/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111007.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 7, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 199


48-52 FRANKLIN: Accused of Breaching Construction Contract
AMERON INTERNATIONAL: Defends Consolidated Suit Over NOV Merger
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Mental Health Claims Class Action Certified
ANZ BANK: Defends Overdraw Fees at Class Action Hearing
BALLARD DESIGNS: Recalls 2,500 Step Stools Due to Fall Hazard

COMMONWEALTH BANK: Settles Investor Class Action
DYNEX CAPITAL: Settles Securities Class Action for $7.5 Million
GLOUCESTER SEAFOOD: Faces Class Action for Defrauding Fishermen
GOODRICH CORP: Faces More Suits Over Proposed Sale to United Tech.
GUITAR CENTER: Terminates Lead Class Action Plaintiff Manager

HOWARD INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Hiring Discrimination Practices
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Suit in Florida
IOWA: Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Hiring Practices
LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Antitrust Suit Sent to State Court
NEW YORK CITY, NY: HIV-Positive People File Class Action

QUALITEST PRODUCTS: Sued Over Birth Control Pill Packaging Error
RECONTRUST: Judge Allows Foreclosure Class Action to Proceed
ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL: Files Class Action v. Hotel Booking Sites
STANFORD HOSPITAL: To Vigorously Defend Data Breach Class Action

* Two Senators Introduce Bill to Allow Suits v. Cell Companies

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Mangis Exposure Case v. Copart Filed on Aug. 10
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ocean Rig UDW May be Subject to Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 5 Suits, Claims at Aug. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup in Schools Included in Obama Jobs Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smith Action v. 74 Firms Filed Aug. 29 in W.Va.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Walsh Plant Fined for Breaches at Maesteg Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Contractor Charged for EPA Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monks Sue Lothian Heating for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southampton Housewife's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marks and Spencer Fined GBP1M for Safety Breach

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Lawyer Seeks to Reverse Second-Hand Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucknall Joiner's Death Due to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Recalls, Vacates Ruling in Penn. Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment OK'd in Bowser Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Reverses Decision in Johnson Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Supreme Court Junks Appeal in Klas Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Dismissal Bid OK'd in White's Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Accepts KOADI Application to Dismiss Hall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Heckerman Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Appeals Court Affirms Rulings in Butler Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Vacates Ruling, Remands Buorque Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Congress Holds Hearing over Payout Fraud
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montgomery Action v. 92 Firms Filed in Kanawha
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hirsch Case v. 41 Firms Filed in St. Clair Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wolff's Widow Awarded GBP258T in Compensation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hoggett's Family Awarded GBP49T in Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cumbrian Scientist's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawksley Worker's Family Awarded GBP92T Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Police Union Calls for More Health Checks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. GenCorp Inc. Rise to 143 at Aug. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board Ruling in Castelli Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Summary Judgment OK'd in Foucha
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Phillips Action


48-52 FRANKLIN: Accused of Breaching Construction Contract
Kingdom Associates, Inc., on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated v. 48-52 Franklin, LLC, Marshall Weisman, Eran Wajswol,
Debra Van Sickle, Chieh Chang, Lily Chang, Andrew Chang, Man Fai
Yu, Joan Yu, Ravish Sachar, Jignasa Sachar, George Gianoulakis,
John Teck Jang Lim, Cynthia Y. Modelo, Maxigroupe USA, Inc., Amir
Reza Dehdashti, East Franklin Essensa LLC, Capital One, N.A. as
Successor by Merger to North Fork Bank, Hudson City Savings Bank,
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Prospect Lending, LLC in
Lieu of True Name Prospect Mortgage, LLC, HSBC Mortgage
Corporation (USA) and "John Doe No. 1" through "John Doe No. 10,"
Case No. 652698/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., October 3, 2011) accuses 48-
52 Franklin of breaching an agreement by failing to fully pay
certain sums due and owing to the Plaintiff.

Kingdom asserts that it provided certain labor and materials
relating to excavation, foundation and site work in connection
with a condominium construction project in what was then non-
residential vacant land located at 50 Franklin Street, in New
York, which was owned by 48-52 Franklin.  Kingdom alleges that 48-
52 Franklin is liable for damages aggregating $115,000.00, plus
applicable interest.

Kingdom is a New York corporation.

48-52 Franklin is a domestic limited liability company with a
place of business located in Lakewood, New Jersey.  Maxigroupe is
a domestic corporation while East Franklin is a domestic limited
liability company.  Both own units at the Franklin Property.
Marshall Weisman is a resident of New Jersey and the managing
member of 48-52 Franklin.  The rest of the Individual Defendants
own units at the Franklin Property.  The identities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

Capital One is a New York banking corporation.  Hudson City
Savings is a federal stock savings bank and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Hudson City Bancorp, Inc.  Deutsche Bank is a trust
company with an office in Wall Street, New York.  Prospect Lending
is a foreign limited liability company duly licensed and
authorized by the New York State Superintendent of Banks.  HSBC
Mortgage is a foreign business corporation that engages in
mortgage lending in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Asselta, Esq.
          330 Old Country Road, Suite 201
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 248-9880

AMERON INTERNATIONAL: Defends Consolidated Suit Over NOV Merger
Ameron International Corporation is defending itself in a
consolidated class action lawsuit arising from its proposed merger
with a subsidiary of National Oilwell Varco, Inc., according to
the Company's October 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August
28, 2011.

On July 1, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with National Oilwell Varco, Inc. ("Parent" or "NOV"), and
NOV Sub A, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger
Sub"), pursuant to which, subject to the terms and conditions set
forth in the Merger Agreement, the Company will become a wholly
owned subsidiary of National Oilwell Varco, Inc. at closing.

Following the announcement about the merger, three purported class
action lawsuits were filed by stockholders on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated stockholders, in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware and the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company, the
members of the Company's board of directors, and NOV challenging
the proposed merger.  The lawsuits assert claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the directors and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty against the Company and NOV.  The
lawsuits seek to enjoin the defendants from completing the merger
pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, rescissory damages,
an accounting, a constructive trust, attorneys' fees and costs,
interest and other equitable relief.

The consolidated amended complaint filed in the Delaware cases
states that it names the Company as a necessary party in
connection with the equitable relief sought in that complaint.
The monetary relief sought against the Company is limited to
attorneys' fees and costs, and Management believes that any such
relief, if awarded, would be covered by insurance or would not
have a material effect on the Company's financial position, cash
flows or results of operations.

ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Mental Health Claims Class Action Certified
A Los Angeles Superior Court recently certified a class-action
lawsuit against health insurance provider, Anthem Blue Cross.  The
suit alleges that Anthem Blue Cross violated various California
state laws by restricting the manner in which its policyholders
receive benefits for outpatient mental health treatments for
severe illnesses such as schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, manic-
depressive illness, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), anorexia
nervosa, bulimia, panic disorder, and severe depression.

According to the lawsuit, Anthem Blue Cross, beginning in January
2010, implemented a Behavioral Health Professional Outpatient
Review Program that unlawfully restricted benefits for
policyholders who sought reimbursement for more than 12 outpatient
mental health treatments annually.  The decisions denying coverage
were, among other things, made by unqualified doctors who were
biased against paying for medically necessary treatments for
serious mental health illnesses and conditions.

"This is an important case.  Our clients are among California's
most vulnerable citizens," said Michael L. Cohen of Cohen McKeon
LLP, one of the law firms that was certified to represent the
class of policyholders against Anthem Blue Cross.  "The Unruh Act
is California's principal anti-discrimination law.  This is the
first case of which we are aware in which a court has certified
for class treatment under the Unruh Act a claim for discrimination
against those with a 'disability' and the alleged discriminatory
conduct is a corporate policy and not restricted physical access
to a public building, such as curb cuts, ramps, size of bathroom
stalls, handrails, etc."

Kathryn Trepinski, a lawyer based in Beverly Hills, is also
representing the policyholders against Anthem Blue Cross.  The
lawsuit is Katz v. Blue Cross [case BC451649].

Cohen McKeon LLP -- http://www.cohenmckeon.com-- is a Los
Angeles-based law firm that focuses on representing policy holders
in law suits against insurance companies.  For further
information, please contact:

          Michael L. Cohen, Esq.
          Los Angeles, CA
          (213) 413-6400
          Telephone: (213) 413-6400

ANZ BANK: Defends Overdraw Fees at Class Action Hearing
Pia Ackerman, writing for The Australian, reports that ANZ Bank
has defended "as necessary" its fees for customers who overdraw
their accounts.

According to the bank, the fees pay for the service the bank
provides in "entertaining" the overdraw request and deciding
whether to extend the money.

In his opening submission to a preliminary class-action hearing in
the Federal Court, ANZ's barrister Alan Archibald QC said the fees
did not represent penalties because customers had not breached a
contract by overdrawing their accounts.

He said automatic refusal of overdrawn accounts would be "a recipe
for chaos in the affairs of ordinary customers".

The fees paid for "the undoubted service that the bank provides in
entertaining the overdraw request and either allowing it or
rejecting it", with terms in the bank's product disclosure
statements giving customers "implicit permission to make the

The court is hearing preliminary arguments in a class action in
which 34,000 ANZ customers are seeking $50 million in redress for
honor, dishonor and non-payment fees on regular accounts, and
over-limit and late-payment fees for credit cards.

Maurice Blackburn, on behalf of the ANZ customers, has argued the
bank illegally charged "exception" fees as penalties.

Judge Michelle Gordon questioned why the product disclosure
statements, which told customers they "must not overdraw" their
accounts, should not be read as a contractual obligation.

"It smells like it's contractual," Justice Gordon said.

Mr. Archibald said the disclosure statements lacked a critical
"prohibitional element".

He said there was no reason why the bank or customers would want
overdrafts to constitute a breach of contract.

The hearing continues.

BALLARD DESIGNS: Recalls 2,500 Step Stools Due to Fall Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ballard Designs, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,500 Ballard Designs "Stafford" step stools.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Plastic tabs on the feet of the step stools can cause the stools
to be unstable, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

Ballard Designs has received six reports that the stools were not
stable, including two reports of falls resulting in minor

This recall involves Ballard Designs "Stafford" step stools made
of wood painted black or white.  "Ballard Designs" is printed on a
sticker under the bottom of the step.  "Made in China" is printed
on the underside bottom of the step stools.  Also printed on the
underside bottom of the step stools is one of the following five
numbers: 100097963, 100099019, 100097230, 100100584 or 100102942.
All recalled stools also have four plastic tabs affixed to the
feet of the step stool.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Ballard Design stores in Florida, Georgia and Ohio, through
Ballard Designs catalogs, on http://www.ballarddesigns.com/and
http://www.hsn.com/from July 2009 through May 2011 for about $80.

Consumers should immediately remove the four plastic tabs from the
feet of their step stools.  Instructions are available online at
http://www.ballarddesigns.com/under the Product Safety page or by
contacting Ballard Designs.  Ballard Designs is directly
contacting all known purchasers.  For more information, contact
Ballard Designs toll-free at (888) 606-2627 between 8:00 a.m. and
9:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time Saturday and Sunday or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.ballarddesigns.com/

COMMONWEALTH BANK: Settles Investor Class Action
Leonie Lamont, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Commonwealth Bank has come to a confidential settlement with
investors who lost millions of dollars through the actions of an
adviser who has since been banned by the corporate regulator from
providing financial services.

The class action was led by retiree Elizabeth Saunders against the
bank's subsidiary, Commonwealth Financial Planning Ltd (CFP).

She alleged that she lost more than AUD200,000 when, contrary to
her instructions, financial adviser Don Nguyen placed her savings
in high-risk investments.

The class action was launched in February and followed an
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) inquiry
into Mr. Nguyen that found numerous breaches of financial services

The bank agreed last year to a compensation program, in which it
would calculate, and amend, the position investors would have been
in had they received the appropriate advice.

When approached by BusinessDay, Ben Slade, principal for Maurice
Blackburn Lawyers, which ran the class action, said: "All we can
say is the class action was resolved on a confidential basis."

When the class action was launched, at least 14 investors signed

Details aired in a case last year involving seven investors heard
one couple had lost AUD2.5 million, while a super fund had lost
AUD1 million.

Mr. Nguyen was employed by CFP as an authorized representative
between October 2003 and July 2009.  In March this year, ASIC
banned him from the financial services industry for seven years.

Mr. Nguyen appealed, unsuccessfully, against that decision in

"Mr. Nguyen's conduct was not isolated and persisted for a period
of at least two years between 2006 and 2008, with multiple
clients," ASIC noted when banning him.

"Mr. Nguyen failed to demonstrate a willingness to ensure the
highest standards of compliance with the financial services
industry and lacked the necessary ability and knowledge to
discharge the duties and obligations imposed by the Corporations
Act on a provider of financial services."

A spokeswoman for CBA said the settlement was confidential and it
could not comment on matters regarding its former employee.

DYNEX CAPITAL: Settles Securities Class Action for $7.5 Million
Dynex Capital, Inc. on Oct. 4 disclosed that it has entered into a
memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in principle
to settle all claims asserted against all defendants of the class
action lawsuit captioned In re Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05 Civ. 1897 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.) now pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court").  The lawsuit was filed by the Teamsters Local
445 Freight Division Pension Fund in February 2005 and alleged
violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a class of
purchasers of MERIT Series 12-1 and MERIT Series 13 securitization
financing bonds between February 2000 and May 2004.  The
memorandum of understanding sets forth terms of a proposed
settlement whereby the Company would pay $7.5 million into an
escrow account following the negotiation and execution of a
definitive settlement agreement and preliminary approval by the
Court.  The disbursement of the escrowed payment will be subject
to notice to the class and final approval by the Court, in
addition to any other conditions contained in the definitive
settlement agreement.  The Company continues to deny that it
violated any federal securities laws and has agreed in principle
to this settlement solely to eliminate the expense, burden and
uncertainty of the litigation.

The Company had not provided reserves for this litigation and
accordingly the proposed settlement amount will be included as an
expense in the Company's financial statements for the third
quarter of 2011.  The proposed settlement amount will reduce
earnings per share for the third quarter of 2011 by approximately
$0.186 per common share.  The proposed settlement does not impact
the Company's previously declared dividend for the third quarter
of $0.27 per common share.

"This settlement will resolve legacy litigation so that we may
continue to focus on the long-term future of our business," said
Thomas B. Akin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.  "It will
settle a significant uncertainty and does not materially impact
the core operating or future earnings potential of the Company."

Separately, the Company announced that it expects to exercise its
option to refinance in October 2011 approximately $74.2 million in
collateralized financings with repurchase agreement financing in
order to take advantage of the lower interest rate environment and
reduce its overall borrowing costs.  Approximately $23.7 million
in the collateralized financings is a securitization financing
bond issued by the Company in 1998 and which finances commercial
mortgage loans included in the Company's financial statements.
The bond had recently been upgraded to 'AA' from 'A+' reflecting
the high quality of the associated loan collateral.  Overall the
refinancing is expected to save the Company approximately $2.0
million annually in interest costs based on current anticipated
market conditions and repurchase agreement financing terms (which
are subject to change) and approximately $600,000 annually in
amortization expense.  The Company will take a one time non-cash
charge of $2.0 million on the redemption of the securitization
financing bond related to remaining unamortized discount recorded
on the bond as of September 30, 2011.  Consummation of the
refinance is dependent on several factors, including, but not
limited to, interest rates, the Company obtaining repurchase
agreement financing on terms and conditions acceptable to the
Company and the condition of repurchase financing markets

Dynex Capital, Inc. -- http://www.dynexcapital.com-- is an
internally managed real estate investment trust, or REIT, which
invests in mortgage assets on a leveraged basis.  The Company
invests in Agency and non-Agency RMBS and CMBS.  The Company also
has investments in securitized single-family residential and
commercial mortgage loans originated by the Company from 1992 to

GLOUCESTER SEAFOOD: Faces Class Action for Defrauding Fishermen
Richard Gaines, writing for Gloucester Times, reports that the
Ciulla family on Oct. 4 filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court to protect
the mostly theoretical assets left in the Gloucester Seafood
Display Auction from liabilities traced to claims in a pending

And the Chapter 7 filing came shortly before a suit filed last
month against the business, alleging that the Auction cheated two
fishermen by skimming, was rewritten this afternoon into a
requested U.S. District Court class action that would include more
than 100 fishermen and businesses.

The expanded suit, filed in federal court in Boston, also alleges
the Auction's scheme violated the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt
Organization -- or RICO -- Act.

"The plaintiffs' allegations are not made lightly, given the
significant impact they will have on an already distressed fishing
community," the plaintiffs said in the preface of the amended
suit, a copy of which was obtained on Oct. 4 by the Times.

The modified suit alleges that the Auction defrauded fishermen
throughout the Northeast region, Maine to the Carolinas.

The suit transformed about a month after both sides announced a
settlement agreement for what is believed to be less than $100,000
that, if filed with the court at a future date, was described as
obviating the litigation.

But the case hit Gloucester and the region with breathtaking
impact -- with a victim of federal law enforcement excesses now
accused of defrauding fellow fishermen.

The dual actions also reflect the instability of the legal terrain
after the sale of assets by the Ciullas to Kristian Kristiansen,
and a shift of control of the linchpin business of the nation's
oldest and best-known fishing port.

In exiting the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction, the Ciullas
maintained their real estate holdings, 1.03 acres at Harbor Loop
with an assessed value of $2,182,000.

The Ciullas got out of the business on Sept. 7, selling the assets
to a tenant and the recent buyer of Zeus Packing Co.  New owner
Kristiansen renamed the business the Cape Ann Seafood Exchange.

The next day, two Cape Cod fishermen who had been doing business
with the auction, filed a $1 million federal law suit against the
business, alleging "breach of maritime contract."

The fishermen, Eric Hesse and Greg Walinski -- both board members
of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association -- filed
on Oct. 4 to broaden their suit to a class action and added the
Ciullas and their real estate company, Star Realty Management, as

Added as named plaintiffs were Lily Jean Corp., whose principle
owner is "Gussie" Sanfilippo, who fishes the F/V Lily Jean, and
RMV Inc., whose principal, Paul Vitale, fishes the F/V Angela &

The bankruptcy filing was made for the auction by Attorney David
B. Madoff of Foxborough.  The bankruptcy filing was first reported
in the online edition Boston Business Journal earlier this

GOODRICH CORP: Faces More Suits Over Proposed Sale to United Tech.
Astor BK Realty Trust, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Marshall O. Larsen, Carolyn Corvi, Diane C.
Creel, Harris E. DeLoach Jr., James W. Griffith, William R.
Holland, John P. Jumper, Lloyd W. Newton, Alfred M. Rankin, Jr.,
Goodrich Corporation, UTC Corporation, and Charlotte Lucas
Corporation, Case No. 652706/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., October 4, 2011)
is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Goodrich
against its Board of Directors for their breaches of fiduciary
duties arising out of their attempt to sell the Company to United
Technologies by means of an unfair process and for an unfair

The Plaintiff alleges that the Individual Defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good
faith and fair dealing, and that Goodrich and United Technologies
have aided and abetted those breaches.  The Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the Proposed Transaction unless and until the Defendants
cure their breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Goodrich.

Goodrich, a New York corporation, is one of the largest worldwide
suppliers of aerospace components, systems, and services to the
commercial and general aviation airplane markets.  Goodrich is
also a leading supplier of systems and products to the global
defense and space markets.  United Technologies is a diversified
company providing high technology products and services to the
global aerospace and building industries.  Charlotte Lucas is
wholly owned by United Technologies and was created for the
purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.  The Individual
Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          1101 30th Street, NW Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com

GUITAR CENTER: Terminates Lead Class Action Plaintiff Manager
According to Scott Cole of Scott Cole & Associates, within days of
being hit with a class action lawsuit for failing to offer meal
and rest breaks to its California workforce, Guitar Center fired
the man who pioneered the lawsuit and allowed its workers to
parade the named plaintiff's final paycheck around the workplace.
In immediate reaction to these events, the plaintiff's attorneys
at Scott Cole & Associates amended the Complaint on Oct. 4 to
allege a wrongful termination and invasion of privacy claim.

"If Guitar Center thinks it can send a message to its workers that
standing up for their rights will cost them, this new wrongful
termination claim sends a stronger message right back," says
Mr. Cole, the principal lawyer on the case.  "Firing our client
was a big mistake."

The lawsuit is entitled Pellanda v. Guitar Center, Inc. (San
Francisco County Superior Court Case # CGC-11-513823).

Oakland-based Scott Cole & Associates, APC --
http://www.scalaw.com-- is one of California's premiere class
action law firms and is devoted to representing individuals in
employment and consumer rights litigation. For more information
about our practice and cases, visit www.scalaw.com or call (510)

Contact:  Scott Cole, Esq.
          Scott Cole & Associates
          Telephone: 510-891-9800
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com

HOWARD INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Hiring Discrimination Practices
Courthouse News Service reports that four black women say in a
federal class action that Howard Industries preferentially hires
undocumented Mexican immigrants at its transformer manufacturing
plant in Laurel, Miss.

A copy of the Complaint in Cook, et al. v. Howard Industries,
Inc., 11-cv-00199 (S.D. Miss.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Cliff Johnson II, Esq.
          PIGOTT & JOHNSON, P.A.
          775 N. Congress Street
          Post Office Box 22725
          Jackson, MS 39225-27
          Telephone: (601) 354-2121

               - and -

          Lisa M. Ross, Esq.
          514 E. Woodrow Wilson Ave.
          Jackson, MS 39283
          Telephone: (601) 981-7900

IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Suit in Florida
Imperial Holdings, Inc., says in its October 4, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a
securities class action complaint has been filed against it and
certain of its officers in Florida.

Although the Company has not yet been served with any complaint,
the Company has learned that on September 29, 2011, a putative
securities class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court
of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida, entitled Martin J. Fuller v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et
al., against the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, President and Chief Operating Officer, its Chief
Financial Officer and Chief Credit Officer, its Director of
Finance and Accounting, the members of its Board of Directors who
signed the Company's registration statement, and the underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering alleging certain
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The Company
and its directors and officers named as defendants intend to
vigorously defend against this claim.  It is possible that
additional complaints containing similar claims may be made by
other plaintiffs.  Failure by the Company to obtain a favorable
resolution of such claims could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, results of operations and financial
condition, the amount of which cannot be reasonably estimated.

IOWA: Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Hiring Practices
The Associated Press reports that lawyers for African Americans
who were passed over for state jobs and promotions are expected to
rest their case in a class-action lawsuit accusing state
government of discriminatory hiring practices.

Joe Ellis, a former state official responsible for equal
employment opportunity and affirmative action programs, was
expected to testify on Oct. 4 at the Polk County Courthouse.

Lawyers representing 29 named class representatives and up to
6,000 members total are seeking tens of millions of dollars in
lost wages from the state.  After weeks of testimony, they plan to
rest their case after questioning Mr. Ellis, who left state
government in 2009.

Lawyers representing the state are defending against the broad
discrimination allegations, saying the hiring and employment
practices vary by department and position being sought.

LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Antitrust Suit Sent to State Court
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that dozens of LCD
panel manufacturers accused of price-fixing must litigate in state
court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
ruled, finding that lawsuits filed by a state to protect its
citizens are not class actions under federal law.

The attorneys general of Washington and California allege that,
from 1998 to 2006, Sharp, Toshiba, Epson and many other
manufacturers of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display (LCD)
panels engaged in a scheme to fix prices, stifle competition and
overcharge consumers around the world.

Both states filed antitrust actions on behalf of their citizens in
their respective state courts, but the manufacturers removed the
cases to federal court, claiming that the claims were parens
patriae "disguised" as class actions.

Latin for "parent of the nation," parens patriae is a legal theory
that allows states to sue and seek redress on behalf of their

The states moved to send the claims back to their own courts, and
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco agreed.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed unanimously in a
short ruling on Oct. 3.

The court rejected the manufacturers' argument that the cases were
actually class actions because the consumers, not the states, were
the real parties-in-interest.  Class actions may always be
representative actions, but "representative actions are not
necessarily class actions," the judges found.

"The doctrine of parens patriae allows a sovereign to bring suit
on behalf of its citizens when the sovereign alleges injury to a
sufficiently substantial segment of its population, articulates an
interest apart from the interests of particular private parties,
and expresses a quasi-sovereign interest," Judge Sidney Thomas
wrote for the San Francisco-based appeals panel.  "Unlike private
litigants, the attorneys general have statutory authority to sue
in parens patriae and need not demonstrate standing through a
representative injury nor obtain certification of a class in order
to recover on behalf of individuals."

A copy of the Opinion in Washington State, et al. v. Chimei
Innolux Corp., et al., No. 11-16862 (9th Cir.), is available at:


NEW YORK CITY, NY: HIV-Positive People File Class Action
Courthouse News Service reports that HIV-positive people say in a
federal class action that the New York City Human Resources
Administration and HIV/AIDS Services Administration illegally
withhold retroactive payments of Social Security disability to
reimburse themselves for cash assistance provided while the SSI
applications are pending.

QUALITEST PRODUCTS: Sued Over Birth Control Pill Packaging Error
Lisa Coston at Courthouse News Service reports that a woman claims
in a class action that she became pregnant because her birth
control pills were packaged backward: with the placebos placed at
the beginning of the month rather than at the end.

Lauren Betancourt sued Qualitest Products, Brenn Distribution and
Endo Pharmaceuticals in Cobb County Court, in a class action
demanding more than $5 million in damages.

Ms. Betancourt says she took the birth control pills -- under the
trademark names Cyclafem 1/35, Cyclafem 7/7/7, Emoquette, Gildess
FE 1.5/30, Gildess FE 1/20, Orsythia, Previfem and Tri-Previfem --
and followed the daily regimen prescribed on the blister pack.

As is customary with birth control pills, the routine includes
taking a daily dose of a 21- or 28-day cycle of synthetic
estrogen, or a combination of estrogen and progestin, which blocks
production of follicle-stimulating hormone, preventing ovulation.
At the end of the cycle, the pack contains 7 days of placebo
pills, which allows the woman to menstruate before starting the
next cycle of pills.

Ms. Betancourt says the pills were packed placebos first, instead
of last.

"The birth control pills purchased by the plaintiff were packaged
such that select blisters found inside the pill box were rotated
180 degrees within the card, reversing the weekly tablet
orientation," the complaint states.  "As a result of the packaging
error, the daily regimen for the birth control pills left women
without adequate contraception and at risk for unwanted

Ms. Betancourt became pregnant.

"As a legal result of defendant Qualitest, Brenn and Endo's
negligence, the plaintiff is pregnant and she has suffered and may
suffer bodily injury resulting in pain and suffering, mental
anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expensive
health care and treatment, loss of earnings, and a loss of ability
to earn money," according to the complaint.

Ms. Betancourt seeks class damages for negligent design,
manufacturing, packaging and distribution of the birth control

A copy of the Complaint in Betancourt v. Qualitest Products, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2011A3971-2 (Ga. State Ct., Cobb Cty.), is
available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Beard, Esq.
          STEVEN L. BEARD, P.C.
          324 Cherokee Street
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Telephone: (770) 422-2642

               - and -

          Keith D. Bodoh, Esq.
          990 Cobb Parkway North, Suite 205
          Marietta, GA 30062-2410
          Telephone: (770) 424-1234
          E-mail: Bodoh@RBNlaw.com

RECONTRUST: Judge Allows Foreclosure Class Action to Proceed
Morgan Skinner, writing for KCSG News, reports that US District
Judge Dee Benson ruled on Oct. 4 that a class action lawsuit can
proceed against ReconTrust and Bank of America.

The class action lawsuit filed by attorneys John Christian Barlow
and E. Craig Smay on November 5, 2011(Case No. 10-1099) against
ReconTrust and Bank of America, Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Countrywide Home Loans, HSBC Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, U.S.
Bank, Bank of New York/Mellon, KeyBank alleges violations of the,
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, Utah Pattern of Unlawful
Activity Act (FDCPA), Unlawful Foreclosures, and Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Judge Benson said that after considering the memoranda and the
oral arguments, the Court finds the Plaintiffs failed to allege
that MERS, HSBC, Wells Fargo, and Bank of New York Mellon were
involved in the conduct giving rise to any claims.

Regarding ReconTrust, Bank of America, N.A., and BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP, the Court found that the Plaintiffs have plead
sufficient allegations against them to survive a motion to

The judge ruled that ReconTrust's contention that it may properly
foreclose on properties located in Utah pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
Sec. 92a which allows it to foreclose as a trustee in the State of
Texas does not apply in Utah.

The Court agrees with the reasoning applied in Cox v. ReconTrust
Company, N.A., 2011 WL 835893 (March 3, 2011 D. Utah).  In that
case, the Court stated:

"Under a straight forward reading of Sec. 92a(b), this Court must
look to Utah law in its analysis of whether ReconTrust's
activities in Utah exceed ReconTrust's trustee powers.  The powers
granted to ReconTrust under federal law in this case are limited
by the powers granted by Utah state law to ReconTrust's
competitors.  Accordingly, the extent of ReconTrust's federal
powers must be determined by reference to the laws of Utah, not by
reference to the laws of some other state.  Under Utah law, the
power to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure is limited to
attorneys and title companies.  The scope of the powers granted by
federal law is limited to the same power Utah statute confers on
ReconTrust's Utah competitors.  The federal issue, therefore, is
whether ReconTrust is a competitor of Utah attorneys or title
insurance companies."

Because the parties did not brief the issue of whether ReconTrust
competes with Utah attorneys or title insurance companies, the
Court did not rule on that matter.

Barlow told KCSG News that ReconTrust, the foreclosure arm of the
Bank of America has performed thousands of illegal home
foreclosures in Utah in violation of State laws already upheld by
the 10th Circuit case, Shurtleff v. Kleinsmith in which Utah Code
Sections 51-1-21 and 57-1-12 were found to be constitutional.

The attorneys for the Plaintiffs plan to amend their class action
case showing unlawful foreclosures were performed by ReconTrust as
a trustee of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Countrywide
Home Loans, HSBC Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. Bank, Bank of New
York/Mellon and KeyBank.

Mr. Barlow said Mr. Smay and he will vigorously prosecute this
case to the fullest extent of the law in behalf of Utah homeowners
who have been unlawfully deprived of their rights and had their
homes taken in fraudulent foreclosures.

Homeowners who have lost their homes through an unlawful non-
judicial foreclosure have seven-years under Utah law to seek
redress, Mr. Barlow said.

ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL: Files Class Action v. Hotel Booking Sites
Anjalee Khemlani, writing for Beaches Leader, reports that booking
a hotel room online may save consumers money, but local government
suffers losses due to the method of tax collection in business
models of online sites.

St. Johns County, along with various other Florida counties, is
currently in a class action lawsuit against online hotel booking
sites, said Glenn Hastings, executive director of the county
Tourist Development Council.

STANFORD HOSPITAL: To Vigorously Defend Data Breach Class Action
Jason Green, writing for Palo Alto Daily News, reports that
Stanford Hospital & Clinics vowed on Oct. 3 to "vigorously defend"
itself against a $20-million class-action complaint filed in the
wake of a data breach that saw the medical records of 20,000
patients posted on a commercial Web site for nearly a year.

Shana Springer filed the complaint on Sept. 28 in Los Angeles
County Superior Court, on behalf of fellow patients treated in
Stanford's emergency room between March 1, 2009, and Aug. 31,
2009.  She is seeking $1,000 per patient, as well as other
penalties, damages and attorneys' fees.

The nine-page complaint alleges the hospital violated the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, a state law that
requires medical providers to safeguard patient information and
prohibits its disclosure without written consent.

"On its Web site, Stanford claims that its patients' 'health care
experience is [its] highest priority.'  Thus, it should be no
surprise that when patients are treated at Stanford's facilities,
they expect that their private medical information will be kept
confidential and will not be disclosed to anyone without their
authorization," the complaint states.

In a brief statement released on Oct. 3, Stanford placed the blame
on complaint codefendant Multi-Specialty Collection Services LLC,
saying it was the subcontractor that mishandled the data.  The
hospital has since cut ties with the Woodland Hills-based company,
which provided collection and billing services.

"(Stanford Hospital Advertisement & Clinics) intends to vigorously
defend the lawsuit that has been filed as it acted appropriately
and did not violate the law as claimed in the lawsuit," the
statement said.

According to the complaint, Multi-Specialty Collection Services
was "in part responsible for the unlawful disclosure of the
private medical information of Plaintiff and class members."

Stanford confirmed the data breach on Sept. 8.  The released
information included medical record numbers, hospital account
numbers, billing charges, and emergency room admission and
discharge dates.  It also revealed a Santa Clara man's psychiatric

Credit card and Social Security numbers were not included.

According to its statement, the hospital properly sent the data to
Multi-Specialty Collection Services in an encrypted format to
protect its confidentiality.  The company produced an electronic
spreadsheet, which it allegedly sent to a third party for help
creating a graph to display the data.  That third party then
posted the information on a public Web site, Stanford said.

Ms. Springer's complaint identified the Web site as Student of
Fortune, which solicits bids to answer homework questions.  The
data first appeared online in early September 2009.  The identity
of the person who uploaded the information was not disclosed in
either the complaint or the statement.

"This mishandling of private patient information was in complete
contravention of the law and of the requirements of (Multi-
Specialty Collection Service's) contract with (Stanford Hospital &
Clinics) and is shockingly irresponsible," Stanford said in its

However, no identity theft cases have been reported as a result of
the data breach, which went unnoticed for nearly a year, according
to the hospital.

"To date there is no evidence that anyone saw this information on
the Web site and improperly used it for fraudulent or any other
improper purpose," the statement said.  "(Stanford Hospital &
Clinics) has investigated this matter, terminated its relationship
with (Multi-Specialty Collection Service), and reported this
breach to law enforcement authorities."

The hospital reiterated Monday that it moved quickly to have the
sensitive information pulled from the Web site once it became
aware of the data breach, notified the affected patients and
provided free identity protection services.

Multi-Specialty Collection Services representatives could not be
reached for comment late Monday afternoon.

Los Angeles-based lawyers Brian S. Kabateck, Richard L. Kellner,
Karen Liao, Byron T. Ball and Bradley I. Kramer are representing
Ms. Springer and the proposed class.

* Two Senators Introduce Bill to Allow Suits v. Cell Companies
Carol Bishopric, writing for Reuters, reports that two senators
introduced a bill on Oct. 4 to prohibit wireless companies from
having clauses in contracts that prohibit consumers from suing the
companies because of hidden fees or other contract disputes.

Senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Al Franken of
Minnesota introduced the measure, which would ban the common
practice of putting clauses in wireless phone and data contracts
that require consumers to use binding arbitration in the case of a

The proposed legislation is in response to a U.S. Supreme Court
ruling in April that an AT&T unit could enforce a provision in its
customer contracts requiring individual arbitration and preventing
the pooling together of claims into a class-action lawsuit or
class-wide arbitration.

The plaintiffs in that suit, a California couple, filed their
class-action lawsuit in 2006, claiming they were improperly
charged about $30 in sales taxes on cellphones that the AT&T
Mobility wireless unit had advertised as free.

"This bill makes sure that Minnesotans have the ability to hold
their mobile service providers accountable if they are cheated.
It also ensures that any dispute resolved through arbitration is
truly voluntary, and that consumers are not being forced into it,"
Senator Al Franken said in a statement.

Companies generally prefer arbitration as a less expensive way of
settling consumer disputes, as opposed to costly class actions,
which allow customers to band together and can result in large
monetary awards.

Some consumers have complained of things like being charged for
data even when applications are disabled or their mobile device is
turned off.

Wireless companies either declined comment or could not be reached
for comment.

The CTIA - The Wireless Association, a trade group for wireless
companies, called the legislation "misguided."

"If the sponsors really want to help consumers, they should spend
less time on stimulating the market for trial lawyers and more
time working to free additional spectrum that can be used to
deliver world-class wireless broadband service to American
consumers," the group said in a statement.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Mangis Exposure Case v. Copart Filed on Aug. 10
Copart Inc. says that on Aug. 10, 2011, Glenn A. Mangis and Lynn
Brown-Mangis, husband and wife, filed an asbestos suit against the
Company in the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County.

The suit alleges exposure to asbestos during the course of his
employment as a carpenter, electrician and laborer; and as a
direct result of said exposure, Mr. Mangis developed mesothelioma.

Mrs. Mangis is alleging loss of spousal relationship as a result.
Relief sought is for general and special damages, medical and
related expenses, costs and disbursements in case, prejudgment
interest and all other relief the Court deems just.  No specific
amount was given.


Copart, Inc.
4665 Business Center Drive
Fairfield, Calif. 94534
Phone Number: (707) 639-5000

Copart Inc. provides online auctions and vehicle remarketing
services in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ocean Rig UDW May be Subject to Exposure Claims
DryShips Inc.'s Ocean Rig UDW subsidiary may be, from time to
time, involved in various litigation matters including asbestos
and other toxic tort claims.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in a
Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with Securities and Exchange
Commission on Sept. 22, 2011.

A subsidiary of Athens, Greece-based DryShips Inc., Ocean Rig UDW
is an international offshore drilling contractor providing
oilfield services for offshore oil and gas exploration,
development and production drilling and specializing in the ultra-
deepwater and harsh-environment segment of the offshore drilling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 5 Suits, Claims at Aug. 27
H.B. Fuller Company settled five asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims during the 39 weeks ended Aug. 27, 2011, compared with
three lawsuits and claims during the 39 weeks ended Aug. 28, 2010.

During the 39 weeks ended Aug. 27, 2011, the Company reached
settlements amounting to US$400,000 and received or expects to
receive insurance payments of US$300,000.

During the 29 weeks ended Aug. 28, 2010, the Company reached
settlements amounting to US$400,000 and received or expects to
receive insurance payments of US$400,000.

The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which
plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos
manufactured more than 25 years ago.

A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation continues to be paid by third parties,
including indemnification under the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which the Company acquired a business from a third party.

Historically, this third party routinely defended all cases
tendered to it and paid settlement amounts resulting from those
cases.  In the 1990s, the third party sporadically reserved its
rights, but continued to defend and settle all asbestos-related
claims tendered to it by the Company.

In 2002, the third party rejected the tender of certain cases and
indicated it would seek contributions for past defense costs,
settlements and judgments.  However, this third party is defending
and paying settlement amounts, under a reservation of rights, in
most of the asbestos cases tendered to the third party.

In addition, to delineate its rights under certain insurance
policies, in October 2009, the Company commenced a declaratory
judgment action against one of its insurers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  Additional insurers have
been brought into the action to address issues related to the
scope of their coverage.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company and a group of
other defendants entered into negotiations with certain law firms
to settle a number of asbestos-related lawsuits and claims over a
period of years.  In total, the Company had expected to contribute
up to US$4.1 million, based on a present value calculation,
towards the settlement amounts to be paid to the claimants in
exchange for full releases of claims.

Of this amount, the Company's insurers had committed to pay US$2
million based on the probable liability of US$4.1 million.  Its
contributions toward settlements from the time of the agreement
through the end of fiscal year 2010 were US$1.7 million with
insurers paying US$900,000 of that amount.

Based on this experience, the Company reduced its reserves in the
fourth quarter of 2010 to an undiscounted amount of US$800,000
with insurers expected to pay US$500,000.

During the first nine months of 2011, the Company contributed
another US$200,000 toward settlements with insurers paying
US$100,000 of that amount.  This reduced the Company's reserves
for this agreement to US$600,000 with an insurance receivable of

As of Aug. 27, 2011, the Company's probable liabilities and
insurance recoveries related to asbestos claims were US$800,000
and US$600,000.

St. Paul, Minn.-based H.B. Fuller Company makes adhesives,
sealants, powder coatings for metals (office furniture,
appliances), and liquid paints (in Latin America).

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup in Schools Included in Obama Jobs Bill
U.S. President Barack Obama's proposed new jobs bill, officially
titled the "American Jobs Act," includes a measure to rid schools
across the nation of asbestos, Asbestos.com reports.

The proposed US$447 billion plan was created to stimulate jobs in
America.  If the bill passes, it will also fund asbestos
abatement, which is the process of identifying, removing and
disposal of asbestos.

Upon the passing of the jobs bill, money will be allocated to
school districts for the improvement and renovation of the 100
largest and "high need" public school districts around the
country, benefiting an estimated 35,000 schools.

According to a White House news release, the proposed jobs plan
will provide funds for asbestos removal and abatement, greening
and energy efficiency upgrades along with a range of other
advancements that could begin within three to six months of

Older school buildings, especially those built before 1978, are
most at risk for containing asbestos.  Because of the widespread
use of asbestos in earlier decades, it can be found all over
schools in places like ceiling tiles, vinyl floor coverings,
heating and cooling systems in addition to other areas in

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smith Action v. 74 Firms Filed Aug. 29 in W.Va.
Constance J. Smith, a woman from Ironton, Ohio, filed an asbestos
lawsuit on Aug. 29, 2011 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., claiming
that 74 companies are responsible for her husband Herold Leonydus
Smith's cancer and death, The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, in August 2005, Mr. Smith was
diagnosed with laryngeal cancer, of which he died from on Sept. 5,

Mr. Smith was employed as a roundhouse worker and a laborer,
maintenance foundry worker and rigger by C&O and AK Steel from
1949 until 1985, according to the suit.  Mrs. Smith claims her
late husband smoked cigarettes between 1947 and 1978, but quit
after that.

Mrs. Smith seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.  She
is being represented by Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-1494 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Walsh Plant Fined for Breaches at Maesteg Site
A Pontypridd, Wales-based demolition contractor, Walsh Plant Hire
and Demolition Contractors Ltd., has been fined after exposing
workers to asbestos fiber at the former Revlon factory in Maesteg,
Wales, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release
dated Sept. 26, 2011.

An HSE investigation found Walsh Plant Hire ignored repeated
warnings to manage the safe removal of asbestos during work on the
demolition of the site.

Bridgend Magistrates Court heard the Company was first served with
a Prohibition Notice ceasing activity at the site in February
2010, because work to remove asbestos cement sheeting debris was
likely to generate asbestos dust which could have posed a health
risk to those working at the site.

Before resuming work, the Company was required to produce a plan
for the safe removal of the materials to make sure it was properly

A management plan was developed to keep the asbestos cement in a
safe condition by damping down the waste until it was removed from
the site.  However, a further visit by the HSE on May 27, 2010,
found the Company had ignored the guidelines in its own plan, as
the site was dry, and no damping down had been undertaken for a

Excavators were also found to be moving rubble contaminated with
asbestos-containing debris, and tracking over asbestos cement
fragments, potentially contaminating workers with asbestos dust.

Walsh Plant Hire and Demolition Contractors Ltd, of Unit 6, Old
Parish Road, Ynysybwl, Pontypridd, pleaded guilty to breaching
Regulation 7(5) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.  The
Company was fined on Sept. 26, 2011 for GBP5,000 and ordered to
pay full costs of GBP6,828.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Phil Nicolle said, "The Company
was well aware of what it should have done to ensure the health of
its workers and others when working with asbestos-containing
materials at the site.

"HSE had taken previous enforcement action to ensure the company
had a plan of work to manage the asbestos material safely.  This
plan was prepared but then ignored by the Company."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Contractor Charged for EPA Violations
After a two day hearing in federal court in Rochester, N.Y., U.S.
District Court Judge Charles J. Siragusa sentenced 54-year-old
Keith Gordon-Smith to six years in prison on Sept. 21, 2011, for
knowingly violating the Clean Air Act and making false statements
to a federal inspector, according to a U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency press release dated Sept. 22, 2011.

Mr. Gordon-Smith, of Rochester, N.Y., was also sentenced to serve
a three year term of supervised release to follow his prison term
and was ordered to pay a $1,100 special assessment.  Mr. Gordon-
Smith's now defunct company was sentenced to pay a special
assessment of US$4,400.

No level of exposure to asbestos is safe, so removal by untrained
workers, performed without the necessary safeguards, threatens the
health of those workers and the public.

Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said, "Ensuring Clean Air
Act work practice standards for asbestos are followed when
renovating or razing a building is critical to protecting workers
and the public.  This sentence shows that when employers fail to
adhere to the requirements of the law to make a profit, the
consequences are serious."

Ignacia S. Moreno, assistant attorney general for the Environment
and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice, said,
"The court's sentence properly punishes Gordon-Smith and his
company for the egregious crimes that placed workers and their
families at risk and for his complete disregard of the
environmental laws that protect human health and the environment.
The court's sentence should send a strong message to asbestos
abatement contractors that they will be held accountable to the
fullest extent of the law."

U.S. Attorney William J. Hochul, Jr. said, "The highly dangerous
actions of Keith Gordon-Smith exposed both workers and the public
to hazardous materials.  Those in the asbestos removal industry
are well compensated for their work, but in return are under legal
and moral obligation to perform the job correctly.  When a company
cuts corners -- or worse -- intentionally exposes workers and the
public to harm -- our Office will act quickly and decisively."

Mr. Gordon-Smith hired a number of workers who had no training in
asbestos removal and did not know they were being exposed to the
asbestos while removing the copper pipes.  Evidence at sentencing
showed that when workers questioned Mr. Gordon-Smith, he lied and
told them the areas did not contain asbestos.

Mr. Gordon-Smith ultimately lied to an Occupational Safety and
Health Administration inspector who came to the site in September
2007 and October 2007 to investigate allegations of illegal
asbestos removal.

When the workers removed the pipes and scrap metal, they were
repeatedly exposed to asbestos, and described that the asbestos
fell on them "like snow."  The workers were not provided with any
protective clothing or respirators while tearing out the asbestos-
contaminated pipes and wore their asbestos-contaminated clothing
back to their homes and families after work.

The jury also convicted Mr. Gordon-Smith and his company, Gordon-
Smith Contracting, Inc., of causing GSCI workers to illegally
remove and dispose of asbestos during the actual asbestos
abatement at the west wing of the Genesee Hospital complex, from
May 2007 until February 2009.

The asbestos was allowed to flow from upper floors through drains
and holes in containment.  Large amounts of asbestos were left
hidden in the west wing.  Mr. Gordon-Smith was fired from the site
in February 2009.  The building was subsequently cleaned of
asbestos before it was demolished in September 2010.

Mr. Gordon-Smith and his company were also convicted by the jury
of six counts of failing to provide required notices to EPA prior
to commencing asbestos abatement projects at six different sites
in the Rochester area, between 2005 and June 2008.

The sites included the west wing of the Genesee Hospital complex,
Cobbles Elementary School in Penfield, Bloomfield Elementary
School in East Bloomfield, the Al Sigl Center in Rochester, and
the Hillside Children's Center in Varick.

The case was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Western District of New York with the Environmental Crimes Section
of the Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice.

The case was investigated by the U.S. EPA Criminal Investigation
Division and the U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Inspector
General.  Criminal investigators were assisted by OSHA and the New
York Department of Labor Asbestos Control Bureau.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monks Sue Lothian Heating for Safety Violations
The Order of Friars Minor sued heating firm Lothian Heating
Services for GBP35,000 when workers battered two holes in a wall
of the religious group's Edinburgh, Scotland, base, the Edinburgh
Evening News reports.

Lothian Heating staff had spent a week installing a new heating
system before they noticed an asbestos warning in the monks'
toilet.  The Health and Safety Executive was called in and work
had to stop immediately so the asbestos could be disposed of.

Members of the religious group from the city's Craigmillar area
usually spend their time praying and carrying out charity work.
However, they became embroiled in a legal action at Edinburgh
Sheriff Court to recover the GBP35,000 they spent making their
building safe again.

The monks claimed workers failed to check whether asbestos was
present in the building ahead of work to replace the chapel's
heating system.  Aside from complaining about the release of the
asbestos, the monks also said the structure of their building was
left unsound when the workmen tore the holes in the wall.

The monks have remained tight-lipped about the outcome of the
case, although a joint minute agreeing a settlement was due to be
lodged with the court in September 2011, according to officials.

Lodged legal papers said Friar Father Collins entered into a
contract with the heating firm in February 2007 on behalf of the
order.  The deal was for the design, supply and installation of a
heating system for the chapel, and the company was also
commissioned to remove the existing heating system.

On May 17, 2007, Lothian Heating's employees created a large
access hole through the wall from the boiler house of the building
to facilitate the removal of old pipes.  The pipes had asbestos
insulation material attached to them.

On May 24, 2007, one of the employees noticed an asbestos warning
sticker "by chance" in the male toilets on the ground floor of the
property.  The workers spoke to Father Anthony about the "possible
presence" of the asbestos, and he told them there was an asbestos
register and provided them with a copy.

From this, the Company "ascertained that they had unknowingly been
working with dangerous asbestos."  The matter was then reported to
the HSE and work stopped.

However, lawyers acting for the firm said a survey was
commissioned by the monks in 2005 to establish the presence of

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southampton Housewife's Death Linked to Hazard
An inquest heard that the death of 68-year-old Wendy Riley, a
housewife from Southampton, England, was related to second-hand
exposure to asbestos, the Southern Daily Echo reports.

The inquest heard that Mrs. Riley died of mesothelioma after
becoming exposed to asbestos when washing her husband's clothes.
She died at Countess Mountbatten House at Moor Green Hospital.

The inquest heard how Mrs. Riley would pick asbestos fibers out of
her husband's work clothes while he worked in insulation and
shipbuilding.  This long-term exposure then led to her developing
malignant mesothelioma.

Assistant Deputy Coroner for Central Hampshire, Sarah Whitby,
recorded a verdict of death due to an industrial disease.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marks and Spencer Fined GBP1M for Safety Breach
Marks and Spencer plc has been fined GBP1 million for putting
members of the public, staff and construction workers at risk of
exposure to asbestos-containing materials during the refurbishment
of two stores in Reading and Bournemouth, according to a Health
and Safety Executive press release dated Sept. 27, 2011.

Three of the Company's contractors have also been penalized.

The sentencing hearing, at Bournemouth Crown Court, resulted in
Marks and Spencer plc being fined and ordered to pay costs of
GBP600,000, PA Realisations Ltd being fined GBP200, and Styles &
Wood Limited being fined GBP100,000 and ordered to pay costs of
GBP40,000, all for breaches that took place at the Marks and
Spencer plc store in Broad Street, Reading.

Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd was fined GBP50,000 and ordered to
pay costs of GBP75,000, for breaches that took place at the Marks
and Spencer plc store in Commercial Road, Bournemouth.  Willmott
Dixon Construction Ltd is applying for permission to appeal
against conviction.

As a result of a prosecution brought by the HSE, Marks and Spencer
plc, Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd and PA Realisations Ltd
(formerly Pectel Ltd) were found guilty in July 2011.  Styles &
Wood Limited pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing in January 2010.
The work was carried out between 2006 and 2007 on shops in Reading
and Bournemouth.

During the three month trial, which ended in July 2011, Winchester
Crown Court heard construction workers at the two stores removed
asbestos-containing materials that were present in the ceiling
tiles and elsewhere.

The court heard that the client, Marks and Spencer plc, did not
allocate sufficient time and space for the removal of asbestos-
containing materials at the Reading store.  The contractors had to
work overnight in enclosures on the shop floor, with the aim of
completing small areas of asbestos removal before the shop opened
to the public each day.

HSE alleged that Marks and Spencer plc failed to ensure that work
at the Reading store complied with the appropriate minimum
standards set out in legislation and approved codes of practice.
The Company had produced its own guidance on how asbestos should
be removed inside its stores, and the court heard that this
guidance was followed by contractors inappropriately during major

The contractor, PA Realisations Ltd, failed to reduce to a minimum
the spread of asbestos to the Reading shop floor.  Witnesses said
that areas cleaned by the Company were re-contaminated by air
moving through the void between the ceiling tiles and the floor
above, and by poor standards of work.

Styles & Wood Limited, the principal contractor at the Reading
store, admitted that it should not have permitted a method of
asbestos removal, which did not allow for adequate sealing of the
ceiling void, which resulted in risks to contractors on site.

The principal contractor at the Bournemouth store, Wilmott Dixon
Construction Ltd, failed to plan, manage and monitor removal of
asbestos-containing materials.  It did not prevent the possibility
of asbestos being disturbed by its workers in areas that had not
been surveyed extensively.

Marks and Spencer plc, of Waterside House, North Wharf Road,
Westminster, was found guilty of breaching section 2(1), relating
to its own staff, and section 3(1), relating to members of the
public and other workers, of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act
1974, on July 18, 2011.

At the sentencing that took place at Bournemouth Crown Court on
Sept. 27, 2011, Marks and Spencer plc was fined GBP1 million and
ordered to pay costs of GBP600,000.  These charges and fines
relate to the Broad Street, Reading store and date from April 24,
2006 to Nov. 13, 2006.

Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd, of Hertfordshire, was found
guilty of contravening sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and
Safety at Work etc Act 1974 between Feb. 5, 2007 and Feb. 28,
2007, on July 18, 2011.

At the sentencing which took place at Bournemouth Crown Court on
Sept. 26, 2011, Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd was fined
GBP50,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP75,000.  These breaches
took place at the Marks and Spencer plc store in Commercial Road,

Manchester-based company PA Realisations Ltd (formerly Pectel
Ltd), of the Observatory, Chapel Walks, Manchester, was found
guilty, on July 18, 2011, of contravening regulation 15 of the
Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 between May 5, 2006
and Nov. 12, 2006 at the Marks and Spencer plc store on Broad
Street, Reading.

At the sentencing that took place at Bournemouth Crown Court on
Sept. 27, 2011, PA Realisations Ltd was fined GBP200.  The Company
went into administration in December 2008 and now awaits

At an earlier hearing on Jan. 12, 2010, Styles & Wood Limited, of
Manchester Road, Altrincham, Cheshire, pleaded guilty to
contravening sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at
Work etc Act 1974.

These charges relate to offenses committed between April 24, 2006
and Nov. 13, 2006 at the Marks and Spencer plc store on Broad
Street, Reading.

At the sentencing that took place at Bournemouth Crown Court on
Sept. 27, 2011, Styles & Wood Limited was fined GBP100,000 and
ordered to pay costs of GBP40,000.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Lawyer Seeks to Reverse Second-Hand Ruling
On Sept. 20, 2011, Andrew Tauber, Esq., an attorney for CSX
Transportation, called on justices of the Illinois Supreme Court
to reverse Fifth District appellate judges who approved second-
hand asbestos claims, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

According to Mr. Tauber, six of eight state supreme courts have
rejected claims of second-hand asbestos exposure.

Mr. Tauber said Second District and Fourth District judges ruled
that defendants who used asbestos owed no duty to protect third
parties.  He said second hand claims would impose a significant
burden of litigation.  He added they would increase pressure on
solvent defendants to settle claims without merit.  He said second
hand claims would separate liability from culpability.

Plaintiff Cynthia Simpkins claims mother Dorothy Simpkins died
from inhaling asbestos fibers her husband brought home from his
job about 60 years ago.

Ms. Simpkins' lawyer at the Supreme Court, Timothy Eaton, Esq., of
Chicago, told the Justices the railroad should not have released
fibers from its premises.  He said the railroad owed a duty to
protect anyone that might come into contact with a hazardous

Ted Gianaris, Esq., of John Simmons's firm in East Alton, and John
Cooney, Esq., of Chicago also represent Ms. Simpkins.  Her mother
sued 73 defendants in 2007, including CSX as successor to
Baltimore & Ohio.  Her mother claimed her former husband carried
fibers home prior to their divorce in 1964.  She died soon after
suing, and Ms. Simpkins took charge of the suit.

Circuit Judge Daniel Stack dismissed it, finding no relationship
between the railroad and the spouse that imposed a duty on the
railroad.  Fifth District judges reversed Judge Stack, finding
employers owed a duty to protect families.  They limited the
ruling to families but did not rule out expanding it in an
appropriate case.

CSX appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming it faced liability
without limit.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucknall Joiner's Death Due to Hazard Exposure
An inquest was told that the death of 74-year-old Donald Roberts,
a retired joiner from Bucknall, Staffordshire, England, was due to
workplace exposure to asbestos, The Sentinel reports.

Mr. Roberts was suffering from mesothelioma when he was found dead
at the home he shared with his wife, Margaret, on Nov. 21, 2011.

The inquest heard that Mr. Roberts was diagnosed with the cancer,
which affects the chest, after developing a severe cough in 2008
which had steadily got worse.

Mrs. Roberts told the inquest that Mr. Roberts had worked as a
joiner until the age of 73 and had talked about using huge sheets
of asbestos during the 1950s.

Margaret Jones, assistant deputy coroner for North Staffordshire,
recorded a verdict that Mr. Roberts had died as a result of an
industrial disease.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Recalls, Vacates Ruling in Penn. Case
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York,
recalled its decision and vacated it in a case involving asbestos
styled Josephine Penn, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Amchem
Products, et al., Defendants, Kerr Corporation, Defendant-

Judges Saxe, Friedman, Moskowitz, and Abdus-Salaam entered
judgment in the case on June 9, 2011.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Alani Golanski, Esq., of
counsel), represented appellants.

Marin Goodman LLP, New York (Diane H. Miller, Esq., of counsel),
and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York (E. Leo Milonas,
Esq., of counsel), represented respondent.

In a Supreme Court, New York County, order entered on June 1,
2009, which granted Kerr Corporation's post-trial motion insofar
as it sought to set aside the verdict and have judgment entered in
its favor as a matter of law, and sub silentio denied the motion
as academic, insofar as it alternatively sought a remittitur,
unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the jury's
verdict on liability reinstated as against Kerr, and the matter
remanded for a new trial solely on the issue of damages for past
and future pain and suffering and loss of consortium, unless
plaintiffs, within 30 days of service of a copy of this order with
notice of entry, stipulate to reduce the award for past pain and
suffering from US$3,650,000 to US$1,500,000, future pain and
suffering from US$10,900,000 to US$2,000,000, and the award for
loss of consortium from US$1,670,000 to US$260,000, and to entry
of a judgment in accordance therewith.

Contrary to the trial court's finding, the evidence, viewed in the
light most favorable to the prevailing plaintiffs was sufficient
to permit the jury to rationally conclude that the asbestos-
containing dental liners to which the injured Josephine Penn was
exposed were distributed by Kerr.

The Decision and Order of the Court entered on May 11, 2010, was
recalled and vacated.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment OK'd in Bowser Action
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, granted in part
and denied in part, Parker-Hannifin Corporation's motion for
summary judgment in an asbestos case filed by Gerald Bowser.

Judge Peggy L. Ableman entered judgment in Civil Action No. N10C-
05-104 ASB on June 3, 2011.

Mr. Bowser worked as an aircraft mechanic for several decades,
beginning in the early 1960s.  In 2009, he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, which led to his death in December 2010.  His wife,
Jenny Bowser, alleged that the defendants in this case each
manufactured, distributed, sold, or installed asbestos-containing
products that caused Mr. Bowser's mesothelioma.

Mrs. Bowser's claims against Parker related to Mr. Bowser's
alleged exposures to asbestos-containing aircraft brakes
distributed under the brand name Cleveland Wheel & Brakes.
Cleveland brakes were produced by a predecessor to Parker.

Mr. Bowser, who was deposed prior to his death, testified to using
Cleveland brakes or seeing Cleveland brake boxes during his
employment at three different locations.  From 1965 to 1967, he
worked on a fleet of three helicopters at Doan Helicopter in
Daytona Beach, Fla.

Mr. Bowser next worked as an aviation mechanic at the Shelby,
N.C., airport from 1967 to 1973, where he recalled removing and
installing four different brands of asbestos-containing airplane
brakes: Cleveland, Bendix, Goodyear, and Goodrich.

Parker's motion for summary judgment was granted in part as to
Count III of the Complaint and Mrs. Bowser's allegations that Mr.
Bowser was exposed to asbestos from Cleveland helicopter brakes
between 1961 and 1967, and denied in part as to Mrs. Bowser's
remaining claims.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Reverses Decision in Johnson Lawsuit
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina reversed the ruling of the
North Carolina Industrial Commission in a lawsuit involving
asbestos styled Edith L. Johnson, Widow and Sole Dependent of
Russell L. Johnson, Deceased Employee, Plaintiff v. Covil
Corporation, Employer, St. Paul Travelers/USF & G and/or S.C.
Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association and/or Northern
Insurance Co. of New York and/or Penn National Insurance Co.
and/or Travelers Casualty & Surety/Aetna Casualty, Carriers,

Judges McCullough, Hunter and Bryant entered judgment in Case No.
COA10-1440 on June 7, 2011.

Edith L. Johnson, dependent and representative of the Estate of
Russell Lee Johnson, appealed from the Full Commission's denial of
her Motion to Amend or Reconsider the Opinion and Award dated May
26, 2010.

Mr. Johnson worked for Covil Corporation in various capacities
from 1957 to 1987.  Covil was an insulation company that used
asbestos on many of its sites.  Mr. Johnson began his career as an
insulator, installing and removing asbestos insulation, and
gradually moved up from foreman to President of Covil.

In 1987, Mr. Johnson retired from Covil and in 1989 he served as
Chief Executive Officer of an insulation company started by his
son-in-law.  As CEO of his son-in-law's company, he served as a
figurehead without receiving any compensation.

In late 2005, Mr. Johnson began experiencing abdominal pain.  The
following February, he was diagnosed with cancer of the peritoneum
membrane, which forms the lining of the abdominal cavity.
Biopsies were taken, indicating that it was peritoneal

On June 5, 2006, Mr. Johnson filed a claim for benefits with the
Industrial Commission based on asbestos exposure, pleural disease,
and mesothelioma.  He suddenly died the next day as a result of
mesothelioma, lung fibrosis, and septic shock.

On Oct. 3, 2006, Mrs. Johnson filed an amended form with the
Industrial Commission seeking death benefits.  The Commission
determined that Mr. Johnson's death was the result of his
occupational exposure to asbestos and awarded benefits to Mrs.

The Commission found that Mr. Johnson had average weekly wages of
US$807.69 in 1987, his last full year of employment.  Based on the
use of 1987 in determining his average weekly wages, the
Commission used the maximum compensation rate for 1987 of
US$308.00 to award Mrs. Johnson 400 weeks of death benefits at
US$308.00 per week.

Mrs. Johnson filed a Motion to Amend or Reconsider the Order based
on the maximum compensation rate of US$308.00.  The Commission
denied the Motion and Mrs. Johnson appealed.

The Appeals Court remanded the case to the Industrial Commission
for more specific findings as to why the first method of section
97-2(5) would be unjust and to recalculate Mrs. Johnson's
compensation.  The matter was reversed and remanded.

Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Edward L. Pauley, Esq., represented

Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo, L.L.P., by Mathew E.
Flatow, Esq., and M. Duane Jones, Esq., represented appellees.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Supreme Court Junks Appeal in Klas Lawsuit
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New
York, dismissed an appeal in an asbestos case filed by Kevin Klas,
on behalf of Norman William Klas.

Judges Centra, Fahey, Carni, Sconiers, and Green entered judgment
in Case No. 11-00108 on June 10, 2011.

This was an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County
(John P. Lane, J.H.O.), entered Oct. 19, 2010.  The order denied
the motion of defendant Crane Co. for summary judgment.

Upon the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for
the parties on Feb. 16, 2011, and filed in the Erie County Clerk's
Office on March 28, 2011, it was ordered that said appeal was
dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Dismissal Bid OK'd in White's Claim
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss an asbestos lawsuit filed by
Vernon White.

The case is styled Vernon White, Plaintiff v. B.A. Bledsoe, et
al., Defendants.

Judge Yvette Kane entered judgment in Civil Action No. 1:CV-10-
0146 on June 8, 2011.

This civil rights action was filed by Mr. White, at the time an
inmate confined at the U.S. Penitentiary at Lewisburg (USP-
Lewisburg), Pa.  The matter proceeded on an amended complaint
filed on May 10, 2010.  Defendants were four employees of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Three of the Defendants are employees at USP-Lewisburg: B.A.
Bledsoe, Warden; L. Karpen, Chief Psychologist; and R. Hicks,
Safety Administrator.  The fourth Defendant appeared to be Harrell
Watts, National Inmate Appeals Administrator.  Pending was
Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment.  The motion was deemed unopposed and was granted.

Mr. White alleged that on Aug. 10, 2009, he filed an appeal with
respect to his placement in the Special Management Unit (SMU)
Program at USP-Lewisburg.  On or about Sept. 16, 2009, he received
notification that an extension if time was granted to the prison
officials with respect to the time limitation on responding to his
appeal.  He maintained that the grant of such extension was a
denial of his right to due process.

Mr. White stated that he only expected to be in the SMU under a
year, but claimed that his personal property is limited to six
family photos and 10 letters, and argued that he was only
permitted 60 minutes a month on the phone.  He also claimed that
he was subjected to roaches for a five month period beginning on
Aug. 10, 2009 when he arrived at USP-Lewisburg, and also
experienced a mouse in his mattress.

Although he stated he was moved to a different block at the end of
January 2010, Mr. White believed it contains asbestos.  He claimed
that Defendants Hicks and Bledsoe knew of these conditions and
therefore were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety
in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On May 12, 2010, the Court issued an order directing service of
the amended complaint upon the Defendants.  Following the grant of
an extension of time, Defendants filed the pending motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on Sept. 10,

On Sept. 23, 2010, a brief, statement of material facts and
exhibits in support of the motion were submitted.  Following Mr.
White's failure to respond to the motion, or request an
enlargement of time within which to do so, the Court issued an
order on Oct. 15, 2010, directing him to file his opposition to
Defendants' motion within 14 days.

Mr. White was warned that his failure to do so may result in the
motion being deemed unopposed or the case being dismissed for
failure to prosecute.  At the time, Mr. White was still confined
at USP-Lewisburg.

Despite the Court's order, Mr. White failed to file his opposition
brief or seek an enlargement of time within which to do so.  In
fact, the last time the Court received contact from Mr. White was
on May 10, 2010, when he filed his amended complaint in this

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Accepts KOADI Application to Dismiss Hall
The U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, granted the
application of the Kodak Occupational Accidental Death Insurance
Plan (KOADI) and other defendants to dismiss an asbestos case
involving Peggy A. Hall.

This is an action brought under ERISA, to recover benefits under
two employee welfare plans.

The case is styled Peggy A. Hall, Plaintiff v. Kodak Occupational
Accidental Death Insurance Plan, et al., Defendants.

District Judge Charles J. Siragusa entered judgment in Case No.
08-CV-6402 CJS on June 8, 2011.

Peggy A. Hall is the widow of William D. Hall, who was employed by
Eastman Kodak from 1968 until he retired in May 1992.  On Feb. 20,
2006, almost 14 years after his retirement, Mr. Hall died of
malignant mesothelioma, caused by his exposure to asbestos while
he was employed at Eastman Kodak.

Mrs. Hall subsequently applied for benefits under two Kodak
employee welfare benefit plans: the Kodak Occupational Accidental
Death Insurance Plan -- "KOADI" or "the Accidental Death Plan --
and the Kodak Medical Assistance Plan -- "KMA" or "the Medical
Assistance Plan".

With regard to the KMA plan, Mrs. Hall applied for benefits under
the provision concerning "SE7/Survivors."

The Defendants filed the subject motion to dismiss the Complaint
on the following grounds: 1) Mrs. Hall did not timely exhaust her
administrative remedies; 2) Mrs. Hall did not timely commence this
lawsuit under the terms of the plans; 3) Mr. Hall was not an
employee at the time of his death; 4) Mr. Hall's death was caused
by disease, not accidental injury; and 5) Mr. Hall's death
occurred more than one year after his injury.

On May 24, 2001, counsel for the parties appeared for oral

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Heckerman Action
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York,
affirmed the Dec. 16, 2009 ruling of the Workers' Compensation
Board, which ruled that Bernard Heckerman sustained a work-related

The case is styled In the Matter of the Claim of Bernard
Heckerman, Respondent v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation, Appellant.
Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Judges Rose, Peters, Lahtinen, Malone Jr., and Garry entered
judgment in the case on May 12, 2011.

Mr. Heckerman worked for many years in an area of the employer's
plant where overhead pipes were wrapped in asbestos insulation.
In 2002, he was diagnosed with an asbestos-related lung disease
and he filed a claim, which the employer contested.

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim in 2007,
finding that Mr. Heckerman failed to prove an occupational
disease.  The Workers' Compensation Board directed that he be
examined by an impartial pulmonary specialist and, after receiving
the specialist's reports, the Board determined that Mr.
Heckerman's asbestos-related lung condition was causally related
to his employment and established the case for an occupational

The Board thereafter amended its decision changing the finding of
occupational disease to accidental injury, with an Aug. 2, 2002
accident date.  The employer appealed.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Appeals Court Affirms Rulings in Butler Case
The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed rulings in a case
involving asbestos filed by the family of Walter Butler against
Union Carbide Corporation.

Judge Mikell entered judgment in Case No. A11A0481 on June 15,

This is a toxic tort case involving product liability, negligence,
and loss of consortium claims maintained by Laura Butler,
individually and as administratrix of the estate of her late
husband, Walter Butler, against Union Carbide and 16 other
companies.  The complaint alleged that Mr. Butler developed
malignant mesothelioma due to his occupational exposure to
products containing asbestos manufactured or sold by the

The complaint was filed by Walter and Laura Butler in February
2008.  Mr. Butler died six months later, and Mrs. Butler was
substituted as plaintiff.  Union Carbide is the sole remaining

Before he died, Mr. Butler retained Dr. John C. Maddox, a
pathologist, as his expert on specific causation; that is, whether
asbestos from a Union Carbide product contributed to causing Mr.
Butler's mesothelioma.

Dr. Maddox deposed that each exposure to asbestos above
"background" levels, or those present in ambient air, contributed
to causing the disease.  A since-dismissed defendant, Reichhold,
Inc., moved to strike Dr. Maddox's testimony, and Union Carbide
joined the motion.

After holding a hearing, the trial court issued an extensively
researched order granting Union Carbide's motion.  The trial court
issued a separate order granting summary judgment to Union
Carbide.  Mrs. Butler appealed these orders.  The Appeals Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Vacates Ruling, Remands Buorque Claim
The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, vacated the
ruling of the Twenty-Ninth Judicial District Court Parish of St.
Charles, State of Louisiana, which granted a motion to enforce a
settlement agreement urged by American Cyanamid Co., in a case
involving asbestos filed by Ellis J. Bourque, Jr. and Marianne

The matter was remanded to the district court for further

The case is styled Ellis J. Bourque, Sr., et al v. Peter Kewit
Son's Company, et al.

Judges Hillary J. Crain, Marion F. Edwards, and Walter J.
Rothschild entered judgment in Case No. 11-CA-11 on June 14, 2011.

Ellis Bourque, Sr. worked for a number of employers over the
course of his life.  He was diagnosed with asbestosis later in
life.  In 1995 he and his wife, Opal Grace Bourque, sued a number
of his prior employers alleging that exposure to asbestos while in
their employ had caused his condition.

Upon his death in 1997, Ellis Bourque, Sr.'s wife Opal and
Marianne Judice and Ellis Bourque, Jr., his two natural children
with another woman, asserted wrongful death and survival action
claims by way of an amended petition.

Opal died in 2008.  On July 23, 2010, American Cyanamid Co., one
of the defendants, filed a motion to continue a Sept. 20, 2010,
trial date on grounds that Michael Fisher and Wesley Swisher, two
children of Opal from another union, had to be notified of the
pending trial and given an opportunity to respond.

Counsel for plaintiffs represented that at an Aug. 19, 2010
hearing on this motion, the trial judge ordered one of the
defendants to notify Fisher and Swisher of their potential claims.
Fisher and Swisher substituted themselves as plaintiffs for their
mother, Opal, on Aug. 30, 2010.

On July 26, 2010, prior to Fisher and Swisher joining the suit,
mediation was held among counsel for the plaintiffs and only some
of the numerous defendants.  They further represented that a
settlement figure of US$300,000 was agreed to by plaintiffs and
five of the defendants, but that no writing was produced or signed
at that time.

No evidence as to any other details of this agreement appears in
the record.  The documentary evidence presented at the hearing on
the motion to enforce the settlement showed that although a
settlement document reciting a settlement figure of US$200,000 was
confected and sent to the plaintiffs, it was never signed by them.
Neither was it signed by any of the defendants.

It was also shown that a US$50,000 check from one of the
defendants, Peter Kiewit & Sons, was received and deposited in
plaintiffs' counsels' trust account.  It was further represented
by plaintiffs' counsel that the funds were returned to the
defendant that had sent the check.

When plaintiffs refused to sign the agreement, American Cyanamid
urged the present motion to enforce the settlement.  After a
hearing, the trial judge issued a judgment granting the motion.
This appeal followed.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Congress Holds Hearing over Payout Fraud
A House Judiciary Committee of the United States Congress on
Sept. 9, 2011, heard testimony on alleged fraud and abuse in the
asbestos compensation system, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The committee reviewed transparency issues in asbestos trusts,
which are massive pools of money set up by companies in bankruptcy
to pay off asbestos claims.  Defense attorneys have long claimed
that plaintiffs double dip and get inflated payouts by filing
multiple asbestos claims, both in court and with asbestos trusts,
for the same injury.

Since settlements are secret and the trusts are not required to
make public their payouts, it is difficult to verify whether
claimants are getting overpaid.

In a written statement, Charles Siegel, Esq., a partner at the
Dallas plaintiffs' firm Waters & Kraus LLP, disputes that point,
saying, "there is no windfall of money available to mesothelioma
claimants, and plaintiffs cannot and do not 'game the system' such
that solvent tort defendants pay the liability shares of bankrupt

Reuters points out that complaints about asbestos litigation have
been mounting for years on the Hill yet lawmakers never passed any
kind of reform bill.  It remains to be seen what the outcome will
be of today?s hearings.  For now the asbestos litigation train is

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montgomery Action v. 92 Firms Filed in Kanawha
Edward Lewis Montgomery and Callie Ilene Montgomery, of Dublin,
Va., on Sept. 6, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 92
defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West
Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, Mr. Montgomery was diagnosed with lung
cancer.  He claims he was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos
containing materials during his career as a machine operator,
laborer and insulator.

According to the suit, the defendants were negligent in failing to
protect Mr. Montgomery from the asbestos and/or asbestos
containing products during his employment from 1952 until 2005.

The Montgomerys seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
They are being represented by Victoria Antion, Esq., Scott A.
McGee, Esq., and Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-1534 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hirsch Case v. 41 Firms Filed in St. Clair Co.
Craig Hirsch, on Sept. 12, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against
41 defendant corporations in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill.,
The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Hirsch's case is St. Clair County Circuit Court Case No.

Mr. Hirsch is represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian
and Associates in Edwardsville.  Erik Karst, Esq., J. Kyle Beale,
Esq., and Matthew T. Wright, Esq., of Karst and von Oiste in
Houston are of counsel.

Mr. Hirsch worked as a boiler tender for the U.S. Navy at the
Chicago Training Center in Chicago from 1960 until 1962, as an
operator at Ford Motor Co. from 1964 until 1966, as a repairman
and operator at Ford Motor Co. from 1964 until 1966, as a
repairman and operator at Detroit Diesel in Michigan from 1965
until 1983 and as a pipefitter for Consumers Power in Michigan in
1969, according to the complaint.

In his five-count complaint, Mr. Hirsch seeks a judgment of more
than US$50,000, plus punitive and exemplary damages of more than
US$150,000 and compensatory damages of more than US$50,000.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wolff's Widow Awarded GBP258T in Compensation
Elizabeth Wolff, the 69-year-old widow of William Wolff, was
awarded GBP258,520 in asbestos-related compensation, BBC News

Mrs. Wolff, of East Ayrshire, Scotland, raised the action for
damages after Mr. Wolff died at the age of 66 from mesothelioma in
March 2007.  His former employer, Weir Construction Ltd, accepted
that the condition was caused by negligent exposure to asbestos
during his work with them.

Judge Lord Doherty set the compensation at the Court of Session in
Edinburgh.  The court heard how the couple planned to spend time
together exploring Scotland and taking a trip to Australia.

About a year after he retired, Mr. Wolff was diagnosed with
mesothelioma and was told he had less than a year to live.  He
died seven months later.  The court was told that Mrs. Wolff had
retired from her job as a social worker at a hospital to care for
her terminally ill husband.  Following his death, she and other
family members raised an action for damages against his former

Weir Construction Ltd accepted liability but it was left to Lord
Doherty to assess the level of compensation that should be paid to
Mrs. Wolff and family members.

Following expert medical evidence, Lord Doherty said he proceeded
on the basis that, but for the condition, Mr. Wolff could have
expected to live for another 17 years.

Mrs. Wolff sued both as an individual and as executor following
the death of her husband.  The judge granted her a total award of
GBP258,520, including GBP65,000 for the suffering of Mr. Wolff.
The judge also awarded damages to the couple's three daughters
totaling GBP52,317.

The couple's granddaughter was awarded GBP7,084.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hoggett's Family Awarded GBP49T in Compensation
Joseph Nadin Ltd paid out GBP49,000 in asbestos-related damages to
the family of Ken Hoggett who died of mesothelioma, The Star

Mr. Hoggett, a scaffolder and former D-Day veteran, worked at the
Ferrybridge power station when three cooling towers collapsed in
100 mph winds in 1965.  He had cleared up in clouds of dust at the
site, inhaling asbestos fibers, which caused mesothelioma.

Barely two weeks after diagnosis, Mr. Hoggett died.  Joseph Nadin
has paid out the damages to the family after admitting a breach of
duty care.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cumbrian Scientist's Death Related to Exposure
An inquest heard that the death of 77-year-old Francis Graham
Brightman, a former nuclear physicist from St Bees, Cumbria,
England, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, News &
Star reports.

Mr. Brightman died at his home in November 2010.  A post mortem
concluded that he died as a result of bronco-pneumonia caused by
malignant mesothelioma.  He was diagnosed in 2008.

In a statement from the late Mr. Brightman, he said he worked as a
nuclear physicist from 1954 until 1990 at Windscale and Ayrshire.
He started work at Windscale in 1954 as a research and development
worker.  In 1956, he was elected a graduate by the UKAEA.  He
worked in Cumbria until 1974 before moving to Ayrshire for five
years.  He returned to Windscale in 1979 until he retired in 1990.

The inquest heard that during this time, Mr. Brightman was exposed
to asbestos while he walked from his place of work through the
turbines halls at the Windscales site.  In the statement, Mr.
Brightman also said he was exposed to asbestos while he worked at
the UKAEA site in Scotland.

West Cumbria coroner David Roberts said, "I accept Mr. Brightman's
statement which says he would have been working in areas where
asbestos was used.  I find that the development of malignant
mesothelioma was caused by asbestos."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawksley Worker's Family Awarded GBP92T Payout
The family of William Evans, a former AW Hawksley Ltd worker from
Cheltenham, England, has been awarded GBP92,000 in asbestos-
related compensation, BBC News reports.

Mr. Evans died from mesothelioma earlier in 2011. He worked for AW
Hawksley Ltd, a subsidiary of BAE Systems Pensions Funds
Investment Management, in Gloucester between 1947 and 1950.  His
job involved drilling into asbestos sheets used in pre-fabricated

Mr. Evans' family sued BAE Systems and the firm accepted
liability, making the settlement to his two adult children.  The
company admitted they had wrongly exposed Mr. Evans to asbestos.

Mr. Evans had been given no warnings or protective clothing and
wore ordinary cotton overalls, which he took home to wash.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Police Union Calls for More Health Checks
The New South Wales Police Association is calling for more health
checks, after revelations an officer from Broken Hill, New South
Wales, Australia, has asbestos-related disease, ABC News reports.

Matt Thompson, the union's western region organizer says within
the Barrier command there are 38 asbestos affected police
premises.  He says Detective Senior Constable Rick Liston was
diagnosed with asbestos-related disease in his lungs two years
ago.  He says the Government should pledge AUD100 million to
safeguard properties and test police officers and their families.

Mr. Thompson says with more than 330 asbestos affected houses in
the western region, testing should be made available to every
police officer and their family.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. GenCorp Inc. Rise to 143 at Aug. 31
GenCorp Inc. faced 143 pending asbestos cases as of Aug. 31, 2011,
compared with 141 cases as of Nov. 30, 2011, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Sept. 30, 2011 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 138 pending asbestos-related claims as of
May 31, 2011. (Class Action Reporter, July 15, 2011)

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

From Nov. 30, 2010 to Aug. 31, 2011, the Company recorded 19
claims filed, 14 claims dismissed, and three claims pending.
Aggregate settlement costs were US$70,000 and average settlement
costs were US$23,000.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the first
nine months of fiscal 2011 were US$300,000.

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

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board Ruling in Castelli Lawsuit
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York,
affirmed the Jan. 15, 2010 ruling of the Workers' Compensation
Board, which ruled that the employer and its workers' compensation
carrier were not entitled to reimbursement from the Special
Disability Fund.

The case is styled In the Matter of the Claim of Nicholas
Castelli, Claimant v. NRG et al., Appellants, and Special
Disability Fund, Respondent. Workers' Compensation Board,

Judges Spain, Lahtinen, Kavanagh, McCarthy and Garry entered
judgment in Case No. 510943 on June 16, 2011.

After exposure to asbestos and other lung irritants in the course
of his employment as a gas turbine supervisor, Nicholas Castelli
developed asbestosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
His ensuing claim for workers' compensation benefits was
established, with the Board determining that his date of
disablement was Nov. 13, 2008.

The employer and its workers' compensation carrier (hereinafter
collectively referred to as the employer) then sought
reimbursement for those benefits from the Special Disability Fund.
The Board denied the employer's application on the basis that
amendments to Workers' Compensation Law closed the Fund to claims
with a date of disablement after July 1, 2007.  The employer
appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Summary Judgment OK'd in Foucha
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, granted
Georgia-Pacific, LLC's motion for summary judgment in an asbestos
case filed by Raymond Foucha.

Judge Peggy L. Ableman entered judgment in Civil Action No. N10C-
05-042 ASB on June 3, 2011.

Mr. Foucha was diagnosed with mesothelioma in February 2010. As a
result, he and his wife, Sussanah Foucha, had sued various
defendants in this action, claiming that they are responsible for
exposing Mr. Foucha to asbestos from their products and thereby
causing his mesothelioma.

The Fouchas' claims against Georgia-Pacific related to non-
occupational home renovation projects on which Mr. Foucha assisted
his father in the 1960s and 1970s.

During his deposition, Mr. Foucha remembered a wide variety of
home renovation projects in his life, but recalled only three in
which he worked on or around joint compound: (1) conversion of a
garage into living space at his Richland Road family home in the
mid-1960s; (2) construction of the family's St. Tammany Parish
Camp cabin in the early to mid-1960s; and (3) replacement of
drywall in the bathroom at his Cherrywood Street home in the

Georgia-Pacific did not begin manufacturing joint compound until
it purchased Bestwall Gypsum Co. and their product lines in 1965.
From 1965 until 1973, Georgia-Pacific joint compounds contained
some asbestos, but by May 1977, Georgia-Pacific did not produce,
manufacture, or distribute any asbestos-containing products.

Georgia-Pacific had moved for summary judgment on the basis that
the Fouchas cannot establish exposure to any asbestos-containing
Georgia-Pacific products.

In response, the Fouchas urged that Mr. Foucha identified Georgia-
Pacific as a manufacturer of joint compound that exposed him to
asbestos and further argue that they have "come forward with more
than sufficient evidence of exposure to asbestos-containing
products to defeat summary judgment."

Since the Fouchas' evidence did not support a conclusion that Mr.
Foucha was exposed to asbestos from Georgia-Pacific's products
without speculation, it followed that the Fouchas cannot meet the
Louisiana substantial factor causation standard.

Accordingly, Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment was

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Phillips Action
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed the ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
which sentenced Michael Phillips to 18 months of imprisonment,
three years of supervised release, US$12,765 in restitution, and a
US$100 special assessment fee.

Mr. Phillips pleaded guilty to removing and disposing of asbestos.

The case is styled United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
Michael Phillips, Defendant-Appellant.

Judges Bauer, Posner and William entered judgment in Case No.
10-2438 on June 17, 2011.

Mr. Phillips owned and managed an apartment building in New
London, Wis.  In 2007, he hired Jeff DeCareau to remove asbestos
insulation and renovate the building's heating system.  Mr.
DeCareau had no experience, training, or expertise in asbestos
removal, but Mr. Phillips hired him because his rates were "really

Mr. Phillips also hired two tenants, Sandy Kurth and Molly Dumas,
who agreed to assist Mr. DeCareau in exchange for a reduction in

Mr. DeCareau, Kurth, and Dumas removed the asbestos insulation
with a Sawzall, an electronic hand-held saw with a large
oscillating blade.  Although the use of the Sawzall created a
great deal of asbestos dust and debris, the workers did not wear
face masks or protective clothing.

They also did not wet the insulation before cutting it, confine
the dust and debris to a limited area, or store the asbestos
insulation in sealed containers.  In fact, they kept the asbestos
insulation in a vacant apartment and the piping (which was also
covered in asbestos) in a common hallway and a shared garage.  A
professional trained in asbestos removal would have done none of
the above.

When the Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental
Protective Agency were alerted to this project, they inspected the
building and determined that the air was heavily laden with
asbestos fibers.  Both agencies agreed that no person could safely
live in the building, and all tenants were ordered to move out.

Mr. Phillips was involved throughout the entire renovation
project.  He visited the building almost daily, helped remove
piping and asbestos insulation, and knew that the Sawzall created
a large quantity of asbestos dust and debris.  While he denied
knowing that asbestos is harmful, much of the evidence is to the

Allen M. Brabender, Esq., Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.,
represented the United States of America.

Brian P. Mullins, Esq., Brian T. Fahl, Esq., Federal Defender
Services of Eastern Wisconsin, Incorporated, Milwaukee,
represented Mr. Phillips.


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  * * *