CAR_Public/120217.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 17, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 34

                             Headlines

ACCURAY INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed in December
AVX CORP: Class Action Suits Remain Pending in South Carolina
BANK OF NEW YORK: State of Oregon Seeks to Co-Lead Class Action
BAYER CORP: Calif.  Sup. Ct. To  Review "Pay-for-Delay" Agreements
CARTER'S INC: May 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

COMCAST: BThrifty Files Class Action Over Insertable Networks
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss "Morefield" Remains Pending
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
CVB FINANCIAL: Consolidated Shareholder Class Suit Dismissed
DELL INC: Settlement Objectors' Fairness Hearing Bid Rejected

DEMANDTEC INC: Signs MOU to Settle IBM Merger-Related Class Suit
DIAL CORP: Sued Over Bogus Claims on "Body Wash" Soap
DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Remaining Appeal in IPO Suit Dismissed
DRYSHIPS INC: Lutovich Law Files Securities Class Action
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Appeal in "Gaer" Suit Remains Pending

FINANCIAL FREEDOM: Sued Over Fraudulent Debt Adjustment Services
GERBER PRODUCTS: Sued in California for Deceptive Advertising
HECLA MINING: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
HONDA MOTOR: Deadline to Object to Hybrid Settlement Extended
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Discovery Still Ongoing in Consolidated Suit

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Hearing in "Atlantic" Suit on February 28
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Parties Document "IBEW" Suit Settlement
INTL FCSTONE: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
INTL FCSTONE: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Still Pending
NBTY INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Dirickson" Suit

NBTY INC: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Dismiss Glucosamine Suits
NBTY INC: Discovery in "Hamilton" Class Suit Still Ongoing
NBTY INC: Motion to Dismiss "Hutchins" Suit Remains Pending
NETWORK ENGINES: Insurers Paid IPO Suit Plaintiffs Last Month
RESERVE BANK: Axed Employees Must File Class Action, Jacob Says

SIMILISAN CORP: Sued Over False Claims on Homeopathic Medicines
STATE OF NEW YORK: To Face Class Action Over Parole Policy
STIHL INC: Recalls 3,000 Chain Saws Due to Risk of Injury
WELLS FARGO: Faces RICO Class Action in California
XTO ENERGY: Shareholder Class Action Attorneys Get $8.6 Million

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Workers' Protection Bill Wins Senate
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DOE Step Ups Safety at Hanford Site Clean-Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxins Found at Old Hospital Not Major Concern
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Geelong Ex-Worker Sues Alcoa
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wansbeck MP Slams DfE's reaction to APPG's Report

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Republicans Block $451,000 Demolition Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: London Subway Workers Raise Exposure Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Lawsuits Filed in St. Louis Circuit Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ministry Says Family of Ex-Royal Navy Ineligible
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McGill U Probes McDonald Research for Misconduct

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Updates Web Site for U.S. Army Veterans
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Is Platinum Sponsor to 2012 AIAAC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DNR Likely to Employ Wet Method at Joplin High
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Pledges AU$109MM to Asbestos Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz & Luxenberg Attorney Joins Florida Race

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSUN Has No Plans to Remove Nonfriable Hazmats
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unaware Helensburgh Residents Slams Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McGill U Probe Over Research Criticized
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Redwood Elementary Abatement to Last for Month
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pueblo Rep Blows Top on Naval Building Snub

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rise In Usage of Deadly Fibers Alarms Watchdogs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Firm Slapped With GBP10,000 Fine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tax Office Urged to Pay Up Before March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Cleaner Acquired Mesothelioma At Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thompsons Firm Wins Compensation for Hall Family

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Riverwalk Project Needs $600K for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPSM Wins Appeal on Clients' Lawsuit vs Kmart
ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Court Awards Dying Beeston Man GBP73,890
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loring Park Project Receives $345.3K in Grants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westmount Firm Sends SOS to Ottawa Officials

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Properly Worded Language" on Gillon v. CSX Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turin Court Issues Ruling in Eternit Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Safety Maintained at Kingston Foreshore Clean-up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Titan Environmental Sets Up Anaheim Operations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminants in Grapevine Water Pumping Plant

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company, 72 Others Face Mesothelioma Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Real Estate Bigwigs Breach Environmental Laws
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. Court Affirms Liability Ruling v. Barney
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Court Reverses Ruling vs. Lexington
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delaware Court Junks Suit v. Arkema

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms $10-Mil. Ruling v. Lone Star
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Motion to Supplement Record as Moot
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Dismisses Inmate's Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Drops Punitive Damages Award v. Fisher
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Maremont Has $75MM Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Unit Still Faces Rockwell-Related Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Appeal From $4.5MM Award Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Has 146 Cases Pending at Nov. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Defends Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Faces Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consol Energy's Unit Still Faces 7,500 Claims


                          *********


ACCURAY INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed in December
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued its final judgment and order of dismissal of a consolidated
securities lawsuit in December 2011, according to Accuray
Incorporated's February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December
31, 2011.

On July 22, 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers.  On August 7, 2009, and August 9, 2009,
two securities class action complaints, both similar to the one
filed on July 22, 2009, were filed against the same defendants in
the same court.  These three actions were consolidated.  The
consolidated complaint generally alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding its operations and seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.  On August 31, 2010, the Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and granted
plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.  On September 27,
2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The amended
complaint names the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants and generally alleges that
the defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding its operations.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.  Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  On April 28, 2011, the parties
filed a stipulation of settlement with the court, providing for
the settlement of the litigation for a payment of $13.5 million
which will be covered by insurance.  The court preliminarily
approved the settlement on June 10, 2011.  A hearing on the terms
of the settlement was held on September 1, 2011.  On December 8,
2011, the Court issued its final judgment and order of dismissal
with prejudice.

Accuray Incorporated designs, develops and sells the CyberKnife
system, which is an image-guided robotic radiosurgery system used
for the treatment of solid tumors anywhere in the body.


AVX CORP: Class Action Suits Remain Pending in South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
There are two lawsuits pending with respect to property adjacent
to AVX Corporation's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming
property values have been negatively impacted by alleged migration
of certain pollutants from the Company's property.  On November
27, 2007, a lawsuit was filed in the South Carolina State Court by
certain individuals as a class action.  Another lawsuit is a
commercial lawsuit filed on January 16, 2008, in South Carolina
State Court.  Both of these lawsuits are pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously the claims that
have been asserted in these two lawsuits.  At this stage of the
litigation, there has not been a determination as to responsible
parties or the amount, if any, of damages.  In light of the
foregoing, the Company is not able to estimate any amount of loss
or range of loss.  No accrual for costs has been recorded and the
potential impact of these cases on the Company's financial
position, results of operations, and cash flows cannot be
determined at this time.


BANK OF NEW YORK: State of Oregon Seeks to Co-Lead Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Portland Business Journal reports that Oregon is seeking to
co-lead a class action lawsuit against the Bank of New York Mellon
Corp. over alleged currency exchange manipulation.

The suit seeks to recover at least $15.7 million that the Oregon
Common School Fund and Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund
lost as a result of the alleged scheme.

According to a press release from Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler and
Attorney General John Kroger, the losses were triggered by the
manipulation of foreign currency exchange rates that came to light
after whistleblowers accused BNY Mellon of rigging prices to
obtain higher profits.  The lawsuit alleges that instead of buying
and selling foreign currency at the "best execution standards," as
promised, BNY Mellon would charge clients the least favorable
rates and pocket the difference in profits.

Oregon did not have any foreign currency transactions through BNY
Mellon.  However, according to Wheeler and Kroger, the Common
School Fund and Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund were
damaged because the fraudulent practices and subsequent outrage
caused the value of Oregon's holdings of BNY Mellon stock to
plummet.

The Oregon State Treasury and Oregon Investment Council bought and
sold shares in BNY Mellon between April 2008 and June 2011 on
behalf of the funds.  In that span, the value of those shares
declined by 41 percent.

The Public Employees Retirement Fund lost more than $14.5 million
and the Oregon Common School Fund lost approximately $1.2 million.


BAYER CORP: Calif.  Sup. Ct. To  Review "Pay-for-Delay" Agreements
------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court on February 15 agreed to review
whether California's antitrust laws were violated by a nearly $400
million payoff by Bayer Corporation to several generic drug
manufacturers for the explicit purpose of preventing the
introduction into the market of generic versions of Bayer's
antibiotic Cipro.

"With prescription drug prices continuing their unchecked rise,
drug companies owning prescription drug patents must not be
permitted to suppress competition by buying off their would-be
rivals," stated Lieff Cabraser attorney Joseph R. Saveri, counsel
for a certified class of California consumers, union health and
welfare funds, and others who overpaid for Cipro. "We are grateful
that the California Supreme Court will review this case and look
forward to arguing that these collusive agreements violate
California's antitrust laws."

From 1997 to 2004, Bayer signed exclusionary reverse payment
agreements with Barr Laboratories under which Barr agreed not to
sell a generic version of Cipro. The agreements allowed Bayer to
foreclose competition by sh aring its monopoly profits from Cipro
with potential competitors.  Bayer paid $398.1 million to Barr and
other potential competitors who make generic drugs, preserving
branded Cipro as the only choice for consumers and thereby
maintaining, and even increasing, its cost.  Bayer's agreement
with generic drug manufacturers to keep generic Cipro off the
market was the largest "pay-for-delay deal" of all time.  Bayer
and the generic companies contend that California's antitrust law
does not prohibit such agreements.

The United States Department of Justice, the Federal Trade
Commission, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, and
numerous other Attorneys General, as well as academics and
commentators throughout the country agree that that these types of
deals are anticompetitive and should not be permitted.  In
particular, California Attorney General Kamala Harris and the
American Antitrust Institute submitted letters strongly supporting
review of this case, which presents issues of first impression in
California.

The four Justices whose names appear on the order are Justices
Kathryn M. Werdegar, Ming W. Chin, Carol A. Corrigan, and Goodwin
Liu.

In addition to Lieff Cabraser's Joseph Saveri, Dan Drachler of the
Seattle, Washington, law firm Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP,
and Ralph Kalfayan of Krause, Kalfayan, Benink & Slavens, LLP,
located in San Diego, California, serve as counsel for plaintiffs
and appellants.


CARTER'S INC: May 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------
Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Partial
Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-2940-AT

In re Carter's Inc. Securities Litigation

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES OF
CARTER'S, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 16, 2005 THROUGH
NOVEMBER 10, 2009, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY
(THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-
captioned action has been preliminarily certified as a class
action for settlement purposes only and that a partial settlement
for $20 million has been proposed with Carter's, Inc., Frederick
J. Rowan, II, Joseph Pacifico, Michael D. Casey, Andrew North,
Charles E. Whetzel, Jr., and Joseph M. Elles (collectively, the
"Settling Defendants").  The case will continue against defendant
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.  A hearing will be held before the
Honorable Amy Totenberg of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia in the Richard B. Russell Federal
Building and United States Courthouse, 75 Spring Street, SW,
Atlanta, GA 30303-3309, at 11:00 a.m., on May 31, 2012, in
Courtroom 2308 to, among other things, determine whether the
proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate, determine whether the proposed plan of
allocation for distribution of the settlement proceeds should be
approved as fair and reasonable, and to consider the application
of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.
The Court may change the date of the hearing without providing
another notice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS.  If you have not yet received the full
printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Partial
Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses ("Notice")
and a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may
obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator, Epiq Systems, Inc. at:

        In re Carter's, Inc. Securities Litigation
        Claims Administrator
        P.O. Box 5110
        Portland, OR  97208-5110
        Telephone: (866) 833-7918
        Web site: http://www.carterssecuritieslitigation.com

The Claims Administrator can also help you if you have questions
about these documents.  Inquiries, other than requests for the
forms of Notice and Proof of Claim or the status of a claim, may
be made to Lead Counsel:

        Labaton Sucharow LLP
        Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
        140 Broadway
        New York, NY 10005
        Telephone: (888) 219-6877
        Web site: http://www.labaton.com

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the settlement proceeds you must submit a
Proof of Claim postmarked no later than June 1, 2012.  To exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice such that it is received or postmarked no
later than May 10, 2012.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and
do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be
bound by the Final Order and Judgment of the Court.  Any
objections to the Settlement, plan of allocation or Lead Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must
be filed with the Court and served on counsel for the Settling
Parties in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice, such that they are received or postmarked no later than
May 10, 2012.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
submit an acceptable Proof of Claim, you will not share in the
Settlement but you nevertheless will be bound by the Final Order
and Judgment of the Court.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the Claims
Administrator.

Dated: February 14, 2012

By Order of The Court United States District Court Northern
District of Georgia


COMCAST: BThrifty Files Class Action Over Insertable Networks
-------------------------------------------------------------
BThrifty has filed a lawsuit seeking class action certification
against Comcast.

Comcast Spotlight starting in 2002 and up until at least 2009
offered and sold to advertisers what they call their "40
insertable networks".  Comcast claimed that an advertiser could
choose any of the "select 40" networks to have their commercial
aired in all regions simultaneously.  BThrifty in accordance with
their normal internal audit practice of Comcast's "Affidavit of
Performance" discovered certain cable networks were NOT
insertable.

A Comcast representative eventually acknowledged one.  In a
lawsuit filed against Comcast, pending in the Connecticut Superior
Court, it is alleged that Comcast did not, in fact, have full
insertable capability for certain networks.  BThrifty said "We
believe there may be several thousand advertisers that were
charged for commercials that did not run in all regions.  BThrifty
expressed concern that to date Comcast may not as yet have
notified any of their advertisers or Ad agencies of this
situation.  BThrifty believes that the total overcharges as a
result of the alleged failure to provide full insertability could
amount to many millions of dollars."


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss "Morefield" Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 29, 2009, a class action lawsuit entitled Shirley Morefield
vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case # A-09-591338-C,
was brought in state court in Clark County, Nevada, against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors
asserting claims for declarative and injunctive relief related to
stock option backdating.  The alleged factual basis for the claims
is the same as that which was alleged in a prior derivative case,
In re CSC Shareholder Derivative Litigation, CV 06-5288, filed in
U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, which was dismissed on August
9, 2007, by such court.  This dismissal was affirmed on appeal by
the Ninth Circuit, which judgment is final.  The defendants in the
Morefield case deny the allegations in the complaint.  On June 30,
2009, the Company removed the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. 2:09-cv-1176-KJD-GWF.
On motion made by the plaintiffs, the District Court remanded the
case to state court on February 18, 2010.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on April 30, 2010, and plaintiffs filed their
opposition on June 14, 2010.  A hearing took place on August 18,
2010.  A decision is pending.  The Company says it is not possible
to make reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss, if
any, that could result from this matter at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 30, 2011.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Between June 3, 2011, and July 21, 2011, four putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, entitled City of Roseville
Employee's Retirement System v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et
al. (No. 1:11-cv-00610-TSE-IDD), Murphy v. Computer Sciences
Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00636-TSE-IDD), Kramer v.
Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00751-TSE-IDD)
and Goldman v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-
777-TSE-IDD).  On August 29, 2011, the four actions were
consolidated as In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities
Litigation (No. 1:11-cv-610-TSE-IDD) and Ontario Teachers' Pension
Plan Board was appointed lead plaintiff.  A consolidated class
action complaint was filed by plaintiff on September 26, 2011, and
names as defendants CSC, Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso and
Donald G. DeBuck.  A corrected complaint was filed on October 19,
2011.  The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the business and operations of the Company.
Specifically, the allegations arise from the Company's disclosure
of the Company's investigation into certain accounting
irregularities in the Nordic region and its disclosure regarding
the status of the Company's agreement with NHS. Among other
things, the plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages.  The
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification with the court on
September 22, 2011, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
on October 18, 2011.  Both motions are fully briefed, a hearing
was held on November 4, 2011, and the motions are now pending
before the court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 30, 2011.

The defendants deny the allegations and intend to defend their
position vigorously.  It is not possible to make reasonable
estimates of the amounts or range of losses that could result from
this matter at this time.


CVB FINANCIAL: Consolidated Shareholder Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit against CVB Financial Corp., which sought
to draft onto the investigation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, was dismissed in its entirety by the federal
court in Los Angeles, according to the Company's February 7, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the SEC.  However, the Company says, an
amended and restated complaint by the plaintiffs is possible.

As previously reported, on August 23, 2010, a purported
shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company
in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case
No. CV 10-06256-MMM, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  Along with the Company,
Christopher D. Myers (President and Chief Executive Officer) and
Edward J. Biebrich Jr. (former Chief Financial Officer) were also
named as defendants.  On September 14, 2010, a second purported
shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company
in an action originally captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp.,
et al., Case No. CV 10-06815-RGK, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  The Englund
complaint named the same defendants as the Lloyd complaint and
made allegations substantially similar to those included in the
Lloyd complaint.

On January 21, 2011, the Court consolidated the two actions for
all purposes under the Lloyd action now captioned as Case No. CV
10-06256-MMM (PJWx).  That same day, the Court also appointed the
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the "Jacksonville
Fund") as lead plaintiff and approved the Jacksonville Fund's
selection of lead counsel.

On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated
complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by
all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented
and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company
throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be
between October 21, 2009, and August 9, 2010.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported
class.  On May 13, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  Following the filing by each side of
supplemental motions and memoranda, the District Court conducted a
hearing on August 29, 2011.


DELL INC: Settlement Objectors' Fairness Hearing Bid Rejected
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that the 5th Circuit
rejected two appeals from objectors to a $40 million securities
fraud settlement between Dell computer and a class of investors.

In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel agreed with the Austin
Federal Court's denial of motions to reconvene a fairness hearing,
issue additional notice to the class, and extend the time for
filing claims.

Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote that an additional fairness
hearing was not necessary.

"In this case, the fairness hearing lasted over three hours, and
the objectors presented argument and conducted cross-examination,"
Judge Higginbotham wrote.  "Their request to 'continue' the
fairness hearing is based on two documents submitted after the
fairness hearing: (1) class counsel's receipts for expenses and
(2) a declaration of the claims administrator's vice president of
operations.  But '[a] district court is not required to hold a
hearing on a motion for attorneys' fees in a class action,' and
there is even less reason to require one on receipts for
attorneys' expenses.  Furthermore, the Schuleman objectors were
not entitled to live testimony and cross-examination of all
declarants.  A fairness hearing is not a trial.  'Historically,
courts have commonly relied on affidavits, declarations, arguments
made by counsel, and other materials in the record without also
requiring live testimony.'  The district court denied the
objectors' request because, in its judgment, the objectors 'were
afforded full opportunity at the [fairness] hearing to present
their objections and remedies.'  They have presented no reason to
conclude that this judgment was an abuse of discretion."

Judge Higginbotham said that the lower court's decision not to
reissue notice or reopen the filing period was correct, that no
rules or due process violations took place.

"First, during the filing period, class members did not know with
certainty whether the de minimis provision would apply to them.
The amount to be paid out per share depended on the total number
of claims filed, something no class member could know during the
filing period," Judge Higginbotham wrote.  "Second, the notice
explicitly informed the class members that (1) the plan of
allocation was still subject to court approval, (2) the plan could
be modified in a way that would affect their personal recovery,
and (3) they would not necessarily receive notice of any such
changes.  The notice was sent to all potential class members,
regardless of how much stock they owned, and warned that by doing
nothing, they would give up their rights and get no payment.
Finally, the objectors point to no cases requiring a second round
of notice to class members, nor an extended filing deadline, when
a plan of allocation is amended."

The court also disagreed with the argument that the $7.2 million
in attorney's fees were not excessive, that interest was correctly
awarded and that the correct method was used to come to that
amount.

"Without citing law, the Schuleman objectors contend that the fee
award of 18% is 'excessive' because the case was dismissed prior
to discovery," Judge Higginbotham wrote.  "The district court
arrived at 18% by looking to class counsel's retainer agreement,
which provided for a fee of 18% to 25% of any common fund.  Noting
the lead plaintiff's sophistication, the district court held that
the class counsel's requested 25% fee was 'entitled to a
presumption of reasonableness.'  The court still opted to adjust
the requested award downward to 18%, the lower end of the range in
the retainer, reasoning that 18% compensated counsel while
protecting the class's interests and accounting for [other]
factors.  The court explicitly considered the amount and sources
of discovery in reaching its decision, and the objectors concede
that the district court 'correctly used the [other] factors to
help determine a reasonable fee.'  That much of counsel's efforts
were outside of formal discovery processes does not render them
irrelevant.  There is no basis here for concluding that the
district court abused its discretion in setting the amount of
attorneys' fees."

A copy of the decision in Union Asset Management Holding A.G. v.
Dell, Inc., et al., Nos. 08-51163, 10-50688 (5th Cir.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/14/FifthDell.pdf


DEMANDTEC INC: Signs MOU to Settle IBM Merger-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DemandTec, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
resolve a putative class action lawsuit arising from its proposed
acquisition by International Business Machines Corporation,
according to the Company's February 8, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 8, 2012, DemandTec entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff and other named defendants regarding
the settlement of a putative class action lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County (the "Court"), as
well as the settlement of all related claims that were or could
have been asserted in other actions, in response to the
announcement of the execution of an Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of December 7, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and
between DemandTec, International Business Machines Corporation
("IBM") and Cudgee Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
IBM.  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, DemandTec will become a
wholly owned subsidiary of IBM (the "Merger").

As described in further detail in the definitive proxy statement
dated January 12, 2012 (the "Proxy Statement"), a purported
stockholder of DemandTec filed a class action lawsuit in the
Court, captioned Strategic Trading Company v.  Daniel R. Fishback,
et al., Case No.  112CV216048 (Cal. Sup. Ct.) (the "Lawsuit").
The Lawsuit names DemandTec, its directors, IBM and Cudgee
Acquisition Corp. as defendants.

Under the terms of the MOU, DemandTec, the other defendants and
the plaintiff have agreed to settle the Lawsuit and release the
defendants from all claims relating to the Merger, subject to
approval by the Court.  If the Court approves the settlement
contemplated by the MOU, the Lawsuit will be dismissed with
prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, DemandTec has agreed
to make available additional information to its stockholders.
Defined terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set
forth in the Proxy Statement.  In return, the plaintiff has agreed
to dismissal of the Lawsuit with prejudice and to withdraw all
motions filed in connection with the Lawsuit.  If the MOU is
finally approved by the Court, it is anticipated that the MOU will
resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger
Agreement and any disclosures made in connection therewith.  There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the
settlement, even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to
DemandTec's stockholders in connection with the Merger or the
timing of the special meeting of DemandTec's stockholders, which
is scheduled for February 14, 2012, in Redwood City, California,
to consider and vote upon a proposal to approve the Merger
Agreement, among other things.

DemandTec and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or liability with
respect to the facts and claims asserted, or which could have been
asserted, in the Lawsuit, including that they have committed any
violations of law or breach of fiduciary duty, that they have
acted improperly in any way, or that they have any liability or
owe any damages of any kind to plaintiff or to the purported
class, and specifically deny that any further supplemental
disclosure is required under any applicable rule, statute,
regulation or law or that the DemandTec directors failed to
maximize stockholder value by entering into the merger agreement
with IBM and Cudgee Acquisition Corp.  The settlement contemplated
by the agreement in principle is not, and should not be construed
as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant.
However, to avoid the risk of delaying the Merger, and to provide
additional information to DemandTec's stockholders at a time and
in a manner that would not cause any delay of the Merger,
DemandTec and its directors agreed to the settlement.  The parties
considered it desirable that the action be settled to avoid the
substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction
of continued litigation and to fully and finally resolve the
matter.


DIAL CORP: Sued Over Bogus Claims on "Body Wash" Soap
-----------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Dial pushes
its "Body Wash" soap with bogus claims that it contains pheromones
that attract women, a customer claims in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Frank Ortega says: "On defendants' promotional web
site about the products, defendants state: 'We're not saying that
our new pheromone-enhanced body wash will cause you to be attacked
by hordes of sex-crazed females, but if that is your endgame, you
should consider it a piece of the equation not to be ignored.'"

The complaint continues with a list alarming claims that Dial
makes for its soap:

"Defendants' claim the pheromone androstadienone is in the
products.  Defendants do not inform consumers of whether the
androstadienone in the Products is synthetic or real.
Androstadienone is a normally occurring pheromone in human body
sweat.  . . .

"Defendants products' Web site represents, via an animated singing
molecule, that after a woman senses a man's pheromones with her
vomeronasal organ, she responds by releasing catecholamine, which
triggers dopamine release, making her more sexually receptive to
men.

"Defendants' representations about androstadienone are, in fact,
false, deceptive and misleading because, among other reasons,
human beings do not possess a functioning vomeronasal organ.

"Further, the few studies about androstadienone that resulted in
an effect on female attraction were small, poorly designed, and
used concentrations of the ingredient as much as a million times
higher than what occurs naturally."

Mr. Ortega sued The Dial Corp., Henkel Consumer Goods, and two
other Henkel entities.  He wants them enjoined from continuing
their "deceptive and false advertising message."

Dial advertises its soap with a number of attention-grabbing
phrases, the complaint states, including "Pheromone-Infused,
Attraction Enhancing Body Wash," and "Magnetic."  The ads state:
"'You don't need the help, but it doesn't hurt to increase your
odds.  Dial(R)for Men Magnetic"! body wash is clean rinsing and
moisture rich, so you get a great clean without drying your skin,
and leaves you smelling so good women can't help but notice,'"
according to the complaint.

The complaint continues: "The back of the Products' label, under
Directions, states '1. Squeeze Magnetic body wash onto a
washcloth, sponge, poof, hands -- whatever. 2. Lather up. 3. rinse
off. 4. Stand back and watch the magic happen.'"

Mr. Ortega seeks an injunction, corrective advertising, costs, and
damages for consumer law violations and unfair competition.

Henkel did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A copy of the Complaint in Ortega v. The Dial Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-00361 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/14/Dial.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig Sean Mellon, Esq.
          700 W Harbor Dr#401
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 884-8525
          E-mail: eris.llc@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq.
          John C. Wang, Esq.
          SALAS WANG LLC
          155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4250
          Chicago, IL 60606
          E-mail: jsalas@salaswang.com
                  jwang@salaswang.com


DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Remaining Appeal in IPO Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
The last remaining appeal from the approval of a settlement
agreement resolving a consolidated class action lawsuit involving
Digi International Inc., has been dismissed with prejudice,
according to the Company's February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting claims relating to the initial
public offering ("IPO") of the Company's subsidiary NetSilicon,
Inc. and approximately 300 other public companies.  The Company
acquired NetSilicon on February 13, 2002.  The complaint named the
Company as a defendant along with NetSilicon, certain of its
officers and certain underwriters involved in NetSilicon's IPO,
among numerous others, and asserted, among other things, that
NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and registration statement violated
federal securities laws because they contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the conduct of
NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in NetSilicon's
IPO to the underwriters' customers.  The Company believed that the
claims against the NetSilicon defendants were without merit and
the Company defended the litigation vigorously.  Pursuant to a
stipulation between the parties, the two named officers were
dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on October 9, 2002.

As previously disclosed, the parties advised the District Court on
February 25, 2009, 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.

Under the settlement, the Company's insurers are to pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and it would
bear no financial liability beyond its deductible of $250,000 per
claim.  As of December 31, 2011, the Company has an accrued
liability for the final settlement of $300,000 and a receivable
related to the insurance proceeds of $50,000.  This $50,000
represents the anticipated settlement of $300,000 less the
Company's $250,000 deductible.  The Company may also be reimbursed
for all or part of the deductible from the Company's insurers,
which may reduce the ultimate cost to the Company in the future.


DRYSHIPS INC: Lutovich Law Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Lutovich Law LLC disclosed that a class action lawsuit, case no.
4:12-cv-00130-JCH, Rabbani v. DryShips, et.al., has been filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on behalf of purchasers of DryShips Inc. who purchased
shares between December 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 13, 2012.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel Julia
Lutovich, at 314-898-3054 or via e-mail at
julia.lutovich@lutovichlaw.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

This action involves a series of materially false and misleading
statements and omissions by DryShips, its officers and executives
in connection with (i) DryShips' spin-off of 100% wholly owned
subsidiary of DryShips', Primelead Shareholders Inc., later
renamed Ocean Rig UDW; (ii) DryShips' financial health and (iii)
its ability to comply with loan covenants.  Furthermore, this
complaint alleges that plaintiffs suffered serious harm as a
result of number of violations of law committed by DryShips'
officers and directors, and by violations of law committed by
officers and directors of Merrill Lynch & Co. and Deutsche Bank AG
who acted as underwriters for secondary stock offerings.

This complaint further alleges that it was entirely foreseeable to
DryShips, its officers and executives, as well as the DryShips
Board that concealing from investors (i) DryShips deteriorating
financial condition, (ii) DryShips intent to raise equity, (iii)
the circumstances surrounding the spin-off and/or IPO, including
DryShips' ability to secure charters and financing, would
artificially inflate the price of DryShips common stock.
Plaintiff alleges that it was similarly foreseeable that the
ultimate disclosure of this information and, in particular, the
truth about DryShips' ability to comply with its loan covenants
and drillships IPO, would cause the price of DryShips' securities
to drop significantly as the inflation caused by their earlier
misstatements was removed from stock.

Lutovich Law, LLC is a St. Louis, Missouri law firm that
represents shareholders and investors in litigation, including
shareholder class action and derivative litigation.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Appeal in "Gaer" Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
On August 11, 2010, a securities class action complaint captioned
Gaer v. Education Management Corp., et. al was filed against the
Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and
certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the Company's initial public
offering and the Company's subsequent press releases and filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  On November 10,
2010, the District Court granted the Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System's motion to serve as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.  On January 10, 2011, the lead plaintiff and the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint with the Court alleging similar
violations of Section 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and
adding one additional individual defendant and other underwriters
from the Company's initial public offering.  On September 29,
2011, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the case with prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed the
District Court's dismissal of the lawsuit to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.


FINANCIAL FREEDOM: Sued Over Fraudulent Debt Adjustment Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Coston at Courthouse News Service reports that Phoenix-based
Financial Freedom Southwest, a so-called "debt adjuster," defrauds
people of thousands of dollars in fees, without providing the
"almost magical" services it promises, a woman claims in a class
action.

Cynthia Snyder sued Financial Freedom Southwest and its founder
and owner, Malcolm Giles, of Scottsdale, Ariz., in Carroll County
Superior Court.

Ms. Snyder, who owed more than $55,000 to 15 credit card
companies, claims that of the $14,969 she paid to Financial
Freedom, it took $4,349 for itself.

[The fees come to 29 percent of Snyder's payments.  The complaint
erroneously calculates the fees as 41 percent: $4,349 of the
$10,620 that Snyder says Financial Freedom did distribute to her
creditors.]

In her complaint, Ms. Snyder says she found Financial Freedom
Southwest through the Internet as she was struggling to pay her
debts.  She claims the defendants target "Georgia's most
financially desperate individuals struggling under the crushing
weight of what appears to be insurmountable consumer debt.
Looking for a miracle, or at least an alternative to avoid the
stigma of bankruptcy, these Georgia citizens are most vulnerable
to defendants' siren song of virtually instant relief."

The complaint adds: "Defendants go so far as to claim 'something
almost magical about [their] simple approach' which 'will obtain
better results than [the debtor] could ever obtain on [their]
own.'"

Ms. Snyder says Financial Freedom and Mr. Giles claim "that
through their many years of experience, their connections in the
credit industry and their financial savvy, defendants can
dramatically lower the client's bills and get the client out of
debt much faster than any other service can provide, and for as
little as 40 cents on the dollar of the debt actually owed."

Actually, according to the complaint, the defendants did not
settle for 40 cents on the dollar but took almost 30 cents of
every dollar she paid on her debts.

Over 36 months, Ms. Snyder says, she paid more than $14,000 for a
set-up fee, an enrollment fee, a monthly membership fee, and a
monthly "set aside" fee.

"From March 2002 to August 2006, defendants collected $14,969.00
from plaintiff and retained $4,349 of this amount in debt
adjusting fees," the complaint states.  "Of the monies defendants
collected, only $10,620 of said funds were distributed to
plaintiff's creditors, thus representing a 40.95 percent fee."

From 1956 to 2003, Georgia's Debt Adjustment Act made it a
misdemeanor for companies such Financial Freedom to engage in
"debt adjusting," but in 2003 the Georgia General Assembly amended
the Act, allowing debt-adjustment companies to do business in the
state so long as they provided insurance coverage, self audits
conducted by CPAs on debtors' accounts, and a trust account for
debtors' funds, according to the complaint.

"The amended Act thus removed the out-and-out prohibition on debt
adjusting for a fee and cracked the door to allow debt adjusters
to operate in Georgia as long as the Act's mandates are followed,"
the complaint states.

Ms. Snyder says Financial Freedom violated Georgia law by charging
her and the class more than 7.5 percent of their debts in fees.

In addition, "Defendants fraudulently induced the plaintiff
and plaintiff class members to pay for debt settlement services
with no intent or possibility of actually resolving their debts in
the manner represented by defendants," the complaint states.

Ms. Snyder seeks class damages and an injunction.

A copy of the Complaint in Snyder v. Financial Freedom Southwest,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-00136 (Ga. Super. Ct., Carroll Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/14/FinancialFreedom.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          Irwin w. Stolz, Jr., Esq.
          Jean G. Mangan, Esq.
          HURT, STOLZ & CROMWELL, LLC
          345 W. Hancock Ave.
          Athens, GA 30601
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com
                  istolz@hurtstolz.com
                  jmangan@hurtstolz.com

               - and -

          David E. Hudson, Esq.
          Christopher A. Cosper, Esq.
          Christopher J. Driver, Esq.
          HULL BARRETT, P.C.
          Post Office Box 1564
          Augusta, GA 30903-1564
          Telephone: (706) 722-4481
          E-mail: ccosper@hullbarrett.com
                  dhudson@hullbarrett.com
                  cdriver@hullbarrett.com

               - and -

          George Richard DiGiorgio, Esq.
          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Jon C. Conlin, Esq.
          CORY, WATSON, CROWDER & DEGARIS, PC
          2131 Magnolia Avenue
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          E-mail: rdigiorgio@cwcd.com
                  jtapley@cwcd.com
                  jconlin@cwcd.com


GERBER PRODUCTS: Sued in California for Deceptive Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gerber and Nestle deceive
consumers with labeling that implies their formula products are
healthier and more nutritious than other, less costly baby food
products that do not contain prebiotics and probiotics, a class
claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Siddiqi v. Gerber Products Company, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-01188 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/14/gerber.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Maggie K. Realin, Esq.
          Skye Resendes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron.marron@gmail.com
                  maggie.realin@yahoo.com
                  skyer@san.rr.com


HECLA MINING: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action (12-cv-067) in United States District
Court, District of Idaho, on behalf of all persons who purchased
Hecla Mining Company securities between October 26, 2010 and
January 11, 2012, inclusive.  This class action is brought under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against the
Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Hecla securities during the
Class Period, you have until April 2, 2012 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x350.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company was not in compliance with safety
regulations at its Lucky Friday mine; (2) the Company had allowed
sand and concrete material to improperly build up in the Silver
Shaft over a period of years, creating a safety hazard; (3)
following the December closure, the Company would be unable to
reestablish mining operations at the Lucky Friday mine by February
2012; (4) the Company improperly accounted for its contingent
liabilities in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times concerning the Company's operations and its expected silver
production.

On January 11, 2012, Hecla disclosed that the Mine Safety and
Health Administration had ordered the Silver Shaft at the Lucky
Friday mine closed due to built-up of sand and concrete material
over a number of years in the shaft.  On these revelations, Hecla
shares declined $1.23 per share or 21%, to close at $4.61 per
share on January 11, 2012.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is a law firm
that specializes in the areas of corporate, securities, and
antitrust class litigation.  The firm represents victims of
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate
misconduct.  It has offices in New York, Chicago and Washington,
D.C.


HONDA MOTOR: Deadline to Object to Hybrid Settlement Extended
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge on Feb. 14 granted
California and four other states more time to consider objecting
to a class-action settlement between Honda Motor Co. and car
owners over inflated fuel-efficiency claims about the automaker's
hybrid vehicles.

The states' sudden interest in the proposed settlement came
shortly after Honda owner Heather Peters won $9,867 in small
claims court -- much more than the couple hundred dollars cash
that the settlement is offering.

Attorneys general in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Texas and
Washington asked last week -- only two days before the Feb. 18
deadline -- for more time to consider the settlement with about
200,000 Honda Civic hybrid owners.

San Diego County Superior Court Judge Timothy Taylor granted the
states an extension until Feb. 29, but only after questioning why
they missed the deadline when dozens of opponents didn't.  The
states were notified of the settlement in October.

"They managed to get theirs in on time.  I don't see why you
can't," the judge said.

Albert Shelden, a California deputy attorney general, acknowledged
to reporters that Ms. Peters' victory this month in a Los Angeles
court caught the attention of authorities.

"From a number of different sources, other questions have been
raised," he said.  "Everything figures in."

California has not decided whether to enter the fray and, if it
did, on what grounds it would object, Mr. Shelden said.  The
amount of the offer would be among the questions it considers.

"We're going to look at the whole settlement," he said.

American Honda Motor Co., the Japanese automaker's U.S.
subsidiary, said on Feb. 14 that it believed the settlement was a
"very good resolution."

"We look forward to a discussion with the state attorneys general
concerning the benefits that our customers will receive from the
settlement," Honda's statement read.

Ms. Peters, who attended the hearing, told reporters the states'
objections might carry enormous weight.

"It resonates with the judges," she told reporters.

Alan Mansfield, an attorney for the class-action plaintiffs, said
the significance was unclear.

"For me to presume what is important to a judge is not for me to
say," he said.

Ms. Peters, who has been working full-time to challenge the
settlement, was denied an opportunity to address the judge.  She
told Judge Taylor that her license to practice law was recently
reactivated, but the judge said he didn't have any evidence to
support her claim.

Ms. Peters opted out of the class-action lawsuit so she could try
to claim a larger damage award for the failure of her 2006 Honda
Civic to deliver the 50 mpg that was promised.

The proposed class-action settlement would give aggrieved owners
$100 to $200 each and a $1,000 credit toward the purchase of a new
car.  Legal fees in the class action would give trial lawyers $8
million.

Honda noted that the settlement includes rebates of up to $1,500
toward the purchase of a new car and a warranty extension on the
battery.  Some owners would be eligible to seek additional relief.

The judge granted the extension only after attorneys for Honda and
the class-action plaintiffs said they had no problem with it.  He
gave less time than the states wanted and insisted on sticking to
a March 16 hearing to decide whether to accept the settlement.

Geoff Greenwood, a spokesman for the Iowa Department of Justice,
said California was taking the lead and declined to comment on his
state's involvement.

Grant Woodman, a spokesman for the Massachusetts attorney general,
also declined to comment.  Spokesmen for attorneys general in
Texas and Washington did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.

Mr. Shelden said the states would likely file any objections
jointly.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Discovery Still Ongoing in Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
on behalf of participants in International Game Technology's
employee pension plans, naming as defendants the Company, the IGT
Profit Sharing Plan Committee, and several current and former
officers and directors.  The actions, filed in the US District
Court for the District of Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v.
International Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and
Jordan et al. v. International Game Technology et al., Case No.
3:09-cv-00585.  The actions were consolidated.  The consolidated
complaint (which seeks unspecified damages) asserts claims under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C Sections
1109 and 1132.

The consolidated complaint is based on allegations similar to
those in the securities and derivative lawsuits against the
Company, and further alleges that the defendants breached
fiduciary duties to plan participants by failing to disclose
material facts to plan participants, failing to exercise their
fiduciary duties solely in the interest of the participants,
failing to properly manage plan assets, and permitting
participants to elect to invest in Company stock.  In March 2011,
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was
granted in part and denied in part.  Discovery is proceeding.

International Game Technology is a global company specializing in
the design, manufacture, and marketing of electronic gaming
equipment and systems products.  The Company is a supplier of
gaming products in substantially all legal jurisdictions worldwide
and provides a diverse offering of quality products and services
at competitive prices, designed to increase the potential for
gaming operator profits by enhancing the player's experience.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Hearing in "Atlantic" Suit on February 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Lottery Corporation's motion to dismiss a class action
for abuse of process will be heard on February 28, 2012, according
to International Game Technology's February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On May 11, 2010, Atlantic Lottery Corporation commenced an action
against International Game Technology, VLC, Inc. and IGT-Canada,
wholly-owned subsidiaries of International Game Technology, and
other manufacturers of video lottery machines in the Supreme Court
of New Foundland and Labrador seeking indemnification for any
damages that may be awarded against Atlantic Lottery Corporation
in a class action lawsuit, captioned Rice (formerly Piercey) v.
Atlantic Lotteries, also filed in the Supreme Court of New
Foundland and Labrador.  In December 2011, the plaintiff filed a
motion seeking leave to substitute a new plaintiff in place of
Rice and to make certain amendments to plaintiff's statement of
claim.  In January 2012, Atlantic Lottery Corporation filed a
motion to dismiss the action for abuse of process.  These motions
are scheduled to be heard on February 28, 2012.  A motion for
class certification was filed by the plaintiff, and arguments on
the motion are expected to be scheduled for hearing in April 2012.

International Game Technology is a global company specializing in
the design, manufacture, and marketing of electronic gaming
equipment and systems products.  The Company is a supplier of
gaming products in substantially all legal jurisdictions worldwide
and provides a diverse offering of quality products and services
at competitive prices, designed to increase the potential for
gaming operator profits by enhancing the player's experience.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Parties Document "IBEW" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the securities fraud class action lawsuit against
International Game Technology are currently documenting a
settlement agreement to resolve their dispute, according to the
Company's February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

On July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the US
District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
IGT and certain of its current and former officers and directors.
The complaint alleges that between November 1, 2007, and
October 30, 2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock price
through a series of materially false and misleading statements or
omissions regarding IGT's business, operations, and prospects.  In
April 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  In March 2011,
defendants' motion to dismiss that complaint was granted in part
and denied in part.  The Court found that the allegations
concerning statements about the seasonality of game play levels
and announcements of projects with Harrah's and City Center were
sufficient to state a claim.  Plaintiffs did not state a claim
based on the remaining statements about earnings, operating
expense, or forward-looking statements about play levels and
server-based technology.

The parties have reached an agreement to settle this action.  On
February 1, 2012, at the direction of the Court, the plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Pending Settlement.  The parties are in the
process of documenting a settlement agreement which requires
judicial approval in order for the settlement to take effect.

International Game Technology is a global company specializing in
the design, manufacture, and marketing of electronic gaming
equipment and systems products.  The Company is a supplier of
gaming products in substantially all legal jurisdictions worldwide
and provides a diverse offering of quality products and services
at competitive prices, designed to increase the potential for
gaming operator profits by enhancing the player's experience.


INTL FCSTONE: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
lawsuit involving a subsidiary of INTL FCStone Inc., according to
the Company's February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

FCStone Group, Inc. ("FCStone"), a subsidiary of INTL FCStone
Inc., and certain officers of FCStone were named as defendants in
an action filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on July 15, 2008.  A consolidated
amended complaint ("CAC") was subsequently filed on September 25,
2009.  As alleged in the CAC, the action purports to be brought as
a class action on behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock
between November 15, 2007, and February 24, 2009.  The CAC seeks
to hold defendants liable under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and concerns disclosures
included in FCStone's fiscal year 2008 public filings.
Specifically, the CAC relates to FCStone's public disclosures
regarding an interest rate hedge, a bad debt expense arising from
unprecedented events in the cotton trading market, and certain
disclosures beginning on November 3, 2008, related to losses it
expected to incur arising primarily from a customer energy trading
account.  FCStone and the named officers moved to dismiss the
action.  Although the court denied that motion on
November 16, 2010, it limited the action to the public disclosures
made on November 3, 2008, and November 4, 2008, related to the
energy trading account.  The parties have completed briefing of
lead plaintiffs' motion to certify a class on behalf of purchasers
of FCStone stock between April 14, 2008, and February 24, 2009,
and that motion is pending the court's ruling.  Discovery has
commenced and is continuing.

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

The Company and the FCStone defendants continue to believe the
action is meritless, and intend to defend the action vigorously.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services group
focused on domestic and select international markets.  The
Company's services include comprehensive risk management advisory
services for commercial customers; execution of listed futures and
options on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;
structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range of
commodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and base
metals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130
foreign currencies; market-making in international equities; debt
origination and asset management.  During the quarter ended March
31, 2011, the Company changed its name from International Assets
Holding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc., following approval of
the name change by the Company's stockholders.  INTL's businesses,
which include the commodities advisory and transaction execution
firm FCStone Group, Inc., serve more than 10,000 commercial
customers in more than 100 countries through a network of offices
in 12 countries around the world.


INTL FCSTONE: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2008, a shareholder derivative action was filed against
FCStone Group, Inc. ("FCStone"), a subsidiary of INTL FCStone
Inc., and certain directors of FCStone in the Circuit Court of
Platte County, Missouri, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.  An amended
complaint was subsequently filed in May 2009 to add claims based
upon the losses sustained by FCStone arising out of a customer's
energy trading account.  On July 7, 2009, the same plaintiff filed
a motion for leave to amend the existing case to add a purported
class action claim on behalf of the holders of FCStone common
stock.

On July 8, 2009, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against FCStone and its directors, as well as the
Company in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri.  The
complaint alleged that FCStone and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in
connection with the contemplated acquisition of FCStone by the
Company. This complaint was subsequently consolidated with the
complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended consolidated
complaint which does not assert any claims against the Company.
This complaint purports to be filed derivatively on FCStone and
the Company's behalf and against certain of FCStone's current and
former directors and officers and directly against the same
individuals.  The Company, FCStone, and the defendants filed
motions to dismiss on multiple grounds.  That motion is fully
briefed and pending decision.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services group
focused on domestic and select international markets.  The
Company's services include comprehensive risk management advisory
services for commercial customers; execution of listed futures and
options on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;
structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range of
commodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and base
metals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130
foreign currencies; market-making in international equities; debt
origination and asset management.  During the quarter ended March
31, 2011, the Company changed its name from International Assets
Holding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc., following approval of
the name change by the Company's stockholders.  INTL's businesses,
which include the commodities advisory and transaction execution
firm FCStone Group, Inc., serve more than 10,000 commercial
customers in more than 100 countries through a network of offices
in 12 countries around the world.


NBTY INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Dirickson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a wage
and hour class action lawsuit, according to the Company's February
8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On April 8, 2010, a putative class action captioned Dirickson v.
NBTY Acquisition, LLC, NBTY Manufacturing, LLC, NBTY, Inc., and
Volt Management Corporation ("Volt") was filed against the Company
and certain subsidiaries in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles.  Volt is not related to the Company.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of employees in connection
with several causes of action alleging, among other things, wage
and hour violations.  The complaint seeks damages on behalf of all
non-exempt employees within the State of California who worked for
Volt or any of the NBTY entities between April 8, 2006, and April
8, 2010, including compensatory damages, unpaid wages, statutory
penalties, restitution, unspecified injunctive relief, unjust
enrichment and attorneys' fees and costs in unidentified amounts.
The NBTY entities have agreed upon a proposed settlement with the
plaintiffs, and submitted a settlement agreement on November 16,
2011, for court approval providing for potential payments to the
class in the range of $161 million to $338 million in the
aggregate.  Until such settlement is approved and entered by the
court, however, no determination can be made as to the ultimate
outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on
the part of the defendant.  The estimated settlement value has
been accrued in other liabilities.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a global vertically
integrated manufacturer, marketer and distributor of a broad line
of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements in the
United States and throughout the world.  Under a number of NBTY
and third party brands, the Company offers over 22,000 products,
including products marketed by the Company's Nature's Bounty(R),
Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland & Barrett(R),
Rexall(R), Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), Worldwide Sport Nutrition(R),
American Health(R), GNC (UK)(R), DeTuinen(R), LeNaturiste(TM),
SISU(R), Solgar(R), Good 'n' Natural(R), Home Health(TM), Julian
Graves, Ester-C(R) and Natural Wealth brands.


NBTY INC: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Dismiss Glucosamine Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motions to dismiss class action lawsuits challenging
the marketing of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, according
to the Company's February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been
filed in various jurisdictions against the Company, its subsidiary
Rexall Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to
which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the
marketing of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various
states' consumer protection statutes.  The lawsuits against the
Company and its subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and
Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed June 14, 2011, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California, on behalf
of a putative class of California consumers seeking unspecified
compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and
disgorgement, plus punitive damages and injunctive relief); and
Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed August 22, 2011, in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on
behalf of a putative class of Massachusetts consumers seeking
unspecified trebled compensatory damages), as well as other cases
in California and Illinois against certain wholesale customers as
to which the Company may have certain indemnification obligations.
Motions to dismiss have been filed in all of these cases; all
cases currently remain at the pleading stage.

The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously
defend these actions.  At this time, however, no determination can
be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount
of liability, if any, on the part of any of the defendants.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a global vertically
integrated manufacturer, marketer and distributor of a broad line
of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements in the
United States and throughout the world.  Under a number of NBTY
and third party brands, the Company offers over 22,000 products,
including products marketed by the Company's Nature's Bounty(R),
Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland & Barrett(R),
Rexall(R), Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), Worldwide Sport Nutrition(R),
American Health(R), GNC (UK)(R), DeTuinen(R), LeNaturiste(TM),
SISU(R), Solgar(R), Good 'n' Natural(R), Home Health(TM), Julian
Graves, Ester-C(R) and Natural Wealth brands.


NBTY INC: Discovery in "Hamilton" Class Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
On July 7, 2010, a putative class action captioned Hamilton and
Taylor v. Vitamin World, Inc. was filed against one of NBTY,
Inc.'s subsidiaries in the Alameda Superior Court, California.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of employees in connection
with several causes of action alleging, among other things, wage
and hour violations.  Plaintiffs describe the class as all non-
exempt current and former employees of Vitamin World Stores in
California.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages, statutory
penalties, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys'
fees and costs in unidentified amounts.  To date, the Plaintiffs
have filed an amended complaint and discovery is ongoing.  The
Company challenges the validity of the claims and intends to
vigorously defend this action.  At this time, however, no
determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of the
defendant.  In addition, on or about October 27, 2010, a different
set of plaintiffs filed an action captioned Hickman v. Vitamin
World, Inc. in Solano County Superior Court, California.  Vitamin
World filed a demurrer and motion to abate that action because it
is identical to the instant Hamilton complaint and the Hickman
action was dismissed on May 31, 2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a global vertically
integrated manufacturer, marketer and distributor of a broad line
of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements in the
United States and throughout the world.  Under a number of NBTY
and third party brands, the Company offers over 22,000 products,
including products marketed by the Company's Nature's Bounty(R),
Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland & Barrett(R),
Rexall(R), Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), Worldwide Sport Nutrition(R),
American Health(R), GNC (UK)(R), DeTuinen(R), LeNaturiste(TM),
SISU(R), Solgar(R), Good 'n' Natural(R), Home Health(TM), Julian
Graves, Ester-C(R) and Natural Wealth brands.


NBTY INC: Motion to Dismiss "Hutchins" Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
On May 11, 2010, a putative class-action, captioned John F.
Hutchins v. NBTY, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, against NBTY and
certain current and former officers, claiming that the defendants
made false material statements, or concealed adverse material
facts, for the purpose of causing members of the class to purchase
NBTY stock at allegedly artificially inflated prices.  An amended
complaint, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, was served on February 1, 2011.  The Company moved
to dismiss the amended complaint on March 18, 2011, and that
motion is pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend this action.  At this time, however, no
determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of any
of the defendants.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a global vertically
integrated manufacturer, marketer and distributor of a broad line
of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements in the
United States and throughout the world.  Under a number of NBTY
and third party brands, the Company offers over 22,000 products,
including products marketed by the Company's Nature's Bounty(R),
Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland & Barrett(R),
Rexall(R), Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), Worldwide Sport Nutrition(R),
American Health(R), GNC (UK)(R), DeTuinen(R), LeNaturiste(TM),
SISU(R), Solgar(R), Good 'n' Natural(R), Home Health(TM), Julian
Graves, Ester-C(R) and Natural Wealth brands.


NETWORK ENGINES: Insurers Paid IPO Suit Plaintiffs Last Month
-------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2012, insurers paid a settlement amount directly to the
plaintiffs of a consolidated litigation over initial public
offerings, according to Network Engines, Inc.'s February 8, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On December 3, 2001, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, Lawrence A. Genovesi (the Company's
former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Douglas G. Bryant
(the Company's Chief Financial Officer), and several underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering.  The lawsuit alleges,
inter alia, that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling securities pursuant to the Company's
initial public offering in July 2000 ("IPO") without disclosing to
investors that the underwriter defendants had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors. The lawsuit seeks damages and certification of a
plaintiff class consisting of all persons who acquired shares of
the Company's common stock between July 13, 2000, and December 6,
2000.

In October 2002, Lawrence A. Genovesi and Douglas G. Bryant were
dismissed from this case without prejudice.  On December 5, 2006,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
overturned the District Court's certification of a plaintiff
class.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek
to certify a more limited class in the District Court.  On
September 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in certain designated "focus cases" in the District
Court. That motion has since been withdrawn.  On November 13,
2007, the issuer defendants in certain designated "focus cases"
filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended class
action complaints that were filed in those cases.  On March 26,
2008, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order denying, in
large part, the motions to dismiss the amended complaints in the
"focus cases."  On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for preliminary approval of a new proposed settlement between
plaintiffs, the underwriter defendants, the issuer defendants and
the insurers for the issuer defendants.  On June 10, 2009, the
Court issued an opinion preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement, and scheduling a settlement fairness hearing for
September 10, 2009.  On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an
opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of the settlement
fund, and certification of the settlement classes.  An Order and
Final Judgment was entered on December 30, 2009.  Various notices
of appeal of the District Court's October 5, 2009 order were
filed.  On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who had filed a
notice of appeal filed a stipulation with the District Court
withdrawing their appeals with prejudice, and the two remaining
objectors filed briefs in support of their appeals.

On May 17, 2011, the Second Circuit dismissed one of the appeals
and remanded the one remaining appeal to the District Court for
further proceedings to determine whether the remaining objector
has standing.  On August 25, 2011, the District Court concluded
that the remaining objector lacks standing to object to the
settlement because he was not a class member.  On September 23,
2011, the remaining objector filed a Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's August 25, 2011 Order.

On January 13, 2012, the Second Circuit issued a mandate
dismissing the appeal, thereby finalizing the settlement between
the plaintiffs and defendants and ending this case.  The
settlement required the insurers for the issuer defendants to pay
the settlement directly to the plaintiffs, as the Company had no
liability in connection with this litigation.  In January 2012,
the insurers for the issuer defendants paid the settlement amount
directly to the plaintiffs.  As the Company did not and will not
have any obligation related to this case or settlement, no amounts
have been accrued as of December 31, 2011.

Networks Engine Inc., as a system integrator, designs and
manufactures application platforms and appliance solutions on
which software applications are applied to both enterprise and
telecommunications networks.  The Company markets its application
platform solutions and services to original equipment
manufacturers, or OEMs, and independent software vendors, or ISVs,
that then deliver their software applications in the form of a
network-ready hardware or software platform.


RESERVE BANK: Axed Employees Must File Class Action, Jacob Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Jacob, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reports that
Australia's recently unemployed should take a class action against
the Reserve Bank because it has failed to deliver on one of its
core missions, one of the nation's top economists said on Feb. 14.

Professor William Mitchell, a leading voice on the jobless from
the University of Newcastle, has said the proof was plain to see
that the Reserve Bank wasn't living up to its duty of "maintaining
full employment in Australia".

"I definitely believe the unemployed should take a class action
against the central bank," Prof Mitchell said.

"They've certainly failed in this part of their requirements,
because they claim to have managed the current unemployment rate
yet it's clearly on the rise."

After ANZ announced on Feb. 13 it would axe 1000 jobs, speculation
is mounting that Qantas will be the next company to announce mass
job losses.  The airline was due to unveil its half-yearly
financial results on Feb. 16, when it is feared engineering job
cuts may also be announced.

Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal
secretary Steve Purvinas said the rumors were building that the
airline was planning to slash jobs.

"It wouldn't surprise me that Qantas would shed hundreds of jobs
which seems to be their style of management rather than harnessing
the quality product that we produce here in Australia,"
Mr. Purvinas said.

Qantas denied the claim, saying in a statement that "any
suggestion that Qantas is sending jobs offshore is totally
incorrect".

While last month's overall unemployment remained steady at a
respectable 5.2 per cent for December, analysts suggest the
official figure could have been much more dire.

"If the participation rate remained at 65.5 per cent, then the
unemployment rate would have risen to 5.6 per cent," TD Securities
head of Asian-Pacific research Annette Beacher said.  However the
participation rate sank to 65.2 per cent, its lowest level in
almost two years.

Former Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbon on Feb. 14 said
the bank would now be finding it difficult to balance keeping
inflation in check with managing unemployment levels.

"We know from the '80s that if you let inflation get out of
control and then stomp on it like they did in '89 and '91, the
unemployment will spike dramatically.  That's the trade-off right
now, between inflation and unemployment," Mr. McKibbon said.


SIMILISAN CORP: Sued Over False Claims on Homeopathic Medicines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Similisan pushes its homeopathic medicines with false claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Allen v. Similasan Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-00376 (S.D. Calif), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/14/Homeop.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Maggie K. Realin, Esq.
          Skye Resendes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          3636 4th Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron.marron@gmail.com
                  maggie.realin@yahoo.com
                  skyer@san.rr.com


STATE OF NEW YORK: To Face Class Action Over Parole Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that high-ranking
corrections officials in New York must face two lawsuits --
including a putative class action -- claiming that they went
around the courts to reincarcerate hundreds of convicted felons
for violating parole.

"Beginning in 1998, New York mandated that certain violent
felonies be punished by a determinate prison sentence followed by
a mandatory term of parole, known as post-release supervision
('PRS')," U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin explained on
Feb. 10 in a 42-page order brushing aside motions to dismiss the
lawsuits.  "The governing statute did not require that the term of
PRS be announced by the judge at sentencing.  In thousands of
cases where the judge did not impose a term of PRS at sentencing,
the New York State Department of Correctional Services ('DOCS')
imposed PRS on convicted felons either before or as they were
released from prison and the Department of Parole ('DOP') then
enforced its terms upon them."

The 2nd Circuit declared that practice unconstitutional on June 9,
2006, in its Earley v. Murray decision, which stated: "Only the
judgment of a court, as expressed through the sentence imposed by
a judge, has the power to constrain a person's liberty."

"The additional provision for post-release supervision added by
DOCS is a nullity," the appellate decision continued.

Dozens filed suit last year, however, claiming that current and
former high-ranking officials with the Department of Corrections
and Department of Prisons ignored the 2nd Circuit's order.

The defendants include Robert J. Dennison, the former chair of New
York State Division of Parole; Anthony G. Ellis II, the division's
former executive director; George B. Alexander, its former chair
and CEO; Terrence Tracy, its chief counsel; Brian Fischer,
commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional
Services; Anthony J. Annucci, deputy commissioner and counsel for
DOCS; Luciente J. LeClaire Jr., former acting commissioner of
DOCS; Glenn S. Goord, former commissioner of DOCS; and dozens of
John Does.

One of the lawsuits, filed by lead plaintiff Paul Betances, seeks
class action status.

Judge Scheindlin ruled on Feb. 10 that the officials will remain
on the hook for both lawsuits.

"According to plaintiffs' allegations, defendants were the
officials individually responsible for establishing and enforcing
DOCS's and DOP's policies with respect to PRS - policies that led
directly to plaintiffs' unlawful custody," Judge Scheindlin wrote.
"These claims allege sufficient personal involvement to survive a
motion to dismiss."

The defendants also failed to defeat false-imprisonment claims.

Attorney Joel Berger praised Judge Scheindlin's "excellent,
scholarly decision."

"I am confident that if there is an appeal it will be affirmed,"
Mr. Berger said in an e-mail to Courthouse News.

The New York Attorney General's Office declined to comment.

Judge Scheindlin scheduled a conference for Feb. 21.

A copy of the Opinion and Order in Bentley, et al. v. Dennison, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-01056, and in Betances, et al. v. Fischer, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-03200 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/14/Parole%20Class%20Action%2
02-10-12.pdf

The Betances Plaintiffs were represented by:

          Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq.
          Adam R. Pulver, Esq.
          EMERY, CELLI, BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
          75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 763-5000
          E-mail: mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com
                  apulver@ecbalaw.com

The Bentley Plaintiffs were represented by:

          Joel Berger, Esq.
          360 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-4911
          E-mail: jberger1955@aol.com

The Defendants were represented by:

          Michael J. Keane, Esq.
          James B. Cooney, Esq.
          Assistant Attorneys General
          State of New York
          120 Broadway, 24th Floor
          New York, New York 10271



STIHL INC: Recalls 3,000 Chain Saws Due to Risk of Injury
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
STIHL Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, announced a voluntary
recall of about 3,000 MS 391 Chain Saws.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The flywheel on the chain saw can crack causing parts of the
flywheel to separate and strike users or bystanders, posing a risk
of injury.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves STIHL MS 391 gas-powered chain saws with an
orange top casing, gray base and black front handle and hand
guard.  "STIHL" and "MS 391" are printed in an orange circle on
the starter side of the unit.  The serial number is located on the
crankcase to the right of the muffler when viewed from the rear of
the saw.  Serial numbers included in the recall are:

            28535 1759 through 28535 1956
            28664 5278 through 28664 6277
            28665 1283 through 28665 5577
            28724 4317 through 28724 4480
            28735 3627 through 28735 3647

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12108.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at authorized STIHL dealers nationwide from March
2011 through July 2011 for between $530 and $550.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chain saws
and return them to an authorized STIHL dealer for the installation
of a free replacement flywheel.  For additional information,
consumers should contact STIHL at (800) 610-6677 between 8:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.stihlusa.com/.Consumers also can e-
mail the firm at stihlrecall@stihl.us


WELLS FARGO: Faces RICO Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that Wells Fargo Bank
and J.P. Morgan Chase charge homebuyers who go into default
inflated fees and interest rates, customers say in a federal RICO
class action.

Lead plaintiff Latara Bias claims the defendants, including Chase
Home Finance, service almost 20 million mortgage loans,
approximately 25 percent of the home loans made in the United
States.

The class claims the defendants use an automated mortgage loan
management system, and subsidiaries, to "fraudulently conceal
their unlawful assessment of improperly marked-up or unnecessary
fees for default-related services, cheating borrowers who have
least afford it."

The plaintiffs concede that when mortgage borrowers go into
default, it is natural for lenders to act to protect their
interest in the property.

"However, lenders are not permitted to mark up the fees for such
services to earn a profit," the complaint states.  Nor are lenders
permitted to assess borrowers' accounts for defaulted-related
service fees that are unreasonably and unnecessary.  Nevertheless
. . . using false pretenses to conceal the truth from borrowers,
that is precisely what defendants do.

"In effect, to generate hearty profits, defendants have
substituted inflated interest rates with inflated fees.
Defendants formed enterprises -- associations of subsidiaries and
affiliated companies -- and designed schemes to disguise hidden
mark-ups, and unnecessary fees so that they could earn additional,
undisclosed profits.  Through these unlawful enterprises,
defendants mark up the fees charged by vendors, often by 100
percent or more, and then, without disclosing the mark-up, assess
borrowers' accounts for the hidden profits.  In connection with
their schemes, defendants also have a practice of routinely
assessing fees for default-related services, even when they are
unnecessary and inappropriate.  Employing this strategy,
defendants are able to quietly profit from default-related service
fees at the expense of struggling consumers.  Indeed, in the
fourth quarter of 2011 alone, defendant Wells Fargo & Co. saw a 20
percent increase in profits."

The class claims these tricks evolved and expanded dramatically in
recent years.

Traditionally, they say, borrowers reasonably believed that the
lender from whom they obtained their mortgage would hold it until
it was paid off.  But that's no longer the case, because of the
securitization and sale of mortgage-backed securities.

"In today's market, loans and the rights to service them are
bought and sold at will, multiple times over," the plaintiffs say.
"Because banks like defendants who service loans do not profit
directly from interest payments made by borrowers, rather than
ensuring that borrowers stay current on their loans, defendants
are more concerned with generating revenue from fees assessed
against the mortgage accounts they service.  According to one
member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 'a
foreclosure almost always costs the investor [who owns the loan]
money, but [it] may actually earn money for the servicer in the
form of fees.'

"Banks like defendants see opportunity where investors see failure
because borrowers are captives to companies who service their
loans.  Accordingly, when borrowers go into default and defendants
unilaterally decide to perform default-related services, borrowers
have no option but to accept defendants' choice of providers.

"Taking advantage of these circumstances, the Wells Fargo
defendants and Chase defendants each formed enterprises with their
respective subsidiaries and affiliates and then, developed a
uniform practice of unlawfully marking up default-related service
charges assessed against borrowers' accounts so that defendants
can earn undisclosed profits in connection with these services.
Defendants' marked-up fees violate borrowers' mortgage agreements
because the fees exceed the actual cost of the services, and
therefore, they are not, as the mortgage agreements require,
'reasonable' or 'appropriate' to protect the not holder's interest
in the property.

"Defendants are aware that it is improper to mark up the fees
assessed on borrowers' accounts for default-related services.
Therefore, defendants fraudulently conceal these fees on
borrowers' accounts, omitting any information about defendants'
additional profits, by identifying them on mortgage statements
only as 'other charges,' 'other fees,' 'miscellaneous fees,' or
'corporate advances.'"

The class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution and
disgorgement, and compensatory and treble damages for unfair
competition, unjust enrichment and RICO conspiracy.

A copy of the Complaint in Bias, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Company,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-00664 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/14/Bias.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Alberstone, Esq.
          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 860-0476
          E-mail: dalberstone@baronbudd.com
                  rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  mpifko@baronbudd.com

  
XTO ENERGY: Shareholder Class Action Attorneys Get $8.6 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that a Texas appeals
court awarded $8.6 million in attorney's fees to attorneys for a
class of XTO Energy shareholders who contested its $41 billion
merger with ExxonMobil.

The ruling more than doubles the $3.9 million in fees awarded in
Fort Worth State Court.

In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for
the 2nd District of Texas agreed with the plaintiffs' argument
that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply
certain enhancement factors in determining the reasonableness of
the request for attorneys' fees.

"After a hearing in which no live witnesses or other additional
evidence were presented, the trial court issued its final judgment
granting plaintiffs' request for $188,355.66 for expenses, but
awarding only $3,972,367.75 of the requested $8,611,644.34 for
attorneys' fees," the opinion states.  "The trial court issued a
letter 'to clarify some of the reasons for the court's ruling.'
In it, the trial court noted several problems with the evidence
supporting the award.  Specifically, the trial court noted a lack
evidence that the hours worked and rates billed were reasonable.
The trial court also expressed concern that some of the factors to
be considered in granting a multiplier 'would not be appropriate
across the board' because of the firms' differences in size,
location, specialization, and degree of involvement with the
case."

Writing for the majority, Judge Lee Gabriel said the trial court's
assumption was not based on presented evidence, was without
reference to the "guiding rules and principles," and resulted in
an award that is not just.

He wrote the unenhanced award of $3.9 million does not reflect the
"exceptional results achieved by plaintiffs' counsel, the
undesirability of this litigation, the high risk borne by its
contingent nature, or the fact that the fee award requested is
comparable to that awarded in similar class action litigation, all
of which were directly established by uncontradicted evidence."

Judge Gabriel said the court was obligated to consider the
adjustment based on that evidence and other factors and that it
was an abuse of discretion to fail to do so based on an
unsubstantiated assumption.

"We hold that the requested multiplier of 2.17 is appropriate in
this case.  The lodestar of $3,968,277.25 multiplied by 2.17
equals an award of $8,611,161.63, which we hold to be an
appropriate and reasonable award," Judge Gabriel wrote.

In dissent, Judge Bill Meier wrote that the majority focused on
just on a phrase in the trial court's letter as opposed to the
entire document.

Judge Meier wrote that "the lynchpin of the majority opinion
states 'it appears that the trial court did not complete the
required steps.'  Because I would treat the . . . letter as
nothing more than what the trial court stated in the opening
paragraph of the letter -- 'This letter attempts to clarify some
of the reasons for the court's ruling, but it should not be
considered an exhaustive or complete discussion of all
considerations given to the Motion for Final Certification prior
to the court's ruling thereon.' -- I do not read the letter to
support an appellate ruling that 'the trial court did not complete
the required steps.'  To the extent that we permit the trial
court's letter to function as rule of civil procedure 42(h)(3)
findings of fact and conclusions of law, reviewing the letter in
its entirety -- instead of considering one short phrase contained
within the letter in isolation -- reveals that the trial court
declined to adjust the presumptively reasonable lodestar because
it had already accounted for relevant Johnson factors in
determining the lodestar.  For these reasons, I dissent."

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Stratton v. XTO Energy Inc.,
et al., Case No. 02-10-00483 (Tex. App. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/14/TexXTO.pdf


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Workers' Protection Bill Wins Senate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lee Pope of The Connection relates that labor advocates
say the people who are licensed to remove asbestos may not be
fully aware of the dangers posed by toxic chemicals.  That's why
Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-30) and Sen. Barbara Favola (D-31) have
introduced legislation to tighten regulation on the industry,
creating new restrictions on how workers are licensed and
increased notification of the dangers of working with asbestos.

"There's a real recognition that we need to keep asbestos workers
safer and that we need to help the industry keep the workers safer
and to play by the rules," said Ebbin.  "We need for asbestos
workers to know their rights in this very dangerous industry."

Workers who handle asbestos are required to pay $320 for a 32-hour
training course.  At the end of the training course, asbestos
removal companies will administer a test of the material.  Last
year, a handful of complaints were filed with the Virginia
Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation that
employers were openly giving the answers to employees during the
test.  Those complaints sparked the Labors Mid-Atlantic Regional
Organizing Coalition to approach Ebbin about introducing
legislation take the power to give tests out of the hands of
companies and put it in the hands of regulators.

"Keep in mind that in some cases these workers are not
functionally literate, so they struggle with the written exam,"
said Steve Lanning, of Labors Mid-Atlantic.  "If it's known on the
streets that this company will fail you and you still owe them
$320 for the training, people will go someplace else."

That creates a business incentive for companies not to fail
workers, a function of how the testing is administered.  Ebbin's
bill is aimed squarely at changing that dynamic.  Instead of
allowing the companies to administer the tests, the bill would
require the Board for Asbestos, Lead, Mold and Home Inspections to
be responsible for making sure workers have absorbed the material.
It would also require employees to provide each licensed asbestos
worker with a written notice informing them that they have the
right to work in a safe environment as well as a summary of basic
safety rules.

"I am very proud the Senate passed my asbestos worker's protection
legislation unanimously," said Favola.  "Asbestos workers have one
of the most dangerous jobs in the commonwealth, and it is critical
to ensure workers are well-trained and companies understand that
there is state oversight body to protect both the public health
and workers who handle dangerous asbestos."

The vast majority of asbestos workers in Northern Virginia are
Latino immigrants, many of whom have a tenuous grasp on the
English language.  As a result, Ebbin and Favola are concerned
that the language barrier may be creating a situation where
workers are handling toxic materials without a full understanding
of the dangers.

"We've talked to enough workers in this industry to see a pattern
of negligence and abuse on the part of contractors related to
safety standards," said Lanning.  "Asbestos is a known carcinogen,
and it just seems that these are not cumbersome and overly
burdensome regulations."

The bill received unanimous support before the General Laws and
Technology Committee, and it received unanimous support on the
floor of the state Senate.  Nobody testified against the bill, and
no senator raised objections to it.

"What you see in a lot of these situations is that most companies
who are involved in asbestos removal are doing things
responsibly," said Sen. George Barker (D-36).  "The ones that
aren't behaving responsibly aren't going to come to Richmond and
ask us to let them continue behaving irresponsibly."

The measure will now head to the House of Delegates after
crossover.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DOE Step Ups Safety at Hanford Site Clean-Up
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth of The Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance writes that the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) says they are taking additional steps
to make sure that all employees at Washington's Hanford Site are
not exposed to hazardous asbestos.  According to an article in the
Tri-City Herald, the action is being taken after numerous workers
noted concerns about their health and safety.

Though an environmental clean-up is currently underway at Hanford,
which was the site of the historic Manhattan Project and the
location for the first full-scale plutonium production reactor in
the world, a good portion of the facility has not been demolished,
prompting concerns about the presence of a large amount of friable
asbestos.  In addition, asbestos debris often remains behind even
after structures have been torn down.

Because the majority of the Hanford Site was built during an era
when asbestos use was widespread, and thousands of construction
products once contained the hazardous mineral, the clean-up has
been tedious and expensive.  Pipefitters and insulators,
especially, have expressed their concerns about working at the
property.

"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., the company handling the clean up.  In addition,
Lehew told the media that outdoor steam lines are insulated with
asbestos materials and additional asbestos may be underground or
at the level of foundation.

Matt McCormick, manager of the DOE Hanford Richland Operations
Office, also noted that they may speed up the demolition schedule
for those buildings that present the highest level of concern,
noting that a wind storm could easily pull off asbestos materials
and spread asbestos fibers throughout the area, prompting further
concerns about asbestos exposure and the eventual development of
related diseases such as pleural mesothelioma, an aggressive form
of cancer for which the only known cause is asbestos inhalation.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxins Found at Old Hospital Not Major Concern
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News Windsor reports that the provincial Ministry of Labour
ordered all workers off the former Grace Hospital property on
Feb. 7.

The reason for the order is because samples have tested positive
for asbestos.  The ministry made the discovery in four of eight
samples taken in the prior week.  The asbestos was found in the
flooring.

The crew working for the past few months had taken 860 other
samples from the piles of debris on site but all of those came
back negative.

The ministry has ordered the owner to seal off the areas with
asbestos and develop by Feb. 14 a plan for removing it.  Mayor
Eddie Francis said the development means city council will not
decide what to do about the property until after that.

"We will benefit from the information -- we being the city -- that
will be in that report on Feb. 14 because that will put the city
in a position to be more informed in terms of what is on that site
should the city decide to step in and take action," he said.

The city had planned to take action on the site within the week.
The city was to choose to demolish or clean up the site itself.

That's because owner Lou Vozza missed a Jan. 30 deadline to have
the site clean and secure.  The first mortgage holder, Westpark
Developments, stripped Vozza of the cleanup responsibility and was
doing the work itself.

The mayor could not say whether the discovery poses any danger to
neighbors.

"By taking these steps they are protecting the neighborhood," the
mayor said.

A local contractor who specializes in asbestos removal said there
likely isn't much risk to neighbors.  Rick White of R.C. White,
Ltd. said that based on his knowledge of asbestos, what he's seen
in photos and video taken at Grace and the report released Feb. 8
that there is not a "major concern."

White was asked to rate the danger on a scale of one to 10, with
one being not concerned and 10 being alarmed.  "I say one to two,"
White said. "If there's debris laying around or there was not the
proper procedures in place, to contain the dust, then yes it could
get airborne."  But even if that happens, White says it would be
trace amounts.

The Grace site was once supposed to be converted to a nursing
home, but those plans have been abandoned.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Geelong Ex-Worker Sues Alcoa
------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fogarty of the Australian Associated Press reports Aluminum
producer Alcoa would have known of the dangers of asbestos when a
man who has since died of mesothelioma worked with the substance
at its Geelong plant in the 1960s, a court has been told.

David Grant, 82, had been an active, happy and outgoing man until
about six months before he died in July 2010, the Victorian
Supreme Court heard on Feb. 8.

Mr. Grant was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers while he worked
on construction of the Alcoa Point Henry smelter plant between
1962 and 1964, his barrister Jack Rush, QC, told jurors.

Mr. Grant's widow Margaret Grant is suing Alcoa of Australia
Limited for damages for loss of enjoyment of life and medical
costs.

Opening the trial, Mr. Rush said Alcoa should have been aware of
the dangers of asbestos, which had been documented in public
records and medical journals dating back to 1898.

He said Alcoa was not a Johnny-come-lately backyard business, but
a very large company with many resources.

Mr. Rush said Alcoa breached its duty of care to its employee --
Mr. Grant -- by exposing him to asbestos.

Mr. Grant's jobs included cutting asbestos with a large saw and
using an asbestos paste, the court heard.

"The dust created, as you might expect, was quite enormous," Mr.
Rush said.

At times Mr. Grant's overalls were often covered in the dust and
it went into his mouth and ears, the court heard.

Mr. Rush said Mr. Grant received "quite an extraordinary exposure
to asbestos".

Mr. Grant's son-in-law Stephen Webb, who was also one of his
doctors, told the court the Scottish-born Mr. Grant was an active
man until about six months before his death.

In about January 2010 he became lethargic and experienced
shortness of breath, Dr. Webb said.

As the months went by his condition deteriorated, he said.

Dr. Webb told the court about a decade before his death Mr. Grant
had a stroke and had a heart valve replaced.

Under cross examination, Michael Thompson, for Alcoa, suggested
that Mr. Grant had suffered from a number of significant medical
conditions.  Dr. Webb said he did not believe the conditions had
impacted on his life.

The trial is before Justice Stephen Kaye.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wansbeck MP Slams DfE's reaction to APPG's Report
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Bagley of The Morning Star online reports that Left Labour
MP Ian Lavery flung down a challenge to government ministers to
act now or risk the lives of tens of thousands of schoolchildren
and teachers from killer asbestos.

The Wansbeck MP issued his urgent call after meeting a complacent
response from Education Minister Nick Gibb in a Commons debate on
the asbestos menace lurking in 75% of Britain's schools.

Mr. Lavery warned that even commonplace classroom activities such
as placing drawing pins in the wall or slamming the door could
release "frightening" levels of asbestos fibers.

Slamming a classroom door five times "could release levels of
amosite fibers more than 600 times greater than outdoor levels,"
said Mr. Lavery as he launched an adjournment debate of Feb. 7.

Mr. Lavery spotlighted the danger facing teachers and pupils in
the wave of new free schools and academies because of confusion
over who was responsible for monitoring and clearing asbestos from
the buildings.

Mr. Gibb stumbled when Mr. Lavery asked him to tell the house
precisely who would be responsible for asbestos management in free
schools.

In a rambling reply, the minister stated: "The duty to manage is
the duty of the employer.

"In academies and free schools that would be either the governing
body or the academy trust.

"However, I will write to the honorable gentleman shortly to
ensure that I am correct on the technical question of who
precisely is the employer in those circumstances."

Mr. Lavery demanded a clear government strategy for tackling
asbestos in schools following earlier this month's shock report
from the all-party parliamentary group on occupational safety and
health.

But the minister rejected the report's key demands and insisted
that the government was following Health and Safety Executive
advice that if asbestos was in "good condition" it was safer to
leave it in place than to remove it.

The minister said the government did not propose to introduce
mandatory asbestos awareness training for teachers, governors and
staff.

Nor would it introduce the U.S. system of regularly informing
parents and school staff about asbestos and how it was being
managed.

The Minister promised MPs a review of asbestos advice to schools
later this year following an ongoing investigation into the
vulnerability of children to low levels of exposure, commissioned
by the asbestos in schools steering group under junior minister
Lord Hill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Republicans Block $451,000 Demolition Project
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Malone of The Pueblo Chieftain reports that a bid by House
Democrats to secure funding for the demolition of an asbestos-
contaminated building near the Colorado State Fair in Pueblo
failed on Feb. 7.

Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, proposed adding a $451,000 project to
level the vacant Naval and Marine Corps Reserve buildings at
Northern and Acero avenues to the capital development budget that
the General Assembly is considering.

However, Republicans blocked the allocation by a 33-32 vote when
Rep. Keith Swerdfeger, R-Pueblo West, reversed his course and
joined the GOP chorus against the allocation after first speaking
out in support of it.

Pace cited an assessment conducted by the Colorado State Fair that
showed airborne asbestos from the building could pose a threat to
nearby residents.

"We're setting ourselves up for liability on this issue, and
someone could get sick from this," he said.

Pace said the State Fair would like to use part of the property
for parking, and the Army National Guard next door would like to
expand onto the space.

Swerdfeger initially pointed to the asbestos-tainted ice house
fire in Pueblo's Midtown neighborhood seven years ago as a reason
that Republicans should join him in supporting the demolition.

"When that building collapsed, all that asbestos went everywhere,"
he said.  "All the water fighting the fire took that asbestos into
the soil.  The bill to clean up that building was $7 million."

Later, Swerdfeger backtracked and cast the vote that killed the
allocation.  He said arguments from his fellow Republicans on the
issue were not raised at the appropriate time.

Its possible impact on other projects and the Department of
Agriculture's decision not to prioritize the work changed his
mind, Swerdfeger said.

Colorado State Fair General Manager Chris Wiseman said he was
disappointed that Pace's effort to fund the demolition failed.  He
said the state Department of Agriculture for more than a decade
has been hopeful that the federal government would abate the
health threat, but with each passing year it seems less likely.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: London Subway Workers Raise Exposure Concerns
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Croucher of The International Business Times reports that
asbestos is "all over the place" on London Underground and the
east end of the Central line is "in a bad way", a Tube worker has
told International Business Times UK.

Alan Jenkins, a Tube signal worker and RMT union activist, said:
"[The east end of the Central line] is in a bad way.  [The
asbestos] is above and beyond anywhere else on the whole of the
Underground system."

Jenkins said the asbestos runs all the way along the tunnel walls
from Mile End station to the east end of the line.

"They have painted it with encapsulating paint.  The concern we
have got is that paint could easily chip off and expose the
asbestos.

"No matter what, they won't remove it.  It costs too much money
and takes too long.  They are going to leave it there.

"So we're trying to get safety measures put in place, which have
been partially successful.  But then there are still whole
departments working down there without adequate procedures to deal
with it," he said, adding that workers fear someone could chip the
paint by dropping a tool on it, thereby exposing the asbestos."

Transport for London (TfL) is "reluctant" to deal with the
asbestos, according to Jenkins, because it would entail disruption
to staffing and work programs, including line improvements.

"It is more important to get the work done than it is to get it
done in a manner that is safe for the workforce and the public,"
he claimed.

Asbestos was extensively used as insulation by builders until laws
in the 1980s and 1990s curtailed its use.

If the fibers are inhaled, they can cause respiratory diseases and
cancer, such as mesothelioma.

A Central Line commuter told IBTimes UK that she overheard two
Tube workers talking about the deadly substance.  One Tube worker
said he was going on "asbestos training".  He added that he
worries about exposure to asbestos on the London Underground
system, but that it is part and parcel of working in ageing
infrastructure.

When asked how much of a problem he thought it was on the
Underground, he replied: "It wouldn't surprise me if we're
breathing this s**t in down here."

TfL said it had strict controls in place, in line with the Control
of Asbestos Regulations 2006, meaning passengers and staff "are
not at risk from exposure to asbestos fibers when travelling on
the Underground".

"TfL has robust rules in place, which means that work teams know
in advance if there is asbestos-containing material in their work
location before they start work," a spokesman said.

"There are strict training requirements before staff go on site
and strict procedures for making sure that workers are protected."

The transport service insists it has taken "every opportunity" to
remove asbestos from the Underground system.

Staff are also required to undergo health and safety training that
covers dealing with asbestos.

"If staff are required to work in areas where there are asbestos-
containing materials, specific control measures are put in place
to prevent uncontrolled disturbance and to protect workers from
the hazards associated with asbestos at this location," the
spokesman added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Lawsuits Filed in St. Louis Circuit Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran of The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that St.
Louis circuit court appears to have an active asbestos docket.

At the end of last month, four new complaints were filed in the
22nd Judicial Circuit in the City of St. Louis.  The Simmons firm
of Alton brought two of them.

Louise Della-Croce sued 16 defendant corporations on Jan. 26;
Kathleen A. Kelly filed a lawsuit Jan. 23 against 39 defendant
corporations; Khachick Khodadadi filed a lawsuit Jan. 26 against
15 defendant corporation; and Raymond Pitrucha Jr. and Rhonda
Marsh of Missouri filed a lawsuit Jan. 26 against 18 companies.

Della-Croce, Kelly and Khodadadi do not specify where they reside.

Della-Croce, Kelly and Khodadadi will be represented by
Christopher R. Guinn -- cguinn@simmonsfirm.com -- Myles L.
Epperson -- mepperson@simmonsfirm.com -- and William A. Kohlburn
of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in Alton.

Pitrucha and Marsh will be represented by Aaron K. Dickey of
Dickey Law Firm in St. Louis and by Devin C. McNulty and Troy
Chandler of Williams, Kherkher, Hart and Boundas in Houston.

In her complaint, Della-Croce alleges the defendant companies
caused her recently deceased husband, Albert Della-Croce, to
develop mesothelioma after his exposure to asbestos-containing
products throughout his career.

The complaint does not indicate where Della-Croce resides, however
it states that he worked as a farmhand, driver, refrigeration
pipefitter and laborer in Colorado and California, according to
the complaint.

In her complaint, Kathleen Kelly alleges her mother, Anna Marie
Kelly, developed mesothelioma after she worked as a receptionist,
ranch worker, laborer and clerical worker at various locations
from 1976 until 1992. She was also secondarily exposed to asbestos
fibers through her ex-husband, Thomas Tegro, who worked as a
laborer from 1976 until 1983, the suit states.

In her complaint, Khodadadi alleges she developed mesothelioma
after she worked as an accounting and financial analysis advisor
from 1969 until now.

Pitrucha and Marsh allege their recently deceased father, Raymond
Pitrucha Sr., developed lung cancer after his exposure to asbestos
products throughout his career as a laborer, drywaller and sheet
rocker from 1960 until the 1990s throughout several Midwestern
states.

The defendants should have known of the harmful effects of
asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for
the plaintiff's safety, the suits state.

As a result of their asbestos-related diseases, Albert Della-
Croce, Anna Marie Kelly, Khodadadi and Raymond Pitrucha Sr. became
disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great
physical pain and mental anguish, the complaint says. In addition,
they became prevented from pursuing their normal course of
employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would
have accrued to them, the plaintiffs claim.

Because of Albert Della-Croce's, Anna Marie Kelly's and Raymond
Pitrucha Sr.'s deaths, their families have incurred funeral costs
and have been deprived of their support and society.

In her four-count complaint, Louise Della-Croce is seeking actual
and compensatory damages of more than $50,000 and punitive and
exemplary damages of more than $50,000, plus other relief the
court deems just.

In her four-count complaint, Kathleen Kelly is seeking punitive
and exemplary damages of more than $50,000 and actual and
compensatory damages of more than $50,000.

In her four-count complaint, Khodadadi is seeking actual and
compensatory damages of more than $50,000 and punitive and
exemplary damages of more than $50,000.

In their four-count complaint, Raymond Pitrucha Jr. and Marsh are
seeking actual and compensatory damages of more than $125,000 and
punitive and exemplary damages of more than $50,000 and punitive
damages in an amount sufficient to deter Ferris Kimball from
performing similar acts in the future, plus costs and other relief
the court deems just.

St. Louis Circuit Court case numbers: 12-L-408, 12-L-443,
12-L-442, 12-L-438.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ministry Says Family of Ex-Royal Navy Ineligible
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ThisisGloucestershire.co.uk reports that the family of an ex-
serviceman who died from exposure to asbestos has criticized the
Ministry of Defence for not compensating them.

Royal Navy stoker Albert Hooper, from Churchdown, died on Sept. 23
at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital as a result of his work in
asbestos-filled boiler rooms on ships 47 years ago.

Mr. Hooper spent 12 years working in boiler rooms at a time when
all the pipe work on ships was lagged with asbestos.

In the prior week, a coroner directed that Mr. Hooper died from
the industrial disease.

Natalie Hooper, Albert's daughter, has criticized the Royal Navy
for not supporting her family following the ordeal.

She said the Ministry of Defence told her that, because her father
was in contact with asbestos before 1984, his family were not
eligible for compensation.

Natalie, 32, said: "My father was very proud of the years he spent
in the Navy and to be told that the MOD won't touch the case is
devastating. I can't believe they won't help us.

"My mother is distraught without him.

"This wasn't his time to go and I think it is appalling that they
would do this to us and other victims' families."

Mr. Hooper fell ill in June of last year.  Natalie paid tribute to
him.  "He was a brilliant dad and a marvelous granddad to his 17
grandchildren," she said.

"Everyone in Churchdown knew him.  All the neighbors loved him
because he would do anything for anybody," she added.

Natalie said her father was not aware of the danger his time in
the Royal Navy posed to his health until doctors diagnosed him
with mesothelioma -- a cancer caused by asbestos.

A spokesman for the Veterans Agency, for the Ministry of Defence,
confirmed the Hoopers were not eligible for compensation under
their guidelines.

But he urged the family to contact the agency directly because Mr.
Hooper's wife may be eligible for a war pension if his death was
attributed to his time in the Navy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McGill U Probes McDonald Research for Misconduct
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that McGill University says it is
reviewing the findings of a major research project into the
asbestos industry and cancer caused after a CBC News investigation
raised questions about links between the research and industry
interests.

David Eidelman, the university's dean of medicine, says
allegations in the CBC report that several decades of research led
by J. Corbett McDonald could have been influenced by the asbestos
industry must be taken seriously.

But he also says holding scientific views different from those of
the majority does not constitute research misconduct.

McDonald, who is now retired, began studying mortality rates
associated with asbestos in 1966, looking at about 11,000 Quebec
miners and millers of chrysotile, an asbestos fiber.

He and his research team published a series of studies between
1971 to 1998 which were funded in part by the Institute of
Occupational and Environmental Health of the Quebec Mining
Association, something which McDonald acknowledged.

While Eidelman says McDonald drew different conclusions about the
safe use of asbestos from some current-day authorities, he did
demonstrate that asbestos is a carcinogen associated with lung
cancer and mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Updates Web Site for U.S. Army Veterans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason urges all U.S. Army veterans
diagnosed with mesothelioma, asbestos cancer, or asbestosis to use
the resources their law firm offers to help them know the best way
to get financial compensation to help pay for their mesothelioma
treatments and to provide for their families.  The website of CPSM
was recently updated to include even more information for Army
veterans diagnosed with mesothelioma.

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates about 3000
people in the United States will be diagnosed with mesothelioma
this year.  Of that, about 30% will be veterans from all branches
of the military.  Although Navy veterans were and are most at
risk, Army veterans also have a heightened risk due to the
likelihood of exposure to asbestos during service.

Mesothelioma is a fatal cancer that develops in the lining of
internal body cavities, such as the heart, lungs, and abdomen, and
is caused by exposure to asbestos.  Thousands of construction and
industrial products were made with asbestos, especially up until
the mid-1980's.  These materials, such as asbestos containing
insulation, roofing, flooring, wall board and caulking, were then
used aboard ships and to construct military housing and mess
halls, causing high potential for all those that served in the
military, including Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and
Army, to be at risk of mesothelioma.

CPSM is particularly concerned that Army veterans know they have a
right to financial compensation outside of the Veterans
Administration (VA). Veterans with asbestos related diseases can
file a mesothelioma law suit or asbestos bankruptcy claim against
asbestos companies responsible for the products that caused their
illness.

The key for Army veterans, or anyone diagnosed with mesothelioma,
is to get experienced asbestos attorneys who have expertise in
filing claims on behalf of veterans and a long history of winning
awards against asbestos manufacturers.  CPSM has specialized in
assisting veterans diagnosed with mesothelioma for over three
decades.

Contact CPSM today at 1-800-440-4262 for a free case evaluation or
to request a comprehensive brochure explaining your rights, how to
file a mesothelioma lawsuit, mesothelioma treatment options, and
other support services for those diagnosed with asbestos related
illnesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Is Platinum Sponsor to 2012 AIAAC
----------------------------------------------------------
The Simmons Firm, a leading asbestos and mesothelioma law firm,
will be a platinum sponsor of the 8th Annual International
Asbestos Awareness Conference.  The conference, organized by the
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), will be held March
30-April 1, 2012, at the Manhattan Beach Marriott in Manhattan
Beach, Calif., to bring leading international experts together to
discuss asbestos as a global public health crisis.

"The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization is extremely grateful
to Simmons Law Firm for being a 2012 Platinum sponsor for our
Annual Asbestos Awareness Conference," said Linda Reinstein,
president of ADAO.  "Through their generous support and donations,
ADAO has been able to continue our educational, advocacy and
community support efforts.  Simmons' unwavering support to prevent
asbestos-caused disease is truly appreciated and respected
throughout our ADAO community.  Together, change is possible."

Topics covered at this year's conference will focus on novel
treatments for pleural mesothelioma; asbestos use in India, Brazil
and other international countries; legal asbestos use in America
and why a total ban is needed; and an investigation into the need
to enforce current asbestos regulation.

Conference speakers include Dr. Richard Lemen, retired Assistant
Surgeon General; Dr. Dan Sterman, director of Interventional
Pulmonary Services at Penn Medicine whose medical interests
include mesothelioma; and Joel Shufro, executive director of the
New York Committee for Occupational Safety & Health.  Barbara
McQueen, wife of the late actor, Steve McQueen, will be giving the
Sunday keynote speech during the Unity and Remembrance Brunch.

"The International Asbestos Awareness Conference provides a forum
for advocates, patients and medical researchers to join together
and promote awareness about the important public health issue of
asbestos and its related diseases," said John Simmons, chairman of
the Simmons Law Firm.  "Our continued support of ADAO and its
annual conference is just one part of our own mission to support
our clients and the mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases
community as much as possible."

The Simmons Law Firm has a long-standing commitment to support
individuals and families impacted by asbestos-related diseases in
and out of the courtroom.  With this mission, the firm has pledged
more than $20 million to cancer research, and has been a top
cumulative donor to non-profits like the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization, the Mesothelioma Applied Research
Foundation and Miles for Meso 5K Races.

     About Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC

The Simmons Firm, headquartered in Alton, Ill., is one of the
country's leading asbestos and mesothelioma litigation firms.
With offices in Illinois, Missouri and California, the firm has
represented thousands of patients and families affected by
mesothelioma in every state.  The Simmons Firm has pledged over
$20 million to cancer research and proudly supports mesothelioma
medical researchers throughout the country in order to find a
cure.  For more information about the Simmons Firm, visit
http://www.simmonsfirm.com/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DNR Likely to Employ Wet Method at Joplin High
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma News Center reports that the Joplin, Missouri
School District announced that changes in asbestos handling
regulations are continuing to slow down the demolition of severely
ravaged schools in that city.

An article in the Joplin Globe reports that the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has changed the method of
asbestos abatement required at the next damaged school to be
addressed, the old South Middle School on West 22nd Street.  The
article notes that instead of using the wet method of removal --
which involves dousing the building with water as it is demolished
-- the DNR has decided that all asbestos inside the former school
needs to be removed before demolition commences.

Mike Johnson, director of buildings, grounds, and transportation
for the Joplin School District, says that he understands the
changes.  Some of the buildings that have already come down were
in danger of immediate collapse, so the wet method was deemed
safer and more appropriate.  Because South Middle School is
considered to be still stable, pre-demolition removal is deemed
necessary.  Nonetheless, the new regulation adds more dollars to
the cost of cleaning up the schools damaged after a fierce tornado
hit the city last summer.

"The actual situation for each of those schools [that have been
damaged] is going to be different," explained DNR Director of
Communications, Renee Bungart.  "They're still sampling,
monitoring, and removing items that contain asbestos, and wrapping
those items and properly disposing of them."

The EPA has recently questioned the overall use of the wet method,
stating that it "largely mitigates the release of fibers" but that
prolonged exposure to the fibers released into the air may
"increase the amount of fibers deposited in the lungs."  David
Bryan, public affairs specialist with the regional EPA in Kansas
City, Missouri, explained that when fibers become imbedded in lung
tissue, they have the potential to cause asbestosis, lung cancer,
or the aggressive asbestos-caused cancer known as pleural
mesothelioma.

Bungart told reporters that the DNR is still waiting for a
determination as to which method will be used at Joplin High
School, which must also be demolished in the near future.  As that
structure has been deemed structurally unstable, it is highly
unlikely that asbestos removal will occur before demolition.  Most
likely, the wet method will be used.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Pledges AU$109MM to Asbestos Victims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that the High Court of
Australia dismissed the Australian Taxation Office or ATO's
application for special leave to appeal a 2011 Federal Court
decision that had been in favor of James Hardie.  The dismissal by
the High Court finalizes the dispute, which had run since 2006.

As a result, the ATO is obliged to refund AU$248 million, plus
interest, which James Hardie estimates will be about AU$63
million.  A portion of the company's legal costs will also be paid
by the ATO.

James Hardie said it would contribute 35% of the refunded amount,
or AU$108.85 million, to the asbestos injuries compensation fund
if it is received before the end of March.

The fund was set up by James Hardie in 2006 to compensate
sufferers of asbestos-related diseases, and relies on annual
contributions from the company's free cash flow.

The legal dispute with the ATO related to an amended tax
assessment provided to a James Hardie subsidiary, RCI, in 2006.
The amendment related to net capital gain arising from an internal
restructure in the company in 1998.

The ATO disallowed RCI's objection to the amended assessment in
2007, and RCI took the matter to the Federal Court.

The Federal Court dismissed RCI's application, but a subsequent
appeal to the Full Federal Court in August 2011 was upheld.

James Hardie shares were up 12 cents, or 1.6%, at $7.55 on Feb 10.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz & Luxenberg Attorney Joins Florida Race
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma attorney Kevin Mulderig of the New York-based law
firm Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., was slated to join a Feb. 12 Florida
race to raise funds for asbestos cancer research, despite a hip
condition that prevents him from running.

Mulderig hopes to inspire those mesothelioma cancer patients by
figuratively walking at least a mile in their shoes -- shoes he
for now will borrow but may end up actually owning, since he
himself is at risk of developing mesothelioma.

"My clients have it; I could get it," says Mulderig, 53, a
Philadelphia native now living in that city's Bucks County
suburbs.  "Exposure to asbestos is the overwhelming, if not
exclusive, cause of mesothelioma."

It was while serving in the Navy during the early 1980s that
Mulderig -- then an ensign aboard the aircraft carrier USS
Saratoga -- suffered his potentially lethal brush with the toxic
mineral.

"Saratoga was in dry dock at the Philadelphia Navy Yard to be
retrofitted with modern technology," says Mulderig, who supervised
600 crewmen assigned to help replace pipes and ducts on the lower
decks.  "Like everyone from the captain on down, I had no inkling
that asbestos was dangerous stuff -- until the day I happened to
see an asbestos-insulated vent shaft being pulled down from the
overhead."

Shipyard civilian personnel had sealed off that work area with a
protective curtain of plastic sheeting, Mulderig explains.  As the
vent shaft was demolished, clouds of asbestos dust billowed in all
directions.  The enclosure was meant to contain the dust, but
failed.

Says Mulderig, "The stuff spilled out over the top and escaped
through flaps in the sides.  It ended up all over the place.
There's no question that some of it got on me."

But four of his men got it worse.  They were inside the enclosure
-- and wore no protective gear.  That's when Mulderig noticed
three civilians also within the enclosure.  They were wearing bio-
hazard moonsuits.  "I asked them, why the outfits? They explained
it was because asbestos is dangerous and can kill you."

Mulderig says he then promptly alerted his superiors.  Bio-hazard
suits were unavailable, so he and the crew members were instead
supplied with goggles and filtration masks.

Mulderig wonders now whether those measures were adequate and if
mesothelioma will be his fate.  "It takes about 30 or 40 years for
mesothelioma to show up after exposure to asbestos, so I guess
I'll know soon enough," he says.  "But if I do happen to develop
it, there's currently nothing that medical science can do to stop
it from killing me -- death can only be delayed."

Not by long, though.  "Most victims die less than a year after
they're diagnosed," he says.  "That's why on Feb. 12 we're going
down to Florida where the race will be held -- it's to raise
awareness and to raise money for research that we hope leads to a
cure, or at least a much longer mesothelioma life expectancy."

Mulderig went to law school after leaving the Navy in 1983, and
has been a practicing attorney now for 25 years.

He works in the Cherry Hill, N.J., office of Weitz & Luxenberg, a
mass-torts and personal injury litigation law firm out of
Manhattan that has secured more than $6.5 billion in verdicts and
settlements for its clients, many of them mesothelioma victims and
their survivors.  (Erin Brockovich, the environmental-health
crusader portrayed by Oscar-winning actress Julia Roberts in a
2000 motion picture, is affiliated with Weitz & Luxenberg and
appears in the firm's television commercials.)

Nearly all of the cases today handled by Mulderig involve former
servicemen -- Navy mainly -- who suffered asbestos exposures that
can be traced back to a tour of duty.

"It's a genuine privilege for me to take these cases," he says,
"because I'm able to represent the good guys -- and nobody but the
good guys.  That's what the victims of mesothelioma are.  Good
guys.  Heroes.  Every last one of them."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSUN Has No Plans to Remove Nonfriable Hazmats
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Davis of The Daily Sundial reports that the CSUN
environmental health & safety department disseminated a report in
January that lists 18 buildings on campus with remnants of
asbestos-containing materials.

The California Health and Safety Code requires the university to
put out an annual notification to alert people of exactly where
the asbestos is located in the buildings.

"As long as the asbestos is not disturbed, it is not a health
hazard," said Antonio Pepe, assistant director of environmental
health and safety.  "This notification is to give folks an idea of
where these materials are so they don't disturb them."

Faculty and students are advised to avoid drilling holes, or
hanging objects from walls or ceilings where asbestos has been
found, according to the report.

Over the past 15 years, asbestos has been taken out by building
renovation projects, according to an email from the environmental
health & safety department.

"A large majority of the asbestos was removed in these buildings
as a result of the 1994 earthquake," said Lynn Wiegers, interim
executive director of physical plant management.

The asbestos remnants were discovered through detailed building
inspections, material sampling and laboratory analysis that met
the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health and
Environmental Protection Agency standards, according to the annual
report.

Specific contaminated building parts include: floor and ceiling
tiles, thermal pipe insulation, weather stripping, putty, and both
hot and cold water pipes.  Not every building contains asbestos in
all of the listed areas.

According to the report, asbestos-containing materials pose no
health threats unless its fibers become airborne due to
deterioration, or as a result of damage.

"I didn't believe it was really that harmful to be around.  I
thought everyone was over-exaggerating," said Frank LeClair, a
contractor who suffers from lung problems possibly related to
asbestos exposure.

As of now, CSUN has no plans to completely remove all of the
asbestos.

"It's not a hazard as it is where it's located.  As we go through
various projects and we work in various areas we take the
opportunity to remove it as part of those projects," Pepe said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unaware Helensburgh Residents Slams Abatement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Kemp of the Lennox Herald reports that worried residents
watched in horror recently as masked workmen in safety suits
removed dangerous asbestos from the roof of a Helensburgh
building.

The workers were taking away the toxic substance from the former
Quorum premises in James Street which is being converted into a
Wetherspoon's pub.

The residents have slammed Argyll and Bute Council for not warning
them about the removal of the asbestos.

Gordon White, speaking on behalf of residents in Scott Court and
James Street, said neighbors were shocked to see the workmen
appear.

He said: "We had heard that they needed to ask the council for
permission because notifiable asbestos had been discovered.  The
council must have OK'd that but it wasn't publicized.

"As there is a mix of familes with young children and elderly and
retired folks living close to this, plus local shops and
pedestrians, surely it would have been courteous to have let folks
know?"

A local community councilor had phoned the council to be told that
it was not required to inform the public and that it was at the
discretion of the contractors whether they advise neighboring
properties.

Mr. White continued: "It seems strange that we don't need to be
informed, yet the workmen are clad in special suits and wearing
masks for their breathing.

"That stuff was in the air and there were children around and
people walking past.  They were just breaking bits of it off."

Planning permission for the pub, due to open in May, has already
caused controversy with many nearby residents objecting,
especially as there is already another pub in the same street.

A spokeswoman for Argyll and Bute Council said: "Two of our
officers have visited the site and spoken to the site agent.

"Low grade cement based asbestos roof sheeting covering part of
the building has been removed by a specialist contractor and taken
off the site.

"The work was low risk in nature and therefore non-notifiable to
inspecting bodies.

"The roof sheet fixings had been mechanically removed and any
small broken fragments of roofing as a result of the cutting had
been bagged and removed from site.

"The site was then tested for fibers and subsequently had a clean
air certificate issued.

"In relation to the concerns of the residents, there was no
statutory duty on the council to advise of the removal of asbestos
(indeed the council was not aware of such activity taking place,
as the works were not subject to statutory notification) nor was
there such need for notification from the contractor."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McGill U Probe Over Research Criticized
--------------------------------------------------------
CBC News Montreal reports, a group of anti-asbestos activists and
scientists are criticizing McGill University's plans for an
internal review of a major asbestos research study that has been
called into question.

In a letter dated Friday, Feb. 10 to Dr. David Eidelman, the
school's dean of medicine, 20 activists and scientists called on
McGill to carry out a "thorough, independent and transparent
investigation" of the original study, which they claim is "flawed,
lacks transparency and contains manipulated data."

On Feb.9, McGill said it would review the findings of the study,
which was led by J. Corbett McDonald, after a CBC documentary
aired about the university's past ties to the asbestos industry.

Eidelman has said the allegations in the CBC report must be taken
seriously, although he has also defended McDonald's work, saying
that holding scientific views that are different from those of the
majority does not constitute research misconduct.

However, the critics are panning the university's planned review.

In their letter to Eidelman, the activists and scientists said
that Prof. Rebecca Fuhrer, the school's chair of the department of
epidemiology, biostatistics and occupational health, and the
person chosen to do the internal review, is in a conflict of
interest because McDonald is still a professor emeritus of the
department of epidemiology.

"You also state that you expect Prof. Fuhrer's review to be
completed next week.  Given the serious nature of the concerns
raised, this does not indicate a credible review," the group said
in their letter.

The major research study led by McDonald, 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 the
former Liberal and Conservative governments -- to promote the use
of asbestos overseas.

The McGill researchers would suggest in a 1997 study that cases of
mesothelioma occurred in "most, if not all," miners who had a
greater exposure to tremolite, a more dangerous contaminant than
chrysotile, 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.

CBC has obtained 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.

Eidelman has said that McDonald's work demonstrated that asbestos,
including chrysotile asbestos, is a carcinogen associated with
both lung cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the
lung.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Redwood Elementary Abatement to Last for Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Yi of West Orange Patch reports that school officials are
working on removing asbestos in the ceiling at Redwood Elementary
School in West Orange.

The abatement process began earlier this month and will displace
several classrooms to other areas of the school to maintain the
students' safety.

Superintendent of Schools Dr. Anthony Cavanna assured there will
be no danger to the children at the school.

"Right now the asbestos is sealed in the ceiling . . . in five to
six days, the asbestos will be removed," Cavanna said.

He said that because a leak in the ceiling could not be found,
workers will have to open up the ceiling to look for the leak -- a
process that will take several weeks.

The asbestos will then be located and removed.  Cavanna said the
whole project will take four weeks.

A meeting was held at the school to discuss the plan with the
parents who were upset by what they said was poor communication by
the district on the issue.

"My concern was that I knew nothing about anything. A note came
home . . . that said there would be repairs, but it had no
information (about asbestos)," said one Redwood parent who did not
want to be identified.

Another parent who did not want to be identified said one of her
children had been displaced from his classroom for the past three
weeks without her knowledge.

"My son is in the class directly affected and for three weeks he
has been displaced from his classroom, carrying his books back and
forth everyday," she said.  "They didn't tell us about the leak."

She said she did not receive adequate notice from the school, only
that "renovations" were to take place.  She said parents began
contacting the school to find out why their kids were coming home
with their books.

"It was miscommunicated from the beginning," she said, insisting
that her issue was with transparency not the asbestos leak.

"Asbestos is a situation that's unfortunate, but that's all OK,
those things happen.  I can't be angry with the school for that
. . . but it was not handled forthright."

Cavanna told Patch the situation had been "rectified" after he met
with the parents and took responsibility for the lack of
information.

He reiterated the students' safety was a priority and that
undisturbed and contained asbestos was not damaging to students.

"In West Orange we took care of all of the major problems we had
but things like in the ceiling that are encapsulated, we've been
doing that as we have money to do that.  But in this particular
instance, there was a leak in the ceiling that we couldn't find."

The two rooms next to the boiler where the work will take place
will be completely sealed off to the students and work will only
be completed after school hours.

Air quality tests will be performed daily to ensure the school can
safely re-open for the students every morning.

The treatment is taking place now so that the students will be
able to return to their classrooms and finish out the rest of the
year.  If the district decided to wait until the summer, the
students would be displaced for the rest of the year, Cavanna
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pueblo Rep Blows Top on Naval Building Snub
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Malone of The Pueblo Chieftain reports that Pueblo Rep.
Sal Pace erupted on Feb. 9, at a mountain-town representative's
claim that removing an asbestos-laden building near the Colorado
State Fair is not a priority for the community.

"Don't tell me what my city thinks," Pace, a Democrat, said
loudly.

Rep. Cheri Gerou, R-Evergreen, said she contacted the state
architect and was told that abating the problem of airborne
asbestos and lead paint at the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
building at Northern and Acero avenues was not of paramount
concern in Pueblo.

"When they talked to the local entity that is dealing with this
building, they were not concerned about it," Gerou said.

Pace referenced a letter from Pueblo City Council that he shared
with the Colorado House urging action on the building and
expressing concern about the health ramifications to residents in
its neighborhood.

"Don't tell me what my constituents want," he said.

Nonetheless, the House voted 51-12 to approve a list of
construction projects that did not include the $450,000 abatement
that Pace sought.  Rep. Keith Swerdfeger, R-Pueblo West,
originally supported the project, but later voted against it on
Feb. 7 and again on Feb. 9.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rise In Usage of Deadly Fibers Alarms Watchdogs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belluck & Fox, LLP, sponsored MesotheliomaHelp.net reports that
the recent release of the United States Geological Survey's (USGS)
Mineral Commodity Summaries 2012 has left many mesothelioma
advocates shocked by the discovery that the U.S. continues to
increase the amount of asbestos imported into the country.
Asbestos is proven to cause deadly respiratory illnesses including
mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis and countless other
pulmonary diseases.

For years, medical professionals, environmentalists, lawyers, and
others affected by the tragedy of asbestos exposure, have been
calling for a ban of asbestos.  The only way to eliminate the
deadly asbestos-caused diseases is to eliminate exposure to the
deadly toxin.  In fact, in December the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency issued a warning saying, "asbestos is a human
carcinogen with no safe level of exposure."

In a prepared statement, Linda Reinstein, co-founder and president
of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), said she
"was appalled and shocked to discover" that according to the
report, U.S. industries consumed 1,100 metric tons of asbestos
from January through July 2011, compared to 820 metric tons during
the same period in 2010.  The difference represents a 34 %
increase in consumption.

The report indicates that the use of asbestos in 2011 and the
preceding 5 years is the lowest it has been in the United States
since 1909.  Further, the USGS reports that in 2011, U.S. apparent
consumption increased by 6%, but it is unlikely to represent any
resurgence in the asbestos industry.  The report suggests that
based on current trends, U.S. asbestos consumption is likely to
remain near the 1,000-ton level in the near future.

The U.S. relies 100% on asbestos imports.  The primary sources are
Canada (92%) and Zimbabwe (6%).

Reinstein issued an appeal to Congress and President Obama,
saying: "On behalf of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
(ADAO), I am calling on Congress and the President to immediately
prohibit the importation of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing
products from crossing our borders to protect public health.  I
have lost my husband, Alan, to Mesothelioma, a disease caused from
asbestos exposure.  Nothing can bring him or the hundreds of
thousands of other victims back to life, but we can begin by
aggressively preventing exposure thus eliminating deadly
diseases."

Symptoms of mesothelioma such as shortness of breath, pain in the
chest, and a persistent cough, often appear 20 to 50 years after
exposure.  Most cases of mesothelioma are not diagnosed until
symptoms appear and the disease has progressed to an advanced
stage leaving the patient with life-threatening complications.
Once the disease has reached an advanced stage, median survival is
often less than one year.

ADAO was founded by asbestos victims and their families in 2004.
ADAO seeks to give asbestos victims and concerned citizens a
united voice to raise public awareness about the dangers of
asbestos exposure.  ADAO is the largest independent organization
dedicated to preventing asbestos-related diseases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Firm Slapped With GBP10,000 Fine
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wiltshire Times reports a building firm in Bradford on Avon has
been given a GBP7,000 fine after admitting removing an asbestos
insulation board from a house in an unsafe manner.

Chippenham Magistrates' Court heard the removal was carried out
while DB Construction (West Wilts), of Frome Road, revamped a home
in November and December, 2010.

An electrician, also working on the house, raised concerns that
ceiling boards could contain asbestos and the materials were
analyzed.

The Health and Safety Executive found the boards contained white
and the more hazardous brown asbestos.  It said DB Construction
failed to investigate the site prior to work starting and stored
the boards and debris in open bags in the garden, breaching safety
rules.

HSE inspector Helena Tinton said: "Work with materials containing
higher risk asbestos, including asbestos insulation board, is a
licensed activity with work only carried out by trained people
under tightly controlled conditions.

"DB Construction should have been aware of this and yet these
ceiling boards were removed in an uncontrolled manner over a
period of several hours, which resulted in the spread of airborne
asbestos fibers inside and outside the property, leaving workers
and the householders at risk of exposure."

DB Construction admitted breaching Regulation 5 of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined GBP7,000, plus GBP3,617.50
in costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tax Office Urged to Pay Up Before March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton of The Sydney Morning Herald reports that five
years of uncertainty over a AU$368 million tax dispute ended
favorably in the High Court on Feb. 10 for James Hardie Industries
and the asbestos compensation trust it funds.

The court refused an application by the Tax Office for special
leave to appeal a full Federal Court decision handed down in
August.

James Hardie said that it expected to be reimbursed AU$311
million, comprising half the disputed amount, which it deposited
with the Tax Office in 2007, plus interest.  It also anticipates
receiving some of its legal costs.

Its shares initially rose on the news, but later joined the fall
on the broader market and closed almost 3% lower at $7.22.

The Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund, set up after a public
furor over James Hardie's gross underfunding of a similar trust in
2001, stands to receive 35% of the reimbursement, or about AU$109
million.

However, the injection will not come soon enough to prevent the
fund calling on emergency funding made available by the NSW and
federal governments last year.

A NSW government spokesman said on Feb. 10 the fund had issued a
notice to draw down $29.7 million from the NSW loan facility and
that the money would be transferred on Feb. 17.

The loan does not reduce James Hardie's liability as the fund will
draw on future contributions from the company to repay the
government, with interest.

The timing of the fund's receipt of cash from the court ruling
will depend on whether the Tax Office reimburses James Hardie
before its March 31 balance date.

The NSW legislation governing the fund, introduced in 2007,
provides for a transfer each July of 35% of James Hardie's cash
flow recorded in the year to the previous March.  If the Tax
Office pays James Hardie after March 31 this year, the fund will
not receive its share until July next year.

The Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia called on the Tax
Office to release the money immediately to "avoid any more
damaging uncertainty for victims of asbestos-related disease."

A Tax Office spokesman said it was considering the implications of
the High Court ruling.

The last published information showed the fund had cash of $74
million in September.

In the previous six months it paid $52 million in compensation,
indicating that it would need to use the line of credit this year.

The NSW and federal governments established the emergency
facility, of up to $320 million, after the fund was affected by a
sharp fall in James Hardie's cash flow caused by the downturn in
the US housing market, in turn caused by the 2008 credit crisis.

The tax dispute related to 1998 transactions involving three
wholly owned subsidiaries of James Hardie in Australia, the US and
Malta.  The transactions were part of a wider restructure in which
James Hardie moved its operational base from Australia to the US,
its largest market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Cleaner Acquired Mesothelioma At Work
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Crockett of the South Wales Argus reports that a former
school cleaner and caretaker died as a result of exposure to
asbestos throughout her career, a court heard yesterday.

Brenda Ann Butcher, 65, of Blackwood, was diagnosed with the
cancer mesothelioma on March 7 last year after doctors discovered
a tumour on her lung.  She died on April 26.

Gwent Coroner David Bowen recorded a verdict of death from
industrial disease.

The Newport hearing heard how between 1978 and 1988 Mrs. Butcher
was employed by Caerphilly council initially as a lollipop lady
but went on to work as a cleaner and caretaker at Pengam Primary
School.

In a statement written before she died which was read to the
court, Mrs. Butcher described how she was responsible for cleaning
the heating system, including a boiler and pipes, which were
lagged with asbestos.  She told how when she cleaned, dust would
fill the air and she would breathe it in.

The non-smoker said she was never told the dangers the potentially
deadly substance posed, nor was she given any protective equipment
such as a face mask when working with it.

The court heard Mrs. Butcher worked in a number of places where
asbestos was present throughout her career, including factories in
Newport and the Gossard underwear factory in Pontllanfraith,
before she gave up work to care for husband in 1988.

A post mortem examination found her death was as a result of
mesothelioma.  However, tests carried out by Dr. Alan Gibbs
concluded the level of asbestos in Mrs. Butcher's lungs was not
elevated beyond background level.

In his opinion, there was not enough evidence to suggest it was
asbestos related.

But Mr. Bowen said he was satisfied that on a balance of
probabilities Mrs. Butcher's exposure to the substance in the work
place was the cause.

He added it was not the purpose of the inquest to find out which
workplace contributed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thompsons Firm Wins Compensation for Hall Family
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sunderland Echo reports that the family of a former Wearside
shipyard worker killed by an asbestos-related illness has won
compensation for his death.

Ted Hall died aged 80, just months after he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs.  Caused by
exposure to asbestos, the disease has no cure.

Mr. Hall was exposed to the chemical as a 15-year-old apprentice
and joiner while working at Hudson Dock and Pallion Yard on the
Wear.

He was never warned by his employers about the dangers of asbestos
or provided with any protection.

The dad-of-two moved to Basingstoke in 1954 and then to Dartmouth
with his wife Patricia, in 2004.  He was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in December 2010 and died five months later.

Mrs. Hall instructed Thompsons Solicitors to investigate a
compensation claim.  A "substantial" damages payout was secured
for the family and an additional payment to Rowcroft Hospice
towards the costs of looking after Mr. Hall.

Mrs. Hall said: "Ted was exposed to asbestos when he was just a
teenager and, as a result, mesothelioma took his life.  It was
important to the family to make sure that someone took
responsibility for his painful death."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Riverwalk Project Needs $600K for Abatement
------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Flory at mlive.com reports that demolition plans for the
vacant hotel in downtown Jackson are not dead, but they may hinge
on efforts to find new ways to finance unexpected asbestos-removal
costs.

The Jackson County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, which is
helping fund cleanup of the hotel site, is assigned to look for
funding sources for a projected bill of nearly $600,000 to remove
asbestos found in drywall mud.

"Will it be easy? No.  But we may have resources and access to
funds," said James E. Shotwell Jr., chairman of the Jackson County
Board of Commissioners.

Amy Torres, executive director of the Brownfield Authority, said
that group already planned to spend $151,398 for asbestos removal
at the hotel.  The money will come from a $1 million stimulus
grant received in 2009.

An additional $48,000 remains uncommitted from the stimulus grant,
and that money would likely be put toward the hotel project,
Torres said.

Staff of the Brownfield Authority was "directed to identify
additional funding sources" to close the remaining funding gap,
Torres said.  It is possible that other EPA clean-up money can be
redirected toward the project, she said.

The former hotel, located at 130 E. Michigan Ave. and last known
as the Riverwalk Plaza, is owned by Jackson County due to unpaid
taxes.

Efforts to sell the structure failed years ago, and county
commissioners set aside $1.8 million to demolish the building this
year.

Clean-up costs shot up to an estimated $557,100 to $590,100 after
asbestos was discovered in drywall mud, Torres said.

County officials describe the estimates, prepared by a consultant,
as "high-end" and "worst-case."

"We're hoping the bids would come in lower," said Torres. "They
may come in quite a bit lower, depending on how hungry people are
for work."

The Brownfield Authority is expected to report on options March 1,
Shotwell said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPSM Wins Appeal on Clients' Lawsuit vs Kmart
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason filed a wrongful death complaint
on behalf of their clients, Rachel Flores and her two children,
against Kmart in Superior Court.  The trial court dismissed the
Flores case, stating that the claim was barred because of Kmart's
reorganization plan that had been approved in April of 2003 as
result of bankruptcy proceedings.  (In re Kmart Corp. (Bkrtcy.
N.D.Ill. 2003) 293 B.R. 905, 907.) CPSM filed an appeal, to
overturn the ruling.  CPSM was successful and this ruling was
reversed on appeal.

According to testimony taken in preparation for filing a
mesothelioma lawsuit, Martin Flores stated he was exposed to
asbestos in 1989 and 1990 while performing construction work in a
Riverside store operated by defendant, Kmart.  Mr. Flores then
developed mesothelioma, an incurable cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos, and died on June 19, 2008.  His wife, Rachel Flores,
filed a wrongful death action on behalf of herself and her two
children on Dec. 17, 2008.

According to the National Institutes of Health, mesothelioma's
long latency period between time of exposure and development of
disease does not develop is anywhere from ten to fifty years after
exposure to asbestos.  Asbestos exposure is a common occurrence
during construction projects on older buildings, as most were
constructed using asbestos containing materials until the mid-
1980's when restrictions began to be enforced.

As reflected in court documents, Kmart asserted that Flores could
not file a wrongful death action because of defendant's approved
reorganization plan of 2003 that discharged all known and unknown
claims.  The plaintiffs argued that barring the Flores claim
violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights as there
was no evidence that Mr. Flores or his family had any notice of
the 2002 and 2003 bankruptcy proceedings and furthermore there was
no way that Mr. Flores could have been aware of injuries sustained
at the time of the reorganization plan approval.

The California State Court of Appeals reversed the previous
ruling, (Flores v. Kmart Corp. (2012) 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 55)
agreeing that it would violate due process rights, and ordered
that the Flores family could indeed continue with their wrongful
death action against Kmart Corporation.  The case was remanded to
trial court for further proceedings.

                          About CPSM

Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason are leading mesothelioma
attorneys having successfully won awards, settlements and
bankruptcy claims on behalf of their clients for more than 30
years.  If you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma and would
like to know what your legal rights are, contact our office today
at 1-800-442-4262 and receive a free case evaluation from one of
our attorneys that specialize in handling asbestos claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Court Awards Dying Beeston Man GBP73,890
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Nottingham Post reports that a 92-year-old man suffering from
asbestos-related cancer has been awarded GBP73,890 damages by the
High Court.

Dennis Ball, from Beeston, has been battling against mesothelioma
-- a cancer of the lining of the lungs notorious for its
incurability and for the pain endured by its victims.

At the High Court, in London, the Department of Energy and Climate
Change admitted that Mr. Ball was exposed to asbestos at Sutton
Colliery and Moorgreen Colliery, both in Notts, where he worked
between 1967 and 1985.

The Honorable Mrs. Justice Swift ruled that the disease has had a
"devastating effect" on Mr. Ball's life".

She said: "Mr. Ball is experiencing a real fear about the ordeal
that may be in store for him, together with distress at the
knowledge of his imminent death and its cause.

"For a man with a fierce sense of independence and a fear of
hospitals, this must have been a very difficult time for him."

As a result of the disease Mr. Ball was forced to move out of his
home and into a care home in 2011.

In March last year, after being plagued by a hacking cough and
breathing difficulties, Mr. Ball's stepson, David Taylor, found
him lying on the floor of his flat.

He was later diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mrs. Justice Swift awarded Mr. Ball GBP73,890 damages against the
Department of Energy and Climate Change, which took over the
liabilities of the National Coal Board and British Coal.

The payout includes GBP50,000 for his "pain, suffering and loss of
amenity" and almost GBP20,000 for his "lost years" of life.

Mrs. Justice Swift said that, prior to the mesothelioma diagnosis,
Mr. Ball, who was born a year after the end of the First World
War, was in reasonably good physical health and was determined to
stay in his own flat rather than move into a nursing home.

She added: "Before his illness, he was managing in his flat with
some help.

"The importance that he attached to his independent way of life is
clear.  It is exemplified by the fact that, even now, he continues
to pay rent on his flat, plainly clinging to the hope that he may
one day be able to return there.

"Thus, despite his age, his disease has had a devastating effect
on his life.

"It is clear from the medical records that he has been well aware
of the diagnosis and prognosis for more than five months now.

"He is a private man and has been unwilling to talk about his
prognosis.

"However, there is no reason to suppose that he is not
experiencing a real fear about the ordeal that may be in store for
him, together with distress at the knowledge of his imminent death
and its cause.

"Mr. Ball's age means that he does not have the distress of
knowing that many years, even decades, of his life have been
denied him.

"Importantly, however, the onset of illness forced him to leave
his home and thus to lose his independence."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loring Park Project Receives $345.3K in Grants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that an ambitious project to
convert a historic Loring Park office building into market-rate
apartments won an $80,000 environmental grant from the Hennepin
County Board.

The funding will be used to seal an old well inside the building
to prevent groundwater contamination, said Rosemary Lavin, the
county's assistant director of environmental services.

The Environmental Response Fund grant was the last of 11 that the
board recently approved to help housing projects evaluate
pollution, remove asbestos and lead-based paint, and clean up
contaminated soil.  The grants, amounting to $1.4 million, are
funded with a mortgage registry and deed tax.

The Loring Park building, at 430 Oak Grove St., is being developed
by Kraus-Anderson Realty.  It was built in 1923 as an insurance
company headquarters.  Last month the Metropolitan Council awarded
the project $265,300 to remove asbestos.  The developer also has
applied for state money for environmental work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westmount Firm Sends SOS to Ottawa Officials
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Lalonde of The Montreal Gazette relates that Quebec's
asbestos industry has been taking a heavy pounding of late, with
two damning documentaries airing on CBC and Radio-Canada, renewed
calls from politicians in Quebec City and Ottawa to outlaw the
cancer-causing mineral, and a review launched into some industry-
funded research at McGill.

On Feb. 10, the opposition Quebec Solidaire called on the
provincial and federal governments to stop financing the asbestos
industry and to ban export of the mineral.

Parti Quebecois mining critic Martine Ouellette told Canadian
Press she wants a parliamentary commission to look at the issue.

The calls are partly in response to a documentary aired on Radio-
Canada "that reveals the true face of a lobby that in the past has
had no scruples at all about manipulating the facts to the
detriment of human health to defend its financial interests,"
according to the Quebec Solidaire statement.

McGill University announced Feb. 9 that it has launched a
preliminary review into the work of professor emeritus John
Corbett McDonald, after the university received a letter last week
signed by dozens of academics, physicians and researchers accusing
some McGill researchers of being controlled by the asbestos
industry.

On Feb. 10, an official complaint was lodged with McGill by many
of those same academics.

"We call on McGill University to carry out a thorough, independent
and transparent investigation of the allegation that the Quebec
asbestos industry had improper influence over the epidemiological
research carried out by Prof. J. C. McDonald and his unit at
McGill; that the research is flawed, lacks transparency and
contains manipulated data; that requests for the study data to be
released have been refused; that the research minimized the threat
to health posed by chrysotile asbestos; and that Prof. McDonald
and others at times denied that the asbestos industry was funding
the research," reads the complaint.

A letter attached to the complaint says that no one within the
department of epidemiology, of which Mc-Donald is a past chair,
should be conducting the preliminary review.

"It is our understanding that (members of that department) were
involved in the research in question or are related to Prof.
McDonald by family ties," the letter says.

The Radio-Canada documentary detailed how the asbestos industry in
Quebec engaged McDonald to produce studies that would raise doubt
about U.S. studies that showed chrysotile causes cancer.

"The Quebec asbestos lobby continues today to cite McDonald's
research as evidence that exposure to levels of chrysotile
asbestos fibers two hundred times higher than permitted in Europe,
the U.S. and most of Canada, will cause no harm to health," the
letter charges.

The signatories also note that McGill has been asked to
investigate these complaints in the past.  In October 2002, Dr.
David Egilman of Brown University complained to McGill about
McDonald's research.  That complaint was dismissed "with two brief
paragraphs in a letter of January 2004 and no full transparent
investigation."

Reacting to the CBC documentary, a representative of the Westmount
company that is trying to reopen and expand the Jeffrey asbestos
mine in Asbestos wrote to federal members of Parliament and
senators in Ottawa to defend the industry.

"The story relates to a time when the reality of the chrysotile
industry and chrysotile products were entirely different from what
they are today," wrote Balcorp Ltd. spokesperson Guy Versailles.

A briefing document accompanying the letter notes that "chrysotile
and amphiboles are not the same substance," that the Jeffrey Mine
is "a source of chrysotile asbestos and not the hazardous
amphibole asbestos," and that chrysotile can be used safely.

NDP MP Pat Martin, who for years has been fighting Canada's export
of asbestos, said this shows the industry is still trying to sow
confusion as to whether chrysotile asbestos, a cancer-causing
substance banned in more than 50 countries, is really all that
harmful.

"The opposition to asbestos in Canada has really reached a
critical mass now," Martin said.  "It has taken a frustratingly
long time, but just as the tobacco industry survived 50 years
longer than it should have through denial and junk science and
aggressive political lobbying, so has the asbestos industry lasted
this long."

Meanwhile, the Quebec government is still waiting for promoters of
the Jeffrey Mine expansion project to prove they have $25 million
in private investments all firmed up -- a condition demanded by
the government if it is to provide a promised $58-million loan
guarantee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Properly Worded Language" on Gillon v. CSX Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 11, 2011, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
affirmed a lower court's ruling in favor of railway giant CSX
Transportation.  The ruling held that an employee's signed release
settling an asbestosis claim against the company in 1995 barred
that employee's future claim against the railway for an asbestos-
related cancer not diagnosed until almost eight years later.  The
case -- Gillon v. CSX Transportation, Inc. -- sets a new precedent
for West Virginia courts handling personal injury claims related
to asbestos exposure.

History of the Case

On May 18, 1995, an employee -- Jimmie Gillon -- signed a release
agreement with CSX settling his asbestosis claim for $12,000.
According to its language, the release discharged CSX "from all
claims for all known and unknown, manifested and unmanifested,
suspected and unanticipated occupational diseases or injuries,
including cancer, arising from or contributed to by exposure to
any and all toxic and pathogenic particulate matter, including but
not limited to, asbestos . . ."

The release also stated that a "portion of the monies paid for
this release agreement is for . . . possible future manifestation
of  either the effects of and/or injury or disease due to alleged
exposure to such substances . .  ." It was also expressly stated
in the release that Mr. Gillon "executed this agreement upon the
advice and approval of [his] attorney and that [he] had this
release agreement explained to [him] by [his] attorney . . ."

Almost eight years after signing the release -- in March of 2003
-- Mr. Gillon was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer.
Shortly thereafter, he filed another lawsuit against CSX, this
time to recover compensation for his lung cancer.  The suit was
premised upon Mr. Gillon's contention that his cancer claim was
not barred by his earlier settlement of the asbestosis claim.  The
trial court disagreed, however, and granted the railroad's motion
for summary judgment (a method of quickly closing a case when the
judge determines that no actual dispute exists).

The Appellate Process

On appeal, Mr. Gillon argued that the release of his asbestosis
lawsuit, which purported to release all claims for illnesses which
might develop in the future, violated federal law, specifically
Title 45, Section 55 of the United States Code.  That law is
designed to prevent freight companies classified as "common
carriers" under the law from using contracts or other legal
devices to unfairly free themselves from the liability imposed by
the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA).  FELA was passed in
1908 to provide compensation to injured railroad workers.  He
asserted that a previous federal case -- Wicker v. Consolidated
Rail Corporation -- limited the reach of releases signed by
railroad workers to those risks known to the parties when the
release is signed, and that claims relating to unknown risks
cannot fairly be waived and still comply with federal law.

Furthermore, Gillon argued that the release he signed in 1995 did
not set out the "quantity, location, and duration" of his exposure
to asbestos, as required under the Wicker case.

Mr. Gillon also noted that the 1995 release contained the term
"cancer," but did not specifically mention "lung cancer;" that the
settlement amount of $12,000 was not nearly large enough to
signify compensation for the future diagnosis of a potentially
deadly cancer; and that the filing of his lawsuit reflected his
sincere belief that he had not released any claim for lung cancer
when he signed the 1995 agreement.

For its part, CSX claimed that the term "cancer" in its release
included "lung cancer" and all other cancers; that the precedent
set by the Wicker case does not require specificity as to the
"quantity, location and duration" of exposure contrary to Mr.
Gillon's contention; that extrinsic evidence (i.e. the fact that
he filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for his lung cancer)
concerning Mr. Gillon's intent and knowledge cannot be used to
alter the unambiguous terms of the release; that Mr. Gillon had
the burden of showing that the release was invalid but failed to
do so; that the court could not "second guess" the amount of the
settlement in light of Mr. Gillon's present circumstances and that
Mr. Gillon's regret for signing the release is not a valid basis
for voiding it.

The Supreme Court's Decision

In a short, unsigned memorandum decision, the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia upheld the lower court's summary judgment
order in favor of CSX.  The Supreme Court's conclusion was based
on its finding that it is "clear from the unambiguous terms of the
release, which [Mr. Gillon] signed with the advice of legal
counsel in an earlier FELA claim, that [Mr. Gillon] was aware that
he was releasing . . . any future claim that he might have
associated with the development of cancer and, that under the
Wicker standard, CSX is entitled to judgment in its favor on the
basis of the prior release."  Their ruling built on an earlier
opinion in another case -- Ratliff v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
-- in which the court held that release language in a voluntary
separation ("buy out") agreement did not bar a claim for
mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer, that was not diagnosed
until 19 years after the separation.  The Ratliff decision,
however, indicated that in cases involving the settlement of a
personal injury claim, properly worded language could release
known risks of future injury.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turin Court Issues Ruling in Eternit Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Paola Italiano of Reuters reports that a billionaire Swiss
industrialist and a Belgian executive were sentenced to 16 years
in jail on Feb. 13 by an Italian court and ordered to pay millions
of euros in damages for negligence that led to more than 2,000
asbestos-related deaths.

The verdict in Turin could set a precedent for proceedings
worldwide about safety in the workplace.  Relatives of the victims
and hundreds of others filled the courthouse, some crying, others
applauding when the sentence was read out.

Stephan Schmidheiny, 64, former owner of the Swiss fiber cement
firm Eternit, and Belgian shareholder and former executive Jean
Louis Marie Ghislain de Cartier de Marchienne, 90, were found
guilty of intentionally omitting to install measures to prevent
health damage from asbestos at Eternit's Italian plants, which
closed in 1986.

The defendants, who were tried in absentia, have denied wrongdoing
and plan to appeal, their lawyers said.

"I thought I would be able to cry . . . but . . . I didn't.  It's
just too hard to let yourself go," Romana Blasotti, who lost five
family members, was quoted as saying by the Ansa newswire.

More than 6,000 people -- including former employees and residents
of the four towns where the plants were located -- were seeking
damages in the case.  They were each awarded an average EUR30,000
($40,000).

The defendants were accused for their role as executives at the
fiber cement maker's Italian affiliate, Eternit SpA.

Prosecutors said the lack of safety measures led to the deaths of
2,000 people, mostly from cancer triggered by contact with
asbestos, and thousands of other cases of chronic pulmonary
disease, tumors and other illnesses over the past four decades.

They affected workers and residents of Casale Monferrato and
Cavagnolo, two hill towns near Turin; the village of Rubiera in
northern Italy; and the seaside town of Bagnoli, outside Naples.

Compensation awarded by the court included EUR25 million to Casale
Monferrato, EUR20 million to the Piedmont region, and EUR100
million to the victims' group Afeva.

"It's a dream come true," said prosecutor Raffaele Guariniello,
who had sought a 20-year term for both defendants.

He called the case "the biggest trial in the world and in history
as far as safety at work is concerned".

It took three courtrooms to accommodate the large crowd, Italian
news reports said.  The presiding judge needed three hours to read
out the verdict, capping a trial that had opened in 2009.

Health Minister Renato Balduzzi called the sentence "historic",
noting that asbestos was not only a local and national issue, but
also an international one.

Asbestos fibers became popular from the late 19th century onwards
as a way to reinforce cement, often for roofing and cladding, as
well as adding sound absorption and heat resistance.

Asbestos is now banned from building materials in much of the
West, but is still being used as insulation in developing
countries.  The inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause lung
inflammation and cancer, and symptoms do not tend to appear for
many years.

Eternit closed its Italian operations in 1986, six years before
asbestos was banned in Italy.

In a statement, Schmidheiny, once Switzerland's most influential
industrialist, but now largely retired and focused on
international philanthropy, called the ruling "incomprehensible"
and said he would appeal.

"We were not expecting this sentence," said Cesare Zaccone, de
Cartier de Marchienne's lawyer.  His client said in a statement he
would also appeal, because he had "never been in charge of safety
measures at Eternit SpA".

A statement on his behalf in 2009 said that risks related to
asbestos were not well known at the time the plants were in
operation.

Schmidheiny took over the Swiss Eternit Group from his father in
1976, while de Cartier de Marchienne was a shareholder and manager
of Eternit in Italy in the early 1970s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Safety Maintained at Kingston Foreshore Clean-up
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Morozow of ABC News reports that WorkSafe ACT says it is
satisfied with how an asbestos discovery has been handled at the
Kingston Foreshore in Canberra's inner-south.

Late last month a gardening contractor found bonded asbestos on
the man-made Foreshore Island.  Work on the site was immediately
stopped and WorkSafe and the Environment Protection Authority were
called in.

The Land Development Agency (LDA) wrote to nearby residents last
week to notify them of the discovery.  The LDA says the matter is
unrelated to an incident in December where fill containing
asbestos was trucked into the Foreshore site.

LDA chief executive David Dawes says the material poses no risk to
workers or residents.  "There's no danger at all with this because
it's a bonded material and we'll be dealing with it appropriately
and removing it appropriately," he said.

"It is not as if it's fibers that are within the air . . . but
we'll be putting in air monitoring as well so that we can double
check to make sure that it is all being contained into that part
of the site."

Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe says the proper procedures
have been followed.

"The key thing to remember about asbestos is there's asbestos in
many places in our community.  It's how we deal with it when we
find it.  And in this case it's being managed appropriately and it
presents no risk in its bonded form," he said.

The island will remain off-limits until the asbestos is removed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Titan Environmental Sets Up Anaheim Operations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anaheim, Calif., has gained a trusted provider in asbestos
assessment, lead paint inspection and mold testing.  Titan
Environmental Solutions specializes in residential and industrial
inspections that provide peace of mind if one should doubt the air
quality of their building.  They provide a certified analysis with
recommendations to improve the air quality of the structure.

"Millions of households, schools and businesses don't know that
they have a cancer-causing mineral just sitting in their walls,"
said Jason Reinhardt, communications director for Titan.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, "breathing high
levels of asbestos can lead to increased risk of lung cancer,
mesothelioma, and asbestosis (where the lungs become scarred with
fibrous tissue)."

Reinhardt explains that asbestos is still common and homeowners
need to be on the watch: "Unfortunately, builders didn't know
about the harms of asbestos when there was so much new
construction.  Now that we are aware of the dangers of breathing
in these fibrous materials, it is important for homeowners to have
an asbestos assessment, especially if they've never had one
before."

Titan Environmental Solutions is known among insurance carriers,
property managers, school districts and government agencies for
being a trustworthy and impartial inspector of their buildings and
property.  Each customer is treated with the same respect: with
detailed reports and environmental analysis, along with
professional recommendations and solutions.

Titan is a dedicated organization helping residents and business
owners in Anaheim reduce the toxic levels in their homes and
shops.  Titan recommends that every property have a mold and air
quality test performed.  This is especially true for buyers who
have mold allergies or asthma.  Titan's mission is to prevent
these types of breathing problems by servicing homeowners with
affordable indoor air testing.

In addition to asbestos assessment and mold testing, Titan
Environmental Solutions performs lead paint inspections.
According to the Center for Disease Control, lead poisoning is the
number one preventable childhood disease in the United States.  As
lead paint deteriorates it mixes in the air and is breathed in by
children and adults in the house.  Titan Environmental Solutions
recommends homeowners, who live in a structure built before 1978,
have it inspected for lead paint and residue.  Of course Titan
also recommends that every homeowner take a full inspection for
asbestos, lead paint and mold if they are uncertain about the air
quality of their dwelling.

             About Titan Environmental Solutions

Titan Environmental Solutions is an expert inspection service that
tests for the three most dangerous presences in the home and in
commercial buildings: asbestos, lead paint and molds health
hazards.  Titan performs full scale air quality tests.  Having an
asbestos assessment is the best way to ensure that the home is
safe from fibrous residue that can build up in the lungs, leading
to risk of cancer and other health problems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminants in Grapevine Water Pumping Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
TurnTo23.com reports that for the second time in less than a month
asbestos has been found in a water pumping plant near the
Grapevine.

After the first traces of asbestos was discovered at the Ira J.
Chrisman Wind Gap Pumping Plant, tests were done at the nearby
John R. Teerink Wheeler Ridge Pumping Plant and turned up positive
for asbestos, officials said.

Officials said the asbestos was discovered at the Chrisman plant
as a worker did routine maintenance at the plant, but officials
said there was never any danger either to the public or water
safety.  After that, state officials decided to test the nearby
Wheeler Ridge Pumping Plant.

Workers within the state water project said the building was
sealed off and all employees were evacuated.

They said clean up of the asbestos has already begun.

Officials said as a precaution, tests are now being run at the
Buena Vista Pumping Plant near Taft.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company, 72 Others Face Mesothelioma Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that a Stanley,
N.C., couple is suing 73 companies they claim are responsible for
a mesothelioma diagnosis.

On Aug. 13, 2010, Sidney William Mauney was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, according to a complaint filed Jan. 23 in Kanawha
Circuit Court.

Mauney claims he was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-
containing products during his employment as an insulator from
1956 until 1993.

The defendants knew or should have known that exposure to asbestos
could cause harm to Mauney, according to the suit.

Mauney claims he smoked cigarettes from 1955 until 1975, but then
quit.

The 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.

Mauney and his wife, Carolyn A. Mauney, are seeking a jury trial
to resolve all issues involved.  They are being represented by
Victoria L. Antion -- vantion@motleyrice.com -- Anne McGinness
Kearse -- akearse@motleyrice.com --, Scott A. McGee --
smcgee@motleyrice.com -- John D. Hurst -- jhurst@motleyrice.com --
and Bill Graham.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 73 defendants named in the suit are 3M Company; A.O. Smith
Corporation; A.W. Chesterton Company; Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation; American Electric Power; American Electric Power
Service Corporation; Appalachian Power Company; Bechtel
Corporation; Brand Insulations, Inc.; Burlington Industries, Inc.;
BW IP, Inc.; Carolina Power & Light Company; Carrier Corporation;
Catalytic Construction Company; Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver-
Brooks, Inc.; Crane Co.; Crown, Cork & Seal USA, Inc.; Dravo
Corporation; Eaton Electrical, Inc.; F.B. Wright; Fluor
Corporation; Flowserve US Inc., individually and as successor to
Edward Valves Inc. and Nordstrom Valves, Inc.; Flowservc US, Inc.
f/k/a Durco International, Inc.; Flowservc US, Inc. f/k/a
Flowserve FSD Corporation; Fluor Enterprises, Inc.; FMC
Corporation; Gordon Gasket & Packing Co.; Goulds Pumps, Inc.;
Greene Tweed & Company; Grinnell, LLC; Hercules, Inc.; Honeywell,
Inc.; I.U. North America, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.; Industrial
Holdings Corporation; ITT Corporation; John Crane, Inc.; Lockheed
Martin Corporation; McJunkin Corporation; Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; Nagle Pumps, Inc.; National Service Industries
Venture, Inc.; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; O.C. Keckley
Company; Oakfabco, Inc.; Ohio Valley Insulating Company, Inc.;
Owens-Illinois, Inc.; PPG Industries, Inc.; Rapid American
Corporation; Riley Power Inc.; Rust Constructors, Inc.; Rust
Engineering & Construction, Inc.; Rust International, Inc.;
Schneider Electric; Spirax Sarco, Inc.; Sterling Fluid Systems
(USA), LLC; Superior Boiler Works, Inc.; Tasco Insulations, Inc.;
The Gage Company; The William Powell Company; UB West Virginia,
Inc.; Uniroyal, Inc.; United Conveyer Corporation; United
Engineers & Constructors and Washington Group International;
Viacom, Inc.; Viking Pump, Inc.; Vimasco Corporation; Warren
Pumps, Inc.; Weil-McLain Company; Yarway Corporation; Zenith
Pumps; and Zurn Industries, Inc.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 12-C-155


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Real Estate Bigwigs Breach Environmental Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma News Center reports that the neighbors of a
midtown Kansas City, Missouri development saw themselves move one
step closer to justice when the developer of the Citadel Plaza
admitted that he had committed countless asbestos-related
violations while working on the retail project between 2001 and
2006.

According to a report in the Kansas City Star, developer William
M. Threatt, Jr., consistently failed to properly remove and
dispose of large amounts of asbestos while overseeing the
development of the project.  Specifically, the former president of
the Community Development Corporation of Kansas City, along with
the corporation's former real estate director, Anthony Compton,
were charged with failing to inspect buildings that were to be
demolished, failure to identify asbestos within those structures,
and failure to remove those materials.

The Development Corporation had purchased the property from
Research Hospital with the intent of building a 35-acre mixed use
"plaza" that would include not only stores and restaurants but
also homes.  Locals were thrilled at the prospect of the $80
million retail center in their neighborhood but, instead, the
property sat for years and the site became contaminated with
asbestos-containing building materials as well as other toxins.

Prosecutors have alleged that any work that was performed at the
site was in violation of state and federal environmental laws.  As
a matter of fact, Threatt and Compton all but ignored the rules,
resulting in an eye-sore strewn with hazardous debris, creating a
threat to neighbors who fear asbestos exposure and the potential
of developing asbestos diseases like asbestosis and mesothelioma
cancer.

The city recently purchased the property for $15 million and after
clean-up they hope to take another stab at redeveloping the site.
In the meantime, Threatt and Compton await sentencing, which could
include up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. Court Affirms Liability Ruling v. Barney
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association appeals from the
decision of the workers' compensation review board affirming the
determination by the workers' compensation commissioner for the
first district that W.J. Barney Corporation was the party
responsible for the death of one of its former employees, Richard
Brooks.

The insurance company asserts that the board acted improperly in
affirming the commissioner's finding because the commissioner's
conclusion that the decedent was exposed to asbestos while
employed by Barney, and that that exposure was the last injurious
exposure, resulted from inferences unreasonably drawn from the
subordinate facts.

A three-member panel composed of Judge F. Herbert Gruendel, Judge
Douglas S. Lavine and Judge Carmen E. Espinosa of the Appellate
Court of Connecticut disagreed with the insurance company.

In a Feb. 7, 2012 opinion, the Appellate Court affirmed the
decision of the workers' compensation review board.  The Appellate
Court held that its review of the commission's decision persuaded
them that its factual findings were not clearly erroneous and that
the evidence presented supported the commissioner's decision.

The case is Brooks v. Electric Boat Corporation, AC 32632 (Conn.
App. Ct).  A copy of the Feb. 7 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/nU529Dfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Court Reverses Ruling vs. Lexington
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lexington Insurance Company appeals an order denying its motion to
set aside a default judgment for $800,000, plus costs and fees,
that the trial court entered in favor of Portland General Electric
Company.  The insurance case relates to personal-injury litigation
initiated by a person who alleged that he suffered from
mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos at one of Portland
General's power plants, where he worked in the 1970s.

In a Feb. 8, 2012 order, a three-member panel composed of Judge
Darleen Ortega, Judge Timothy Sercombe, and Judge Erika L. Hadlock
of the Court of Appeals of Oregon reversed the trial court's
ruling.

The Appellate Court agreed with the insurance company that the
trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the default judgment
awarding Portland General more than $800,000 in damages.  The
Appellate Court also agreed that the default judgment is void in
its entirety because the complaint did not seek any specific
amount in monetary damages.  The Appellate Court explained that it
is a fundamental rule that a trial court may enter a judgment
awarding more damages than the plaintiff sought in the complaint
only if the party against whom the judgment will be entered had
reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The case is Portland General Electric Company v. Ebasco Services,
Inc., No. A143752 (Ore. App. Ct.).  A copy of the Feb. 18 Decision
is available at http://is.gd/Mh2eFxfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delaware Court Junks Suit v. Arkema
----------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Melton alleges that she was exposed to asbestos when she
used Jelenko's asbestos tape to line metal investment rings used
in the fabrication of prosthetic teeth.  She initially testified
she used Jelenko tape in dental hygienist school at Aquinas Junior
College and Vanderbilt University from 1971-1973 and while working
as a dental assistant in Atlanta from 1973-1984.  In a second
deposition she recanted her earlier testimony about using Jelenko
asbestos tape.  Jelenko, through its successor-in-interest Arkema
Inc., argues that there is no evidence that Ms. Melton was exposed
to its product and therefore summary judgment should be granted.

In a Feb. 2, 2012 memorandum opinion, Judge John A. Parkins, Jr.,
of the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, granted
Arkema's motion for summary judgment holding that Ms. Melton has
shown that she could have come across Jelenko's tape occasionally,
maybe one roll, while working as dental assistant but she could
not state that she had in fact ever used it.  At best, Ms.
Melton's exposure to Jelenko's tape is de minimis.

The case is In re Asbestos Litigation: Phyllis Melton, C.A. No.
N10C-06-123 ASB (Del. Super. Ct.).  A copy of Judge Parkins'
Decision is available at http://is.gd/1gbeUtfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms $10-Mil. Ruling v. Lone Star
------------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos-related personal injury action, Lone Star
Industries, Inc., appeals from judgment entered in favor of
Charles H. Cundiff and his wife Glenda after a jury returned a
verdict in their favor on claims for strict liability based on
design defect and failure to warn.  Lone Star contends the trial
court erred by denying its motions for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict, a directed verdict, and a new trial, all premised on
the federal enclave doctrine.  Lone Star also challenges certain
of the trial court's evidentiary rulings, the jury's allocation to
it of 19% of the fault, and the jury's award of $10 million in
noneconomic damages.

In a memorandum dated Feb. 9, 2012 Justice Victoria M. Chavez of
the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two,
affirmed the judgment after ruling that Lone Star failed to
establish that the Cundiff's claims arose inside a federal
enclave, and the record discloses no abuse of discretion by the
trial court in its evidentiary rulings.  Substantial evidence
supports the jury's fault allocation and its award of noneconomic
damages, which were not excessive as a matter of law, the
Appellate Court held.

The case is Cundiff v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., No. B218420
(Calif. App. Ct.).  A copy of Justice Chavez's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/g9YTH5from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Motion to Supplement Record as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A five-member panel of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
of New York, First Department, signed a Feb. 9, 2012 order denying
a motion to supplement record or take judicial notice of certain
documents holding that the discontinuances in two of the actions
in In the Matter of New York County Asbestos Litigation, 2012 NY
Slip Op 00915, and substitution of counsel in the another deprive
A.O. Smith Water Products, et al., of any further controversy to
have determined; there does not appear to be any exception to the
mootness doctrine.

The Appellate Court added that if it were to address the merits,
it would find that the motion court properly granted the motion in
light of A.O. Smith's intimate familiarity with the other
defendants' settlement strategies.

The case is In re New York County Asbestos Litigation: Clark v.
A.O. Smith Water Products, et al., Case No. 190165/10, 6780N, 5809
(N.Y. Sup. Ct.).  A copy of the Feb. 9 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/ax871Gfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Dismisses Inmate's Exposure Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald D. Leonard, an inmate in the Ohio penal system, alleged
that the operators of the Chillicothe Correctional Institution
were deliberately indifferent to serious health risks to inmates
from asbestos to black mold exposure.

In a Feb. 9, 2012 report and recommendation, Judge Mark A. Abel of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, recommends that the defendants' motion for summary
judgment be granted on grounds that Mr. Leonard failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies with respect to all defendants other
than Robin Knab, that no genuine issue of material fact exists as
to whether Mr. Knab violated Mr. Leonard's Eighth Amendment rights
by acting with reckless disregard of a known risk of serious harm
to him, and that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to
whether Mr. Knab violated his First Amendment rights by
retaliating against him for exercising his right to access to the
court system.

The case is Leonard v. Mohr, Civil Action 2:11-cv-152 (S.D. Ohio).
A copy of Judge Abel's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/mKVKX5from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Drops Punitive Damages Award v. Fisher
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher Controls International, LLC, appeals from a judgment
awarding Stephen Drabczyk compensatory and punitive damages in a
wrongful death action based on the exposure of the plaintiff's
decedent to asbestos contained in valves produced by Fisher.

A five-member panel of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
of New York, Fourth Department, in a Feb. 10, 2012 ruling,
modified the judgment by vacating the award of punitive damages
and affirmed the judgment as modified.

The Appellate Court concluded that the evidence does not establish
that this case is a singularly rare case where punitive damages
are warranted, as asserted by the plaintiff.  The Appellate Court
added that the plaintiff failed to establish that Fisher engaged
in outrageous or oppressive intentional misconduct or acted with
reckless or wanton disregard of the safety or rights of the
decedent.

The case is In re Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation:
Drabczyk v. Fisher Controls International, LLC, 1321 CA
10-02145(N.Y. Sup. Ct.).  A copy of the Feb. 10 Decision is
available at http://is.gd/PowQ77from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Maremont Has $75MM Reserves at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, Inc., has asbestos-
related reserves of $75 million at December 31, 2011, according to
the Company's February 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
January 1, 2012.

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the company, acquired
Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants
in suits brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Maremont had
approximately 21,000 pending asbestos-related claims at December
31 and September 30, 2011. Although Maremont has been named in
these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged,
very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused
their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even
hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of
hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all
named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and
irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product.
For these reasons, Maremont does not consider the number of claims
filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in
determining its asbestos-related liability.

Maremont's asbestos-related reserves and corresponding asbestos-
related recoveries are (in millions):

                                     Dec. 31, 2011 Sept. 30, 2011
                                     ------------- --------------
Pending and future claims                 $75          $77
Asbestos-related insurance recoveries      67           67

Prior to February 2001, Maremont participated in the Center for
Claims Resolution and shared with other CCR members in the payment
of defense and indemnity costs for asbestos-related claims. The
CCR handled the resolution and processing of asbestos claims on
behalf of its members until February 2001, when it was reorganized
and discontinued negotiating shared settlements. Since the CCR was
reorganized in 2001, Maremont has handled asbestos-related claims
through its own defense counsel and has taken a more aggressive
defensive approach that involves examining the merits of each
asbestos-related claim. Although the company expects legal defense
costs to continue at higher levels than when it participated in
the CCR, the company believes its litigation strategy has reduced
the average indemnity cost per claim.

Maremont engages Bates White LLC, a consulting firm with extensive
experience estimating costs associated with asbestos litigation,
to assist with determining the estimated cost of resolving pending
and future asbestos-related claims that have been, and could
reasonably be expected to be, filed against Maremont. Bates White
prepares these cost estimates on a semi-annual basis in March and
September each year. Although it is not possible to estimate the
full range of costs because of various uncertainties, Bates White
advised Maremont that it would be possible to determine an
estimate of a reasonable forecast of the cost of the probable
settlement and defense costs of resolving pending and future
asbestos-related claims, based on historical data and certain
assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future.

Bates White provided an estimate of the reasonably possible range
of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over
the next 10 years of $73 million to $83 million. After
consultation with Bates White, Maremont determined that as of
September 30, 2011, the most likely and probable liability for
pending and future claims over the next ten years is $73 million.
The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is
estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for
plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an
established history with Maremont.

Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of
the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims. The
coverage also reimburses Maremont for any indemnity paid on those
claims. The coverage is provided by several insurance carriers
based on insurance agreements in place. Incorporating historical
information with respect to buy-outs and settlements of coverage,
and excluding any policies in dispute, the insurance receivable
related to asbestos-related liabilities is $67 million as of
December 31, 2011. The difference between the estimated liability
and insurance receivable is primarily related to proceeds received
from settled insurance policies. Certain insurance policies have
been settled in cash prior to the ultimate settlement of the
related asbestos liabilities. Amounts received from insurance
settlements generally reduce recorded insurance receivables.
Receivables for policies in dispute are not recorded.

Meritor, Inc., formerly named ArvinMeritor, Inc., headquartered in
Troy, Michigan, is a global supplier of a broad range of
integrated systems, modules and components to original equipment
manufacturers and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle,
transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Unit Still Faces Rockwell-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. (AM), a subsidiary of Meritor, Inc., along with
many other companies, continues to defend lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in
certain components of Rockwell International (Rockwell) products
many years ago, according to the Company's February 6, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended January 1, 2012.

Liability for these claims was transferred at the time of the
spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997.
Currently there are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name
AM, together with many other companies, as defendants. However,
the company does not consider the number of claims filed or the
damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in determining asbestos-
related liabilities. A significant portion of the claims do not
identify any of Rockwell's products or specify which of the
claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to
Rockwell's products, and past experience has shown that the vast
majority of the claimants will likely never identify any of
Rockwell's products. For those claimants who do show that they
worked with Rockwell's products, management nevertheless believes
it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the
integrity of the products involved and the lack of any impairing
medical condition on the part of many claimants. The company
defends these cases vigorously. Historically, AM has been
dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the
past with no payment to claimants.

The company engages Bates White to assist with determining whether
it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and
future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and
could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company.
Although it is not possible to estimate the full range of costs
because of various uncertainties, Bates White advised the company
that it would be able to determine an estimate of probable defense
and indemnity costs which could be incurred to resolve pending and
future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims. After consultation
with Bates White, the company determined that as of December 31
and September 30, 2011 the probable liability for pending and
future claims over the next four years is $19 million. The accrual
estimates are based on historical data and certain assumptions
with respect to events that may occur in the future. The
uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation and resolution of the
litigation with the insurance companies make it difficult to
predict accurately the ultimate resolution of asbestos claims
beyond four years. That uncertainty is increased by the
possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting
asbestos claim litigation or the settlement process.

Rockwell maintained insurance coverage that management believes
covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance
retentions, for most of these claims. The company has initiated
claims against certain of these carriers to enforce the insurance
policies, which are currently being disputed. The company expects
to recover some portion of defense and indemnity costs it has
incurred to date, over and above self-insured retentions, and some
portion of the costs for defending asbestos claims going forward.
Based on consultation with advisors and underlying analysis
performed by management, the company has recorded an insurance
receivable related to Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities
of $7 million and $9 million at December 31 and September 30,
2011, respectively. If the assumptions with respect to the nature
of pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of
available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of
liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on
the company, could differ materially from current estimates and,
therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial
condition and results of operations.

Meritor, Inc., formerly named ArvinMeritor, Inc., headquartered in
Troy, Michigan, is a global supplier of a broad range of
integrated systems, modules and components to original equipment
manufacturers and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle,
transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Appeal From $4.5MM Award Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 4, 2010, Gordon Bankhead and his spouse filed suit in
Superior Court for Alameda County, California, against more than
40 defendants that Mr. Bankhead claims manufactured or supplied
asbestos-containing products he allegedly was exposed to during
his career as a janitor; as an ordnance specialist in the National
Guard; and as an automotive parts-man. By the time trial began on
October 27, 2010, Mr. and Mrs. Bankhead had settled with all
defendants except for Meritor, Inc., formerly named ArvinMeritor,
Inc., and three other defendants. The claims against these four
defendants were limited to Mr. Bankhead's work as an automotive
parts-man. On December 23, 2010, the jury ruled against all four
defendants, including the company. The company was assessed
$375,000 in compensatory damages for which it has recorded a
liability at December 31, 2011. Additionally, the company was
assessed $4.5 million in punitive damages. The company has filed
an appeal on the punitive damages award to the California Court of
Appeals. Possible outcomes of the appeal include vacating the
damages award in its entirety, reducing the award, affirming the
award in its entirety or remanding the case back to the trial
court. Accordingly, the possible estimated range of loss is $0 to
$4.5 million. However, given the uncertainty associated with
litigation including the appeal process, the company is unable to
determine an estimate within that range which is considered more
probable than others and accordingly has not recorded any
liability at December 31, 2011. As a consequence of the uncertain
outcome of the appeal process, the company is unable to estimate
the impact, if any, the resolution of this matter may have on its
liability for pending and future claims at December 31, 2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 6,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended January 1, 2012.

Meritor, Inc., formerly named ArvinMeritor, Inc., headquartered in
Troy, Michigan, is a global supplier of a broad range of
integrated systems, modules and components to original equipment
manufacturers and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle,
transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Has 146 Cases Pending at Nov. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. has 146 asbestos cases pending as of November 30,
2011, according to the Company's February 7, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended November 30, 2011.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and
Pennsylvania. There were 146 asbestos cases pending as of November
30, 2011.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted
claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been
accrued for such contingencies.

GenCorp is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense products and
systems with a real estate segment that includes activities
related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of its
excess real estate assets.  The Company develops and manufactures
propulsion systems for defense and space applications, and
armaments for precision tactical and long range weapon systems
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Defends Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted
from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on
the Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its
products. The complaints in these cases are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The Company
in each case is one of numerous defendants and none of the claims
seek damages from the Company alone. The Company believes that the
claims against it are without merit and is vigorously defending
against them. It is not currently possible to reasonably estimate
a probable loss, if any, associated with these cases and,
accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in the Company's
condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company is
reviewing agreements and policies that may provide insurance
coverage or indemnity as to these claims and is pursuing coverage
under some of these agreements and policies, although there can be
no assurance of the results of these efforts. There can be no
assurance that these cases, whether as a result of adverse
outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will not
have a material effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2011.

Headquartered in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company
is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and sale of branded
products for consumer lawn and garden care.  The Company's primary
customers include home centers, mass merchandisers, warehouse
clubs, large hardware chains, independent hardware stores,
nurseries, garden centers and food and drug stores.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Faces Exposure Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation has exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from
American Optical Corporation in an April 1990 asset purchase
transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO
brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection
with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in
certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities,
including costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in
settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products
used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.

Cabot's respirator liabilities involve claims for personal injury,
including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis,
allegedly resulting from the use of respirators that are claimed
to have been negligently designed or labeled, according to the
Company's February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2011.

As of both December 31, 2011 and September 30, 2011, there were
approximately 42,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims
against AO in connection with respiratory products. The Company
has a reserve to cover its expected share of liability for
existing and future respirator liability claims. The book value of
the reserve is being accreted up to the undiscounted liability
through interest expense over the expected cash flow period, which
is through 2062.  At December 31, 2011 and September 30, 2011, the
reserve was $10 million and $11 million, respectively, on a
discounted basis ($16 million on an undiscounted basis at both
December 31, 2011 and September 30, 2011). Cash payments related
to this liability were less than $1 million and $1 million in the
first quarter of fiscal 2012 and 2011, respectively.

The Company has various other lawsuits, claims and contingent
liabilities arising in the ordinary course of its business. These
include a number of claims asserting premises liability for
asbestos exposure and claims in respect of its divested
businesses. In the Company's opinion, although final disposition
of some or all of these other suits and claims may impact its
financial statements in a particular period, they should not, in
the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its financial
position.

Cabot Corporation produces carbon black, a reinforcing and
pigmenting agent used in tires, inks, cables, and coatings.  It
has about 25% of the world market for the product.  The
Company is headquartered in Boston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., including its subsidiaries, continue to
defend themselves from lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of their products many years ago, according to the Company's
February 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2011.

Currently, there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that
name the Company as defendants, together with hundreds of other
companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of
the costs. However, the Company has agreed to defend and indemnify
asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by
its former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor
repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by the
Company, which occurred on January 31, 2007. The Company is also
responsible for half of the costs and liabilities associated with
asbestos cases against the former Rockwell International
Corporation's (RIC's) divested measurement and flow control
business. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that
they worked with the Company's products or products of divested
businesses for which the Company is responsible, the Company
nevertheless believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial
part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature
of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. The
Company defends those cases vigorously. Historically, the Company
has been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no
payment to claimants.

The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it believes
covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from its former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary. Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity
Company (Nationwide) and Kemper Insurance (Kemper), the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to Allen-
Bradley, the Company entered into separate agreements on April 1,
2008 with both insurance carriers to further resolve
responsibility for ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley
asbestos claims. In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought
out its remaining liability and has been released from further
insurance obligations to Allen-Bradley. Nationwide entered into a
cost share agreement with the Company to pay the substantial
majority of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley
asbestos claims.  The Company believes that this arrangement with
Nationwide will continue to provide coverage for Allen-Bradley
asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of the asbestos
liability.

The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based
on the Company's experience defending asbestos claims, it does not
believe these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Rockwell Automation, Inc., is an
industrial automation company that serves automotive, food and
beverage (including dairy), personal care, life sciences, oil and
gas, mining, and paper and pulp markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consol Energy's Unit Still Faces 7,500 Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
One of CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply Company
(Fairmont), which distributes industrial supplies, currently is
named as a defendant in approximately 7,500 asbestos claims in
state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, New
Jersey, Texas and Illinois, according to the Company's
February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third
parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained
asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass
complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or
more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine
how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs
who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied
by Fairmont. In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to
indemnity or contribution in certain jurisdictions from
manufacturers of identified products, the availability of such
indemnity or contribution is unclear at this time and, in recent
years, some of the manufacturers named as defendants in these
actions have sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy
laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these
asbestos cases. For the year ended December 31, 2011, payments by
Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been material.
Other of the Company's subsidiaries may also have asbestos claims
against them.  The Company's current estimates related to these
asbestos claims, individually and in the aggregate, are immaterial
to the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of
CONSOL Energy. However, it is reasonably possible that payments in
the future with respect to pending or future asbestos cases may be
material to the financial position, results of operations or cash
flows of CONSOL Energy.

Canonsburg, Pennsylvania-based CONSOL Energy Inc. is a coal mining
company with some 4.5 billion tons of proved reserves, mainly in
northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and
produces about 59 million tons of coal annually.

                           *********

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  * * *