

CECO Environmental Corp.,(CECO) is an environmental technology
company focused on critical solutions in the product recovery, air
pollution control, fluid handling and filtration segments. The
Company operates through four principal product groups: Engineered
Equipment Technology and Parts Group, Met-Pro Group,
Contracting/Services Group and Component Parts Group. Its
Engineered Equipment Technology and Parts Group produces various
types of air pollution control technology and equipment. The Met-
Pro Group manufactures and sells product recovery and pollution
control equipment for purification of air and liquids, fluid
handling equipment for corrosive, abrasive and high temperature
liquids, and filtration and purification products. Its
Contracting/Services Group produces air pollution control and
engineered industrial ventilation systems and its Component Parts
Group manufactures products used by the Company and other air
pollution control companies and air system contractors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,266 PI Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation reported that it had 17,266 pending asbestos-
related personal injury actions, 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 is named as one of many defendants (approximately 90
or more in most cases) in legal actions in the United States
alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over
the past several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have
named as defendants, among others, many manufacturers,
distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or
products that allegedly contained asbestos.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers. Any asbestos-containing part of a Company
product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the
asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne
exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated
with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions.

At March 31, 2015, there were 17,266 pending asbestos personal
injury actions filed against the Company. Of those actions, 16,939
were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), 126
were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and 201
were filed in courts located in other states.

The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.
At March 31, 2015, 16,816 of the actions filed in New York Supreme
Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket
created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and future
asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they
have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. The
remaining 123 cases in New York County are pending on the Active
or In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a
malignant condition or physical impairment.

The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available,
if necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions referred to above.
The Company believes that a substantial portion of the costs and
expenses of the asbestos actions will be paid by the Company's
insurers.

In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the United
States, the Company expects to continue to receive additional
claims in the future. The Company intends to continue its practice
of vigorously defending these claims and cases. At March 31, 2015,
the Company has obtained dismissal in 27,621 cases by stipulation
or summary judgment prior to trial.

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-
related actions in the United States due to the unpredictable
nature of this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded
in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements
because a loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable.
Despite this uncertainty, and although results of operations and
cash flows for a given period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related actions, the Company does not expect that any
costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company
in connection with asbestos litigation would have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

Harsco Corporation is a diversified, multinational provider of
industrial services and engineered products serving global
industries. The Company operates in three segments: Harsco Metals
& Minerals, Harsco Rail and Harsco Industrial. The Company's
principal lines of business include outsourced, on-site services
to steel mills and other metals producers; resource recovery
technologies for the re-use of industrial waste stream by-
products; industrial abrasives and roofing granules; engineered
scaffolding, concrete forming and shoring, and other access-
related services, rentals and sales; railway track maintenance
services and equipment; industrial grating products; air-cooled
heat exchangers, and heat transfer products. Harsco also holds an
approximate 29 percent equity interest in Brand Energy &
Infrastructure Services, a provider of specialized industrial
services to the worldwide energy and infrastructure sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has 59,000 American Optical PI Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., disclosed that there were 59,000 asbestos-related
personal injury claims naming American Optical as one of the
defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2015.

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical
Corporation, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective
devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale
of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify
the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-
related and other claims. As of March 29, 2015, approximately
59,000 claims naming American Optical and numerous other
defendants were pending in various federal and state courts
seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert
was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is now a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the
defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims.

Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos and other allegedly
hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products Company
(Gibsonburg). Gibsonburg was acquired by Pfizer in the 1960s and
sold products containing small amounts of asbestos until the early
1970s.

There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries.

Pfizer Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company. The Company is
engaged in the discovery, development and manufacture of
healthcare products. Its products include Lyrica, the Prevnar
family of products, Enbrel, Celebrex, Lipitor, Viagra, Zyvox,
Sutent, EpiPen, Toviaz, Tygacil, Rapamune, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Norvasc, BeneFIX, Genotropin, ReFacto, Xyntha and Enbrel, among
others. It operates in three segments: Global Innovative
Pharmaceutical segment (GIP), Global Vaccines, Oncology and
Consumer Healthcare segment (VOC) and Global Established
Pharmaceutical segment (GEP). GIP is focused on developing,
registering and commercializing medications in therapeutic areas,
such as inflammation, cardiovascular/metabolic, neuroscience and
pain, rare diseases and women's/men's health. VOC focuses on the
development and commercialization of vaccines and products for
oncology and consumer healthcare. GEP includes its sterile
injectable products and bio similar development portfolio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 40,090 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had 40,090 pending 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.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one
of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases.
In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a
claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use.

Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. As of March 31, 2015, the Company had pending
approximately 40,090 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 41,100 as of December 31, 2014 and 45,270 as of
March 31, 2014. During the first quarter of 2015, the Company
received approximately 860 new claims and closed or moved to an
inactive docket approximately 1,870 claims. The Company reports
claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has
been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement
with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.
Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that
form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting
the claims and other factors. The Company's total costs for the
years 2014 and 2013 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims
after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were
approximately $11 million and $29 million, respectively. The
Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may
vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered
in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses.

The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate
to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many
factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding
claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims
by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of
resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of
asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in the
past five to ten years and has remained flat in recent years, it
is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and
circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and
types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which
could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities.

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

CBS Corporation is a mass media company. The Company operates
through segments, including Entertainment, Cable Networks,
Publishing and Local Broadcasting. The Entertainment segment is
composed of the CBS Television Network, CBS Television Studios,
CBS Global Distribution Group, CBS Interactive and CBS Films. The
Cable Networks segment is composed of Showtime Networks, which
operates program services, such as Showtime, The Movie Channel,
and Flix; CBS Sports Network, and Smithsonian Networks, which
operates a program service, Smithsonian Channel. The Publishing
segment is composed of Simon & Schuster, which publishes and
distributes consumer books under imprints such as Simon &
Schuster, Pocket Books, Scribner and Atria Books. The Local
Broadcasting segment is composed of CBS Television Stations, the
Company's 30 owned broadcast television stations, and CBS Radio,
through which the Company owns and operates 117 radio stations in
26 United States markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle Continues to Defend Fibro Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (Scotts Miracle-Gro) continues to
defend itself against numerous 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 28, 2015.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of cases
alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure
to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the Company's
historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products. In many of
these cases, the complaints are not specific about the plaintiffs'
contacts with the Company or its products. The cases vary but
complaints in these cases generally seek unspecified monetary
damages (actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive) from
multiple defendants. The Company believes that the claims against
it are without merit and is vigorously defending against them. It
is not currently possible to reasonably estimate a probable loss,
if any, associated with these cases and, accordingly, no reserves
have been recorded in the Company's Consolidated Financial
Statements. The Company is reviewing agreements and policies that
may provide insurance coverage or indemnity as to these claims and
is pursuing coverage under some of these agreements and policies,
although there can be no assurance of the results of these
efforts. There can be no assurance that these cases, whether as a
result of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense
costs, will not have a material effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (Scotts Miracle-Gro) is a
manufacturer and marketer of branded consumer lawn and gardens
products. The Company's segments include Global Consumer, which
manufactures and markets consumer lawn and gardens products,
including lawn care, Gardening and Landscape and Home Protection,
and Scotts LawnService, which provides residential and commercial
lawn care, tree and shrub care and limited pest control services
in the United States through periodic applications of fertilizer
and control products. The Company sells its consumer products
primarily to home centers, mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs,
large hardware chains, independent hardware stores, nurseries,
garden centers and food and drug stores through both a direct
sales force and its network of brokers and distributors. The
primary distribution centers for the Company's Global Consumer
business internationally are located in the United Kingdom,
France, Germany, Austria and Australia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Has Adequate Reserve for Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc., says it has established an adequate reserve to
deal with potential asbestos liabilities, 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.

NRG Energy, Inc., through its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, may
be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a result of its
acquisition of EME. The Company is currently analyzing the scope
of potential liability as it may relate to Midwest Generation. The
Company believes that it has established an adequate reserve to
deal with these cases.

NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) is a power company that produces, sells and
delivers energy, and energy products and services in power markets
in the United States. NRG's business segments are NRG Business,
NRG Home, NRG Renew, NRG Yield and corporate activities. NRG
Business consists of NRG's wholesale operations, including plant
operations, commercial operations, engineering, procurement and
construction (EPC), energy services and other related functions.
NRG Home includes the Company's NRG Home Retail and NRG Home Solar
businesses. NRG Renew includes the Company's solar and wind
assets. NRG Yield includes NRG's contracted generation assets. As
of December 31, 2014, NRG owned and operated approximately 52,000
megawatts (MW) of generation; transacted in and traded fuel and
transportation services, and directly sold energy, services, and
sustainable products and services to retail customers under the
name NRG and other retail brand names owned by NRG.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $570-Mil. Fibro Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $570 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.

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries
alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in
connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted
on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of March 31,
2015, there were 121 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with
the cumulative relief sought of up to $26 million, and 32 asserted
claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up
to $10 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is
expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims
likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$570 million at March 31, 2015 and $575 million at December 31,
2014. These reserves are classified in Other within Deferred
Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities
on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are
based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and
future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded on an
undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light
of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast,
management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the
indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2033
related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy
Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded
reserves.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company. Duke Energy conducts
its operations in three business segments: Regulated Utilities,
International Energy and Commercial Power. The Company's Regulated
Utilities segment conducts operations primarily through Duke
Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke
Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The Company's International
Energy segment principally operates and manages power generation
facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids outside the United States.
The Company's Commercial Power builds, develops and operates wind
and solar renewable generation and energy transmission projects
throughout the continental United States. Duke Energy operates in
the United States and Latin America primarily through its direct
and indirect subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $617MM Fibro Receivables
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
has $617 million receivables for insurance recoveries related to
asbestos-related injuries and damages, 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.

Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy
Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance
retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be
reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance
policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $864 million in
excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance
recoveries were $617 million at March 31, 2015, and $616 million
at December 31, 2014. These amounts are classified in Other within
Investments and Other Assets and Receivables on the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of
any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance
claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery
asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues
to have a strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company. Duke Energy conducts
its operations in three business segments: Regulated Utilities,
International Energy and Commercial Power. The Company's Regulated
Utilities segment conducts operations primarily through Duke
Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke
Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The Company's International
Energy segment principally operates and manages power generation
facilities and engages in sales and marketing of electric power,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids outside the United States.
The Company's Commercial Power builds, develops and operates wind
and solar renewable generation and energy transmission projects
throughout the continental United States. Duke Energy operates in
the United States and Latin America primarily through its direct
and indirect subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 1,046 New Fibro Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, received 1,046 new 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.

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally
have focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's
employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately
the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of
certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things,
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these
cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however,
is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including
differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature
of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal
merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number
of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure,
including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial
rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits
under appropriate circumstances.

Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs
-- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not
manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products
that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on
any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the
plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the
dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with
respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the
litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing
claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's
motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend
aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including
defending claims at trials.

MLIC received approximately 4,636 asbestos-related claims in 2014.
During the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, MLIC
received approximately 1,046 and 1,366 new asbestos-related
claims, respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be
brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may
incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year
are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year.

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

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

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

MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved
in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
March 31, 2015.

MetLife, Inc., (MetLife) is a provider of life insurance,
annuities, employee benefits and asset management. The Company's
segments include Retail; Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits, and
Corporate Benefit Funding. Its three geographic segments are Latin
America (collectively, the Americas); Asia, and Europe, the Middle
East and Africa (EMEA). In addition, MetLife's Corporate & Other
includes MetLife Home Loans LLC (MLHL), the surviving, non-bank
entity of the merger of MetLife Bank, National Association
(MetLife Bank) with and into MLHL, and other business activities.
Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it operates in the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.
The Company's businesses in the Americas offer a range of
protection products and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 44,587 Fibro Cases at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. was a defendant in 44,587 cases filed in numerous state
and federal courts alleging injury or death 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.

Of the 44,587 pending claims as of March 31, 2015, approximately
18,600 claims were pending in New York, approximately 7,300 claims
were pending in Texas, approximately 5,100 claims were pending in
Mississippi, and approximately 300 claims were pending in Ohio,
all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. As of March 31, 2015,
the Company has paid three judgments arising from adverse jury
verdicts in asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of
$2.54 million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years
after the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in
California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and
appellate remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02
million, was made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the
Earl Haupt case in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009. The
third payment, in the amount of $0.9 million, was made in June
2014, approximately two years after the adverse verdict in the
William Paulus matter in California, after the Company had
exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Settled 110,000 Claims at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has resolved 110,000 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.

Cumulatively through March 31, 2015, the Company has resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) approximately 110,000 claims. The related
settlement cost incurred by the Company and its insurance carriers
is approximately $430 million, for an average settlement cost per
resolved claim of approximately $3,900. The average settlement
cost per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2014,
2013 and 2012 was $3,800, $3,300 and $6,300, respectively. Because
claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost
per resolved claim, as well as the number of open claims, can
fluctuate significantly from period to period. In addition to
large group dismissals, the nature of the disease and
corresponding settlement amounts for each claim resolved will also
drive changes from period to period in the average settlement cost
per claim. Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not
considered in the Company's periodic review of its estimated
asbestos liability.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Recorded $600MM Fibro Liability
----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. recorded $600 million asbestos-related 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 has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the
field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos
liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by
the Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as
the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the
claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from
filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A
to project future asbestos costs is based largely on the Company's
experience during a base reference period of eleven quarterly
periods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and
three additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for
claims filed, settled and dismissed. The Company's experience is
then compared to the results of widely used previously conducted
epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that
information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would
be filed against the Company and estimates the aggregate
settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve
both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement
costs by disease during the reference period. This methodology has
been accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with the
Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs of
defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from
the Company which is based upon discussions with its defense
counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of
the Company's asbestos liability for pending and future claims,
based on claim experience during the reference period and covering
claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period.
The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are
(1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the
Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims,
(3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the
Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the
Company. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor
predominates in determining the liability estimate. Although the
methodology used by HR&A can be applied to show claims and costs
for periods subsequent to the indicated period (up to and
including the endpoint of the asbestos studies referred to above),
management believes that the level of uncertainty regarding the
various factors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too
great to provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future
claims, the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for
years beyond the indicated estimate.

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

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

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

Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021
based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through
March 31, 2015, the Company's actual experience during the updated
reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed
generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's liability
estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the Company
considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as
the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate
rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects
on expected future settlement values. Based on this evaluation,
the Company determined that no change in the estimate was
warranted for the period ended March 31, 2015. Nevertheless, if
certain factors show a pattern of sustained increase or decrease,
the liability could change materially; however, all the
assumptions used in estimating the asbestos liability are
interdependent and no single factor predominates in determining
the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty with regard to
and the interdependency of such factors used in the calculation of
its asbestos liability, and since no one factor predominates, the
Company believes that a range of potential liability estimates
beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be reasonably
estimated.

A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. The liability was $600 million as of March 31, 2015. It is
not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the
asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected
such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021,
due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the
estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a
claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated
costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability
to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion
of the total estimated liability at March 31, 2015 was $79 million
and represents the Company's best estimate of total asbestos costs
expected to be paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount is
based upon the HR&A model together with the Company's prior year
payment experience for both settlement and defense costs.

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

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate
referenced above, the Company also developed an estimate of
probable insurance recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In
developing this estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-
place and other settlement agreements described above, as well as
a number of additional factors. These additional factors include
the financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies
and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and
defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, the timing
and amount of reimbursements will vary because the Company's
insurance coverage for asbestos claims involves multiple insurers,
with different policy terms and certain gaps in coverage. In
addition to consulting with legal counsel on these insurance
matters, the Company retained insurance consultants to assist
management in the estimation of probable insurance recoveries
based upon the aggregate liability estimate described above and
assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance
carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other
factors noted above by the Company's legal counsel, and
incorporating risk mitigation judgments by the Company where
policy terms or other factors were not certain, the Company's
insurance consultants compiled a model indicating how the
Company's historical insurance policies would respond to varying
levels of asbestos settlement and defense costs and the allocation
of such costs between such insurers and the Company. Using the
estimated liability as of December 31, 2011 (for claims filed or
expected to be filed through 2021), the insurance consultant's
model forecasted that approximately 25% of the liability would be
reimbursed by the Company's insurers. While there are overall
limits on the aggregate amount of insurance available to the
Company with respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were
not reached by the total estimated liability currently recorded by
the Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company
in its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion
of the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance
coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance
in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the
asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverage
allocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded as
of December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurance
reimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset is
reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are
received. The asset was $144 million as of March 31, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. Unit Has 166 Pending PI Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc.'s subsidiary, NL Industries, Inc., has 166 pending
asbestos-related personal injury 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: "NL has been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or
operated by NL. There are 166 of these types of cases pending,
involving a total of approximately 712 plaintiffs. In addition,
the claims of approximately 8,692 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts. We do not expect these
claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts'
medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued
any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of
liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if
any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these
matters. Based on information available to us, including:

   * facts concerning historical operations,
   * the rate of new claims,
   * the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and
   * our prior experience in the defense of these matters,

"We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of
these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which
are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably
possible outcome would involve amounts material to our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek,
dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In
addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we
have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance
policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us."

Valhi, Inc., is a holding company. The Company operates through
its wholly owned and majority-owned subsidiaries, including NL
Industries, Inc., Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX International Inc.
and Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS). The Company operates in
four segments. The Chemicals segment operates through Kronos,
which is a producer and marketer of titanium dioxide pigments. The
Component Products segment operates through CompX, which is a
manufacturer of engineered components utilized in a variety of
applications and industries. The Waste Management segment operates
through WCS, which operates processing, treatment, storage and
disposal of a range of hazardous, toxic and other wastes. The Real
Estate Management and Development segment operates through BMI and
LandWell. BMI provides utility services to industrial and
municipal customers and owns real property. LandWell develops
certain land holdings for commercial, industrial and residential
purposes in Henderson, Nevada.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,398 PI Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation had a total of 8,398 pending asbestos
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.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of predecessors of the Corporation's Air & Liquid
subsidiary and of an inactive subsidiary in dissolution. During
2013, all pending claims against the inactive subsidiary in
dissolution were settled, dismissed or barred and the dissolution
court issued a final order thereby concluding the dissolution
proceedings. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the
Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often
in excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal
courts.

For the three-months ended March 31, 2015, the Company had a total
of 8,398 pending asbestos claims.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two segments: Forged and
Cast Rolls, and Air and Liquid Processing. The Company's Forged
and Cast Rolls Segment's Union Electric Steel Corporation produces
forged hardened steel rolls used in cold rolling by producers of
steel, aluminum and other metals throughout the world. Union
Electric Steel United Kingdom Limited produces cast rolls for hot
and cold strip mills, medium/heavy section mills and plate mills
in a variety of iron and steel qualities. Its Air and Liquid
Processing Segment's Aerofin Division of Air and Liquid Systems
Corporation produces custom-engineered finned tube heat exchange
coils and related heat transfer products for a variety of
industries. Buffalo Air Handling Division of Air and Liquid
Systems Corporation produces custom air handling systems used in
commercial, institutional and industrial buildings. It
manufactures a line of centrifugal pumps for the refrigeration,
power generation and marine defense industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had $136.81MM Fibro Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's insurance receivable for asbestos
liability was $136,807,000, 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 Corporation and its Air & Liquid subsidiary are parties to a
series of settlement agreements ("Settlement Agreements") with
insurers that have coverage obligations for Asbestos Liability.
Under the Settlement Agreements, the Settling Insurers accept
financial responsibility, subject to the terms and conditions of
the respective agreements, including overall coverage limits, for
pending and future claims for Asbestos Liability. The Settlement
Agreements encompass the substantial majority of insurance
policies that provide coverage for claims for Asbestos Liability.

The Settlement Agreements include acknowledgements that Howden
North America, Inc. ("Howden") is entitled to coverage under
policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the
historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge,
a former subsidiary of the Corporation (the "Products"). The
Settlement Agreements do not provide for any prioritization on
access to the applicable policies or any sublimits of liability as
to Howden or the Corporation and Air & Liquid, and, accordingly,
Howden may access the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers
for any covered claim arising out of a Product. In general, access
by Howden to the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers for
the Products will erode coverage under the Settlement Agreements
available to the Corporation and Air & Liquid for Asbestos
Liability.

On February 24, 2011, the Corporation and Air & Liquid filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against thirteen domestic insurance
companies, certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and certain
London market insurance companies, and Howden. The lawsuit seeks a
declaratory judgment regarding the respective rights and
obligations of the parties under excess insurance policies that
were issued to the Corporation from 1981 through 1984 as respects
claims against the Corporation and its subsidiary for Asbestos
Liability and as respects asbestos bodily-injury claims against
Howden arising from the Products. The Corporation and Air & Liquid
have reached Settlement Agreements with all but two of the
defendant insurers in the coverage action. Those Settlement
Agreements specify the terms and conditions upon which the insurer
parties are to contribute to defense and indemnity costs for
claims for Asbestos Liability. One of the Settlement Agreements
entered into by the Corporation and Air & Liquid also provided for
the dismissal of claims, without prejudice, regarding two upper-
level excess policies issued by one of the insurers. The Court has
entered Orders dismissing all claims in the action filed against
each other by the Corporation and Air & Liquid, on the one hand,
and by the settling insurers, on the other. Howden also reached an
agreement with eight domestic insurers addressing asbestos-related
bodily injury claims arising from the Products, and claims as to
those insurers and Howden have been dismissed. Various
counterclaims, cross claims and third party claims have been filed
in the litigation and remain pending although only two domestic
insurers and Howden remain in the litigation as to the Corporation
and Air & Liquid. On September 27, 2013, the Court issued a
memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part
cross motions for summary judgment filed by the Corporation and
Air & Liquid, Howden, and the insurer parties still in the
litigation. The September 27, 2013 ruling is not a final ruling
for appellate purposes, but when final it could be appealed by the
parties to the litigation. At a hearing on January 13, 2015, the
Court ruled that final judgment in accordance with the Court's
prior rulings will be entered in the case. Upon entry of final
judgment, the Corporation, Air & Liquid, certain insurers, and
Howden may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the
valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the Corporation in
estimating the potential liability for pending and unasserted
future claims for Asbestos Liability. HR&A was not requested to
estimate asbestos claims against the inactive subsidiary in
dissolution, which the Corporation believes are immaterial. Based
on this analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013
as of December 31, 2006. HR&A's analysis has been periodically
updated since that time. Most recently, the HR&A analysis was
updated in 2014, and additional reserves were established by the
Corporation as of December 31, 2014 for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2024. The methodology
used by HR&A in its projection in 2014 of the operating
subsidiaries' liability for pending and unasserted potential
future claims for Asbestos Liability, which is substantially the
same as the methodology employed by HR&A in prior estimates,
relied upon and included the following factors:

   * HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the
population likely to have been exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases;

   * HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an
asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims
history from January 1, 2012 to December 8, 2014;

   * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and
jurisdiction where the claim is filed;

   * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1, 2012
to December 8, 2014 to determine the average settlement value of
claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of filing; and

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the
Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation.

Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2014 the number of
future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through
the year 2024, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted
claims through 2024. This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate
referenced above, the Corporation also developed an estimate of
probable insurance recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities. In
developing the estimate, the Corporation considered HR&A's
projection for settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos
Liability and management's projection of associated defense costs
(based on the current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as
a number of additional factors. These additional factors included
the Settlement Agreements then in effect, policy exclusions,
policy limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense
costs, attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in
the coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of
the insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims
for Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims
database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on
account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products. In
addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted with
a nationally-recognized insurance consulting firm it retained to
assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation matters that
also are among the several factors considered by the Corporation
when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical
insurance for Asbestos Liabilities. Based upon all of the factors
considered by the Corporation, and taking into account the
Corporation's analysis of publicly available information regarding
the credit-worthiness of various insurers, the Corporation
estimated the probable insurance recoveries for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs through 2024. Although the Corporation believes
that the assumptions employed in the insurance valuation were
reasonable and previously consulted with its outside legal counsel
and insurance consultant regarding those assumptions, there are
other assumptions that could have been employed that would have
resulted in materially lower insurance recovery projections.
Based on the analyses described above, the Corporation's reserve
at December 31, 2014 for the total costs, including defense costs,
for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted
through 2024 was $189,048 of which approximately 64% was
attributable to settlement costs for unasserted claims projected
to be filed through 2024 and future defense costs. While it is
reasonably possible that the Corporation will incur additional
charges for Asbestos Liability and defense costs in excess of the
amounts currently reserved, the Corporation believes that there is
too much uncertainty to provide for reasonable estimation of the
number of future claims, the nature of such claims and the cost to
resolve them beyond 2024. Accordingly, no reserve has been
recorded for any costs that may be incurred after 2024.

The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2014 for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2014, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity
and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos
Liability claims, was $140,651.

For the three months ended March 31, 2015, the Company's insurance
receivable was $136,807,000.

The insurance receivable recorded by the Corporation does not
assume any recovery from insolvent carriers and a substantial
majority of the insurance recoveries deemed probable was from
insurance companies rated A -- (excellent) or better by A.M. Best
Corporation. There can be no assurance, however, that there will
not be further insolvencies among the relevant insurance carriers,
or that the assumed percentage recoveries for certain carriers
will prove correct. The difference between insurance recoveries
and projected costs is not due to exhaustion of all insurance
coverage for Asbestos Liability. The Corporation and the
subsidiaries have substantial additional insurance coverage which
the Corporation expects to be available for Asbestos Liability
claims and defense costs that the subsidiaries and it may incur
after 2024. However, this insurance coverage also can be expected
to have gaps creating significant shortfalls of insurance
recoveries as against claims expense, which could be material in
future years.

The amounts recorded by the Corporation for Asbestos Liabilities
and insurance receivables rely on assumptions that are based on
currently known facts and strategy. The Corporation's actual
expenses or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or
lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Corporation's
or HR&A's calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key
variables in these assumptions are identified above and include
the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the
average cost of disposing of each such new claim, average annual
defense costs, compliance by relevant parties with the terms of
the Settlement Agreements, the resolution of remaining coverage
issues with insurance carriers, and the solvency risk with respect
to the relevant insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect
the Corporation's Asbestos Liability and ability to recover under
its insurance policies include uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, reforms that may be made by state and federal courts, and
the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation.

The Corporation intends to evaluate its estimated Asbestos
Liability and related insurance receivables as well as the
underlying assumptions on a regular basis to determine whether any
adjustments to the estimates are required. Due to the
uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation and insurance, these
regular reviews may result in the Corporation incurring future
charges; however, the Corporation is currently unable to estimate
such future charges. Adjustments, if any, to the Corporation's
estimate of its recorded Asbestos Liability and/or insurance
receivables could be material to operating results for the periods
in which the adjustments to the liability or receivable are
recorded, and to the Corporation's liquidity and consolidated
financial position.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two segments: Forged and
Cast Rolls, and Air and Liquid Processing. The Company's Forged
and Cast Rolls Segment's Union Electric Steel Corporation produces
forged hardened steel rolls used in cold rolling by producers of
steel, aluminum and other metals throughout the world. Union
Electric Steel United Kingdom Limited produces cast rolls for hot
and cold strip mills, medium/heavy section mills and plate mills
in a variety of iron and steel qualities. Its Air and Liquid
Processing Segment's Aerofin Division of Air and Liquid Systems
Corporation produces custom-engineered finned tube heat exchange
coils and related heat transfer products for a variety of
industries. Buffalo Air Handling Division of Air and Liquid
Systems Corporation produces custom air handling systems used in
commercial, institutional and industrial buildings. It
manufactures a line of centrifugal pumps for the refrigeration,
power generation and marine defense industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Brandies Uni Dormitories
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Wulkan, writing for The Justice, reported that Brandies
University discovered and removed asbestos from the flooring and
pipe and plumbing fixtures of first-year dormitories Reitman,
Cable and Shapiro A and B during the renovations that took place
over the summer, according to Executive Director of Integrated
Media William Schaller in an email to the Justice.

Schaller wrote that the University had expected to find asbestos
during the renovations given the age of the buildings in North and
Massell Quads which were built in 1959 and 1952, respectively, and
did in fact discover it during a pre-construction survey.

The University then hired two licensed asbestos removal companies
to ensure its safe  and complete elimination from the buildings
and to keep the renovation projects on schedule, Schaller wrote.

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
website, it is very unlikely that any students could have been
exposed to or affected by the asbestos in the dormitories because,
"in general, exposure may occur only when the asbestos-containing
material is disturbed or damaged in some way to release particles
and fibers into the air."

Schaller wrote that, though the EPA recommends leaving old
asbestos-containing material alone if it is in good condition, the
process of renovation could have released the asbestos, which
would create the need to eliminate it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DIY Renos May Create New Wave of Fibro Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ahn Jae Wook, writing for Sourceable.net, reported that in a
recent media report, Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency
managing director Peter Tighe was quoted as saying that an
increasing number of home owners who attempt renovation work such
as the demolition of kitchens and bathrooms themselves may not
realise that asbestos could be hiding in unexpected places if
their home was built prior to 2000.

Tighe says asbestos was present in some 3,000 building projects
made between the period spanning end of the Second World War up
until the late 1990s, and that increasing numbers of people
involved in DIY-type projects were being impacted by mesothelioma
-- a rare form of cancer that develops in cells of the protective
lining that covers many internal organs and is primarily caused by
exposure to asbestos.

"This is a ticking time bomb," Tighe is quoted as saying in the
Australian Financial Review. "It's like a snake that's curled up
and sitting under the sun. If you don't go near it and treat it
with respect, you're not going to have a problem. If you go into
its nest and disturb it, you've got a problem."

Tighe's comments follow release of a national framework for the
management of asbestos around the country. The framework will see
the material removed in priority areas, as well as the creation of
a singular point of information on issues relating to the material
and the development of model grading systems, frameworks and
processes.

While earlier waves of those who suffered from asbestos-related
diseases stemmed from workers involved in the mining and
manufacturing of asbestos and subsequently those who installed
building products which contained the material, it is feared a
third wave may result from home owners inspired by television
programs to perform DIY renovations who may not be aware of the
dangers involved.

Tighe says popular renovation programs have professionals who come
in and remove asbestos prior to work being started, but this was
rarely publicised.

"Instead, what you see is a punter on TV with a sledgehammer," he
said.

Asbestos was banned from all building products throughout
Australia in 1989.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurance Firms "Buying Off" Fibro Victims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Paterson, writing for Evening Times, reported that
insurance firms are "buying off" future compensation claims from
asbestos related victims a Glasgow MSP has warned.

People suffering pleural plaques, a scaring of the lungs, are
being offered cash with a clause attached they can't make a fresh
claim if they later contract mesothelioma or lung cancer.

Bob Doris, Glasgow SNP MSP, hosted an event for campaigners at
Holyrood to share their experiences of the system and insurance
forms' tactics.

He said some are offered œ5000 for pleural plaques and the option
of a second claim for later damage.

They are given the alternative of œ10,000 but with a no return
clause.

Union officials are working with researchers at Stirling
University to call for a "stand alone" settlement which have no
bearing on future claims.

Mr Doris said: "Put bluntly my constituents are being offered
relatively small amounts of cash from insurance companies to 'buy
off' the risk of future compensation claims should sufferers
develop conditions such as Mesothelioma, Lung Cancer or
Asbestosis.

"Not only does the sufferer lose out financially should the more
serious and often terminal condition be identified, so do their
loved ones who otherwise may be compromising their own right to
compensation.

"With money tight for many families, it is understandable that
many will opt for a 'full and final settlement' and hope that a
more serious condition is not diagnosed."

Sufferers can claim compensation for pleural plaques in Scotland
after the Scottish Parliament legislated to prevent a House of
Lords ruling, that ended claims, from taking effect north of the
border.

Mr Doris said there are also unacceptable delays with compensation
payments and the deduction of legal costs reduces the amount paid
out to victims.

He added: "A spokesman for Unite said: We need to strengthen and
protect the rights of victims in economic and legal terms. This is
about how we evolve he protection for victims and families where
people don't have to go through time barred processes and they are
not debarred from submitting a claim."

Paul wheelhouse, Minister for Community Safety attended the event.
He set out an example with illustrative only figure to Mr Doris in
a letter.

It showed a provisional settlement of œ6000 for pleural plaques
and a full and final settlement for of œ15,000 including œ9000 for
the "risk of further damage".

If the sufferer contracts lung cancer the provisional settlement
allows a second claim with œ150,000 used a figure and the full
settlement bars any claim from being lodged.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Fined $1.8MM Over Worker's Fibro Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) announced that two affiliated construction
companies and one of its managers is facing almost $1.8 million in
fines.  According to OSHA, they violated numerous health standards
related to worker exposure to asbestos.

The fines are associated with work that was done at a former
Illinois elementary school where the companies' employees were
unaware that they were being exposed to asbestos as they removed
floor tiles, insulation and other asbestos-containing materials.
OSHA has cited them for 16 egregious, 9 willful and 6 serious
violations.

OSHA inspectors found that they failed to warn employees, some of
whom spoke only Spanish, of the danger -- even though they were
aware of the asbestos hazard. They also failed to ensure that
workers used appropriate work methods and respirators, and to
train them about the hazards of working around asbestos.  In
addition, OSHA reports that employees were threatened with being
fired if they spoke with investigators.

"Construction companies have an obligation to protect workers and
the public from the dangers associated with asbestos exposure,"
said Franco Seif, President of Clark Seif Clark.  "Lung cancer,
asbestosis and mesothelioma can occur many years after exposure in
some cases.  At Clark Seif Clark, we offer asbestos testing and
consulting services to identify and mitigate exposure risks
associated with asbestos in residential, commercial and
institutional properties.  These services are also essential for
complying with regulations, avoiding costly fines and potential
litigation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Employee Files $1B Fibro Exposure Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry DeHart, writing for The Independent Online, reported that a
Louisiana man has filed a lawsuit in Rowan Circuit Court alleging
that asbestos exposure during his time as a student and employee
at Morehead State University caused him serious health problems.

Lewis Williamson, who obtained a bachelor's degree in nursing from
MSU in 2002, returned to the university as a multi-media lab
coordinator in the Department of Nursing from 2004 to 2007.

He said that the prolonged exposure to asbestos fibers eventually
developed into asbestosis, which is a chronic lung disease, COPD,
whole body asbestos saturation, and other asbestos-induced
diseases.

He added that those health problems have prevented him from
working since 2010.

Williamson, 61, said his last job was on a Native American
reservation in Arizona. His yearly salary with estimated overtime
would have been close to $150,000.

And he said his medical bills since then would probably amount to
well over $1 million.

"I got offered a job out west and got sick and spent around four
years unable to work. I came back to Kentucky and sought medical
care. The x-rays came back and said I didn't have anything. But I
had this constant pain," Williamson said. "After Obamacare came in
I got insurance and they paid for a CT scan. That's how I found
out."

Williamson's complaint, obtained from the Rowan Circuit Clerk's
office, claims that he was later diagnosed with asbestos disease
in 2014 by Dr. Ayesha Sikder with Highlands Regional Medical
Center in Prestonsburg.

And to make things worse, Williamson claims to have fractured his
back last winter after he said a bout of pain caused him to pass
out and fall off a ladder.

He thinks that with his medical problems he will be fortunate to
live another two years.

The complaint against MSU and the state alleges negligence and
intentional disregard of the asbestos risks led to his exposure.

He's seeking $1 million in lost wages, another $1 million in pain
and suffering compensation, and $20 million in punitive damages.

Williamson is also asking for conversion to a class action suit as
he claims around 100 buildings at MSU have potential asbestos
contamination.

And he wants a judgment of $1 billion to be set aside in a trust
fund for future medical expenses and damages for what he thinks
could be hundreds of thousands of future claimants of exposure.

But Williamson said that he doesn't really care if he personally
gets anything from the suit. He said that as a nurse his job is to
protect patients and people and that this is what his legal action
is all about.

Further, he thinks MSU isn't taking the proper steps to protect
people on its campus.

"I don't care if I get anything. Anyone who walks in those
buildings is at risk to exposure," he said. "Until I publicize
this they're not going to address the situation. This has been
going on for years, since 1980 at least. In essence, they don't
value the lives of their students, employees, and visitors."

Even if his claims are true, Williamson faces a tough road ahead
in his legal battle.

He doesn't have an attorney so he's representing himself but he's
apparently filed his suit in the wrong venue.

Lawsuits against the state or a state agency have to be filed with
the state Board of Claims rather than in Circuit Court. And
there's a maximum award of $200,000 for those claims, regardless
of what the claim is for.

MSU does not comment on pending litigation. It is assumed the
university will move for the case to be dismissed and that the
state likely will claim sovereign immunity.

But Williamson said he is not dismayed and that he won't give up.

"They're going to pay one way or the other. Too many people have
been exposed," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Spill Causes Major Health Scare
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rob Virtue, writing for Express News, reported that bags full of
overalls feared to be contaminated with the chemical split when
they fell from the truck, causing major delays to motorists and
leading to drinkers at a nearby being told to stay inside.

It prompted a major response from Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue
Service, which sent four fire engines, as well as a specialist
hazardous and environmental response unit to the scene.

Experts decontaminated the scene and removed the resealed bags
from the road.

The A322 Bagshot Road in Bracknell was shut for around an hour
while the emergency was dealt with.

The spill happened near to the Horse and Groom pub shortly after
2pm and it is thought punters were told to stay indoors while the
problem was tackled.

Staff at the pub, which is operated by the national chain
Harvester, declined to comment.

Fire crews from Bracknell, Wokingham, Ascot and Crowthorne all
attended.

The re-bagged waste was handed over to the Highways Agency for
disposal.

Now banned, asbestos was commonly used in buildings in the 1960s
and 70s, leaving tradespeople exposed to it.

A number later developed diseases related to the chemical.

It can between 25 and 50 years for the illnesses to develop.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Denies Fibro Firms' Bid to Junk RICO Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Record Report reported that racketeering lawsuits
against asbestos plaintiffs firm will proceed, a federal judge has
ruled without deciding if they were filed after the statute of
limitations had expired.

U.S. District Judge Graham Mullen denied motions to dismiss two of
the four Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations lawsuits
filed by Garlock Sealing Technologies against asbestos firms.

The cases allege those firms -- which are Simon Greenstone of
Dallas and Shein Law Center of Philadelphia -- manipulated the
asbestos recovery system through the years in order to make
Garlock pay more than it should have in verdicts and settlements.

Also sued by Garlock are Waters & Kraus and Stanley-Iola of Dallas
and Belluck & Fox of New York.

"Garlock successfully alleges that Defendants engaged in a wide-
ranging, systematic and well-concealed fraud designed to suppress
evidence and inflate settlement values for mesothelioma claims,"
Mullen wrote.

"Indeed, the bankruptcy court found as much when it reviewed a
number of these cases."

Garlock's RICO cases were filed before a landmark ruling in 2014
in its bankruptcy case.

During a 2013 trial that determined how much money Garlock needed
to put in a bankruptcy trust to compensate asbestos victims, the
company was permitted full discovery into the cases of 15
plaintiffs.

What the company found showed that plaintiffs attorneys routinely
delayed submitting claims to bankruptcy trusts while lawsuits
against solvent defendants, like Garlock used to be, were pending.

This was done with the intention of pinning more blame on Garlock,
the company said.

Judge George Hodges agreed. His January 2014 ruling agreed with
the company's assertions, and he ordered the company to put $125
million in the trust -- more than $1 billion less than plaintiffs
attorneys had requested.

"These fifteen cases are just a minute portion of the thousands
that were resolved by Garlock in the tort system," Hodges wrote.

"And they are not purported to be a random or representative
sample. But the fact that each and every one of them contains such
demonstrable misrepresentation is surprising and persuasive.

"More important is the fact that the pattern exposed in those
cases appears to have been sufficiently widespread to have a
significant impact on Garlock's settlement practices and results
. . .  It appears certain that more extensive discovery would show
more extensive abuse."

The company also claimed victory in another dispute when Mullen
ordered Belluck & Fox to turn over information on the cases of 157
clients.

At issue in the law firms' motions to dismiss were the timeliness
of Garlock's claims and whether the company failed to state a
claim.

The law firms argued Garlock was aware of the activity on which it
based its RICO claims in 2009 and missed the statute of
limitations by waiting until 2014 to file the lawsuits.

Garlock countered that it became aware of the activity in January
2013.

Mullen found this issue is clearly in dispute and that he does not
have the necessary facts to resolve it, so he denied the motions
as premature.

However, the company adequately stated claims for relief in its
complaints, he ruled.

"Defendants broadly contend that actions in the litigation context
cannot, as a matter of course, serve as predicate acts for RICO,"
he wrote.

"The Court also notes that Defendants' conduct as alleged in the
Complaint goes well past the kind of routine litigation activities
that these courts have found inadequate to state a claim under
RICO.

"Defendants are accused of committing rampant fraud over the
course of several years in various state court proceedings. These
allegations suffice to state a claim for civil RICO."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Fibro-Related Deaths On the Rise
----------------------------------------------------
Sarah Davies, writing for The Legal Examiner, reported that latest
figures released by the Office of National Statistics reveal that
10,526 people in England and Wales have died of the asbestos
related lung cancer, mesothelioma, since 2010, 2352 of these
deaths were in 2014 alone.

The average rate of deaths per 100,000 across England for 2014 was
4.4. Areas home to the shipping industry and dock yards have seen
the highest mesothelioma death rates, due to the heavy historic
use of asbestos in ship yards.

Barrow-in-Furness had the highest rate of mesothelioma deaths
across England, with an average death rate of 14.3 per 100,000.
This was followed by south Tyneside with a rate of 11.1 and north
Tyneside with 10.9.  Newcastle upon Tyne, Fareham, Hartlepool,
Portsmouth and Southampton also had rates much higher than the
national average.

Asbestos was once regarded as a vital part of shipbuilding due to
its low levels of corrosion and its heat resistant and fire
preventing properties, which would be disastrous for a vessel at
sea.   Asbestos was therefore heavily used in the ship building
industry to insulate pipework, boilers and compartments within the
ships bulkheads and deck heads.

Other areas with industrial chemical production plants also have
higher than average mesothelioma death rates, with Thurrock and
Tamworth having a rate of 7.5 mesothelioma related deaths per
100,000 people.

Wales fared slightly better than England with an overall lower
average of deaths per 100,000 of 3.1 However, local authorities,
The Vale of Glamorgan and Torfaen had above UK average rates of
5.7 and 5.4 respectively.

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) campaigns for
the rights of exposed workers and their families. President
Jonathan Wheeler said: "Mesothelioma is a legacy of Britain's
industrial heritage. Thankfully, employers nowadays are more aware
of the dangers of exposing workers to asbestos. But those who were
exposed 30 or 40 years ago are now facing death sentences for
simply turning up to work.

However, experts warn that this is just the tip of the iceberg,
and that we may continue to see a rise in mesothelioma related
deaths in areas not traditionally associated with heavy industry.
Experts believe that thousands of white collar workers, a group
previously deemed to be low risk, could be susceptible to asbestos
related diseases, due to the widespread use of asbestos as a
building material during the second half of the 20th Century.
Office workers, doctors and teachers all could have disturbed and
inhaled deadly asbestos dust from an act as simple as placing a
pin in an asbestos filled wall.

Due to the nature of mesothelioma, many suffers may not experience
any symptoms for anywhere between 15 -- 50 years.

Richard Green, a solicitor specialising in compensation claims for
mesothelioma sufferers and their families explains:

"When you are exposed to asbestos, the risk of becoming ill
increases depending on the duration, frequency and the type of
asbestos you've been exposed to.

"People often develop symptoms long after the exposure and do not
always relate their illness to the original source exposure, which
may have been through work many years earlier.

"Conditions such as pleural plaques, mesothelioma, lung cancer,
asbestosis and pleural thickening can all be caused through
exposure.

"If you suffer from one of these illnesses it is likely would have
been exposed to asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Ordered to Make New Rules for Fibro Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Bernstein, writing for The Jewish Voice, reported that the
rules governing asbestos-litigation cases have been ordered to be
revised by a Manhattan judge. This will affect many law firms
including Assemblyman Sheldon Silver's old money fountain firm.

Weitz & Luxenberg was told along with other firms by Judge Peter
Moulton that they and their adversaries need to create new rules
for the cases, or he will do it for them.

The Manhattan Supreme Court ruling arrives in the midst of
Silver's preparations for his corruption case that is scheduled
for November. The charges against him are based on an alleged
kickback scheme in which he used his influence in Albany for a
cancer doctor who then led over 100 asbestos victims to the
former-Speaker's old law firm.

Silver, who received $3.3 million in referrals for the cases,
supposedly provided the doctor's cancer-research center with
public funding. Silver denies any wrongdoing and has pled not
guilty to the charges.

No charges were filed against Weitz & Luxenberg, and the firm has
cut all ties with Silver.

The motion made by the defendants to halt all asbestos trials
until revisions are completed was rejected by Moulton.

In his ruling on August 28, Moulton said, "In balancing the
parties' interests, the court finds that the current state of
NYCAL [New York City Asbestos Litigation] is not so rampantly
unfair as to warrant suspending the trials. However, the court
agrees that defendants have raised important issues that warrant a
complete re-examination of the CMO [case management order or
rules]."

Moulton ordered that changes must be negotiated by a group of the
plaintiffs' top lawyers, Weitz & Luxenberg included, along with
the lawyers for asbestos defendants. If an agreement cannot be
reached by the groups on their own, the judge will enforce his own
changes.

This controversy began when Sherry Heitler, the prior asbestos
litigation judge, removed a rule banning punitive damages in
asbestos cases.

The Post reported, "Then the pro-business American Tort Reform
Association issued a report labeling New York's asbestos court as
the nation's "judicial hellhole" for issuing the highest asbestos
verdicts in the country, an average of $16 million per plaintiff
between 2010 to 2014, more than double the national average."

Over the last four years, Weitz & Luxenberg has won $273.4 million
from asbestos court cases. This has fueled the suspicion that the
defense has of Silver's great sway on the court system.

The court's ruling was minimized by lawyers representing asbestos
victims, and they praised the judge's decision to not stop
litigation in the meantime, as new rules are formed.

"The motion was to stop the trials. This is a victory because the
judge denied the motion," said attorney Jordan Fox of Belluck &
Fox, which represents the majority of asbestos plaintiffs, along
with Weitz & Luxenberg.

According to Fox, the negotiations among the parties to revise the
rules for asbestos cases started way before this recent ruling and
even prior to Silver's indictment.

         Daniel A. Silver, Esq.
         SILVER & SILVER LLP
         One Liberty Square
         New Britain, CT 06051
         Tel: (860) 225-3518
         Fax: (860) 348-0612
         Email: Daniel@lawsilver.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC Court Rejects Causation Arguments
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Moses and James J.A. Mulhall, writing for The National Law
Review, reported that the United States District Court of the
Eastern District of North Carolina recently issued a ruling on
several Daubert challenges to a plaintiff's proposed medical and
causation experts in the Yates case.

The court excluded plaintiff's first causation expert's testimony,
in part, barring any testimony regarding the "each and every
exposure" theory. The court noted various other jurisdictions'
rejection of the theory on the grounds that it lacks sufficient
support in facts or data. Additionally, the court found the
expert's sole academic support, one article specifically prepared
for litigation, to be insufficient to satisfy the reliability
threshold under Daubert.

The court then distinguished plaintiff's expert pathologist's
opinion from the "each and every exposure" theory. Plaintiff's
expert opinion addressed "special exposures," for which "there is
scientific evidence that the exposure increases the risk," of
developing mesothelioma. Further distancing himself from the "each
and every exposure theory," he opined that such special exposures
were distinct from "trivial exposures," which would present
minimal exposures and that the "mere presence of asbestos fibers
in lungs," does not, in and of itself, "increase one's risk of
developing diffuse malignant mesothelioma."

Nonetheless, the court excluded his opinion entirely because it
was not based on sufficient facts or data, did not result from
reliable principles and methods, and did not reliably apply those
principles and methods to the facts of the case.

According to the proposed expert, generally hazardous levels of
asbestos dust are equivalent to the levels that would be present
in "visible dust" or would be equivalent to the "types [of
exposures] that have been proven by scientific evidence in their
accumulation" to cause mesothelioma. This opinion was flawed
because "visible dust," as an increased risk factor, did not rise
to the required level of demonstrating that the levels of asbestos
exposure were hazardous nor did it account for varying degrees of
hazards between different fiber types.

The court found that none of the literature established any
qualitative or quantitative level of exposure from which asbestos
becomes hazardous. Moreover, his selective use of articles,
without acknowledging other relevant, contrary authority, called
the methodology of his opinion into question. The court then
rejected plaintiff's counterargument -- that the defendants' use
of epidemiological studies, some of which were funded by certain
defendants was in error -- because the plaintiff failed to
demonstrate that the methodology used in these studies was biased
or flawed.

Finally, the court noted that plaintiff's expert failed to apply
his academic support to the specific facts in the plaintiff's
case. For example, he failed to comport his use of epidemiological
studies regarding brake mechanics with the plaintiff's testimony
that he occasionally performed his own brake changes.
Additionally, the court found his misuse of the "Helsinki
Criteria," as evidence of causation concerning because its
intended purpose is the demonstration of whether mesothelioma
could be attributed to asbestos generally, and not for
specifically evaluating "occupational, domestic, or environmental
exposures."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TAS Primary Students Exposed to Fibro
------------------------------------------------------
Selina Ross and Lauren Waldhuter, writing for ABC News, reported
that students at a northern Tasmanian primary school have been
exposed to what has been described as a "low-level" amount of
asbestos during a science activity.

The students at St Finn Barr's Catholic Primary School in
Launceston were examining material in a mineral kit during a
Father's Day activity.

Tasmanian Catholic Education Office director John Mula said the
exposure was very low.

"This was a commercially available product, which schools have
bought, but there were no warnings on it saying that there was any
asbestos-related materials in the pack," Mr Mula said.

"It was only by coincidence that this parent, who was a geologist,
realised what was in the pack.

"We've been informed that it was a very minimal level of asbestos
with very minimal exposure."

The session was part of a Fathers Day activity run on September 4,
where parents came into the school.

Twenty different mineral samples were set up at stations around
the classroom, including the leucotile.

"The leucotile material was basically a small piece of rock
sample, almost like a pebble, about the size of a thumbnail," said
Mr Mula.

There were 25 students in the class and 11 are believed to have
handled the material.

"The students as per normal science procedures always pick up
materials -- irrespective of what they are -- with either gloves
or tweezers," he said.

The Tasmanian Catholic Education Office has lodged notice of the
incident with WorkSafe Tasmania.

The school has been using the kits since 2013, but it is
understood the kit had been recalled by the company.

"Our investigations have found that it was recalled in Queensland
and Victoria but no other state had been informed of the potential
dangers associated with the kit," Mr Mula said.
Parent 'was a bit shocked'

Parents were watching the students handling the minerals when the
mother noticed the name leucotile.

"She noticed the rock sample, she took a photograph of it and then
what we understand has happened is that she consulted with her
colleagues in the geology field and notified the school that it
was a material that contains some asbestos," he said.

It is not known how long the leucotile was being handled by
students or whether the session was stopped when the parent saw
the name of the mineral.

"The risk to the school community, including students, parents and
teachers, is low," said Mr Mula.

On the school sent letters to parents saying year five and six
students had been exposed.

Craig Besanvalle's son was in the class and brought a letter home
about the incident.

"Basically it just said that one of the rocks had either particles
of asbestos or was an asbestos rock," Mr Besanvalle said.

"I was a bit shocked about it. The kids were using tweezers and
doing it all properly and they were all excited about all the
different things they had to show the fathers.

"But yeah I was a bit shocked about the letter and I'm sure the
whole school was a bit shocked about the whole thing.

"I'm not really too fazed about it, just glad the school sorted it
really quickly and appropriately."

Mr Besanvalle said he was concerned Tasmanian schools had not been
notified about the recall.

"I guess it's put back on the manufacturer of the minerals that
why wasn't Tasmania or the school notified that it had been
recalled?" he said.

"Obviously the teacher and the principal would never have put
anyone at risk if they knew that that was the case."

Two other Tasmanian Catholic schools had the same kits but the
Catholic Education Office said students had not been exposed at
those schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Traces Found at Bundaberg Hospital
---------------------------------------------------------------
NewsMail.com reported that the Wide Bay Hospital and Health
Service has restricted access to a patch of land on Bundaberg
Hospital grounds after the discovery of an embedded fragment of
non-friable cement sheeting containing traces of asbestos.

The contractor will undertake work to identify any other
fragments, remove them and mitigate the negligible risk of
exposure to asbestos.

Asbestos generally only poses a health risk when frequent exposure
to asbestos fibres occurs and public health officials have
assessed there to be a negligible risk to people's health.

Despite the unlikelihood of any health impact, the WBHHS has made
this decision to mitigate the risk in the interest of its staff
and visitors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovered at Marcellus Central School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Malone, writing for Skaneateles Journal, reported that
Marcellus Central School District released a statement about
finding asbestos in the high school's Groeling Auditorium, and the
Marcellus Board of Education addressed the situation.

"The health and safety of our students, staff and community is of
paramount importance," Interim Superintendent Dr. Judith Pastel
said in the original statement. "We are moving as quickly as
possible to remedy this situation safely and in accordance with
the state law."

An environmental engineer discovered the harmful contaminants in
vermiculite insulation surrounding the walls of the auditorium. In
response to this find, the the school board passed a resolution to
give Pastel authority to make arrangements for the cleanup.

The mine where the material originated was contaminated, but the
tainted material in the insulation, which was placed in the school
in 2011, slipped through.

"This should have been known before," board member Dr. David
Locastro said at meeting. "I want reassurance that this will not
happen again."

The rest of the board sat silently for a moment, signaling its
agreement with Locastro's statement.

"BOCES normally goes through to check the buildings, but they
could not find anything," board member John Fuller said.

A resolution was presented to specify the necessity for emergency
expense for the asbestos cleanup, and a roll call vote was set in
motion in order to adopt the resolution.

With board member Janine Lundrigan absent at the time of the vote,
the remaining board members voted unanimously to go ahead with the
process.

The resolution was voted on and passed, allowing the next steps to
take place at the hands of Pastel, who is urgently wanting to get
this resolved as quickly as possible and before October.

The project cost is not to exceed $80,000. Of the proposed
estimates, the price range Marcellus has seen is as low as $55,000
and as high as $242,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Insurance to Pay $36MM in Fibro Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reported
that a federal judge has ordered the Travelers insurance company
to pay $36 million in excess liability coverage to a company that
settled tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits against it.

U.S. District Judge L. Felipe Restrepo of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled the $21 million accord agreed upon by Travelers
and plaintiff General Refractories Co., referred to as GRC, should
have $15 million in interest tacked on to it.

While the parties came to a consensus over the amount to be paid,
the dispute arose in whether prejudgment interest should be
awarded and additionally whether the interest rate should be 6
percent as the plaintiff suggested or 4 percent as the defendant
advocated.

Judge Restrepo wrote in the court's opinion that because Travelers
breached its contractual duty to indemnify GRC in the underlying
claims, GRC was entitled to interest on the settlement amounts.
However, Travelers argued GRC was barred by its contract with
Travelers from recovering any more than the $21 million policy
limit.

Judge Restrepo said Travelers was mistaken, as the policies it
extended to GRC made no mention of prejudgment interest at all.

"The policies, viewed as a whole, do not specify whether Travelers
is or is not required to pay prejudgment interest in the event of
insured loss or damage," Judge Restrepo said. "They are also
silent as to whether Travelers is or is not required to indemnify
GRC for any interest that GRC contracts to pay in settlement of
claims. They state that insured loss is 'subject to the limits of
liability,' but nothing more is said about whether Travelers is
liable for interest in excess of the stated limits."

Furthermore, Judge Restrepo said the need to pay interest did not
arise out of a policy, but law.

Judge Restrepo explained, "Prejudgment interest is a liability
imposed by law 'to compensate for "the fact that the breaching
party has deprived the injured party of using interest accrued on
money which was rightfully due and owing to the injured party."'"

He added the state Supreme Court made the difference between
contractual interest and prejudgment interest clear in the 2012
case TruServ v. Morgan's Tool & Supply.

In that case, the court held there were two ways for parties to
recover interest in breach of contract cases: first, through the
contract, and alternatively, where the terms of the contract are
not specific as to interest, through prejudgment interest.

Judge Restrepo also said Travelers' assertion that GRC's
obligation to pay interest constituted a net loss under the policy
was wrong since GRC did so voluntarily as part of the individual
settlement contracts.

"Travelers conflates the settlement contracts with the insurance
contracts, and further conflates GRC's contractual duty to pay
interest to the claimants with Travelers' legal liability for
prejudgment interest as a consequence of its breach of the
insurance contracts. In effect, Travelers proposes that the terms
'contractual interest' and 'prejudgment interest' should be read
into the terms, 'excess net loss,' without any legal basis or
support to be found in the record or in the plain language of the
policies. That is not permissible."

Additionally, Travelers argued the statutorily mandated 6 percent
prejudgment interest rate should be reduced to the 4 percent
prescribed in its contract.

Travelers cited three cases to support its assertion, but Restrepo
said none of them supported the insurer's position.

"Basically, each case rules that when contracting parties have
agreed to the payment of a specified rate of interest, that rate
determines the amount of interest that is collectible after
maturity or upon breach of the contractual obligation. 'A party
may not recover interest pursuant to both the terms of the
contract and Pennsylvania's statutory prejudgment interest
provision,'" Restrepo said, citing Nutrition Management Services
v. Harborside Healthcare, a 2005 case in the Eastern District.
"This authority is inapposite. GRC and Travelers never agreed to a
specific rate of interest to be paid upon breach of the insurance
contracts. The policies do not specify any rate of interest."

GRC's attorney, Mark Gottlieb of Offit Kurman, did not return a
call seeking comment, nor did Travelers' attorney, Samuel Arena
Jr. of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young.

         Mark Gottlieb, Esq.
         OFFIT KURMAN
         300 E. Lombard Street, Suite 2010
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Tel: 410.209.6400
         Fax: 410.209.6435
         Email: mgottlieb@offitkurman.com

            -- and --

         Samuel Arena Jr., Esq.
         STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG
         2005 Market Street, Suite 2600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Tel: 215.564.8000
         Fax: 215.564.8120
         Email: sarena@stradley.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Custodian's Illness Caused by Toxic Dust
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Yard, writing for CBC News, reported that Raymond Baskin,
a school janitor on the Acadian Peninsula, has traced his
respiratory illness to working around asbestos.

Baskin started experiencing shortness of breath in 2013 and went
to his doctor for help.

"[The doctor said], 'what you have, normally, you get that from
working in asbestos.' I said I didn't think I had been working in
asbestos," said Baskin.

But after some investigation at Ecole de la RiviŠre, the school he
works in, he learned asbestos was present.The  Francophone School
District North-East has since removed it.

WorkSafeNB is now compensating Baskin for medication and travel,
and according to Baskin, is trying to recoup the cost by working
with an American law firm to sue a company based there over
building materials containing asbestos, which were used at the
school.

WorkSafe NB would not confirm that was the case, nor provide
details on the legal action.

The agency wouldn't comment on Baskin's file specifically, but
Sonia Lanteigne, Privacy and Access to Information Coordinator
with WorkSafeNB, sent an email statement to CBC News.

"When the worker elects to receive benefits, WorkSafeNB may bring
an action against that person or company in the injured worker's
name to recover the damages entitled, including costs of the claim
paid by WorkSafeNB, by virtue of the legislative provision of
subrogation in Workers' Compensation Act," said Lanteigne.

"The Act permits WorkSafeNB to seek all those damages attributable
to the injury from the responsible third party. Throughout this
process, WorkSafeNB continues to pay compensation benefits to the
injured worker."

Meanwhile, Raymond Baskin continues to work at Ecole La RiviŠre.

Baskin takes natural remedies to treat his pulmonary fibrosis and
shortness of breath, and plans to continue working as long as he
can.

"According to my doctor, I can be stable for a certain length of
time and it can be all downhill for me after that," he said.

"As far as working, retirement was never in my plans. I worked
all my life. I'm kind of too old to stop."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Officeworks Pulls Out Crayons Amidst Fibro Fears
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Booker and Stephanie Charalambous, writing for The Sydney
Morning Herald, reported that children's crayons marketed with
cartoon characters, including Peppa Pig and Dora the Explorer,
have been found to contain asbestos.

Stationery giant Officeworks is pulling crayons from its shelves
amid revelations that children have been given products with the
cancer-causing material inside.

However the crayon brands X Stick and Art 300 Officeworks lists
for sale on its website were not included in the brands that
tested positive for asbestos.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission confirmed on
that six different packets of wax crayons had been found to have
traces of asbestos in them.

But they warned parents not to panic because the asbestos was
contained in the crayon wax, preventing fibres from being inhaled
during normal use or as a result of ingestion.

Senator Eric Abetz said a customer alert had been issued as the
Australian Border Force halted imports of crayons from China until
there were assurances they are free of asbestos.

"The ABF will also continue to target high-risk entities,
including particular manufacturers and certain import and
distribution companies, both overseas and in Australia," he said.

The ACCC said their tests results would not prompt a recall but
recommended stores stop selling the products.

However, the Asbestos Council of Victoria is calling for an
Australia-wide recall after it found asbestos in Chinese imported
crayon brands being sold online and in at least one retail shop.

Chief executive Vicki Hamilton bought and had tested crayons that
were branded with Disney characters from her local $2 shop in Moe,
in Victoria's east.

"Every packet of crayons that has been imported from China is a
potential risk," she said.

"I am very concerned for our children -- kids put things in their
mouths and that concerns me with these items immensely."

Officeworks released a statement confirming all its crayons had
been removed from its stores shortly after reports that toxic
crayons were being sold elsewhere.

"We are in the process of conducting rigorous testing," it said.

"Officeworks takes our customers' and team members' health and
safety very seriously."

The statement said Officeworks was working with the Australian
Border Force as it waited for the results.

The ACCC said its testing had found traces of asbestos in four
different packs in addition to the independent tests that the
Absestos Council had initiated.

Officeworks recommended customers with concerns return any crayons
bought from its stores across the country.

One of the crayon packets tested by the Asbestos Council featured
pictures of characters from the Disney movie Frozen. The brand
name of the packet was unclear.

The second packet, made by National Designs, was marketed with
'Mickey Mouse and Friends'.

Ms Hamilton was prompted to conduct the test on the Moe crayons
after Fairfax Media reported asbestos was found in crayons with
Disney images being sold online in Australia in July.

At the time, Fairfax Media could not find the Amscan crayons, made
in China, sold over the counter in retail stores while National
Toxics Network attempted unsuccessfully to alert the Australian
Competition Consumer Commission, the body responsible for product
safety in Australia.

Ms Hamilton commended Officeworks for its quick action in response
to the crayon fears.

"They've gone to the trouble of pulling them off their shelves,"
she said. "I just hope all stores do the same thing."

Ms Hamilton said parents should avoid buying all Chinese imported
crayons until the ACCC released which brands were safe to use.

She recommended parents double bag any crayons they have and throw
them out.

Members of the public are encouraged to report any concerns about
imported products the Department of Immigration and Border
Protection on 1800 009 623.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Conneaut Elem. School
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Todd, writing for Star Beacon, reported that evidence of
asbestos was discovered in the debris from a Conneaut elementary
school demolished late according to an Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency spokeswoman.

Work began on Amboy School, located on South Amboy Road, without
the knowledge of the Ohio EPA. Agency regulations require advance
notification to ensure any asbestos is identified and properly
removed before demolition begins.

Linda Oros, Ohio EPA spokeswoman, said demolition prevented the
agency from determining how much material the building might have
contained.

"Trace amounts of asbestos were found at the Amboy School
demolition site," Oros said in an email message. "Because asbestos
was indeed detected, and because the site was already being
demolished when they were taken, there is no way of knowing
whether the few samples taken were a true reflection of the
asbestos content throughout the building, or whether there could
be hot spots with higher asbestos content.

The presence of asbestos was strongly suspected but only recently
confirmed. Special steps will now be required of the contractor to
remove the rubble, Oros said.

Prolonged exposure to asbestos fibers in the air is known to be a
cause of certain lung cancers as well as breathing difficulties.
"The site will need to continue being treated as if asbestos-
containing material is present when removing the material," she
said. "It needs to be wet down to be sure there are not airborne
particles, and to be properly wrapped and taken to an asbestos-
licensed facility."

No activity has been observed at the site for the past several
days.

EPA inspectors visited the site soon after work began and
retrieved a sample of debris for analysis. Demolition was allowed
to continue to eliminate the threat of collapse.

Rudy Pryately Sr., 1524 Lake Road, Conneaut, is the property
owner. He has been charged with failure to comply with the order
of the fire chief, a first-degree misdemeanor, regarding a fire
and safety citation issued in 2014. A trial in Conneaut Municipal
Court scheduled earlier was continued for a possible change of
plea. No date had been set.
Oros said it was premature to discuss any penalties the EPA may
pursue in the matter.

"It's too preliminary in the process to determine any
consequences," she said. "The first step is to get the material
removed."

Amboy School, built decades ago, closed in 1981.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: VA Hospital Exposed Workers to Deadly Dust
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sig Christenson, writing for Express News, reported that federal
investigators said they've confirmed a San Antonio whistleblower's
claim that the Audie Murphy VA Hospital failed to protect
maintenance workers there from unsafe levels of asbestos and
didn't properly monitor the employee.

The Office of Special Counsel, in a letter to President Barack
Obama and Congress, said it confirmed most of the whistleblower's
allegations, finding that he and others were exposed to airborne
asbestos. That exposure came after they were told to remove
material containing asbestos, a deadly cancer-causing agent.

The worker, a longtime maintenance employee, told authorities that
he and others were ordered to work in asbestos-contaminated spaces
without precautions or protective equipment. He said supervisors
knew the areas contained asbestos, which is found in products
ranging from roof shingles and cement to floor tiles and plumbing.
If those products are disturbed, asbestos fibers can become
airborne and enter the lungs.

The OSC said in the letter that it could not confirm that medical
center managers knowingly told workers to perform maintenance
tasks without proper protection. The Veterans Administration, in a
statement, didn't address that issue, didn't say how many people
were exposed and didn't admit wrongdoing. It said corrective
action was immediately taken after the agency's Office of the
Medical Inspector examined construction projects two years ago
that could expose workers to asbestos.

"An extensive review was conducted, and no VA employees, patients
or visitors have been found to have been harmed," the VA stated.

The OSC report revealed that the worker alleged that hospital
managers "violated procedures governing the safe handling of
asbestos-containing materials and failed to provide medical
surveillance for employees exposed to asbestos, endangering their
health and safety."

It said investigators "found violations of laws, rules or
regulations and evidence of a substantial and specific danger to
the health and safety of the maintenance & operations (M&O)
employees.

"The medical center failed to take appropriate precautions to
protect employees performing maintenance from exposure to unsafe
concentrations of asbestos, failed to inform employees of the
location and quantity of asbestos-containing materials in the
area, and failed to provide a medical surveillance program for all
employees exposed to asbestos at a level greater than the
permissible exposure limit," the letter to Obama added.

But the OSC said it could not prove that Audie Murphy's managers
"knowingly ordered employees to perform maintenance tasks that
disturbed asbestos-containing materials without providing
appropriate precautions or personal protective equipment, or that
VA managers potentially exposed all medical center employees,
patients and visitors to unsafe conditions."

Asbestos is a naturally occurring substance. Miguel Fern ndez,
director of the South Texas Poison Center, which is part of the
University of Texas Health Science Center's Department of
Emergency Medicine in San Antonio, said everyone has been exposed
to asbestos and that the real danger comes when people have been
exposed to it for a long time.

People who have prolonged asbestos exposure and smoke are
particularly at risk of developing cancer, he said.

"A smoker who works with asbestos -- not a good thing," he added.

The VA medical inspector's office issued 15 recommendations after
visiting the hospital, one of them assigning the worker to jobs
that did not involve exposure to asbestos and granting him more
diagnostic testing. Maintenance and operations workers also were
given color-coded blueprints to the facility showing the location
of materials containing asbestos. A comprehensive survey also was
done to identify areas of the hospital where asbestos-containing
materials were.

The OSC report said the medical inspector's office reported that a
VA health surveillance program found that the whistleblower had an
abnormality in a chest X-ray in 2005 "suggesting asbestos
exposure. However, the medical center failed to properly respond
to these findings and remove him from further potential asbestos
exposure."

X-rays taken from 2007 to 2011 were interpreted as normal,
however.

The investigation said medical center managers failed to provide a
medical surveillance program for workers exposed to asbestos at or
above acceptable limits. Since the facility did not monitor
exposure for workers who weren't on an Asbestos Abatement Team,
the report said, "there is no data to determine whether exposure
occurred above the limit or not."

An OSC supplemental report filed about 15 months ago stated that
the whistleblower said he and others in the unit were told to
perform activities on a daily basis that disturbed areas known to
be contaminated with asbestos-containing materials.

"He was regularly asked to remove ceiling tiles, work in
interstitial spaces and drill into drywall. He and other employees
were directed to dispose of construction debris in regular trash
dumpsters. None of the employees was offered personal protective
equipment," OSC reported.

The workers included plumbers, pipe fitters and air-conditioning
mechanics.

The VA said that over the past two years, the South Texas Veterans
Health Care System "has invested significant resources into
improving its asbestos management program." A comprehensive
asbestos survey was launched after the 2013 investigation and
included all locations at the San Antonio and Kerrville medical
centers that might have asbestos.

The worker, in a letter that detailed a host of issues, submitted
work orders to show that some maintenance and operations employees
were still performing jobs in areas with materials containing
asbestos. It isn't clear if that is still the case.

The VA statement issued said that "all submitted work orders for
(the) maintenance and operations team are reviewed, and if any
work order requires potential asbestos disturbance, it will only
be assigned to the dedicated Asbestos Abatement Team."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Fleet Settles $19.4MM Fibro Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that after defendants raised the BAP1 genetic mutation defense in
an asbestos lawsuit, a California judge awarded the plaintiff and
his wife $19,449,863 in damages on June 23.

Judge Brad Beligman of the Alameda County Superior Court entered a
judgment for plaintiffs Antonia and Raquel Perez and against
Universal Fleet Supply, an auto parts supply company, following a
general civil court trial. In his complaint, Perez claims he
developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos dust from
asbestos-containing brakes manufactured by the defendant.

The Perez case is one of five known cases to have introduced the
BAP1 genetic mutation defense: Ortwein v. Certainteed Corporation,
Perez v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., McCarthy v. Baltimore Aircoil, Co.,
Bergstrom v. 84 Lumber and Bernard v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

The McCarthy case has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs
in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The remaining cases are
still ongoing in their respective jurisdictions (Ortwein --
Alameda County Superior Court, Bergstrom -- Missouri's 22nd
Circuit Court in St. Louis, and Bernard -- New York Supreme
Court).

The BAP1 defense seems to be slowly working its way into asbestos
courtrooms, and it is likely that more cases have introduced the
argument. However, the defense remains controversial.

Dr. Joseph R. Testa, geneticist and professor at the Fox Chase
Cancer Center in Philadelphia, worked alongside Dr. Michele
Carbone of the University of Hawaii to first discover that those
with BAP1 mutations had a predisposition to mesothelioma.

The most recent study on BAP1 mutations titled "Minimal asbestos
exposure in germline BAP1 heterozygous mice is associated with
deregulated inflammatory response and increased risk of
mesothelioma," was released on June 29 by Carbone, A. Napolitano,
L. Pellegrini, A. Dey, D. Larson, M. Tanji, E. G. Flores, B.
Kendrick, D. Lapid, A. Powers, S. Kanodia, S. Pastorino, H.I.
Pass, V. Dixit and H. Yang.

The study was performed on mice and re-established that those with
the genetic mutation have a "significantly" increased risk of
developing malignant mesothelioma with minimal exposure to
asbestos.

Malignant mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer typically developed
as a result of asbestos exposure, often times occupational
asbestos exposure.

However, researchers believe the BAP1 gene predisposes a person to
develop mesothelioma with even small amounts of asbestos exposure.

In fact, the study states that to date, the researchers have
"found that none of the mesothelioma patients carrying germline
BAP1 mutations were professionally exposed to asbestos." That
means those with the genetic mutation were exposed through
background exposure and other third-party exposures.

In the June study involving mice, the group hypothesized that the
BAP1 genetic mutation "might influence the asbestos-induced
inflammatory response that it linked to asbestos carcinogenesis,
thereby increasing the risk of developing mesothelioma after
minimal exposure."

In their study, the researchers compared BAP1 carrying mice with
their "wild-type" littermates by exposing each group to asbestos.
They found that the genetically mutated mice had a significantly
higher rate of developing mesothelioma after limited asbestos
exposure, the same doses that "rarely" caused mesothelioma in the
wild mice.

"Our findings suggest that minimal exposure to carcinogenic fibers
may significantly increase the risk of malignant mesothelioma in
genetically predisposed individuals carrying germline BAP1
mutations, possibly via alterations of the inflammatory response,"
the study states.

While scientists looking deeper into the controversial genetic
mutation tend to agree that it increases someone's chance of
developing mesothelioma, another study that came out suggests that
BAP1 carriers with mesothelioma also live approximately seven
times longer than those without the genetic mutation.

The September 2014 study called "Mesothelioma patients with
germline BAP1 mutations have seven-fold improved long-term
survival" was released by researchers Francine Bauman, Erin
Flores, Andrea Napolitano, Shreya Kamodia, Emanuela Taioli, Harvey
Pass, Haining Yang and Carbone.

"Here, we tested the hypothesis that malignant mesothelioma
associated with germline BAP1 mutations has a better prognosis
compared to sporadic malignant mesothelioma," the study states.

In the study, they compared survival periods among germline BAP1
mutation mesothelioma patients with all mesothelioma recordings in
the US SEER data from 1973 to 2010.

They were able to identify 23 patients -- 11 of which were still
alive at the time of the study -- who were carriers of the BAP1
mutation. Additionally, 13 of those patients had one or more
malignancies in addition to the mesothelioma.

Researchers found that the median survival for mesothelioma
patients with BAP1 mutations was five years, while the median
survival for mesothelioma patients without the BAP1 mutation was
less than one year.

Further, there was a 47 percent chance of surviving five years
with mesothelioma for BAP1 carriers, as compared to 6.7 percent
chance of surviving five years with mesothelioma for those without
the genetic mutation.

Additionally, they found that BAP1 carriers with peritoneal
malignant mesothelioma (cancer in the lining of the abdomen) as
well as those with additional malignancies lived longer than
patients with pleural malignant mesothelioma (cancer in the lining
of the lungs), with a median survival of 10 years.

"In conclusion, we found that malignant mesothelioma patients with
germline BAP1 mutations have an overall seven-fold increased long-
term survival, independently of sex and age," the study states.

Although the BAP1 mutation is still being studied, researchers
believe it may lead to a cure for mesothelioma in the future.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peritoneal Mesothelioma Rates Higher in Italy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that
some Italian workers are paying a high price for Italy's former
position as the top European producer of asbestos.

According to a new study in the American Journal of Industrial
Medicine, both men and women who lived and worked in areas of
heavy asbestos production are far more likely than their peers
elsewhere in the country to contract peritoneal mesothelioma.

Peritoneal mesothelioma is the rarer form of a very rare cancer.
While the more common pleural mesothelioma occurs in the membranes
around the lungs, peritoneal mesothelioma starts on the membrane
that surrounds abdominal organs. Like all forms of mesothelioma,
it is asbestos-related, hard to treat, aggressive, and usually
lethal.

To get an idea how prevalent peritoneal mesothelioma is in Italy
and what role asbestos production might have played in its
incidence, scientists from the National Institute of Health,
Sapienza University, the Italian National Mesothelioma Register,
and other groups evaluated national mesothelioma statistics from
1993 to 2010.They used data from Italy's National Multiple-Causes-
of-Death Database and the Italian Mesothelioma Register.

"We found an increasing trend of age standardized mortality rates
in men," reports Susanna Conti, MSc, of the National Institute of
Public Health's Unit of Statistics. "Moreover, we showed
significant risks of death in several northern regions, formerly
heavy asbestos users."

In these Northern regions, asbestos was not only produced and
distributed throughout Europe but was also heavily used in
concrete, insulation, roof shingles, wallboard and other places.

Italy banned the mining and use of asbestos in 1992 but a 2012
report estimated that as much as 80 percent of the asbestos-
containing materials in the country were still in place at that
time and "may still be the cause of negative effects to the health
of workers and the general population."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Seeks Answer to Father's Fibro Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Marsh, writing for Chronicle Live, reported that an
inquest found evidence of asbestosis would have played a part in
the death of John Robert Harbottle, who worked at Swan Hunter.

Smiling for the camera, a group of pals take a break from work at
Swan Hunter shipyard in Wallsend.

But for John Robert Harbottle, who went there straight from school
in 1947, first as a tea boy and later an electrician, the years
spent working in a 'fog of asbestos dust' may have led to his
death.

The 81-year-old died in January after developing heart and lung
disease which left him virtually bedridden and on oxygen 24 hours
a day.

An inquest found evidence of asbestosis, caused by exposure to
asbestos, would have played a part by putting extra strain on his
heart.

Now his daughter, Susan Dean, is appealing for help from anyone
who worked alongside her dad to come forward with information
about working conditions at the time.

If successful in her search for justice, she has also pledged to
donate any financial award to the British Lung Foundation in his
memory.

Mrs Dean, of Wallsend, North Tyneside, said: "It's the only place
that he would have come into contact with asbestos.

"He used to work down in the hulls of the ships alongside joiners,
fitters and also 'laggers' or labourers who lagged the pipes with
asbestos.

"He said it was horrendous and you couldn't see for the fog of
asbestos dust flying about everywhere."

Widowed, the great-grandfather lived alone in Wallsend and in the
last few months of his life was cared for by his two daughters,
Susan and Sandra.

Mrs Dean, 59, added: "He was a very proud man and there couldn't
have been a worse way for him to go.

"He went from being as fit as a flea to being on oxygen 24/7. His
breathing took his legs away so he was stuck in a bedroom.

"I only ever saw him cry twice, once when my mum died and on the
last Christmas Day we had with him when he couldn't make it
downstairs to spend it with his family."

Raised by his grandmother, he was known as John Thompson in his
early years and only reverted to Harbottle after marrying his late
wife Audrey.

After leaving Swan Hunter and Wigham Richardson Limited in the
early 1960s, he had several different jobs including as an
ambulance driver and social worker.

But Mrs Dean said: "I think he had some good friends at the
shipyard and if he was exposed to asbestos there then they could
be in the same position.

"It does make me angry because all he ever tried to do was provide
for his wife and children.

"If he had known the risks he wouldn't have put himself in that
situation and we may have had him for a lot longer."

Simon Alexander, from law firm, Slater and Gordon, is representing
Mrs Dean in her quest.

He said: "Mr Harbottle had no idea of the dangers of asbestos
exposure which caused him great discomfort and distress in later
life and ultimately contributed to his death.

"We are keen to speak to anyone who worked alongside him and can
help his family find the answers they're looking for."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found After Fire in Seaforth School
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Koziol, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that classes were cancelled at Seaforth Public School on after a
fire destroyed five classrooms across three demountable buildings
overnight.

Fire crews arrived at the school's junior (K-4) campus on
Kempbridge Avenue about 10pm after numerous calls reporting
flames.

The fire was extinguished shortly before 1am and is being treated
as suspicious.

Five classrooms were destroyed in the blaze, with one of the three
buildings totally engulfed and another sustaining serious heat
damage.Authorities also shut off the gas at the site after a leak
was detected.

Fire and Rescue NSW Superintendent Darryl Dunbar confirmed there
was "some asbestos on site due to the age of the buildings", which
were 1950-style timber structures on brick pylons.

Department of Education spokesman Mark Davis said it was
"possible" the classrooms contained asbestos, because the older
style demountables are "different to the [modern] demountables
that most people probably know, which can be unbolted and
transported around in bits on the back of a truck".

Mr Davis said parents had been informed of the school's closure by
email and social media. Minimal supervision was being provided at
the school's senior (5-6) campus, located a few streets away.
Regular lessons were also continuing at that campus, he said.

Mr Dunbar said fire authorities and NSW Police were investigating
the cause of the blaze. Only a small part of the campus was
affected by the fire and the school was expected to update parents
on as to when it will reopen.

Fire and Rescue NSW Superintendent Paul Johnstone said the fire
was very intense and crews worked hard to stop it spreading.

Asbestos has been detected and the area was cordoned off,
Superintendent Johnstone said.

There are 550 students enrolled at the school. Nobody was injured
in the blaze, which occurred before the final week of term.

Investigations into the cause of the fire are continuing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Rates in ACT Increases
----------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that a new study into health risks linked to Mr
Fluffy loose-fill asbestos-contaminated houses has found a rising
incidence of mesothelioma in Canberra over the past 30 years.

But the Australian National University research found in the
period from 1982 to 2011, only one case of mesothelioma had been
diagnosed in a person while living in a Mr Fluffy house.

The potentially deadly asbestos fibres have led to a buyback and
demolition scheme for more than 1,000 affected houses in Canberra.

The study found the rate of mesothelioma cases in the ACT between
1994 and 2011 rose at a slightly greater rate than the rest of
Australia.

However the study's co-lead investigator Rosmary Korda said
finding trends from the data carried statistical uncertainty
because of the small case numbers involved.

"Mesothelioma is a relatively rare cancer so we know there has
only been about 140 cases in the last 30 years," she said.

"There has been an increase in rates, but we don't know if it is
connected with Mr Fluffy.

"This study is a descriptive study, we look at all the cases over
time that have been registered in the ACT, but it just describes
the trends and we compare them to other jurisdictions."

This rise in rates means the ACT now has a similar diagnosis rate
to the rest of Australia.

"Although rates have been rising in the ACT, they have been lower
on average than the rates for rest of Australia," Ms Korda said.

"However, in recent years ACT rates appear to have caught up with
the rest of Australia."

Inhalation of asbestos fibres is the predominant cause of
mesothelioma and an important contributor to risk of lung cancer
in exposed people.

Mesothelioma symptoms can take 20 to 50 years to appear after the
initial exposure.

The study also found that men were more likely to be diagnosed
with mesothelioma, with four out of every five cases diagnosed in
men.

Also, a large portion of the cases were diagnosed in people aged
65 and older, with less than 5 percent diagnosed in people aged
under 45.

Health minister Simon Corbell said the study is the first of four
reports into the health risks of living in a house with loose-fill
asbestos.

The four parts of the study are:

   (1) An analysis of mesothelioma rates and distribution in the
       ACT;

   (2) Focus groups held with current and recent residents of
       affected houses to discuss their health-related concerns
       with voluntary participation;

   (3) The likely exposure levels and health-related concerns of
       current and recent residents in terms of years lived in an
       affected house and activities such as renovating; and

   (4) Linking the data sets to estimate the risk of developing
       mesothelioma in current and former residents of affected
       houses compared with the general population.

"This report is only the first part of the study. Each part of the
study will feed information into the next, so the whole picture
will not become clear until the end of the study," he said.

The final results of the study will be released in 2017.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Cites New Occupational Fibro Exposure Stats
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, which combines
education, advocacy, and community to prevent exposure and ensure
justice for asbestos victims, cited new statistics from (GBD 2013)
from the prestigious Lancet medical journal, that found
occupational asbestos exposure to be responsible for 194,000
deaths in 2013. The new numbers represent a more than 80% increase
from the 107,000 per annum statistic from the World Health
Organization (WHO).

The GBD 2013, published by Lancet and funded by the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, is the first of a series of annual
updates of the GBD detailing risk factor quantification,
particularly of modifiable risk factors, to help to identify
emerging threats to population health and opportunities for
prevention. According to the study, in 2013, "Taken together,
occupational carcinogens caused 304,000 deaths globally; asbestos
exposure accounted for nearly two-thirds of the burden of all
occupational carcinogens." Related Disability Adjusted Life Years
(DALYs) lost were 5.8 million in total and 3.4 million years for
those related to asbestos.

"As affirmed by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2013 Study,
published in Lancet September 11, 2015, the fallout from
occupational asbestos exposure is continuing its alarming rise,"
stated Dr. Richard A. Lemen, former United States Assistant
Surgeon General and ADAO Science Advisory Board Co-Chair. "With
the study's estimated loss of life at 194,000 each year this
represents a rise of more than 80% since the last World Health
Organization's estimate of 107,000. In fact all asbestos diseases
are preventable simply by eliminating exposures to asbestos;
however as long as asbestos use continues, this mounting toll from
asbestos induced deaths will grow. Only society can stop this
pandemic and societies in over 50 of the world's countries have
taken this action; now is the time for all the world to follow."

"The new figures from Lancet regarding the number of lives lost as
a result of asbestos in the workplace has catapulted by nearly
90,000 from the 107,000 number traditionally used," stated ADAO
President and Co-founder, Linda Reinstein. "What's equally
alarming is that this number doesn't include the loss of life
related to take-home asbestos exposure of when a worker carries
deadly fibers on their hair, skin and clothes which has poisoned
their spouses and children; do-it-yourself projects; disasters
such as 9/11; and even the innocent exposure of children and
consumers through products still in use. Asbestos remains legal
and lethal in the US, yet imports continue. The human cost of
inaction is deplorable and expensive in dollars and lives. It is
reprehensible that Congress has condoned the use of asbestos and
allowed the asbestos man-made disaster to continue. The fatally
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 has failed to protect
the health and safety of Americans. The time is now to pass TSCA
reform legislation that ensures the Environmental Protection
Agency can expeditiously ban asbestos. Enough is enough."

As part of its comprehensive education and advocacy efforts, ADAO
reminds concerned citizens to "Raise Your Voice" to #ENDMeso and
send a letter to Congress and tell them to stand up for Americans
and ban asbestos.

          About the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) was founded by
asbestos victims and their families in 2004. ADAO is the largest
non-profit in the U.S. dedicated to providing asbestos victims and
concerned citizens with a united voice through our education,
advocacy, and community initiatives. ADAO seeks to raise public
awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure, advocate for an
asbestos ban, and protect asbestos victims' civil rights.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Church Thieves Exposed to Toxic Dust
-----------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that police say burglars who stole a safe from a
church may have been exposed to asbestos in its lining and should
seek medical help.

The thieves stole the safe containing silver plates, chalices and
other silverware from Pip and Jim's Church in St James Place,
Ilfracombe, Devon on night.

The safe was found ripped open nearby.

Churchgoers held their morning service in a nearby pub while
police investigations at the church continued.

'Fabulous service'

Vicar's wife Alison Rogers, who discovered the burglary, said: "I
was going to church to lead an act of worship and the back door
was all in slivers where it had been damaged.

"I called the police and 10 minutes later they said they had found
the safe. The burglars had put it on a trolley and taken it about
300 yards to Capstone Hill."

The service was held at Wetherspoon's pub in the town.
"It's just outside the church gates," said Mrs Rogers.
"It was a fabulous service. They have always been very kind to
us."

No value has been put on the stolen silverware but Mrs Rogers
said: "At least no-one was hurt."

Insp Ian Dawson of Devon and Cornwall Police said: "We would
stress that the risk to the public is very low, as the safe was in
an open area but it is clear the offenders may well have exposed
themselves to any asbestos the safe contained when they forced it
open,.

"As such they should take steps to ensure their own safety and the
safety of family members or associates they have visited after the
crime."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverse Motorola Fibro Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Shindhu Sundatar, writing for Law360, reported that a Kentucky
appeals court on reversed a lower court's ruling in favor of
Motorola Solutions Inc. and Zenith Electronics LLC in a
mesothelioma suit, finding that the widow of a radio repairman had
shown enough evidence that her husband could have been exposed to
asbestos in radios manufactured by the companies.

A three-judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed a
Campbell Circuit Court's summary judgment ruling in favor of
Zenith and Motorola Solutions, which has succeeded Motorola Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Companies Reminded to Follow Fibro Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enviromental-Expert reported that construction companies across
Texas were recently reminded of the importance of following
asbestos regulations.  This occurred as a result of the U.S.
Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) announcing that a manager and two affiliated
construction companies in Illinois are now facing $1,792,000 in
penalties for willfully exposing at least eight workers to
asbestos.

According to OSHA the workers were exposed to asbestos fibers when
they removed floor tiles, insulation, and other materials at a
former elementary school.  The agency cited the manager and
companies for 16 egregious, 9 willful, and 6 serious violations.
OSHA inspectors found they failed to warn employees of the danger,
even though they were aware of the asbestos hazard. They also
failed to ensure that workers used appropriate work methods and
respirators, and to train them about the hazards of working around
asbestos.

"Asbestos was used in over 3,000 materials by the 1970s and many
of these materials can still be found in older homes, schools, and
commercial buildings," said Hollis L. Horner, President, Indoor
Environmental Consultants, Inc.  "Construction companies involved
with demolition, renovation, and remodeling activities are
required to protect their workers and the public from exposure
risks associated with these materials.  Failure to comply with
these regulations can not only jeopardize people's health due to
the possibility of developing mesothelioma, lung cancer, or
asbestosis, but it can also result in costly fines."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R&Q Sued Over Toxic Dust Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Harris Martin, reported that TIG has sued R&Q Reinsurance Co. and
its parent company for $872,498 in reinsurance for sums TIG paid
to its insured, White Consolidated Industries Inc., for asbestos-
related personal injury claims.

In the Sept. 4 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, TIG contends that the reinsurers
may not set off balances owed under the reinsurance certificates
for sums allegedly owed by TIG under an entirely different book of
business.

TIG issued several umbrella liability policies to White
Consolidated Industries Inc.



                            *********

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  * * *