CAR_Public/110923.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Friday, September 23, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 189

                             Headlines

ACCURAY INC: Dismissed From Lawsuits Over TomoTherapy Acquisition
ACCURAY INC: Final Judgment in Securities Suit Expected in Nov.
AMERICAN WOODCRAFTERS: Recalls 180 Bunk Beds for Repair
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective MacBook Batteries
BANNOCK COUNTY, ID: Woman Sues Prosecutor Over Fetal Pain Law

BP: English High Court Appropriate Forum for Shareholder Suit
BROADCOM CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New Jersey
CADBURY HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
CENTRAL VERMONT: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
CHILI'S BAR: Faces Class Action Over Minimum Wage Violations

CORRECTIONS CORP: Settles Class Action Over Prison Violence
DAIMLER AG: Faces Class Action Over Mercedes-Benz V8 Engines
EL PASO: Appeal From Tomlinson Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
GOV'T OF AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over School Mergers
IZARD NOBEL: Izard Nobel Files Class Action in New York

LA FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Membership Termination Policy
NAVISTAR INT'L: Dismisses Complaint over Retiree Healthcare
QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls 8 Oral Contraceptive Products
SPI ELECTRICITY: July 2012 Trial Set for Bushfire Class Action
WENNER MEDIA: Doing Wireless Spam Activities, Suit Alleges

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Forum Energy Unit Subject to Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Comm'l. Has 5 Hilco Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Group Faces 1 Claim at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Records $38.2MM June 30 Adjustment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Posts $115.4MM June 30 Current Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Has 556 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Holdings Subject to A&E Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Corp. Still Subject to Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Still Named in Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Involved in Liability Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Receives 48 New Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Still Subject to Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ICI Worker's Death Linked to Exposure to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peirce, Lumbermens Mutual Settled Defense Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aranda Case v. Atlantic Richfield Filed in Tex.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grantham Firm, SKDC Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Birmingham Council Sentenced for Safety Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Seeking Free 4,000-Hour Training Initiative
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyler Action v. 41 Firms Filed July 29 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Dismisses Asbestos Charges in Dias Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kingston Council OKs More Funding for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ala. Lawyer's Secretary Charged for Embezzling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marco City Official Files Libel, Slander Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yuba County Worker's Case Ongoing in Sacramento
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Enters Judgment in Continental Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Summary Judgment Affirmed in Rabatin Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Kaiser Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Inc. Still Named in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. C. Penney Has $29MM A&E Liability at July 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deleon Sent to Prison for Abatement Conspiracy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Appeal Court Cancels Wylder Oral Arguments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pritchard Case v. 46 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Sheffield Firms Fined Over Worker's Injuries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia Pacific Admits Wallboard Had Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: DeLuca & Nemeroff Announces $7.55MM La. Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clark Widow Awarded GBP160,000 in Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Firm Supports Mesothelioma Awareness Day
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oriskany Resident Admits to Asbestos Violations




                             *********

ACCURAY INC: Dismissed From Lawsuits Over TomoTherapy Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for the state of Wisconsin dismissed the
consolidated class action lawsuit related to Accuray
Incorporated's acquisition of TomoTherapy Incorporated, according
to the Company's September 19, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
June 30, 2011.

On March 11, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court for the State of Wisconsin, Dane County, on
behalf of a putative class of TomoTherapy Incorporated
shareholders and naming as defendants TomoTherapy and
TomoTherapy's board of directors (prior to the acquisition of
TomoTherapy by the Company).  Thereafter, four additional
complaints were filed in the same court on behalf of the same
class and against the same defendants, and two such complaints
also named the Company and Jaguar Acquisition, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub").  On April 4, 2011,
all five actions were consolidated.  The complaints generally
allege that, in connection with the Company's then proposed merger
transaction with TomoTherapy, TomoTherapy's board breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize the
value of TomoTherapy to its shareholders and purportedly agreeing
to certain terms in the merger agreement, which are allegedly
preclusive and onerous.  The complaints further allege that the
Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted TomoTherapy's board of
directors in their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction barring
consummation of the merger, rescission or recessionary damages,
costs and attorneys' fees.  The Company and Merger Sub were
dismissed from the litigation without prejudice on April 19, 2011.
The consolidated complaint against TomoTherapy and the former
directors of TomoTherapy was dismissed with prejudice and without
costs to either party on July 5, 2011.


ACCURAY INC: Final Judgment in Securities Suit Expected in Nov.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A final judgment concerning the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action lawsuit against Accuray Incorporated is
expected in November 2011, according to the Company's September
19, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended June 30, 2011.

On July 22, 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers.  On August 7, 2009, and August 9, 2009,
two securities class action complaints, both similar to the one
filed on July 22, 2009, were filed against the same defendants in
the same court.  These three actions were consolidated.  The
consolidated complaint generally alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding its operations and seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.  On August 31, 2010, the Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and granted
plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.  On September 27,
2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The amended
complaint names the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants and generally alleges that
the defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding its operations.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.  Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  On April 28, 2011, the parties
filed a stipulation of settlement with the court, providing for
the settlement of the litigation for a payment of $13.5 million
which will be covered by insurance.  The court preliminarily
approved the settlement on June 10, 2011.  A hearing on the terms
of the settlement was held on September 1, 2011.  A final judgment
is expected in November of this year.


AMERICAN WOODCRAFTERS: Recalls 180 Bunk Beds for Repair
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Woodcrafters, of High Point, North Carolina, announced a
voluntary recall of about 180 units of wood twin bunk beds and
loft bunk beds.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The guard rails on upper bunks can crack and cause the mattress
and its support rails to collapse, posing a fall hazard.

The firm has received two reports of cracked guard rails causing
the mattresses and support rails to collapse.  No injuries were
reported.

This recall involves upper guardrails on twin-over-twin bunk beds
and twin-over -double bed loft designs.  The beds have a permanent
label attached to the headboard or the footboard with the American
Woodcrafters logo; SKU numbers, 1800-977 or 1800-969; PO Numbers:
103276, 103432, or 300038; and the manufacturing date.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11329.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold by
furniture dealers nationwide from October 2010 to June 2011 for
between $600 and $1,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the upper beds and contact
American Woodcrafters or their furniture dealer to arrange for the
free replacement of upper bunk guard rails.  For additional
information, contact American Woodcrafters at toll-free at (888)
429-7265 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.american-woodcrafters.com/


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective MacBook Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the 15- and 17-inch 2011
MacBook Pro computers have defective batteries that drain during
use even when the AC adapter is plugged in, making the computer
die unexpectedly, a class action claims in Solano County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Tomek v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
FCS038512 (Calif. Super. Ct., Solano Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/20/MacBook.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony A. Ferrigno, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY A. FERRIGNO
          1116 Ingleside Avenue
          Athens, TN 37303
          Telephone: (423) 744-4041

               - and -

          Jack T. Humes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACK T. HUMES
          28720 Canwood Street, Suite 105
          Agoura Hills, CA 91320
          Telephone: (818) 707-1277


BANNOCK COUNTY, ID: Woman Sues Prosecutor Over Fetal Pain Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that a woman
who took the morning-after pill to terminate her pregnancy, and
went to jail for it, has sued the prosecutor who put her there.
Her federal class action claims that the 40-year-old law under
which she was prosecuted is unconstitutional.

Jennie Linn McCormack sued Bannock County Prosecuting Attorney
Mark Hiedeman.  Bannock's county seat is Pocatello.

"Plaintiff McCormack is unmarried and was unemployed in the winter
of 2010," the complaint states.  "She presently has three
children, ages 2, 11 and 18.

"In December of 2010 Plaintiff McCormack was pregnant and believed
she could not afford either the expense or time away from Bannock
County associated with having an abortion in Salt Lake City, Utah.

"Not wanting to have another child, plaintiff McCormack considered
terminating her pregnancy in Bannock County, Idaho by ingesting
one or more medications she reasonably believed to have been
prescribed by a health care provider practicing outside Bannock
County, Idaho to induce an abortion."

Ms. McCormack bought RU-486, commonly known as the morning-after
pill, over the Internet from a health care provider.

On May 18 this year, she was arrested at her home and led away in
handcuffs, according to local news reports.  Police allegedly
found a fetus in a box at her home.  Ms. Hearn said that police
were sent to Ms. McCormack's home after receiving a tip from an
unnamed acquaintance in whom she confided, months after the
abortion.

Ms. McCormack was charged with "the public offense of unlawful
abortion Idaho Code Sec. 18-606," according to her complaint.
"She thinks her constitutional rights were infringed when they
charged her the first time," her attorney, Richard Hearn, told
Courthouse News.  "We had them [the charges] dismissed for lack of
sufficient evidence."

Mr. Hearn is a physician as well as an attorney.  The criminal
charges against Ms. McCormack were dismissed by a magistrate court
at the preliminary hearing on Aug. 24.

Had Ms. McCormack been convicted, she could have faced up to 5
years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

Had she terminated the pregnancy later, she would have violated
Idaho's new "fetal pain law," which outlaws abortions after 20
weeks because of the state's claim that fetuses can feel pain at 5
months.

Ms. McCormack's lawsuit claims, in part, that the law is
unconstitutional because there is no exception for mothers'
health.

The bulk of the lawsuit, however, challenges the Idaho law
forbidding self-administered abortions, to which women living in
rural areas may resort, faced with the alternative of traveling to
receive more expensive, and in some cases cost-prohibitive
surgical abortions.

The complaint states: "Women residing in southeast Idaho seeking
to terminate a pregnancy currently must travel outside southeast
Idaho to obtain elective abortions.

"For some women residing in southeast Idaho, the additional costs
associated with travel to an abortion provider will significantly
burden those women's access to a safe and affordable abortion.

"For other women residing in southeast Idaho, the time required to
travel to an abortion provider will significantly burden those
women's access to a safe and convenient abortion."

The complaint states that the drugs used to induce abortions are
approved by the FDA and provide women in rural areas an option to
traveling for costly procedures.

"In the early stages of pregnancy, physicians providing abortion
services in the United States often prescribe medications approved
by the U.S. Federal Drug Agency to cause women to abort their
pregnancies medically, i.e., non-surgically, in the privacy of
their own homes," according to the complaint.  "Such 'medical'
abortions are generally less expensive than surgical abortions."

Mr. Hearn said that although the state's complaint against
Ms. McCormack's was dismissed, the prosecutor, defendant
Mr. Hiedeman, may refile the charges.

"We have filed against him in Federal Court on behalf of her and
other women so he can't do that," Mr. Hearn told Courthouse News
in a telephone interview on Sept. 19.

The lawsuit was brought "pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2)" to prevent Mr. Hiedeman from "criminally
prosecuting or threatening to prosecute any woman who seeks an
abortion in Bannock County for violating Idaho Code Title 18,
Chapter 6.

It also was brought "pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983" to prevent
Mr. Hiedeman from "criminally prosecuting or threatening to
prosecute any person licensed in Idaho to provide health care for
violating Idaho Code Title 18, Chapters 5 and 6, as a result of
that person's alleged involvement with any woman seeking an
abortion in Bannock County."

It claims that enforcing the Idaho codes will "violate the dormant
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution thereby unduly burdening
plaintiffs from exercising their right to privacy and liberty as
guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution."

Mr. Hiedeman could not be reached for comment Sept. 19.

"She didn't start this battle," Mr. Hearn said.  "The state
prosecutor charged her with the crime and she is still trying to
defend herself.  She wants to protect all women who are going
through what she is going through."

The complaint also cites violations of due process, of equal
protection, of the Establishment Clause, the vagueness of the
laws, and undue burden.

Co-counsel with Mr. Hearn are John Ingelstrom and Jonathan Volyn,
all of Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey, of Pocatello.

A copy of the Complaint in McCormack v. Hiedeman, Case No. 11-cv-
00433 (S.D. Idaho), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/20/IdahoAbortion.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John B. Ingelstrom, Esq.
          Richard A. Hearn, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Volyn, Esq.
          RACINE, OLSON, NYE,
          BUDGE & BAILEY, CHARTERED
          P.O. Box 1391
          Pocatello, ID 83204-1391
          Telephone: (208)232-6101
          E-mail: jbi@racinelaw.net
                  rah@racinelaw.net
                  jmv@racinelaw.net


BP: English High Court Appropriate Forum for Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that the
English High Court is a more appropriate forum for a shareholder
class action that makes claims based on British law against the
directors of BP, a federal judge ruled.

Shareholders filed suit last year against current and former
directors of BP and its U.S. subsidiary for alleged breaches of
their fiduciary duties.  They say the directors engaged in a
pattern of disregard for the safety of BP's operations, leading to
a string of safety violations spanning 20 years that culminated in
the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.

Executives' singular focus on the bottom line led to multiple
felony convictions, multimillion dollar fines and government-
imposed penalties against BP, according to the complaint.

The shareholders cited the United Kingdom Companies Act of 2006,
which explains fiduciary duties that officers and directors owe
English companies.  At BP, the directors allegedly acted outside
of their authority by letting the company engage in unlawful
conduct.  By letting BP engage in dangerous activities without
necessary safety precautions, they also did not exercise
independent judgment and due care, according to the complaint.

BP and its officials moved to dismiss the case based on three
arguments: first, that the shareholders lack standing to sue
derivatively because they did not get permission from the English
High Court to continue the suit; second, under the doctrines of
forum non conveniens and international comity; and third, that the
court lacks personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants.

On Sept. 15, U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens.  This
doctrine allows federal judges to decline jurisdiction if the
moving party establishes that the interests of justice, and
convenience to the parties and court, dictate the case should be
tried in another forum.

"Because this derivative lawsuit involves the internal governance
of an English corporation, the convenience of the parties and the
interests of justice favor England as a more convenient forum,"
Judge Ellison wrote.

The lawsuit also "calls for an inquiry into the knowledge and
actions of BP's directors, the lion's share of the relevant
documents and the majority of the individual defendants are
located in England," according to the 31-page decision.

English law governs this dispute, and the Southern District of
Texas would be faced with the task of interpreting a still-new and
evolving foreign law if the case were allowed to continue
stateside.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order in In Re BP Shareholder
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 10-cv-03447 (S.D. Tex.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/20/BP%20Order.pdf


BROADCOM CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say NetLogic
Microsystems is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair
process to Broadcom, for $50 a share or $3.7 billion.

A copy of the Complaint in New Jersey Carpenters Pension Fund v.
Broyles, et al., Case No. 111CV209381 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa
Clara Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/20/TechShare.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          300 South Grand, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213)617-1200
          E-mail: jwesterman@milberg.com

               - and -

          Anita Kartalopoulos, Esq.
          Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
          Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
          Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: akartalopoulos@milberg.com
                  bkaufman@milberg.com
                  kbronson@milberg.com
                  gmelwani@milberg.com

               - and -

          Albert G. Kroll, Esq.
          KROLL HEINEMAN CARTON, LLC
          Metro Corporate Campus I
          99 Wood Avenue South, Suite 307
          Iselin, NJ 08830
          Telephone: (732) 491-2100


CADBURY HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 12, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania granted preliminary approval to a
proposed class action settlement with Cadbury Holdings Ltd.,
Cadbury plc, and Cadbury Adams Canada, Inc.  The litigation is
continuing against the remaining defendants: Hershey Canada, Inc.,
The Hershey Company, Mars, Inc., Mars Snackfood U.S., LLC and
Nestle U.S.A., Inc.

The lawsuit involves allegations that defendants engaged in an
unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
prices of chocolate candy in violation of federal and state
antitrust laws.  The defendants deny these allegations.
"Chocolate Candy" refers to chocolate bars and other chocolate
confectionery products made by any defendant and packaged to be
sold at retail.

You may be a member of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Settlement
Class if you purchased Chocolate Candy in the United States
directly from any defendant from December 9, 2002 through
December 20, 2007.  You may be a member of the Indirect End User
Plaintiffs Settlement Class if you purchased, in the United States
or Guam, Chocolate Candy from someone other than a defendant (such
as at a retail store) for end use (personal consumption or gifts)
and not for resale, from December 9, 2002, through December 20,
2007.  If you made both direct and indirect purchases of Chocolate
Candy, you may be a member of both settlement classes.

The settlements provide for the payment by Cadbury of $250,000 in
cash to the Indirect End User Plaintiffs, and $1,312,500 in cash
to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs.  It also provides for $250,000
to pay for notice of the settlements to all settlement classes.
Cadbury has also agreed to provide certain cooperation in the
prosecution of the litigation against the remaining Defendants.

For more details regarding the proposed class action settlements,
visit http://www.ChocolateSettlementDirect.comand
http://www.ChocolateSettlementIndirect.com

Class members may opt out of the settlements by October 21, 2011,
or file objections by November 28, 2011.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:30 a.m. on
December 12, 2011, at 228 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, PA 17108.

For additional information about the Indirect Purchaser
settlement, you may write to Chocolate Settlement Indirect, c/o
The Notice Company, PO Box 455, Hingham, MA 02043.


CENTRAL VERMONT: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Central Vermont Public Service Corporation entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle a merger-related class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's September 19, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 11, 2011, Central Vermont Public Service Corporation
("CVPS"), Gaz Metro Limited Partnership ("Gaz Metro") and Danaus
Vermont Corp., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Gaz Metro
("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into CVPS (the
"Merger"), with CVPS continuing as the surviving corporation and
an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Gaz Metro.

Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, a putative
class action lawsuit challenging the merger was filed in the U.S.
District Court, District of Vermont (the "Court"), against Central
Vermont, Central Vermont's board of directors, Gaz Metro and
Merger Sub.  The complaint, captioned Davis v. Central Vermont
Public Service Corporation, Case No. 5:11-cv-181, alleges that the
Company's directors failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties with
respect to Central Vermont's entrance into the Merger Agreement
by, among other things, allegedly obtaining an unfair and
inadequate price, failing to undertake an adequate sales process,
engaging in self-dealing, including various "deal protection
devices," and failing to disclose to the Company's shareholders
information necessary to make an informed decision with respect to
the merger.  The lawsuit also alleges that Central Vermont, Gaz
Metro and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Company's board of
directors in breaching their fiduciary duties.

On August 2, 2011, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed
reiterating the previous claims of breaches of fiduciary duty and
adding claims that the Company's proxy materials regarding the
merger are materially misleading and/or incomplete in various
respects, in alleged violation of fiduciary duties and the federal
securities laws.  The Davis action seeks injunctive and other
equitable relief against the proposed transaction with Gaz Metro,
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Subsequently, Central Vermont, the other defendants in the Davis
action, and the plaintiff entered into a memorandum of
understanding dated as of September 19, 2011, regarding the
settlement of the Davis action.  In the memorandum of
understanding, the parties agreed that Central Vermont would make
certain disclosures to its shareholders relating to the proposed
merger in addition to the information contained in the Proxy
Statement.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplates that the parties
will seek to enter into and present to the Court a settlement
agreement.  The settlement agreement will be subject to customary
conditions, including Court approval.  In the event the parties
enter into a settlement agreement, a hearing will be scheduled at
which the Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement.  There can be no assurance that the
Court will approve the settlement.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the settlement agreement may be
terminated.

Central Vermont and the other defendants in the Davis action have
vigorously denied, and continue to deny vigorously, any wrongdoing
or liability with respect to all claims asserted in the Davis
action, including that they have committed any violations of law,
that they have acted improperly in any way, that they have any
liability or owe any damages of any kind to plaintiff and/or the
class, and that any additional disclosures (including the
additional disclosures) are required under any applicable rule,
regulation, statute, or law, but are entering into the settlement
agreement solely because they consider it desirable that the Davis
action be settled and dismissed with prejudice in order to
eliminate the burden, inconvenience, expense, risk and distraction
of further litigation.  Nothing in this supplement, the parties'
memorandum of understanding or any settlement agreement will be
deemed to be an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any
defendant in the Davis action nor shall anything in this
supplement, the parties' memorandum of understanding or any
settlement agreement be deemed an admission of the materiality of
any disclosures set forth herein.


CHILI'S BAR: Faces Class Action Over Minimum Wage Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Chili's
Bar & Grill pays less than minimum wage and uses "server banking"
nationwide, forcing servers, under threat of firing, to pay tabs
for customers who dine and dash.

A copy of the Complaint in Eldred v. Brinker International, Inc.,
dba Chili's Grill & Bar Restaurants, et al., Case No. 56-2011-0040
(Calif. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/20/Chilis.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Courtney, Esq.
          GIRARDI & KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977- 0211

               - and -

          William L. Hinkle, Esq.
          L. Christophe Hinkle, Esq.
          THE HINKLE LAW FIRM
          484 Mobil Avenue, Suite 17
          Camarillo, CA 93010
          Telephone: (805) 437-1712


CORRECTIONS CORP: Settles Class Action Over Prison Violence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Boone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
potential class-action lawsuit against the nation's largest
private prison company over allegations of violence at the Idaho
Correctional Center has been settled in federal court.

The agreement between the inmates and Nashville, Tenn.-based
Corrections Corporation of America was filed on Sept. 20 in U.S.
District Court in Boise.

In it, CCA doesn't acknowledge the allegations but agrees to
increase staffing, investigate all assaults and make other
sweeping changes at the lockup south of Boise.  If the company
fails to make the changes, the inmates can ask the courts to force
CCA to comply.

The inmates, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union,
sued last year on behalf of everyone incarcerated at the CCA-run
state prison.  They said the prison was so violent it was dubbed
"Gladiator School," and that guards used inmate-on-inmate violence
as a management tool and then denied prisoners medical care as a
way to cover up the assaults.

CCA has denied all the allegations as part of the settlement, but
the agreement is governed under a section of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act which only applies in cases in which prisoners'
constitutional rights have been violated.

As part of a prepared statement written by the ACLU and approved
by CCA, both sides said that rather than spending time and
resources trying to litigate allegations of past problems, the
groups would work toward improving future conditions at the
prison.  Those steps include hiring three additional correctional
officers, ensuring prison staffing meets state requirements and
following standard operating procedures already set up by the
Idaho Department of Correction.

The agreement came after both sides spent three days in federal
mediation sessions last week.  Federal oversight of the settlement
will last for two years.

In the lawsuit, the inmates cited an Associated Press
investigation that found the private prison had more cases of
inmate-on-inmate violence than all other Idaho prisons combined.

"The unnecessary carnage and suffering that has resulted is
shameful and inexcusable," the ACLU wrote in the lawsuit.  "ICC
not only condones prisoner violence, the entrenched culture of ICC
promotes, facilitates, and encourages it."

While the prison is owned by the state, it is run for a profit by
CCA under a contract with the Idaho Department of Correction.  The
inmates claimed the company made decisions based on profit rather
than on "responsible administration of the prison."

The prisoners' lawsuit didn't ask for money, just changes in the
way CCA runs the lockup.

Under the settlement, the company has agreed to leave more prison
beds open so it can easily move threatened inmates to new
cellblocks when necessary.  It also agreed to report all assaults
that appear to amount to aggravated battery to the Ada County
sheriff's office, to increase the level of training given to
guards and to discipline staffers who don't take appropriate
measures to stop or prevent assaults.

"This settlement is in the best interest of our clients, CCA and
the state of Idaho," ACLU senior attorney Stephen Pevar said in
the prepared statement.

Idaho Department of Correction Director Brent Reinke said he was
pleased with the settlement, because he thinks it will improve the
sometimes adversarial relationship the state has had with CCA.
Idaho has increased the number of employees it has monitoring
operations at the private prison and in the past has fined CCA
thousands of dollars for failing to meet contract requirements.
Still, Idaho officials decided to renew CCA's contract to run the
prison and the state has even added more than 600 beds to the
lockup, making it the state's largest prison.

"We are working with the contractor, rather than against the
contractor, which is huge -- it's huge -- when you can try to get
things resolved," he said.

Mr. Reinke said he was also pleased that ICC warden Timothy
Wengler was one of the CCA officials who signed the settlement
agreement.

"I respect those in Tennessee (CCA's headquarters).  But I really
want to have a good manager here," Mr. Reinke said.  "The fact
that he's stepping up and has signed the agreement, well, his name
is on the line now."

The Department of Correction was originally named as a defendant
in the case, but the inmates agreed to drop the allegations
against the agency after state officials agreed to enforce any of
the court's actions.

Idaho officials will closely review the 18 key items listed in the
settlement to make sure they comply with the contract between CCA
and the state, Mr. Reinke said.  If not, the contract may be
adjusted to add the requirements.

CCA spokesman Steve Owen said his company is "turning a page and
looking forward" and the settlement reflects "how pleased we are
with the progress that's been made at the facility."

Any costs associated with the increased staffing, investigations
and training aren't a concern, he said.

"I think we view all those things that are being done as
positives," he said.

CCA has faced several lawsuits in Idaho over violence and assaults
at the prison.  Security cameras from the facility showed one
attack, in which guards watched while an inmate named Hanni Elabed
was beaten unconscious and then stomped in the head multiple
times.  The company reached an undisclosed settlement with Elabed,
who was left with brain damage and likely permanent disabilities
from the attack.

Many of the attacks listed in the ACLU lawsuit happened while
former warden Phillip Valdez was leading the prison.  CCA
eventually reassigned Mr. Valdez to the assistant warden post at
the Leavenworth Detention Center, a prison the company runs for
the U.S. Marshals Service in Kansas.

Just last week, CCA reached a settlement with an inmate named
Marlin Riggs, who was the lead plaintiff in the potential class-
action lawsuit in Idaho until the court split the case into two
lawsuits.  He contended he warned guards that he was about to be
attacked by other inmates but they refused to move to him to
another unit or give him any other protection.  Shortly after
returning to his cellblock, Mr. Riggs was beaten so badly that
bones in his face were broken and his blood was splattered across
the walls and ceiling of his cell.

CCA's settlement with Mr. Riggs was sealed by the court.


DAIMLER AG: Faces Class Action Over Mercedes-Benz V8 Engines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the AMG M156 6.2 liter V8 engines wear out prematurely in
Mercedes-Benz models 2007-2011.

A copy of the Complaint in Chan v. Daimler AG, Case No. 11-cv-
_____, docketed as Doc. 12834 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Sept. 19,
2011 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/20/Mercedes.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          Nicole M. Acchione, Esq.
          TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLC
          258 Kings Highway East
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 795-9002
          E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com
                  nacchione@trrlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Dunn, Esq.
          Neil A. Goro, Esq.
          WIGINGTON RUMLEY DUNN, L.L.P.
          601 Howard St.
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: (210) 487-7500
          E-mail: jdunn@Wigrum.com
                  ngoro@Wigrum.com

               - and -

          Stuart Talley, Esq.
          KERSHAW CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
          401 Watt Ave.
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 448-9800
          E-mail: stalley@kcrlegal.com


EL PASO: Appeal From Tomlinson Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against El
Paso Corporation and its pension plan remains pending, according
to EP Energy Corporation's September 19, 2011, Form 10-12B/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  EP
Energy is a spin-off business from El Paso.

In December 2004, a class action lawsuit, captioned Tomlinson, et
al. v. El Paso Corporation and El Paso Pension Plan, was filed in
federal court in Denver, Colorado, by three employees against El
Paso Corporation and its pension plan.  The complaint alleges that
the change from a final average earnings formula pension plan to a
cash balance pension plan, the method of accrual of benefits under
the plan, and the communications about the change violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").  Both former and
current EP Energy employees are members of the purported class.
The EP Energy and El Paso have agreed that, upon the effective
date of the spin-off, they will apportion post spin-off attorney's
fees and any eventual liability according to the proportional
recovery of their respective populations in the Class.  The
lawsuit was dismissed by the trial court in July 2010.  Plaintiffs
have appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

No further updates were reported in EP Energy's SEC filing.


GOV'T OF AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over School Mergers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Dupree & Kara Adams, writing for East Torrens Messenger,
reports that schools across Adelaide have formed a united front in
a bid to overturn the State Government planned merger of campuses
across the state.

Stradbroke junior and primary schools governing council chairwoman
Melissa Campbell said parents were strongly against merging the
two Rostrevor schools.

"Unite and fight was the motto they want to use and get weight
into the minister against his proposal," Mrs. Campbell said.

"The parents are so frustrated and are overwhelmingly against the
proposed amalgamation."

Parents and governing council members from 10 schools met last
week to devise a plan to fight amalgamations earmarked for 42
schools.

The East Torrens Messenger attended the meeting, at the Largs Pier
Hotel, along with 20 representatives from the schools, but despite
being invited was asked to leave before an action plan was
decided.

Speaking after the meeting, Mitcham schools' governing council
deputy chairman Justin Sara said while no decisions were made at
the meeting, it was a good opportunity to "see how other schools
are tackling amalgamation."

As previously reported by Messenger News, schools have raised
concerns that the mergers could compromise school services officer
hours and result in cuts to programs including sports and music
lessons.

Planning Minister Jay Weatherill said the amalgamations would
"bring these schools into line with the overwhelming majority of
primary schools by removing duplicated administration".

"There are 340 R-7 schools and just 24 co-located primary/junior
primary schools," Mr. Weatherill said.  "There will be no need for
any change to classes, class sizes and in-class support for
students.

"Children benefit from greater continuity in their primary years
and operating as a single school means fewer transition points for
children.

"Schools will be able to take advantage of the AUD27.3 million in
capital funding to improve administration facilities, which is
part of this initiative."


IZARD NOBEL: Izard Nobel Files Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Izard Nobel disclosed that it filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the American
Depositary Shares of Sequans Communications, a provider of LTE and
WiMAX chips to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and
original design manufacturers.

The complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose certain
adverse facts that affected investors' confidence.  According to
the complaint, Sequans and certain officers and directors violated
the federal securities laws by not disclosing vital market
information.  Complainants include those who purchased in the IPO
on or about April 14, 2011, according to a statement from Izard
Nobel.

According to the complaint, Sequans failed to disclose information
such as revenues from Sequan's WiMAX products were declining.
Sequans was not in position to generate meaningful revenues from
sales of 4G LTE products until late 2012.

The other allegations include lack of proper information about the
company's largest customer, HTC, and the industry in general, that
was focusing more on 4G LTE offerings as opposed to WiMAX
offerings, including WiMAX products offered by Sequans.

The complaint said investors did not have information that the
company would not experience sales growth during 2011 and in fact
would experience sales declines during that period.  Sequans was
becoming increasingly more dependent upon sales from its largest
customer, HTC, and sales from that customer had declined and would
continue to decline and as a result, defendants' positive
statements about Sequans were materially false and misleading when
made, according to the complaint.

Izard Nobel has significant experience representing investors in
prosecuting claims of securities fraud.

Recently, Sequans Communications announced that it has appointed
4G industry executive Rudy Leser as the company's vice president
of business development.  As the VP of business development for
Sequans, Mr. Leser will be responsible for establishing and
managing relationships with mobile operators and other key
technology players and partners in the global wireless ecosystem.


LA FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Membership Termination Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that finding that the membership-
termination policy at L.A. Fitness might be confusing to
consumers, a federal judge ordered the consolidation of two class
actions against the gym giant.

A copy of the Memorandum Re: Motions to Dismiss and Consolidate in
Boeynaems, et al. v. LA Fitness International LLC, Case No. 10-cv-
02326 (E.D. Pa.); and in Vaugh v. LA Fitness International LLC,
Case No. 02644 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/20/l.a.%20fitness.pdf


NAVISTAR INT'L: Dismisses Complaint over Retiree Healthcare
-----------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of its retiree healthcare complaint relating to a 1993
Settlement Agreement, the Company said in its September 7, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

In April 2010, the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America ("UAW") and others filed a "Motion of
Plaintiffs Art Shy, UAW, et al for an Injunction to Compel
Compliance with the 1993 Settlement Agreement" (the "Shy Motion").
The Shy Motion sought to enjoin the Company from implementing an
administrative change relating to prescription drug benefits under
a healthcare plan for Medicare eligible retirees (the "Part D
Change").

Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that the Part D Change violates
the terms of the 1993 Settlement Agreement previously approved by
the Court.  That 1993 Settlement Agreement resolved a class action
originally filed in 1992 regarding the restructuring of the
Company's then applicable retiree health care and life insurance
benefits.  In May 2010, the Company filed its Opposition to the
Shy Motion.

The Part D Change was effective July 1, 2010, and made the
Company's prescription drug coverage for post-65 retirees ("Plan
2" or "Medicare-eligible" retirees) supplemental to the coverage
provided by Medicare.  Plan 2 retirees now pay the premiums for
Medicare Part D drug coverage.  For drugs that are covered by
Medicare Part D, Plan 2 supplements that coverage through a "buy
down" of co-payments to the amounts in place prior to the Part D
Change.

On February 24, 2011, the Court ruled on the Shy Motion (the
"February 2011 Order").  The February 2011 Order sustained
Plaintiffs' argument that the Company did not have authority to
unilaterally substitute Medicare Part D for the prescription drug
benefit that the Plaintiffs had been receiving under the 1993
Settlement Agreement.  However, the February 2011 Order denied as
moot Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief to prevent the
Company from implementing the Part D Change because the change
already had gone into effect.  On February 28, 2011, the Company
filed a notice of appeal concerning the February 2011 Order.  In
April 2011, pursuant to the Court's request, the parties submitted
position papers regarding whether the Court should grant further
relief pursuant to its February 2011 Order and, if so, what form
such relief should take.  In June 2011, the Company filed a
Further Opposition and Motion to Supplement Record Concerning
Prescription Drug Plan Benefits and argued the Court lacks
jurisdiction under the 1993 Settlement Agreement to order further
relief that determines entitlement to benefits, and the Plaintiffs
filed their response to that filing.

In June 2010, the Company filed a separate complaint in the Court
relating to the 1993 Settlement Agreement (the "Retiree Healthcare
Complaint").  In the Retiree Healthcare Complaint, the Company
argues that it has not received the consideration that it was
promised in the 1993 Settlement Agreement, specifically, that the
Company's accumulated postretirement benefit obligation ("APBO")
for health benefits would be permanently reduced to approximately
$1 billion.

The Company, therefore, seeks a declaration from the Court that it
is not required to fund or provide retiree health benefits that
would cause its APBO to exceed the approximate $1 billion amount
provided in the 1993 Settlement Agreement.

The Court has ordered and overseen settlement discussions between
the parties relating to both the Part D Change and the Company's
Complaint.  The briefing on Navistar's appeal of the February 2011
Order has been held in abeyance temporarily during the settlement
discussions.  In July 2011, the Company informed the Court and the
other parties that, given the lack of progress in settlement
discussions, the Company did not intend to continue such
discussions.

On September 2, 2011, the Company filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice regarding the Retiree Healthcare
Complaint.

The Company does not believe that the potential range of loss on
this matter will have a material adverse impact on its
consolidated financial statements.

Navistar International Corporation (NYSE: NAV) --
http://www.Navistar.com/-- is a holding company whose
subsidiaries and affiliates subsidiaries produce International(R)
brand commercial and military trucks, MaxxForce(R) brand diesel
engines, IC Bus(TM) brand school and commercial buses, Monaco RV
brands of recreational vehicles, and Workhorse(R) brand chassis
for motor homes and step vans.  It also is a private-label
designer and manufacturer of diesel engines for the pickup truck,
van and SUV markets.  The company also provides truck and diesel
engine parts and service.  Another affiliate offers financing
services.


QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls 8 Oral Contraceptive Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitest Pharmaceuticals issued a voluntary, nationwide, retail-
level recall of multiple lots of oral contraceptives.  The recall
is being implemented because of a packaging error, where select
blisters were rotated 180 degrees within the card, reversing the
weekly tablet orientation and making the lot number and expiry
date no longer visible.  This packaging error and the potential
for this error to have affected other oral contraceptive products
resulted in the company issuing the recall of multiple lots.

As a result of this packaging error, the daily regimen for these
oral contraceptives may be incorrect and could leave women without
adequate contraception, and at risk for unintended pregnancy.
These packaging defects do not pose any immediate health risks.
However, consumers exposed to affected packaging should begin
using a non-hormonal form of contraception immediately and consult
their health care provider or pharmacist.  Pharmacies are being
instructed to contact consumers who have received affected
product.

Qualitest is dedicated to ensuring the safe and effective use of
its products, including oral contraceptives.  The source of the
error is currently under investigation and the company is
committed to rectifying the issue in a timely manner.

The recall is effective immediately and includes the following
products:

   * Cyclafem(TM) 7/7/7
   * Cyclafem(TM)  1/35
   * Emoquette(TM)
   * Gildess(R) FE 1.5/30
   * Gildess(R) FE 1/20
   * Orsythia(TM)
   * Previfem (R)
   * Tri-Previfem(R)

The affected lot numbers can be found at the following URL:
http://www.qualitestrx.com/pdf/OCRecall.pdf

Doctors, pharmacists or women seeking additional information on
this recall, or consumers who have affected products, should
contact Qualitest toll free at 1-877-300-6153 between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday for
information or to arrange return of any affected product.  The lot
numbers can be found on the bottom of the box or the individual
blister card.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
these products may be reported to Qualitest toll free at 1-877-
300-6153 or to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program
either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Online: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm/

Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm/. Mail to
address on the pre-addressed form.

Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178

                         About Qualitest

Founded in 1983, Qualitest provides affordable, high-quality
generic pharmaceuticals.  Featuring a current portfolio exceeding
600 products, the company has grown significantly since its
inception and is now ranked in the top ten among all suppliers of
generics, based on total prescriptions filled.  Qualitest is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Endo Pharmaceuticals (Nasdaq: ENDP), a
U.S.-based, specialty healthcare solutions company, focused on
high-value branded products, specialty generics and medical
devices and services.  (http://www.endo.com/)


SPI ELECTRICITY: July 2012 Trial Set for Bushfire Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Whitelaw, writing for Banyule & Nillumbik Weekly, reports
that the Black Saturday bushfire class action will be heard next
year, after the Victorian Supreme Court set a trial date for mid-
2012.

At an August 30 hearing, Associate Justice Rita Zammit ordered the
release of 155,000 SPI Electricity documents by February 24.  The
case is set for trial on July 17.

Justice Terry Forrest has already ordered the release of more than
1,700 documents from the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission for
the trial.  More than 900 bushfire victims and their families are
claiming damages for personal injury.

St. Andrews resident Carol Ann Matthews is leading the case
against electricity distributor SPI, which owns powerlines which
the royal commission found caused some of the fires.  SPI
Electricity has denied any allegation of negligence.

Ms. Matthews' 22-year-old son Sam was among the 119 people who
died in the Kilmore bushfire on Black Saturday.

Court documents filed in June show the plaintiffs allege the
Kilmore East-Kinglake fire was started by a powerline owned and
operated by SPI.  The statement of claim alleges SPI failed to
properly inspect and maintain the 43-year-old powerline.

SPI claims Utility Asset Management, a company which inspected
SPI's powerlines, the CFA, Victoria Police and the Department of
Sustainability and Environment contributed to the bushfire.

The next hearing is scheduled for October 14.


WENNER MEDIA: Doing Wireless Spam Activities, Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Hubbard and Marvel Mills, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. Wenner Media LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:11-cv-04648 (N.D.
Calif., September 20, 2011) is brought to stop the Defendant's
practice of making, through its telemarketing agents, unsolicited
text message calls to cellular telephones and inducing sales
through the use of deceptive offers for gift cards contained in
those unsolicited text message calls.  The Plaintiffs also seek to
obtain redress for all persons injured by the Defendant's conduct.

On behalf of themselves and the class, the Plaintiffs seek an
injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all wireless spam
activities and deceptive sales practices, disgorgement of profits,
and an award of statutory and actual damages to the class members,
together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiffs are family members and residents of Contra Costa
County, California.  Ms. Hubbard is the authorized user of the
cellular telephone number that received the alleged offending text
message and Plaintiff Mills is the account holder of the family
wireless plan through which both Plaintiffs receive cellular
telephone service.

Wenner Media is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in New York.  A publisher of several
periodicals circulated nationwide, including Us Weekly, Rolling
Stone and Men's Journal, the Defendant does business throughout
the United States both on its own and through several corporate
subsidiaries, like Rolling Stone, LLC, Us Magazine, LLC, and Us
Weekly, LLC, all of which in addition to the Defendant are
registered to do business in California and operate in this
judicial district, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          Facsimile: (949) 459-2123
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS ALERT: Forum Energy Unit Subject to Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of Forum Energy Technologies, Inc.'s subsidiaries has been
named as one of many defendants in a number of product liability
claims for alleged exposure to asbestos, according to a Company
report, on Form S-1, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Sept. 1, 2011.

These lawsuits are typically filed on behalf of plaintiffs who
allege exposure to some asbestos, against numerous defendants,
often 40 or more, who may have manufactured or distributed
products containing asbestos.

The injuries alleged by plaintiffs in these cases range from
mesothelioma to other cancers to asbestosis.  The earliest claims
against the Company's subsidiary were filed in New Jersey in 1998,
and the subsidiary currently has active cases in Missouri, New
Jersey, New York and Illinois.

The product line with asbestos exposure was acquired by the
Company's subsidiary in 1986.  The subsidiary has been successful
in obtaining dismissals in most lawsuits where the exposure is
alleged to have occurred prior to its acquisition of the product
line.

The Company currently has about 135 lawsuits pending against this
subsidiary.  The subsidiary has over US$17 million in face amount
of per occurrence and over US$23 million of aggregate primary
insurance coverage.  In addition, the subsidiary has over US$950
million in face amount of excess coverage applicable to the
claims.

In February 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with seven
of its primary insurers under which they have agreed to pay 80% of
the costs of handling or settling each claim against the affected
subsidiary.  After an initial period, and under certain
circumstances, the subsidiary and the subscribing underwriters may
withdraw from this agreement.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Forum Energy Technologies, Inc.
920 Memorial City Way, Suite 800
Houston, Tex. 77024
Phone Number: (281) 949-2500

Description:
The Company is a global oilfield products company, serving the
subsea, drilling, completion, production and process sectors of
the oil and natural gas industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Comm'l. Has 5 Hilco Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, as of June 30, 2011, there
existed five plaintiffs in lawsuits relating to alleged sales of
asbestos products, or products containing asbestos, by the
predecessor of its Universal Supply Group, Inc. subsidiary --
Hilco, Inc.

The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have
been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County)
by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos.
The Company never sold any asbestos related products.

Of the existing plaintiffs as of June 30, 2011, one filed an
action in 2011 and four filed actions in 2010.

There are 209 other plaintiffs that have had their actions
dismissed and 16 other plaintiffs that have settled as of June 30,
2011 for a total of US$3,361,500.  There has been no judgment
against Hilco.

Headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp.
distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment
(HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems,
appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies,
primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of
eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Group Faces 1 Claim at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, following dismissed and
settled asbestos actions, there exists one plaintiff that named
subsidiary Universal Supply Group, Inc. as of June 30, 2011.

Universal was named by 37 plaintiffs; of these, one filed an
action in 2010, 11 filed actions in 2007, six filed actions in
2006, 11 filed actions in 2005, five filed actions in 2001, one
filed an action in 2000, and two filed actions in 1999.

Thirty-three plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions
dismissed and, of the total US$3,361,500 of settled actions, three
plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$27,500. No money
was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement.

Based on advice of counsel, the Company said it believes that none
of the litigation that was brought against the Company's Universal
subsidiary through June 30, 2011, is material, and that the only
material litigation that was brought against Hilco, Inc.
(Universal's predecessor) through that date was Rhodes v. A.O.
Smith Corporation, filed on April 26, 2004 in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket Number MID-
L-2979-04AS.

The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for
US$3,250,000 under an agreement reached in connection with a
US$10 million jury verdict that was rendered on Aug. 5, 2005.
The Company was not a defendant in the Rhodes case.

Headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp.
distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment
(HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems,
appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies,
primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of
eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Records $38.2MM June 30 Adjustment
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE's asbestos adjustments resulting from
the effect of foreign exchange movements were unfavorable
adjustments of US$38.2 million during the quarter ended June 30,
2011, compared with favorable adjustments of US$63.1 million
during the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The Company's asbestos adjustments are derived from an estimate of
future Australian asbestos-related liabilities in accordance with
the Amended and Restated Final Funding Agreement (AFFA) that was
signed with the New South Wales (NSW) Government in November 2006
and approved by the Company's security holders in February 2007.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, James Hardie Industries SE uses
cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create products for
residential and commercial construction, including siding
(Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Posts $115.4MM June 30 Current Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE's current asbestos liability amounted
to US$115.4 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$111.1
million as of March 31, 2011.

Current asbestos-related restricted cash and cash equivalents were
US$41.5 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$56.1 million
as of March 31, 2011.

Current asbestos-related restricted short-term investments were
US$6 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$5.8 million as
of March 31, 2011.

Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$14.3 million as of
June 30, 2011, compared with US$13.7 million as of March 31, 2011.

Current asbestos-related workers' compensation was US$400,000 as
of June 30, 2011, compared with US$300,000 as of March 31, 2011.
Current asbestos-related deferred income taxes were US$12.1
million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$10.5 million as of
March 31, 2011.

Long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$185.1 million as of
June 30, 2011, compared with US$188.6 million as of March 31,
2011.

Long-term asbestos workers' compensation was US$94 million as of
March 31, 2011, compared with US$90.4 million as of March 31,
2011.  Long-term asbestos-related deferred income taxes were
US$30.4 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$32.6 million
as of March 31, 2011.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, James Hardie Industries SE uses
cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create products for
residential and commercial construction, including siding
(Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Has 556 Pending Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE faced 556 open asbestos-related claims
during the three months ended June 30, 2011, compared with 564
claims during the year ended March 31, 2011.

During the three months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
101 new claims and 109 closed claims.  The average settlement
amount per settled claim was US$185,182 and the average settlement
amount per case closed was US$183,482.

During the year ended March 31, 2011, the Company recorded 494 new
claims and 459 closed claims.  The average settlement amount per
settled claim was US$193,090 and the average settlement amount per
case closed was US$163,642.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, James Hardie Industries SE uses
cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create products for
residential and commercial construction, including siding
(Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Holdings Subject to A&E Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation is subject to various legal and
governmental proceedings, some involving environmental and
asbestos exposure allegations and other consumer-based claims.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 18, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Ill., Sears Holdings Corporation
is a broadline retailer with 2,188 full-line and 1,370 specialty
retail stores in the United States, operating through Kmart and
Sears, and 495 full-line and specialty retail stores in Canada
operating through Sears Canada Inc., a 94%-owned subsidiary.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Corp. Still Subject to Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, Harris Corporation faces product liability
lawsuits related to the prior sale or use of products containing
asbestos or other restricted materials.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed on Aug. 29, 2011 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Melbourne, Fla., Harris Corporation is an
international communications and information technology company
serving government and commercial markets in more than 150
countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Still Named in Liability Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc. has been named, along with multiple other
defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business
operations it previously acquired, but which are no longer owned.

During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or
sold asbestos-containing products.

The Company also filed claims in the Federal-Mogul bankruptcy
proceedings to recover attorney's fees for the defense of
asbestos-related claims.  In May 2007, the Company entered into a
settlement agreement with Federal Mogul under which the Company
was entitled to receive amounts from a settlement trust
established under Federal-Mogul's reorganization plan and funded
by insurance proceeds.

The Company was entitled to receive 15% of the first US$20 million
and 10% of the next US$25 million of insurance proceeds, up to a
maximum of US$5.5 million, in exchange for withdrawing its
bankruptcy claims and objections to the reorganization plan and
execution of certain releases.

In January 2009, the Company received a payment of US$1 million
under the settlement agreement, which brought the total proceeds
received under the settlement agreement to US$5.5 million, the
maximum amount to which the Company was entitled.

The consolidated statements of operations include US$500,000 of
income from the settlement trust in results of discontinued
operations for fiscal year 2009.

Several insurance carriers filed a declaratory judgment action
relating to insurance coverage for such previously acquired
businesses, seeking a determination that no coverage is available
under the policies.  Federal-Mogul, the Company and other
defendants filed responsive pleadings and motions relating to the
case, and the court granted the motions to stay the declaratory
judgment action.

Some of these insurers appealed such ruling but the ruling was
upheld on appeal in November 2008.

Headquartered in Menomonee Falls, Wis., Magnetek, Inc. provides
digital power control systems that are used to control motion and
power primarily in material handling, elevator, and energy
delivery applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Involved in Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation is subject to various unresolved
legal actions that typically relate to product liability
(including asbestos-related liability), patent and trademark
matters, and disputes with customers, suppliers, distributors and
dealers, competitors and employees.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed on Sept. 1, 2011 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Wauwatosa, Wis., Briggs & Stratton Corporation
produces air cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment.
The Company designs, manufactures, markets and services these
products for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Receives 48 New Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Met-Pro Corporation says that for the six-months ended July 31,
2011, and through Sept. 1, 2011, 48 new asbestos-related cases
were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from
12 cases and settled one case, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Sept. 1, 2011 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As of 2, 2011, about 118 asbestos cases remain pending against the
Company, with a majority of those cases pending in New York, West
Virginia, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Mississippi.  (Class
Action Reporter, July 1, 2011)

Beginning in 2002, the Company began to be named in asbestos-
related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial
companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid
handling industries.

The Company said it believes the complaints typically have been
vague, general and speculative, alleging that the Company, along
with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-
containing products and engaged in other related actions which
caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs.

Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more
serious claims of mesothelioma.  The sum total of all payments
through Sept. 1, 2011 to settle cases involving asbestos-related
claims was US$626,500, all of which have been paid by the
Company's insurers including legal expenses, except for corporate
counsel expenses, with an average cost per settled claim,
excluding legal fees, of about US$31,325.

For the six-months ended July 31, 2011 and through Sept. 1, 2011,
the date of the filing, there were a total of 128 cases pending
against the Company (with New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia
having the largest number of cases and being the most active
jurisdictions), as compared with 93 cases that were pending as of
March 17, 2011, the date which the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2011 was filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early
stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules
leading to, or are scheduled for trial.

On April 27, 2011, a liquidation order was entered against
Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, who had been providing defense
and indemnity to the Company, and its affiliate, Centennial
Insurance Company, who provided umbrella coverage to the Company.

Headquartered in Harleysville, Pa., Met-Pro Corporation's product
recovery and pollution-control segment makes products ranging from
particle collectors (used in food preparation) to fans and blowers
(used in semiconductor manufacturing).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Still Subject to Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company continues to be subject to various unresolved
legal actions, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including asbestos related liability), retail credit,
software licensing, patent and trademark matters.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed on Sept. 1, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Moline, Ill., Deere & Company's equipment
operations generate revenues and cash primarily from the sale of
equipment to John Deere dealers and distributors.  The equipment
operations manufacture and distribute agricultural equipment;
commercial, consumer and landscapes equipment and products; and
equipment for construction and forestry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ICI Worker's Death Linked to Exposure to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Huddersfield Coroners' Court, on Sept. 7, 2011, ruled that the
death of 69-year-old Christopher Goodwin, a former employee of
chemical company ICI, was linked to workplace exposure to
asbestos, the Huddersfield Daily Examiner reports.

Mr. Goodwin, of Lindley, West Yorkshire, England, died from
mesothelioma on June 14, 2011.

The Court heard that Mr. Goodwin had been exposed to asbestos dust
while working for ICI on Leeds Road in the 1960s and 1970s.  He
also inhaled the asbestos while working at Huddersfield power
station from 1965 to 1968.

Acting coroner Prof. Paul Marks ruled that Mr. Goodwin died of
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peirce, Lumbermens Mutual Settled Defense Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Peirce, Esq., an attorney from Pittsburgh, and Lumbermens
Mutual Casualty Company, on Aug. 18, 2011, settled an asbestos-
related dispute over payment for his defense against fraud and
racketeering claims of CSX Transportation, The West Virginia
Record reports.

On Aug. 18, 2011, U.S. Senior Judge Frederick Stamp granted a
joint motion to dismiss their claims and counterclaims.  Judge
Stamp still presides over the underlying case, in which CSX claims
Mr. Peirce and radiologist Ray Harron of Bridgeport fabricated
evidence for asbestos suits.

Lumbermens sued Mr. Peirce and his firm in federal court at
Pittsburgh in 2008, seeking a declaration that Mr. Peirce's policy
did cover the CSX action.  The policy relieved Lumbermens of any
obligation to pay a court judgment establishing that Mr. Peirce
committed an illegal, dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious
act.

District Judge Donetta Ambrose transferred the case to Stamp.  Mr.
Peirce filed a counterclaim, alleging Lumbermens provided
inadequate counsel.  He argued that the insurer's choice, Robert
Lockhart, Esq., of Pittsburgh, worked in a firm of two lawyers.

Mr. Peirce claimed he provided a defense for employee Robert
Gilkison because Lumbermens refused to provide it.

Stamp granted summary judgment against CSX in the underlying case
in 2009, and CSX appealed to the Fourth Circuit in Richmond,
Virginia.

Judge stayed the Lumbermens action pending Fourth Circuit review.
In 2010, the Fourth Circuit ordered Stamp to reopen the CSX case
and allow the railroad to amend its complaint.

Judge Stamp has not granted leave for the new complaint, which
would not include Mr. Gilkison.  The Lumbermens action resumed,
and Mr. Peirce renewed his counterclaim this March 2011.

For Lumbermens, Louis Long, Esq., and Jeanette Ho, Esq., of
Pittsburgh responded that Mr. Peirce had no complaint about
Lockhart's abilities or the services he provided.  They wrote that
Mr. Peirce voluntarily paid for Mr. Gilkison's defense.  The case
then turned quiet, as Mr. Peirce and Lumbermens resolved it on
their own.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aranda Case v. Atlantic Richfield Filed in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patsy Aranda and her children, on behalf of Augustine Aranda Sr.,
filed an asbestos lawsuit on Aug. 31, 2011, against Atlantic
Richfield and two other companies in Jefferson County District
Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Beazer East Inc. and BP Products North America are also named as
defendants.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Aranda was previously employed by
Atlantic Richfield, where was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers.
The suit does not give dates of employment.  The suit states, "As
a result of such exposure, Aranda developed . . . asbestosis and
lung cancer, for which he died a painful and terrible death on
Nov. 13, 2010."

The Aranda family is suing for exemplary damages.  Attorney Keith
Hyde, Esq., of the Beaumont law firm Provost Umphrey represents
them.

Judge Bob Wortham, 58th District Court, has been assigned to Case
No. A190-778.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grantham Firm, SKDC Fined for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belton Developments, a building contractor from Grantham,
Lincolnshire, England, and South Kesteven District Council have
been fined after a spread of asbestos during bathroom renovation
work at a flat in the town, according to a Health and Safety
Executive press release dated Sept. 7, 2011.

The HSE brought the prosecution after workers from Belton
Developments disturbed asbestos at the property in Kinoulton
Court, owned by SKDC, on March 30, 2011, while converting a
bathroom into a wet room.

The workers removed asbestos insulation board from around the bath
and then carried it through the flat and communal areas of the
housing complex in an open wheelbarrow before loading it into an
open-topped van.

The dangerous work was spotted by an asbestos surveyor working on
behalf of the council in the flat above.  He was aware that many
of the flats in the complex contained asbestos and stopped the men
working.  A licensed asbestos contractor was brought in to
decontaminate the area and carry out air clearance tests.

The incident was reported to HSE by the council which, together
with the three partners in Belton Developments, was prosecuted by
Grantham magistrates on Sept. 7, 2011.

HSE told Grantham Magistrates' Court the council had failed to
provide adequate information on asbestos in the property to Belton
Developments before work began, and failed to ensure that Belton
Developments were competent to carry out work with asbestos.

The three partners had failed to prevent the spread of asbestos or
ensure that their employees were properly trained to deal with it.

The court was also told that the partners of Belton Developments
had been served a Prohibition Notice preventing refurbishment work
at a property in Manners Street on March 18, 2010, which was also
an SKDC-owned building, as a suitable asbestos refurbishment and
demolition survey had not been undertaken.

South Kesteven District Council pleaded guilty to breaching
regulations 4(1)(a) and 10(1)(b) of the Construction Design and
Management Regulations 2007.  They were fined a total of GBP16,600
and ordered to pay costs of GBP3,486.

Trevor Hague, of South Hycombe Road, Albourne, Lincolnshire, his
son Neil Hague, of Holmfield Avenue, Arnold, Nottingham, and David
Couth, of West Willoughby, Grantham, each pleaded guilty to
breaching regulations 10(1)(a) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2006.  They were fined a total of GBP3,003 and
ordered to pay costs of GBP900.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Birmingham Council Sentenced for Safety Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Birmingham City Council and Solihull Supplies Ltd, a refurbishment
firm from Lodge Road, Knowle, Solihull, England, have been
sentenced for exposing three men to asbestos during work at
William Cowper Community Primary School, Newton, Birmingham,
according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated
Sept. 5, 2011.

Solihull Supplies was contracted by the council to refurbish the
reception area at the school.  Solihull Supplies then sub-
contracted another firm to remove ceiling tiles at the school
without carrying out a proper risk assessment.

Birmingham Magistrates' Court heard that on July 24, 2009, two
workers from the firm, which cannot be named as legal proceedings
are still ongoing, were tasked with stripping out tiles from seven
rooms being refurbished.

However, an HSE investigation found the tiles contained brown
asbestos and the work lasted several hours, exposing both workers
and the school caretaker to asbestos.  Also, rather than use a
cleaner with a specialized filter, an ordinary vacuum cleaner was
used which would have spread fibers into the air.

HSE told the court the subcontracted firm did not have a license
to undertake work with asbestos, had no knowledge of how to deal
with asbestos and had given its employees no training in dealing
with this dangerous substance.

Birmingham City Council, of Victoria Square, Birmingham, pleaded
guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and
Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined GBP5,000 and ordered to
pay GBP1,091 costs.

Solihull Supplies Ltd, of Lodge Road, Knowle, Solihull, pleaded
guilty to breaching Regulation 6(1)(a) of the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2006 and was fined GBP1,750 and ordered to pay
GBP1,091 costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Seeking Free 4,000-Hour Training Initiative
----------------------------------------------------------------
A poignant target of 4,000 hours of free asbestos awareness
training has been set in a new initiative to help tradesmen across
the United Kingdom protect themselves from asbestos, according to
a Health and Safety Executive press release dated Sept. 5, 2011.

The HSE, in partnership with the training industry, is calling for
those who run training course to pledge free hours during
September 2011 to hit a target of 4,000 -- the approximate number
of deaths each year from asbestos-related diseases.

It is hoped that 4,000 face-to-face training hours and an
additional 4,000 hours of online training will be offered up by
various providers.

The free training will be available throughout October 2011 and
November 2011 and is aimed at tradesmen like joiners, electricians
and plumbers who are most likely to disturb the fibers as they go
about their work -- around 20 a week lose their lives to asbestos-
related diseases.

Said Karen Clayton, HSE's director for long latency health risks,
"Our Hidden Killer campaign is helping tradesmen understand the
lifesaving fact that asbestos exposure is not just an historical
problem -- around half a million public buildings still contain
it.

"This new initiative, a continuation of the campaign, is all about
tradesmen finding out exactly what they need to do to protect
themselves by taking advantage of free training.

"There is sadly little we can do to help those who are already
suffering the often fatal effects of asbestos exposure in the
workplace, but we can prevent this hidden killer claiming another
generation."

Across Britain, more than 40,000 people have died from the
asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma since the late 1960s -- and
the numbers dying are increasing.  Latest annual figures show that
2,249 people died from the disease in 2008 alone, up over three
per cent on the previous year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyler Action v. 41 Firms Filed July 29 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Paul Tyler, on July 29, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit
against 41 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, Mr. Tyler was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in April 2011.  He claims he was exposed to asbestos
and/or asbestos-containing products during his employment as a
pipefitter and automotive repair person from the 1940s until the
1970s.

Mr. Tyler and his wife, Imogene Watts Tyler, seek a jury trial to
resolve all issues involved.  They are being represented by
Victoria Antion, Esq., John Hurst, Esq., and Scott A. McGee, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-1249 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Dismisses Asbestos Charges in Dias Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salem Superior Court Judge Howard Whitehead, on Sept. 6, 2011,
dismissed some of the charges in an asbestos lawsuit involving
44-year-old Luis Dias, The Salem News reports.

Judge Whitehead dismissed charges against David Harder Jr. and
Julie Rosati, the owners of an unlicensed asbestos removal
business who were hired for projects at Marblehead's Village
School and at the former Mayflower Hotel in Beverly.

Judge Whitehead also dismissed all charges against Mr. Dias, an
employee of the firm from Pelham, N.H., accused of falsely signing
statements attesting to the origin of some of the asbestos.

Mr. Harder and Ms. Rosati, who called their unlicensed business
AEI Environmental, still face a long list of charges, after
investigators learned that the pair were storing asbestos in bags
inside a locker at a Route 1 self-storage facility.

However, Judge Whitehead dismissed charges against Mr. Dias,
arising from Mr. Dias' signature on documents stating the source
of the asbestos.

Mr. Dias, who testified before the grand jury, said he was told
that most of the bags of asbestos, about 280, came from Village
School and that about 30 others came from a separate removal
project at the former Mayflower Hotel on Cabot Street in Beverly.

The business was hired to perform work at the Mayflower in 2009
and at Village School in 2010.  They also did projects at Tedesco
Country Club in Marblehead and at a number of public buildings in
Lynn.

Prosecutors alleged that Mr. Dias did not know for sure where the
asbestos came from when he signed the documents, which are
required by law so that environmental agencies can keep track of
the cancer-causing material, and so should not have signed them.

However, Mr. Dias' attorney, Joseph Collins, Esq., argued that the
state has no evidence that the materials were not from those
projects and said they showed no intent on the part of Mr. Dias to
deceive anyone.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kingston Council OKs More Funding for Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 6, 2011, the Common Council of Kingston, N.Y., amid
controversy on the alleged theft of copper piping from the King's
Inn building in midtown Kingston, voted to authorize the bonding
of US$200,000 in order to cover additional costs incurred from
contract work for asbestos removal preformed at the property, Mid-
Hudson News Network reports.

Kingston owns the land as the result of the former owner failing
to pay property taxes.  There was a large public turnout at the
council session with a number of residents calling on members of
the council for more accountability and oversight on the issue.

Alderwoman Andi Turco-Levin cast the sole negative vote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ala. Lawyer's Secretary Charged for Embezzling
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to a lawsuit filed in Mobile County Circuit Court in
Mobile, Ala. -- 48-year-old Susan Miller Pack, a former assistant
to Saraland, Ala., lawyer Johnny Lane, Esq. -- embezzled about
US$258,000 in legal settlements intended for the families of
asbestos victims, the Press-Register reports.

The suit accuses Ms. Pack of forging signatures on victims'
settlement checks and depositing the money into the law firms
trust account before siphoning away the cash for her own use.

Representing the families, Bryan Comer, Esq., said, "This is a
terrible situation.  Not only have our clients lost their loved
ones, but also, due to the unfortunate actions of the defendants,
they have been defrauded as well."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marco City Official Files Libel, Slander Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rony Joel, the former Marco Island, Fla., public works director is
suing Mario Sanchez, one of his most vocal critics, alleging Mr.
Sanchez's complaints on television and on a news Web site cost him
his new job as director of the Lee County Department of
Transportation this summer, the Naples Daily News reports.

Mr. Joel is suing Mr. Sanchez, a computer science professor,
alleging slander, libel and interference with a business
relationship.  Mr. Joel seeks more than US$15,000 in damages, as
well as a court order that would prevent Mr. Sanchez from
"committing any further acts of libel or slander against" Mr.
Joel.

Among the statements Mr. Joel considers egregious, according to
the lawsuit:

-- That Mr. Joel ordered workers to dig up Marco Island's
   concrete water pipes "containing cancer causing asbestos,
   causing harm to the public."

-- That Mr. Joel used "a machine to somehow wrongly crush pipes,
   causing harm to the public."

-- That because of Mr. Joel's actions, the Environmental
   Protection Agency cited Marco Island.

As a result of those allegations, which appeared on television and
the news Web site, Mr. Joel's suit alleges he lost his job as
director of the Lee County Department of Transportation.  Mr. Joel
was let go from his new job the first day he reported to work.

The basis for Mr. Joel's lawsuit comes from an issue that began in
October 2005, when a crushed asbestos pipe was found in Veterans
Community Park.  That discovery prompted allegations against the
city and Quality Enterprises, the contractor hired by the city to
complete the Collier Boulevard Reconstruction Project.

City officials disputed the allegations, accusing the residents of
planting asbestos to derail the project.

When the allegations surfaced, Mr. Sanchez and other residents
collected and reported evidence to support their contentions that
Marco's underground water, which contains hydrogen sulfide, was
pumped into canals to make way for construction of the island's
Septic Tank Replacement Program.

The Collier County Health Department investigated the health
concerns that residents raised in relation to the construction on
Collier Boulevard as well as the Septic Tank Replacement Program,
which began in 2005.  The department found that the city had all
appropriate health and safety measures in place.

In March 2006, Citizens Advocating Responsible Environmental
Solutions (CARES), a former political action committee, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court over the asbestos allegations.
That lawsuit, which accused the city of violating the federal
Clean Air Act, ended in a settlement agreement in October 2006
that required Quality Enterprises to pay for the proper removal
and disposal of the asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yuba County Worker's Case Ongoing in Sacramento
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Billy Winden Sr., a former
maintenance worker for Yuba County, Calif., is ongoing in
Sacramento, Calif., the Appeal-Democrat reports.

The federal suit, filed by attorney David Collins, Esq., on behalf
of Mr. Wilden, seeks lost wages as a result of Mr. Wilden's
termination in June 2010 as well as punitive damages and other
costs.

In June 2009, according to the suit, a contractor working with the
county told the county's Administrative Services Office about
asbestos insulation around pipes in the courthouse's boiler room.

After another employee told Mr. Wilden about being asked to remove
the asbestos without proper training, Mr. Wilden raised the issue
with other administrative services staff.  When the official who
had ordered the asbestos removal found out, he began a pattern of
harassment against Mr. Wilden, according to the suit.

In September 2009, Mr. Wilden informed the California division of
Occupational Safety and Health about the asbestos problems,
leading to a series of Cal-OSHA fines in January 2010 against the
county totaling US$11,500.

Copies of the fine notices included with the suit list five of the
violations, with US$2,000 fines each, as serious, though they note
the violations were corrected.

The suit states Mr. Wilden was laid off as of July 1, 2010, with
county officials giving budget cuts as the reason.  Yuba County
issued 22 layoff notices in June 2010.  The county, the
Administrative Services Office and several officials in the office
are listed as defendants in the suit.

Yuba County spokesman Russ Brown said the county would have no
comment on pending litigation, citing county policy.  Mr. Collins
said the recently-filed lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in
Sacramento, has not yet been served to all parties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Enters Judgment in Continental Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York,
issued rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Continental
Casualty Company, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents v.
Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, et al., Defendants-
Respondents-Appellants, Robert A. Keasbey Company, a corporation
dissolved in 2001, Defendant.

The Court entered judgment in the case on June 2, 2011.

After a nonjury trial resulting in findings of fact and
conclusions of law, dated Oct. 14, 2008, as amended Nov. 24, 2008
and Dec. 5, 2008, declaring:

-- That plaintiffs Continental Casualty Company and American
   Casualty Company of Reading, Pa. (collectively, CNA),
   defendant Employers Insurance Company of Wausau and defendant
   Employers Liability Assurance Company n/k/a OneBeacon America
   Insurance Company each had and has an equal duty to defend
   defendant Robert A. Keasbey Company in past and future
   asbestos-related personal injury actions against Keasbey from
   the commencement of each asbestos action until it is
   established that the asbestos exposure alleged therein did
   not occur at a work site or within a time period covered by
   the insurer's policy,

-- That CNA was entitled to be reimbursed by OneBeacon for one
   quarter of the cost of defending Keasbey in the asbestos
   actions to the date of judgment, and

-- That indemnity obligations with respect to each asbestos
   action are to be allocated pro rata to each year of asbestos
   exposure at a given site, with each insurer obligated to pay
   for years and sites within its coverage and with any
   OneBeacon coverage to be deemed primary to any CNA or Wausau
   coverage, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts,
   without costs, the judgment vacated, Supreme Court's findings
   of fact reversed to the extent inconsistent herewith and new
   findings substituted.

It was declared that Keasbey -- which ceased operating in the mid-
1990s and was dissolved in 2001 -- installed asbestos insulation
at numerous sites in the tri-state area over many years.  Wausau
issued Keasbey two successive primary comprehensive general
liability (CGL) policies covering the period from February 1968 to
February 1970, and CNA issued Keasbey 17 successive primary CGL
policies covering the period from February 1970 to February 1987.
None of the foregoing CNA and Wausau policies contains an asbestos
exclusion.

Although Keasbey never purchased a policy directly from OneBeacon,
it was covered by two "wrap-up" policies issued by OneBeacon, each
of which provided liability coverage to all contractors on a
specified construction project at the Indian Point Nuclear Power
Plant for claims arising from work on that project during the
policy period.

During the periods of these policies, Keasbey installed asbestos-
containing insulation in the turbines at Unit 2 and Unit 3 at
Indian Point, which in each case involved approximately two months
of work.  Each of the foregoing OneBeacon policies provides that
it "applies only to work performed at the [specified] project."

Under its policies' products/completed operations coverage, CNA
began defending Keasbey in asbestos actions in the 1970s.  This
coverage under Keasbey's primary CNA policies was exhausted by
1992, as was similar coverage under the Wausau policies and all
other primary policies.  CNA continued to defend Keasbey as an
excess insurer until August 2000, when it believed its excess
coverage had been exhausted.

The claimants' assertion that their claims fell within CNA's
operations coverage prompted CNA to undertake a review of
Keasbey's records to determine whether any other primary coverage
was available.  Since the 1980s, those records had been in the
possession of the law firm CNA had retained to defend Keasbey in
the asbestos cases.

In February 2003, CNA found evidence in Keasbey's records that
Keasbey was covered by the aforementioned OneBeacon wrap-up
policies.  By letter dated Feb. 24, 2003, CNA notified OneBeacon
of an asbestos action brought by a claimant (Michael O'Reilly)
allegedly exposed to asbestos while working at Indian Point from
1968 to 1975, and tendering the defense of the case to OneBeacon.

In April 2003, CNA commenced the present declaratory judgment
action (superseding the action commenced in October 2001), naming
as defendants (in addition to the personal injury claimants, who
have been certified as a class) OneBeacon and Wausau. CNA's
complaint sough a judgment declaring:

-- That Keasbey's potential asbestos liability falls under the
   exhausted products/completed operations coverage of the CNA
   policies (not the operations coverage),

-- That OneBeacon was obligated to assume Keasbey's defense in
   present and future asbestos actions, and

-- That OneBeacon was obligated to reimburse CAN for the amounts
   the latter has spent on Keasbey's defense in asbestos actions
   since March 1, 2003 (after the Feb. 24, 2003 letter).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Summary Judgment Affirmed in Rabatin Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the ruling of the Court
of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Civil Division, which granted
summary judgment in favor of General Electric Company, in an
asbestos case filed by Ernest G. Rabatin for Scot W. Cameron.

Judges Donohue, Bowes, and Shogan entered judgment in Case No.
1140 WDA 2010 on June 3, 2011.

On April 28, 2009, Mr. Cameron filed a Complaint in Civil Action
to commence this personal injury lawsuit. In his Complaint, he
alleged that he worked at United States Steel Corporation, Edgar
Thompson Works, as a manager in the power and fuel department from
1974 through 1982.

Mr. Cameron further alleged that during this employment, he was
exposed to and inhaled asbestos dust and asbestos fibers, and that
as a result, on Feb. 20, 2009, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
At his subsequent deposition, he testified that while working at
the No. 2 Powerhouse at the Edgar Thompson Works, he was exposed
to turbines containing asbestos insulation that were manufactured
by GE.

Mr. Cameron further testified that he participated in the repair
and replacement of block type insulation in the GE-manufactured
turbines.

On Dec. 1, 2009, GE filed a motion for summary judgment based upon
a lack of product identification.  On Feb. 22, 2010, the trial
court denied GE's motion for summary judgment "as to turbines
exposure."  On Feb. 9, 2010, GE filed a second motion for summary
judgment. On April 6, 2010, the trial court granted GE's second
motion for summary judgment.  On April 12, 2010, Mr. Cameron filed
a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied on
April 19, 2010.

On May 25, 2010, Mr. Cameron died and Mr. Rabatin, his executor,
was substituted as the plaintiff.  On June 15, 2010, the trial
court entered a final order stating that "all claims in, and all
parties to, this action are disposed of."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Kaiser Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California,
reversed the ruling of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
in a case involving asbestos styled Kaiser Cement and Gypsum
Corporation, Cross-complainant and Respondent v. Insurance Company
of the State of Pennsylvania, Cross-defendant and Appellant; Truck
Insurance Exchange, Plaintiff and Respondent.

Judges Suzukawa, Willhite, and Manella entered judgment in Case
No. B222310 on June 3, 2011.

The Court had considered whether thousands of asbestos bodily
injury claims brought against Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation
constituted a single annual "occurrence" within the meaning of
comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies issued by
respondent Truck Insurance Exchange (Truck).

The present appeal concerned a separate but related coverage
issue, which arose in part out of the Supreme Court's seminal
decision in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co.  In
Montrose, the court adopted a "'continuous injury' trigger of
coverage" approach to continuing injury claims.  Under that
approach, bodily injuries and property damage that occur in
several insurance policy periods are potentially covered by all
policies in effect during those periods.

Between 1947 and 1987, Kaiser purchased primary insurance policies
from four different insurers, including Truck.  During many of the
same years, Kaiser also purchased excess insurance policies.  For
purposes of this litigation, Kaiser had selected the Truck CGL
policy in effect in 1974 (the 1974 primary policy), which has a
US$500,000 per occurrence limit and no annual liability limit, to
respond initially to all claims that allege asbestos exposure in
that year.

At issue here is who was responsible to indemnify Kaiser for
asbestos claims that exceed the 1974 primary policy's US$500,000
per occurrence limit.  Kaiser and Truck contend that appellant
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSOP), which
issued a first-level excess policy to Kaiser for 1974 (the 1974
excess policy), is responsible to pay claims over US$500,000.

The Court cannot affirm the grant of summary adjudication. To
grant summary adjudication for Kaiser, the trial court necessarily
found that there were no triable issues of fact as to either
Truck's maximum exposure under its policies or ICSOP's present
duty to indemnify Kaiser for claims over US$500,000.  That was
error, because there is no evidence in the record as to whether
the policies issued to Kaiser by primary insurers other than Truck
had been fully exhausted.  The Company therefore cannot determine
whether ICSOP had a present duty to indemnify Kaiser.
Accordingly, the Court reversed the grant of summary adjudication
and entry of judgment for Kaiser and against ICSOP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Inc. Still Named in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. and its subsidiaries are still involved in various
unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course of
operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability -- including over 1,000 asbestos and silica-related
cases -- employment, and commercial matters.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed on Sept. 7, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wis., Joy Global Inc. provides high
productivity mining solutions and manufactures and markets
original equipment and aftermarket parts and services for both
underground and surface mining and certain industrial
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. C. Penney Has $29MM A&E Liability at July 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc., as of July 30, 2011, estimated its
total potential asbestos and environmental liabilities to range
from US$29 million to US$35 million and recorded its best estimate
of $29 million in other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance
Sheet as of that date.

This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily related to
underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental conditions
involving the Company's former drugstore locations and asbestos
removal in connection with approved plans to renovate or dispose
of the Company's facilities.

As of April 30, 2011, the Company estimated its total potential
A&E liabilities to range from US$35 million to US$42 million and
recorded its best estimate of US$36 million in other liabilities
in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of that date.  (Class Action
Reporter, July 1, 2011)

Headquartered in Plano, Tex., J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is a
holding company for department store operator J. C. Penney
Corporation, one of the largest department store, catalog, and
e-commerce retailers in the U.S. with more than 1,100 JCPenney
department stores in 49 states and Puerto Rico.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Along with other vehicle manufacturers, Navistar International
Corporation has been subject to an increase in the number of
asbestos-related claims in recent years.

In general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have
resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in
older vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence
of asbestos in the Company's facilities.

In these claims, the Company is not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos.

Headquartered in Warrenville, Ill., Navistar International
Corporation is a holding company whose principal operating
subsidiaries are Navistar, Inc. and Navistar Financial
Corporation.  The Company operates in four principal industry
segments: Truck, Engine, Parts, and Financial Services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deleon Sent to Prison for Abatement Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albania Deleon, who had owned the largest asbestos abatement
training school in the United States, was sent to prison on
Sept. 13, 2011, having been charged with providing false asbestos
abatement licenses for untrained workers who then went out into
the workplace to perform asbestos removal without following proper
procedures, Mesothelioma.com reports.

Ms. Deleon, formerly of Andover, Mass., had been convicted of the
crime at a trial that took place in November 2008, but then she
fled the country.  At her trial, she was sentenced to 87 months in
prison followed by three years of supervised released.

Ms. Deleon was also instructed to pay US$1.2 million in
restitution to the IRS and US$369,015 to AIM Mutual Insurance
Company.  She is one of five environmental criminals from the
EPA's fugitive list that has been captured since late 2008, when
the agency launched a fugitive Web site.

Ms. Deleon was charged with selling training certificates to
illegal aliens who had not taken the four-day mandatory safe
asbestos removal course offered by her school, Environmental
Compliance Training (ECT).

The holders of the false certificates then filed with the
Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety for authorization to
be employed in the asbestos removal industry, putting countless
thousands of area residents at risk of inhaling asbestos due to
improper abatement of the material.

Ms. Deleon operated the school for five years during which time
about 2,000 illegal aliens were granted the certificates.  Because
inspections of the school by area agencies occurred on a regular
basis, she produced completed and graded final exam papers and had
the so-called applicants sign them in case any questions arose
about their validity.

Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said, "Today's sentence
marks the final chapter in bringing Albania Deleon to justice.
Committing environmental crimes to make a profit that put workers
and our communities at risk carry serious consequences."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Appeal Court Cancels Wylder Oral Arguments
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth District Appellate Court, on Aug. 23, 2011, cancelled
Bloomington, Ill.-based James Wylder's Sept. 8, 2011 hearing date
regarding an asbestos conspiracy case, The Madison/St. Clair
Record reports.

Clerk Carla Bender vacated the Sept. 8, 2011 setting in a
consolidated appeal of three McLean County jury verdicts against
Honeywell International Inc.

Fourth District judges Thomas Appleton, John McCullough and John
Turner exploded Mr. Wylder's theory in July 2011, reversing a
verdict against Honeywell and Pneumo-Abex.  They discounted
testimony of expert witness Barry Castleman, who told jurors that
companies conspired to hide the dangers of asbestos 50 to 100
years ago.

The decision overruled two precedents that had sustained asbestos
conspiracy trials in McLean and neighboring counties.

Mr. Wylder moved for reconsideration on Aug. 5, 2011, claiming
Fourth District judges defended Honeywell and Pneumo-Abex better
than the companies defended themselves.

On Aug. 22, 2011, Honeywell lawyer Colleen Baime, Esq., of Chicago
moved for leave to file the July 15, 2011 opinion as a
supplemental brief.

Mr. Wylder's associate Lisa Corwin opposed the motion two days
later, apparently unaware that the court had called off the
argument.  She wrote that cases in the triple appeal were
different from the one in the July opinion.

On Sept. 1, 2011, Ms. Bender wrote that Mr. Wylder's opposition to
Honeywell's supplement was overruled.  In June 2011, in another
Wylder case from McLean County, Judge Turner had written an
opinion eliminating "take home" claims.  A similar case awaits a
decision at the Illinois Supreme Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pritchard Case v. 46 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glen "Judy" Pritchard and his wife Ellen V. Pritchard, of West
Hamlin, W.Va., on Aug. 9, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against
46 defendant corporations in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, on April 13, 2010, Mr. Pritchard was
diagnosed with lung cancer.  He claims he was exposed to asbestos
during his employment as a laborer, mechanic and construction
worker from 1974 to the present.

The Pritchards seek a jury trial to resolve all issued involved.
They are being represented by Victoria L. Antion, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-1320 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Sheffield Firms Fined Over Worker's Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two firms based in Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England, have been
fined after a worker fell through a fragile rooflight while
removing asbestos at the city's now-demolished college, according
to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated Sept. 6,
2011.

The 40-year-old Nikitas Coulson, from Middlesbrough, broke his arm
after falling three and a half meters from a flat roof to the
ground below.  He needed surgery to insert a plate into his arm
following the incident at the former Sheffield College in April
2010.

Mr. Coulson was part of a team stripping asbestos from Sheffield
College before its planned demolition and re-build, and was
working on a former teaching block when the incident happened.

The HSE prosecuted both Mr. Coulson's employer, Lilquest Asbestos
Management, and the principal contractor for the project, JF
Finnegan Ltd, who were responsible for access to the roof.

Sheffield Magistrates heard that immediately after the incident,
the remaining 10 rooflights on the flat roof were boarded over,
making them safe.  The court heard this should have been done
prior to any work starting on the roof.

Magistrates fined JF Finnegan, of Ecclesall Road, GbP15,000 with
GBP5,179.90 costs for failing to provide suitable protection for
any fragile surfaces on the roof under the Work at Height
Regulations 2005.  Lilquest, of Hoyland Road, were fined GBP3,000
with GBP2,000 costs for the same offense.  Both companies pleaded
guilty.

Falls from height remain the most common cause of workplace
fatality.  In 2008/09 there were 35 fatalities, 4,654 major
injuries and a further 7,065 injuries that caused the injured
person to be off work for three days or more, due to a fall from
height.

More information on preventing falls in the workplace is available
at http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia Pacific Admits Wallboard Had Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent deposition taken in a New Jersey asbestos case, a
former Georgia Pacific executive Howard Schutte was forced to
admit that the GP fire rated wallboard sold on a mass basis in the
United States contained asbestos, according to
MesotheliomaLegalBlog.com press release dated Sept. 12, 2011.

In a recent blog entry published on the MesotheliomaLegalBlog.com
Web site, "For years, Georgia Pacific has failed to disclose that
the wallboard it sold contained asbestos.  In a recent deposition
taken in a New Jersey asbestos case, a former GP executive Howard
Schutte was forced to admit that the GP fire rated wallboard sold
on a mass basis in the United States contained asbestos."

The problem according to noted mesothelioma lawyer Chris
Placitella, Esq., is that, "This product is installed in
innumerable buildings and the current owners have no idea these
walls have asbestos in them.  If the walls are demolished there is
real potential for asbestos exposure which building occupants and
workers will have no idea is happening."

The entire deposition, styled Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division -- Middlesex County 2 Docket No. MID-L-1628-09, AS) is
available at http://is.gd/Vx7OaJ

The MesotheliomaLegalBlog.com is a blog forum edited by Mr.
Placitella, partner at the law firm of Cohen, Placitella & Roth,
P.C. with offices in both Red Bank, N.J., and Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DeLuca & Nemeroff Announces $7.55MM La. Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
DeLuca & Nemeroff, a Dallas-based law firm, announced a US$7.55
million jury verdict on behalf of a Louisiana man who was
diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma following decades of working
around asbestos-containing materials at two manufacturing plants,
according to a Delucca & Nemeroff press release dated Sept. 12,
2011.

This verdict is believed to be among the largest individual
mesothelioma verdicts in Louisiana.  Orleans Parish jurors
deliberated for half a day on Sept. 8, 2011 before returning the
verdict in favor of 66-year-old Thomas M. Kenney of St. Tammany
Parish.

Jurors agreed that defendants Rexam Beverage Can Company (formerly
American Can) and asbestos product manufacturers John Crane Inc.
and Haveg Inc. were negligent and responsible for exposing Mr.
Kenney to dangerous levels of asbestos.

The jury found that Mr. Kenney, a Slidell resident, was exposed to
dangerous levels of asbestos fibers while he worked at an American
Can facility in New Orleans between 1964 and 1976, and while
working as a pipefitter and machinist for Tenneco in Chalmette
between 1977 and 1988.

John Crane Inc. made and supplied asbestos gaskets and Haveg Inc.
supplied asbestos-containing piping to Tenneco while Mr. Kenney
was employed there.

Mr. Kenney has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma.  His
trial team was led by Rick Nemeroff, Esq., and firm trial attorney
Barrett Naman, Esq., as well as local counsel Mickey Landry, Esq.,
and Frank Swarr, Esq., of New Orleans-based Landry & Swarr.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clark Widow Awarded GBP160,000 in Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The widow of James Clark, Battle, Sussex, England-based Brenda
Clark, was awarded GBP160,000 in asbestos-related compensation,
the Rye & Battle Observer reports.

Mr. Clark died from mesothelioma in 2008.  He had worked for
Anderson Construction Company in Richmond Road, Twickenham,
initially as a ceiling fixer.  He installed asbestos tiles at
Victoria underground station, Standard Telephone Cables Company
and at the Lister Hospital, Stevenage.

Mr. Clark's work involved drilling holes into the asbestos tiles.
At the end of the day, he was often covered in asbestos dust.  In
2007, he started to suffer from health problems and was diagnosed
with mesothelioma a year later at the Conquest Hospital, Hastings.

Anderson Construction Company admitted liability.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Firm Supports Mesothelioma Awareness Day
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason is in full
support of Congress' decision to dedicate September 26 as National
Mesothelioma Awareness Day, according to a Clapper, Patti,
Schweizer & Mason press release dated Sept. 12, 2011.

With this being the first officially designated year, CPSM also
seeks to promote Mesothelioma Awareness Day in hopes of raising
public awareness about this deadly but preventable rare type of
cancer and to encourage donations for research aimed at finding a
cure.

According to a Work Related Disease Surveillance Report published
in 2007 by the Center For Disease Control (CDC), in conjunction
with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), each year nearly 3,000 Americans are diagnosed with this
preventable disease.

The disease, caused by exposure to asbestos, is a type of cancer
which attacks the mesothelium -- the soft tissue which lines the
internal body cavities and surrounds vital organs like the heart,
lungs, and abdomen.

2011 marks a very special time for this disease.  Not only has the
CDC predicted that after 2011 new diagnosis rates of mesothelioma
should begin to decrease here in the states, scientists have
discovered a rare genetic mutation which explains why some people
are more susceptible to contracting asbestos cancer than others.

The need for more research into where this disease comes from, how
it progresses, and how we can stop it is ever-present.  With
cutting-edge work being done in top-tier laboratories like the
University of Hawaii Cancer Center and the Fox Chase Cancer Center
in Philadelphia, finally getting a handle on mesothelioma is more
feasible than ever before.

Scientist are also pursuing gene therapy, engineered viruses and
bacteria, and even tinkering with the human immune system in order
to create better treatments for this disease.  Although some
research has led to successful discoveries, mesothelioma remains a
clear and present danger.

Conservative estimates put nearly 1.3 million construction and
general industry worker at risk even today, decades after the
manufacture and use of asbestos products was severely restricted
in the United States.  Existing homes, hospitals, and school built
before the 1980s ban may still house unsafe levels of asbestos
insulation, floor and ceiling tiles, wallboard, joint compound,
and adhesives.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set up a special
section about asbestos and the danger it causes on their Web site
http://www.EPA.gov/

As there is still no cure, nor even any effective long-term
treatment options, available for sufferers of mesothelioma,
education and prevention are key in minimizing the impact this
deadly disease has on our way of life.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oriskany Resident Admits to Asbestos Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Pugh, a 74-year-old resident of Oriskany, N.Y., pleaded
guilty last Sept. 9, 2011 in federal court to having a building he
owned in Whitesboro demolished in violation of the Clean Air Act
while the structure still contained asbestos, the Observer-
Dispatch reports.

Mr. Pugh owns 44 Mohawk Street LLC, which owned a building located
at 44 Old Mohawk St. in Whitesboro.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Benedict said Mr. Pugh faces a
maximum of five years in prison and a US$250,000 fine when he is
due to be sentenced in U.S. District Court on Jan. 10, 2012.

The building had about 6,000 square feet of asbestos and Mr. Pugh
admitted in court that he hired an unlicensed person to demolish
the building knowing that he would not first notify the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency of the demolition activity,
prosecutors said.

Mr. Pugh also knew that the asbestos would not be maintained in a
safe wet condition during removal activities and that the asbestos
would not be properly disposed of in a landfill authorized to
accept asbestos-contaminated materials.

The case was investigated by special agents with the EPA and the
state Department of Environmental Conservation, as well as
inspectors form the state Department of Labor.


                           *********

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  * * *