CAR_Public/120210.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, February 10, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 29

                             Headlines

7-ELEVEN INC: Faces Suit for Not Remitting Rebates to Franchisees
BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend Florida Homeowners' Suit
BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action in Ill.
BMC SOFTWARE: Remaining Appeal From Settlement Order Withdrawn
BRETT BROS: Faces Class Action for False Advertising

BRISTOW GROUP: Appeal From "Superior" Suit Dismissal Pending
CI MUTUAL FUNDS: Court of Appeal Affirms Class Certification
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Court Dismisses "Karam" Securities Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defends 4 Suits Due to Negative Publicity
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces "Harrington" Class Suit in California

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitration in "Montgomery" Suit Ongoing
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Reed" Suit Remains Pending Due to Appeal
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Defends "Rivera" Class Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued for Misrepresenting Pressure Washers
CURACTIVE ORGANIC: Appeal Court Upholds Class Action Dismissal

DESIGNS DIRECT: Recalls 2,000 21-inch Rooster-Themed Lamps
FAIR ISAAC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Order Dismissed
FLEXTRONICS INT'L: Solectron Merger-Related Suit Now Closed
HEADWATERS INC: Appeal in "Adtech" Class Suit Remains Pending
HEADWATERS INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Archstone" Suit vs. Unit

HONDA: Faces Class Suit in L.A. for Defective Window Mechanism
K12 INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
MENARDS: Minority Employees File EEOC Class Action
NETFLIX INC: Newman Ferrara Pursues Securities Fraud Claims
SOAPSTONE NETWORKS: Last Remaining IPO Suit Appeal Dismissed

STATE OF MILWAUKEE: MPS Gets Favorable Ruling in Suit v. DPI
STATE OF OKLAHOMA: Supreme Court Won't Hear Suit Over Settlement
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Defends Class Suit Alleging Commercial Claims
UNITED STATES: Has Until Feb. 16 to Respond to Occupy DC Suit
ZEP INC: Sued Over Cleaning Product's Alleged Deceptive Marketing

* Wal-Mart Class Action Ruling Cited in Environmental Cases

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Asbestos Claims Reserves Total $533MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules' Asbestos Claims Reserves Total $305MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Invensys Continues to Indemnify RBS Global
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hamilton Sundstrand Continues to Indemnify RBS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Zurn Unit Estimates $65MM Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Has $258MM Insurance at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Still Defends 4,800 Suits at Dec. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Records $16.2MM Charge in 4th Quarter
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Continues to Defend Asbestos Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Has 11,400 Cases Pending at Dec. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bassett Furniture Has No Remediation Estimate
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Has 1,291 Open Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: E.D. Pa. Ct. Dismisses Cases vs. GE, et al.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Dismisses Case vs. Crane Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Ct. Allows Suit v. AW Chesterton to Proceed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Ct. Directs New Hearing on Honeywell Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Says Thorpe Plan Not "Insurance Neutral"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Directs Reinsurers to Pay $420-Mil.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Ct. Allows Doctor Deposition in Millsaps Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Summary Judgment re Punitive Damages
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Allows Rabovsky Expert Testimonies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Ct. Admits Witness' Grand Jury Testimony
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Ct. Denies Mandamus to Junk Lower Ct. Order
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Ct. Bars Granite State's Intervention

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Ct. Junks Postpetition Claims as Discharged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules on P&H Worker's Suit vs. Pneumo Abex
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Ct. Directs Building Owner to Pay $25,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Pays First Batch of Plaintiffs In Libby
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel, AW Chesterton et al. Face Bartee Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Can Add $16MM to Its Pension Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M, AW Chesterton et al. Face Coombs Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kildare Coroner Links 2 Deaths to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADRI Researchers Warn DIY Home Renovators
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Offers $19.5MM Medical Settlement Trust

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chadha Takes Leave From McGill, St. Mary's Board
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kansas Developer Faces $250K Fine & 5 Yrs Prison
ASBESTOS UPDATE: APPG Reports 75% of UK Schools Are Contaminated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA In-Depth Test Results Clear Libby Wood Chips
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Files Lawsuit Against 3M Co, 59 Others

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Contractor "No Show" On Agreed Schedule
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McGill Doctors Accept Funds From Chrysotile Inst.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School's Abatement Angers Un-Notified Parents
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gracedale Remediation to Complete by Mid-March
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazmat Dumped Twice in 3 months at Banana Shire

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ENVIRON Gets Abatement Job on HVAC/Boiler Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison's Litigation Climate Turns Off Businesses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parliament to Discuss Contagions in Schools, etc.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Supports Washington's Better Brakes Law
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Reports 4th Qtr 2011 Results

ASBESTOS UPDATE: McGill Cuts Off Ties With John Corbett McDonald
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Officials Address Hanford Workers' Safety Issues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Broken Buildings at Pea Island Need to Be Abated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Home Developer Faces 10 Years & $500,000 Fine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntingdonshire Health Teams to Check Businesses

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Felony Charge at Law Firm Blossoms to Espionage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Town Allocates $400,000 for 11-School Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dying Ex-Suncorp Employee Awarded AU$600,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Violator Faces 4 Years & $300K Fine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suva, Swiss Courts Face Rising Mesothelioma Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Materials Snag Hewitt Renovation Plans
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ALEC Campaigns in Idaho to Limit Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CALA Member Urges Reform Against "Double-Dipping"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eitanit Protests NIS150 million Pollution Charge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Unable to Trace Ex-RAF's Mesothelioma

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Islanders Warned of Hazmat From St. Helier Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Raze International Gets Wheeling Abatement Job
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminants at Water Plant Not Public Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Larry Davis in Meso Race
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Begins to Decontaminate All Public Schools

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Call for Husband's Former Foxford Peers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sites Designed for Asbestos Law Firms Up for Rent
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Head Questions Notorious Violator's Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labour MP Urges UK for National Asbestos Audit


                          *********

7-ELEVEN INC: Faces Suit for Not Remitting Rebates to Franchisees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ghose Inc., an Illinois corporation, Julmor Inc., an Illinois
corporation, and Hashim Syed, individually and on behalf of a
class v. 7-Eleven, Inc., a Texas corporation, Case No. 2012-CH-
04114 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., February 6, 2012) is brought on
behalf of a class consisting of 7-Eleven franchisees, who own or
owned a 7-Eleven convenience store in the state of Illinois, who
were eligible to receive retailer rebate pursuant to the Illinois
Retailer Occupation Tax Act, but who did not receive from 7-Eleven
the full Retailer Rebate amount due to them.

The Plaintiffs contend that they bring the action to secure
redress for improper practices of 7-Eleven in connection with its
failure to provide them with sales tax rebate funds owed to them
under Illinois law and their individual store franchise
agreements.  The Plaintiffs allege that despite the fact that the
Tax Act provides that the Retailer Rebate will be remitted to the
"retailer," 7-Eleven does not remit the entire Retailer Rebate to
the franchisees.

Ghose Inc. operates a 7-Eleven convenience store located at 2010
North Darren Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois.  Julmor Inc. operates a
7-Eleven convenience store located at 3407 North Halsted Street,
in Chicago, Illinois.  Plaintiff Hashim Syed operates a 7-Eleven
convenience store located at 1404 West Pratt Avenue, in Chicago,
Illinois.

7-Eleven, a Texas corporation, franchises more than 4,900 7-Eleven
convenience stores in the United States with approximately 300
franchisees located in the state of Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Boxerman, Esq.
          MARCUS & BOXERMAN, LLP
          19 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 641-2233
          E-mail: mboxerman@marcusboxerman.com


BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend Florida Homeowners' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
commenced by Florida homeowners, according to the Company's
February 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On June 3, 2009, Beazer Homes Corp. was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Lee
County, State of Florida, filed by Bryson and Kimberly Royal, the
owners of one of the Company's homes in its Magnolia Lakes'
community in Ft. Myers, Florida.  The complaint names the Company
and certain distributors and suppliers of drywall and was on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated owners
of homes in Magnolia Lakes or alternatively in the State of
Florida.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company built their homes
with defective drywall, manufactured in China, that contains
sulfur compounds that allegedly corrode certain metals and that
are allegedly capable of harming the health of individuals.
Plaintiffs allege physical and economic damages and seek legal and
equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's fees.  This
case has been transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana
pursuant to an order from the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.  In addition, the Company has been named
in other multi-plaintiff complaints filed in the multidistrict
litigation.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in these actions are
governed by home warranties or are without merit.  Accordingly,
the Company intends to vigorously defend against these actions.
Furthermore, the Company has offered to repair all Beazer homes
affected by defective Chinese drywall pursuant to a repair
protocol that has been adopted by the multidistrict litigation
court, including those homes involved in litigation.  To date,
nearly all of affected Beazer homeowners have accepted the
Company's offer to repair.  The Company also continues to pursue
recovery against responsible subcontractors, drywall suppliers and
drywall manufacturers for its repair costs.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- is a
homebuilder headquartered in Atlanta.  The Company's ongoing
operations are geographically diversified in 16 states across the
country, and its high performance homes, called eSMART, are
designed to appeal to homebuyers at various price points across
various demographic segments.


BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a
securities class action claims a drugmaker defrauded investors
with bogus claims about a drug for female sexual dysfunction, and
that Biosante Pharmaceuticals shares sank by 77 percent in a day
when the truth came out.

Lead plaintiff Thomas Lauria sued Illinois-based Biosante
Pharmaceuticals and its CEO Stephen M. Simes in Federal Court.

Mr. Lauria claims Biosante and Mr. Simes pushed a "new
experimental compound, LibiGel," with false claims about
"satisfying sexual events" and its being "the most clinically
advanced pharmaceutical product in the U.S."

The complaint states: "BioSante is a specialty pharmaceutical
company focused on developing products for female sexual health
and oncology.  Over the past decade, BioSante has been in the
process of developing LibiGel, a drug designed to improve the sex
drive of women suffering from female sexual dysfunction,
specifically hypoactive sexual desire disorder ('HSDD')."

Mr. Lauria claims: "Defendants . . . consistently misled investors
about the commercial viability, effectiveness, and market
potential for LibiGel.  Defendants boasted about LibiGel's
efficacy over placebo, and provided supposedly concrete 'data'
regarding the drug's 'statistically significant' effect on
increasing the 'number of satisfying sexual events' for women
suffering from HSDD.  These purportedly positive clinical trial
results furthered defendants' claims of LibiGel being 'the most
clinically advanced pharmaceutical product in the U.S.' Defendants
raised investors' expectations by analogizing the female market
for LibiGel to such blockbuster drugs as 'Viagra, Levitra, and
Cialis.'

"As expected, these materially false and misleading statements
excited investors and analysts alike.  As a result, BioSante's
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the class
period, reaching a high of $3.81 on July 12, 2011.  . . .

"Defendants took advantage of this uninformed yet favorable market
by completing three separate offering[s] during the class period
for shares of the company's common stock.  In total, these
offerings raked in over $85 million in net proceeds for the
company.

"LibiGel's actual performance and efficacy, however, fell woefully
short of defendant's false statements.  On December 14, 2011,
BioSante issued a press release disclosing for the first time to
investors that LibiGel failed to yield positive results in large-
scale efficacy tests designed by the company.  According to the
clinical trial results, women treated with LibiGel did not
experience a statistically significant increase in either total
satisfying sexual encounters or sexual desire.  In fact, in the
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, LibiGel did not fare
significantly better than the placebo.

"These surprisingly poor clinical trial results sent BioSante
stock careening from a closing price of $2.12 to $0.48 in one day.
The company's shares continued to slide until they hit a low of
$0.38 per share.  Since the truth emerged, shares of BioSante have
lost over 75 percent of their value."

Hypoactive, or "a persistent lack of or absence of sexual desire,
fantasies, or thoughts," is "the most common form of female sexual
dysfunction," according to the complaint.  "Approximately 43
percent of women ages 18-59 experience some form of sexual
dysfunction.  As a result, the anticipated U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ('FDA') approval of LibiGel was touted as a huge
breakthrough."

LibiGel is "a gel formulation of testosterone designed to be
quickly absorbed through the skin after application on the upper
arm, delivering testosterone to the bloodstream evenly over time
and in a non-invasive and painless manner," the complaint states.

Mr. Lauria says he bought BioSante stock because of its misleading
statements.

He seeks class certification and damages for securities
violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Lauria v. BioSante Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-00772 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/07/LibiGel.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          351 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057
          E-mail: lasky@laskyrifkind.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Gregory del Gaizo, Esq.
          Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsumeda.com
                  gdelgaizo@robbinsumeda.com
                  lkandinov@robbinsumeda.com


BMC SOFTWARE: Remaining Appeal From Settlement Order Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
As previously disclosed, BMC Software, Inc. entered into a
settlement, subject to pending appeals, of a class action lawsuit
involving one of the Company's wholly-owned subsidiaries, Marimba,
Inc.  Recently, the sole remaining appeal of the court approved
settlement was withdrawn with prejudice such that this matter is
now finally resolved, according to the Company's February 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

The Company says there was no financial impact to it in connection
with this settlement.


BRETT BROS: Faces Class Action for False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------
Kris Hughes, writing for Rant Sports, reports that a group of Iowa
lawyers are seeking class-action lawsuit status for a filing
alleging that George Brett of the Kansas City Royals has been
falsely advertising a series of necklaces and bracelets as having
the ability to improve overall health and sports performance.

Mr. Brett's company based in Spokane, Washington, Brett Bros.
Sports International has falsely claimed that it's "Iconic
Necklaces" help customers relieve chronic pain and recover from
fatigue, leading to overall increase in sports performance.

Thousands of customers have bought the Brett Bros. products over
the past few years, and damages sought in a class-action lawsuit
would likely be in the millions.


BRISTOW GROUP: Appeal From "Superior" Suit Dismissal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
On June 12, 2009, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow
Group Inc., et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-00438, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.  The purported class
action complaint, which also named other providers of offshore
helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico as defendants, alleged
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Among other things,
the complaint alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired to
raise and maintain the price of offshore helicopter services
between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2005.  The plaintiff was
seeking to represent a purported class of direct purchasers of
offshore helicopter services and was asking for, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief.
In September 2010, the court granted the Company's and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss the case on several grounds.  The
plaintiff then filed a motion seeking a rehearing and seeking
leave to amend its original complaint which was partially granted
to permit limited discovery.  The Company and the other defendants
again filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit which were granted.
The plaintiff has since appealed the judgment in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The Company and the other
defendants have filed a response, and it will continue to defend
against this lawsuit vigorously.  The Company is currently unable
to determine whether it could have a material effect on the
Company's business, financial condition or results of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.


CI MUTUAL FUNDS: Court of Appeal Affirms Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Cristin Schmitz, writing for The Lawyers Weekly, reports that the
Ontario Court of Appeal has set out guidelines for determining
whether a proposed class action should be certified because it is
"preferable" to alternative procedures for resolving the class
members' claims.

On Jan. 27, Chief Justice Warren Winkler (backed by Justices
Gloria Epstein and Gladys Pardu, sitting ad hoc) upheld the
Divisional Court's decision last year to certify a multimillion-
dollar class action launched by investors against CI Mutual Funds
Inc. and AIC Ltd.

The plaintiffs claim they lost money when the defendants allegedly
permitted some short-term investors to engage in profitable
"market timing" of their purchases and sales in certain mutual
funds under the companies' management.

In unsuccessfully appealing the certification, the defendants
urged that a class action was not the preferable procedure because
the investors are already entitled to be compensated by a C$205-
million settlement agreement between the defendants, three other
mutual fund companies, and the Ontario Securities Commission
(OSC).

The representative plaintiffs argued, however, that the OSC's
settlement left a lot of money on the table.  The Divisional Court
agreed with them that a class action was the only viable vehicle
for winning any damages that the class members might be entitled
to beyond the OSC settlement.

In affirming the certification, Chief Justice Winkler set out the
comparative analytical approach to be used in determining whether
a class action qualifies as the "preferable procedure" under s.
5(1)(d) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (CPA).

In particular, he contrasted the regulatory nature of the OSC's
jurisdiction and remedial powers -- which are protective and
preventative -- to the compensatory aim of class actions.  He also
emphasized that the investors were not part of the OSC settlement
talks and approval hearing, which were held in camera.

"In contrast to the procedure underpinning a class proceeding,
which is premised on facilitating transparency and participation
on a class-wide basis, the OSC proceedings provided little to no
basis for investor participation," the chief justice pointed out.

He concluded that the OSC's proceeding did not amount to "the
preferable procedure" under the CPA because it did not fulfill its
goal of giving class members access to justice in relation to
their claims.

Counsel for CI Mutual Funds, Benjamin Zarnett of Toronto's
Goodmans, said his client is "actively considering" seeking leave
to appeal to the Supreme Court.  "We consider it a very important
decision," Mr. Zarnett said.

He pointed out that that the two lower courts in the case each
took very different approaches to determining the key "preferable
procedure" issue.

Now "the Court of Appeal has indicated the test . . . in different
terms than either of the lower courts, and obviously it's an
important point," Mr. Zarnett said.

Counsel for the class, Joel Rochon of Toronto's Rochon Genova
said: "This is, I think, the first time the Court of Appeal has
really laid down a framework which allows the lower courts, and
counsel, and corporations, and investors to really understand what
analysis should be undertaken when assessing whether or not
another procedure can be considered preferable to a class action."

Had the court denied certification, it might have prompted
defendants in future OSC proceedings to seek a quick settlement in
order to forestall a class action, he suggested.

"It would have been a major roadblock for any subsequent
[securities] class action going forward, and that would have had
huge implications for investors in this country," Mr. Rochon told
The Lawyers Weekly.

"Then the investors would have no direct right of participation in
the [regulatory] process, and what we [would have been] left with
would be a Star Chamber kind of system, where direct participation
[by investors], and transparency, would be playing second fiddle
to this regulatory Big Brother program."

Mr. Rochon said the chief justice's reasons help "ensure that if
there is an alternative procedure . . . they have to actually
deliver quality 'access to justice,' if you will, and not just lip
service.  And you can't exclude the very people that you're trying
to help from the process."

The chief justice said that in determining the preferable
procedure, the focus below should not have been on the extent of
the monetary settlement obtained by the OSC.

"In my view, the courts below erred by focusing on the substantive
outcome of the OSC proceedings, which is not a relevant factor in
the comparative analysis under s. 5(1)(d) of the CPA."

Rather, the focus should have been on comparing the OSC
proceedings with the proposed class action.

"A court must examine the fundamental characteristics of the
proposed alternative proceeding, such as the scope and nature of
the jurisdiction and remedial powers of the alternative forum, the
procedural safeguards that apply, and the accessibility of the
alternative proceeding," he explained.

"The court must then compare these characteristics to those of a
class proceeding in order to determine which is the preferable
means of fulfilling the judicial economy, access to justice and
behaviour modification purposes of the CPA."

The OSC settlement agreements expressly contemplated that the
defendants could face additional civil suits in relation to their
conduct.  The three other defendants have settled with the class
members.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Court Dismisses "Karam" Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's February 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,
2007, through August 19, 2010, against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of
whom are current or former officers of the Company.  The complaint
alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to
disclose certain material facts about the condition of the
Company's business and prospects during the putative class period,
causing the plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiffs further claim that
Messrs. Massimino, Waller, Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section
20(a) of the Act. The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other
relief.

On October 29, 2010, another putative class action complaint
captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was
filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam matter in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The Totten
complaint is substantively identical to the Karam complaint.
Several other plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit and petitioned
the Court to appoint them to be the lead plaintiffs.  On March 30,
2011, the Court appointed the Wyoming Retirement System and
Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technieklead as lead plaintiffs,
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as counsel for lead
plaintiffs, in the consolidated action.  Lead plaintiffs have
filed an amended consolidated complaint, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated action.

On January 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss, and gave the plaintiffs thirty days to file an
amended complaint.  The Company believes the complaints are
without merit and intends to defend itself and its current and
former officers vigorously.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defends 4 Suits Due to Negative Publicity
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continues to defend four class action
lawsuits arising from negative publicity, according to the
Company's February 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

During fiscal 2011, the Company experienced an unprecedented
increase in putative class action lawsuits by former students.  In
all of these cases, the plaintiffs and their counsel seek to
represent a class of "similarly situated" people as defined in the
complaint.  The Company believes these lawsuits are largely the
result of negative publicity -- and aggressive lawyer recruitment
of potential clients -- surrounding the Department of Education's
("ED's") rulemaking efforts, the Senate HELP Committee hearings,
the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") report, and other
related matters.  In virtually all of the following cases, the
plaintiffs cite testimony from the HELP Committee hearings, the
GAO report, public statements by elected officials and/or other
negative media coverage in their complaints, although the
locations of the students, the specific allegations, and the
nature of their claims differ.  The Company believes all of the
following complaints are contractually required to be resolved in
individual arbitrations between the named students and the
Company, and the Company has moved, or will move, to compel these
cases to arbitration:

                       Named Plaintiffs
Dated Filed         & Campus Attended                   Venue
-----------         -----------------                   -----
Dec. 20, 2010         Jacquel Kimble;    U.S. District Court,
                    Everest College in       Northern District
                   Hayward, California           of California

Jan. 24, 2011         Kevin Ferguson;    U.S. District Court,
                     Everest Institute        Central District
                     in Miami, Florida           of California

Feb. 17, 2011           Sandra Muniz;    U.S. District Court,
                         Heald College        Central District
                    campuses in Rancho           of California
                   Cordova & Roseville
                            California

March 11, 2011    Noravel Arevalo and    American Arbitration
                    14 former students             Association
                   at Everest College,
                   in Alhambra, Calif.

The Company says it intends to defend itself and its subsidiaries
vigorously in all of these matters.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces "Harrington" Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
commenced by Michael Harrington in Orange County, California,
according to the Company's February 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

On September 13, 2011, an action captioned Michael Harrington,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al., was filed in California's
Alameda Superior Court.  A virtually identical action with the
same caption was filed by different plaintiff's counsel on
September 15, 2011, in California's Orange County Superior Court.
The plaintiff is a former admissions representative at the
Company's Fremont and Hayward campuses and the two actions allege
violations of Section 17200 of the California's Business and
Professions Code and the California Labor Code for alleged failure
to pay for all hours worked, purported denial of meal periods, and
alleged failure to pay wages upon termination.  The Alameda
complaint has since been voluntarily dismissed.  While the scope
of the putative class is not clear, the remaining Orange County
action appears to seek certification of a class to include those
current and former admissions representatives over the last four
years at the Company's California campuses.  The Company believes
the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitration in "Montgomery" Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian
Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Corinthian
Schools, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
Plaintiffs were thirty-three individuals who purported to be
current and/or former students of the Company's Medical Assistant
Program at the Everest College campus in Merrionette Park,
Illinois.  The complaint alleged breach of contract, violation of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
and unjust enrichment, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the Company's medical assisting
program at the Merrionette Park campus.  The plaintiffs sought to
certify a class composed of all persons who enrolled in the
Company's Medical Assisting program at the Everest College
Merrionette Park campus during the four years preceding the filing
of the lawsuit, and sought actual and compensatory damages on
behalf of such persons, costs and attorneys' fees, punitive
damages, disgorgement and restitution of wrongful profits, revenue
and benefits to the extent deemed appropriate by the court, and
such other relief as the court deemed proper.  The Company removed
the case to federal court and moved to compel individual
arbitrations, which the court granted.  Thirty-one plaintiffs have
now filed individual demands in arbitration.  The Company believes
these matters are without merit and intends to defend itself and
its subsidiary vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Reed" Suit Remains Pending Due to Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Reed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed in the District Court of Travis County,
Texas.  Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company.  Plaintiff purports to be a former
student in the Company's Everest University Online operations.
The complaint claims violations of Texas Education Code Sections
132.051(a) and 132.059(a) for alleged failure of Everest
University Online to receive a Certificate of Approval or an
exemption from the appropriate Texas state licensing bodies to
offer online courses in the State of Texas and to register its
admissions representatives with the State of Texas.  The plaintiff
seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who contracted to
receive distance education from Everest University Online while
residing in Texas, and seeks damages on behalf of such persons,
pre- and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive
relief, cost of lawsuit, and such other relief as the court deems
proper.  On July 26, 2010, the Court ordered the matter to binding
arbitration, and the plaintiff has filed a putative class action
demand in arbitration.  The arbitrator has ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former student's enrollment agreement
is susceptible to class-wide resolution, but has not yet addressed
whether a class should be certified.  The Company has appealed the
clause-construction decision and the case has been stayed pending
the appeal.  The Company believes the complaint is without merit
and intends to defend itself and its subsidiary vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Defends "Rivera" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
putative class action demand filed with the American Arbitration
Association, according to the Company's February 2, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed with the American Arbitration
Association.  The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC
students from the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus.  The
arbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional
deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company never operated any HVAC
programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its
ownership of that campus.  The arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former students' enrollment agreement
is not susceptible to class-wide resolution.

On November 22, 2011, a California state court judge refused to
confirm the arbitrator's clause construction decision and remanded
the matter to the arbitrator for further consideration.  The
Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these allegations.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued for Misrepresenting Pressure Washers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that FNA misrepresents its
Simpson-brand pressure washers as "Proudly made in U.S.A.," though
components for the Costco-stocked product are made in other
countries, a class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Martin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation,
et al., Case No. 34-2012-00118165 (Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/07/costco.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Will Lemkul, Esq.
          Danielle M. Cantrell, Esq.
          MORRIS, SULLIVAN & LEMKUL, LLP
          9915 Mira Mesa Blvd., Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 566-7600
          E-mail: lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Potter, Esq.
          Russell Handy, Esq.
          POTTER HANDY, LLP
          9845 Erma Road, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 375-7385
          E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com
                  russ@potterhandy.com


CURACTIVE ORGANIC: Appeal Court Upholds Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hamutal Dotan, writing for Torontoist, reports that in April 2011
the Ontario Superior Court dismissed a class action lawsuit, filed
on behalf of local merchants on St. Clair, alleging that they had
suffered personal and business damages due to construction of the
St. Clair right of way.  Unhappy with the decision, the merchants
filed an appeal; in a decision released on Feb. 7, the Ontario
Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.

The C$100 million lawsuit was filed by Curactive Organic Skin
Care, a St. Clair salon, and alleged that the damages were
sustained due to the prolonged construction period for the transit
line.  The Feb. 7 decision backed up the previous ruling that the
matter of damages fell under the jurisdiction of the Ontario
Municipal Board, and further found that there was no evidence of
impropriety by the City.  From the ruling:

"[I]nsofar as the claims against TTC are concerned, we agree with
the motion judge's conclusion . . . that the various claims
advanced by Curactive were being used to disguise what is a claim
for compensation that is within the jurisdiction of the Ontario
Municipal Board."

As for the more contentious allegation that damages were
ultimately due to "an abuse of public authority and/or misfeasance
in public office," the decision states that:

"The claims as pled do not identify any individual who engaged in
any improper conduct, do not identify with any specificity the
alleged improper conduct, and provide no particulars in support of
the allegations that the conduct was done with the intention of
harming Curactive and others affected by it.  We are satisfied
that as pleaded, the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action
for intentional misconduct on the part of the City . . .
Furthermore, there is nothing in the record before this court to
suggest that Curactive is in a position to amend its pleadings in
a manner that would give any reasonable substance to its claim of
abuse of public authority against the City.

Area councilor Joe Mihevc, seemed pleased but unsurprised by the
decision.  "There was never any impropriety," he said.  "What
eventually became a legal issue was really covering for a
different approach-some people tried to use a legal means to stop
the project.  On the street, the St. Clair issue has been won . .
. Ridership is up 25 per cent, people are investing in new stores
and new storefronts."

Curactive owner Annamaria Buttinelli hadn't heard about the
decision until her attention was called to get her reaction to the
latest development.  "Obviously, I'm very upset," she said, but
she couldn't say whether they'd be pursuing damages at the OMB
before consulting further with her lawyer.


DESIGNS DIRECT: Recalls 2,000 21-inch Rooster-Themed Lamps
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Designs Direct, of Covington, Kentucky, announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,000 Living Traditions 21-inch Rooster Lamps.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The electrical cord can fray near the base of the lamp, posing a
fire or shock hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Living Traditions 21-inch rooster-themed
lamps.  The brown polyresin lamps have an off-white shade and a
carved 9-inch rooster affixed to the base.  A label on the
underside of the base reads "Distributed By Fred's Inc" and "SKU
61589."  Picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12105.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Fred's Inc. stores nationwide between October 2011
and November 2011 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lamp and
contact Designs Direct for a refund.  Consumer Contact: For more
information, contact Designs Direct toll-free at (888) 770-7062
between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday
or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.regcen.com/roosterlamp/


FAIR ISAAC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Order Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the opinion granting final approval of the settlement
resolving a consolidated securities lawsuit involving a Fair Isaac
Corporation subsidiary have been dismissed or settled, according
to the Company's February 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December
31, 2011.

Braun Consulting, Inc., which the Company acquired in November
2004) was a defendant in a lawsuit filed on November 26, 2001, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Case No. 01 CV 10629) that alleges violations of federal
securities laws in connection with Braun's initial public offering
in August 1999.  This lawsuit is among approximately 300
coordinated putative class actions against certain issuers, their
officers and directors, and underwriters with respect to such
issuers' initial public offerings.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement
between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter
defendants was submitted to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York for preliminary approval.  This
settlement requires no financial contribution from the Company.
The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10,
2009.  The settlement "fairness" hearing was held on
September 10, 2009.  The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the settlement and certified the settlement
classes on October 5, 2009.  The Court determined that the
settlement is fair to the class members, approved the settlement
and dismissed, with prejudice, the case against the Company and
its individual defendants.  Appeals of the opinion granting final
approval were filed, all of which have been dismissed or settled.


FLEXTRONICS INT'L: Solectron Merger-Related Suit Now Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit against Flextronics
International Ltd. is now closed, the Company disclosed in its
February 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On June 4, 2007, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in
Santa Clara County Superior Court.  The lawsuit arose out of the
merger with Solectron Corp. in 2007 and other defendants included
selected officers of the Company, Solectron and Solectron's former
directors and officers.  On behalf of the class, the plaintiff
sought compensatory, rescissory, and other forms of damages, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.  On August 12, 2010, the Court
certified a class of all former Solectron shareholders that were
entitled to vote and receive cash or shares of the Company's stock
in exchange for their shares of Solectron stock following the
merger.  On April 21, 2011, the Court granted a request by the
plaintiff's counsel to withdraw as class counsel, and ordered the
plaintiff to retain new counsel by June 24, 2011.  The plaintiff
failed to do so, thus on June 28, 2011, the Court issued an order
to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed.   On
August 12, 2011, the plaintiff failed to obtain new class counsel
and the Court granted a one month extension to obtain new class
counsel.  On September 26, 2011, the plaintiff failed to obtain
new class counsel and the Court dismissed the case without
prejudice.  The plaintiff had 60 days to appeal the Court's
decision and no such appeal was made. As a result, the matter is
closed.


HEADWATERS INC: Appeal in "Adtech" Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, Headwaters Incorporated entered into a technology
purchase agreement with James G. Davidson and Adtech, Inc. The
transaction transferred certain patent and royalty rights to
Headwaters related to a synthetic fuel technology invented by
Davidson.  In 2002, Headwaters received a summons and complaint
from the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee filed by former stockholders of Adtech alleging, among
other things, fraud, conspiracy, constructive trust, conversion,
patent infringement and interference with contract arising out of
the 1998 technology purchase agreement entered into between
Davidson and Adtech on the one hand, and Headwaters on the other.
All claims against Headwaters were dismissed in pretrial
proceedings except claims of conspiracy and constructive trust.
The District Court certified a class comprised of substantially
all purported stockholders of Adtech, Inc.  The plaintiffs sought
compensatory damages from Headwaters in the approximate amount of
$43.0 million plus prejudgment interest and punitive damages.

In June 2009, a jury reached a verdict in a trial in the amount of
$8.7 million for the eight named plaintiffs representing a portion
of the class members.  In September 2010, a jury reached a verdict
after a trial for the remaining 46 members of the class in the
amount of $7.3 million.  In April 2011, the trial court entered an
order for a constructive trust in the amount of approximately
$16.0 million (the same amount as the sum of the previous jury
verdicts), denied all other outstanding motions, and entered
judgment against Headwaters in the total approximate amount of
$16.0 million, in accordance with the verdicts and order on
constructive trust. The $16.0 million is fully accrued.  The court
denied all post-judgment motions by the parties.  Headwaters filed
a supersedeas bond and a notice of appeal from the judgment to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Plaintiffs have also filed notice of an appeal.  Appellate
briefing is underway.  The Court of Appeals has not set a date for
oral argument.   Because the resolution of the litigation is
uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion
as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Headwaters' liability.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.


HEADWATERS INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Archstone" Suit vs. Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Archstone owns an apartment complex in Westbury, New York.
Archstone alleges that moisture penetrated the building envelope
and damaged moisture sensitive parts of the buildings which began
to rot and grow mold.  In 2008, Archstone evicted its tenants and
began repairing the twenty-one apartment buildings.  Also in 2008,
Archstone filed a complaint in the Nassau County Supreme Court of
the State of New York against the prime contractor and its
performance bond surety, the designer, and Headwaters
Incorporated's subsidiary, Eldorado Stone, LLC, which supplied
architectural stone that was installed by others during
construction.  The prime contractor then sued over a dozen
subcontractors who in turn sued others.  Archstone claims as
damages approximately $36.0 million in repair costs, $15.0 million
in lost lease payments, $7.0 million paid to tenants who sued
Archstone, and $7.0 million for class action defense fees, plus
prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.  Eldorado Stone answered
denying liability and tendered the matter to its insurers who are
paying for the defense of the case.  The court has dismissed all
claims against Eldorado Stone, except the claim of negligence, and
the parties are pursuing an interlocutory appeal of the order of
dismissal.  Meanwhile, discovery is underway.  Because the
resolution of the action is uncertain, legal counsel and
management cannot express an opinion concerning the likely outcome
of this matter, the liability of Eldorado Stone, if any, or the
insurers' obligation to indemnify Eldorado Stone against loss, if
any.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.


HONDA: Faces Class Suit in L.A. for Defective Window Mechanism
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan D. Selbin of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced that two owners of
Honda vehicles filed a class action lawsuit against American Honda
Motor Company, Inc. ("Honda") for manufacturing and selling
vehicles with allegedly defective window mechanisms.  The
complaint, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, charges that the
Honda window defect poses a safety hazard to drivers and
passengers nationwide.

The vehicles at issue include the Honda Odyssey, Honda Pilot,
Honda Element, Honda Accord, Honda CR-V, Honda Civic, and Acura
MDX from model years 1994 to 2007.  Windows in these vehicles
allegedly can, without warning, drop into the door frame and break
or become permanently stuck in the fully-open position.

"The right passenger side window fell into the door of my 2002
Honda Odyssey LX in September  2011," stated plaintiff Phyllis
Grodzitsky, a resident of San Diego, California.  "It was a
startling, loud sound that jolted me.  I lost use of my Odyssey
for two days and it cost over $400 to fix the window."

"I made a complaint to Honda,"  Ms. Grodzitsky added.  "Honda said
there is no recall for the window systems on my vehicle.  I feel
that arrogance by a large corporation in response to a safety
issue is unacceptable in this day and age."

Plaintiff Jeremy Bordelon of Chattanooga, Tennessee, commented,
"Had I known I would be faced with serial replacements of a
substandard part, I would not have bought a Honda Element.  Both
of our windows failed during normal driving -- one failed when we
were at a complete stop, in fact!  I have had to pay to fix my
Element twice and am concerned that I will have to keep fixing it.
That's not what I would want from any car, much less one from a
brand that sells itself on its quality and reliability."

"Honda has a duty to manufacture and sell safe vehicles, and to
fix or pay for safety defects in its vehicles," Mr. Selbin stated.
"Instead, Honda has refused to acknowledge any responsibility for
the alleged defect, and forced its customers to pay for the
repairs out their own pockets."

"Not only did our clients complain to Honda about their failures
at the time, but before we filed this lawsuit we reached out to
and notified Honda of the problem and asked them to resolve it for
everyone who has the vehicles," Mr. Selbin added.  "Honda never
responded."

The Alleged Honda Window Defect Explained

The side windows in the Honda vehicles that are the subject of the
complaint move up and down by a device mounted inside the door
frame known as a "window regulator."  Within this device are a set
of cables threaded through pulleys and powered by an electric
motor.  The cable ends are fixed with a piece of plastic that
keeps the cables from being pulled out of place as tension is
applied to the cables by the window motor.

The complaint charges that expert analysis has determined that the
plastic pieces holding the cable ends in place are weak and
defective and break under normal operating conditions, causing the
window regulator to fail.  When the window regulator fails, the
side window becomes inoperable and is often permanently stuck in
the fully-open position, endangering occupants.

The complaint further alleges that Honda knew that the fix it made
available to consumers -- replacing the failed part with a new
part of the same defective design -- results in repeated window
regulator failures on the same vehicle, and yet Honda failed to
reimburse Honda owners for the costs of repeatedly replacing the
failed window regulators.  Further, the complaint charges that
Honda has failed to provide a permanent remedy to the window
regulator defect.

Legal Resources For Honda Owners

The proposed class consists of all persons nationwide who
purchased or leased certain 1994 to 2007 Honda vehicles that are
equipped with the allegedly faulty window regulators.

If you would like further information about this lawsuit, or wish
to report your experience with a faulty window mechanism on your
Honda vehicle, please visit
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/cases.php?CaseID=496 Lieff Cabraser
will review your complaint against Honda without charge or
obligation.

Members of the media that wish to obtain a copy of the complaint
may contact Brenna Van Norman of Lieff Cabraser at
bvannorman@lchb.com

                      About Lieff Cabraser

With offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is one of the nation's premier
plaintiffs' law firms.  On behalf of consumers nationwide, Lieff
Cabraser has successfully litigated hundreds of class action
lawsuits in federal and state courts, including dozens of cases
requiring manufacturers to remedy a defect, extend warranties, and
refund to consumers the cost of repairing the defective product.

Working with co-counsel, we have achieved judgments and
settlements that have recovered more than $2 billion in cash in
these cases, as well as other valuable relief such as product
fixes and extended warranties.  Learn more about our firm at
www.lieffcabraser.com


K12 INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
---------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP filed the first and only, class action
lawsuit against K12, Inc. for securities fraud on January 30, 2012
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.  Faruqi & Faruqi reminds current and former shareholders
of K12 that they have until April 2, 2012 to move for appointment
as lead plaintiff in the case.  The Complaint asserts claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in K12
common stock during the period between September 9, 2009 and
December 16, 2011, inclusive.

Recently, K12 announced that it suffered a 46% drop in net income
as a result of higher expense costs in its Q2 2012 earnings
release.  The Company said its net income for the quarter ended
December 31 was $4.2 million, or 11 cents per share, down 46% from
$7.8 million, or 23 cents per share, during the same period a year
before.

                           Take Action

If you purchased K12 securities between September 9, 2009 and
December 16, 2011 and wish to join this litigation as a plaintiff,
please contact our office as soon as possible.  We encourage
investors who would like to discuss their legal rights to visit
http://www.faruqilaw.com/LRNXor contact us by calling Richard
Gonnello or Francis McConville toll free at 877-247-4292 or at
212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
or fmcconville@faruqilaw.com

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding K12's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.  Our
firm seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP -- http://www.faruqilaw.com-- is a national
securities law firm.


MENARDS: Minority Employees File EEOC Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
WCCO reports that over the past 50 years, Menards has built itself
into a home-improvement giant.  The Eau Claire, Wis., company has
262 stores in 13 states around the Midwest.

But growth hasn't been without cost.  In 2004, several minority
employees filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, alleging that they were unfairly passed over for
promotions.

"Several individuals filed a class action complaint with the EEOC
and they claimed they were being held back in attempts for
promotion because of their race," said Attorney Jeffrey Taren.

The initial complaints prompted an investigation by EEOC that
lasted until 2010.  During that time, federal investigators
analyzed the company's employment and promotion records.  The
investigation identified some 700 present and former Menards
workers who were also discriminated against.  They ranged from
assistant department managers to store managers.

The case later went to the American Arbitration Association, which
approved a settlement between Menards and the plaintiffs on
Jan. 24.  In addition to paying the class $1 million in claims,
Menards will also change how its present and future employees are
promoted.

"African-Americans have the same opportunities of anyone else to
go up the ladder to become store managers or above," Mr. Taren
said.

It's not clear how many of the plaintiffs worked at Menards
Minnesota locations.  But Minnesota's Commissioner of Human
Rights, Kevin Lindsey, said the case shows a continuing battle in
the general workplace.

"Discrimination still does occur and it's still prevalent in the
United States and in our state of Minnesota," said Mr. Lindsey.

Under the terms of the settlement, Menards doesn't have to admit
any wrongdoing.  Company Spokesperson Jeff Abbott called the
settlement with plaintiffs and the government, "a wise business
decision."

The company's written statement further reads, "To continue is
like attempting to wrestle an 850 pound gorilla.  You may survive
doing so for a while but it generally ends poorly for the poor
citizens involved."

Plaintiffs will each receive letters notifying them of the
procedure for filing for their monetary award by Feb. 23.


NETFLIX INC: Newman Ferrara Pursues Securities Fraud Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newman Ferrara LLP on Feb. 7 disclosed that a securities class
action was filed on behalf of investors in Netflix, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Investors who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
between Dec. 20, 2010, and Oct. 24, 2011, and lost more than
$100,000, are encouraged to contact Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey
M. Norton at (212) 619-5400 or jnorton@nfllp.com to discuss this
action, the lead plaintiff process, or any questions concerning
this notice.  If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must
apply to be appointed by March 13, 2012.  The lead plaintiff will
direct the litigation and participate in important decisions
including whether to accept a settlement and how much of a
settlement to accept for the Class in the action.  Lead plaintiffs
are selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the Company during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, Netflix failed to disclose, among
other things, that: (1) it had expiring contracts with venders and
faced either ending the contracts or higher prices in 2011; (2)
content providers had asked for higher licensing fees which would
raise prices dramatically; (3) its pricing would have to increase
too accommodate the new licensing fees of its venders, and (4) it
would be short of its 2011 earnings projections.  As a result,
Netflix's shares tumbled from $213.11 to $77.37 during the class
period.

Whistleblowers: Persons with knowledge that may aid in the
investigation of this matter are encouraged to contact the firm.
Under Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Bill, whistleblowers are
protected from employer retaliation and may be entitled to as much
as 30 percent of the recovery if the information provided leads to
a successful action.

Newman Ferrara -- http://www.nfllp.com-- maintains a multifaceted
practice based in New York City with attorneys specializing in
complex commercial and multi-party litigation with an emphasis on
securities, ERISA, consumer fraud, products liability, civil
rights and real estate.

CONTACT:

        Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
        NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
        27th Fl. New York, NY 10001
        Telephone: (212) 619.5400
        E-mail: jnorton@nfllp.com


SOAPSTONE NETWORKS: Last Remaining IPO Suit Appeal Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The last remaining appeal from a settlement approval in a
consolidated securities lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice,
according to Soapstone Networks Inc.'s February 2, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Twelve purported securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and one or more of the Company's underwriters
in its initial public offering, and certain officers and directors
of the Company.  The lawsuits alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and were docketed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (the "Court") as: Felzen, et al.
v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3363; Lefkowitz, et
al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3541; Lewis, et
al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3698; Mandel,
et. al v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3713; Minai,
et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3870;
Steinberg, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-
3983; Pelissier, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
01-CV-4204; Esther, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 01-CV-4352; Zhous, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc. et al., C.A.
No. 01-CV-4494; Mammen, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et. al.,
C.A. No. 01-CV-5722; Lin, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 01-CV-5674; and Shives, et al. v. Banc of America
Securities, et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-4956.  On April 19, 2002, a
consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Complaint"),
which superseded these twelve purported securities class action
lawsuits, was filed in the Court.  The Complaint is captioned "In
re Avici Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation" (21 MC 92, 01 Civ. 3363 (SAS)) and names as defendants
the Company, certain of the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering, and certain of the Company's officers and
directors.  The Complaint, which seeks unspecified damages,
alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including among
other things, that the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering ("IPO") improperly required their customers to pay
the underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy
additional shares of stock in the aftermarket as conditions of
receiving shares in the Company's IPO.  The Complaint further
claims that these supposed practices of the underwriters should
have been disclosed in the Company's IPO prospectus and
registration statement.  In addition to the Complaint against the
Company, various other plaintiffs have filed other substantially
similar class action cases against approximately 300 other
publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York
City, which along with the case against the Company have all been
transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes of
case management.  The Company and its officers and directors
believe that the claims against the Company lack merit, and have
defended the litigation vigorously.  In that regard, on July 15,
2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named as
defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints against them
on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer
defendants.

On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed without prejudice all
claims against the individual current and former officers and
directors who were named as defendants in the Company's
litigation, and they are no longer parties to the lawsuit.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions to
dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and separate motions to
dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants.  In that ruling, the
Court granted in part and denied in part those motions.  As to the
claims brought against the Company under the antifraud provisions
of the securities laws, the Court dismissed all of these claims
with prejudice, and refused to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity
to re-plead these claims against the Company.  As to the claims
brought under the registration provisions of the securities laws,
which do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss these claims as to the Company and as
to substantially all of the other issuer defendants as well.  The
Court also denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in
all respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
the proposed settlement had been approved by the Court, it would
have resulted in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the litigation against the Company and against any of the other
issuer defendants who elected to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.  This proposed settlement was conditioned on, among
other things, a ruling by the District Court that the claims
against the Company and against the other issuers who had agreed
to the settlement would be certified for class action treatment
for purposes of the proposed settlement, such that all investors
included in the proposed classes in these cases would be bound by
the terms of the settlement unless an investor opted to be
excluded from the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued a decision that six purported class action lawsuits
containing allegations substantially similar to those asserted
against the Company may not be certified as class actions due, in
part, to the Appeals Court's determination that individual issues
of reliance and knowledge would predominate over issues common to
the proposed classes.  On January 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a
petition seeking rehearing en banc of this ruling.  On April 6,
2007, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing of the Court's December 5, 2006 ruling but noted that
the plaintiffs remained free to ask the District Court to certify
classes different from the ones originally proposed which might
meet the standards for class certification that the Court of
Appeals articulated in its December 5, 2006 decision.

In light of the Court of Appeals' December 5, 2006 decision
regarding certification of the plaintiffs' claims, the District
Court entered an order on June 25, 2007, terminating the proposed
settlement between the plaintiffs and the issuers, including the
Company.  On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in the six focus cases.  On November 13, 2007, the
issuer defendants and the underwriter defendants separately moved
to dismiss the claims against them in the amended complaints in
the six focus cases.  On March 26, 2008, the District Court issued
an order in which it denied in substantial part the motions to
dismiss the amended complaints in the six focus cases.

On February 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that
they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in its entirety.  A stipulation of settlement was filed
with the District Court on April 2, 2009.  On June 9, 2009, the
District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global
settlement.  Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement
fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity
to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10,
2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order
granting final approval to the settlement.  Ten appeals were filed
objecting to the definition of the settlement class and fairness
of the settlement.  Five of those appeals were dismissed with
prejudice on October 6, 2010.  On May 17, 2011, the Court of
Appeals dismissed four of the remaining appeals.

On January 10, 2012, the last remaining appeal was dismissed with
prejudice, as a result of which the settlement became final, by
its terms.  The Company has no financial liability in connection
with the settlement.


STATE OF MILWAUKEE: MPS Gets Favorable Ruling in Suit v. DPI
------------------------------------------------------------
Corrinne Hess, writing for The Business Journal, reports that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled
in favor of Milwaukee Public Schools in a landmark, long-fought
lawsuit over how the district identifies students in need of
special education services.

The suit, filed in 2001 and often referred to as the "Jamie S.
case," alleged that a student named Jamie and several other
students were denied or delayed entry to special services in MPS.
The ruling overturns a lower court's contention that MPS and the
Department of Public Instruction had some "systemic" violations in
how they identified special education students.

After that lower court decision, DPI settled with the plaintiffs
and ordered MPS to meet certain compliance benchmarks.  DPI
representatives stated at the time that MPS could raise the
Milwaukee tax levy to cover the cost of the remedies.

MPS' Board and then-Superintendent William Andrekopoulos asserted
that it was wrong to have taxpayers and the school district bear
the burden alone, and filed an appeal.

MPS also challenged the district court's class-certification
decision.

The Feb. 3 ruling means all lower-court decisions are vacated, and
so are the liability and remedial orders.

The costs of the 10-year-old case have been covered by an
insurance policy that was in place at the time the suit was filed.


STATE OF OKLAHOMA: Supreme Court Won't Hear Suit Over Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McNutt, writing for NewsOK, reports that the state Supreme
Court without comment on Feb. 6 denied hearing a lawsuit that
challenged whether a three-member board acted properly in
approving a modified settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit
that accused the state Department of Human Services of harming
children in its foster homes and state shelters.

The decision was unanimous.

Jerry Fent, who filed the legal challenge, said the agreement made
by the state Contingency Review Board is illegal because the two
legislative members on the panel violated the state Constitution's
separation of powers.

State attorneys said the action by the Contingency Review Board,
made up of the governor and the leaders of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, is constitutional.

The agreement by the board since has been approved by both the DHS
commissioners and Children's Rights, a New-York based group that
filed the federal lawsuit in 2008.  A federal judge gave
preliminary approval to the agreement last month; a hearing on the
settlement is set for Feb. 29 in Tulsa federal court.

Mr. Fent said the action by the Contingency Review Board is
invalid because it is tainted by House Speaker Kris Steele and
Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman being on the panel.  He
said Gov. Mary Fallin is the only one who can serve legally on the
panel.

He said he was not asking the federal judge to reject the
settlement, which among other things calls for the creation of a
panel of three out-of-state child welfare experts who will approve
and oversee the plan of improvement to Oklahoma's child welfare
system.

State law calls for the Contingency Review Board to consider
settlement agreements of more than $250,000 when the Legislature
is not in session.  Lawmakers returned Feb. 6 for this year's
four-month session.


SUBURBAN PROPANE: Defends Class Suit Alleging Commercial Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P., is defending a putative class
action lawsuit alleging a number of commercial claims, according
to the Company's February 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 24, 2011.

The operations of Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. ("Partnership")
are subject to all operating hazards and risks normally incidental
to handling, storing and delivering combustible liquids such as
propane.  The Partnership has been, and will continue to be, a
defendant in various legal proceedings and litigation arising in
the ordinary course of business, both as a result of these
operating hazards and risks, and as a result of other aspects of
its business.  In this last regard, the Partnership currently is a
defendant in lawsuits in several states, including a putative
class action in which no class has yet been certified.  The
complaints allege a number of commercial claims, including as to
the Partnership's pricing, fee disclosure and tank ownership,
under various consumer statutes, the Uniform Commercial Code,
common law and antitrust law.

Based on the nature of the allegations under these commercial
lawsuits, the Partnership believes that the lawsuits are without
merit and the Partnership is contesting each of these lawsuits
vigorously.  With respect to the pending commercial lawsuits,
other than for legal defense fees and expenses, based on the
merits of the allegations, a liability for a loss contingency is
not required.


UNITED STATES: Has Until Feb. 16 to Respond to Occupy DC Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huffington Post reports that a federal court judge denied Occupy
DC's request for a preliminary injunction blocking the National
Park Service from evicting demonstrators from McPherson Square,
where they have been camping since Oct. 1.

Dismissing the motion, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg found on
Feb. 2 that the demonstrators had "not shown any imminent actual
injury that threatens their tents" and that "any future closing of
the Square remains too hypothetical for the Court to address."

But the protesters' suit against the government isn't over.

On Feb. 3, Judge Boasberg issued an order giving the government
until Feb. 16 to respond to a motion for class certification filed
in mid January as a means of broadening the suit.  The proposed
class would include all members of the demonstration who "own or
possess tents in McPherson Square which have been or will be taken
and/or destroyed" by the National Park Service.

Attorney Jeffrey Light told The Huffington Post he's hoping for
class-action certification so he can maintain the suit in case the
original two plaintiffs decide to leave McPherson Square.

"If these plaintiffs want to leave Occupy, I won't have a case
anymore," he said.  "It seems like it would be a lot easier to
represent everyone."

What's left to litigate, now that the preliminary injunction
motion has been denied?

Mr. Light wants to know why Occupy DC's recently-installed "Tent
of Dreams" -- a blue tarp covering most of the park's statue of
Gen. James McPherson -- has been allowed to stay, while December's
wooden "People's Pavilion" was immediately torn down.

Sounding not entirely unlike Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and
other Republican lawmakers who recently grilled National Park
Service Director Jonathan Jarvis about his agency's seemingly ad
hoc treatment of the McPherson Square encampment, Mr. Light said
that the case should not be dismissed altogether before the
government presents clear standards guiding its treatment of
Occupy DC.

"Otherwise it's just really arbitrary," said Mr. Light.  "They've
left up the blue tarp so far.  We're not really sure why.  We want
standards about what will be allowed and what isn't allowed."


ZEP INC: Sued Over Cleaning Product's Alleged Deceptive Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mee Young Lim, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Zep Inc. and Does 1 through 15, Case No. CGC-11-516883
(Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., December 23, 2011) alleges
that Zep takes advantage of consumer demand for safe household
cleaning products, and markets its All Purpose Cleaner & Degreaser
product as "non-toxic."

The Plaintiff also says that Zep has deceptively represented that
the Product is "Biodegradable," conveying that the Product is
environmentally sound.  However, the Plaintiff contends that
results of testing performed by an independent laboratory showed
that the Product contains 2-butoxyethanol and methyl alcohol,
which are dangerous chemicals associated with a host of adverse
health effects, including birth defects, autoimmune diseases and
anemia.

The Plaintiff is a resident of San Francisco, California.  The
Plaintiff purchased the Product from a Home Depot in Daly City,
California.

Zep is a Georgia corporation.  Zep's products include household
cleaning products, like All Purpose Cleaner & Degreaser.  The
Plaintiff is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants.

The Company removed the lawsuit on February 6, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company argues that the removal is
proper because there is complete diversity of citizenship and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-00601 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com
                  krichman@reeserichman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Belynda Reck, Esq.
          Diana F. Biason, Esq.
          Julieta Stepanyan, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Telephone: (213) 532-2000
          Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
          E-mail: breck@hunton.com
                  dbiason@hunton.com
                  jstepanyan@hunton.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Carlstedt, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          575 Market Street, Suite 3700
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 975-3700
          Facsimile: (415) 975-3701
          E-mail: tcarlstedt@hunton.com


* Wal-Mart Class Action Ruling Cited in Environmental Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley, writing for E&E reporter, reports that a major
Supreme Court ruling from last year that is widely predicted to
reduce the number of successful class-action claims against big
companies is already being cited in environmental cases.

In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the court ruled that a massive class action
of 1.5 million women employees at big-box retailer Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. who said they were discriminated against in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act should not be certified.

Class certification is granted when a judge is persuaded that
large numbers of related claims against a single defendant can be
handled as a single case.  It is a type of litigation that can
lead to sizable judgments and big pay days for trial lawyers.

Although the court was unanimous in holding that the class should
not be certified in the Wal-Mart case, Justice Antonin Scalia's
majority opinion -- to which four other justices joined -- went
further, shutting down the case and making it clear that it will
be harder in the future for plaintiffs' attorneys to make huge
class actions against big companies work.

Judge Scalia stressed the need for "commonality" of claims.  In
other words, the bigger the company, the more delegation of
authority, the more individual workplaces, the harder it will
become to certify a class-action suit.

The case has been seized upon by corporate defendants in a wide
range of class-action cases, including those involving
environmental claims.  Although the Wal-Mart case was in federal
court, it is being mentioned both in federal and state court
rulings.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Louisiana Supreme Court
and a state court in Michigan are among courts that have already
cited the Wal-Mart decision in rulings against plaintiffs in
environmental cases.

"The Wal-Mart decision will likely have a major impact in
environmental cases because in those cases plaintiffs' lawyers
often try to bundle together highly individualized claims that
have nothing in common," said Theodore Boutrous, the Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher attorney who argued the case for Wal-Mart.

The Supreme Court has now explicitly rejected what he called the
"trial by formula" approach that many plaintiffs' attorneys take,
he added.

Scott Summy, a trial lawyer with Baron Budd in Dallas, said the
ruling "will obviously be used by corporate America in an attempt
to avoid class certification in many contexts, including
environmental cases."

                Impact on Water-Pollution Rulings

Judge Leopold Borrello likely holds the distinction of being the
first jurist to cite Wal-Mart v. Dukes in the environmental
context.

On July 18 of last year, barely a month after the Supreme Court
issued its decision, Judge Borrello issued a ruling denying class
certification in a case against Dow Chemical Co.

The plaintiffs alleged in Henry v. Dow that Dow had released
dioxin into the Tittabawassee River flood plain from its plant in
Midland, Mich.

In his decision, Judge Borrello noted that the Supreme Court
ruling "has far-reaching implications for certification of class
action lawsuits, including the present case."

Relying heavily on Wal-Mart, Judge Borrello found "the plaintiff
has failed to provide this court with sufficient information to
establish that the commonality prerequisite to class certification
is satisfied in this case."

In the 3rd Circuit case, Gates v. Rohm and Haas, the federal
appeals court tackled claims made under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, commonly
known as the Superfund law.

Residents of McCullom Lake Village in Illinois sued Rohm and Haas
Co. and other chemical companies that operated a facility nearby.
The plaintiffs asserted that the chemical companies had dumped
polluted wastewater that seeped into an underground aquifer.

Judge Anthony Scirica mentioned Wal-Mart on multiple occasions in
upholding a district judge's decision to deny class certification.

At one point he wrote that "in light of the Supreme Court's recent
decision . . . we question whether the kind of medical monitoring
sought here can be certified" although the court ultimately did
not decide that specific issue.

Later in the opinion, on a different question, he noted that the
Supreme Court had "recently highlighted the importance of
cohesiveness" in class-action claims.

The Louisiana Supreme Court issued its ruling that cited the Wal-
Mart case on Dec. 6.

In Price v. Martin, the court reversed a lower court that had
certified a class action against Alexandria, La.-based Dura-Wood
Treating Co.  The plaintiffs claimed that the company had
discharged creosote and wastewater into a creek.

Noting that Louisiana law mirrors federal law on the issue, the
court concluded that it was correct to take note of what the
Supreme Court had said.

Therefore, "there must be some common thread that holds the claims
together," Justice John Weimer wrote.  "With regard to causation,
plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the
existence of that common thread."

For trial lawyer Mr. Summy, Wal-Mart v. Dukes is just one of a
series of decisions that have made it harder to secure class
certification in recent years.

The ruling means that lawyers representing plaintiffs will need to
"use common sense in requesting certification of classes"
especially in a legal climate in which courts are "more stringent
than ever on granting class certifications," he added.

The post-Wal-Mart court rulings so far also illustrate how keen
the defense bar is to make the most of the Supreme Court case,
according to Richard Samp, a lawyer at the conservative Washington
Legal Foundation.

"The decision is being cited by virtually every defendant who is
opposing class certification," he said.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Asbestos Claims Reserves Total $533MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s total reserves for asbestos claims were $533
million at December 31, 2011, according to the Company's
January 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2011.

The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos
asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of
Riley Stoker Corporation, a former subsidiary.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A.  During the most recent annual update of this estimate,
completed during the June 2011 quarter, it was determined that the
liability for asbestos claims should be increased by $41 million.
Total reserves for asbestos claims were $533 million at December
31, 2011 compared to $543 million at September 30, 2011.

Ashland has insurance coverage for most of the litigation defense
and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its
asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the
insurance companies that provide most of the coverage currently
being accessed.  As a result, increases in the asbestos reserve
have been largely offset by probable insurance recoveries.  The
amounts not recoverable generally are due from insurers that are
insolvent, rather than as a result of uninsured claims or the
exhaustion of Ashland's insurance coverage.

For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent.  Approximately 72% of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers, of which approximately 85% have a credit rating
of B+ or higher by A. M. Best, as of December 31, 2011.  The
remainder of the insurance receivable is due from London insurance
companies, which generally have lower credit quality ratings, and
from Underwriters at Lloyd's, whose insurance policy obligations
have been transferred to a Berkshire Hathaway entity.  Ashland
discounts this piece of the receivable based upon the projected
timing of the receipt of cash from those insurers unless likely
settlement amounts can be determined.

During 2010, Ashland entered into a new agreement with a number of
London market insurance companies with respect to coverage for
asbestos-related insurance claims.  As a result, a $12 million
increase to the Ashland asbestos receivable was recorded within
the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, which had a $9 million
(after-tax) effect on the Statement of Consolidated Income within
the discontinued operations caption.  During the December 2011
quarter, Ashland received $7 million in cash after reaching a
settlement with certain insolvent London market insurance
companies.  The cash received from this settlement during the
current quarter was recognized as an after-tax gain of $6 million
within discontinued operations of the Statement of Consolidated
Income since Ashland's policy is to not record asbestos
receivables for any carriers that are insolvent.

In addition, Ashland had agreed to arbitrate a dispute regarding
whether there is a significant deductible in the London market
companies' policies in three policy periods that must be satisfied
before the policies begin providing coverage for Riley Stoker
asbestos claims.  The London market companies had contended that
Ashland must bear certain self-insured retentions in respect of
Riley Stoker asbestos liabilities before the London coverage
attaches in these three years, and Ashland disputed that such
self-insured retentions must be satisfied.  The parties conducted
an arbitration hearing on this dispute in June 2011, and a
decision was rendered by the arbitrator in October 2011 that
essentially supported Ashland's previously stated position on
these claims.

At December 31, 2011, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to $423 million (excluding the Hercules receivable for
asbestos claims), of which $56 million relates to costs previously
paid.  Receivables from insurers amounted to $431 million at
September 30, 2011.  During 2011, the model used for purposes of
valuing the asbestos reserve, and its impact on valuation of
future recoveries from insurers, was updated.  This model update
along with the potential settlement adjustments resulted in an
additional $42 million increase in the receivable for probable
insurance recoveries.

Ashland Inc. is a Kentucky corporation, with its principal
executive offices located at 50 E. RiverCenter Boulevard,
Covington, Kentucky 41011.  It is a global specialty chemical
company with four reportable segments: Ashland Specialty
Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland Performance
Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules' Asbestos Claims Reserves Total $305MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Hercules Inc.'s total
reserves for asbestos claims were $305 million at December 31,
2011, according to the Company's January 30, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2011.

Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos.  Such claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former
subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A.  During the most recent annual update of this estimate,
completed during the June 2011 quarter, it was determined that the
liability for Hercules asbestos related claims should be decreased
by $48 million.  Total reserves for asbestos claims were $305
million at December 31, 2011 compared to $311 million at September
30, 2011.

For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain
reimbursements pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements with
insurance carriers exist.  As a result, increases in the asbestos
reserve are partially offset by probable insurance recoveries.
Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries
associated with its asbestos reserve based on management's
interpretations and estimates surrounding the available or
applicable insurance coverage, including an assumption that all
solvent insurance carriers remain solvent.  The estimated
receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers, of which
approximately 96% have a credit rating of B+ or higher by A. M.
Best, as of December 31, 2011.

As of December 31, 2011 and September 30, 2011, the receivables
from insurers amounted to $48 million.  As previously mentioned,
during 2011 the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos
reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from
insurers was updated.  This model update along with likely
settlement adjustments caused a $20 million reduction in the
receivable for probable insurance recoveries.

Ashland Inc. is a Kentucky corporation, with its principal
executive offices located at 50 E. River Center Boulevard,
Covington, Kentucky 41011.  It is a global specialty chemical
company with four reportable segments: Ashland Specialty
Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland Performance
Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Invensys Continues to Indemnify RBS Global
-----------------------------------------------------------
Invensys plc continues to indemnify RBS Global, Inc., with respect
to certain asbestos claims, according to RBS Global's January 31,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2011.

In connection with The Carlyle Group's acquisition in November
2002, Invensys plc has provided the Company with indemnification
against certain contingent liabilities, including certain pre-
closing environmental liabilities. The Company believes that,
pursuant to these indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to
defend and indemnify the Company with respect to certain matters
relating to the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to various
asbestos claims.  The indemnity notice period for certain pre-
closing environmental liabilities relating to the Ellsworth
Industrial Park Site expires in November 2012.  These indemnity
obligations are subject, together with indemnity obligations
relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap equal to the
purchase price, which is an amount in excess of $900 million:

   * In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC ("Rexnord Industries") was
     named as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), together
     with at least ten other companies, at the Ellsworth
     Industrial Park Site, Downers Grove, DuPage County, Illinois
     (the "Site"), by the United States Environmental Protection
     Agency ("USEPA"), and the Illinois Environmental Protection
     Agency ("IEPA"). Rexnord Industries' Downers Grove property
     is situated within the Ellsworth Industrial Complex. The
     USEPA and IEPA allege there have been one or more releases
     or threatened releases of chlorinated solvents and other
     hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, allegedly
     including but not limited to a release or threatened release
     on or from the Company's property, at the Site. The relief
     sought by the USEPA and IEPA includes further investigation
     and potential remediation of the Site and reimbursement of
     USEPA's past costs. Rexnord Industries' allocated share of
     past and future costs related to the Site, including for
     investigation and/or remediation, could be significant. All
     previously pending property damage and personal injury
     lawsuits against the Company related to the Site have been
     settled or dismissed. Pursuant to its indemnity obligation,
     Invensys continues to defend the Company in matters related
     to the Site and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

   * Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 1,000 claimants) are
     pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
     relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged
     presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
     previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division
     and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys and FMC, prior
     owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs
     to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the
     Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending
     multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
     injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a
     product allegedly manufactured by Prager. Additionally,
     there are approximately 4,000 individuals who have filed
     asbestos related claims against Prager; however, these
     claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation
     inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos
     matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the
     Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs
     related to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes
     that the combination of its insurance coverage and the
     Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs
     of these matters.

RBS Global, Inc., is the parent company of Rexnord LLC. RBS Global
was formed by certain affiliates of its prior equity sponsor, The
Carlyle Group.  On July 21, 2006, affiliates of the private equity
firm Apollo Management, L.P., and certain members of management
acquired RBS Global from Carlyle.  Milwaukee-based RBS Global is
comprised of two strategic platforms, Process & Motion Control and
Water Management, with about 7,400 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hamilton Sundstrand Continues to Indemnify RBS
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton Sundstrand, a division of United Technologies
Corporation, continues to indemnify RBS Global, Inc., in
connection with RBS Global's acquisition of Falk Corporation,
according to RBS Global's January 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2011.

Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with indemnification
against certain contingent liabilities, including coverage for
certain pre-closing environmental liabilities and certain
products-related asbestos exposure liabilities. The Company
believes that, pursuant to these indemnity obligations, Hamilton
Sundstrand is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with
respect to certain asbestos claims, and that, with respect to
these claims, these indemnity obligations are not subject to any
time or dollar limitations. Certain pre-closing environmental
matters are subject to an indemnity notice period that expires in
May 2012.

Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in
approximately 200 lawsuits pending in state or federal court in
numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due
to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 500
claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

RBS Global, Inc., is the parent company of Rexnord LLC. RBS Global
was formed by certain affiliates of its prior equity sponsor, The
Carlyle Group.  On July 21, 2006, affiliates of the private equity
firm Apollo Management, L.P., and certain members of management
acquired RBS Global from Carlyle.  Milwaukee-based RBS Global is
comprised of two strategic platforms, Process & Motion Control and
Water Management, with about 7,400 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Zurn Unit Estimates $65MM Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc., estimates that as of December 31, 2011, the
potential liability for asbestos-related claims pending against
its Zurn unit as well as the claims expected to be filed in the
next ten years to be approximately $65.0 million, according to the
Company's January 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2011.

As of December 31, 2011, Zurn and an average of approximately 80
other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 7,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 27,000
claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from
suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense
strategy funded by insurers.

As of December 31, 2011, the Company estimates the potential
liability for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well
as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be
approximately $65.0 million of which Zurn expects to pay
approximately $53.0 million in the next ten years on such claims,
with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years. However, there are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims,
future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives.

RBS Global, Inc., is the parent company of Rexnord LLC. RBS Global
was formed by certain affiliates of its prior equity sponsor, The
Carlyle Group.  On July 21, 2006, affiliates of the private equity
firm Apollo Management, L.P., and certain members of management
acquired RBS Global from Carlyle.  Milwaukee-based RBS Global is
comprised of two strategic platforms, Process & Motion Control and
Water Management, with about 7,400 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Has $258MM Insurance at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global Inc.'s management estimates that its available
insurance to cover its potential asbestos liability as of December
31, 2011, is approximately $258.0 million, and believes that all
current claims are covered by this insurance, according to the
Company's January 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2011.

However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of certain
of the Company's insurance carriers, certain coverage gaps will
exist if and after the Company's other carriers have paid the
first $182.0 million of aggregate liabilities. In order for the
next $51.0 million of insurance coverage from solvent carriers to
apply, management estimates that it would need to satisfy $14.0
million of asbestos claims. Layered within the final $25.0 million
of the total $258.0 million of coverage, management estimates that
it would need to satisfy an additional $80.0 million of asbestos
claims. If required to pay any such amounts, the Company could
pursue recovery against the insolvent carriers, but it is not
currently possible to determine the likelihood or amount of such
recoveries, if any.

As of December 31, 2011, the Company recorded a receivable from
its insurance carriers of $65.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance that $258.0 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's
asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed $258.0 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.

RBS Global, Inc., is the parent company of Rexnord LLC. RBS Global
was formed by certain affiliates of its prior equity sponsor, The
Carlyle Group.  On July 21, 2006, affiliates of the private equity
firm Apollo Management, L.P., and certain members of management
acquired RBS Global from Carlyle.  Milwaukee-based RBS Global is
comprised of two strategic platforms, Process & Motion Control and
Water Management, with about 7,400 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Still Defends 4,800 Suits at Dec. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. is a defendant in approximately 4,800
personal injury lawsuits, as of December 30, 2011, based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials, according to
the Company's January 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 30, 2011.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous
other companies are named as defendants in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims
based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or
distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos
or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components
manufactured by third-parties. Each case typically names between
dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. While the Company has
observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits over the past
several years, including lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-
related claims, a large percentage of these suits have not
presented viable legal claims and, as a result, have been
dismissed by the courts. The Company's strategy has been, and
continues to be, to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having
unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling
suits before trial. Although a large percentage of litigated suits
have been dismissed, the Company cannot predict the extent to
which it will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future.
As part of the Company's strategy, it has also entered into a
cost-sharing agreement with an entity from which it acquired a
business several decades ago. Under the agreement, insurance
proceeds from policies that were purchased by the seller prior to
its acquisition by the Company have been made available to the
Company. To the extent there is insufficient insurance for claims
subject to the agreement, the parties are required to share costs,
although responsibility for such excess costs gradually
transitions to the Company over the next nine to ten years. In
2022, the Company will ultimately be responsible for all excess
costs if available insurance policies do not fully respond. While
the Company expects that the insurance policies it has gained
access to under the agreement will be sufficient to cover any
increased liability resulting from this arrangement, it cannot
predict whether this will be the case.

As of December 30, 2011, there were approximately 4,800 lawsuits
pending against the Company, its subsidiaries or entities for
which the Company has assumed responsibility. Each lawsuit
typically includes several claims, and the Company has determined
that there were approximately 5,900 claims outstanding as of
December 30, 2011.

Annually, during the Company's third quarter, the Company performs
an analysis with the assistance of outside counsel and other
experts to update its estimated asbestos-related assets and
liabilities. Due to a high degree of uncertainty regarding the
pattern and length of time over which claims will be made and then
settled or litigated, the Company uses multiple estimation
methodologies based on varying scenarios of potential outcomes to
estimate the range of loss. The Company's estimate of the
liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is predominantly based on claim
experience over the past five years, and a projection which covers
claims expected to be filed, including related defense costs, over
the next seven years on an undiscounted basis. The Company has
concluded that estimating the liability beyond the seven year
period will not provide a reasonable estimate, as these
uncertainties increase significantly as the projection period
lengthens. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related insurance
recoveries represents estimated amounts due to the Company for
previously paid and settled claims and the probable reimbursements
relating to its estimated liability for pending and future claims.

In determining the amount of insurance recoverable, the Company
considers a number of factors, including available insurance,
allocation methodologies, solvency and creditworthiness of the
insurers. On a quarterly basis, the Company re-evaluates the
assumptions used to perform the annual analysis and records an
expense as necessary to reflect changes in its estimated liability
and related insurance asset. As of December 30, 2011, the
Company's estimated net liability of $65 million was recorded
within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for
pending and future claims and related defense costs of $288
million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of
$223 million.  Similarly, as of September 30, 2011, the Company's
estimated net liability of $82 million was recorded within the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending
and future claims and related defense costs of $306 million, and
separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $224 million.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information as well as estimates and assumptions. Key
variables and assumptions include the number and type of new
claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of
claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers,
amount of insurance and the solvency risk with respect to the
Company's insurance carriers. Furthermore, predictions with
respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in
the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may
affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-
related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation
process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case,
reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability
of insurance policies among subsidiaries. The Company believes
that its asbestos-related reserves as of December 30, 2011, are
appropriate. However, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries
could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if
assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly
from actual results.

Tyco International Ltd. (NYSE: TYC) -- http://www.tyco.com/--
provides security products and services, fire protection and
detection products and services, and industrial valves and
controls.  Tyco had 2011 revenue of more than $17 billion and has
more than 100,000 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
contained in products made by the Company. The Company is a
co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and
intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The
claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the
Company as a defendant, which either were dismissed when it was
shown that the Company had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for amounts below the
expected defense costs. The outcome of these lawsuits cannot be
determined at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 1,
2012, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2011.

Graham Corporation designs and manufactures vacuum and heat
transfer equipment for energy markets and process industries
worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Records $16.2MM Charge in 4th Quarter
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. disclosed in its February 1, 2012, Form 8-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it
recorded a charge of $16.2 million in the fourth quarter primarily
related to the estimated cost of additional asbestos remediation
required at seven former vermiculite processing sites. The prior-
year quarter included environmental remediation charges of $4.5
million.

Grace -- http://www.grace.com/-- is a global supplier of
catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for
the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for a wide range of industrial applications; sealants
and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty
chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and
residential construction. Founded in 1854, Grace has operations in
over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Continues to Defend Asbestos Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. is involved in various legal proceedings that
relate to asbestos and other environmental matters. In the opinion
of management, based on current information, the amount of
ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these proceedings is
not expected to have a material adverse effect on the company's
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The
company is proactive in establishing policies and operating
procedures for safeguarding the environment against any hazardous
materials aboard its vessels and at shore-based locations.
Whenever possible, hazardous materials are maintained or
transferred in confined areas in an attempt to ensure containment
if accidents occur. In addition, the Company has established
operating policies that are intended to increase awareness of
actions that may harm the environment.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 3,
2012, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2011.

Tidewater Inc. owns 354 vessels, the world's largest fleet of
vessels serving the global offshore energy industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Has 11,400 Cases Pending at Dec. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 30, 2011, there were approximately 11,400 asbestos
liability cases pending against Covidien Public Limited Company's
subsidiary, Mallinckrodt LLC, according to the Company's
February 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 30,
2011.

Mallinckrodt LLC, a subsidiary of the Company, is a successor to a
company which owned and operated a chemical manufacturing facility
in Orrington, Maine from 1967 until 1982.

Mallinckrodt Inc. is named as a defendant in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability
claims, based principally on allegations of past distribution of
products incorporating asbestos. A limited number of the cases
allege premises liability, based on claims that individuals were
exposed to asbestos while on Mallinckrodt's property. Each case
typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to
Mallinckrodt. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for
personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure
to products containing asbestos.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed
by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in
a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims, and intends
to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. When appropriate,
the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and
defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of December
30, 2011, there were approximately 11,400 asbestos liability cases
pending against Mallinckrodt.

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

Covidien Public Limited Company develops, manufactures and sells
healthcare products for use in clinical and home settings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bassett Furniture Has No Remediation Estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of October 31, 2010, Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc., was
unable to estimate the range of settlement dates and the related
probabilities for certain asbestos remediation asset retirement
obligations (AROs). These conditional AROs are primarily related
to fireproofing material containing asbestos installed in portions
of its skeletal steel in one exhibition building totaling
approximately 376,000 square feet. The asbestos is not subject to
abatement unless the building is either demolished or the Company
undertakes major renovations. Because these conditional
obligations have indeterminate settlement dates, the Company could
not develop a reasonable estimate of their fair values. The
Company will continue to assess its ability to estimate fair
values at each future reporting date. The liability will be
recognized once sufficient information becomes available.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 3,
2012, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended November 26, 2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Has 1,291 Open Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation estimated its asbestos-related liability
at $147 million and disclosed 1,291 open asbestos claims at
December 31, 2011, according to the Company's February 3, 2012,
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which
current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to
asbestos.  The Company assesses its potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future
defense and processing costs.

The Company's liability for asbestos-related claims is not
discounted to present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the
timing of future payments. Approximately 21% of the recorded
liability related to asserted claims and approximately 79% related
to unasserted claims at December 31, 2011. Because of the
uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims, it is reasonably possible that future costs to settle
these claims may range from approximately $147 million to $159
million. The Company records an accrual at the low end of the
range as no amount of loss is more probable than any other. In
conjunction with the liability update performed in 2010, the
Company also reassessed estimated insurance recoveries. It has
recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at December
31, 2011 and 2010.

The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs
incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and it has recognized
an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at December 31, 2011
and 2010.

The Company believes that its estimates of liability for asbestos-
related claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and
probable. The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities
and related insurance recoveries were based on currently known
facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims
filed each year, average settlement costs, and insurance coverage
issues, could cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to
be higher or lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may
vary in the future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of
asbestos litigation materially change; federal and state laws
governing asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability
or amount of compensation of claimants; and there are material
changes with respect to payments made to claimants by other
defendants.

Omaha, Nebraska-based Union Pacific Corporation's Union Pacific
Railroad unit is a rail carrier that operates more than 77,000
freight cars and about 8,000 locomotives.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: E.D. Pa. Ct. Dismisses Cases vs. GE, et al.
------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company, et al., filed motions for summary
judgment in three cases, all of which are part of a consolidated
asbestos products liability multidistrict litigation pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
GE, et al., assert that they are not liable for injuries caused by
asbestos products, like insulation, gaskets, and packing, that
were incorporated into their products or used as replacement
parts, but which they did not manufacture or distribute.

In a Feb. 1, 2012 memorandum, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted
the motions for summary judgment holding that under maritime law,
a manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by, and owes no duty
to warn of the hazards inherent in, asbestos products that the
manufacturer did not manufacture or distribute.

This principle, according to Judge Robreno, is consistent with the
development of products-liability law based on strict liability
and negligence, relevant state case law, the leading federal
decisions, and important policy considerations regarding the
issue.  A plaintiff's burden to prove a defendant's product caused
harm remains the same in cases involving third-party asbestos
manufacturers as it would in other products-liability cases based
on strict liability and negligence, he added.

The case is Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., MDL-875 (E.D. Pa.).  A
copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/aFcuS1from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Dismisses Case vs. Crane Co.
----------------------------------------------------
In the case Krameisen v. Air & Liquid System Corp., 190429/10
(N.Y.), Crane Co. moves for summary judgment on the ground that
there is no evidence that the plaintiffs' decedent, Stanley
Krameisen, was exposed to asbestos from a Crane Co. product.

Judge Sherry Heitler of the Supreme Court for New York County
granted Crane's motion because neither the testimony nor the
documentary evidence submitted in opposition raise a triable issue
of fact as to Crane Co.'s liability.

A copy of Judge's Heitler's Feb. 1, 2012 decision and order is
available at http://is.gd/mDtkEffrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Ct. Allows Suit v. AW Chesterton to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit, Donn v. A.W. Chesterton Co., Inc., MDL-875 (E.D.
Pa.), A.W. Chesterton Co., Inc., et al., filed a Motion to Dismiss
contending that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Alan Donn's
asbestos-related personal injury claims.  Mr. Donn was diagnosed
with malignant mesothelioma from alleged exposure to asbestos
while working as an active-duty serviceman in the United States
Navy aboard several nuclear submarines from approximately 1957 to
1981.  He alleged that the Navy insulated with asbestos the hot
metal casings on the vessels' propulsion turbines, which were
manufactured by the defendants.

In a Feb. 1, 2012 memorandum, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the
defendants' motion finding the defendants' argument that federal
law preempts the Plaintiff's failure to warn claims without regard
to the three-prong test in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.
unavailing.  The Court held that neither field nor conflict
preemption applies to the Plaintiff's claims of failure to warn of
the dangers of asbestos.

Judge Robreno stated that the Court's adjudication of the
Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants for failure to warn of
the dangers of asbestos are justiciable.  While there may be
political overtones to the Navy's choice of policies as to what
warnings were permitted, if any, the Court said it may adjudicate
the controversy without second guessing these judgments, thus
staying clear from the province of the Executive or Legislature.

A copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/6Aiauffrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Ct. Directs New Hearing on Honeywell Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated appeals were brought from final judgments in a pair
of asbestos-related civil conspiracy actions.  In each of these
cases, the trial court entered default judgment against Honeywell
International, Inc., on the issues of liability and causation when
it found Honeywell failed to comply with an order to produce Joel
Charm as a witness at trial pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court
Rule 237(b) (eff. July 1, 2005).  Honeywell appeals in each case,
arguing the court erred by finding Mr. Charm was subject to Rule
237(b) and for entering default judgment against Honeywell.

In a Feb. 2, 2012 opinion, Justice Robert W. Cook of the Appellate
Court of Illinois, Fourth District, vacated the judgment in each
case because the parties and the trial court unsatisfactorily
addressed the central issue -- namely, whether Mr. Charm was at
the time of trial an officer, director, or employee of Honeywell.

The case is In re Estate of Hoogerwerf v. Honeywell International,
Inc., Nos. 4-11-0329, 4-11-0505 (Ill. App. Ct.).  A copy of
Justice Cook's Decision is available at http://is.gd/RnsmPYfrom
Leagle.com.

                           *     *     *

Ann Maher of The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that in both
cases decided last year, McLean County circuit judges entered
default judgment against Honeywell after the company failed to
comply with an order to produce Joel Charm -- a product safety
consultant who was formerly employed by Honeywell -- as a trial
witness.

Justice Robert Cook wrote in the opinion released Feb. 2 that the
trial judges and the parties failed to address whether Charm was
Honeywell's officer, director, or employee and if a court rule --
Rule 237(b) -- compelling witnesses to appear applied to Charm.

"As the parties' arguments failed-and continue to fail-to address
the crucial issue of the Rule 237(b) analysis . . .  we find no
sufficient basis for the trial court to have ruled in favor of
either party in these cases," Cook wrote.

Justice Thomas Appleton and John McCullough concurred.

"We decline to address the question of whether Charm was
Honeywell's employee before the court in each of these cases has
ruled on it and without pertinent argument from the parties," Cook
wrote.

Both cases involved asbestos-related deaths.  Family members
settled suits with all corporate defendants except Honeywell -
which they took to trial in April and June 2011.

On the first day of trial in one of the cases, Honeywell lawyer
Gary Zimmerman of Chicago told Circuit Judge Paul Lawrence that
Charm "has unequivocally stated he will terminate his contract
with Honeywell rather than be obligated to travel any significant
distance to testify, including being obliged to travel to Illinois
to testify."

According to court documents, Charm had previously testified at 22
trials in Bloomington.

On April 7, three days into the trial, Lawrence directed a verdict
for plaintiff Vickie Hoogerwerf.

The next day, jurors determined Honeywell owed Vickie Hoogerwerf
$2.95 million for the wrongful death of husband John Hoogerwerf,
$1.07 million for his expenses and $300,000 for her losses.

In the other case, plaintiff Antoinette Legate and her husband Guy
Legate sued Honeywell and other corporate defendants for damages
allegedly resulting from Guy's asbestos exposure.

On the first day of the Legate trial, June 6, Honeywell disclosed
that Charm would not appear at trial in that case. Circuit Judge
Scott Drazewski entered default judgment against Honeywell and for
Anoinette and Michael on the issues of liability and causation.

The parties later stipulated that plaintiffs would have proved
damages against Honeywell in the amount of $250,000 for Antoinette
and $500,000 for Michael.

Two earlier Fourth District Appellate Court decisions upended
McLean County conspiracy verdicts in suits against Honeywell.

In December, three justices found Circuit Judge Scott Drazewski
should have rejected a jury's $5.5 million award to three widows.

"The record contains no evidence defendant entered into an
agreement with any other corporation to falsely assert asbestos
was safe or to keep quiet about the dangers of asbestos, although
the record contains evidence defendant, on its own, did those
things," Justice James Knecht wrote.

The widows, whose husbands worked at Unarco asbestos plant in
Bloomington, had all won separate jury verdicts years ago.

Honeywell secured new trials at the Fourth District, and Drazewski
consolidated the three cases for a single trial in 2009.

Jurors awarded $2.4 million to Doris Dukes as widow of Merlon
Dukes, $1.86 million to Ruth Watkins as widow of John Watkins, and
$1.3 million to Judy Blessing as widow of Robert Blessing.

Honeywell appealed again to the Fourth District, where a panel had
already taken up an appeal of a $2.5 million verdict against
Honeywell and Pneumo-Abex.

In that case, Drazewski reduced Juanita Rodarmel's compensatory
damages from $2 million to $183,333, after subtracting settlements
of other defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Says Thorpe Plan Not "Insurance Neutral"
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower
court's ruling on the bankruptcy plan of Thorpe Insulation Company
and Pacific Insulation Company, saying the Plan, which deals with
asbestos claims, wasn't "insurance neutral."

Thorpe's Chapter 11 plan creates an asbestos trust under Section
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.  Several insurance companies that
did not reach settlements with Thorpe and who were denied standing
to challenge the plan took an appeal from the order confirming te
plan.  The district court held that the plan was insurance
neutral, and so the insurers did not have standing to object to
the plan.

The Ninth Circuit, however, concluded that the plan wasn't
"insurance neutral" because it "may economically affect appellants
in substantial ways."  Because the plan isn't insurance neutral,
the circuit court ruled that the insuers had the right to object
in the bankruptcy court and to be heard on appeal.

Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould, who wrote the opinion on behalf of
the three-judge panel, said the appeal isn't moot because "there
are several ways here that appellants could get some relief
without completely upsetting the plan."

The Appellate Court remanded to the district court with
instructions that it return the case to the bankruptcy court to
give insurers the opportunity to present their proof and argument.

The case In the Matter of Thorpe Insulation Company, Nos.
10-56543, 10-56622 (9th Cir.).  A copy of Justice Gould's Decision
is available at http://is.gd/jENLABfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Directs Reinsurers to Pay $420-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. American Re-Ins. Co., 604517/02,
5205A (N.Y.), involves a reinsurance coverage dispute arising out
of asbestos litigation which has spanned several decades and
involved the state and federal courts of several jurisdictions.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. was made to pay the
asbestos-related health injury claims filed against Western
MacArthur Company, as predecessor-in-interest to Western Asbestos,
which sold, distributed and installed asbestos-containing products
in the 1950s and 1960s.  USF & G sought reimburse from American
Re-Insurance and the Excess Casualty Reinsurance Association.  The
reinsurance companies, however, refused to pay the reinsurance
claim because, among other reasons, they believed that the
retention under the 1956 to 1962 treaty had been increased from
$100,000 to $3 million, and, that, it was clear that USF & G was
paying for Western's bad faith claims against it, which were not
covered under the treaty.  The IAS court granted USF & G's motion,
and denied the reinsurers'.

In a Jan. 24, 2012 opinion, Justice Rolando T. Acosta of the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, affirmed the IAS order granting judgment in favor of
plaintiffs for $420,425,536.  Judge Acosta said the motion court
correctly concluded that the retention increase to $3 million was
limited to those claims submitted under the 1962 to 1967 treaty
and later years.  Judge Acosta also held that the motion court
correctly determined that the "follow-the-fortunes" doctrine
required the reinsurers to accept the reinsurance presentation
made by USF & G.

All of the reinsurers' efforts to second guess USF & G's decisions
concerning allocation of the loss, whether it be the alleged bad
faith claims; the decision to allocate the losses to the 1959 USF
& G/MacArthur policy year and corresponding failure to spread the
losses over the 13 policy years; the valuation of the lung cancer
and mesothelioma claims; the alleged alteration of the loss
presentation from an accident to occurrence basis; and the failure
of USF & G to otherwise spread the loss out over the life of the
policies as purportedly required by California law, which governed
the USF & G/MacArthur policies, are precluded from this court's
review, the Court said.  However, even if the Court is to consider
these arguments on the merits, it would disagree that they excused
the reinsurers from their obligation to follow the fortunes of USF
& G or created an issue of fact barring summary resolution, Judge
Acosta concluded.

A copy of Judge Acosta's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/ldiShZfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Ct. Allows Doctor Deposition in Millsaps Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. Millsaps claims that Brenda Lee Millsaps died of
mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos fibers from clothes
worn by her father-in-law, who worked at the Tennessee Operations
of Aluminum Company of American from 1965 to 1996.  Mr. Millsaps
issued a deposition notice for Mark R. Cullen, M.D., followed by a
deposition subpoena after being advised that Dr. Cullen was a non-
party witness.  Alcoa asks that the subpoena be quashed and that a
protective order issue prohibiting the deposition.

In a Jan. 24, 2012 memorandum, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the motion pointing out that Dr. Cullen is in
possession of relevant information concerning Alcoa's historical
policies and programs respecting the health and welfare of its
employees, including regarding asbestos and Alcoa will be
permitted to raise objections as to protected information as
appropriate during the deposition.

The case is Millsaps v. Aluminum Company of America, Nos. MDL 875,
10-84924 (E.D. Pa.).  A copy of Judge Hey's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/FL0r3Afrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Summary Judgment re Punitive Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerr Corporation moved for summary judgment dismissing the
asbestos case filed by Phyllis P. Melton on several grounds
including on the issue of punitive damages.

In a Jan. 24, 2012 order, Judge John A. Parkins, Jr., of the
Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, denied the summary
judgment as to punitive damages holding that, considering the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, a genuine
issue of material fact exists as to whether defendant was
consciously indifferent to the consequence of its acts.  Judge
Parkins noted that in Georgia, punitive damages is generally a
jury question.

The case is In re Asbestos Litigation of Phyllis P. Melton,
Limited to Kerr Corp., C.A. No. N10C-06-123 ASB (Del.).  A copy of
Judge Parkins' Decision is available at http://is.gd/09KtUNfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Allows Rabovsky Expert Testimonies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valent and Ann Rabovsky, husband and wife, filed an asbestos
personal injury action asserting claims against multiple parties.
Mr. Valent Rabovsky was allegedly exposed to asbestos over various
periods between the 1950s and 1980s, causing him to suffer from
the disease of mesothelioma.  This exposure allegedly occurred
while he was working as a millwright and came to be in regular
contact with asbestos-containing valves, pumps, gaskets, boilers
and other products manufactured by multiple defendant, including
Goulds Pumps, Inc., and Crane Co.  Goulds filed a Motion in Limine
to Preclude or Limit Plaintiffs' Experts' Testimony Based on
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.  Crane also filed a Motion
in Limine to Exclude the "Each and Every Exposure" Opinion.

In a Jan. 25, 2012 memorandum opinion, Magistrate Judge David R.
Strawbridge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the motions.  Judge Strawbridge held that the
adequacy of testing is merely one of the factors that could be put
before the trier of fact, thus, when considered in relation to the
full scope of the three experts' opinions, the questions with
respect to the adequacy of the testing do not lead the Court to
exclude their testimony.

With respect to the other aspects of a reliability analysis, the
Court pointed out that both Pennsylvania state and federal case
law support the admission of the opinions articulated by
Plaintiffs' experts.  Specifically, the Court recently have found
the "each and every exposure" opinion to be sufficiently reliable
to pass muster under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and
Daubert.

The case is In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation relating
to Valent Rabovsky and Ann Rabovsky, Civil Action No. MDL 875,
Edpa Civil Action No. 10-cv-03202 (E.D. Pa.).  A copy of Judge
Strawbridge's Decision is available at http://is.gd/ephizZfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Ct. Admits Witness' Grand Jury Testimony
---------------------------------------------------------------
Watkins Street Project files a motion to admit an excerpt of grand
jury testimony given by witness Halbert Warden as substantive
evidence and have that excerpt submitted as an exhibit to the
jury.  The motion arose from an ongoing criminal trial involving
five defendants charged with conspiracy to defraud the Government
and violate the Clean Air Act, and other regulatory offenses.  The
Government called Mr. Warden, an employee of ADC Systems, Inc., to
testify regarding his work for Defendant.  ADC provided asbestos
abatement services for Defendant on part of the Standard Coosa
Thatcher site.  Mr. Warden testified that, at the time Defendant
contracted with ADC to remove asbestos from the Standard Cosa
Thatcher site, a site survey was not necessarily required before
asbestos abatement could commence.  He said this legal requirement
-- to have a survey conducted before asbestos abatement begins --
changed in 2009.  The U.S. Government opposed the motion to admit.

In a Jan. 25, 2012 memorandum and order, Chief District Judge
Curtis L. Collier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, Chattanooga Division, granted the
Defendant's motion to admit the excerpt of grand jury testimony
given by Mr. Warden as substantive evidence.

Judge Collier pointed out that the portion of grand jury testimony
to which the Government objects has already been read aloud to the
jury by counsel for Defendant during Mr. Warden's cross-
examination, without objection from the Government, to demonstrate
the inconsistency in Mr. Warden's prior grand jury testimony and
his trial testimony.  Because prior inconsistent statements are
admissible as substantive evidence under the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the portion of grand jury testimony offered by Defendant
as a prior inconsistent statement is admissible as substantive
evidence, Judge Collier held.

Judge Collier, however, denied the Defendant's motion to the
extent it seeks to have that excerpt submitted as an exhibit to
the jury noting that Defendant has made no argument that
submission of Mr. Warden's grand jury testimony is necessary, and
no argument for eschewing the established practice.

The case is U.S. v. Fillers, No. 1:09-CR-144 (Tenn.) A copy of
Judge Collier's Decision is available at http://is.gd/VYO8Zffrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Ct. Denies Mandamus to Junk Lower Ct. Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMF Incorporated filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the
Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston, to compel
the Honorable Mark Davidson, presiding pre-trial judge for
asbestos multi-district litigation cases and visiting judge for
the 11th District Court of Harris County, Texas, to grant its
motion for summary judgment.

Because AMF has not shown that it is entitled to the relief
requested, an Appellate Court panel consisting of Chief Justice
Adele Hedges and Justices Jeff Brown and Tracy Christopher denied
the petition in a Jan. 26, 2012 memorandum and opinion.

The mandamus arose from an order of a trial court denying AMF's
motion for summary judgment dismissing a wrongful death lawsuit
for the death of Marion Simpson.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuit
alleges that Mr. Simpson developed lung cancer as a result of his
occupational exposure to asbestos while working as an insulator
for B&B Engineering & Supply Co. Inc. at various times between
1945 and 1970.  AMF was named defendant as corporate successor to
B&B.

The Appellate Court held that mandamus is generally unavailable
when a trial court denies summary judgment, no matter how
meritorious the motion, because "trying a case in which summary
judgment would have been appropriate does not mean the case will
have to be tried twice," citing In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275
S.W.3d 458, 465-66 (Tex. 2008).  Although the Texas Supreme Court
recently found mandamus was appropriate to correct the erroneous
denial of a motion for summary judgment, the court noted that
extraordinary circumstances merited extraordinary relief, the
Appellate Court noted.  The Appellate Court did not find
extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus relief in this
case.

The case is In re AMF Incorporated, No. 14-11-01011-CV (Tex.).  A
copy of the Jan. 26 Decision is available at http://is.gd/mXGLku
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Ct. Bars Granite State's Intervention
----------------------------------------------------------
General Refractories Company, a manufacturer and supplier of
asbestos-containing products, sued its insurance carriers for a
declaration of excess insurance coverage for asbestos-related
claims.  GRC is a defendant in numerous asbestos-related suits
throughout the United States.  Two of those insurance carriers are
Lexington Insurance Company and AIU Insurance Company.

In 2004, GRC filed a complaint naming among other defendant
insurers Granite State Insurance Company but the suit against
Granite was dismissed without prejudice for lack of diversity.
Granite has filed a motion to intervene as of right or by
permission to assert affirmative claims for reformation or
rescission of its policy.

In a Jan. 30, 2012 memorandum, Judge Edmund V. Ludwig of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied
Granite's motion pointing out that the Court has entered a prior
order determining that the policies the insurance companies issued
to GRC has an exclusion for claims related to asbestos products
and Lexington and AIU's counterclaims were dismissed with
prejudice.

Judge Ludwig also pointed out that Granite does not have a legal
interest in the insurance transactions and contracts that are the
subject of this action, and is not a party to the Lexington and
AIU contracts.  It therefore has no standing to assert Lexington's
or AIU's contract rights, Judge Ludwig held.

The case is General Refractories Company v. First State Insurance
Co., Civil Action No. 04-3509 (E.D. Pa.).  A copy of Judge
Ludwig's Decision is available at http://is.gd/XyJCcufrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Ct. Junks Postpetition Claims as Discharged
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Placid Oil Company was in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in the mid-
1980s.  Placid filed an Adversary Proceeding, approximately two
decades after confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan and closure of its
bankruptcy case, to determine whether certain tort claims that
have been asserted in a Louisiana state court, post-confirmation,
by Jimmy Williams, Sr., Jimmy Williams, Jr., Dalton Glen Williams,
Jeanette Williams Shows, and Gwendolyn Williams Peacock,
individually and on behalf of the deceased, Myra Williams, were
discharged by the Confirmation Order in Placid's Chapter 11 case.

The Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants filed survival and wrongful
death claims arising from Mrs. William's death, which was due to
mesothelioma, an asbestos-related disease.  The Claimants allege
that Mrs. Williams contracted the disease as a result of her
washing the dirty working clothes of her husband, who worked for
Placid's oil facility for 30 years.  The husband was allegedly
exposed to asbestos during his employment.

In a Jan. 18, 2012 memorandum opinion and order, Judge Stacey
Jernigan of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, granted Placid's motion for summary
judgment and denied the Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants' Claims.

Judge Jernigan, following the majority of cases in the asbestos-
bankruptcy context, found that prepetition, dischargeable claims
existed vis-a-vis the Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants and Placid.
Further, Judge Jernigan concluded that due process as to the Post-
Confirmation Tort Claimants was met with the publication of the
bar date notices thrice with The Wall Street Journal.  The Court
held that the publication was sufficient for "unknown creditors"
like the Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants to be of constructive
notice of the bar dates.

Accordingly, Judge Jernigan ruled that Placid is entitled to keep
intact the fresh start of its decades-old discharge.

The case is Placid Oil Company v. Jimmy Williams, Et al., Case No.
86-33419-SGJ-11, Adversary No. 09-03356-SGJ (Tex.).  A copy of
Judge Jernigan's Decision is available at http://is.gd/FGzjDPfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules on P&H Worker's Suit vs. Pneumo Abex
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pneumo Abex, LLC, appeals from judgment entered after a jury found
that it negligently exposed John Pender to asbestos and that
Abex's negligence was a substantial factor in causing Pender's
injury and death.  Catherine Singer, Pender's daughter and special
administrator for his estate, was subsequently awarded almost $1.5
million in damages and statutory costs.  Pender worked as a
painter and glass setter for P&H Mining, f/k/a Harnischfeger
Corporation, for more than four decades.  He was diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma, a disease likely caused by exposure to
asbestos.  Abex was named defendant after being identified as a
supplier of asbestos-containing products to Harnischfeger during
Pender's employment.

In a Jan. 18, 2012 decision, a three-judge panel composed of
Judges Patricia S. Curley, Joan F. Kessler and Kitty K. Brennan of
the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, reversed the order
remanded the case back to the trial court with directions to grant
Abex's motion for summary judgment.

The Appellate Court found that there was no evidence in the
summary judgment record on which a reasonable factfinder could
infer that Abex's brake shoes were ever in Harnischfeger's
National Avenue plant, much less in any of the buildings where
Pender worked, thereby prohibiting a reasonable inference that
Abex's brake shoes were a cause of Pender's death.

The Appellate Court held that given the number of brake suppliers
utilized by Harnischfeger and the number of plants Harnischfeger
had in operation, Singer had to produce something more to create a
genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Pender was
exposed to asbestos from Abex's brake shoes.  The evidence
presented to the trial court created only a "mere possibility" of
causation, which is not enough to survive summary judgment, the
Appellate Court concluded.

The case is Singer v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, No. 2010AP2614 (Wis.).  A
copy of the Jan. 18 Decision is available at http://is.gd/Nj5i3c
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Ct. Directs Building Owner to Pay $25,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Woodrow Garrick filed a Complaint against the City of Cleveland
alleging that the demolition of a building he owned in the City
violated his property rights under the Ohio Constitution and his
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The City filed a Counterclaim seeking $25,919 for asbestos-related
costs and demolition costs and a motion for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint.

In a Jan. 18, 2012 memorandum of opinion and order, Judge Patricia
A. Gaughan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, granted the City's motion for summary judgment holding that
the City did not violate Mr. Garrick's constitutional rights and
Mr. Garrick failed to timely perfect his appeal of the violation
notice.

The District Court also directed Mr. Garrick to pay $2,919 for
asbestos-related costs and demolition costs after finding that it
was undisputed that the City incurred the costs while demolishing
Mr. Garrick's property.

The case is Garrick v. City of Cleveland, Case No. 1:11-CV-1083
(Ohio).  A copy of Judge Gaughan's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/xsnxvgfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Pays First Batch of Plaintiffs In Libby
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak for The Mesothelioma Center reports that the long wait
is coming to a drawn-out end.

More than a decade after first filing a lawsuit against the state
for a failure to warn them of the danger, the first batch of
asbestos plaintiffs in Libby, Montana have begun receiving their
portion of a $43 million settlement.

An estimated 200 of the 1,128 people named in the settlement
received their payment in January, according to
DailyInterLake.com.

Another 600 are close to reaching a resolution, according to their
attorneys.  The rest, unfortunately,  must continue to wait until
all the Medicare liens are satisfied.

The settlement, approved by the District Court in Helena back in
September, stems from exposure at the former W.R. Grace & Co.
vermiculite mine in Libby.

Payments Vary

Payments for the victims will range from $500 to $60,000,
according to court records, and depend upon the severity of the
illness.

The Spokesman-Review Newspaper in Montana estimated that 400
people died and another 1,700 were sickened by the asbestos at the
Grace & Co. mine that closed in 1990.

Miners originally brought a suit against W.R. Grace, but the
company escaped much of the liability from the extensive,
community-wide contamination when it filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
Negotiations and appeals continue to be discussed.

The settlement with the state still allows individuals to continue
pursuing cases against W.R. Grace.  The initial lawsuit against
the state was filed in 2001 shortly after the bankruptcy filing.
It was slowed because of numerous appeals and court rulings.

Montana Fought Claims

The state first claimed that none of its agencies had a legal
obligation to provide warnings of the mine's dangers, and lower
court rulings concurred.  It wasn't until the state Supreme Court
in 2004 reversed those decisions that the victims began to move
forward, still slowed by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court injunction.

The state finally settled the claims in September of 2011.

The mine in Libby is approximately 50 miles south of the Canadian
border and produced much of the vermiculite that was used across
America for home insulation, potting soil conditioner and packing
material.

Vermiculite is a naturally occurring mineral that often contains
asbestos, which causes a wide variety of respiratory illnesses,
including mesothelioma.

The majority of the plaintiffs in the suit against the state did
not work in the mines, but were either family members or just
living in the community that often was blanketed in dust that came
from the nearby mines.  Cleanup of the site still continues today
with costs soaring over $370 million.

Most of the victims who have received payment were part of the
Grace Libby Medical plan, or had private insurance that left
behind no Medicare liens.  Much of the state money now will go to
reimburse Medicare expenses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel, AW Chesterton et al. Face Bartee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that a
Barboursville man is suing 62 companies he claims are responsible
for his lung cancer.

On April 4, 2011, Richard Franklin Bartee was diagnosed with lung
cancer, according to a complaint filed Jan. 12 in Kanawha Circuit
Court.

Bartee claims he was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-
containing fibers during his career from 1957 until 1994.

The defendants failed to warn Bartee of the dangers of asbestos
and failed to protect him from asbestos, according to the suit.

The 62 defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence,
contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty,
strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation
and post-sale duty to warn, according to the suit.

Bartee is seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.  He
is being represented by Victoria L. Antion, Scott A. McGee --
smcgee@motleyrice.com -- and Bronwyn I. Rinehart --
brinehart@jfhumphreys.com

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 62 defendants named in the suit are: A.K. Steel Corporation;
A.W. Chesterton Company; Ajax Magnethermic Corporation; Bechtel
Corporation; Borg-Warner Corporation; Bucyrus International, Inc.;
Caterpillar Inc.; Certainteed Corporation; Clark Equipment
Company; Cleaver-Brooks Company, Inc.; Columbus McKinnon
Corporation; Crane Co.; Dravo Corporation; Eaton Electrical, Inc.;
Exxon Mobil Corporation; Flowserve FSD Corporation; FMC
Corporation; Ford Motor Company; Foseco, Inc.; Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation; General Electric Company; Goulds Pumps, Inc.;
Honeywell International; IMO Industries, Inc.; Industrial Holdings
Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; Insul Company, Inc.; ITT
Corporation; J.H. France Refractories; McJunkin Red Man
Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Morgan
Engineering, Inc.; NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc.; Nagle
Pumps; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Oglebay Norton Company;
Ohio Valley Insulating Company, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.;
Pettibone/Traverse Lift, LLC; Premier Refractories, Inc.; Rapid
American Corporation; Riley Power Inc.; Rockwell Automations,
Inc.; Rust Constructors, Inc.; Rust Engineering & Construction,
Inc.; Rust International, Inc.; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.;
Standard Oil Company, Inc.; State Electric Supply Company;
Sterling Fluid Systems (US) LLC; Stockham Valves & Fittings;
Surface Combustion, Inc.; Tasco Insulations, Inc.; The Alliance
Machine Company; The F.D. Lawrence Electric Company; UB West
Virginia, Inc.; United Engineers & Constructors and Washington
Group International; Viacom, Inc.; Vimasco Corporation; West
Virginia State Electric Supply Company; WT/HRC Corporation; and
Yale Materials Handling Corporation.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 12-C-88


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Can Add $16MM to Its Pension Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Phil Milford of Bloomberg News reports that Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC, a gasket maker that sought bankruptcy protection
to deal with asbestos claims, won a judge's permission to add $16
million to its union pension plan.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges in Charlotte, North Carolina,
ruled that Garlock officials could add the money to a pension plan
covering members of the International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers to help the manufacturer negotiate a new
contract.

The addition was in "the best interest" of Palmyra, New York-based
Garlock, its creditors and its workers, Hodges said in a two-page
ruling.

Garlock, a unit of Charlotte-based EnPro Industries Inc., has
produced gaskets, hydraulic components and seals for more than 100
years. Don Washington, an EnPro spokesman, said in a telephone
interview the company was pleased with the approval of the
addition, "which fully funds the pension plan."

The company filed for Chapter 11 protection in June 2010 to deal
with 100,000 asbestos claims filed over its products. Some of
Garlock's gaskets contained asbestos, making the company the
target of more than 900,000 asbestos claims, according to court
papers.

So far, Garlock has paid more than $1.4 billion in settlements and
judgments and more than $400 million in legal costs connected to
the cases, the company said in a June 2010 filing in its
bankruptcy case.

To deal with the remaining 100,000 asbestos cases, Garlock filed
the bankruptcy case to have all the claims grouped together for
disposition, company officials said in the 2010 filing. The
company has filed a Chapter 11 exit plan that promises to pay
approved asbestos claims, according to a November court filing.

Garlock's contract with unionized machinists is set to expire next
month and workers are demanding an increase in pension benefits,
company officials said in a Jan. 5 court filing.

"The increase in funding in the Garlock Union Pension Plan is a
critical component in negotiations," executives said in the
filing.

The contribution also would mean funding levels for the plan,
which now stand at 65%, would jump to 100%, officials said in the
Jan. 5 filing. Garlock, which has $100 million in cash and cash
equivalents, funded the increase from its own coffers, the
officials said.

The case is In Re Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, 10-31607, U.S.
District Court, Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M, AW Chesterton et al. Face Coombs Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that a Hacker
Valley man is suing 69 companies he claims are responsible for his
mesothelioma diagnosis.

Danny L. Coombs was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Oct. 25, 2011,
according to a complaint filed Jan. 12 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Coombs claims he was exposed to asbestos during his career from
the 1950s until 1977.

The defendants failed to warn Coombs of the dangers of asbestos
and failed to protect him from asbestos, according to the suit.

The 69 defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence,
contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty,
strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation
and post-sale duty to warn, according to the suit.

Coombs is seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. He
is being represented by Victoria L. Antion, Scott A. McGee and
Bronwyn I. Rinehart.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 69 defendants named in the suit are 3M Company; A.O. Smith
Corporation; A.W. Chesterton Company; Ajax Magnethermic
Corporation; Allied Glove Corporation; Aurora Pump Company; Borg-
Warner Corporation; Burlington Industries, Inc.; Carrier
Corporation; Catalytic Construction Company; Certainteed
Corporation; Cleaver-Brooks Company, Inc.; Crane Company; Dravo
Corporation; Eaton Electrical, Inc.; Erie City Iron Works;
Flowserve US, Inc.; FMC Corporation; Ford Motor Company; Foster
Wheeler Energy Corporation; General Electric Company, Inc.;
Genuine Parts Company; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Greene Tweed & Company;
Grinnell, LLC; Hercules, Inc.; Hinchcliff Products Company;
Honeywell International; Honeywell, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.;
Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; ITT
Corporation; Keisey-Hayes Company; Lockheed Martin Corporation;
Maremont Corporation; McJunkin Corporation; Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; Modern Tool & Die Company; Nagle Pumps; Nitro
Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Oakfabco, Inc.; Ohio Valley Insulating
Company, Inc.; Owens-Illnois, Inc.; Pneumo Abex Corp.; Premiere
Refractories, Inc.; Rapid American Corporation; Riley Power, Inc.;
Rust Constructors, Inc.; Rust Engineering & Construction, Inc.;
Rust International, Inc.; Sager Corporation; Schneider Electric
USA, Inc.; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC; Sunbeam Corporation;
Surface Combustion, Inc.; Swindell Dressier International
Corporation; Tasco Insulations, Inc.; The William Powell Company;
Trumbull Asphalt; UB West Virginia, Inc.; Uniroyal, Inc.; United
Conveyor Corporation; URS Energy & Construction, Inc.; Vermont
American Corporation; Viacom, Inc.; Vimasco Corporation; Yarway
Corporation; and Zurn Industries, Inc.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 12-C-90


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kildare Coroner Links 2 Deaths to Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Leinster Leader posts that decades-old asbestos exposure has
been officially linked to the recent deaths of two elderly Athy
women, leading the Kildare County Coroner to suggest that "we are
witnessing a cluster of such deaths."

Speaking at the sitting of the Coroner's Court in Naas, Prof.
Denis Cusack was keen to stress that this is not a current health
problem and that the exposure to asbestos in both cases occurred
many decades ago, before there was an awareness of the dangers of
the substance.

The case he heard on Jan. 30 involved 78-year-old Mary Mullhall
from Athy, who died on Aug. 16.

Evidence from her son Martin Mullhall revealed that his father,
Mary's late husband, had worked in the town's former asbestos
factory (situated where the Tegral plant is now) before he was
born.

The coroner believed that the late Mrs. Mullhall would have been
exposed to asbestos from washing her husband's clothes 60 years
ago.

Prof. Cusack recalled an inquest he had dealt with in early
December last year where a woman called Mary Fitzsimons had been
exposed to asbestos through washing her father's work clothes.  He
had worked in the same plant.

"There is no public health issue," Mr. Cusack said.  But he said
he believed "you'll perhaps see a cluster of such deaths now.
This is the second I've seen in two months.  Thankfully the danger
from asbestos is now long recognized.

"Sadly your mother was exposed to it at a time when the dangers
were not known."

In passing his sympathies to the family of Mrs. Mullhall, Garda
Inspector Paul Dolan noted how "unusual it is that something she
picked up 60 years ago led to her untimely death".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADRI Researchers Warn DIY Home Renovators
----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Ward for the Inner West Courier reports that Concord
researchers on the frontline in the fight against asbestos-related
diseases have issued a grim warning to home renovators.

The fact Australia has the world's highest incidence of asbestos-
related diseases in Australia was cause for DIY (Do-It-Yourself)
enthusiasts to be very careful, said Professor Nico van Zandwijk,
director of the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute (ADRI).

"The number of cases in Australia is larger than most parts of the
world and it's an extensive problem that's actually increasing,"
the Breakfast Point resident said.

DIY safety rules:

   -- Be careful and identify potential dangers
   -- Use a licensed asbestos removal contractor to inspect and
test building materials
   -- Always work to avoid or minimize the release of dust

The three-year-old institute, based at Concord Hospital, has
received a $3.5 million grant from the Cancer Institute of NSW
recently.

While people are aware of the dangers of asbestos, Prof van
Zandwijk believes more needs to be done.

"Many people start thinking about it after they've done the
renovating," he said.

The institute has created a "bio bank" of samples from willing
patients in the inner west for research into better diagnosis and
treatments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Offers $19.5MM Medical Settlement Trust
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports a proposed settlement in the W.R.
Grace and Co. bankruptcy case would pay $19.5 million into a trust
for people sickened by asbestos exposure from the company's now-
shuttered vermiculite plant in Libby, Mont.

Jon Heberling, the attorney representing the Libby claimants, said
on Jan. 31 that the Libby Medical Plan Trust would ensure that the
company doesn't terminate the Libby Medical Program, which began
in 2000 after news reports first documented the widespread disease
and deaths among residents of the northwestern Montana town.

The Libby Medical Program is a voluntary plan that can be
terminated whenever Grace chooses, though it has operated while
bankruptcy proceedings have gone on since 2001.

"The settlement removes that uncertainty," Heberling told the
Daily Inter Lake (http://bit.ly/ymUAUP).  "When final settlement
documents are approved by the bankruptcy court, all objections to
the plan of reorganization from the Libby claimants will be
settled and will be withdrawn."

Claimants also will be eligible to receive distributions from the
separate Asbestos Personal Injury Trust to be established as part
of Grace's reorganization plan, Heberling said.

The company said in a statement that the money for the trusts will
come from a variety of sources, including cash, insurance, stock,
payments from third parties, and deferred payment obligations.

Grace said that its reorganization plan had been approved by the
U.S. District Court of Delaware but is subject to appeal.  The
settlements also are subject to the approval of the Libby
claimants.

The bankruptcy agreement comes four months after a Montana judge
approved a $43 million settlement for 1,128 asbestos victims who
said state officials knew that dust from the mine was killing
people but failed to intervene.

That settlement stems from more than 200 lawsuits brought against
Montana agencies for failing to protect victims in Libby.  The
state claimed in its defense that it had no legal obligation to
provide warning of the mine's dangers.

An estimated 400 people have been killed by asbestos released from
the vermiculite mine.  Lethal dust from the mine once blanketed
the small community about 40 miles south of the Canadian border,
and asbestos illnesses were still being diagnosed more than two
decades after the mine was shuttered.

The Center for Asbestos Related Diseases in Libby has a caseload
of more than 2,800 patients with asbestos disease and is adding
more patients.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chadha Takes Leave From McGill, St. Mary's Board
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Lalonde of The Montreal Gazette reports that asbestos
exporter Roshi Chadha announced on Feb. 1, 2012, that she is
taking a leave of absence from her positions on McGill
University's board of governors and on the St. Mary's Hospital
Foundation's board of directors, in response to pressure from
anti-asbestos activists.

"While a great deal of support has been expressed, I do not want
the focus of these important causes to be distracted or diluted by
issues that are unrelated to them," Chadha said in a written
statement released by her spokesman, John Aylen.

The move follows Chadha's resignation from the governing body of
the Canadian Red Cross just over two weeks ago.

Chadha is a director with an export company called Seja Trade
Ltd., which exported asbestos from the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos,
Que., to developing countries for many years, until the mine
suspended operations last fall.  The company is a subsidiary of
Balcorp Ltd., which is seeking a $58-million loan guarantee from
the Quebec government to expand the Jeffrey Mine underground and
reopen it.  Balcorp is owned by Chadha's husband, Baljit Chadha.

Anti-asbestos groups had asked the Canadian Red Cross, McGill
University and the hospital foundation to force Chadha off their
boards, arguing that her business activities are not compatible
with the missions and values of those institutions.

The chair of McGill's board of governors, Stuart Cobbett, issued
this statement regarding Chadha's decision to take a leave of
absence: "Mrs. Roshi Chadha is a distinguished senior volunteer in
the McGill community, and has given years of sustained service to
the university through a range of important roles and
contributions.  We respect her wishes, though reluctantly, and
look forward to her return."

Cobbett was not available for an interview, and McGill University
spokesman Doug Sweet said he could not say whether the board of
governors will be reviewing its policies regarding the appointment
of board members in light of the controversy.

The chair of the St. Mary's Hospital Foundation, Rachel Renaud,
also praised Chadha's contribution.  She said she is concerned
that activists are "meddling in people's private lives," and that
public scrutiny of the business activities of board members may
discourage this type of volunteerism.

"If people are going to start going to extremes like this . . .
Think about it, some of the most prominent families are involved
in businesses that some could argue are not promoting good health
and there would be a big impact if these people start to pull out"
of volunteer boards, she said.

She added that she understands "the hurt of those families" who
have been affected by asbestos-related diseases, but she said the
demands from the anti-asbestos groups put board members in a
delicate position.  In the end, the board members agreed with
Chadha that the best thing to do was for her to take a temporary
leave because the controversy was distracting from the cause of
raising money for the hospital, and "nobody is more important than
the cause," Renaud said.

Kathleen Ruff, senior human rights adviser with the Rideau
Institute and one of the activists who wrote to St. Mary's
Hospital Foundation board, said she is disappointed that none of
the institutions in which the Chadha's are involved have spoken
out against the asbestos trade.

"It is shocking that St. Mary's Hospital Foundation, like the
Canadian Red Cross . . . and McGill, have refused to take an
ethical and honorable stand on the asbestos issue.  They simply
praise her and are totally comfortable with her being a leading
asbestos exporter," she said.

"In Canada, in Quebec, we face a critical situation where the
government is ignoring its own health experts and supporting the
asbestos industry and we have institutions like McGill and St.
Mary's legitimizing this industry, and it helps them get away with
it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kansas Developer Faces $250K Fine & 5 Yrs Prison
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Morris of The Kansas City Star reports that justice for the
neighbors of a midtown environmental debacle moved a step closer
to reality on Feb. 1 when a developer pleaded guilty to violations
of the federal Clean Air Act.

William M. Threatt, Jr., 71, admitted in Kansas City that he
failed to properly remove and dispose of cancer-causing asbestos
between 2001 and 2006 while overseeing the development of the
Citadel Plaza retail project.

A federal grand jury charged Threatt, former president of the
Community Development Corporation of Kansas City, and Anthony
Crompton, the corporation's former real estate director, in 2010
with failing to properly inspect for asbestos inside structures
that were being demolished and then failing to remove much of the
carcinogen.

Crompton pleaded guilty in October.

The Kansas City Star first reported that asbestos contaminated the
area in 2006.  A reporter found that scores of homes built with
asbestos-contaminated materials had been demolished and no
asbestos permits had been obtained.

Threatt said little during the 20-minute hearing before U.S.
District Judge Gary Fenner.  "Is it your intent to plead guilty to
this charge because you are, in fact, guilty?" Fenner asked.
"Yes, sir," Threatt replied.

Afterward, Threatt and his lawyer, P.J. O'Connor, declined further
comment.

No sentencing date has been set for Threatt or Crompton.  Both
face up to five years in prison and a maximum $250,000 fine.

The Citadel Plaza redevelopment site was bounded by 60th Street on
the north, 63rd Street to the south, Prospect Avenue on the east
and Brooklyn Avenue to the west.  After purchasing much of the
property from Research Hospital, the development corporation
announced plans to build a 35-acre shopping center, including a
full-service grocery, retailers, restaurants and homes.

But instead of delivering the promised $80 million retail jewel to
the blighted neighborhood, the developers allowed years to pass as
the area became contaminated with building materials that had been
left in huge piles and in nearby woods.

And the work the developers and their contractors performed
violated federal environmental laws, prosecutors alleged.
According to federal court records, Threatt and Crompton all but
ignored the environmental rules that require careful inspection,
removal, disposal and detailed recordkeeping of asbestos-
containing building materials.

The project also had become a legal and economic nightmare for the
city.

Two weeks ago, a Jackson County judge gave final approval to a $15
million settlement between the city and the developers, who
contended that the city had reneged on an agreement to provide at
least $20.5 million to jumpstart the project in late 2008.

Council members countered that the developers had not held up
their end of the bargain by resolving earlier lawsuits and paying
all taxes.

For its $15 million, the city received most of the real estate and
the rights to take another crack at redeveloping it.

The city's money will pay for legal fees, the dissolution of the
development company and to partially reimburse contractors,
vendors and a lender that worked on the project.

City officials said none of the money would go to Threatt, who
retired in 2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: APPG Reports 75% of UK Schools Are Contaminated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graeme Paton, Education Editor at The Telegraph, reports the All-
Party Parliamentary Group on Occupational Safety and Health said
the presence of lethal dust fibers in school buildings was a
"national scandal".

In a report, it warned that 75% of state schools are exposing
children, teachers and other staff to the carcinogenic material.

It comes after more than 140 teachers died from the rare asbestos-
related cancer mesothelioma in the past 10 years, with research in
the U.S. suggesting over 100 people will die every year in the UK
because of exposure at school.

MPs are now calling on the Government to introduce a program to
clear the material from schools.

The report also recommended annually updating parents, teachers
and staff about asbestos in their schools and reinstating
inspections into asbestos management.

Jim Sheridan, the group's chairman and the Labour MP for Paisley
and Renfrewshire North, said: "This is a national scandal.  Urgent
action is needed to prevent more pupils, teachers and other staff
being exposed to this deadly killer dust.

"We need both far greater awareness of the risks that this
material poses and a program for its phased removal."

Last year the Department of Education revealed that its "best
estimate" was that more than three-quarters of schools contained
asbestos.

Researchers in the U.S. found that for every death of a teacher
from asbestos-related diseases, nine children will die.  Children
are more vulnerable because they have longer than adults to
develop diseases related to the material.

According to the Health and Safety Executive, asbestos is the
single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK, with 4,000
people dying every year after it was extensively used as a
building material from the 1950s until the mid-1980s.

The fiber causes diseases including mesothelioma, which is always
fatal, lung cancer, asbestosis and diffuse pleural thickening.

                   United-Party to Fix Contagion

Phillip Gower, a partner at Simpson Millar LLP, writes that
according to members of both Houses of Parliament, the continued
instances of asbestos in UK state schools is a "national scandal".

After considering a report from the Department for Education (DfE)
which estimates the presence of asbestos in over 75% of schools,
an all-party group has called for a plan to manage and remove the
toxic fibrous material.

In the past decade, over 140 teachers have died from mesothelioma,
the cancer which attacks the lining of the lungs and is related to
asbestos inhalation.

According to education chiefs, schools should not ignore guidance,
noting the importance of leaving intact asbestos undisturbed.

Jim Sheridan, chair of the Parliamentary Group on Occupational
Safety and Health, said the situation was a national scandal.
"Urgent action is needed to prevent more pupils, teachers and
other staff being exposed to this deadly killer dust."

"We need both far greater awareness of the risks that this
material poses and a program for its phased removal."

Further recommendations include an annual asbestos awareness
program for staff, teachers and parents, along with the
reinstatement of inspections into asbestos management.

From the 1950s until the mid-80s, asbestos was commonly used in
the building industry for fireproofing and insulation.
Exceptionally dangerous when disturbed, its fibers when inhaled
can cause grave lung conditions such as mesothelioma and
asbestosis.

Asbestos inhalation is the UK's biggest cause of work-related
deaths, accounting for a yearly mortality rate of some 4,000,
according to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Stressing that the welfare of pupils and staff was paramount, a
DfE spokesman said it is unacceptable for any school not to comply
with the strict statutory asbestos guidance.

However, he added: "HSE's expert advice is based on the best
current evidence.  It is absolutely clear that if asbestos is not
disturbed or damaged, then it is safer to leave it in situ, with
strong systems in place to contain and monitor it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA In-Depth Test Results Clear Libby Wood Chips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Wilson of KAJ News reports that an unknown trace of asbestos
that was found in several samples of wood chips all around Libby
had some residents fearing that another asbestos exposure
nightmare for their small town.

But new findings from the US Environmental Protection Agency
suggest there is no asbestos exposure from the wood chips.

The EPA tested the wood chips from the former Stimson Lumber site
in 2007 and an unknown level of asbestos was detected in four of
the 20 samples, but upon further testing, those samples showed no
exposure to asbestos.

The EPA came back in for more in-depth testing this summer and ran
qualitative data on 15 samples, which gives them an exact
percentage of contamination.  Only one sample tested positive for
asbestos, and qualitative results revealed the contamination was
very minuscule.

During the activity-based sampling, which includes spreading,
raking and digging the wood chips, EPA workers say they came up
with zero exposure.

"You can never tell how dangerous one fiber is just by naming the
number out, or by what the amount is.  That's why we go back and
do the activity-based samples, because that is the recognized
method for asbestos to determine if there is an exposure," EPA
Remedial Project Manager Mike Cirian explained.

He added that the EPA plans no further response actions for the
wood chip piles at this time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Files Lawsuit Against 3M Co, 59 Others
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that a Pinesville
woman is suing 60 companies she claims are responsible for her
late husband's lung cancer and death.

On Sept. 11, 2009, Jimmy Dale Phillips was diagnosed with lung
cancer, from which he died on Dec. 20, 2010, according to a
complaint filed Jan. 12 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Barbara Phillips claims the 60 defendants are responsible for the
lung injury.

The defendants caused Jimmy Dale Phillips to be exposed to
asbestos during his career as a carpenter and laborer from 1958
until 1993, according to the suit.

Barbara Phillips claims the defendants failed to warn her husband
of the dangers of asbestos.

The defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence,
contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty,
strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentations
and post-sale duty to warn, according to the suit.

Barbara Phillips is seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved.  She is being represented by Victoria L. Antion, Scott
A. McGee -- smcgee@motleyrice.com -- and Bronwyn I. Rinehart --
brinehart@jfhumphreys.com

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 60 defendants named in the suit are 3M Company; A.O. Smith
Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; B.P. Oil Company; Beazer East,
Inc.; Bechtel Corporation; Borg-Warner Corporation; Catalytic
Construction Company; Caterpillar, Inc.; Certainteed Corporation;
Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.; Crane Co.; Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc.;
Dravo Corporation; Eaton Electrical, Inc.; Flowserve US, Inc.; FMC
Corporation; Ford Motor Company; Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation; General Electric Company, Inc.; Genuine Parts
Company; Georgia-Pacific, LLC; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Grinnell, LLC;
Honeywell International; IMO Industries, Inc.; Industrial Holdings
Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; ITT Corporation; Joy
Technologies, Inc.; Lockheed Martin Corporation; McJunkin
Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Mobil
Corporation; Nagle Pumps, Inc.; National Services Inc.; Nitro
Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Ohio Valley Insulating Company, Inc.;
Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Pneumo Abex Corporation; Premiere
Refractories, Inc.; Rapid American Corporation; Riley Power, Inc.;
Rockwell Automations, Inc.; Rust Constructors, Inc.; Rust
Engineering & Construction, Inc.; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.;
Standard Oil Company, Inc.; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC;
Tasco Insulations, Inc.; the Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Co.; the
William Powell Company; UB West Virginia, Inc.; Uniroyal Holdings,
Inc.; United Engineers & Constructors and Washington Group
International; Viacom, Inc.; Viking Pump Company; Vimasco
Corporation; Yarway Corporation; and Zurn Industries, Inc.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 12-C-89


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Contractor "No Show" On Agreed Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy McCarthy of the Loma Linda Patch reports that asbestos removal
scheduled to begin Jan. 31 at a 1920s Craftsman home that burned
in October was delayed, the son of the owner said just before 5
p.m. on Jan. 31 outside the gutted structure on West Ramsey
Street.

"They'll probably be here tomorrow," Paul Thompson of Redlands
said.

City Manager Andy Takata told the Banning city council that
asbestos removal was expected to be finished by Feb. 2, and
demolition of the gutted structure is hoped to be completed by the
end of February.

The home was built in 1925, Paul's mother, Ann Thompson said in
October.  She said she bought the place about nine years ago but
did not live there because she had difficulty meeting city code
regulations.

"It was a Craftsman," Thompson said, referring to the American
architectural style that began around the end of the 19th century
and remained popular into the 1930s.

"Since I've been retired I only get Social Security, which is very
limited," Thompson said.  "So I put a big mortgage on my home to
get this.  And I borrowed money from my sister and my brother.
And now it's all gone, and everything in it is all gone. . . . It
wasn't insured.

The fire that gutted the home was reported at 12:31 a.m. Oct. 17
at 4th Street and Ramsey and eight engine companies responded,
according to Cal Fire.

Flames tore through the woodframe home's roof in places, and the
structure was reported "completely destroyed" at 1:33 a.m., a Cal
Fire spokeswoman said.

The cause of the fire that ripped through the vacant home was
being investigated by the Cal Fire Prevention Bureau.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McGill Doctors Accept Funds From Chrysotile Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Shochat and Joseph Loiero of CBC News report that a major 40-
year study on asbestos safety completed by a group of scientists
at McGill University is flawed, lacks transparency and contains
manipulated data says Dr. David Egilman, a professor at Brown
University, health activist and longtime industry critic.

The study, which followed the health of 11,000 miners and mill
workers in Quebec between 1966 and the late 1990s, is used by the
Chrysotile Institute -- a lobby arm funded by, overseen and
closely associated with both Liberal and Conservative governments
-- to promote the use of asbestos overseas.

According to Egilman, as the dangers of asbestos became better
known in the 1960s, the industry decided to do its own research
and hired Dr. John Corbett McDonald at McGill University's School
of Occupational Health.  Industry documents obtained by CBC News
showed it wanted to conduct research similar to that in the
tobacco industry, which stated that "Industry is always well
advised to look after its own problems."

"Doubt is their product.  They just need to have a little doubt in
the dialogue.  OK? And doubt allows you to go in and say, OK,
maybe they're right, maybe we're right, but nobody's sure," says
Egilman, who has been investigating the dangers of asbestos for
over two decades.

Starting in the mid-1960s, McDonald headed the McGill study.  The
CBC has documents that show payments from the Quebec Asbestos
Mining Association to McDonald and other researchers at the McGill
School of Occupational Health totaling almost a million dollars
from 1966 to 1972.

Tremolite Versus Asbestos

Tremolite, an even more dangerous contaminant than chrysotile, is
sometimes found alongside white asbestos or chrysotile.

The McGill researchers would suggest in a 1997 study that cases of
mesothelioma -- cancer of the lining of the lung -- occurred in
"most, if not all," miners who had a greater exposure to Tremolite
and that the mines close to the centre of the town of Thetford,
Que., were the ones most contaminated with Tremolite.
McDonald suggested that chrysotile was "essentially innocuous" at
certain levels and advocated for its export to the Third World.

Egilman, who has been a longtime critic of the study, argues that
chrysotile causes mesothelioma and has called for the release of
the McGill study data.

"The whole argument is based on contaminated and uncontaminated
mines.  And nobody knows which is which? That's crazy," says
Egilman.

Asbestos Shipped Across Canada

Asbestos was shipped all over Canada where it was used in many
different industries.  Forty percent of Canada's petrochemical
industry is in Sarnia, Ont., and the pipes in the plants were
wrapped in asbestos insulation.  The overall cancer rate in the
Sarnia area from 2003 to 2007 was about 10% higher than the
provincial average, the lung cancer rate 21% higher and the
mesothelioma rate six times higher.  In Canada, there were 404
deaths in 2008 from mesothelioma.

Egilman is not the only expert asking to see the McGill University
study data.

John Dement, an asbestos specialist at Duke University and Dr.
Richard Lemen, a former assistant surgeon general in the U.S.,
both told CBC News that they would also like to see the
information.

Lemen said the researchers are "either hiding something or . . .
afraid the results will be interpreted differently."

A recent analysis sponsored by the Dutch government tried to
assess the risk from asbestos for lung cancer.  It looked only at
"higher quality studies" and excluded the Quebec mine study
"because a variety of limitations, notably insufficient job
history information."

The CBC asked Dr. Bruce Case, a key participant in several McGill
asbestos studies, if he would release the data:

CBC: Will you give Dr. Egilman the data he's requesting?

DR. CASE: I wouldn't give Dr. Egilman the time of day.

CBC: Why not?

DR. CASE: Because he is not an honorable person.

CBC: But if it's scientific data that. . . .

DR. CASE: He's not a scientist. He's a social critic. He hasn't
done any original science, what would he do with it? I am sharing
the data with some American agencies.

CBC: OK, will you give it to us?

DR. CASE: No, I won't give it to you.

No Safe Level Of Exposure

Asbestos was historically used for its heat resistance and
insulating properties and was frequently added to cement, brake
linings, fibers and shingles.

Today, asbestos is banned in more than 40 countries including all
member states of the European Union.  The World Health
Organization has concluded that "all types of asbestos cause
asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer and that there is no safe
threshold level of exposure."

In June, 2011, members of the Canadian delegation blocked a UN
resolution that would have listed chrysotile asbestos as a
hazardous material.

While asbestos is severely restricted in Canada and the United
States, it is still commonly used in developing countries like
India and Vietnam.  The World Health Organization estimates that
more than 107,000 people die annually from asbestos exposure
worldwide and Ken Takahashi, an epidemiologist affiliated with
WHO, recently said that "asbestos tsunami" of deaths is going to
hit Asia because of the continued use of the product there.

Several scientists, including McGill's Dr. Case, have publicly
opposed exports of this mineral.

Two Conservative members of parliament stood up in the House of
Commons in the past year to say that chrysotile can be safely
handled based on studies, some of which come out of McGill:

"Mr. Speaker, scientific reviews show that chrysotile fibers can
be used safely in a controlled environment at the national or
international level." -- Christian Paradis, federal Minister of
Industry and Quebec MP, House of Commons, Nov. 23, 2011.

"All scientific reviews clearly confirm that chrysotile fibers can
be used safely in controlled conditions." -- Joe Oliver, Ontario
MP, House of Commons, June 20, 2011.

During the federal election campaign last April, Prime Minister
Stephen Harper went to the asbestos region in Quebec and talked
about the industry.

"Canada is one of a number of exporters of chrysotile and there
are a number of countries in which it is legal who are buyers.
This government will not put Canadian industry in a position where
it is discriminated against in a market where it is permitted."

There is a plan to reopen the Jeffrey Mine, the world's largest
asbestos mine, using a $58-million loan guarantee from the Quebec
government.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School's Abatement Angers Un-Notified Parents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Belgrave of The Brampton Guardian reports that Asbestos
found in a dust sample collected at a Brampton elementary school
has some parents in the community deeply worried about the health
and safety of their children.

Traces of the carcinogen were recently discovered at Georges
Vanier Catholic School and the Ministry of Labour ordered the
Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board to restrict access to
the school's second floor until an extensive clean-up was
performed.

The board conducted environmental testing at the Finchgate
Boulevard school after renovation work over the Christmas holidays
generated concerns about air quality in the building.  During this
partial face-lift for the 40-year-old school, tile flooring being
removed and replaced on the second floor was found to contain
trace amounts of "non-friable" asbestos, according to board
officials.

This sort of asbestos is not easily released into the air, where
it poses the greatest potential to be a health hazard.  However,
strict safety protocols must still be followed during any removal
project to prevent the substance from becoming airborne.

Decades ago, asbestos was commonly used in the construction
industry. Until the 1980s, its heat and fire resistant qualities
and non-electric conducting chemicals made it a popular choice for
insulating walls, ceilings and hot water heaters in homes,
schools, office buildings and other public spaces.

Asbestos is also found in a long list of other products, including
vinyl flooring tiles.

The board has 51 schools 30-years-old or older.  These buildings,
most in need of renovations, are the ones highly likely to contain
asbestos.

Widespread use of asbestos began a rapid decline when medical
experts began linking inhalation of airborne asbestos fibers with
serious illnesses -- cancers of the lungs, chest and stomach that
take years to show up after victims breath in dust particles.
Dust samples that tested positive for the presence of asbestos
were found in the local school's second floor corridor underneath
a shelf behind coat hooks used by students.

It is an alarming discovery for parents whose children spent a
week in the school before any environmental clean-up was initiated
by the board.

Many parents are concerned about the potential health
ramifications for their young children.  Current enrolment at the
kindergarten to Grade 8 school is about 300 students.  Parents are
also upset the school and school board did not make them aware of
renovation work involving asbestos either before or after it was
undertaken.

Many said they were never officially informed until children
coming home complaining about breathing problems, headaches, eye
irritation and sore throats prompted some to begin asking
questions.  The board eventually responded by hiring an
environmental consulting firm to conduct air quality tests in the
building.

A parent, worried about potential health hazards at the school,
contacted Peel Health.  The Region of Peel said an inspector was
dispatched to investigate.

After visiting the school and speaking with the board, Peel Health
contacted the Ministry of Labour, which is responsible for looking
into asbestos removal concerns under the Occupational Health and
Safety Act.

Matt Blajer, a Ministry of Labour spokesperson, said an inspector
and occupational hygiene consultant were sent to the school.  "We
wanted a copy of the results from that testing that was being done
by the employer and based on the results, an order was issued for
a thorough clean-up of the second floor corridor," Blajer
revealed.  "We put a stop work order saying people can't go in
there until it's cleaned up."

An environmental consulting firm was brought in to do the cleaning
over the weekend of Jan. 14, following air quality tests conducted
Jan. 13.  Those tests indicated air quality at the school was
good.  But after receiving additional test results on the dust
samples further cleaning was done Jan. 16, while the school was
closed for a professional activity day.

"Our investigation into the actual asbestos has concluded," said
Blajer.  "We were satisfied that the air quality is fine.  We're
just continuing the investigation on some administrative things,
such as no notice of project and things like that."

Among parents, there is still lingering concern about how the
entire affair was managed and what exposure to asbestos there may
have been or continues to be for children at the school.  Rosa
Laterza has two daughters at the school and is "disgusted" by the
way the school and school board has handled the situation.  Her
four-year-old has "severe asthma" and uses an inhaler and
AeroChamber to help her breath.  The kindergarten student has been
having a particularly difficult time breathing lately.  Laterza
suspects conditions at the school are to blame and was keeping her
daughter at home.

"My main concern is my daughter," she said.  The single mother is
worried about air quality levels and the possible presence of
asbestos during the days children spent in school prior to the
testing and clean-up.  "I'm scared.  I'm hurt.  I'm upset," she
said.  "I don't understand why they wouldn't communicate with us."

Prior notice about the work would have given parents an
opportunity to decide if they wanted to send children to school,
she suggested.  The school board insist safety protocols were
followed and the building is safe to occupy.  Letters to parents
implied heightened concerns have been raised by the spread of
inaccurate and out of context information, rumors and innuendo.
"If it was nothing major, why was there so much cleaning
involved," wondered Gabriela Pollard, who also has two children at
the school.  "Why wasn't the cleaning done before the kids went
back to school.  Why was all this happening after the kids had
been in there a week."

Her eight and 13-year-old daughters came home complaining about
the dust and smell at school.  Eventually, when one of her
daughters became physically ill, she kept them both home.

Since asbestos was detected in the dust, some parents are not
convinced precautions taken during the renovation work were
completely effective.

It is still unclear how long the asbestos that was found had been
present in the school and where it originated.  "We don't know how
that got there -- if it came in yesterday or if it's been there
for years," said Bruce Campbell, a board spokesperson.  "We have
no way of knowing that or confirming that or identifying that."

To add to concerns, the board confirmed tile removed in the
gymnasium in 2009 and this past summer also contained non-friable
asbestos.  There was no testing or environmental clean-up
conducted after those renovations.  "There's no trust whatsoever,"
said Pollard.

Scott McLauchlan, trustee for the community, said he understands
the concerns parents have under these circumstances.  It is "fair"
for parents to expect some notice about renovation work that may
have an impact on air quality at the school, he said McLauchlan
planned to speak with board administrative staff about crafting a
policy to give parents and staff fair warning in the future.  "I
think parents have the right to know about that type of work being
done in the school and then it's over to them whether they think
their kid should be at a school," said McLauchlan.  Posted signs
in various locations around the school alerting everyone to the
pending work might also be a good idea, he added.

However, McLauchlan would not comment on whether a policy change
is needed to make air quality testing mandatory after any work
involving asbestos.  "I'll let people who work with that stuff all
the time make comment on that," said McLauchlan, who believes the
board has done everything it can to make sure the school is now
safe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gracedale Remediation to Complete by Mid-March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Shortell of The Express-Times reports that removing 15-year-
old asbestos dust from the basement of Gracedale will cost the
county six figures and require workshops and storage areas be shut
down for a month, according to county officials.

County Executive John Stoffa and County Administrator Tom Harp
said the county expects to begin removing particles of the
carcinogen from workshops, hallways and storage areas next week.
It could take as long as four weeks for the remediation to be
complete.  Harp said that because food is stored in one of the
areas, two freezer trucks and one refrigeration truck will have to
be stationed outside the nursing home until the work is complete,
Harp said.

The dust is believed to come from fire-proof doors an employee cut
in half as many as 15 years ago.  The county is handling the
matter seriously, he said, and has spent more than $800,000 to
clean contaminated areas in the last six years.  While testing has
revealed problems in some areas, he noted that others meet the
highest standards.  "You could take children into some of these
areas," Harp said.

Stoffa also asked the county council do its part to remove the
asbestos problem from the public eye.  The population at Gracedale
has dropped again after briefly improving last month, and he said
the asbestos talk wasn't helping matters.

"We better stop talking about it publicly.  We're scaring people
away from Gracedale.  It's the wrong thing to do," he said.

However, some workers were concerned the county wasn't doing
nearly enough to handle the problem.  Ted Harris, a county
maintenance mechanic who serves on an employee safety board, said
people are not listening to the concerns of the workers.  Despite
the repeated requests for healthcare monitoring and questions
about how the clean up was being conducted, he felt administrators
dismissing his points without taking action.

"We are experiencing people who, instead of hearing of what we
have to say, are listening for what they want to hear," he said.

Harris, who has spoken at several meetings, was cut off by
Councilwoman Peg Ferraro after his allotted speaking time ran out
after a minute extension.

At the end of the meeting, Councilman Ken Kraft asked Stoffa to
consider granting medical monitoring for those who had worked in
and around contaminated areas.  While he was confident the county
was handling the situation responsibly, he said the monitoring
could offer employees peace of mind.

Councilman Bob Werner requested Northampton County Solicitor Karl
Longenbach to look into county's the legal options over some of
the contaminated areas.  The courthouse's law library has been
shuttered for months even though it was supposedly cleared of
asbestos years ago, and he questioned why the county should be
charged with paying for the costs if someone didn't do their job
properly.  "Why don't we hold these people accountable?" he asked.

Longenbach said the county has reviewed some of those options and
would present the council with a report at its next meeting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazmat Dumped Twice in 3 months at Banana Shire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Mccrohon of the Central Telegraph reports that illegally
dumped asbestos is costing ratepayers tens of thousands of dollars
to clean up.

For the second time in three months Banana Shire Council has been
forced to contract asbestos hygienists to remove asbestos from its
rubbish tips and clean up the sites.

Two weeks ago a large section of the Taroom landfill site was
closed off while contractors spent five days working to dispose of
the dangerous material, which was found before Christmas.

In November the Banana tip was closed for four days after building
material containing asbestos was dumped and burned at the
facility.

It cost council more than $30,000 to clean up the Banana mess and
the bill for the Taroom clean-up is expected to be higher.

Banana Shire manager fleet and waste services Greg Curtis said the
illegally dumped asbestos at Taroom had been in the ground for a
while, had come to the surface and was discovered in early
December.

"Once the material was discovered council had to notify the
Department of Environment and Resource Management and they then
dictated how we cleaned it up," Mr. Curtis said.  He said it was
spread over a four-hectare area and a dozer, two scrapers, a water
truck and an asbestos hygienist worked for five days to cover the
area.

"Basically they picked up the dirt from one side of the
contaminated area and then covered it.  We had to monitor the air
during the process to ensure our people working there were safe.

"That area of the landfill site is now closed off to the public.

"We haven't got a bill for the work yet, but it is going to be a
lot of money."  Mr. Curtis said the current Taroom landfill site
would be closed in a couple of years and replaced by a transfer
station.

"As part of our long-term waste strategy developed a couple of
years ago we identified that the Taroom landfill would have to be
closed and replaced with a transfer station by 2014 -- to help it
meet new environmental requirements."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ENVIRON Gets Abatement Job on HVAC/Boiler Project
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Gruen of the ParkRidge-Herald Advocate reports that a firm
was hired to perform the design-and-bidding process for asbestos
removal at Carpenter Elementary School at the school board meeting
Jan. 23.

The design-and-management fee for services from ENVIRON
International Corporation will cost the district about $72,000,
and the actual asbestos-abatement work is estimated at $485,000.

The asbestos removal will not be necessary, though, if the board
decides not to move forward with air-conditioning and boiler
projects at Carpenter.

Scott Mackall, director of facility management, said that on
April 9, school-board members will decide whether to give their
final approval on the HVAC/boiler work.

Recently the board gave permission to move forward with the design
plans for the HVAC/boiler improvements.

Mackall said there is about 3,000 feet of piping in the attic.

"The piping in the attic is wrapped in asbestos," Mackall said.

There is also asbestos in the two old boilers at Carpenter.
Mackall said that it is intact, and that students and staff are
not in danger from the asbestos.

At the board meeting Jan. 23, board member Dan Collins shared his
concerns with selecting ENVIRON to do the work.

"I have concerns with not bidding this out," said Collins, who
felt there should have been a competitive bid on the project, and
that the board should discuss bidding projects to determine a cost
at which projects should be bid out.

Board President John Heyde said the board is not required to bid
out professional services.

"The issue here is timing," said District 64 Superintendent Philip
Bender, who supported hiring ENVIRON.

The district has worked with the company for more than 10 years.
ENVIRON managed the asbestos removal at Washington School in the
past.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison's Litigation Climate Turns Off Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Bardell of The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that local
law firms attract asbestos cases from around the country to
litigate in local courts.  One result has been an injection of
more than a billion dollars into the local economy in recent
years.

While that amount of cash provides direct benefits to local
merchants, government coffers and charitable causes, some legal
observers take a dim view of Madison County bolstering its economy
through asbestos litigation.

Lester Brickman, professor of law at Cardozo Law School and an
expert on asbestos and class action litigation, has been highly
critical of Madison County courts over the past decade.

"Every cell phone operator, virtually every large company in
various industries has been dragged into Madison County and had to
pay ransom to get out," he said.

Three local firms process the vast majority of Madison County
asbestos litigation.

The Simmons law firm, which currently employs 55 attorneys, touts
more than $3 billion dollars in verdicts and settlements,
according to its website.  The firm is headquartered in an
expansive office in Alton, and has satellite offices in St. Louis,
Chicago, San Francisco and El Segundo, Calif.

Gori, Julian & Associates, with an office located on Main Street
in Edwardsville directly across from the courthouse, has won more
than $1 billion and employ 15 attorneys.  The Goldenberg Heller
firm of Edwardsville has also brought in more than $1 billion,
employing 13 attorneys.

Add to the calculation that defendants hire local counsel as well,
and the impact of asbestos litigation on Madison County's economy
is even deeper.

But, as local law firms expand and thrive, some businesses leaders
are increasingly concerned about far-reaching effects the
litigation climate has on the local business economy.

A past board member of the Southwest Madison County Chamber
commented that the judicial atmosphere in Madison County is not a
good thing for business.

While noting that there are definite winners -- law firms -- and
losers -- businesses -- this member of the business community, who
remains unnamed for legal reasons, said, "I can only guess at how
many businesses have chosen not to set up shop here because of the
litigation climate."

"The important thing to business leaders is how to remove barriers
and attract more businesses to the region," he went on.

This business leader made clear that he and others have compassion
for asbestos victims, but, as he said, it is the disproportionate
treatment of defendants in Madison County that scares businesses
away and may harm the region's larger economic interests.

Ed Murnane, president of the Illinois Civil Justice League, said
the impact of litigation on an economy is "very difficult" to
document.

"However, an economy based off of litigation is not palatable to
many people.  You want a balanced economy -- businesses that make
products may in fact be more palatable," Murnane said.

Consumers, workers and investors also pay a price for litigation,
some suggest.

"These costs and inefficiencies are nominally shouldered by
business (an obstacle to the raw competitive position of
manufacturers) but are ultimately borne by consumers in the form
of higher product prices, by workers in the form of lower wages,
and by investors in the form of lower returns," wrote Byron
Schlomach, Ph.D. and William Peacock, III, of the Texas Public
Policy Foundation in "A Review of Asbestos Litigation."

In a follow-up to this article, the Record said it will examine
specific asbestos cases from time of filing to settlement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parliament to Discuss Contagions in Schools, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tessa Hawley at Isleofman.com reports that cyber threats, the
planning system and asbestos in schools are just some of the
topics that will be discussed in the House of Keys.  There are
nine questions for oral answer and 12 for written answer scheduled
for the sitting which was to take place on Tuesday, Feb. 7.

East Douglas MHK Brenda Cannell was to ask Chief Minister, Allan
Bell MHK, to make a statement about comments he recently made
about the Island's planning system.

In a public address last month the Ramsey MHK described the
current system as "laborious" and argued that in order for the
Island to achieve sustainable economic growth there had to be a
system that included a "presumption in favor of development."

Fellow Ramsey MHK Leonard Singer was to ask Education and Children
Minister Peter Karran MHK how many schools in the Island have
asbestos in their buildings.  He also wants to know what the
department's policy is in relation to asbestos management.

Economic Development Minister John Shimmin MHK was to be quizzed
on cyber threats to the government and local businesses.

Onchan MHK Zac Hall was to ask him about the department's strategy
to counter such threats against "key Isle of Man economic
organizations" and the data held by the government.

Bill Henderson, MHK for North Douglas, was to ask Social Care
Minister Chris Robertshaw MHK whether his department has any plans
to close any of its residential homes in the next year.

Rushen MHK Laurence Skelly was to ask fellow Rushen MHK, and
Environment, Food and Agriculture Minister, Phil Gawne about the
Countryside Care Scheme.  He also wants to know if the Minister
will make a statement on the sales performance of Manx meat in on
and off Island markets over the last three years.

In the written questions -- six of which are being asked by South
Douglas MHK Kate Beecroft -- Infrastructure Minister David Cretney
MHK was to be asked about area plans for the north, south, east
and west, and Health Minister David Anderson MHK was to be asked
about the number of people admitted to hospital with lung
conditions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Supports Washington's Better Brakes Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Legislation in the state of Washington that will eliminate
asbestos in brakes is a step in the right direction, said an
attorney of Shrader & Associates, L.L.P.  The leading national
firm is committed to helping individuals harmed by toxic
chemicals, including the carcinogen asbestos, attorney Robert
Shuttlesworth, Esq. -- Rshuttlesworth@shraderlaw.com -- said.  The
fibers are sometimes used in brake pads as well many other
industrial and commercial products.

The Better Brakes Law is Washington's attempt to protect its auto-
mechanics and environment from exposure to asbestos and other
toxins.  Under the rule, brake pads and shoes produced after 2013
cannot contain asbestos.  After 10 years, distributors must stop
selling any remaining inventory of asbestos-containing brake
parts.

"In the 1960's and 70's, information that asbestos was harmful
became more public and regulations were made," Shuttlesworth said.
"Still, until all asbestos products are declared illegal,
mesothelioma remains a threat for people in the United States."

Mesothelioma, cancer of the lung's lining, is caused by exposure
to asbestos.  Mechanics and other industrial workers are most at
risk because they are most frequently in contact with asbestos
materials, but anyone exposed to airborne fibers is susceptible.
In brakes, fibers can become airborne when the friction surface is
worn down or manipulated.  The EPA currently recommends that
mechanics treat every brake as if it contains asbestos.

"Men and women who work with these brakes have no way to tell
which types are safe," Shuttlesworth said.  "Mesothelioma patients
are often just people who were exposed to asbestos while working
hard and following instructions."

Shuttlesworth said he is always glad to hear about proactive
legislation at the state level, but that the United States is
overdue for a nation-wide asbestos ban, "the sooner the better."

In the meantime, Shrader & Associates, L.L.P., works to win
compensation for those who may already have developed mesothelioma
after exposure to asbestos.  The firm offers a free complimentary
legal consultation to help families understand their legal rights.
For assistance with this choice, individuals should call (888)
637-6236 or online at http://www.shraderlaw.com/

Shrader & Associates is a leading national law firm that
specializes in representing individuals harmed by dangerous
products and toxic chemicals.  These dedicated professionals have
extensive experience handling personal injury and product
liability lawsuits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Reports 4th Qtr 2011 Results
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation AP -0.79% announces sales for the
fourth quarter of 2011 of $86,514,000 compared with sales of
$82,165,000 for the same quarter of 2010.  Income from operations
for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2011, equaled $6,994,000.
Loss from operations for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2010,
equaled $(12,399,000) and includes a pre-tax charge of $19,980,000
for additional net asbestos litigation costs through 2020
associated with products manufactured decades ago by the Air and
Liquid Processing group.  Net income equaled $1,754,000 or $0.17
per common share for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2011.  Net
loss equaled $(9,653,000) or $(0.94) per common share for the
three months ended Dec. 31, 2010, and includes an after-tax charge
of $12,931,000 or $1.26 per common share for additional net
asbestos litigation costs through 2020.

Sales for 2011 of $344,816,000 compares with $326,886,000 for
2010.  Income from operations for 2011 equaled $36,474,000.
Income from operations for 2010 equaled $24,727,000 and includes a
pre-tax charge of $19,980,000 for additional net asbestos
litigation costs through 2020.

Net income for 2011 was $21,309,000 or $2.07 per common share.
Net income for 2010 was $15,456,000 or $1.51 per common share and
includes an after-tax charge of $12,931,000 or $1.26 per common
share for additional net asbestos litigation costs through 2020.

For the Forged and Cast Rolls segment, sales for the quarter and
year improved from a year ago primarily as a result of a higher
volume of shipments.  The expected contribution to operating
income was offset by higher direct material and fixed costs and
depressed pricing.  Operating results for the Air and Liquid
Processing segment for the quarter and year improved against 2010
which included the previously-mentioned charge for net asbestos
litigation costs through 2020.  Additionally, sales and operating
income for the year benefited from a higher volume of shipments
for each division in the segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McGill Cuts Off Ties With John Corbett McDonald
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Lalonde of The Montreal Gazette reports that a
documentary on CBC Television's The National detailed how an
institute set up by the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association paid
professor John Corbett McDonald and other researchers at
Montreal's McGill University at least $1 million between 1966 and
1972 for research on the health impacts of chrysotile asbestos.

In the documentary, professor David Egilman of Brown University in
Rhode Island claims some of those researchers altered the
literature in a way that minimized or misrepresented the health
effects of chrysotile asbestos.

Egilman, an expert on the health impacts of asbestos, claims the
industry continued to fund asbestos research at McGill until
recently.

The documentary suggests the questionable research is still being
used by the industry and the federal and Quebec governments to
justify Canada's continued involvement in asbestos production and
export.

A letter sent to McGill on Thursday, Feb. 2 and signed by dozens
of prominent health researchers and medical experts from across
Canada and abroad, demands that McGill cut its ties with the
asbestos industry.

The signatories demand in particular that the university
reconsider its decision to use asbestos in the construction of the
McGill University Health Centre and call for the permanent
resignation of a member of its board of governors who is an
asbestos exporter.

In response to the documentary and the letter, McGill spokesman
Doug Sweet on Friday, Feb. 3, released the following statement,
attributed to David Eidelman, McGill's vice-principal of health
affairs and dean of medicine: "McGill University has the highest
standards of research ethics, and the integrity and scientific
value of research carried out at the University is of primary
importance.  When concerns are occasionally expressed about
research ethics, we rely on a rigorous process of investigation."

Asked whether McGill will probe McDonald's research and funding,
or other asbestos-related research at McGill, Sweet responded only
that "McGill has policies and processes in place to guarantee that
our research meets the highest ethical standards."

Sweet noted that McDonald is retired and "not an active member of
the McGill community."

He added "McGill is not conducting any research at present into
asbestos."

The documentary identified Dr. Bruce W. Case, now an associate
professor in McGill's department of pathology, as a key
participant in several McGill asbestos studies.

On camera, Case denied he has received "even a penny" of funding
from the industry.

In 2001, Case co-authored a study on asbestos fibers in the lungs
of miners and millers that was partially funded by the J.M.
Asbestos Corporation, according to the documentary.

Reached on Feb. 3, Case declined to comment to the Montreal
Gazette.

Dr. Fernand Turcotte, the lead signatory of the letter and a
professor emeritus of public health and preventive medicine with
Universite Laval's faculty of medicine, called McGill's response
"cowardly."

"McGill has to make it universally known that it in no way
supports the propaganda efforts of the industry and that under no
circumstances should the pedlars of asbestos go around the world
saying that they are supported in their statements by McGill
University (research)," Turcotte said.

"The reality is that asbestos is a carcinogen and it is impossible
to handle it in a way that renders it innocuous," Turcotte said.

Stacy Cattran, of Canadian Voices of Asbestos Victims, said
McGill's reputation is at stake.

"Until McGill issues a statement rejecting any future ties to the
asbestos industry, their money and people who seek to expand a
deadly industry, I would certainly think any Grade 12 students
considering a career in science and medicine would look elsewhere
for a quality education where true medical research is valued,"
said Cattran, whose father died of an asbestos-related illness.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Officials Address Hanford Workers' Safety Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Cary at the Tri-City Herald reports that steps are being
taken to increase protection of Hanford workers from asbestos
after many workers raised questions about their safety in central
Hanford, according to the Department of Energy.

On Thursday, Feb. 2, top Hanford and union officials sent a
message to all Hanford employees describing additional actions to
make sure workers are not exposed to asbestos.

At issue are asbestos-containing materials from facilities that
have not yet been demolished as part of the environmental cleanup
at Hanford and asbestos-containing materials that might remain
after buildings have been demolished to ground level.

Many buildings were constructed with asbestos-containing materials
before 1976.  But breathing in fine fibers of asbestos can cause
cancer and other lung diseases, sometimes decades after exposure,
according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

DOE and contractor senior management -- along with safety
personnel, Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council safety
representatives and some of the employees who raised concerns,
including pipefitters and insulators -- have walked down the sites
in question and discussed concerns, according to the message to
employees.

Additional teams were sent to sites where buildings containing
asbestos were demolished to evaluate the condition of the soil
cover installed over what remains of the sites and to look for any
asbestos-containing materials on the surface of the ground.  They
also looked for potential sources of asbestos that could come
loose from facilities not yet demolished.

Concerns include old buildings with deteriorating siding or
roofing with asbestos incorporated in it that could blow off and
then break apart, said John Lehew, president of CH2M Hill Plateau
Remediation Co., which is responsible for central Hanford cleanup.
Outdoor steam lines also have asbestos-containing insulation that
may be disturbed by the weather or by work nearby, he said.  In
other places, buildings have been torn down to slab on grade, but
they still may have asbestos-containing material underground or at
the level of the foundation that could be disturbed and broken
into pieces by walking or driving across it.

A team of industrial hygienists and asbestos experts reviewed
hundreds of monitoring samples taken during demolition of Hanford
facilities and found no samples with asbestos above the limit set
by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, according to
the message to employees.  Additional sampling at those sites is
being done.

Short-term plans to ensure employee safety include placing
barriers around demolition sites of concern to restrict access.
Any fragments of material suspected to contain asbestos will be
picked up.  Concrete slabs that contain asbestos will be removed,
or a protective cover will be installed over the slabs.

In addition, a soil cover will be added to the Power House
demolition site in the 200 East Area, where explosives were used
to bring structures down.

Many of Hanford's steam lines have been removed and remaining ones
still in use will be restored if their insulation is degraded,
said Matt McCormick, manager of the DOE Hanford Richland
Operations Office.  Surveillance of the steam lines also will be
increased.

Longer term, DOE is looking at the possibility of moving up the
demolition schedule for facilities of the most concern, so there
no longer will be a worry that a wind storm could pull off and
possibly spread asbestos-containing material, McCormick said.

"We're happy that employees brought their concerns forward," he
said.  It's provided an opportunity to improve safety at the site
and to work with employees to find solutions to the issues raised,
McCormick said.

The message to employees was signed by McCormick and Scott
Samuelson, manager of the DOE Hanford Office of River Protection;
Dave Molnaa, HAMTC president; and the top executives of Hanford
contractors CH2M Hill, Mission Support Alliance, Washington
Closure Hanford, Bechtel National and Washington River Protection
Solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Broken Buildings at Pea Island Need to Be Abated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Walker of The Outer Banks Voice reports that a pair of
buildings in danger of falling into the breach of Pea Island
caused by Hurricane Irene were slated for removal prior to the
storm in August, and will be torn down in the near future,
according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

A third building that was part of the former headquarters of Pea
Island National Wildlife Refuge was destroyed when sound waters
rushed across the island and formed the inlet.

A second building next to a temporary bridge carrying N.C. 12 over
the inlet has been undermined by the water, and is in danger of
collapse.  The shoreline of the breach is creeping closer to a
third building closest to the ocean.

"The Fish and Wildlife Service suspended a planned demolition
contract for the buildings when Hurricane Irene changed the site
so dramatically," said Bonnie Strawser, spokesperson for the
refuge.

"The Fish and Wildlife Service is getting new bids for the
demolition based on the current every-changing site conditions,"
Strawser said.  "When bids are received, if there is adequate
funding, an emergency contract will be awarded to remove the
buildings and asphalt pavement."

Both Strawser and NC Department Of Transportation spokesperson
Dara Demi said the DOT has not requested the Fish and Wildlife
Service to remove the damaged buildings, despite any perceived
threat to the temporary bridge.

"The Fish and Wildlife Service asked the NCDOT to help remove one
of the buildings that has since collapsed, but NCDOT wasn't able
to work it into their very busy schedule when they were
constructing the temporary bridge to get NC Hwy 12 reopened,"
Strawser said.

Demi said that with the equipment on site currently at the bridge,
which the NCDOT is using to shore up the southern approach of the
bridge with rock and sheet piling, the NCDOT would be willing to
assist with tearing down the damaged building if asked.

"All hazardous materials that were stored in the area were removed
before the buildings collapsed," Strawser said.

"However, when we had the buildings inspected for asbestos, in
preparation for establishing a contract to demolish the buildings,
the residence was determined to have small quantities of
asbestos," said Strawser.

"Federal law requires that the asbestos be removed in a prescribed
manner before the buildings can be demolished," Strawser said.
"Asbestos removal requires persons to enter and work in the
building, which is unsafe at this point."

"The Fish and Wildlife Service has requested bids for the asbestos
removal along with the demolition bid request," Strawser said.
"Like NCDOT, the Fish and Wildlife Service has made the
appropriate agencies aware of the emergency response."

"Once we have an estimate in hand for the removal of the
facilities and can verify funding, we hope to be able to get
expedited processing on the contract," Strawser said.

Originally, N.C. 12 passed to the east of the former refuge
headquarters.  But rapid ocean erosion at the site forced the
NCDOT in the early 1990s to move the roadway to the west side of
the site six miles north of Rodanthe.

Due to the danger of the site overall, the southern shoreline of
the breach is closed to all access on both the east and west sides
of N.C. 12.

"Signs notify people of the closed area and it is patrolled by law
enforcement and the closed area is enforced -- public safety is
paramount," Strawser said.  "The ever-changing nature of the area
makes it challenging to manage."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Home Developer Faces 10 Years & $500,000 Fine
--------------------------------------------------------------
News 10 at WHEC.com reports that Federal prosecutors say a home
developer out of Livingston County violated the Clean Air Act at a
downtown warehouse after having workers handle large quantities of
asbestos.

Anastasios "Taso" Kolokouris, 28, of Avon, N.Y, allegedly hired
employees without any training in asbestos removal to clean out a
dumpster full of the substance at a warehouse he owns at 920
Exchange St.

Following an indictment by a grand jury, Kolokouris is charged
with two counts of violating the Clean Air Act, each of which
carries a sentence of up to five years in prison and a $250,000
fine.

The indictment is the latest development in a case that started
back in December.  An inspector from the Asbestos Control Bureau
of the state's Department of Labor visited the property on Dec. 13
following a complaint, according to the U.S. Department of
Justice.

There, the inspector observed large quantities of material that
looked like asbestos in and around the dumpster where people were
working.

More than 90 bags of dry, friable asbestos were obtained from the
scene and tested positive for asbestos following a search warrant
executed at the site.

Federal prosecutors say any person who was in or around 920
Exchange St. between Aug. 1 and Dec. 14, 2011, may have been
exposed.

Those who may have been exposed or have questions are asked to
call the state Health Department, or the U.S. Attorney's Office
hotline at 1-800-799-6033.

The investigation is the result of efforts by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, state Department of Environmental
Conservation Police, the state Department of Labor, and the city
of Rochester's Office of Public Integrity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntingdonshire Health Teams to Check Businesses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Evening Telegraph at peterboroughtoday.co.uk reports that
targeted asbestos inspections of businesses are to be carried out
over the next few weeks.

Officers with Huntingdonshire District Council's environmental and
community health team will swoop on firms to make sure that
businesses are not exposing employees to potentially harmful
asbestos fibers, and are complying with their duty to manage any
asbestos present in their premises.

Figures show that nationally about 4,000 deaths each year are from
asbestos related diseases.

Councilor Tom Sanderson, executive councilor for healthy and
active communities, said: "A pilot project carried out in 2009
revealed that around 40% of businesses may not be complying with
their duties under important legislation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Felony Charge at Law Firm Blossoms to Espionage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Sapino Jeffreys of The Texas Lawyer reports that Houston's
Shrader & Associates has been experiencing things lately that seem
more like the plot of a legal thriller than reality at a small
toxic-tort firm.

In 2011, a former office manager at the firm, Tara Robertson
Stevens, was charged with and indicted for felony theft for
allegedly taking more than $200,000 from Shrader & Associates from
May 16, 2007, through Aug. 17, 2011.  Stevens' arraignment has
been reset three times, and she has a court appearance set for
Feb. 7, described on Harris County's online filing document system
as a "disposition."

But now the saga has entered the civil court.  Shrader &
Associates has filed a petition in Harris County state district
court alleging Stevens provided "confidential, proprietary, and
privileged information" from the firm's computer server to Houston
lawyer Savvas H. Stefanides and the firm Stefanides and
Associates.

On Jan. 30, 113th District Judge John Donovan of Houston signed a
temporary restraining order in Shrader & Associates LLP v. Savvas
H. Stefanides, et al. that bars Stevens, Savvas Stefanides, and
Stefanides and Associates -- along with "anyone acting in
conjunction with them," including Gori Julian & Associates -- from
"making any use or disclosure of any information obtained,
directly or indirectly, from Shrader's computer server or offices,
including but not limited to any client files, document databases,
or attorney work product."

Shrader & Associates alleges in its Jan. 30 petition that it
discovered in August 2011 that "Stevens had embezzled substantial
funds" from the firm, but it didn't learn until January that
"Stevens provided confidential, proprietary, and privileged
information from" Shrader & Associates' computer server to Savvas
Stefanides.

In an affidavit attached to the petition as an exhibit, Justin
Shrader, Shrader & Associates' managing partner, writes that he
learned from Marilyn Stefanides, Savvas Stefanides' wife and law
partner, that what appeared to be "confidential work product" from
the Shrader firm was on a Stefanides and Associates' computer.

Among other things, Justin Shrader writes in the affidavit that on
Jan. 23, Marilyn Stefanides told him that she and her husband met
Stevens at a November 2011 funeral.  Marilyn Stefanides relayed to
Shrader that Stevens told the couple she had worked at Shrader &
Associates and told Savvas Stefanides she would "'teach' him how
to prosecute asbestos cases in exchange for his agreement to split
the proceeds from prosecution of such cases on a fifty-fifty
basis," Shrader writes.

Marilyn Stefanides told Shrader that after she learned Stevens was
not a lawyer, she advised Savvas Stefanides that forming a
business relationship with Stevens would be a "bad idea," and she
continued over the next few weeks to tell him she did not support
it, Shrader writes in the affidavit.

However, Marilyn Stefanides told Shrader that Savvas Stefanides
met with Stevens in December 2011 and hired Stevens as "director
of marketing" at the firm, over Marilyn Stefanides' objections.
Marilyn Stefanides told Shrader she later saw files on a
Stefanides and Associates computer that appeared to come from
Shrader & Associates, such as a strategic marketing plan and
PowerPoint presentations and spreadsheets "that appeared to be
related to" Shrader & Associates' cases and/or clients, Shrader
writes in the affidavit.

Shrader writes that Marilyn Stefanides also told him that her
husband met with Randy Gori, a shareholder in Gori Julian in
Edwardsville, Ill., in December 2011 and executed an agreement to
joint venture asbestos cases.

Marilyn Stefanides told Shrader, according to his affidavit, that
her husband has no prior experience or client base in asbestos or
other mass-tort litigation.

"Ms. Stefanides believes, based on her interactions with Stevens
and S. Stefanides, as well as her review of information she
discovered on [Stefanides and Associates'] computer servers, that
it is their intention to use [the Shrader firm's] confidential and
proprietary information to build such a practice in conjunction
with Gori Julian," Shrader writes in the affidavit.

Shrader writes that his firm never authorized disclosure of any
Shrader & Associates work product to Savvas Stefanides or
Stefanides and Associates.  Apart from a "limited number of
asbestos cases" in which Shrader & Associates and Gori Julian had
served as co-counsel, the firm never authorized disclosure to Gori
Julian.

In a voice mail message, Randy Gori says he and his firm have not
signed an agreement with Savvas Stefanides.

Shrader writes that the potential damage to his firm and its
clients from unauthorized disclosure "cannot be adequately
quantified in, or compensated through, money damages alone."  The
Shrader firm has "invested countless lawyer hours and substantial
expense to developing its strategy and method of prosecuting
asbestos cases and other mass toxic tort cases" and those provide
the firm and its clients with a competitive advantage in
litigation, he writes.

In its petition, the Shrader firm alleges misappropriation of
trade secrets and confidential and privileged information, unfair
competition by misappropriation, breach of computer security and
conspiracy against Stevens, Stefanides, and Stefanides and
Associates.  The Shrader firm also brings a breach of fiduciary
duty cause of action against Stevens and seeks injunctive relief
against all of the defendants.

In the Jan. 30 TRO, Judge Donovan wrote, "There is a substantial
likelihood that Shrader [& Associates] will succeed on the merits
on its claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair
competition, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of computer
security, and/or conspiracy."

The judge also signed an order granting expedited discovery to
Shrader & Associates, including depositions of Savvas Stefanides
and Stevens on Feb. 6.  A hearing on the Shrader firm's request
for a temporary injunction is scheduled for Feb. 10.

Savvas Stefanides, Marilyn Stefanides and Justin Shrader each did
not return telephone messages left at their firms.  Stevens did
not return a telephone message left at her home in Sugar Land.

Stevens' criminal-defense attorney, Terry W. Yates of Houston's
Terry W. Yates & Associates, says, "There's more to the story."
Yates declines to respond further to allegations in the civil
suit, because he does not know if he will represent Stevens in it.
The Harris County online filing system does not list a lawyer for
any of the defendants.

Justin Waggoner -- jwaggoner@skv.com -- of Houston's Smyser Kaplan
& Veselka, who represents Shrader & Associates, declines comment
except to say his client wants to protect the interests of the
firm's clients.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Town Allocates $400,000 for 11-School Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Blair at My Record-Journal relates that local school
renovation projects are a costly, long and drawn out process.  In
Wallingford, Southington and Meriden, officials have grappled with
keeping costs down while also making sure that the needs of
students are met and more costs aren't encountered later on down
the road.

Meriden officials have drafted plans for a $220 million renovation
and expansion of the city's two high schools.  The project comes
with a large price tag, but education officials wanted the two
projects to be done at the same time, as equally as possible, and
include all upgrades deemed necessary.

While the state will reimburse Meriden for much of the cost, as is
the case in Southington, and was the case in Wallingford, under
the current plans, Maloney High School is 35,000 square feet above
the maximum area eligible for reimbursement; Platt would be 44,000
square feet over.  The overages could cost taxpayers additional
millions, but House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, has
said a waiver may be possible to allow the city to secure maximum
reimbursement without significantly shrinking the proposals.

Assistant School Superintendent Michael S. Grove said recently the
district knew it wouldn't be getting full reimbursement going into
the project, and that the state standards for reimbursement for
high schools aren't sufficient to build what is needed.

Republican City Councilor Dan Brunet disagreed, calling the plans
extravagant.  "I voted against the plan due to the extravagance
and size," he said. "It's being built for more students than
necessary."  Brunet pointed out the fact that both schools have
swimming pools, large auditoriums and oversized foyers.  "There
are corners that could be cut," he said.

In Wallingford, a massive 11-school renovation project wrapped up
in 2007 with a price tag of $73 million before state reimbursement
of about 46%.  Plans for the renovations -- the largest capital
project in town history -- began in 1999 with an initial estimated
cost of $43 million.

The increases were attributed to overly optimistic cost
projections, inflation, plus increases in steel and plywood costs.
Water issues, building code requirements and asbestos removal were
also cited.  Some money was put toward removing asbestos, but the
cost of removing all asbestos was considered too great to tack on
to the massive project.

"To remove all of the asbestos, I think the only thing you're
going to have when you're done is the front door," School Building
Committee Vice Chairman William Choti told the Town Council in
July 2005.

Choti and Don Harwood, chairman of the School Building Committee,
did not return calls for comment.

The impact of the decision not to remove asbestos during the
renovations has been felt in recent budgets.  In the current
budget year, 2011-12, and the upcoming two, money is allocated for
asbestos abatement at 11 of the town's schools.  The total cost
for the abatement is more than $400,000, not including additional
thousands in expenditures to retile areas where asbestos is
removed.

Town Council Chairman Robert Parisi, who served throughout the
renovation project, said he thought the School Building Committee
did a good job of balancing costs and needs.

"I think it was reasonably successful," said Parisi, a Republican.
"There are some areas that could have been done differently, but
hindsight is 20-20."

Parisi said the committee did an admirable job on what he called a
"massive project," and said that he wouldn't suggest in the future
doing so many schools at once.  But there haven't been any major
issues since, he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dying Ex-Suncorp Employee Awarded AU$600,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Atfield of the Brisbane Times (Queensland) reports that
people who worked at a landmark Brisbane building in the 1980s and
early '90s have been urged to get health checks after a terminally
ill man was awarded AU$600,000 for asbestos exposure.

Slater and Gordon asbestos lawyer Carl Hughes said potentially
hundreds of workers in the then-SGIO building at 143 Turbot
Street, now known as Suncorp Plaza, could have been exposed to
asbestos fiber via air-conditioning units.

While there was no danger to current employees, a 69-year-old
Everton Park man, who worked as a Suncorp insurance investigator
between 1989 and 1993, was awarded AU$600,000 in a WorkCover
statutory claim.

The man, speaking under the pseudonym "Wayne", told
brisbanetimes.com.au he first suffered shortness of breath in
February last year.

While initial tests were inconclusive, tests in November diagnosed
him with the fatal mesothelioma form of cancer, often linked to
asbestos.  He said he was given a 15% chance to see Christmas.

"It's had a huge impact.  I've got a wife, I've got a daughter and
two granddaughters and it's a lot to absorb," he told
brisbanetimes.com.au.

"They did offer me chemo and, if it works, it would extend my life
a bit but they can't tell me how much.

"So I've declined chemo and I'm just going on palliative care."

Mr. Hughes, who has represented Wayne, said it was difficult to
estimate how many other workers may have been exposed.

"The numbers could be quite considerable.  The building's about 22
or 23 stories high - we've acted for people on the second and
third floor, as well as people on the 20th and 21st floor," he
said.

"The renovations began in the '80s and went for a good 10 years,
as far as the clearing out of the material goes, so how many
people are on a floor, times 23 floors?

"It could have been quite sizeable.  To say a few hundred people
may have been exposed could be an underestimation, big time."

Successful claims had been lodged for workers on both the lower
and upper levels, a Slater and Gordon spokesman said, but the
exact number was considered "commercial-in-confidence".

Wayne said it was only pure luck that allowed him to link his
disease with his former workplace, because he knew a man who
worked for the builders removing the asbestos at the time.

"I only found out [about the asbestos] because I asked the right
bloke at the right time," he said.

Mr. Hughes said there was asbestos in many CBD buildings, but it
was the form sprayed onto steel framework to act as a fire
retardant that made the old SGIO building so hazardous in the
1980s.

"We believe it was circulated through the airconditioning and
that's how Wayne (who worked on a lower level) was actually
exposed," he said.

"The people we've acted for on the upper floors, we've been able
to draw a more direct link between actual renovations to the
building structure inside, in other words the removal of some
walls which were made of asbestos building material.

"There were secretaries at the time working among this area, which
wasn't sealed off correctly."

The fact the building was occupied by white collar workers added
to the danger, Mr. Hughes said.

"Tradies are probably a bit more informed as to the risks involved
and a bit more attune to identifying the stuff," he said.

"People who are sitting in an office, certainly if it's being
circulated in the air conditioning, don't have the opportunity to
see it, let alone recognize it so that becomes a lot more
dangerous."

He said there was no reason to think there was any threat to
current tenants in the building.

50 people who had worked in the building had signed up to the law
firm's asbestos registry.

"At this stage, thankfully only a few people have said they'd
experienced any symptoms," Mr. Hughes said.

"We certainly encourage everybody who's contacted us, who have
worked in the building, that they really should get health checks,
like CT scans."

Wayne said the disease had taken a huge toll on his body.

"I walk up my street about 50 meters, probably on about a 7%
incline, by the time I get to the top of the corner I have to
stop, have a rest and catch my breath," he said.

"At night time, I get up to go to the toilet, get back and lie
down and even the act of lying down knocks the wind right out of
me."

Wayne remained philosophical, despite the likelihood his battle
would soon be lost.

"It's life.  We all die.  It's a fact of life," he said.

"The family's all set up.  I was in the process of doing up the
house when all the diagnoses were made, so the majority will be
done by the end of February, then the painting will be done in
July and it's done."

Suncorp was approached for comment, but a spokeswoman declined the
opportunity.  She did, however, say the company no longer had
offices in the building.

The building's current owners, Morris Property Group, declined to
comment.

A Workplace Health and Safety spokesman said it had no records
stretching back to the removal of the asbestos in the 1980s.

A WorkCover spokeswoman would not reveal how many claims had been
made regarding Suncorp Plaza, citing privacy concerns.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Violator Faces 4 Years & $300K Fine
-----------------------------------------------------------
KRDO.com reports that a man who caused the airborne release of
asbestos while demolishing a Pueblo (CO) house was sentenced
Monday, Feb. 6, to a four-year community corrections term.

Thomas K. Tienda is also expected to pay more than $300,000 in
restitution.  A Pueblo jury convicted Tienda of eight felonies in
October.

Investigators say Tienda hired homeless individuals instead of
properly licensed contractors to save money.  Their demolition
work, which also lacked the proper permit from the City of Pueblo,
resulted in the airborne release of asbestos, a known carcinogen.
Tienda also was suspected of reusing some of the asbestos-
contaminated materials from the demolition.

The Office of the Attorney General prosecuted the case in
cooperation with the Pueblo District Attorney's Office.  The
Office of the Attorney General investigated the case and secured
the complaint against Tienda with the assistance of the Colorado
Environmental Crime Task Force, the Air Quality Unit of the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the
Environmental Protection Agency's Criminal Investigations
Division.

"There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos," said Lori
Hanson, special agent in charge of EPA's criminal enforcement
program in Colorado.  "The defendant not only employed unsafe
asbestos removal practices but tried to cover up his illegal
actions.  Today's sentence should send a clear message that the
EPA will continue working closely with our state enforcement
partners to prosecute those who violate the law and place their
private gains over the public's well being."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suva, Swiss Courts Face Rising Mesothelioma Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniele Mariani of swissinfo.ch (adapted from Italian by Isobel
Leybold-Johnson) relates that the number of cases of illness due
to asbestos is on the rise, with hundreds of deaths expected in
Switzerland in the next years.

But for those hit by asbestos-related diseases, the path to
compensation can be a rocky one.

For asbestos victims and their families, Feb. 13 is an important
date.  It marks the end of a three-year trial in Turin of two
industrialists -- the Swiss Stephan Schmidheiny and the Belgian
Jean Louis de Cartier -- accused of involuntary manslaughter and
disregard of workplace safety regulations in the Eternit Genova
affair.

Prosecutors have called for a 20 year prison sentence for the two
accused.

Whatever the verdict, cases of illness from asbestos are
increasing in Switzerland.  It has long been predicted, given the
latency period of up to 40 years for the disease to develop.

As Switzerland's asbestos ban was only instigated in 1989 (certain
materials, including some Eternit products, could be
commercialized until 1994), the trend for more asbestos-related
deaths should only be reversed after 2020-2025.  But many people
were still exposed to asbestos after the ban, for example during
removal of the substance in buildings.

Mostly victims fall ill with mesothelioma, a rare and lethal
cancer that occurs in the lining of the lung known as the pleura.
In 1984-1988 the Swiss Cancer Register recorded 342 cases; 20
years later the figure had more than doubled to 846 cases in the
period 2004-2008.

The Swiss occupational health insurer, Suva, estimates that
between 1939, when asbestosis was first listed as an occupational
illness, and the beginning of 2030, there will be 4,500 deaths
from the mineral.

But for many victims and their families, bringing proceedings
against companies or their former owners seems a lost cause.

In 2008 the Swiss Federal Court threw out three charges of
manslaughter, murder and bodily harm brought by relatives of a
victim against, among others, the former owners of Eternit
Switzerland AG Thomas and Stephan Schmidheiny.  The country's
supreme court argued that the statute of limitations of ten years
had passed.

Suva is the next option, to at least have the pathology recognized
as an occupational illness, which gives access to benefits for
disability, compensation for damage to physical integrity and in
the event of death, dependents' benefit.

By the end of 2009, 2,779 cases of asbestos-related occupational
illness had been recognized, 1,347 of them for mesothelioma.
Asbestos has so far cost Suva almost SFr650 million ($711 million)
in benefits.  Since 2007, the annual outlay has been consistently
higher than SFr50 million.

Fran‡ois Iselin, a former professor at the Federal Institute of
Technology Lausanne and expert for the 2002-founded Committee for
the Aid and Orientation of Asbestos Victims, says that these
figures are just the tip of the iceberg.

"Doctors are generally aware and ask a patient about his
professional background in cases of mesothelioma, which allows
them to go to Suva.  But if it's lung cancer, it is often
attributed to smoking or passive smoking and other reasons are not
sought," he said.

"There is no obligation for doctors to find out if it's an
occupational illness and even less to report it."

Suva, which has been accused of raising a smokescreen between
victims and employers on the asbestos issue, roundly rebuffs the
criticism.

"We absolutely are not seeking to minimize the number of cases,"
said Henri Mathis, its head of public relations.

Mesothelioma and asbestosis cases are usually straightforward.

"We don't need extremely precise data or particular
investigations, just simple data, for example showing between
which dates the person worked in an asbestos-exposed sector like
construction," explained Mathis.

But many workers have left Switzerland and often don't consult
Suva.  In 2009, Suva therefore launched a campaign, with the help
of the Italian Workers' Compensation Authority, to raise awareness
of people's Swiss benefit rights, on condition that they had not
worked afterwards in an asbestos-exposed sector back in Italy.

"More than 200 people living in Italy have so far consulted Suva.
The problem is, however, that the treating Italian doctors often
don't automatically ask about the illness's occupational origin,"
Mathis said.

The situation is even more complicated for lung cancer, given the
various risk factors such as smoking and asbestos, as well as
exposure to substances like radon and cobalt.  Here Suva uses the
Helsinki Criteria: a person must also be suffering from asbestosis
and prove exposure to a certain dose of asbestos during his
working life, which is difficult given the paucity and
unreliability of measurements in the past.

Iselin says proving cases can even be complicated for
mesothelioma.

"We had a case of a printer whose illness Suva did not want to
recognize as occupational because it said that asbestos had not
been used in this context," he said.

"We managed to find an invoice which could prove that the man's
company had been exposed to flaked asbestos.  Suva then had to
recognize the occupational illness."

In some cases, the last resort is the courts.  "Since January 2009
there have been 23 asbestos court cases," Mathis said.  "Four are
still awaiting trial.  The courts have confirmed our decision in
11 cases, and eight they have thrown out."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Materials Snag Hewitt Renovation Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Shear at KXXV.com reports that the City of Hewitt is planning
to remove traces of asbestos from some of their buildings that
they discovered when they began a renovation project.

The city found the traces of the hazardous material in the
flooring of two bathrooms in their police department and in
ceiling and some of the walls in the community services building.
The city believes the asbestos was found due to the age of the
buildings.

Texas state laws require that asbestos checks are done prior to
any sort of building renovation.  The city will remove the
asbestos, which will cost them approximately $11,800, before
continuing their $200,000 renovation plan of their city
facilities.

"We're taking the approach that we just really want to abate [the
asbestos] and just get it out of the facilities," said Hewitt City
Manager Adam Miles.  "It's kind of funny, we anticipated there may
be a little bit more in those older facilities and in our police
department.  Once we sampled it I was kind of surprised there was
only a small quantity and I haven't heard anyone that has come in
and had any concerns about it being here."

According to Miles the asbestos is not harmful to Hewitt employees
and the removal process will also not affect their safety or
productivity because of the precautionary measures they plan to
take.

The city is renovating their buildings because they did not have
enough of a budget to build new facilities.  The city believes
that eventually they will have to build new buildings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ALEC Campaigns in Idaho to Limit Asbestos Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Webb at The Injury Board relates that an article by
Associated Press correspondent John Miller, published January 29,
2012, in MSNBC.com's Health section, notes that the American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is pursuing to limit claims
from lawsuits brought by people with asbestos-related illnesses,
including asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma caused by
inhaling asbestos filaments and particles (used in insulation
until the 1970s).

ALEC's effort stems from the results of a years-long case
involving Crown Holdings of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Crown's
predecessor, a New York corporation of the same name, in 1963
acquired a majority of the stock in Mundet Cork Corporation, also
a New York corporation.  After three months, in February 1964,
Mundet sold all its assets related to its insulation (asbestos-
related) business.  Two years later, in February 1966, the two
companies merged.  In 1989, Crown's predecessor was reincorporated
as Crown [Holdings], a Pennsylvania corporation.  During the brief
time Crown owned Mundet, the company did not produce asbestos
products; and Crown subsequently sold the company.  However, Crown
Holdings was named in a host of lawsuits for asbestos-related
disease damages and has paid in the neighborhood of $700 million
in asbestos-related damages claims.  Crown Holdings makes soda and
beer container tops and last year its revenue was approximately $8
billion.

Miller says that ALEC, a "corporate-backed, conservative non-
profit" has succeeded in winning legislative protections (for
corporations) in a number of states, including Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin and
Wyoming.  In Texas, the Texas Legislature enacted Chapter 149 of
the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which limits certain
corporations' successor liability for asbestos claims.  Miller
notes that efforts to protect companies from bankruptcy due to
claims from asbestos-related lawsuits have been stepped up because
more than 100 [asbestos-related] manufacturing companies have gone
out of business since 1982.  It seems important here to note that
asbestos-containing products -- the asbestos dust generated by
these products -- have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans,
and continue to do so everyday, including the family members of
workers who brought asbestos dust home on their clothing,
unwittingly exposing their family members to this toxic dust.

Holding the "asbestos industry" (companies that made and/or sold
asbestos-containing products) responsible and accountable for the
harm they took part in, is the other side of the story that the
"industry" does not want told.  Interestingly, the industry knew
or should have known of the hazards of breathing asbestos dust as
early as the 1920's (and arguably earlier), and several large
corporations conspired to keep these hazards from "getting out" in
the 1930's -- one of the most egregious and harmful conspiracies
in American business history.  For more on the appalling history
of asbestos and industry, read Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos
Industry on Trial, by Paul Brodeur.

The next domino ALEC hopes will fall is the state of Idaho, since
the measure is currently awaiting a hearing in the Idaho House.
ALEC hopes that Crown's asbestos-related liabilities would be
limited to the fair market value of Mundet's total gross assets at
the time of the merger.  "Even adjusted for inflation, that would
all but end the possibility of big payouts."  According to Miller,
there are only 10 asbestos-related disease lawsuits pending in
Idaho against Crown, but estimates these could cost Crown up to
$250 million in coming years if the hearing doesn't go their way.
There still may be a win in this for "the little guy", as the
Idaho Constitution forbids lawmakers from passing new laws that
shield companies like Crown from making good on their legal
obligations, and lawyers who represent potential victims of
asbestos disease in Idaho will make the case for Crown making good
on its obligations.  Barbara Jorden, lobbyist for the Idaho Trial
Lawyers Association, says of Crown, "They need to honor those
responsibilities."

ALEC, through "friendly" state legislators, has attempted to get a
similar bill passed in Virginia in the recent past, with no
success as of yet.  Hopefully, the Virginia State Legislature will
continue to protect its citizens, and not grant a special favor
for a well-connected corporation.  This writer suggests that Idaho
do the same.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CALA Member Urges Reform Against "Double-Dipping"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chip Hough at The Southeast Texas Record relates that not so long
ago, the Texas court system was drowning in asbestos personal
injury lawsuits, seriously threatening access to courts, harming
the business climate and posing a real obstacle for those who were
truly harmed by asbestos and deserved their day in court.

Seven years ago Texas lawmakers took steps to rein in these
burgeoning lawsuits by establishing medical criteria for filing
asbestos and silica cases, giving priority to sick people and
heading off the common practice of questionable mass filings of
claims.

These smart, balanced and science-based reforms received
bipartisan, unanimous support in both the Texas House and Texas
Senate.

Unfortunately, greed and questionable practices of some trial
lawyers necessitate further action on this issue.  The House
Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence is looking at the
issue during this year's legislative interim.

At Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA), it's our hope that these
lawmakers will fully consider the practical, financial and legal
ramifications of "double dipping" and quickly move to end these
abusive lawsuits next session.

Two scoops is better than one for ice cream, but it's not
something we should allow in our court system.

Double dipping in asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits is a
practice that allows trial lawyers to double their recovery and
lawyer fees by filing lawsuits in court, waiting until those suits
are settled and then filing another claim against the asbestos
compensation bankruptcy trusts.  Simply put, double dipping allows
personal injury lawyers to enrich themselves at the expense of
asbestos victims.

By closing the asbestos loophole in Texas law, asbestos claimants
themselves - individuals suffering from mesothelioma often with
little time left to live -actually stand to gain the most.  Such a
change would allow these harmed individuals and their families
access to compensation faster than the present system allows and
stop the double payouts to plaintiff's lawyers looking to game the
system.

The other change that must be made is to give judges the authority
to dismiss dormant asbestos and silica cases pending in Texas
courts, especially those cases that do not meet the medical
criteria for trial.

This reform would protect the rights of pending plaintiffs while
ensuring that invalid cases don't place an undue burden on
businesses that would have to carry these dormant lawsuits as
contingent liabilities on their financial filings.  Further,
judges already have this authority in all other types of lawsuits.
They should have the same authority over asbestos cases.

Reforms to close the loopholes in asbestos and silica personal
injury litigation would further strengthen the original reforms
passed in 2005 and provide Texans with legitimate asbestos and
silica claims better, faster access to the courts and to the
compensation they deserve.

Sadly, we know well-funded personal injury trial lawyers -- you've
seen them fishing for clients with their mesothelioma ads on
television -- have fought and will continue to fight these smart
reforms with all their might.

They managed to derail a similar reform effort last session.
Greed is a great motivator, and mesothelioma lawsuits can be
extremely lucrative.  Let's hope state leaders take action to
provide protection and swift compensation to those truly harmed as
well as maintain the good health of our state's court system.

Chip Hough is president of Basic Industries, a Texas-based company
that provides industrial and commercial maintenance and
construction services.  Hough is also a board member of the
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse of Central Texas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eitanit Protests NIS150 million Pollution Charge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ynetnews Israel reports that Environmental Protection Minister
Gilad Erdan ordered that the budget allocated for the identifying,
removing and disposing of asbestos waste in northern Israel be
increased from NIS20 million a year to NIS40 million, a ministry
press release said.

The asbestos cleanup project began in April 2011 and so far,
contaminated asbestos amounting 14,000 cubic meters has been
removed from 36 sites in the Western Galilee.

The budget increase will allow the implementation of the project,
which the ministry considered a public health priority, to be
completed by 2014.

"Every day that allows us to advance the project will save human
lives," Erdan said.

"By doubling the budget allocated to this project this year we can
double the implementation rate of removing this hazard. This is a
life-saving project, which is implemented according to the highest
professional standards worldwide."

The Environmental Ministry's data indicates that there are some
150,000 cubic meters of industrial asbestos waste dispersed across
the Western Galilee. The hazardous material apparently originated
from the Eitanit asbestos cement plant, which once operated in
Nahariya.

According to the ministry, the cost of asbestos removal and
treatment is estimated at NIS300 million over a five-year period.

The project receives joint funding by the State, the local
authorities that suffer from asbestos pollution and by Eitanit,
which under the Prevention of Hazards from Asbestos and Harmful
Dust Law -- passed by the Knesset in 2011 -- is liable for 50% of
the cleanup costs -- about NIS150 million.

Meanwhile, the plant petitioned the High Court against the State
over its share in the project's financing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Unable to Trace Ex-RAF's Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Gloucestershire Echo (at Thisisgloucestershire.co.uk) reports
that mystery surrounds how a retired policeman from Cheltenham
died from an asbestos-related cancer.

A coroner has recorded an open verdict on Kenneth Hughes after
being unable to discover when the former pilot had come in contact
with the material.

Mr. Hughes, 85, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2009.

But despite contacting all his former employers, neither his
family nor the coroner were able to pinpoint any dates when he
came into contact with the asbestos that caused it.

Mr. Hughes, 85, of Cowslip Meadow, Bishop's Cleeve, died on July
8, 2011, at home.

His son, Christopher Hughes, told assistant deputy Gloucestershire
coroner Katy Skerrett that Mr. Hughes had joined the RAF during
the Second World War, serving with the Air Force from 1943 to
1948.

Ending his military service, Mr. Hughes went into the police,
retiring from the force in 1979 to work for the local authority.

"Between 1979 and 1995 he worked as planning enforcement officer
for Cheltenham Borough Council," he said.

When mesothelioma was diagnosed, Mr. Hughes could not give details
of direct contact with asbestos.  His son said: "During his time
with the council, he had visited some old buildings when they were
being demolished and they could have contained asbestos."

Mr. Hughes' health gradually deteriorated during the two years
following his diagnosis.

Attempts were made by coroners' officers to fill in the gaps in
his employment history, only to hit a dead-end.

The RAF could not give details of his actual duties and was
unaware of any aspects of his work that may have brought him into
contact with asbestos.

Similarly, the council said no records remained in existence to
give the details of what duties Mr. Hughes had performed.

Consultant pathologist, Dr Jonathan Christie-Brown, found a
widespread mesothelioma tumour, and although there was a low level
of asbestos fibers in Mr. Hughes' lungs, it was within the range
accepted for death having been caused by an industrial disease.

Summing up, Mrs. Skerrett said it was clear that Mr. Hughes'
cancer was incurable and that it was caused by asbestos.

But she said: "There is a gap in the evidence as to when this
exposure might have taken place and therefore I cannot either give
a verdict of natural causes or death from an industrial disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Islanders Warned of Hazmat From St. Helier Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
The BBC News, Jersey reports that islanders are being told not to
pick up any debris from a major fire after fears it might contain
asbestos.

People were spotted on Monday afternoon, Feb. 6 near the scene of
fire that razed in St. Helier on Feb. 3.

Jersey's Fire and Rescue Service said the blaze started at 20:00
GMT on Friday in a workshop behind the Hyundai garage in Elizabeth
Lane in St. Helier.

Neighbors were told to leave their homes and some businesses were
told to close, but no one was hurt.

A spokesman for the fire service said there were concerns about
asbestos, which they were looking into.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Raze International Gets Wheeling Abatement Job
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Macormac of The Intelligencer/Wheeling News-Register reports
that City Council approved on Feb. 7, asbestos abatements costing
$26,290 at 1118 Main St. and 1121 Market St., leading up to a full
demolition of the 1100 block of Main and Market streets expected
to cost $693,600.

At its regular meeting, City Manager Robert Herron asked council
to push forward the vote, which was originally set to happen
Feb. 21.

"I would respectfully request council to do two readings for the
asbestos abatements of those two buildings," Herron said.
Ordinances are traditionally introduced with a reading at one
meeting and then read again at the following meeting, followed by
a vote.

Council agreed to the request and all members approved the
abatements, to be performed by Raze International of Shadyside.

Dore and Associates Contracting of Bay City, Mich., was the lowest
bidder for the demolition at $693,600. Council will vote on the
use of the sum at its meeting at 7 p.m. Feb. 21 in the Council
Chambers, second floor, City-County Building, 1500 Chapline St.,
Wheeling.

Other bidders included Edgco Inc. at $831,600; O'Rourke Wrecking
at $854,000; and Advanced Builders with a bid of $1,065,000.

Most of the 1100 block -- consisting of four other buildings - was
already cleared of asbestos late last year.  Council adopted in
December the purchase of the two addresses approved for asbestos
removal.

Dr. Manny Velez sold the buildings for the city for a combined
$105,000.  As part of the agreement, the city will compensate up
to $160,400 for Velez to continue operations at another location
within city limits.

The city, as approved by council, has a total $3.1 million in tax
increment financing bonds to spend on demolition, clearing the
site and other various projects in the downtown area.

In other business, council hired Alpha Architects and Engineers
for $188,500 as the contractor to create a comprehensive analysis
and design for the East Wheeling sports field project.

Mayor Andy McKenzie, Vice Mayor Eugene Fahey, and council members
Don Atkinson, Gloria Delbrugge, Robert "Herk" Henry and Vernon
Seals approved the firm.  Councilman James Tiu abstained from the
vote because he owned a home nearly taken by eminent domain last
month.  Assistant City Attorney Gary Sacco announced the sale of
Tiu's property was finally closed Friday for $65,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminants at Water Plant Not Public Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
TurnTo23.com reports that asbestos was discovered at the Ira J.
Chrisman Wind Gap Pumping Plant, which pushes water from Kern
County over the Grapevine and into Los Angeles, officials said.

Officials said the asbestos was discovered as a worker did routine
maintenance at the plant, but officials said there was never any
danger either to the public or water safety.

"We were doing some maintenance to one of our large pumping units
and while we were disassembling some piping, an employee became
aware that he may have disturbed some asbestos," Field Division
Chief Jeff Said said.

Plant officials said they immediately took steps to make sure
everyone was safe.

"We shut down the facility that he was working sent him in to be
tested," Mr. Said said.

Now officials are trying to figure out how widespread asbestos is
at the facility and how to clean it up.

"We brought in an industrial hygienist and tested the area which
came back positive for some asbestos material," Said told 23ABC.

Signs on the building now warn people to stay out unless they are
in full protective gear.

"We decided to get everybody out of the plant and post it to where
no one goes in without the proper personal protective equipment,
respirators, Tyvek suits etc," Mr. Said said.

Officials said about 20 to 30 people work inside the contaminated
building but not all of them were necessarily exposed to the
asbestos.  "Anybody that was in that plant at that period of time
feels that they want to be tested for any exposure can be,"
according to Mr. Said.

State water officials said there was never any danger to the
public or the water supply and they said the incident never
affected how much water was being pumped to the Los Angeles area.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Larry Davis in Meso Race
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak at The Mesothelioma Center relates that Larry Davis
probably won't finish the third-annual Miles for Meso Race in Boca
Raton, Florida, but he will be at the starting line bright and
early with everyone else.

His latest hospital stay will not keep him away.  The event means
too much to him now.

"I'll be there, and I'll walk as much as I can," Davis said Feb. 7
from his South Florida hospital room where he has been getting
treatment.  "It's important to keep raising awareness to the
danger that's out there."

Davis, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2006, continues to
battle the same cancer that killed his father many years before,
inspiring others now with his determination to work toward a cure.

Davis, 65, helped start the Florida event in 2010, one of several
Miles for Meso fund raisers around the country now that benefit
the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (MARF).  With a good
turnout this weekend, Davis hopes the three-year total will top
the $100,000 mark.

The event this year will include a Mesothelioma Symposium
Saturday, Feb. 11 at the Hilton Hotel in Deerfield Beach (3-7 p.m)
with Raja Flores, M.D., from the Mt. Sianai Medical Center in New
York.

On Sunday, Feb. 12 along A1A in Boca Raton, there will be both an
8 K Race,  and a two-mile Tribute Walk, in which Davis will start.
In the previous two years, Davis ran in the timed race.  And just
eight months ago, he ran a Father's Day Triathlon with his
daughter Courtney, only a few days before one of his many
surgeries.

Since his original diagnosis, Davis has followed an unconventional
path, shunning much of the chemotherapy and radiation treatments
that many patients choose to endure.  His focus, and the research
money he continues to raise, has been on alternative treatments.

He has been a strong advocate pushing for a complete ban of
asbestos, the cause of mesothelioma, which currently has no cure.
He still is irked at the lack of government leadership in pushing
for that ban in the United States, which already exists in more
than 50 other countries around the world.

"We should not have to fear asbestos in our homes and work place,"
he said.  "We should be aware of how the powerful political forces
have not made the effort to ban this material, simply because of
greed and politics."

Davis, who lives in South Florida where he still owns an eyewear
and sunglass business, is scheduled to be in California next month
to be honored at the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
(ADAO) Conference for his fund raising efforts.

The Miles for Meso Race is the first of four similar events in the
next three months that will be used by MARF as it moves through
Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Begins to Decontaminate All Public Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Lynch of the Coventry Telegraph reports that a new government
report is calling for the "ticking time bomb" of asbestos to be
stripped from every school in the country -- to protect children
from fatal diseases.

If adopted, new guidelines could force work to remove the deadly
substance from the buildings of more than 50 primary schools and
10 secondary schools in Coventry, and 191 primaries and 15
secondaries in Warwickshire.

Schools in Coventry and Warwickshire follow current advice from
the Department of Education that if asbestos isn't damaged or
disturbed it is safer to leave it where it is with careful
management rather than try and take it away.

But a parliamentary report headed by Jim Sheridan MP about the
problem nationally says failing to remove asbestos is putting
school staff and pupils at risk.  It recommends a national program
of phased removal.

The report of the all-party parliamentary group on occupational
safety and health describes asbestos as "a ticking time bomb".

It estimates that 2,000 children have already died as a result of
asbestos in schools and that an unknown number will die in the
future.

The report says in some schools just putting a drawing pin in a
wall, slamming a door or taking something out of a stationary
cupboard is enough to release the fibers into the air.  And it
says even the best systems of asbestos management can fail.

A spokesman for Coventry City Council said: "The city council has
established procedures for managing, containing and monitoring
asbestos in all of its buildings.  These are in line with national
regulations to minimize any potential risk."

Graham Paine, health and safety officer for the National
Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers in Coventry,
said: "Overall we are happy with the approach of, and the
safeguards put in place by, Coventry City Council. Our concern
lies with those schools no longer under local authority control
who are free to formulate their own health and safety policies
which may not be as rigorous as the local authority's."

Schools no longer under local authority control include academies
and free schools, some of which have inherited ageing buildings
containing asbestos.  Coventry's academies say they are managing
the problem safely.

Asbestos was a popular building material for schools until the
early 1970s because it is fire resistant.  The style of school
building popular in the 60s and 70s of a metal frame with concrete
panels created a need for a fire resistant material to fill
spaces, and asbestos was the material most builders chose.

In the 1970s scientists realized breathing fibers could cause
fatal diseases such as asbestosis or mesothelioma.  The diseases
don't emerge until up to 40 years after the exposure and are
usually fatal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Call for Husband's Former Foxford Peers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Lynch of the Coventry Telegraph reports Brian Schofield died
in 2007, aged 72 -- just four months after he had been diagnosed
with mesothelioma.

During his 30s he spent three years as a teacher at Foxford
School, in Grange Road, Longford.  His widow Sheila believes he
was exposed to asbestos during this time and that the exposure
caused his death. She has launched a legal bid for compensation.

The law firm dealing with her case, John Pickering and Partners
LLP Solicitors in Liverpool, last year won a landmark victory
when, for the first time in the UK, a pupil rather than a staff
member won compensation for an illness caused by asbestos.

Mrs. Schofield's solicitors were the firm representing Diane
Wilmore who breathed in asbestos fibers while she was a pupil at a
secondary school in Merseyside.  Mrs. Wilmore died in 2010.

Lawyers are appealing for information from anyone who was at
Foxford School at the same time as Mr. Schofield and has
information about exposure to asbestos.  Anyone who may be able to
help should call Joanne Waterson or Kevin Johnson on 0151 227
1214.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sites Designed for Asbestos Law Firms Up for Rent
------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reports that the owner of three
websites with asbestos litigation-related names is putting space
up for rent to the asbestos law firms.

Stephanie Torain says the websites could be a lucrative investment
for any asbestos attorney interested in finding leads on cases.
She says she created the sites to offer free case evaluations to
victims considering filing a lawsuit.

The sites are Asbestoslawsuitshelp.com, AsbestosLawyerinfo.com and
MesotheliomaLawsuitinfo.org

"Law firms are competing all the time to get asbestos and
mesothelioma cases," Torain said in January.  "These specific
cases can generate millions in compensation.  That's the reason
why I decided to develop these websites and offer exclusive
leasing services.

"Now that these websites are ranked in the top results of Google,
I think that any law firm interested in the offer will be able to
get more visibility, more leads but also brand itself as an
authority for asbestos and mesothelioma lawsuit cases."

Torain says she will put the law firm's name and phone number on
the sites, which she say are listed in the top results of Google
searches for the terms "Asbestos Lawsuit" and "Mesothelioma
Lawsuit."

Attorney Ted Frank, an adjunct fellow with the Manhattan
Institute's Center for Legal Policy, says asbestos firms have the
money to spend on sites like Torain's because they are ripping off
clients.

"The profitability of Internet sites like this shows how much
lawyers are overcharging their asbestos clients," he said.

"If fees were not supracompetitive, there would be no incentive to
pay exorbitant rates for domain names that are temporarily at the
top of Google search results."

Asbestos cases are usually filed on a contingency fee basis, with
attorneys claiming up to 40% of any reward.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Head Questions Notorious Violator's Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Sinclair, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, writing
for the Guest Column at The Province, relates that asbestos is the
silent killer.  A single exposure can result in painful illness
and death, 10 to 40 years after exposure.  Last year in B.C., the
Workers Compensation Board attributed more work-related deaths to
asbestos than all other causes combined.

The safe handling and cleanup of asbestos is costly and technical.
It is also critical to ensuring that workers don't have their
lives cut painfully short.

Arthur Moore was a demolition contractor.  According to court
documents, he repeatedly and intentionally exposed his employees
to asbestos without their knowledge and without protection.  He
fraudulently completed forms and submit-ted false reports,
certifying asbestos as not being present when it was.

It is estimated that Moore exposed more than 50 workers to
asbestos this way, many of them teens as young as 14.  These
vulnerable teen-agers came from impoverished families and
rehabilitation centers.  Between 10 and 40 years from now, many of
these workers will develop fatal asbestos-related diseases.

Moore can't claim to have been unaware of the dangers.  He was
cited and fined numerous times by the WCB before finally being
ordered to cease his operations.  The next day, he was back at it,
in direct contravention of the order.

As a result of Moore's actions, he will spend 60 days in prison
and carry no criminal record.  Moore was not found guilty of
criminal negligence, nor was he prosecuted under criminal law.  He
was, instead, found guilty of civil contempt of court for ignoring
a WCB order.

Make no mistake, this is an important outcome.  It must be known
that WCB orders can't be flaunted with impunity.  If it were
otherwise, our workplaces would be much more dangerous.

Nevertheless, Moore's light sentence and the lack of criminal
charges in this case raise serious and troubling questions about
work-place health and safety in B.C., and about the value the law
and the Crown places on the lives of workers.

Had Moore fired a gun randomly toward his employees, the danger to
their lives would have been immediate, but no more deadly than the
dangers of asbestos exposure.  Yet, we can be certain a single
reckless shot fired at his employees would have resulted in
Moore's arrest and criminal charges.

But, the crime of recklessly and intentionally exposing workers to
asbestos warranted only minor fines from the WCB.  After each
fine, Moore carried on operations, continuing to expose workers to
asbestos.  Even after finally being ordered to stop work
altogether, Moore carried on, continuing to expose workers to
asbestos.

And yet, Moore faces no criminal charges.

Is the crime of willfully injuring or killing a worker on the job,
through intent or negligence any less serious than any other
assault or murder? Certainly, the answer is no.

Yet, despite numerous examples in B.C. of workers unnecessarily
losing their lives due to willful negligence, we haven't seen
criminal charges laid.

These workers losing their lives are not statistics.  They are
women and men who leave behind families.

Too often, they are new Canadians and the sole breadwinner in
their family.

Tracey Phan lost the father she knew to debilitating brain damage
in a terrible mushroom farm tragedy before she turned 14.  Earlier
this year, she watched as the farm owners walked away with minor
fines.

Premier Christy Clark is fond of the slogan "families first."  It
is time for her to show leadership and to instruct the solicitor-
general to make a priority of prosecuting reckless employers who
endanger the lives of their employees.

Surely, reckless employers, who cost their employees their lives,
warrant prosecution every bit as much as teens caught up in the
Stanley Cup riot.  Surely, their victims deserve justice.  Surely,
the people who make B.C. work deserve to know their government
believes their lives have value.

What better time than now? Never has there been a more open and
shut case than the case of Arthur Moore.

The Crown should start there.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labour MP Urges UK for National Asbestos Audit
---------------------------------------------------------------
pa.press.net reports that the government should carry out a
national audit to find out how much asbestos remains in school
buildings, a Labour MP has said.

Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) said many children's lives were potentially
being put at risk because the amount of asbestos, which can cause
the fatal disease mesothelioma later in life, was not known.

A culture of openness was required so parents knew if their
children were at risk, he told the Commons during an adjournment
debate.

The slamming of doors and the removal of drawing pins from the
walls could release dangerous particles in the air, while lagging,
which contains asbestos, insulated the central heating systems of
many schools, MPs heard.

Mr. Lavery added: "In terms of openness we have a huge problem.
The presence and incidents of asbestos fiber release is often
played down.  It's accurate to suggest that many parents are not
aware or not informed of the presence of asbestos at their
children's place of education.  A recent survey found that at
least a half of school staff were not informed of the problem
either."

But Education Minister Nick Gibb said the Health and Safety
Executive advised that it was safer to leave asbestos that remains
in buildings undisturbed rather than try and remove it.

Headteachers should know if asbestos was in their schools but
there was no need for a national register of asbestos in public
building as this would duplicate data that is already available.

It was up to schools and local authorities what information should
be provided to parents, he added.

Ministers were due to receive a report on the effect of asbestos
on children.  It would then review its advice to schools on
asbestos management, he told MPs.

Mr. Gibb added: "The Government takes the issue of managing
asbestos in schools very seriously.  As with previous governments,
it follows the expert advice of the Health and Safety Executive in
formulating policy and managing safely the asbestos in school
buildings."



                           *********

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.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *