CAR_Public/110715.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 15, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 139

                             Headlines

A-POWER GENERATION: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Named Defendant in Alleged Ponzi Scheme
CITISTORAGE LLC: Accused of Deceiving Customers in New York
CITY OF MEMPHIS, TN: Sued for Changing Labor Agreement Terms
CRATE & BARREL: Faces Consumer Class Action Over ZIP Codes

DEAN FOODS: Settles Dairy Farmer Class Action for $140 Million
DIVING UNLIMITED: Recalls 1,500 Units of DUI Weight Systems
EMPIRE BLUE CROSS: ABA Therapy Class Action May Go Ahead
EMS TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold for Too Little, Georgia Suit Says
FXCM INC: New York Court Dismisses IPO-Related Suit

MISSION, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Grow-Op Inspections
NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Sept. 26 Class Action Settlement Hearing
ORACLE CORP: Workers Can't File Class Action Under Calif. Law
PETZL AMERICA: Recalls 375T Scorpio and Absorbica Safety Lanyards
RBS GLOBAL: 8th Circuit Affirms Class Cert. Ruling in "Zurn" Suit

ROCK-TENN CO: Provides Updates on Smurfit-Stone Acquisition Suits
SEPHORA USA: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime Wages in California
SYNGENTA CROP: Two Kansas Cities Dropped From Atrazine Suit
SYNGENTA CROP: Move to Quash Subpoenas in Atrazine Suit Rejected
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Appeals in IPO-Related Litigation Still Pending

TIBCO SOFTWARE: Awaits Court OK of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
TIMBERCORP GROUP: Investors Aware of Risks Ahead of Collapse
WD-40 CO: "Burns" Suit Still Pending in California Court

* M&A-Related Class Actions Easy Money for Law Firms


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 138 Injury Claims Pending v. GenCorp at May 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Accused of Exporting Asbestos Overseas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salisbury Chef Awarded 6-Figure Sum for Injury
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Cass County Courthouse to Cost $110T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Asbestos Danger Discovered in Libby, Mont.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunshine Council to Spend AU$2.5MM for Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turin Court Seeks 20-Year Terms in Eternit Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Probed Over Asbestos Dump at Nimmitabel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former DiCarlo's Pizza Parlor in W.Va. Demolished
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turnall Water Pipes Safe, Zimbabwean Group Says

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at May 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marceaux Claim v. Three Firms Filed on June 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fosters Fined for Exposing Workers to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paignton Man's Death Could be Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lordshill Man's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Over 800 People Sign Asbestos Petition in U.K.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Shields Pensioner Claim for Payout Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kippax Joiner Awarded GBP372T Payout for Injury
ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Reading Local's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $10T Approved for Cobb Hospital Asbestos Survey

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Granier Awarded $1.5MM Compensation for Injury
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP150T Compensation Claim Lodged v. John Lewis
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Union Lauds First Passage of Payout Laws
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Lawyer Mancuso Subject to Lower Sentence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belfast Skip Owner Probed Over Illegal Dumping

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Court Affirms Ruling in Continental Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Project at Pearson School to Commence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La.'s Lafourche Schools' Cleanup Costs $35,943
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Judge Seeks Proof in Melksham Waste Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Supreme Court Junks Asbestos Claims Limit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: July 25 Completion Set for EOC Building Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Opposes Zimbabwe Asbestos Mines' Opening
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NHRC Issues Notice on Asbestos Actions in India
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims' Kin to Benefit From Damages Act 2011




                             *********

A-POWER GENERATION: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased the securities of A-Power Generation
Systems, Ltd., between March 31, 2008, and June 27, 2011,
inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com

A-Power, through its subsidiaries, provides onsite distributed
power generation systems and micro power grids for industrial
companies, primarily in the People's Republic of China.  The
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's business and financial performance.  Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly accounted for its
related-party transactions such that its financial statements were
presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP); (2) the Company's revenues and income were misstated in
violation of GAAP; (3) the Company's revenue and income reported
in its filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
were overstated as the Company reported materially lower revenue
and net income in its filings with China's State Administration
for Industry and Commerce (SAIC); (4) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (5), as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class, you may move the Court, no later
than August 31, 2011, to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you
must meet certain legal requirements.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights
or interests with respect to these matters, please contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Named Defendant in Alleged Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America has been named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, on
behalf of hundreds of LA homeowners and investors who lost
millions of dollars in a highly complex Ponzi scheme run by one of
Los Angeles' most notorious fraud operators, Juan Rangel.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the mostly Latino plaintiffs by
the law firms of Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny, LLP; Capretz &
Associates; and Girardi & Keese, alleges that Bank of America
employees as well as bank management were aware or should have
been aware of the Ponzi scheme and despite such knowledge provided
banking services to Juan Rangel and his associates.  Notably, Dony
Gonzalez, a former Bank of America branch manager was indicted and
pled guilty to receipt of bribes by Juan Rangel.

The lawsuit alleges that from about November 2007 to July 2008,
Mr. Rangel used his firm, Financial Plus Investments, as well as
other financial companies he owned, to defraud middle-class
working families through investment, mortgage and foreclosure
rescue schemes that netted Mr. Rangel about $30 million.
Mr. Rangel's firms shut down in July 2008 and Mr. Rangel was
arrested by federal agents in August 2008.

Mr. Rangel and his Ponzi scheme were also targets of the U.S.
Attorney General's Operation Broken Trust, a nationwide operation
organized by the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to target
investment fraud against hard working families.  The operation,
which involved several other federal agencies including the FBI
and SEC, was the first national operation of its kind to target a
broad array of investment fraud schemes that directly prey upon
the investing public.

Mr. Rangel pleaded guilty in October 2010 to one count of mail
fraud and one count of money laundering.  In February 2011, he was
sentenced to 22 years in federal prison for the Ponzi scheme and
in April 2011 to seven years and three months for bribery of a
bank official and money laundering to run concurrently with the
previous sentence.  Also named as a defendant in the class action
lawsuit is Pablo Araque, who provided accounting services to
Financial Plus.  Mr. Araque has been indicted and is currently
scheduled to go to trial February 2012.

"We are hopeful that Bank of America will weigh its role in this
Ponzi catastrophe, do the right thing and take responsibility for
the malfeasance alleged in the complaint filed this morning," said
James T. Capretz of Capretz & Associates, one of the three law
firms representing the Plaintiffs.  "The relevant banking laws are
in place to provide security for our country and our residents.
They must be complied with completely and consistently."

The Rangel affair is not the first time Bank of America has had a
run-in with federal regulators over money laundering, according to
the law suit.  In 2010, the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee
on Investigations concluded that Bank of America had ignored money
laundering controls.  In testimony before the panel, a Bank of
America executive conceded that the bank had allowed an Algerian
to maintain numerous accounts from 1989 to 2007 despite media
accounts that he was a billionaire arms dealer under criminal
prosecution in France since 2000.  Federal agents also caught
people who work for Mexican cartels depositing illicit funds in
Bank of America accounts in Atlanta, Chicago and Brownsville,
Texas from 2002 to 2009.

In 2006, Bank of America acknowledged that its lax operations
allowed South American money launders to illegally move $3 billion
through a single Midtown Manhattan branch.  On information and
belief, Bank of America paid $10.5 million to the Manhattan
District Attorney's Office and to the National Association of
Securities Dealers to settle allegations it violated anti-money-
laundering rules.

RANGEL'S PONZI SCHEME

Beginning in or about April 2006, and continuing through at least
in or about July 2008, Mr. Rangel and his associates, including
his son, Harold Rangel (who is a fugitive still being sought by
federal authorities) executed a scheme to defraud homeowners and
mortgage lenders to obtain money and property from those
homeowners and mortgage lenders "by means of material false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and the
concealment of material facts."

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Rangel preyed on Spanish-speaking,
working class families in his own community.  He used common ties
to get them to invest money that they could not afford to lose.
Mr. Rangel and fellow defendants told investors that their money
would be used to buy and sell properties and make high interest
loans to distressed homeowners.  Mr. Rangel guaranteed returns as
high as 60% each year, and told them that their investments were
safe because they were guaranteed by titles to real property.

In return for the funds invested with Financial Plus, Mr. Rangel
and others acting at his direction provided investors with
promissory notes that guaranteed a high rate of return, typically
five percent each month, as well as the return of their invested
principal.  But, according to the lawsuit, only a small fraction
of the money that Financial Plus received from investors was used
to invest in real estate or to make loans to distressed
homeowners.  Instead, Mr. Rangel and Financial Plus used the money
from other investors, or the investors' own principal, to make
payments to investors each month that Mr. Rangel falsely
characterized as investment profits.  Moreover, Mr. Rangel
diverted a significant portion of the invested funds for his own
personal use.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Rangel not only took investor
monies, he also operated a mortgage fraud scheme that targeted
distressed homeowners who had equity in their homes but were
behind on mortgage payments.  Mr. Rangel offered these homeowners
assistance in bringing their loans current and saving their
properties.  As part of these transactions, however, the
homeowners' equity in their properties was invested with Financial
Plus and, in some cases, Rangel also took title to their
properties.

The Class Action Complaint, case number BC464530 is filed with the
Los Angeles Superior Court, Central Civil West, located at 600 S.
Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005, and is assigned to
Judge Emilie H. Elias, Dept. CCW-324.  A copy of the Complaint is
available at www.capretz.com/sub/BofA_Complaint.jsp


CITISTORAGE LLC: Accused of Deceiving Customers in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stacie Handwerker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CitiStorage, LLC, CitiPostal, Inc., and Ares
Capital Corporation, Case No. 107945/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y.
Cty., July 11, 2011) alleges that CitiStorage's bills and billing
practices are designed to mislead customers and generate
unwarranted late fee surcharges.

Ms. Handwerker is a resident of New York.

CitiStorage is a New York corporation and is owned, operated and
managed by Ares Capital.  CitiPostal is a New York corporation and
is an operating or shell company with a significant financial
stake in CitiStorage.  Ares Capital is a New York-based publicly
traded private equity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
          Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
          SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 723-2947
          Facsimile: (646) 723-2948
          E-mail: swittels@swhlegal.com
          E-mail: jheisler@swhlegal.com


CITY OF MEMPHIS, TN: Sued for Changing Labor Agreement Terms
------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Potocsnak at Courthouse News Service reports that Memphis
changed the terms of a labor agreement with unions that represent
6,000 city employees days before the agreement was to go into
effect, the unions say.  The federal class action claims the
unions were not given time to address the changes and asks for an
injunction to force Memphis to play fair.

The AFSCME Local 1733 leads the list of 13 unions that represent
Memphis employees, including firefighters, parks and police,
public works and other divisions.  The unions claim the city's
abrupt right turn violated the First and 14th Amendments and the
City Charter.

Memphis enacted an impasse ordinance in 1978, which dictates how
to negotiate and resolve economic issues between the city and its
employees.

"Since its enactment, the Unions and the City have followed the
procedures established by the impasse ordinance to negotiate the
Memoranda of Understanding that control the terms and conditions
of the employees represented by the Unions," according to the
complaint.

The unions say that in March this year they and the city had
agreed on terms to new "Memoranda of Understanding."

"The above terms, mutually agreed by the Unions and the City,
provide the benefits, salaries, wages, and other forms of
compensation included in the Memoranda of Understanding will
remain unchanged during their effective period; and that either
party may reopen negotiations after one year for purposes of
negotiating wages only," the complaint states.

The Memoranda covered the period of July 1, 2011, through June 30,
2013 and was completed on April 1 this year.

The unions add: "The City agreed with the Unions on the economic
terms of the Memoranda of Understanding without invoking the
impasse procedure.  The Unions reasonably relied on the City's
execution of the Memoranda, as well as the provisions of the
impasse ordinance, to accept the negotiations as successfully
concluded."

But on June 24, six days before the new deal was to take effect,
the city told union leaders that "it would implement a 'wage
reduction in the amount of 4.6%,' and eliminate death benefits
paid to the family of active and retired employees."

"In addition, the City indicated that it would 'buy out' certain
employees of the Solid Waste Division," the complaint states.

The unions say the last-minute changes violate the City Charter
and its impasse ordinance: The city did not present the new terms
in negotiations and did not give the unions time to petition the
City Council for redress.

"City employees have a legitimate claim of entitlement to the
economic terms determined pursuant to the impasse ordinance and
documented in the Memoranda of Understanding," the complaint
states.

"By unilaterally reducing the compensation and benefits of its
employees, in violation of the economic terms mutually accepted
and established pursuant to the impasse ordinance, the City
deprived its employees of a property interest without due
process."

The unions seek an injunction ordering the city to comply with the
terms it agreed upon in March.

A copy of the Complaint in American Federation of State, County,
Municipal Employees Local 1733, et al. v. City of Memphis,
Case No. 11-cv-02577 (W.D. Tenn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/12/Memphis.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah Godwin, Esq.
          Timothy Taylor, Esq.
          GODWIN, MORRIS, LAURENZI & BLOOMFIELD, P.C.
          50 North Front Street, Suite 800
          P.O. Box 3290
          Memphis, TN 38173-0290
          Telephone: (901) 528-1702
          E-mail: dgodwin@gmlblaw.com
                  ttaylor@gmlblaw.com


CRATE & BARREL: Faces Consumer Class Action Over ZIP Codes
----------------------------------------------------------
Erik Holm, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a
battle is shaping up in California that pits two big retailers
against a big insurer over who will pick up the costs of a new
breed of consumer class-action litigation tied to merchants'
collection of ZIP codes for credit-card purchases.

Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. is resisting efforts by
Crate & Barrel and Children's Place Retail Stores Inc. to use
their liability-insurance policies to pay legal bills in defending
against lawsuits alleging violation of consumers' privacy,
according to court filings by Hartford.  The insurer maintains
that the insurance policies exclude coverage for alleged
violations of certain privacy statutes.

Hartford's fight against the two retailers is believed to be the
first of many showdowns to come as insurers seek court rulings
that their policies don't obligate them to pony up what is likely
to total hundreds of millions of dollars for the costs of
defending against the burgeoning number of ZIP-code lawsuits.

Hartford and the two merchants declined to comment.

The two retailers are among more than 100 merchants facing
separate lawsuits in California courts since February.  That is
when the California Supreme Court ruled that ZIP codes qualify as
personal-identification information under a longstanding state
privacy statute.  The statute prohibits merchants from requesting
personal-identification information when customers pay by credit
card.  The court noted that ZIP codes can be used by retailers to
deduce a customer's full address, which can be sold to other
businesses.

The lawsuits seeking class-action status accuse the merchants of
violating the statute and contend customers are owed as much as
$1,000 for each time they were asked for their ZIP code in the
past year.

Other retailers named in the separate lawsuits include Macy's
Inc., Best Buy Co., Tiffany & Co. and Home Depot Inc.  They either
declined to comment or couldn't be reached.

Some retailers named in class-action suits earlier this year
previously have said they use the ZIP-code information as part of
data mining to measure buying habits and target promotions.  Also,
some retailers ask customers for ZIP codes as a security measure
to guard against fraudulent transactions.

Some retailers named in the suits have said in public statements
that they care about their customers' privacy and take many
measures to safeguard any private information that the customers'
voluntarily provide.

In May, plaintiffs' attorneys in Massachusetts opened a new front,
citing the California ruling in a putative class-action case
against arts-and-crafts chain Michaels Stores Inc.  That pending
federal suit argues that asking for ZIP codes is a violation in
Massachusetts, too.  Michaels declined to comment.

"These companies are going to be turning around and looking to
their insurance companies for help," said Linda Kornfeld, a
partner at law firm Jenner & Block LLP in Los Angeles who
represents companies in coverage disputes with insurers.

Insurers and commercial policyholders often go to court when they
disagree about whether a new, unexpected type of claim is covered
under an existing policy.  If courts rule against insurers, as
they have done with some asbestos and mold claims, it can result
in billions of dollars in claims and a rewording of policy
language to eliminate the vulnerability in new policies.

Hartford rejected a claim from Euromarket Designs Inc., Crate &
Barrel's parent, according to a suit it filed in federal court in
Illinois in May seeking affirmation of the insurer's conclusion
that it isn't obliged to pay legal costs stemming from four
federal suits seeking class-action status in California.  A
hearing is set for July 27.

Hartford filed a similar suit in June against Children's Place in
federal court in New Jersey.  No hearing has yet been scheduled in
the Children's Place suit.

Hartford contends in the two lawsuits that it shouldn't have to
pay the claims partly because the liability policies in question
exclude coverage for privacy violations and the "distribution of
material in violation of statutes," according to court filings.

Ms. Kornfeld said she is aware of similar coverage disputes
between policyholders and insurers over the ZIP-code issue but
declined to discuss them because the disagreements haven't spilled
into court.  She represents companies in coverage disputes with
insurers.

Charles Spevacek, a partner at law firm Meagher & Geer PLLP in
Minneapolis who defends insurers, said insurers adjusted their
policies in the early 2000s to exclude coverage for the
distribution of material in violation of privacy rights.  They
made the change when coverage disputes arose from alleged
violations of a U.S. law that bans sending unsolicited
advertisements to fax machines.

Lawyers following the credit-card suits in California said the
fight between insurers and merchants is likely to be bigger and
costlier than previous spats over privacy-related claims.  The
reason: Defendants in the latest lawsuits include some of the
largest U.S. retailers, including Coach Inc., Nordstrom Inc. and
J.C. Penney Co.  Those companies also either declined to comment
or didn't respond to messages seeking comment.

The California Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision
that retailers had been relying on to justify asking for ZIP codes
from customers.  The Supreme Court said the lower-court ruling can
be used by retailers to argue their liability should be smaller
than the $1,000-a-violation maximum set by California law.

But even that fight could require a million dollars or more in
legal costs, estimated Donna Wilson, a partner at law firm
BuckleySandler LLP in Los Angeles.  She represents retailers that
are defendants in the class-action lawsuits.  Her estimate
excludes the potential cost of settling suits or paying damages.


DEAN FOODS: Settles Dairy Farmer Class Action for $140 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Co. has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit brought
by dairy farmers in Southeastern states for $140 million.

The U.S. dairy company will pay the amount over 4 to 5 years into
a fund that will be distributed to the dairy farmers.

It will make an initial payment of $60 million upon preliminary
approval by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee and subsequent payments of $20 million in
each of the following four years.

Dean Foods expects to take a charge in the second quarter on the
settlement, but does not expect it to materially impact results.


DIVING UNLIMITED: Recalls 1,500 Units of DUI Weight Systems
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Diving Unlimited International Inc., of San
Diego, California, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,454
units of DUI Weight & Trim System Classic and DUI Weight & Trim
System II in the United States of America and 46 units in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Manufacturing defects in the lanyard connecting the handle to the
pocket or the cable securing the pocket to the harness can prevent
the weight pockets from easily detaching from the harness and
releasing the weights when the handle is pulled.  This poses a
drowning hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The weight harnesses are made of heavyweight nylon and are black
in color with gray handles.  The DUI logo appears on the pockets.
The Weight & Trim System Classic has two small weight pockets on
each side.  The Weight & Trim System II has one large weight
pocket on each side.  Systems with large silver stripes on the
sides have been inspected or repaired and are not affected by this
recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11275.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
diving equipment retailers nationwide and in Canada between July
2010 and April 2011 for about $124.

Consumers should immediately stop using the systems and call DUI
at (800) 325-8439 Monday thru Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Pacific Time or e-mail CustomerService@DUI-Online.com to receive a
free repair of the system.  For additional information, contact
DUI Customer Service between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time
Monday through Friday at (800) 325-8439, by e-mail at
CustomerService@DUI-Online.com or visit http://www.DUI-Online.com/


EMPIRE BLUE CROSS: ABA Therapy Class Action May Go Ahead
--------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Detroit has refused to dismiss part of a class
action lawsuit filed against Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield.  The
lawsuit, which was brought by parents of autistic children, claims
that Empire Blue Cross (in New York) has a policy of denying
insurance coverage for a form of autism treatment known as Applied
Behavior Analysis therapy.  The plaintiffs seek a court order
requiring Empire Blue Cross to cover the therapy and to pay the
benefits of claimants who were previously denied coverage.

According to the lawsuit, ABA is a well recognized and
scientifically valid form of autism treatment for children.
Numerous authorities and organizations have supported using ABA to
treat autism, including the U.S. Surgeon General, the National
Institute of Mental Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics,
and a comprehensive report commissioned by the United States
Medicare and Medicaid system.  In addition, 26 states mandate
insurance coverage for ABA-type autism treatments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gerard Mantese and John Conway.
Mantese and Conway are counsel in several cases seeking insurance
coverage for ABA therapy.  In 2010, Mantese and Conway obtained
final approval of a class action against Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan requiring payment of approximately $1 million in claims
for ABA therapy.  They are also currently counsel for military
beneficiaries seeking coverage of ABA from the military's Tricare
insurer.  In March, 2011, a federal court in Washington D.C.
granted class action status to thousands of military beneficiaries
in that case.

Contact information for the families' attorneys follows:

          Gerard Mantese, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          Cell: (248) 515-6419
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Conway, Esq.
          John J. Conway, P.C.
          26622 Woodward Avenue, Suite 225
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (313) 961-6525
          Cell: (313) 574-2148
          E-mail: E-mail: john@johnjconway.com


EMS TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold for Too Little, Georgia Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Shaev, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EMS Technologies, Inc., Honeywell International Inc.,
Egret Acquisition Corp., John B. Mowell, John R. Bolton, Hermann
Buerger, Joseph D. Burns, John R. Kreick, Neilson A. Mackay,
Thomas W. O'connell, Bradford W. Parkinson, Gary B. Shell, Norman
E. Thagard, and John L. Woodward, Jr., Case No. 2011CV203036 (Ga.
Super. Ct., July 08, 2011) accuses the Defendants of selling EMS
via an unfair process and at a grossly inadequate and unfair price
to Honeywell.

Ms. Shaev is a shareholder of EMS.

EMS is a Georgia corporation.  Honeywell is a diversified
international technology and manufacturing corporation, organized
in Delaware.  Egret is a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell,
created to effectuate the acquisition.  The individual defendants
are directors and officers of EMS.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Christi A. Cannon, Esq.
          Molly A. Havig, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          2300 Promenade II
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-3900
          Facsimile: (404) 876-4476
          E-mail: mchitwood@chitwoodlaw.com
                  jwilson@chitwoodlaw.com
                  ccannon@chitwoodlaw.com
                  mhavig@chitwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory E. Keller, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          185 Great Neck Road, Suite 340
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 773-6090
          E-mail: gkeller@chitwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Marie L. Oliver, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                  MLOliver@pomlaw.com


FXCM INC: New York Court Dismisses IPO-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against FXCM Inc. and
others, according to the Company's July 8, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 3, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against FXCM Inc., as well as certain of the Company's
officers and directors and three underwriters in its initial
public offering.  The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, alleges false or misleading
statements in the IPO prospectus regarding the Company's business
model and trading platforms, and seeks an unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of persons who purchased its Class A common
stock in the IPO.

On July 1, 2011, a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice was
filed with the Court.  As a result of the Dismissal, all claims
asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants were dismissed with
prejudice.


MISSION, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Grow-Op Inspections
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Douziech, writing for The Province, reports that Mission
residents have filed a class action lawsuit against the District
of Mission to recover thousands of dollars in fees they were
charged when their homes were inspected as suspected marijuana
grow operations.

The district received the legal documents on July 8, Mission's
deputy chief administrative officer Paul Gipps on July 11.  They
have been forwarded to the district's legal counsel.

"We have 21 days to file a response, which will come from the
legal team," Mr. Gipps said.

He added he couldn't comment further on the action at this time.

A group of Mission residents filed the lawsuit in May.

The inspections prompting the lawsuit were enabled by a
controversial bylaw the district passed in April 2008.

It allowed authorities the right to look into properties with
higher-than-average hydro usage, charging homeowners up to $10,000
for inspections and repair fees, even when no grow-ops were found.

In January, Mission municipal council put a moratorium on
inspections.

The lawsuit has been supported by the B.C. Civil Liberties
Association, which has said "fining people for imaginary grow-ops"
doesn't increase safety in Mission.


NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Sept. 26 Class Action Settlement Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Province of Nova Scotia and the law firm of Branch MacMaster
LLP on July 11 disclosed that they have reached a proposed
agreement to settle the class action brought to address issues
surrounding the former Economic Stream of the Nova Scotia Nominee
Program.

The proposed agreement is subject to approval by the court and a
hearing will be held September 26, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., Atlantic
Time in Halifax.

Generally speaking, eligible class members will each be entitled
to C$75,000, less any legal fees the court approves as fair and
reasonable.  If any class members already received compensation
under the program, these amounts will also be deducted.

If you require more information, you may visit the Web site
http://www.branchmacmaster.com/nova-scotia-immigration/or contact
Ward Branch, counsel for the proposed class at 604-654-2966 or
Tom Peck with the Nova Scotia Office of Immigration at
902-424-3742.


ORACLE CORP: Workers Can't File Class Action Under Calif. Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia-Anne Tom, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that
California's overtime requirements apply to work performed in
California by non-residents, the state Supreme Court has decided,
effectively expanding the use of the state's Wage and Hour law.

The Sullivan v. Oracle case arose from an appeal of a 2008 Federal
Appellate Circuit decision in which the Ninth Circuit judges held
that California wage and hour law applied to Arizona residents, in
this case instructors who train customers to use Oracle software.

Plaintiffs Donald Sullivan, Deanna Evich and Richard Burkow
formerly worked as instructors for Oracle Corp., a large software
company headquartered in California.  As instructors, their job
was to train Oracle's customers in the use of the company's
products.  Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Evich resided in Colorado, and
Mr. Burkow resided in Arizona.  They were required by Oracle to
travel, mainly in their home states but also in California and
several other states.  The Arizona employees had worked complete
days in California, but were not residents of California.

For years, Oracle did not pay its instructors overtime.  Oracle
believed that its instructors were exempt, as teachers, from
California and federal overtime laws.  Thus, in 2003, Oracle's
Instructors sued the company in a federal class action alleging
misclassification and seeking unpaid overtime compensation.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs could not sue under
California's Unfair Competition Law for Fair Labor Standards Act
violations that occurred outside of California.  However, the
court vacated its own opinion and punted the case to the
California Supreme Court, certifying three questions for decision:

    * Do California Labor Code overtime provisions apply to work
performed in California and for a California-based employer by
plaintiffs primarily employed outside California, such that
overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per
day, or in excess of 40 hours per week?

    * Does California Business and Professions Code section 17200
et seq., California's unfair competition law, apply to overtime
work described in question one?

    * Does UCL apply to overtime work performed outside of
California for a California-based employer by plaintiffs primarily
employed outside California if the employer failed to comply with
the overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards?

The state high court said, "That the overtime laws speak broadly,
without distinguishing between residents and nonresidents, does
not create ambiguity or uncertainty.  The Legislature knows how to
create exceptions for nonresidents when that is its intent . . .
That California would choose to regulate all nonexempt overtime
work within its borders without regard to the employee's residence
is neither improper nor capricious. . . .  To exclude nonresidents
from the overtime laws' protection would tend to defeat their
purpose by encouraging employers to import unprotected workers
from other states."

"This decision will have significant implications for all
California-based employers with employees who are residents of
other states, but who perform work in California," said
Laura Maechtlen, Labor & Employment partner at Seyfarth Shaw.
"While the decision is limited to California-based employers,
because the overtime provisions of the labor code could have been
found to apply to nonresident employees, employers subject to the
decision could face a slew of additional claims by nonresident
employees claiming that they were improperly classified as exempt
and/or owed overtime for work performed in California.

Ms. Maechtlen said plaintiffs will "undoubtedly push the envelope
of this ruling in the class action context," based on the Court's
reading of Labor Code Section 510.

"Although the holding is limited to California-based employers,
out-of-state employers could face claims by employees performing
work in California in an attempt to expand the holding of
Sullivan," she said.  "The Supreme Court decision does not address
whether the overtime provisions of the Labor Code are applicable
to out-of-state employers, noting 'we are not prepared, without
more thorough briefing of the issues, to hold that IWC wage orders
apply to all employment in California . . .'"

Fortunately for employers, the high court sided with Oracle on the
third question.  The state Supreme Court said the state Business
and Professions Code does not apply to overtime work performed
outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state
employees based solely on the employer's failure to comply with
the overtime provisions of the FLSA.

"If the court had found that the UCL applied to overtime work
performed outside of California for a California-based employer, a
class action could have been filed on behalf of a nationwide class
under the California Unfair Competition Law by borrowing the FLSA
as a predicate act," Ms. Maechtlen said.


PETZL AMERICA: Recalls 375T Scorpio and Absorbica Safety Lanyards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Petzl America Inc., of Clearfield, Utah, announced a voluntary
worldwide recall of about 375,000 units of Scorpio and Absorbica
shock absorbing lanyards.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Some lanyards are missing a safety stitch on the attachment loop,
which can cause the lanyard to disconnect from the climbing
harness, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported in the United States
of America.  One fall injury has been reported in France.

This recall affects all Scorpio and Absorbica lanyards
manufactured before May 2011.

Scorpio: Affected Scorpio lanyards manufactured between 2002 and
2005 are model numbers L60 and L60 CK.  These are yellow and blue,
Y-shaped lanyards with yellow stitching on both ends.  They are
connected by a metal O-ring to one end of a blue pouch which
contains the tear-webbing shock absorber.  The pouch has a tag on
it with the word "PETZL" in white letters.  The other end of the
blue pouch has a blue and yellow webbing attachment loop that
connects to the climbing harness.  Affected Scorpio lanyards
manufactured between 2005 and 2011 are model numbers L60 2, L60
2CK, L60 H, L60 WL.  These are red, Y-shaped lanyards connected by
a black metal O-ring to one end of a grey zippered pouch which
contains the tear-webbing shock absorber.  The other end of the
pouch has a black webbing attachment loop that connects to the
climber's harness.

Absorbica: Absorbica comes in several models with varying lanyard
configurations and several different connector options.  Affected
model numbers are L70150 I, L70150 IM, L70150 Y, L70150 YM, L57,
L58, L58 MGO, L59, and L59 MGO.  The lanyards have a black
zippered pouch with yellow trim and the Petzl logo on the side.
All have a common tear-webbing shock absorber accessible through
the zippered pouch.  This zippered pouch has a connector
attachment on one end.  The other end can have a connector
attachment, a single lanyard or a Y-shaped lanyard.  All lanyard
options are constructed of black nylon webbing or rope and have
either a connector attachment point or a snap hook connector sewn
directly to the lanyard.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11276.html

The recalled products were manufactured in France and sold at
authorized Petzl dealers nationwide and in Canada from January
2002 through May 2011 for $75 to $220.

Consumers should immediately stop using the lanyards and contact
Petzl America Inc. for a free inspection and replacement of any
non-conforming products.  For additional information, contact
Petzl America Inc. at (877) 740-3826 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Mountain Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.petzl.com/


RBS GLOBAL: 8th Circuit Affirms Class Cert. Ruling in "Zurn" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed a class
certification order entered by a Minnesota court in connection
with a coordinated lawsuit against RBS Global, Inc.'s
subsidiaries, according to the Company's July 8, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Certain of the Company's Water Management subsidiaries are subject
to asbestos- and class action-related litigation.  As of March 31,
2011, the Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn
Industries LLC, formerly known as Zurn Industries, Inc., and an
average of approximately 80 other unrelated companies were
defendants in approximately 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits
representing approximately 28,500 claims.  Plaintiffs' claims
allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used
primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment
of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos
components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.  These
claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by
insurers.  As of March 31, 2011, the Company estimate the
potential liability for asbestos-related claims pending against
Zurn as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten
years to be approximately $65.0 million of which Zurn expects to
pay approximately $53.0 million in the next ten years on such
claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years.  However, there are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims,
future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives.

As a result, Zurn's actual liability could differ from this
estimate.  Further, while this current asbestos liability is based
on an estimate of claims through the next ten years, the Company
says such liability may continue beyond that time frame, and such
liability could be substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2011, is
approximately $266.3 million, and believes that all current claims
are covered by this insurance.  However, principally as a result
of the past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance
carriers, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the
Company's other carriers have paid the first $190.3 million of
aggregate liabilities.  In order for the next $51.0 million of
insurance coverage from solvent carriers to apply, management
estimates that it would need to satisfy $14.0 million of asbestos
claims.  Layered within the final $25.0 million of the total
$266.3 million of coverage, management estimates that it would
need to satisfy an additional $80.0 million of asbestos claims.
If required to pay any such amounts, the Company could pursue
recovery against the insolvent carriers, but it is not currently
possible to determine the likelihood or amount of such recoveries,
if any.

As of March 31, 2011, the Company recorded a receivable from its
insurance carriers of $65.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.  However, there is no assurance that $266.3 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's
asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed $266.3 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.

                         Zurn Litigation

Zurn has been named as defendants in fourteen lawsuits, brought
between July 2007 and December 2009, in various United States
courts (MN, ND, CO, NC, MT, AL, VA, LA, NM, MI and HI).  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits represent (in the case of the
proceedings in Minnesota), or seek to represent, a class of
plaintiffs alleging damages due to the alleged failure or
anticipated failure of the Zurn brass crimp fittings on the so-
called PEX plumbing systems in homes and other structures.  The
complaints assert various causes of action, including but not
limited to negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, and violations
of the Magnuson Moss Act and certain state consumer protection
laws, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages
(including punitive damages).  All but the Hawaii lawsuit, which
remains in Hawaii state court, have been transferred to a multi-
district litigation docket in the District of Minnesota for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.  The court in the Minnesota
proceedings certified certain classes of plaintiffs in Minnesota
for negligence and negligent failure to warn claims and for breach
of warranty claims.

On July 6, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
affirmed the class certification order of the Minnesota court.
Class certification has not been granted in the other state court
actions.  The Company's insurance carriers currently are funding
its defense in these proceedings; however, they have filed lawsuit
for a declaratory judgment in Florida state court challenging
their coverage obligations with respect to certain classes of
claims.  The Florida lawsuit currently is stayed, pending
resolution of the underlying claims.  Although the Company
continues to vigorously defend itself in the various court
proceedings and continue to vigorously pursue insurance coverage,
the uncertainties of litigation, and insurance coverage and
collection, as well as the actual number or value of claims, may
subject the Company to substantial liability that could have a
material adverse effect on it.


ROCK-TENN CO: Provides Updates on Smurfit-Stone Acquisition Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rock-Tenn Company, in its July 8, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, provides updates on
lawsuits filed in connection with its acquisition of Smurfit-Stone
Container Corp.

As previously disclosed, in the joint proxy statement/prospectus
of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation and RockTenn to approve the
acquisition by RockTenn of Smurfit-Stone, three complaints on
behalf of the same putative class of Smurfit-Stone stockholders
were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the
acquisition by RockTenn of Smurfit-Stone:  Marks v. Smurfit-Stone
Container Corp., et al., Case No. 6164 (filed February 2, 2011);
Spencer v. Moore, et al., Case No. 6299 (filed March 21, 2011);
and Gould v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., Case No. 6291
(filed March 17, 2011).  On March 24, 2011, these cases were
consolidated under Case No. 6164, plaintiffs Marks and Spencer
were appointed lead plaintiffs, and the complaint in Spencer was
designated as the operative complaint.  In the Spencer complaint,
plaintiffs name as defendants RockTenn, the former members of the
Smurfit-Stone board of directors and Sam Acquisition, LLC (now
known as RockTenn CP, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of RockTenn
that is the successor to Smurfit-Stone).  The plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that the consideration paid by RockTenn to
acquire Smurfit-Stone was inadequate and unfair to Smurfit-Stone
stockholders, that the February 24, 2011 preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus contained misleading or inadequate
disclosures regarding the acquisition by RockTenn of Smurfit-
Stone, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in approving the acquisition by RockTenn of Smurfit-Stone
and that those breaches were aided and abetted by RockTenn and Sam
Acquisition, LLC.  On May 2, 2011, the court granted class
certification, appointing the lead plaintiffs and their counsel to
represent a class of all record and beneficial holders of Smurfit-
Stone common stock as of January 23, 2011, or their successors in
interest, but excluding the named defendants and any person, firm,
trust, corporation or other entity related to or affiliated with
any of the defendants.  During argument in connection with the
preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs
acknowledged that their claims concerning the adequacy of the
disclosures in the February 24, 2011 preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus were moot in light of subsequent disclosures
made by Smurfit-Stone and RockTenn.  On May 20, 2011, the court
denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction
preventing the completion of the acquisition, finding that the
plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success with
respect to the merits of their claims, that the requisite showing
of irreparable harm had not been made and that the balance of the
equities counseled against granting the injunction.  On July 7,
2011, RockTenn filed a counterclaim in this case seeking a
declaration that the plaintiffs are not entitled to damages or the
imposition of any other remedy with respect to an error in
Smurfit-Stone's proxy statement relating to appraisal rights.

On February 17, 2011, a putative class action complaint asserting
similar claims was filed against RockTenn, Smurfit-Stone, the
former members of the Smurfit-Stone board of directors and Sam
Acquisition, LLC (now known as RockTenn CP, LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of RockTenn that is the successor to Smurfit-Stone) in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under the caption of Dabrowski v. Smurfit-Stone Container
Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:11-cv-01136.  On April 22, 2011, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging, among other things,
that the consideration paid by RockTenn to acquire Smurfit-Stone
was inadequate and unfair to Smurfit-Stone stockholders, that
Smurfit-Stone and the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the acquisition by RockTenn of
Smurfit-Stone and that those breaches were aided and abetted by
RockTenn and Sam Acquisition, LLC.  The plaintiff in Dabrowski
also alleges that the March 31, 2011 amended joint proxy
statement/prospectus contains misleading or inadequate disclosures
constituting violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff in Dabrowski seeks
monetary and equitable relief.

Also as previously disclosed, four complaints on behalf of the
same putative class of Smurfit-Stone stockholders are currently
pending in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois challenging
the acquisition by RockTenn of Smurfit-Stone:  Gold v. Smurfit-
Stone Container Corp., et al., No. 11-CH-3371 (filed January 26,
2011); Roseman v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., No. 11-
CH-3519 (filed January 27, 2011); Findley v. Smurfit-Stone
Container Corp., et al., No. 11-CH-3726 (filed January 28, 2011);
and Czech v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., No. 11-CH-4282
(filed February 4, 2011).  On February 10, 2011, these cases were
consolidated together, and on March 4, 2011, plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed an amended complaint.  The amended
complaint names as defendants RockTenn, Smurfit-Stone and the
former members of the Smurfit-Stone board of directors.  The
amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
consideration paid by RockTenn to acquire Smurfit-Stone was
inadequate and unfair to Smurfit-Stone stockholders, that the
February 24, 2011 preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
contained misleading or inadequate disclosures, that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving
the acquisition by RockTenn of Smurfit-Stone and that those
breaches were aided and abetted by RockTenn and Smurfit-Stone.
The amended complaint seeks equitable relief.  On
April 21, 2011, the court stayed this consolidated matter pending
resolution of the Delaware plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction or until further order of the court.

RockTenn says it is continuing to vigorously defend against all
claims made against it, Smurfit-Stone and the former directors of
Smurfit-Stone arising out of this acquisition.  RockTenn cannot
currently estimate the losses, if any, that will result from these
claims.  No assurance can be given that the final resolution of
these claims will not be material to RockTenn.


SEPHORA USA: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime Wages in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sephora USA, Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-03396
(N.D. Calif., July 11, 2011) is a collective action brought to
recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that during the applicable statutory time
period, Sephora failed to pay her and the putative class members
their overtime compensation as required by the FLSA.

The Plaintiff contends that she was misclassified and did not
properly receive overtime compensation or benefits for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Ms. Sanchez is a resident of Texas, and was employed by Sephora.

Sephora is a corporation with headquarters in San Francisco,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Josephson, Esq.
          FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com

               - and -

          Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
          Hillary Jo Baker, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
          E-mail: Bryan@BryanSchwartzLaw.com
                  Hillary@BryanSchwartzLaw.com


SYNGENTA CROP: Two Kansas Cities Dropped From Atrazine Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that two Kansas cities have been dropped from a proposed multi-
state class action against Syngenta Crop Protection LLC and its
Swiss parent company Syngenta AG over claims that a weed killer
made by the companies contaminates water supplies.

The cities of Plains and Dodge City, Kan. are the latest named
plaintiffs to be dropped from the suit led by the City of
Greenville, Ill. against the Syngenta defendants.

U.S. District Court Judge J. Phil Gilbert had already dismissed
named plaintiffs from Indiana citing their lack of claim under
Indiana law.

The stipulation dismissing the two Kansan cities was filed July 11
and is one of a series of moves filed in the case this week.

Greenville proposes to lead a class of municipalities and water
providers from states including Missouri, Ohio and Illinois
against the Syngenta defendants on claims that are nearly
identical to a 2004 Madison County class action that is currently
pending against Syngenta Crop Protection.

The claims in both suits center on the weed killer, atrazine, one
of Syngenta's products.

Atrazine is commonly used on farm fields.

The plaintiffs in both the Madison County and federal suits allege
that atrazine runs off those fields into drinking water supplies
that the plaintiffs are then forced to remediate.

The Madison County case is one of five atrazine class actions
filed by lead plaintiff the Holiday Shores Sanitary District seven
years ago.

The federal case was filed by Greenville last year.

The stipulation for dismissal filed Monday does not give a reason
as to why the Kansan cities were dropped from the case.

The Madison County case against Syngenta is set for hearing today,
July 15, at 9:00 a.m., before Madison County Circuit Judge William
Mudge.

The federal case is set for hearing on a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Sygenta AG later this
month.


SYNGENTA CROP: Move to Quash Subpoenas in Atrazine Suit Rejected
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that U.S. Magistrate Judge Phillip Frazier rejected a move by
Syngenta Crop Protection LLC and its Switzerland-based parent
company, Syngenta AG, seeking to quash subpoenas issued to 100
non-parties to a federal class action centered on the company's
weed killer atrazine.

The defendants filed their motion to quash the 100 subpoenas duces
tecum issued by lead plaintiff the City of Greenville on July 8.

Syngenta filed an identical move seeking to quash the 100 non-
party subpoenas July 11 in a 2004 Madison County class action
filed over atrazine-related claims by the Holiday Shores Sanitary
District.

Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge is set to take up the
matter today at 9:00 a.m.

The federal and Madison County class actions were filed on nearly
identical claims.

In both suits, the plaintiffs claim that atrazine runs off farm
fields and contaminates drinking water supplies.

The plaintiffs then contend they must remediate those supplies.

The Holiday Shores suit, if certified, would include an Illinois
class of cities and water providers.

The Greenville suit, filed last year, would include a multi-state
class of water providers.  However, two cities in Kansas, the City
of Plains and Dodge City, were dropped from the suit in a
stipulation filed July 11.

In its federal motion to quash, Syngenta argued that the
Greenville plaintiffs were seeking documents and information
through the subpoenas that could damage the defendants' position
in the marketplace and could also harm the non-parties' business
interests.

Syngenta also expressed concerns of the confidentiality of the
information.

The arguments the company makes in the July 8 motion filed in the
federal case are virtually indistinguishable to those filed in a
motion the same day seeking to quash the Madison County subpoenas.

In his July 11 order, Judge Frazier states he does not find the
arguments convincing.

"The materials submitted do not demonstrate that relief . . . is
appropriate in these circumstances," Judge Frazier's order reads.
"In particular, the subpoena submitted for review was carefully
worded and does not seek documents related to Syngenta Crop
Protection Inc.'s recent pricing data, customer lists, or other
material which might qualify as a trade secret.  If plaintiffs do
acquire such information from non-parties, Syngenta Crop
Protection's concerns about maintaining the confidentiality of
that information are served by the protective order in place."

The magistrate also goes on to question how much effort Syngenta
has put forth to resolve the depositions dispute.

Judge Frazier also denied Syngenta's request for a protective
order related to the subpoenaed information as well.

In addition to the ruling on the motion to quash, other activity
in the Greenville case includes:

A July 11 stipulation dismissing the two Kansan cities.

A July 11 notice of appearance filed by attorney Kurtis Reeg,
Syngenta's lead counsel in the Holiday Shores suit.  Mr. Reeg
appears on behalf of non-party Crop Production Services, Inc.
(CPS).

A July 11 objection filed by non-party CPS to the subpoena.

The Greenville suit is set for hearing July 27 on a Syngenta AG
motion to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

Stephen Tillery, Christie Deaton, and others represent both the
Greenville and Holiday Shores classes.

Mr. Reeg, Michael Pope and others represent the Syngenta
defendants in both proposed class actions.

The federal suit is case number 10-188-JPG-PMF.

The underlying Madison County case is case number 04-L-710.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Appeals in IPO-Related Litigation Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the approval of a global settlement resolving the
initial public offering litigation against TIBCO Software Inc.
remain pending, according to the Company's July 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 29, 2011.

The Company and certain of its directors and officers, and certain
investment bank underwriters have been named in a putative class
action for violation of the federal securities laws in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned "In re TIBCO Software Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation."  This is one of a number of cases
challenging underwriting practices in the initial public offerings
of more than 300 companies, which have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation."  Plaintiffs generally allege that the underwriters
engaged in undisclosed and improper underwriting activities,
namely the receipt of excessive brokerage commissions and customer
agreements regarding post-offering purchases of stock in exchange
for allocations of IPO shares.  Plaintiffs also allege that
various investment bank securities analysts issued false and
misleading analyst reports.  The complaint against the Company
claims that the purported improper underwriting activities were
not disclosed in the registration statements for the Company's IPO
and secondary public offering and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased the Company's
securities or sold put options during the time period from
July 13, 1999, to December 6, 2000.

A lawsuit with similar allegations of undisclosed improper
underwriting practices, and part of the same coordinated
proceedings, is pending against Talarian Corp., which the Company
acquired in 2002.  That action is captioned "In re Talarian Corp.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."  The complaint
against Talarian, certain of its underwriters and certain of its
former directors and officers claims that the purported improper
underwriting activities were not disclosed in the registration
statement for Talarian's IPO and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Talarian
securities during the time period from July 20, 2000, to
December 6, 2000.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation,
including the actions against the Company and Talarian.  Under the
settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of settlement
share allocated to the Company (the Company's financial liability
will be limited to paying the remaining balance of the applicable
retention under Talarian's directors and officers liability
insurance policy).  In addition, the Company and the other
defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case.  In
2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement.  Certain
objectors appealed; several of the appeals have been dismissed.
In May 2011, the appellate court issued an order to remand the
remaining appeals to the district court for further determination.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Awaits Court OK of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIBCO Software Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement
of a lawsuit commenced in connection with its acquisition of
Proginet Corporation, according to the Company's July 8, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 29, 2011.

On June 28, 2010, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed by individual stockholders in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Nassau County, against Proginet Corporation (which
the Company acquired on September 15, 2010), certain of its
officers and directors, the Company and the Company's subsidiary
created for the purpose of effectuating the acquisition of
Proginet.  The complaint generally alleged that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
shareholder value in negotiating and approving the merger
agreement, and that Proginet and the Company aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks,
among other relief, class certification, certain forms of
injunctive relief, including enjoining the proposed merger, and
unspecified damages.

The Company, Proginet and the other defendants in this action
entered into an agreement providing for the settlement and
dismissal with prejudice of this action.  The agreement is subject
to approval of the court.  Although the Company and Proginet
believe that the action is without merit, they entered into the
settlement to avoid the risk of delaying the merger and to
minimize the expense of defending the action.  The settlement and
dismissal with prejudice, if approved by the court, will resolve
all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the
action, including all claims relating to the merger (other than
claims for appraisal under Section 262 of Delaware law).  In
connection with the settlement and dismissal with prejudice,
Proginet has agreed, subject to court approval, that it will pay
plaintiffs' counsel the amount of up to $200,000 for its fees and
expenses in the action.


TIMBERCORP GROUP: Investors Aware of Risks Ahead of Collapse
------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Kachor, writing for InvestorDaily, reports that investors
have alleged Timbercorp Group knew of its risks ahead of its
collapse, lawyers say.

Investors involved in a class action against parties linked to the
Timbercorp group of companies claim the group's management was
aware of the risks associated with the group failing before the
agribusiness schemes reached completion.

In an update from the legal representatives of Timbercorp
investors, Macpherson + Kelley, the investors alleged the risks
were not disclosed in the product disclosure statements given out
ahead of investment decisions being made by the investors.

"This is said by investors to have breached consumer protection
provisions of the Corporations Act, including section 1013D, which
requires the disclosure of information about any significant risks
associated with holding interests in the schemes," M+K said.

The investors also alleged the PDS did not contain information
about "Timbercorp's critical dependence" on its ability to
maintain and increase its borrowings, continue raising equity and
selling assets in a timely manner.

"Exposure to these risks left the Timbercorp Group financially
fragile.  Julian Burnside QC for the investors also submitted that
information about the risk to Timbercorp of a tightening of
capital and credit markets should have been given because that
constituted 'information about a significant risk' for those who
would become investors in the long-term schemes," M+K said.

"These financing risks were said to have been known by the
Timbercorp Group since at least 2005."

Between 2006 and 2008, Timbercorp Group's total debt ballooned
from AU$522.4 million to AU$903.1 million.

The case, which has been running for seven weeks, is against
Timbercorp Securities Ltd, Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd and the
directors Sol Rabinowicz, Robert Hance and Gary Liddell.

The closing submissions were completed on July 7 and judgment has
been reserved.


WD-40 CO: "Burns" Suit Still Pending in California Court
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit commenced by Andrea Burns against WD-40
Company is pending in California, according to the Company's July
8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2011.

On June 18, 2010, a legal action, entitled Andrea Burns v. WD-40
Company, was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Orange.  The complaint seeks class
action status and alleges that the Company misrepresented that its
2000 Flushes Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic
toilet bowl cleaners ("ATBCs") are safe for plumbing systems and
unlawfully omitted to advise consumers regarding the allegedly
damaging effect the use of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of
plastic and rubber.  The plaintiff seeks damages and/or
restitution, an injunction and other relief, including punitive
damages, attorneys fees and costs.

The Burns action is substantively similar to three previous legal
proceedings filed against the Company since 2002.  Each of the
prior actions was dismissed, including the most recent proceeding,
Drimmer v. WD-40 Company, a case filed by the same plaintiff law
firm in April 2006, in the United States District Court, Southern
District of California.  In August 2008, the Company defeated the
Drimmer plaintiff's motion for class certification, a decision
that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September
2009.  The Drimmer action was subsequently dismissed with
prejudice in March 2010.

In the Burns action, the parties have conducted limited discovery,
including the Company's deposition of the plaintiff in March 2011
to determine the facts upon which the plaintiff bases its
individual claims and suitability as a proposed class
representative.  Based on information known to the Company at this
time, the Company has concluded that its exposure to material loss
in Burns is remote.


* M&A-Related Class Actions Easy Money for Law Firms
----------------------------------------------------
Matt Egan, writing for FOXBusiness, reports that class-action
lawsuits alleging boards of directors fell asleep on the job while
signing off on buyouts have become nearly as ubiquitous in today's
M&A world as bankers and second-guessers.

Within five hours of announcing it reached a $2.8 billion
leveraged buyout deal last month, for example, BJ's Wholesale (BJ)
was greeted by five different law firm "investigations" into
whether or not the company's board breached its fiduciary duties
by not properly shopping for a better deal.

The flurry of legal activity surrounding the BJ's deal is becoming
par for the course.  According to Securities Class Action
Services, there were 341 M&A lawsuits filed last year in the U.S.,
up 78.5% from 2009 and an incredible 847% from 2008.

Law firms' sudden interest in ensuring shareholders are fairly
compensated appears to be sparked by the realization that these
M&A cases are easy money, often translating to hundreds of
thousands of dollars in fees for very little work.

Lawyers Capitalize on Time Pressure

That hope is rooted in history.  These lawsuits almost always
result in a quick settlement and rarely go to trial.  It's clear
companies, which are under the gun to finalize the deals, have no
interest in allowing their multi-billion dollar buyouts to be
scuttled by a few disgruntled shareholders -- or aggressive law
firms.

That's especially true when the settlements represent just a
rounding error on the total acquisition price tag.

"The sooner they get it resolved, the sooner they can consummate
the deal.  It becomes a matter of cost-benefit.  Pay to just get
rid of them," said a lawyer involved in these types of lawsuits
who wished to remain anonymous so as to speak freely.

To be sure, some M&A lawsuits are based on legitimately
questionable deals and have merit.  Some have even successfully
forced companies to go back to the bargaining table, resulting in
richer buyouts.  But those seem to be the exception to the rule
nowadays.

So how does the lawsuit process typically play out?

'Off to the Races'

Hours after a major deal is announced, fee-hungry law firms
announce investigations into the transaction, asking shareholders
to join lawsuits that will seek class-action status.  These suits
argue directors skirted their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a
subpar deal or failing to reach a "go-shop" period that gives
companies 30 days to search for a better offer.

While monetary damages may be sought, the lawsuits often demand
companies release more information to prove directors are looking
out for the best interest of shareholders.  As part of a
settlement, companies may agree to additional disclosures and
typically pay the plaintiff's legal fees, which reach about
$500,000 on average, according to Advisen MSCAd data.

Compared with complicated fraud cases or complex collateralized
debt obligation lawsuits, these M&A cases are considered
relatively simple and a low-investment undertaking for the
plaintiffs' legal team.

"You don't have all those details to worry about," said
William "Ned" Dodds, a partner at Dechert, which typically defends
companies and directors in these types of cases.  "You check Dow
Jones or Reuters or Bloomberg, you see something happening, you
find a client and you're off to the races."

The uptick in M&A legal actions is continuing its record-
shattering pace this year.  According to Securities Class Action
Services stats, there were 182 U.S. M&A cases filed in 2011
through July 7.

Merit of Cases Questioned

Even small law firms appear to be getting into the act.  The
median market cap of a public company targeted for a merger or
acquisition that sparked a lawsuit plunged to $509 million in
2010, down from $1.1 billion in 2006, according to Advisen, which
said the decline may be due to the involvement of progressively
smaller law firms.

"Ultimately, plaintiffs' law firms are very savvy and
opportunistic," said Luke Green, vice president of Securities
Class Action Services.  "However, it's obviously a very taxing
thing on our judicial system."

Aside from being straining to the already-overworked court system,
many of these M&A cases are looked at as lacking merit.

"It seems a meaningful proportion of these cases don't reflect the
reality of the situation.  Many are brought so quickly they don't
represent the due consideration of the facts," said Mr. Dodds.

That thinking seems to be shared by at least some judges.

Earlier this year, Delaware Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster
underscored that thinking, describing "a lot of these sue-on-
every-deal cases" as "worthless."  He said the cases are "all a
bunch of movement for nothing" and called the attorneys behind the
suits "frequent fliers."

Skepticism by courts that see many of these M&A cases has led some
lawyers to file on a state level in hopes of landing in front of
more favorable judges.  Of the 532 suits filed in 2009 and 2010,
just 36 were on the federal level.

Who Will Rein in M&A Suits?

The lack of a robust defense from companies being sued underscores
the amount of pressure they are under to close the books on a
transaction in a timely basis after it is announced.

"It is so commonplace today that it's just part of the process,"
said Mr. Dodds.

Because a buyout is a once-in-a-lifetime event for companies,
there is little incentive in taking a stand against frivolous
suits.

But that thinking also signals to plaintiffs' legal teams that
they can score easy fees by simply filing a suit.

"On the defense side, there may be times that companies need to be
willing to say, 'OK we know your suit has no basis so we're not
going to pay you a penny,'" said Gregory Little, a partner at
White & Case who has represented companies that have been sued in
M&A cases.

Unless courts, lawmakers or defendants change their strategy, M&A
suits appear to be here to stay.

"The number of M&A-related lawsuits almost certainly will grow in
the near term -- the question is by how much," Advisen said in its
report.  "Longer term, legislation to rein in perceived abuses in
M&A litigation is a possibility, albeit a distant one."

But judges and policymakers must be careful in restricting access
to the courts.  Shareholders in the past have used the threat of
litigation as a policing mechanism aimed at preventing boards from
signing off on poor deals.

Charles Whitehead, a professor at Cornell Law School, said, "If
the standard is too high for plaintiffs, meritorious cases may not
be brought.  You potentially lose the benefits of having this
watchdog."

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 138 Injury Claims Pending v. GenCorp at May 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. faced 138 pending asbestos-related claims as of
May 31, 2011, compared with 141 claims as of Nov. 30, 2010,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2011.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations.  Most of cases are pending in Texas and Pennsylvania.

From Nov. 30, 2010 to May 31, 2011, the Company recorded 10 claims
filed, 11 claims dismissed, and two claims settled.  Aggregate
settlement costs were US$65,000 and average settlement costs were
US$32,000.

As of Feb. 28, 2011, the Company recorded four claims filed and
six claims dismissed.  Legal and administrative fees for the
asbestos cases for the first quarter of fiscal 2011 were
US$100,000.  (Class Action Reporter, April 29, 2011)

Headquartered in Rancho Cordova, Calif., GenCorp Inc. is a
manufacturer of aerospace and defense products and systems with
a real estate segment that includes activities related to the
re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of its excess real
estate assets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Accused of Exporting Asbestos Overseas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States government has accused Canada of exporting
asbestos to other countries and it as been disclosed that Canada
is spending million to rid its buildings of asbestos, the French
Tribune reports.

Canada estimates that it will cost US$873 million to renovate the
West Block in Ottawa.  Moreover, it will take two-decades to fix
its buildings.

It is suspected that Canada, during a United Nations treaty -- the
Rotterdam Convention -- has added the asbestos in the list without
even notifying the countries about its health hazards.  It is
believed that Canada silently added asbestos as it knew that
asbestos may lead to the cancellation of treaty.

However, it is not just Canada who is in the practice of sending
its unwanted substance to other countries.  Countries like
Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan also produce asbestos.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesperson Dmitri Soudas said,
"All scientific reviews clearly confirm that chrysotile fibers can
be used safely under controlled conditions."  As countries fails
to use it properly it leads to health hazards.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salisbury Chef Awarded 6-Figure Sum for Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Pes, a 60-year-old Italian chef who had worked at the former
La Gondola restaurant in Salisbury, England, was awarded an
undisclosed six-figure sum as compensation for his asbestos-
related injuries, the Salisbury Journal reports.

La Gondola restaurant was sold to new owners in 2001 and closed in
2005.

Mr. Pes worked with pizza ovens with asbestos seals at the
restaurant in Fisherton Street until 2001.  During the 1980s, he
was exposed to asbestos both in the seals of the pizza oven and in
a storeroom where the ceiling contained asbestos.

Mr. Pes says he was not warned about the dangers that asbestos
could pose to his health and in February 2008 he was diagnosed
with mesothelioma.

Mr. Pes, who lives in Salisbury, England, felt his former
employers were to blame for the working conditions that made him
terminally ill with mesothelioma.  His claim was settled out of
court.

Stephen Loach from Thompsons Solicitors said, "I investigated the
case for Mr. Pes urgently and pursued it vigorously so that he
could benefit from the compensation during his lifetime.

While this will never make up for Mr. Pes' poor health it will at
least afford him some financial relief and the knowledge that the
employers who caused his suffering have been held to account."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Cass County Courthouse to Cost $110T
----------------------------------------------------------------
The removal of asbestos from beneath the foundation of the old
courthouse in Fargo, Cass County, N.D., costs about US$110,000,
InForum reports.

The US$14.7 million Cass County Courthouse addition is on budget
and on schedule for completion early in the summer of 2012,
despite issues in 2010 with asbestos abatement and concerns about
soil stability.

Aside from the asbestos problem, other snags include US$26,715 to
pump slurry beneath the foundation to fill voids caused by pooled
water and about US$20,000 for engineering studies.

The purpose of the project is to provide some much-needed space
and updates to the more than 100-year-old courthouse, County
Administrator Keith Berndt said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Asbestos Danger Discovered in Libby, Mont.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Associated Press investigation found that the United States
federal government has known for at least three years that two
giant piles of bark and wood chips on the edge of Libby, Mont.,
were contaminated with an unknown level of asbestos.

The Associated Press reports the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency did not stop the removal of the material until the AP began
investigating in early March 2011.

Regulators still do not know what effect the material could have
on public health, but EPA documents obtained by the AP showed that
the agency found potentially deadly asbestos fibers in four of 20
samples taken from the piles of scrap wood in 2007.  The sprawling
piles came from a now-defunct timber mill that took thousands of
trees from a forest tainted with asbestos from a nearby mine.

The potential for more contamination has frayed nerves in the town
of 3,000 people and further eroded confidence in the government to
clean up the mess that to date has killed an estimated 400 people
and sickened 1,750 others.

The source of Libby's asbestos was a W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite
mine that at its peak produced two million tons of ore annually
and employed 200 people.  Vermiculite stripped from a mountain on
the edge of town was shipped around the world to make insulation,
only for authorities to later discover the ore was loaded with
deadly asbestos.

The EPA has spent more than US$370 million over the past 11 years
cleaning up Libby.  Contractors in moon suits carting off tainted
materials have become a constant reminder of the severity of the
contamination.

The wood chips and bark became a popular item for anyone in Libby
looking to add some landscaping touches to their yards, and for
contractors who packaged the product and sold it around the
country.

Local officials estimate that 1,000 tons were used in landscaping
and for erosion control in Libby.  Over the past decade, as much
as 15,000 tons were sold and hauled out of town to destinations
unknown, according to the economic development official who was
selling it.

The EPA is now determining public health risk and is preparing to
issue guidelines about how residents should handle the wood,
including warnings not to move or work with the material when it's
dry to avoid stirring up asbestos.  However, the EPA has decided
it won't track down where the chips went, saying it no longer has
jurisdiction because the material is now classified as a
commercial product.

Responding to the AP's investigation, Montana U.S. Sen. Max Baucus
on July 5, 2011, pledged to launch his own inquiry into the use of
the bark and wood chips.  Senator Baucus, a longtime advocate for
Libby, said he wanted to find what EPA knew, when they knew it and
whether more action was needed to protect public health.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunshine Council to Spend AU$2.5MM for Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sunshine Coast Regional Council is to spend nearly AU$2.5
million and 10 years unearthing and destroying asbestos housed in
its buildings, the Sunshine Coast Daily reports.

The Council has budgeted AU$200,000 annually from late 2013 until
2021 to dismantling the dangerous material.  A further AU$100,000
annually starting this financial year until 2021 will rid the
asbestos from its corporate buildings.

Asbestos was used in insulation and types of cement before 1990.

Although the capital works program spans a decade, an expert on
asbestos-related disease said the Council was doing everything
right.

Queensland Asbestos Related Disease Support Society secretary Ray
Colbert described the Council's plan as "terrific."  He said as
long as asbestos remained undisturbed it presented almost no
threat.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turin Court Seeks 20-Year Terms in Eternit Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial officials said that a court in Turin, Italy, on July 4,
2011, sought jail terms of 20 years against Stephan Schmidheiny,
the former Swiss owner of the Eternit construction firm, and Jean-
Louis Marie Ghislain de Cartier de Marchienne, a top shareholder
from Belgium, in the biggest trial over asbestos-related deaths,
Agence France-Presse reports.

Mr. Schmidheiny and Mr. Marchienne are being tried in absentia.

The trial is a mass civil action in which some 6,000 people are
seeking damages over the deaths of around 3,000 people who worked
at or lived near Eternit's plants in Italy.

The prosecution requested the maximum sentence of 12 years
imprisonment and demanded eight more years be added on the grounds
that asbestos can trigger ailments decades after exposure.

The prosecution's five-year inquiry determined that the two
executives were effectively responsible for Eternit's Italian
operations at the time of the contaminations in the 1970s, a claim
rejected by the defense team.  The pair are accused of causing an
environmental disaster and failing to comply with labour safety
regulations.

Victims' groups welcomed the heavy sentences requested by the
Turin court.  A verdict could be handed down at the end of 2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Probed Over Asbestos Dump at Nimmitabel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thaler, a property owner from Nimmitabel, New South Wales,
Australia, is asking the Cooma-Monaro Shire Council to explain why
it dumped contaminated material at a work site, ABC News reports.

A WorkCover assessment and a Government hygienist has confirmed
asbestos in crushed concrete at Nimmitabel's Clarke Street bridge.
Mr. Thaler says the rubble is inappropriate for use as landfill,
and contains weeds the shire is struggling to control.

"The Cooma-Monaro Shire Council says the discovery of asbestos has
come as a surprise.  The Director of Engineering Services, David
Byrne, says staff will remove the material as soon as possible,
but he does not believe there was a safety risk.  He says the
Council has responded appropriately.

WorkCover says it has outlined a number of steps Council is
required to take to ensure safety at the Nimmitabel site, and
within its industrial area at Polo Flat.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former DiCarlo's Pizza Parlor in W.Va. Demolished
------------------------------------------------------------------
The former DiCarlo's pizza parlor, which was contaminated with
asbestos and is located at 1222 Main St. in Wheeling, W.Va., is
finally demolished, The Intelligencer reports.

Due to unforeseen encounters with asbestos and a need not to
disrupt the drive-thru lanes for the neighboring WesBanco, Gerard
Joseph of Joseph Contracting cleared the last bits of rubble on
July 4, 2011.

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection said
there may be some asbestos on the roof and that shut down the job
for a while, Mr. Joseph said.

When Mr. Joseph finally had the green light to continue, he said
it took a mere four hours on July 3, 2011, to implode the bottom
three floors after spending the last several weekends clearing the
top two floors by hand.  The process was planned in this manner to
ensure Companion Products Co. Home Improvements next door would
not be damaged.

Mr. Joseph previously said the lighted sign that remained hanging
from the second floor until the demolition will return to the
DiCarlo family.

The structure is owned by RCK 2 Group LLC, according to Ohio
County clerk records.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turnall Water Pipes Safe, Zimbabwean Group Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Standards Association of Zimbabwe and the Institute of Mining
Research have deemed the imported chrysotile asbestos used by
Turnall for its AC water pipes as "safe and similar to those mined
locally," The Herald Zimbabwe reports.

Turnall took the chrysotile asbestos fiber for testing after the
Zimbabwe National Water Authority expressed doubts over the
imported fiber Turnall used to make pipes for Zinwa's Mtshabezi
pipeline project.  Zinwa preferred local chrysotile asbestos
fiber.

Turnall could not continue making AC water pipes for Zinwa using
local chrysotile asbestos fiber as Shabanie Mashava, which mined
the mineral, was closed due to long-running operational problems.

As a result, Zinwa had terminated a US$16 million contract under
which Turnall Holdings supplied AC water pipes for the Mtshabezi
project.  The contract was awarded to Pro-Plastics, which supplies
PVC pipes made largely from imported material.

The Ministry of Water Resources and Development and Management
advised Turnall to have the fiber tested against the risk threats
raised by Zinwa.

Zinwa had said it feared for the safety of people who would
consume the water carried from Mtshabezi Dam on pipes made from
imported asbestos.

The Mtshabezi Dam is designed to alleviate water shortage in the
City of Bulawayo.  However, tests carried out by SAZ and the
Institute of Mining Research all established both imported and
local chrysotile asbestos contained silica and magnesium oxide as
major components, which distinguish them from others.

"All the asbestos fibers have silica and magnesium oxide as major
components," said Institute of Mining Research chairman Mr.
Spencer Kahwai.

The Standards Association of Zimbabwe said, "The tests were done
to compare the chemical composition of local fiber from AA Mines
and that of import fiber from Ukraine, Brazil and Russia."

Turnall has since written to the Ministry of Water Resources
Development and Management informing them on the outcome of the
tests.

The Zimbabwe Stock Exchange-listed Turnall manufactured the AC
water pipes at its Bulawayo factory, which employs about 250
workers.  Turnall also lamented the fact it was not invited to
participate in the tender process to supply PVC pipes after Zinwa
terminated the contract for AC pipes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at May 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameron International Corporation was a defendant in 20 asbestos-
related cases as of May 29, 2011, compared with 16 cases as of
Feb. 27, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in a number of asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits.  These cases generally seek unspecified
damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure to
products previously manufactured by the Company and others.

During the quarter ended May 29, 2011, there were nine new
asbestos-related cases, four dismissed cases, one settled case and
no judgments; expenses totaled US$509,000, and there were no
recoveries.

The Company incurred expenses from asbestos-related lawsuits of
US$16,000 during the quarter ended May 30, 2010, and there were no
recoveries.  During the six months ended May 29, 2011, the Company
incurred expenses of US$514,000; and there were no recoveries.

The Company incurred expenses of US$64,000 and recovered US$28,000
in the six months ended May 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Pasadena, Calif., Ameron International
Corporation is a multinational manufacturer of highly-engineered
products and materials for the chemical, industrial, energy,
transportation and infrastructure markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marceaux Claim v. Three Firms Filed on June 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Marceaux, on June 28, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit
against Atlantic Richfield, Chevron USA, and Oxy USA in Jefferson
County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Marceaux alleged asbestos exposure while working in area
refineries indirectly caused his wife's (Yolande Marceaux) death.

According to the lawsuit, Mrs. Marceaux was indirectly exposed to
asbestos through Mr. Marceaux's employment as a pipefitter,
boilermaker and carpenter.  The suit does not give dates of
employment.

Mr. Marceaux is suing for exemplary damages. Provost Umphrey
attorney Bryan Blevins Jr., Esq., represents him.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, has been assigned to
Case No. B190-421


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fosters Fined for Exposing Workers to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fosters of Thrybergh Ltd, which is headquartered in Rotherham,
South Yorkshire, England, was fined for exposing workers to
asbestos, according to a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) press
release dated July 7, 2011.

Only when the HSE issued a Prohibition Notice banning entry to two
warehouses run by local storage firm, Rotherham Bonding Company
Ltd, were employees removed from danger.

Rotherham Magistrates' Court heard the Council bought the
warehouses in Oldgate Lane from Fosters of Thrybergh Ltd in July
2009 and arranged for a professional asbestos survey before
demolishing them.

In the meantime, Rotherham Bonding Company, which ran the
warehouses, was using staff from its sister company, Fosters of
Thrybergh, to empty them of their stock of wine and spirits.

The court heard Rotherham Council's surveyor spotted large amounts
of damaged asbestos-containing materials on the floors where
forklift trucks were operating.  He advised employees and the
council about his findings.

The council notified both Rotherham Bonding Company and Fosters of
Thrybergh about the presence of asbestos but nothing was done and
work was allowed to continue.

HSE was informed in September and visited the site.  It
immediately issued the Prohibition Notice preventing entry into
the buildings and later took samples which showed white and brown
asbestos were present.

As a result, a full survey was carried out and 18 of 20 samples
were found to contain significant concentrations of asbestos.

Fosters of Thrybergh Ltd, Doncaster Road, Thrybergh, pleaded
guilty to two charges under the Control of Asbestos Regulations
2006 and was fined GBP5,500 with GBP6,250 towards costs.

After the hearing, Inspector Mark Welsh said, "Fosters of
Thrybergh was prosecuted because it was directly responsible for
the exposure to asbestos of about six of Fosters' employees.  This
breach could and should have been avoided by straightforward
safety precautions."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paignton Man's Death Could be Linked to Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 69-year-old Brian Feaver, a
retired coach driver from Paignton, Devon, England, may be related
to exposure to asbestos, the Herald Express reports.

Mr. Feaver spent some of his working life dismantling buildings
containing asbestos.  He suffered breathing problems at his home
on June 18, 2011, the hearing in Torquay, England, was told.

Mr. Feaver was taken by ambulance to Torbay Hospital where he died
later the same day.

Coroner's officer Stephanie Teague said, "His sad death may be
related to his exposure to asbestos."  She said the results of
histology tests were still awaited to confirm the cause of death.
There were no suspicious circumstances, she added.

A full inquest will be held at a date yet to be fixed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lordshill Man's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 77-year-old John Taylor, a
former docks worker from Lordshill, Southampton, England, was
related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Southern Daily Echo
reports.

Mr. Taylor died on May 18, 2011.  Southampton coroner Keith
Wiseman recorded a verdict of death by natural causes contributed
to by exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Over 800 People Sign Asbestos Petition in U.K.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Over 800 people have signed a petition, which urges the United
Kingdom government to raise awareness of asbestos-related illness,
the Derby Telegraph reports.

Derbyshire Asbestos Support Team wants the Government to once
again run its Hidden Killer campaign, which warns of the deadly
illnesses caused by the dust.

Aimed at industrial workers, the Hidden Killer campaign was
launched in 2008 and has since run several times.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Shields Pensioner Claim for Payout Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pensioner Lilian Rose Asmussen's claim for asbestos-related
compensation was denied, because her exposure to asbestos occurred
before its dangers were fully discovered, The Shields Gazette
reports.

The 78-year-old Mrs. Asmussen, of Rockcliffe, South Shields,
England, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010.  She then
launched a damages claim against Filtrona United Kingdom Limited.
The firm is the successor company of her former employer at the
Bede industrial estate, in Jarrow.

However, on July 6, 2011, High Court Judge Mr. Justice Simon
rejected Mrs. Asmussen's case in a judgment delivered at London's
Royal Courts of Justice.

The judge said he accepted that Mrs. Asmussen was "likely" to have
been exposed to asbestos dust and that the exposure was "likely"
to be the cause of her illness.

There had been asbestos-lagged heating pipes at Cigarette
Components' site, where Mrs. Asmussen worked carrying out
inspections and testing cigarette filter papers, Mr. Justice Simon
said.

However, it was more likely that exposure to asbestos fibers
happened before 1960, and not in Mrs. Asmussen's second period of
employment there between 1962 and 1972.

Even by the end of the latter period, knowledge of the dangers of
even very small quantities of asbestos was still developing, Mr.
Justice Simon said, and Mrs. Asmussen's employers had to be judged
on that.  Her claim was dismissed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kippax Joiner Awarded GBP372T Payout for Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Adkin, a 54-year-old joiner from Kippax, West Yorkshire,
England, has been awarded GBP372,000 in asbestos-related
compensation, the Yorkshire Evening Post reports.

Mr. Adkin was diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer in 2010 and
made a claim for compensation against his former employer Nova
Retail Display Ltd, of Leeds in West Yorkshire.

Mr. Adkin said that he believed that his mesothelioma was caused
by exposure to the asbestos during the late 1990s, when his duties
included moving asbestos floor and ceiling tiles at various shoe
shops in the region.

Mr. Adkin, who had worked at Nova since 1996, was forced to give
up his job when he was diagnosed with the terminal illness in the
May of 2010.

Mr. Adkins originally took his claim to the High Court in London
but in a dramatic last minute deal the two parties agreed to
settle out of court and Mr. Adkin accepted GBP372,000 in
compensation.

Judge Shaun Spencer QC, upon hearing that the matter had been
settled out of court, stated that in his opinion a satisfactory
outcome had been reached.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Reading Local's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
A coroner's court heard that the death of William Allen, a
91-year-old maintenance man who worked at the atomic bomb factory
in Aldermaston, England, was related to exposure to asbestos, S&B
getreading reports.

On March 12, 2011, Mr. Allen, of West Reading, England, died of
mesothelioma in Royal Berkshire Hospital.  He was diagnosed with
the disease last July 2010 and, after his death, a post mortem
examination found several asbestos fibers in his lung.

Mr. Allen's widow told coroner Peter Bedford that her husband had
worked at a bakery and at a core manufacturer, but from 1967 to
1984 he worked at AWE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $10T Approved for Cobb Hospital Asbestos Survey
----------------------------------------------------------------
At a meeting on July 7, 2011, the City Council in Phenix City,
Ala., approved a resolution calling for a US$10,000 asbestos
survey for the condemned Cobb Hospital, WLTZ.com reports.

A divided Phenix City Council voted three to two to look into
buying Cobb Hospital.  Councilman Jimmy Wetzel says he hopes the
hospital, which has been abandoned since 2003, can be transformed
into a new municipal complex.  It would cost the City US$650,000
to buy the hospital.

Columbus Regional bought the hospital from the City in 1993 and
kept it open for 10 years.  The City is looking to buy 9.8 acres
of the property.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Granier Awarded $1.5MM Compensation for Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Orleans Parish Civil District Court jury recently awarded
US$1.5 million in general damages to Leopold Granier Jr., a man
who contracted mesothelioma, LegalNewsline.com reports.

According to the verdict issued on July 1, 2011, the jury found
that Mr. Granier was exposed to asbestos and contracted the
disease due to the negligence of Avondale Shipyards, Cajun
Insulation and Union Carbide Corp.

Union Carbide, in particular, was strictly liable because asbestos
materials incorporated into the Company's Taft, La., plant were a
"substantial and contributing cause" of Mr. Granier's cancer, the
jury found.

In addition to the US$1.5 million in general damages, the jury
awarded Mr. Granier US$104,160.77 in special damages.

Avondale, which was acquired by Northrop Grumman Corp., is slated
to close in 2013.  Northrop Grumman announced its decision in 2010
in response to the Navy's reduced order of new warships from the
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP150T Compensation Claim Lodged v. John Lewis
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Rivers, on behalf of his deceased father, Maurice Rivers --
a shop display manager, has launched a legal claim for
compensation of up to GBP150,000 against John Lewis plc, the
successors of Heelas Ltd, S&B getreading reports.

Maurice Rivers died from malignant mesothelioma.  He worked for
Heelas between 1951 and 1992, and then for John Lewis when it took
over Heelas until 1995 at the store in Reading town center.

Maurice Rivers often helped in window dressing and display work,
involving drilling, hammering and stapling items to ceilings and
walls, many of which included asbestos board, according to a High
Court writ.

Maurice Rivers suffered symptoms of breathlessness and weight
loss, and he was very distressed when told of the diagnosis of
malignant mesothelioma.  His condition worsened rapidly, and he
was in hospital from October 2009 until his death on Dec. 30, 2009
at the age of 79.

David Rivers seeks damages for Maurice Rivers' estate and for his
widow, 80-year-old Ruby Rivers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Union Lauds First Passage of Payout Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unions Tasmania is celebrating the first passage of laws to
compensate workers who contracted asbestos-related diseases, ABC
News reports.

Legislation to set up the compensation scheme passed the Lower
House last July 7, 2011.  The scheme will be funded by a four
percent levy on employers, including the Tasmanian State
Government.

Susan Wallace from Asbestos Free Tasmania says that currently some
disease victims are being forced to pursue their claims in court.

Under the legislation, a 64-year-old worker with a fatal disease
like mesothelioma would be entitled to about AU$500,000 in
compensation, plus medical expenses.  The bill now goes to the
Upper House.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Lawyer Mancuso Subject to Lower Sentence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Mancuso, a former attorney from Utica, N.Y., could face
lesser jail time in prison after a U.S. Court of Appeals recently
ruled that a federal judged erred in sentencing him in 2010 for an
asbestos cover-up conspiracy, the Observer-Dispatch reports.

The Second Circuit appeals court ruled that U.S. District Court
Judge Frederick Scullin wrongfully sentenced Mr. Mancuso in June
2010 by stating that he had violated permit requirements in
disposing of hazardous asbestos.

However, those requirements do not apply to the federal
environmental laws for which Steven Mancuso and his brother Paul
Mancuso were found guilty of violating, the court stated.  As a
result, Judge Scullin added more months than appropriate onto
their sentences.

Steven Mancuso has served more than a year in federal prison after
he was sentenced in 2010 to about three years, while Paul Mancuso
received about 6-1/2 years.

In order to correct an error that "seriously affected the fairness
of judicial proceedings," the appeals court referred Steven
Mancuso's case back to federal court in Syracuse.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belfast Skip Owner Probed Over Illegal Dumping
---------------------------------------------------------------
An unnamed man who is the owner of a skip hire firm was arrested
after the discovery of asbestos, toxic waste and other material
dumped illegally in the hills above Belfast, Northern Ireland, BBC
News Northern Ireland reports.

The Northern Ireland Environment Agency launched the joint
operation with the PSNI.  It said the man has been arrested for
alleged waste, money laundering and criminal damages offenses.

BBC Northern Ireland's Environment Correspondent Mike McKimm said,
"Over the past few years there have been many complaints about the
illegal dumping of waste, especially construction and building
material in the hills above Ligoniel at the edge of North
Belfast."

The NIEA's said the arrest forms part of one of the most
significant investigations carried out to date by its crime unit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Court Affirms Ruling in Continental Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit in Detroit affirmed a district court's decision to dismiss
a trust's September 2008 lawsuit in asbestos litigation involving
Continental Insurance Co., Insurance Journal reports.

The Appeals Court has agreed that Continental did not have a duty
to defend asbestos injury claims against automotive supplier
Federal?Mogul Corp. as its umbrella carrier because the primary
coverage provided by three other insurers had not been exhausted.

The Federal?Mogul U.S. Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, established
by Federal-Mogul's Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan, brought its duty-
to-defend case against Continental in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

In a complaint for declaratory relief, the trust claimed that
after its policy through Travelers Indemnity Co. had been
exhausted, the trust's umbrella policy from Continental began
coverage of injury claims arising from asbestos-containing
products made by Federal-Mogul unit Vellumoid from 1965 to 1981.

Travelers Indemnity was one of three primary liability carriers to
the trust.  The other active policies were issued by Globe
Indemnity Co. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

The judges agreed that Continental had no duty to defend the trust
because its policy had not been triggered since the trust's other
two primary insurance policies were still providing coverage of
claims against Vellumoid.

The Continental Insurance policy's Defense, Settlement,
Supplementary Payments (DSSP) Insuring Agreement provides for the
defense of claims against the trust when "an occurrence is not
covered by the underlying insurance listed in the underlying
insurance schedule or any other underlying insurance collectible
by the insured, but covered by the terms of this policy, without
regard to the retained limit contained herein."

Continental moved to dismiss the complaint.  At a hearing, the
district court orally granted Continental's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

The Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul sought Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection in October 2001, amid hundreds of millions
of dollars in asbestos claims.  The Company emerged from Chapter
11 bankruptcy protection in December 2007.  The case is styled
Federal-Mogul U.S. Asbestos Personal Injury Trust v. Continental
Casualty Company et al., 6th Cir., No. 10?1290.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Project at Pearson School to Commence
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos abatement project at Pearson Middle School in
Winsted, Conn., is expected to begin soon, the Republican American
reports.

School and town officials met with the contractor, Wiese
Construction Inc., on July 7, 2011 to discuss the project's
timetable.

Purchasing Director Mark A. Douglass, who was at the meeting, said
workers likely will begin moving furniture in the building at 2
Wetmore Ave. either July 12, 2011 or July 13, 2011.  Abatement
will likely start the week after.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La.'s Lafourche Schools' Cleanup Costs $35,943
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Lafourche Parish School Board in Houma, La., approved paying
Zimmer-Eschette II Inc. US$35,943 for asbestos abatement projects
the company has carried out in the Thibodaux Middle School's
library, a classroom building at Thibodaux Elementary School, and
the Chackbay Elementary School cafeteria, Houma Today reports.

Evan Plaisance, the school system's land and facilities manager,
said the contractors removed roof panels, siding, and flooring
that contain asbestos.  He said, "We had a good bit of floor tile
that was put in during the 1940s and 1950s."

Mr. Plaisance said the materials did not pose a health risk to
students or teachers at the schools because they are not
"friable."

Mr. Plaisance said many of the buildings in the parish were built
decades ago, so they have some materials made with asbestos.
However, he emphasized that no building in the parish has
insulation or other materials that could pose a threat to
students.

Paul Abadie, who oversees the projects, says this type of work is
fairly mundane.  He said projects that involve friable materials
require strict oversight by Department of Environmental Quality.

In this case, however, the materials were simply removed and
transported to the River Birch landfill outside of Boutte.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Judge Seeks Proof in Melksham Waste Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The judge in an asbestos case filed against a 55-year-old owner of
a defunct skip company, Steven Bailey, has delayed passing
sentence so the judge can see more details on Mr. Bailey's
finances, This is Wiltshire reports.

Mr. Bailey is due to be fined and faces a confiscation order after
admitting having dangerous waste, including asbestos, at his yard
in Melksham, England.

However, prosecutors told Swindon Crown Court last July 8, 2011
they need to know more about payments made by the firm before it
went bust as they try to establish where the money went.  Mr.
Bailey, who owned 1st Choice Skips, would have earned in the
region of GBP16,500 for taking the waste.

Syan Ventom, prosecuting, said the bank accounts of the company
show a number of payments for figures which were "rounded off."
He said there were a number for GBP1,000 and GBP2,000, up to a
maximum of GBP7,700 which was unusual as payments normally came to
odd numbers rather than exact figures.

The Company had receipts of almost GBP500,000, Mr. Ventom said,
and asked for all payments of more than GBP500 to be accounted
for.  Andrew Eddy, defending, said the company went bust because
customers failed to pay their bills when they had folded, leaving
Mr. Bailey with the waste.

The judge adjourned the case and ordered the defense to supply
further financial details, warning a judge may "draw adverse
inferences" if they fail to do so.

Mr. Bailey, of Union Street, Melksham, pleaded guilty to two
charges of breaching the terms of an environmental permit in
February 2010.  He admitted having too much rubbish at the
company's yard in Lysander Way, Bowerhill, as well as dangerous
waste including asbestos and cathode-ray tubes.  He could be fined
up to GBP50,000 and/or six months in prison.

Mr. Bailey could be ordered to pay back the cash which the firm
would have taken for the waste as the Environment Agency is
seeking a confiscation order.  The court heard that a co-defendant
had admitted similar charged before justices and received a GBP400
fine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Supreme Court Junks Asbestos Claims Limit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Supreme Court, on July 8, 2011, rejected a key part of
a 2005 law that made it harder to sue for asbestos-related
injuries, The Palm Beach Post News reports.

David Jagolinzer, a Miami attorney who helped spearhead the legal
challenge, said the ruling will clear the way for thousands of
people to pursue asbestos cases that have been pending in lower
courts.  The Supreme Court found that the law violates
constitutional due-process rights.

However, the 5-2 ruling was a major blow to businesses facing
claims for lung-damaging asbestos exposure that often happened
decades ago.

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute,
which lobbies for limits on various types of lawsuits, said, "My
main concern with this case is there are a lot of plaintiffs'
cases in the pipeline that will now be filed in light of this
opinion.  As a result, Florida's overly burdened court system will
be further burdened by increased asbestos litigation."

The Supreme Court opinion stemmed from numerous cases that were
consolidated in the 4th District Court of Appeal. Justices R. Fred
Lewis, Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince, Jorge Labarga and James
E.C. Perry made up the majority; Chief Justice Charles Canady and
Ricky Polston dissented.

The case centered on parts of the 2005 law requiring plaintiffs to
show "physical impairment" before they could pursue asbestos-
related lawsuits.  More specifically, it dealt with the
Legislature's attempt to retroactively apply the requirements to
people who filed lawsuits or had "causes of action" before the law
was approved.

The law included detailed criteria for proving such physical
impairment, including criteria dealing with chest x-rays and lung
capacity.

Judge Lewis, who wrote the majority opinion, said people who
suffer injuries because of the "wrongful conduct of another" have
the right to pursue claims, regardless of their symptoms or level
of physical impairment.

Tamela Perdue, general counsel of Associated Industries of
Florida, said the 2005 law came amid concerns that asbestos-
related lawsuits were clogging up courts and posed a financial
threat to companies.  She said it was aimed at prioritizing the
people who had been injured by asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: July 25 Completion Set for EOC Building Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos abatement at the former Economic Opportunity Committee
(EOC) in Port Huron, Mich., should be complete around July 25,
2011 and demolition could start the last week of July 2011, The
Times Herald reports.

The St. Clair County is paying Bay City, Mich.-based Dore and
Associates Contracting US$288,700 to tear down and remove
hazardous materials from the former county jail on Bard Street,
the former EOC building on McMorran Boulevard, the former juvenile
detention center on Krafft Road and the former Day Treatment/Night
Watch building on 10th Avenue.

Work has been completed at the former juvenile detention center,
said Cheri Peart, county purchasing manager.  Crews are to
backfill and restore the former Day Treatment/Night Watch
building.

Crews have been removing asbestos from the old jail this week, Ms.
Peart said.  The company is to start demolition in September 2011.

The original completion date, Aug. 31, 2011 was pushed back after
underground storage tanks were uncovered at the former Day
Treatment/Night Watch and juvenile detention center, Ms. Peart
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Opposes Zimbabwe Asbestos Mines' Opening
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe had received a memo from a
group of scientists, doctors and labor leaders, criticizing his
decision to reopen two old asbestos mines in the country, the
French Tribune reports.

The letter stated that as the Canadian government has announced
the reopening of the Jeffrey asbestos mine in Quebec, Zimbabwe
should not follow the footsteps.

The 176 million workers in 151 countries from the World Health
Organization, the International Labor Organization and the
International Trade Union Confederation, have strongly opposed the
utilization of any type of asbestos.

Meanwhile, the Canadian government has offered a US$58 million
loan guarantee to Bernard Coulombe, the owner of Jeffrey Mine in
Quebec.

In Zimbabwe, a lot of children have come forward to support
Shabanie-Mashaba asbestos mines, as the mismanagement of the mines
had led to the unemployment problem of their parents.  These
children will not be supporting any letter against the asbestos
mines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NHRC Issues Notice on Asbestos Actions in India
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2011, the National Human Rights Commission notified the
health and environment ministries on a report that asbestos-
related cancer was on the rise in India, RxPG News reports.

Toxics Watch Alliance, an NGO fighting for environmental
protection, alleged that about 50,000 Indians die annually because
of asbestos-related cancer.

An NHRC statement said, "The complainant sought the commission's
intervention for a ban on the use of Chrysotile Asbestos, which is
hazardous for the health of people and causes various incurable
diseases."

The NGO cited contradictory positions of the government on the
issue, alleging that though the mining of asbestos has been
technically banned by the government, it allows its import and
"that too from the countries which do not prefer its domestic
use."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims' Kin to Benefit From Damages Act 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------
Solicitors and campaigners said that families of people killed in
accidents or suffering from fatal diseases, including asbestos-
related, acquired in the workplace will benefit from new rights
that are coming into force, the Donside Piper and Herald reports.

Passed by the Scottish Parliament in March 2011, the Damages
(Scotland) Act 2011 overhauls the current system and provides
compensation in cases of wrongful death without the need for long
court cases.

Laura Blane, Partner at Thompsons Solicitors, which represents the
interests of victims of asbestos related diseases and those killed
in accidents, said, "This legislation is a victory for victims and
those of us who fight for better rights to redress in cases of
very grave workplace diseases and accidents.

"At Thompsons we deal with hundreds of such cases each year and
this Act will make a real difference to the lives of people
affected by diseases like mesothelioma.

"The diseases themselves can cause great trauma and stress for
sufferers and their families and to go through a lengthy legal
battle can really add to that distress."

Thomsons said on average 30 people die each year in Scotland in
workplace accidents.

The new legislation gets away from the old system where the
deceased's family was often deemed to have suffered little or no
loss because it took into account the surviving partner's income.

Phyllis Craig from Clydeside Action on Asbestos, which has
campaigned for changes to the legislation, said, "The introduction
of this new legislation will allow for a fairer calculation of
damages to be made to a surviving spouse.

"Prior to this Act damages were calculated using an inaccurate and
complex formula.  This often led to spouses receiving less damages
than they should have been entitled too."



                             *********

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., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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 $575 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 Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *