CAR_Public/120323.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 23, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 59

                             Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: Recorded $1.3-MM Settlement Expense Recovery in 2011
AGENUS INC: Objectors' Appeals in IPO-Related Suit Dismissed
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: "Kassin" IPO-Related Class Suit Resolved
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Accord Design Defect
APPLE REIT SIX: Faces Another Shareholder Suit in New York

BEKINS VAN: Sued Over Unlawful Modification of Vacation Policies
BON HIVER: Recalls 200 Freebase Snowboard Bindings
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Rosendahl" Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Defends Consolidated Suit in California
BRILL SECURITIES: Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration

CHARLES SCHWAB: In Dispute with Finra Over Arbitration Process
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Faces SureWest Merger-Related Suits
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Suit Over Underpaid Royalties Still Pending
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CA: May Face Suits Over Housing Policies
CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Unit Faces Another Class Suit in Arkansas

DAVEY TREE: Unit Settled "Ely" Suit for $2.9-Mil. in January
DAVID STERN: June 8 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GOV'T OF ALBERTA: May 4 Foster Care Suit Opt-Out Deadline Set
GOV'T OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Coerced Adoptions
GREAT WOLF: Being Sold to Apollo for Too Little, Suit Claims

GREAT WOLF: Faces Another Suit Over Proposed Sale to Apollo
IMMERSION CORP: Consolidated IPO Litigation Has Concluded
IMMERSION CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
KOSMOS ENERGY: Faces IPO-Related Securities Suit in Texas
LIFEWAY FOODS: Misleads Bio Kefir & ProBugs Consumers, Suit Says

METROPOLITAN HEALTH: Court Okays Merger-Related Suit Settlement
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
OLIVE GARDEN: Faces Wage Class Action in California
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Faces Three Securities Suits in California
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal

ROADRUNNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Ariz.
RON WILSON: Attorney to Launch Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme
SANOFI: Awaits Mandate Dismissing Santa Clara Suit vs. Aventis
SANOFI: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in Securities Suit
SANOFI: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Merial Over Heartgard Ads

SANOFI: Settlement of AWP Suits vs. Units Gets Final OK in Dec.
SANOFI: Unit Faces 10 Class Suits Over Frontline Advertisement
SANOFI: Unit Settled DDAVP Direct Purchasers' Claims in August
SANTARUS INC: Settled Wage and Hour Class Suit Last Month
SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Faces Overtime Class Action

SERVICEMASTER CO: "Rudd" Suit Deal to Be Implemented in 2012
SILICON IMAGE: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Now Concluded
SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Class Action Complaint Amended
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Awaits OK of Consolidated Suit Settlement
SUNRISE SENIOR: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Purnell" Suit

VERENIUM CORP: Settlement of IPO Shareholder Suits Now Final
WALTER ENERGY: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
WORLD WRESTLING: Settlement of IPO-Related Suit Completed
YMCA: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Assault Incidents
ZOLL MEDICAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Mass. Suit Claims

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Remains a Defendant in 30 Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 29,064 Pending Suits v. General Cable at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 50,090 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Had 5,443 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich Continues to Defend Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26,000 Pending Claims v. Dana Holding at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Continues to Seek Coverage for Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brunswick Unit Still a Defendant in 2,500 Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 23,682 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $431.1MM Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $12.2M 2011 Liability & Defense Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Has Net Reserves of $32.2MM at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Sees $7.4MM Cash Outflow in 2012
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler UK Units Have 301 Open Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler US Units Have 124,540 Open Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Has $1MM Payable Under Trust in 2012
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexandria's Conditional Obligations Reach $10MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Has $10M Accrued Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $49.6MM Remains Due Under Cooper's Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Remains a Defendant in Filter Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS International Still a Defendant in PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Faces 12,000 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had 746 Open Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Host Hotels Records $3MM Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleco Power's Removal Cost Estimated at $300,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Holdings' ARO at Dec. 31 Was $18.1 Million
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pending Cases vs. Fluor Corp. Have Decreased
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITC Holdings Records $3.6MM ARO at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket's Undiscounted Liability Is $11MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Remains a Defendant in PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had 8,072 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still a Defendant in 2,321 Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loews' CNA Unit Still Exposed to Asbestos Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Ct. Dismisses Complaint v. GE, et al.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Ct. Reverses Dismissal of Whipkey Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Junks Suit v. Crane Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Porter Hayden Must Show Source of Coverage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Not Entitled to Liability Reduction

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Refuses to Rule on Work-Related Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Steel Lawyer Calls John Crane "Plaintiff Foil"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Halts Demolition on Contaminated House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Debate Over Bill to Pay Off Widowed Families
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Visitors May Have Been Exposed in Corgi Hosiery

ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Mesothelioma Victims Plea on Government Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Takers for US Navy Facility Demolition Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Del Puerto Hospital Still Stir Up Neighbors
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Call to Quebec's NDP MPs to Expose Paradis' Role
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPSM Provides Data for Constructors/Electricians

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminants Spark Urge to Relocate Academy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DPH Vows Danvers Dumpers Will Face Prosecution
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yorkshire School Carcinogen-Free by April 16
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Azko Nobel's Move to Reveal Trust Claims Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Individual Unions Oppose Opening of Mines

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Visiting Councilors May Be Exposed to Carcinogens
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turnall Profits Hike On Non-Asbestos Products
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Ex-Welder's Mate to Pursue Legal Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old City Hall Redo Expected to Complete By April
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Points to Carcinogenic Dust From Books

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Webber v. Ford Motor Un-Ends With Post Trial Move
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gillam Has Always Been a Hazmat Disposal Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: KDEP Aids Cleanup After Calamity, Warns of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medway Council Hunts Down Illegal Fly-Tippers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Testify in Case Over Sailor's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurbrugg Hospital Toxic Debris Remain Unheeded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPSM Provides Data for Industrial/Plant Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peacock's "Toxic Chronicles" Will Highlight AIAAC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bernie Banton's Life Chronicled in "Devil's Dust"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calgary Univ. Faculty's Death Raises Red Flags

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suntrust Tower Will be Tested for Carcinogens
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regulators to Restrict Alternative Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Takers for C$25MM Needed to Restart Mines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sandy Cape Remains Open Despite Carcinogens Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Navy's Sinkex Program Raises Safety Alarms

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Passes Asbestos Awareness Resolution
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Hosts Pre-Demolition "Abatement Class"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Toxic Business Thrives in Thetford Mines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIF Grants Over AU$700,000 To First Recipients
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Leads Carcinogen Handling Co In Charleston

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Upton Residents Say No To Compost Plant Operation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cardiff Surveyor Misses Target, Fined GBP8,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition in Warrnambool Stirs Unaware Neighbors
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Delay Anglesea Skate Park Upgrades
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coulombe Says WHO Statistics a "Fantasy"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Prompt Macedon for All School Check
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Says Loan Should Be Used on Non-Toxics
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Thanks Sponsors of "Asbestos Awareness Week"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Letter Pleas for Dr. Leitch to Choose Ethics
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sam Hider Reopens After Test Came Up Negative


                          *********

ADAMS GOLF: Recorded $1.3-MM Settlement Expense Recovery in 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adams Golf, Inc. disclosed in its March 6, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that the $1.3
million recovery of expense in its settlement relating to a
consolidated class action lawsuit was recorded during the year
ended December 31, 2011.

On June 17, 2010, the Court approved the final class action
settlement regarding the consolidated securities class action
filed in June 1999 in the United States District court of the
District of Delaware.  The court entered an order dismissing with
prejudice all claims against all defendants in the litigation.
The settlement provided for a total payment to the class of $16.5
million in cash and a payment of the first $1.25 million, after
attorneys fees and costs, actually received (if any) by the
Company in connection with its litigation against its former
insurance broker Thilman & Filipini, LLC ("T&F") and its former
insurance carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company ("ZAIC").  Of
the $16.5 million cash settlement amount, $5 million was paid by
the Company, which it accrued as a liability during the quarter
ended September 30, 2009, and was paid to the settlement fund in
March 2010.  As part of the settlement, the underwriters for the
initial public offering released the Company from any
indemnification obligation.  On July 19, 2010, the appeals period
for the final order of dismissal expired and the litigation was
fully and finally resolved.

The Company disclosed that it maintains directors' and officers'
and corporate liability insurance to cover certain risks
associated with, among other things, securities law-based claims
filed against the Company or its directors and officers.  During
the period covering its initial public offering, the Company
maintained insurance from multiple carriers, each insuring a
different layer of exposure, up to a total of $50 million.  In
June 1999, a class action lawsuit, which the Company settled in
June 2010, was filed against it concerning its initial public
offering.  The Company says it has met the financial deductible of
its directors' and officers' insurance policy for the period
covered by the lawsuit.  On March 30, 2006, ZAIC, which provided
insurance coverage totaling $5 million for the layer of exposure
between $15 million and $20 million, notified the Company that it
was denying coverage of claims in the class action lawsuit because
it was allegedly not timely notified of the class action lawsuit.
On October 11, 2007, the Company filed a lawsuit against its
former insurance broker, T&F, asserting various causes of action
arising out of T&F's alleged failure to notify ZAIC of the class
action lawsuit.  T&F moved to dismiss the Company's lawsuit on the
basis that the lawsuit was premature in that the Company had not
been damaged because it had not paid any sums in satisfaction of a
judgment or settlement of the class action securities litigation.
That motion was denied pursuant to a Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated September 26, 2008.  On November 16, 2009, the Company filed
a Second Amended Complaint reasserting its causes of action
against T&F and adding ZAIC as a defendant to the lawsuit,
asserting various causes of action against it arising out of its
denial of coverage for the class action lawsuit.

On December 15, 2011, the Company entered into a Compromise
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with ZAIC to settle the
Company's insurance coverage lawsuit against ZAIC.  Pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement, ZAIC agreed to pay the Company $7.65
million in cash.  In addition, the Company and ZAIC agreed to
release, the other party and the other party's affiliates,
directors, officers and attorneys from any claims related to the
lawsuit or the facts and circumstances at issue in the litigation.
The Company also agreed to certain indemnification obligations.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement reached by the Company in
the underlying class action lawsuit, the Company was required to
pay the class action plaintiffs the first $1.25 million from the
Company's recovery against ZAIC in the coverage lawsuit.  Prior to
December 31, 2011, the Company received the full settlement amount
of $7.65 million and remitted the portion due to the class action
plaintiffs of $1.25 million.  The recovery of settlement expense,
net of $1.3 million in legal fees incurred during 2011 was
recorded during the year ended
December 31, 2011 and is included in the statement of operations.


AGENUS INC: Objectors' Appeals in IPO-Related Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals filed by various objectors to Agenus Inc.'s settlement of
a litigation over initial public offerings have been dismissed,
according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Agenus, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Garo H. Armen,
Ph.D., and two investment banking firms that served as
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering were named
as defendants in a federal civil class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Substantially similar actions were filed concerning the
initial public offerings for more than 300 different issuers, and
the cases were coordinated for pre-trial purposes as In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.  The lawsuit
alleged that the brokerage arms of the investment banking firms
charged secret excessive commissions to certain of their customers
in return for allocations of the Company's stock in the offering.
The lawsuit also alleged that shares of the Company's stock were
allocated to certain of the investment banking firms' customers
based upon agreements by such customers to purchase additional
shares of the Company's stock in the secondary market.  These
coordinated lawsuits were resolved pursuant to a global
settlement.  Any portion of the settlement attributable to Agenus
has been funded by insurance, and Agenus bears no financial
liability.  Appeals filed by various objectors to the settlement
have been dismissed.

The Company states that no accrual has been recorded at
December 31, 2011, for this action.


AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: "Kassin" IPO-Related Class Suit Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The litigation related to Agilent Technologies, Inc.'s initial
public offering is now resolved, according to the Company's
March 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012.

In November 2001, a securities class action, Kassin v. Agilent
Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639, was
filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Court") against certain investment bank
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"),
Agilent and various of its officers and directors at the time of
the IPO.  In 2003, the Court granted Agilent's motion to dismiss
the claims against Agilent based on Section 10 of the Securities
Exchange Act, but denied Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims
based on Section 11 of the Securities Act.  In June 2004, papers
formalizing a settlement among the plaintiffs, Agilent and more
than 200 other issuer defendants and insurers were presented to
the Court.  Under the proposed settlement, plaintiffs' claims
against Agilent and its directors and officers would be released,
in exchange for a contingent payment (which, if made, would be
paid by Agilent's insurer) and an assignment of certain potential
claims.  However, class certification of plaintiffs' underlying
action against the underwriter defendants was a condition of the
settlement.

In December 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the
"Second Circuit") reversed the Court's order certifying such a
class in several "test cases" that had been selected by the
underwriter defendants and plaintiffs.  In January 2007,
plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to the full bench of the
Second Circuit.  In April 2007, the Second Circuit issued an order
denying rehearing but noted that plaintiffs are free to "seek
certification of a more modest class."  In June 2007, the Court
entered an order terminating the proposed settlement between
plaintiffs and the issuer defendants based on a stipulation among
the parties.  Plaintiffs have amended their allegations and filed
amended complaints in six "test cases" (none of which involve
Agilent).  Defendants in these cases have moved to dismiss the
amended complaints.  In March 2008, the Court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The parties have again reached a
global settlement of the litigation and filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement in April 2009.  Under the
settlement, the insurers would pay the full amount of settlement
share allocated to Agilent, and Agilent would bear no financial
liability.  Agilent, as well as the officer and director
defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant
to tolling agreements, would receive complete dismissals from the
case.

In October 2009, the Court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement.  Four objectors appealed the Court's
order to the Second Circuit.  Of the four objectors, two withdrew
their respective appeals.  Of the remaining two appeals, the
Second Circuit dismissed one and remanded the other to the Court
for a determination of whether this objector is a proper member of
the plaintiff class.  The Court found this objector was not a
proper class member, but the objector appealed that decision to
the Second Circuit.

Subsequently, the objector agreed to withdraw his appeal and the
Second Circuit ordered the withdrawal on January 13, 2012.  The
case is, therefore, finished.  Accordingly, the approved
settlement is now final, and Agilent considers the entire matter
resolved.


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Accord Design Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that 2008-10 Honda Accords have "a systemic design defect that
enables oil to enter into the engine's combustion chamber."

A copy of the Complaint in Soto, et al. v. American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., Case No. 12-cv-01377 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/20/HondaCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 400
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: bterrell@tmdlegal.com

               - and -

          Steven N. Berk, Esq.
          Matthew J. Bonness, Esq.
          BERK LAW PLLC
          2002 Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest, Suite 100
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 232-7550
          E-mail: steven@berklawdc.com
                  matt@berklawdc.com


APPLE REIT SIX: Faces Another Shareholder Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Six, Inc. disclosed in its March 5, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that it
is facing another shareholder class action lawsuit in New York.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The parties
agreed to a schedule for answering or otherwise responding to the
complaint and that briefing on any motion to dismiss the complaint
will be concluded by June 18, 2012.  The Company was previously
named as a party in the Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner
Associates, Inc., et al. class action lawsuit.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight,
Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units
that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates,
Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of
shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The consolidated complaint also asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation
of the securities laws of Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, certification of a putative nationwide
class and the state subclasses, damages, rescission of share
purchases and other costs and expenses.

                          Brody Matter

On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of the Company and Apple
REIT Seven, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against the Company, Apple REIT
Seven, Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc.,
David Lerner Associates, Inc., and certain executives of David
Lerner Associates, Inc.  The complaint, purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Units of the Company and Apple REIT
Seven, Inc., or those who otherwise acquired these Units, asserts
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach
of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of
written or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates,
Inc. defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state
securities laws.  Counsel for the plaintiff in Laurie Brody v.
David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. has consented to
consolidating this case into the In re Apple REITs Litigation.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


BEKINS VAN: Sued Over Unlawful Modification of Vacation Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Dassoff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bekins Van Lines, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Paul
Lombardo, Gary Wolfe, Joseph Sabga, Robert Land, and Douglas
McGrath, Case No. 2012-CH-09428 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
March 15, 2012) arises from the Defendants' alleged deliberate and
willful violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
In 2011, Bekins allegedly issued an unlawful modification to its
longstanding vacation policies that effectively deprived its
employees from receiving full compensation for their unused
vacation days.

The Plaintiff contends that Bekins issued this new policy two
weeks after announcing a layoff that would terminate the positions
of 102 employees.  He asserts that despite the unduly short
notice, Bekins required employees, including him and the putative
Class, to use their vacation days prior to their date of
termination, or forfeit those days without compensation.  He
alleges that the policy was nothing more than a thinly-veiled
attempt to unlawfully reduce the amount of final compensation that
employees would receive following their termination from the
Company.

Mr. Dassoff is a citizen of the state of Illinois, and was
employed by Bekins as a full-time employee from March 18, 1997,
until February I5, 2012.

Bekins is a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters
located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Bekins provides residential and
commercial relocation services throughout the United States and
Canada.  The Individual Defendants are members of the Company's
Board of Directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 588-1440
          Facsimile: (312) 427-1850
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  gbarbakoff@siprut.com


BON HIVER: Recalls 200 Freebase Snowboard Bindings
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bon Hiver Inc., of Chester, New York, announced a voluntary recall
of about 200 Bon Hiver Freebase Snowboard Bindings.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The binding's base plate can fracture from impact during use,
posing a fall hazard to snowboarders.

Bon Hiver has received two reports of the base plates fracturing
during use.  There have been no reports of injuries or property
damage.

The recalled products are Bon Hiver Freebase snowboard bindings in
the following models: 11 Series -- Assault or Infrared, 13 Series
-- Arsenal or Hellfire and 18 Series -- Stealth or Storm.  The
bindings are sold in pairs.  Each binding is made up of two
pieces: a boot base and a base plate.  The boot base, which
attaches to the snowboarder's boot, has a high back, ankle strap,
toe strap and footplate.  It is made of plastic and aluminum, has
six magnets on the underside of the footplate and is made in the
following colors: black, blue, red and white.  The Bon Hiver logo
appears on the back of the boot base near the top and across the
ankle strap.  The words "Bon Hiver Snowboarding" appear on the
heel.  The series number is located next to the logo on the back
of the boot base and on the side of one of the footplates.  The
base plate is flat and made of black plastic.  It has four locking
mechanisms to attach it to the board.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12134.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
BonHiver.com and ski and snowboard retailers from November 2011 to
December 2011 for between $260 and $350.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bindings and
return them to Bon Hiver for a free repair and a 20 percent refund
of the purchase price.  For additional information, please contact
Bon Hiver at (877) 456-2320 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday or e-mail the firm at
customerservice@bonhiver.com


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Rosendahl" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In January 2011, Bridgepoint Education, Inc. received a copy of a
complaint filed as a class action lawsuit naming the Company,
Ashford University and University of the Rockies as defendants.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on January 11, 2011, and is
captioned Rosendahl v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.  The complaint
generally alleges that the Company and the other defendants
engaged in improper, fraudulent and illegal behavior in their
efforts to recruit and retain students.  The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
it.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 7, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Defends Consolidated Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. is defending a consolidated class
action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's
March 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In February 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed
as a class action lawsuit naming the Company, Ashford University,
LLC, and certain employees as defendants.  The complaint was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego on
February 17, 2011, and is captioned Stevens v. Bridgepoint
Education, Inc.  The complaint generally alleges that the
plaintiffs and similarly situated employees were improperly denied
certain wage and hour protections under California law.  The
Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously
defending against it.

In April 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as
a class action lawsuit naming the Company and Ashford University,
LLC, as defendants.  The complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California in San Diego on
April 25, 2011, and is captioned Moore v. Ashford University, LLC.
The complaint generally alleges that the plaintiff and similarly
situated employees were improperly denied certain wage and hour
protections under California law.  The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
it.

In May 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as a
class action lawsuit naming the Company as a defendant.  The
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego on May 6, 2011, and is captioned Sanchez
v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.  The complaint generally alleges
that the plaintiff and similarly situated employees were
improperly denied certain wage and hour protections under
California law.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against it.

In October 2011, an order was issued by a judge in the Superior
Court of the State of California, San Diego, to consolidate the
cases entitled Stevens v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., Moore v.
Ashford University, LLC and Sanchez v. Bridgepoint Education,
Inc., which involve common questions of fact and law.  The order
designated Stevens v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. as the lead
case.


BRILL SECURITIES: Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
Three stockbrokers won a resounding victory in the New York State
Appellate Division, First Department as the Court found that the
Plaintiffs could not be compelled to arbitrate their claims.  The
law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP represents
the Plaintiff stockbrokers.  The suit charges that during their
employment at Brill Securities, Inc., stockbrokers were
compensated solely by commissions yet consistently worked in
excess of 40 hours a week and never received the legally mandated
time-and-a-half overtime pay.  The class action was filed on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other stockbrokers who worked for
Brill Securities in New York during the last six years.

Defendants sought to defeat the class action by arguing that an
arbitration agreement in stockbrokers' U4 forms precluded class
actions.  The Appellate Court rejected Defendants' argument in its
entirety and held that the claims shall proceed as a class action,
an enormous victory for the Plaintiffs.

Attorney Michael Palmer, who argued the case on behalf of the
Plaintiffs, stated, "We are pleased by the Court's decision which
enforced the parties' agreement to arbitrate only those claims
permitted by the FINRA rules.  FINRA has consistently recognized
that broker-dealers cannot compel stockbrokers to arbitrate claims
which were filed as a class action.  The Court recognized that a
defendant cannot breach their own arbitration agreement to avoid
class litigation." Adds attorney Matthew Kadushin, "This slams the
door on broker-dealers, who are now without defense."

A copy of the First Department's decision can be found here:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_01877.htm

For more information, call Matthew Kadushin toll free (866) 348-
7394, e-mail him at matthew@jhllp.com or visit
http://www.jhllp.com

Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP currently represents
stockbrokers in eleven class actions for unpaid wages and welcomes
inquiries from commission-only stockbrokers and other victims of
unpaid wages.


CHARLES SCHWAB: In Dispute with Finra Over Arbitration Process
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Light, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
discount brokerage Charles Schwab and the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, or Finra, are in the midst of a dispute over
whether investors be allowed to bring class-action lawsuits
against brokerages.  It could have wide implications for
investors.

When investors open brokerage accounts, they're generally required
to agree not to sue the broker.  Instead, they have to settle
disputes through an arbitration process run by Finra, which is
funded by the industry.

Finra, however, doesn't have an arbitration process for class-
action claims -- in which a large number of plaintiffs with
similar complaints band together -- and says its rules prohibit
brokerages from making customers agree to class-action waivers.

Despite this, Schwab added a class-action waiver to its customer
agreements in September.  It cited an April U.S. Supreme Court
decision that allowed companies to limit class-action lawsuits
with arbitration clauses.

Gilbert Serota, the lawyer representing Schwab in the case, says
that indicates that federal law also would override Finra's rules
that Finra says forbid the waivers.  A Finra spokeswoman declined
to comment.

Last month, Finra began a disciplinary proceeding to penalize
Schwab for violating the rules, and in response, Schwab sued Finra
in an attempt to get courts to determine that its waiver couldn't
be barred by the regulator.

The two sides are next scheduled to meet in U.S. district court in
April.

"If Schwab gets what it wants, it would deprive customers of the
opportunity to bring any claims as a class," says Jill Gross,
director of the Investor Rights Clinic at Pace Law School in White
Plains, N.Y.

Schwab officials, for their part, say class-action lawsuits
benefit lawyers more than customers.

Mr. Serota, Schwab's lawyer, says the company believes customers
are better served bringing their claims individually through
arbitration or through Schwab's internal dispute process.  "It's
much more efficient and cost-effective than a class action," he
says.

Schwab has been hit by class-action lawsuits before.  Last month,
customers filed a class-action suit against Schwab that alleges
the company secretly recorded customer phone calls without their
consent.

Since last peaking at 7,137 in 2009, the number of new arbitration
cases filed with Finra has tapered off.  Investors filed about
4,700 cases in 2011, down almost 17% from 2010.  In 2011, the
arbitration process awarded damages to customers in about 44% of
cases, according to Finra.

Most arbitration cases brought to Finra involve damages that run
into thousands of dollars, says Ryan Bakhtiari, president of the
Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association.  When damages are
smaller, attorneys often pursue a class-action lawsuit to make it
worth their time, he says.

If a broker charged customers too wide a spread on trades, for
example, a single customer's damages might be only a few dollars,
but the total damages among all of its customers could run into
millions of dollars, Mr. Bakhtiari says.

Without the option to bring a class-action lawsuit, customers and
attorneys would be unlikely to pursue small claims.  "No one is
going to hire a lawyer to litigate a $12 claim," he says.

Changes in brokerage agreements are rare, which made Schwab's move
surprising to many attorneys in the securities industry, says
Ernest Badway, co-head of the securities industry group at Fox
Rothschild, a Philadelphia law firm.

"It's an agreement that's fairly standard across brokerages and
doesn't change often," he says.

If Schwab prevails in this case, Mr. Bakhtiari says, other
brokerage firms might follow suit in introducing their own
waivers, effectively making it impossible for customers to bring
class-action suits against brokerages.

"Other brokers are going to be paying close attention to this
case," he says.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Faces SureWest Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. is facing two putative
class action lawsuits challenging its proposed merger with
SureWest Communications, according to the Company's March 5, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On February 5, 2012, the Company entered into a definitive
agreement to acquire all the outstanding shares of SureWest
Communications ("SureWest") for $23.00 per share in a cash and
stock transaction with a total consideration valued at
approximately $340.9 million, exclusive of debt, based on the
Company's February 3, 2012 closing price.

Two putative class action lawsuits have been filed by alleged
SureWest shareholders challenging the Company's proposed merger
with SureWest in which the Company, WH Acquisition Corp. and WH
Acquisition II Corp, SureWest and members of the SureWest board of
directors have been named as defendants.  Each of these actions
was filed in the Superior Court of California, Placer County.  The
actions are called Needles v. SureWest Communications, et al.,
filed February 17, 2012, Case No. SCV0030665, and Errecart v.
Oldham, et al., filed February 24, 2012, Case No. SCV0030703.  The
actions generally allege, among other things, that each member of
the SureWest board of directors breached fiduciary duties to
SureWest and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of SureWest
to the Company for consideration that allegedly is unfair to the
SureWest shareholders and agreeing to terms that allegedly unduly
restrict other bidders from making a competing offer.  The
complaints also allege that the Company and SureWest aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly committed by
the members of the SureWest board of directors.  The shareholder
actions seek equitable relief, including an order to the
defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms,
as well as unspecified money damages.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and that
the alleged damages are completely unfounded.  The Company says it
intends to defend against these claims vigorously.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Suit Over Underpaid Royalties Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Partners LLC continues to defend a class
action lawsuit in Oklahoma over alleged underpaid royalties,
according to the Company's March 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On October 28, 2011, Jerry and Betty Wattenbarger and Patricia
Webb, individually and as class representatives on behalf of
similarly situated persons, filed a Class Action petition in the
District Court of Nowata County, Oklahoma against the Company, CEP
Mid-Continent, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company, and Newfield
Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc., alleging Plaintiffs own oil, gas
and mineral interests in lands and wells located in Nowata County,
Oklahoma, subject to oil and gas leases owned and operated by
Defendants and that Defendants have underpaid royalties due and
owing on the true value received or that should have been received
by Defendants for production from Plaintiffs' mineral interests.
Plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, breach of implied
covenant to market; breach of express and implied lease
obligations; violation of statutory law; breach of duty of good
faith and fair dealing and of the duty to act as a reasonably
prudent operator; breach of fiduciary duty; constructive fraud and
failure to disclose facts surrounding deductions made from royalty
payments.  Plaintiffs seek certification of a statewide class of
plaintiffs, specify that the class claims against the Company and
its subsidiary relate to the proper payment for production
occurring on or after
February 1, 2007, and currently limit damage claims against all
Defendants to no more than $75,000 with respect to each Plaintiff
and no more than $5 million in the aggregate for the Plaintiffs
and the individual putative class members, in each case exclusive
of interest and costs, but inclusive of any attorneys' fees.

On December 1, 2011, the case was removed by Defendants to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma, and on December 28, 2011, Defendants filed their answer
to Plaintiff's petition.


COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CA: May Face Suits Over Housing Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Villacorte, writing for Daily News, reports that the
city of Lancaster, which is facing allegations of intimidating and
driving out minorities in public housing, is now itself plotting
class-action lawsuits against Los Angeles County, claiming its
housing policies are racist.

Mayor R. Rex Parris is "actively looking" for attorneys and
expects to file two or more lawsuits within 30 to 60 days.

"One would be on behalf of people who were denied Section 8
(federal rental subsidies) based upon de facto discrimination," he
said.  "The other would be on behalf of Section 8 recipients in
the Antelope Valley who are not getting the health care that they
need."

Earlier this week, the city filed a complaint with the federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development against the county
Housing Authority.

The complaint questioned why blacks outnumbered Latinos 5:1 among
Lancaster residents who received Section 8 vouchers from the
Housing Authority in 2008.

The complaint also charged that the Housing Authority encouraged
its black Section 8 recipients to settle in Lancaster without
disclosing the city's 18 percent unemployment rate.

Mayor Parris said the county then failed to provide adequate
health care services to those Section 8 recipients, causing higher
mortality rates and shorter life spans for blacks, in particular.

"They're sending people into the Antelope Valley knowing that a
large number of them are going to die because they don't have the
medical care they're going to need," he said.

The city accused the county Housing Authority of "intentional
racial steering of its Section 8 program recipients."

But Emilio Salas, deputy executive director for the Housing
Authority, dismissed the allegations as "completely without
merit."

"We issue vouchers to applicants who are on our waiting lists," he
said.  "When we issue that voucher, we never know where they're
going to end up since applicants can choose to live anywhere."

Mr. Salas said the agency would welcome a review by HUD, adding
"it would only confirm what we already know."

He also adamantly denied the Housing Authority encouraged Section
8 recipients to go to Lancaster.

"Never ever do we promote one community over another, as that is
against HUD regulations."

Lancaster's plans for class-action lawsuits comes months after
several Section 8 recipients sued the city, as well as Palmdale
and Los Angeles County, of allegedly racist harassment and
eviction.

To settle the lawsuit, both Palmdale and Los Angeles County agreed
to stop having sheriff's deputies participate in raids on the
homes of Section 8 recipients.

Lancaster alone vowed to fight back.

A HUD and Department of Justice investigation are both pending.


CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Unit Faces Another Class Suit in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Midstream Partners LP's subsidiary is facing another
putative class action lawsuit alleging its operations pollute the
atmosphere, groundwater and soil, according to the Company's March
1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In May 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, Ginardi v. Frontier
Gas Services, LLC, et al., was filed in the United States District
Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas against Frontier Gas
Services, LLC, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, BHP Billiton
Petroleum, Kinder Morgan Treating, LP, and Crestwood Arkansas
Pipeline LLC (which was served in August 2011) No 4:11-cv-0420
BRW.  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' operations pollute
the atmosphere, groundwater, and soil with allegedly harmful
gases, chemicals, and compounds and the facilities create
excessive noise levels constituting trespass, nuisance and
annoyance ("Ginardi case").  In December 2011, a putative class
action lawsuit, George Bartlett, et al, v. Frontier Gas Services,
LLC, et al including Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline, LLC, Chesapeake
Energy Corporation, and Kinder Morgan Treating LP, was filed in
the United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Arkansas, No 4: 11-cv-0910 BSM alleging the same causes as in the
Ginardi case ("Bartlett case").  In each of the Ginardi and the
Bartlett case, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages of loss of use and enjoyment of property, contamination of
soil and ground water, air and atmosphere and seek future
monitoring.  The Company has filed answers in the Ginardi and
Bartlett case denying any liability.  The court has not certified
either lawsuit as a class action.

The Company says that while it cannot reasonably quantify its
ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages or
other remedial actions, neither the Ginardi nor the Bartlett cases
have had, nor are they expected to have, a material impact on the
Company's results of operation, cash flows or financial condition.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against both claims and
to mitigate any clams by pursuing any indemnification obligations
to which it may be entitled with respect to the properties as well
as any coverage from its insurance.


DAVEY TREE: Unit Settled "Ely" Suit for $2.9-Mil. in January
------------------------------------------------------------
The Davey Tree Expert Company's subsidiary entered into a
$2,900,000 settlement agreement in January 2012 to resolve a class
action lawsuit commenced by Peter Ely et al., according to the
Company's March 1, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Davey Tree Surgery Company, a subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert
Company, was named as a defendant in Peter Ely et al. v. Davey
Tree Surgery Company, et al., a purported class-action lawsuit in
the State of California filed on July 15, 2008, in the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda.
The plaintiffs alleged on behalf of themselves and a putative
class that Davey Tree Surgery Company failed to comply with
California law concerning off-duty meal periods and the required
content of paycheck stubs.

The plaintiffs alleged that they and the putative "meal periods"
class were not provided with uninterrupted, duty-free 30-minute
meal periods.  In addition, plaintiffs claimed that because they
were allegedly required to work during their meal breaks, Davey
Tree Surgery Company violated California's minimum wage law
because they and the putative class members were not paid minimum
wage for their alleged work during meal breaks.  Plaintiffs also
contended that Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California law
by not including the time that they and the putative "wage
statement" class members worked during their meal periods, their
hourly rates of pay and number of hours worked at each hourly rate
on their paycheck stubs.

The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
certified both the "meal periods" class and the "wage statements"
class; some individuals were members of both classes, while others
were members of only one class (collectively, the "class
members").  A trial was initially scheduled for January 30, 2012.

The trial was rescheduled to March 26, 2012, pending results of a
mediation process initiated in January 2012 with plaintiffs and
Local Union 1245 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (the "Union").

As a result of the mediation, on January 6, 2012, Davey Tree
Surgery Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of
All Claims (the "Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiffs,
counsel for the class members, and the Union representing the
class members.

The Settlement Agreement requires court approval of its terms, a
process that could take several months to complete.  In the event
that the Court denies final approval of the Settlement Agreement
with prejudice and both Davey Tree Surgery Company and the
plaintiffs have exhausted all means to challenge that denial, the
Settlement Agreement will be void in all respects and the
litigation will continue.

The Settlement Agreement provides for Davey Tree Surgery Company
to pay a total sum of $2,900,000.


DAVID STERN: June 8 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for South Florida Business Journal,
reports that almost 800 former employees of foreclosure attorney
David Stern will receive an average of about $450 apiece for
claims that Mr. Stern failed to adequately warn them of impending
layoffs in early 2011, according to a proposed class action
lawsuit settlement.

Mr. Stern was one of the nation's leading foreclosure attorneys.
He and his companies processed thousands of foreclosures for major
lenders in their Plantation offices.  But lenders pulled the plug
on his practice after he fell under investigation for allegedly
falsifying foreclosure documents.

Several employees filed a class action suit last year; a notice of
settlement was originally filed in December, but the case was
reopened to seek final approval.  A fairness hearing before U.S.
District Judge Robert N. Scola is set for 2:00 p.m. on June 8.

A $502,000 settlement fund would include a $15,000 fee for
attorneys and other costs, leaving about $350,000 for employee
plaintiffs in the class.

The proposed settlement estimates that the payments will equal
about 10 percent of employee wage claims.

The wage claim amount is the total wages earned in a 60 calendar-
day calendar period (43 workdays) based on wage or salary on the
date of termination.

The suit, which was certified as a class action in September,
alleges that Mr. Stern violated federal labor laws and failed to
warn employees of imminent layoffs.

Mr. Stern and his affiliated business grew to be one of Florida's
largest foreclosure practices.  But the firm and related company
DJSP Enterprises fell apart after the Attorney General's Office
began investigating them for alleged "robo-signing" activities,
including possible fabrication of documents.  The investigation
hit national news, where some articles dubbed Mr. Stern the
"foreclosure king."

Major lenders such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bank of America
abandoned Mr. Stern, leading to the mass layoff of about 1,200
employees in February and March 2011.

The suit charged that Mr. Stern's law firm and its publicly traded
paperwork company, DJSP, did not follow the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act requirement to give 60 days' warning,
including wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday
pay, accrued vacation pay, pension and 401(k) contributions,
continuation of health insurance coverage and other benefits that
would have been paid or covered during the notice period.

The named plaintiffs in the suit are Renae Mowat, Nikki Mack,
Arklynn Rahming and Quenna Humphrey.


GOV'T OF ALBERTA: May 4 Foster Care Suit Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Rassel, writing for The Calgary Herald, reports that a
long-running class-action lawsuit suing the Alberta government on
behalf of foster children is nearing another milestone on its long
legal road.  Public notices appeared across Alberta last week
telling potential plaintiffs of an approaching May 4 deadline to
opt out of the lawsuit.

The suit is being launched on behalf of children taken into care
by provincial authorities between July 1966 and Feb. 2008.

One of the lawyers behind the action estimated as many as 20,000
people could be eligible to join.

The suit isn't claiming abuse committed while children were in the
care of provincial authorities.

Rather, the lawsuit alleges provincial authorities were negligent
for not pursuing civil damages or restitution on behalf of
children who suffered sexual abuse or physical injury at the hands
of others prior to being taken into care.

"This lawsuit is for everybody who could have had a lawsuit or
could have applied for victim-of-crime compensation," said
Edmonton lawyer Robert Lee.

The suit began with a statement of claim filed in 2004 by a 39-
year-old woman who now lives in Calgary.

She is one of three plaintiffs who now represent the class of
victims, however large it may become.

The upcoming deadline is to allow anyone who wants to sue the
government as an individual to drop out of the class-action suit.


GOV'T OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Coerced Adoptions
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Blaze Carlson, writing for National Post, reports that the
British Columbia government was on March 16 hit with a class-
action lawsuit accusing the province of abduction, fraud, and
coercion in connection with adoptions among unmarried women from
the 1940s until the early 1990s.

The lead plaintiff is today a fourth-year psychology student named
Cassandra Armishaw, who became pregnant at age 17 in 1985 after
being sexually assaulted in Penticton, B.C, according to the
statement of claim.  When she was in labor at Vancouver's Grace
Hospital, she alleges a social worker entered the room and said
"when you're done here I'm taking that baby," the claim says.

"She was still delivering the baby, and tried not to push," it
says.

Ms. Armishaw alleges she was not immediately allowed to see, hold,
or touch her baby girl.

The lawsuit is the first in an expected series of similar class-
actions planned against all the provinces Quebec westward, as well
as in New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador.  Tony Merchant,
the prominent Saskatchewan lawyer heading the actions, said he
expects to file in Ontario and Quebec next week.

A spokesperson for the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family
Development said it would be inappropriate to comment now that a
suit has been filed.

Earlier last week, Brian Cotton said the government is "not aware
of any official policy that would have forced unwed mothers to
give up their children for adoption in British Columbia."

None of the claims have been proven in court.

Since the National Post launched an investigation into coerced
adoptions last weekend, dozens of mothers have emerged to say they
were coerced or forced by social workers, medical staff, and
churches into giving their child up for adoption because they were
unmarried.  Three former social workers, two in Alberta and one
who worked in Manitoba, have come forward to corroborate some of
the claims put forward by the mothers.

The Salvation Army and the United Church have said they are
reviewing their maternity homes' practices, and the Ontario NDP
has urged the Dalton McGuinty government to "give serious
consideration" to calls for a provincial inquiry.

Among the mothers who have told their stories to the National
Post, several said they experienced coercion in British Columbia.

Sharon Pedersen said she was 20-years-old in 1964 when she was
drugged and tied to her bed during labor and then shown four
different babies through the nursery window at a hospital in
Victoria.  She ultimately signed adoption papers at the local
children's aid society, she said, but not before social workers
held a pen in her hand and threatened to call the police because
she was screaming and throwing furniture in protest.

Hanne Andersen said her B.C. hospital records say "Baby for
Adoption" even though the teenage single mother had planned to
keep the baby.  Ms. Andersen, who became pregnant at age 15 in
1982, said nurses allowed her to hold her child just once.

Tony Merchant, the prominent Saskatchewan lawyer heading the
class-action lawsuit, said he expects to file in Ontario and
Quebec this week.

Ms. Armishaw could not be reached on March 16, but her statement
of claim says she feared another sexual assault in Penticton and
moved to Vancouver.  There, she claims she contacted social
services to see whether she could receive assistance, but she
alleges she was told no assistance was available.  The claim also
says a social worker testified in court that Ms. Armishaw was not
able to care for herself -- that Cassandra "did not eat nutritious
food" and "thought other people were possessed by spirits -- and
that the baby should be put up for adoption.

The claim, filed to the B.C. Supreme Court on March 16, lists the
"Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Attorney
General" as the sole defendant.  "The Defendant took away the
right of the Class Members to make a free choice about whether to
adopt their children," it says.

The class captures unmarried women whose babies were "taken
immediately following delivery and then placed for adoption,"
according to the claim, which seeks general and special damages
for the lost opportunity to parent, medical treatment without
consent, and mental distress.

It says unmarried mothers were excluded from the regular maternity
wards, and that adoption consents were executed immediately
following birth, in contravention of the ten-day waiting period
before a surrender can be executed.

"I don't think there is any question there was a policy where, if
a child was born outside of a marriage, that child was not to
remain with the mother," said Mr. Merchant, whose firm secured a
$2-billion settlement in the 2006 Indian Residential School class
action.

Mr. Merchant, who said upward of 200 women have so far signaled
interest in class-actions across the country, said the suits will
attempt to saddle the provinces with responsibility for the
wrongdoings of church-run organizations because they were
provincially funded agents.  He said he hopes the case will be
certified by a judge within six months, allowing the case to
proceed.


GREAT WOLF: Being Sold to Apollo for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
David Raul as custodian for Pinchus E Raul Utma Ny, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Kimberly K.
Schaefer, Joseph V. Vittoria, Elan Blutinger, Randy L. Churchey,
Edward H. Rensi, Howard A. Silver, Great Wolf Resorts, Inc.,
Apollo Management VII, L.P., K-9 Holdings, Inc., and K-9
Acquisition, Inc., Case No. 7328- (Del. Ch. Ct., March 14, 2012)
is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Great Wolf
against the Company's Board of Directors for their breaches of
fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to sell the Company
to certain equity funds managed by Apollo.

The Plaintiff alleges that the proposed acquisition of Great Wolf
by Apollo is unfair to Great Wolf shareholders, does not offer
them adequate consideration, was the result of an unfair and
flawed sales process in which Apollo was favored over other
interested parties, and is going to be effected through the
dissemination of a materially false and misleading recommendation
statement.  The Plaintiff adds that the Board has breached their
fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction for
grossly inadequate consideration.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Great Wolf.

Great Wolf, a Delaware corporation, is North America's largest
family of indoor waterpark resorts, and, through its subsidiaries
and affiliates, owns, licenses and operates its family resorts
under the Great Wolf Lodge brand.

Apollo is a Delaware limited partnership.  Through its affiliates,
Apollo is a global alternative investment manager with offices in
New York, Los Angeles, Houston, London, Frankfurt, Luxembourg,
Singapore, Mumbai and Hong Kong.  K-9 Holdings is a Delaware
corporation that was created for the purpose of effectuating the
Proposed Transaction.  K-9 Acquisition is a Delaware corporation
and a wholly-owned subsidiary of K-9 Holdings that was created for
the purpose of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com
                  mar@rigrodskylong.com
                  gs@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com


GREAT WOLF: Faces Another Suit Over Proposed Sale to Apollo
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Ferguson, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Great Wolf Resorts, Inc., Kimberly K. Schaefer, Joseph
V. Vittoria, Elan Blutinger, Randy L. Churchey, Edward H. Rensi,
Howard A. Silver, K-9 Holdings, Inc., and K-9 Acquisition, Inc.,
Case No. 7329- (Del. Ch. Ct., March 15, 2012) is brought on behalf
of the public shareholders of Great Wolf against its Board of
Directors for breach of fiduciary duties owed to the Company's
shareholders, and against K-9 Acquisition for aiding and abetting
the Board's breaches, arising from the proposed sale of the
Company to K-9.

The Plaintiff contends that he and other members of the Class have
been and will be damaged in that they will not receive their fair
proportion of the value of the Company's assets and business, and
will be prevented from obtaining fair and adequate consideration
for their shares of Great Wolf common stock.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Great Wolf.

Great Wolf, a Delaware corporation, is North America's largest
family of indoor waterpark resorts, and, through its subsidiaries
and affiliates, owns, licenses and operates its family resorts
under the Great Wolf Lodge brand.

K-9 Holdings is a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of K-9 Investors, L.P.  K-9 Investors is owned directly
and indirectly by Apollo Global Management, LLC and its
affiliates.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of Great Wolf.

K-9 Acquisition is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of K-9 Holdings that was created for the purpose of
effectuating the Proposed Transaction.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 1401
          Citizens Bank Center
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
          Joseph R. Beige, Esq.
          Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          E-mail: Ottensoser@bernlieb.com
                  JBeige@bernlieb.com
                  Seidman@bernlieb.com


IMMERSION CORP: Consolidated IPO Litigation Has Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated litigation over initial public offerings has
concluded, according to Immersion Corporation's March 5, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company is involved in legal proceedings relating to a class
action lawsuit filed on November 9, 2001, in the U. S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, In re Immersion
Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No.
Civ. 01-9975 (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (S.D.N.Y.).  The named
defendants are the Company and three of its current or former
officers or directors (the "Immersion Defendants"), and certain
underwriters of its November 12, 1999 initial public offering
("IPO").  Subsequently, two of the individual defendants
stipulated to a dismissal without prejudice.

The operative amended complaint is brought on purported behalf of
all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from the date
of the Company's IPO through December 6, 2000.  It alleges
liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the IPO
did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters agreed to allow
certain customers to purchase shares in the IPO in exchange for
excess commissions to be paid to the underwriters; and (2) the
underwriters arranged for certain customers to purchase additional
shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.  The complaint
also appears to allege that false or misleading analyst reports
were issued.  The complaint does not claim any specific amount of
damages.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.

In September 2008, all of the parties to the lawsuits reached a
settlement, subject to documentation and approval of the District
Court.  Subsequently, an underwriter defendant filed for
bankruptcy and other underwriter defendants were acquired.  On
April 2, 2009, final documentation evidencing the settlement was
presented to the District Court for approval.  On October 6, 2009,
the District Court approved the settlement, and the Court
subsequently entered a judgment of dismissal.  Under the judgment,
the Immersion Defendants are not required to contribute to the
settlement.  Several notices of appeal have been filed by putative
class members challenging the settlement.  Subsequently, the
District Court determined that none of the objectors had standing
to appeal.  One of the putative objectors filed a notice of appeal
of the determination as to him.  The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals subsequently dismissed the final objection on January 9,
2012, and the litigation has concluded.


IMMERSION CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of a consolidated securities
lawsuit commenced in California, according to Immersion
Corporation's March 5, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against the Company and certain current and former Immersion
directors and officers.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers.  Over the following
five weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed.
(One of these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.)  The
securities class action complaints name the Company and certain
current and former Immersion directors and officers as defendants
and allege violations of federal securities laws based on the
Company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements.
The various complaints assert claims covering the period from May
2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory damages allegedly
sustained by the purported class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation.  On
the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel.  Following the Company's restatement of its
financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on April 9, 2010.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
action on June 15, 2010, and that motion was granted with leave to
amend on March 11, 2011.  Lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on April 29, 2011.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on July 1, 2011.  On December 16, 2011, the
motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice and on December 19,
2011, judgment was entered in favor of defendants.

On January 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


KOSMOS ENERGY: Faces IPO-Related Securities Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Kosmos Energy Ltd. is facing a class action lawsuit in Texas
arising from its initial public offering, according to the
Company's March 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On January 10, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the 68th Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, against Kosmos Energy
Ltd., all of its directors, certain officers of the Company,
Warburg Pincus LLC, Blackstone Capital Partners and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  Specifically, the
plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false statements and omissions in the documents related
to the IPO concerning anticipated gross oil production from the
Jubilee Field and that the defendants failed to disclose that
several wells were not producing as expected due to design defects
that will purportedly cost hundreds of millions of dollars to
remediate and will purportedly keep such wells from producing as
expected for several years.  The plaintiff seeks to certify the
lawsuit as a class action lawsuit.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit.  The
Company is cooperating with its directors and officers liability
insurance carrier regarding the vigorous defense of the lawsuit.
The Company currently believes that the potential amount of losses
resulting from this lawsuit in the future, if any, will not exceed
the policy limits of its directors' and officers' insurance.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against the
lawsuit and do not believe it will have a material adverse effect
on its business.  However, if the Company is unsuccessful in this
litigation and any loss exceeds its available insurance, this
could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations.


LIFEWAY FOODS: Misleads Bio Kefir & ProBugs Consumers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Phelan, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lifeway Foods, Inc., an Illinois
corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-01309 (N.D. Calif., March 15, 2012)
accuses Lifeway of making false and misleading statements in its
advertising and packaging of its products, including Bio Kefir
Black Cherry Heart Healthy Cultured Milk and ProBugs-Strawnana
Split.

According to Lifeway's uniform and consistent claims, use of the
Products fight free radical damage, ward off carcinogens and
provide cardiovascular support, and keep your immune system
healthy, Mr. Phelan relates.  However, he contends, these claims
are false, and there is no known clinical study that adequately
supports Lifeway's claims.

Mr. Phelan is a resident San Francisco, California, and a
purchaser of the Products.

Lifeway manufactures, markets, advertises, distributes and sells
the beverages known as Bio Kefir Black Cherry Heart Healthy
Cultured Milk and ProBugs, which comes in various flavors,
including Strawnana Split.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (800) 436-6437
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com


METROPOLITAN HEALTH: Court Okays Merger-Related Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade
County, Florida, gave final approval to Metropolitan Health
Networks, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated merger-related class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On October 4, 2011, the Company completed its acquisition of
Continucare.  The acquisition was structured as a merger of the
Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, CAB Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger
Sub"), with and into Continucare (the "Merger") in accordance with
the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
June 26, 2011.  As a result of the Merger, Continucare became the
Company's wholly-owned subsidiary effective October 4, 2011.  The
business and results of Continucare are reflected in the Company's
financial results from the date of acquisition.

On July 1, 2011, a putative class action was filed in the Circuit
Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida, by Kathryn Karnell, Trustee and the Aaron and
Kathryn Karnell Revocable Trust U/A Dtd 4/9/09 against
Continucare, the members of the Continucare Board, individually,
Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled Kathryn Karnell Trustee, etc.
v. Continucare Corporation et al., No. 11-20538 CA40).  Also on
July 1, 2011, a second putative class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida, by Steven L. Fuller against Continucare, the
members of the Continucare Board, individually, Metropolitan, and
Merger Sub (styled Steven L. Fuller v. Richard C. Pfenniger et
al., No. 11-20537 GA04).  On July 6, 2011, a third putative class
action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, by Hilary Kramer
against Continucare, the members of the Continucare Board,
individually, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled Hilary Kramer
v. Richard C. Pfenniger Jr. et al., No. 11-20925 CA20).  On
July 12, 2011, a fourth putative class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida, by Jamie Suprina against Continucare, the
members of the Continucare board of directors, individually,
Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled Jamie Suprina v. Continucare
Corporation et al., No. 11-21522 CA15).  On July 22, 2011, a fifth
putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida,
by Kojo Acquaah against Continucare, the members of the
Continucare board of directors, individually, Metropolitan, and
Merger Sub (styled Kojo Acquaah v. Continucare Corporation et al.,
No. 11-22833 CA40).  Also on July 22, 2011, a sixth putative class
action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, by David DeYoung
against Continucare, the members of the Continucare board of
directors, individually, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled
David DeYoung v. Continucare Corporation et al., No. 11-22837
CA40).  The plaintiffs in the Fuller, Karnell, and Acquaah and
DeYoung actions filed motions seeking appointment of lead counsel
and to expedite discovery and the proceedings.

The complaints in each of these lawsuits alleges a claim against
the members of the Continucare Board for breach of fiduciary duty
and a claim against Continucare, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub for
aiding and abetting the individual defendants' alleged breach of
fiduciary duty.  The amended complaints in Karnell, Suprina and
Fuller and the complaints in Acquaah and DeYoung also alleged that
the disclosure contained in the Proxy Statement or Registration
Statement on Form S-4 originally filed by the Company on July 11,
2011, regarding the pending Merger was inadequate.  All of the
complaints sought to enjoin the now completed transaction between
Continucare and Metropolitan, as well as attorneys' fees.  The
Acquaah and DeYoung complaints also sought rescission.  The
Fuller, Kramer, and Suprina lawsuits also sought rescission and
money damages.

On July 28, 2011, the Court entered an order consolidating all six
actions arising from the Metropolitan Health/Continucare proposed
transaction (the "Consolidated Action") appointed Fuller as Lead
Plaintiff and the law firm of Levi & Korinsky LLP as Plaintiffs
Lead Counsel and Julie Vinale, Esq. as Liaison Counsel.  Following
the consolidation and Lead Plaintiff/Lead Counsel orders the
parties engaged in limited expedited discovery, including the
production of certain documents from Continucare and the
depositions of Plaintiff Fuller and Defendants Richard C.
Pfenniger and Phillip Frost.

The parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") on
August 12, 2011, with Plaintiff's Lead Counsel regarding the
settlement of the Consolidated Action.  In connection with the
settlement, Continucare agreed to make certain additional
disclosures to its shareholders, which were contained in a Form 8-
K filed with the SEC on August 12, 2011.  Subject to the
completion of certain confirmatory discovery by Plaintiff's Lead
Counsel, the MOU contemplated that the parties would enter into a
stipulation of settlement.  The confirmatory discovery has been
completed and the parties entered a stipulation of settlement on
November 21, 2011.

On November 29, 2011, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, conditionally certifying a settlement
class and ordering that notice be provided to Continucare
shareholders.  On February 24, 2012, the court conducted a final
settlement hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement and finally approved the settlement.
The court entered a Final Judgment and Order that resolved and
dismissed with prejudice all of the claims that were or could have
been brought in the Consolidated Action, including all claims
relating to the merger transaction, the merger agreement, and any
disclosure made in connection therewith.  In addition, the court
entered an award of attorneys' fees and expenses of $350,000 to
Plaintiff's Lead Counsel to be paid by Continucare or its
successor.  The Company estimates that it will pay $100,000 of
this amount.

Continucare, the director defendants, and Metropolitan vigorously
deny all liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged in
the lawsuits, and specifically deny that supplemental disclosure
was required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or
law.  However, solely to avoid the risk of delaying or adversely
affecting the Merger and the related transactions and to minimize
the expense of defending the lawsuits, Continucare, its directors,
and Metropolitan agreed to the settlement.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novatel Wireless, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in California, according
to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On September 15, 2008, and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of persons who allegedly purchased the Company's stock between
February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008.  On December 11, 2008,
these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled
Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H
(RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C.,
S.D. Cal.).  In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case
In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation.  The plaintiffs
filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who
allegedly purchased the Company's stock between February 27, 2007,
and November 10, 2008.  The consolidated complaint names the
Company and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants.  The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements during
the relevant time period regarding the strength of its products
and market share, its financial results and its internal controls.
The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and
costs.  The court has denied defendants' motions to dismiss.  In
May 2010, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and certified a class of purchasers
of Company common stock between February 27, 2007, and September
15, 2008.

On February 14, 2011, following extensive discovery, the Company
filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims.
A trial date was set for May 10, 2011.  On March 15, 2011, the
case was reassigned to a new district judge, the Honorable Anthony
J. Battaglia.  Following the reassignment, the court vacated the
trial date pending the court's consideration of dispositive
motions.  Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment was
heard by the court on June 17, 2011.  On
November 23, 2011, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion for summary judgment.  A new trial date
has not yet been set.

The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously.
At this time, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome
of this litigation.  The Company has not recorded any significant
accruals for contingent liabilities associated with this matter
based on its belief that a liability, while possible, is not
probable.  Further, any possible range of loss cannot be estimated
at this time.


OLIVE GARDEN: Faces Wage Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Olive Garden (Darden
Restaurants) stiffs workers for overtime and regular time and
takes illegal deductions from paychecks, a worker claims in a
Superior Court class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Romo, et al. v. GMRI, Inc. d/b/a Olive
Garden, et al., Case No. RIC1203891 (Calif. Super. Ct., Riverside
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/20/OliveGarden.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Miriam Schimmel, Esq.
          Cory Lee, Esq.
          Joshua Carlon, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: mschimmel@initiativelegal.com
                  corylee@initiativelegal.com
                  jcarlon@initiativelegal.com


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Faces Three Securities Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. is facing three class
action lawsuits in California alleging violations of securities
laws, according to the Company's March 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

On October 21, 2011, and October 24, 2011, the Company and certain
of its officers and directors were named in two identical
purported class action lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Mateo (Young v. Pacific
Biosciences, et al. Case No. CIV509210 and Sandnas v. Pacific
Biosciences, et al., Case No. CIV 509259).  Plaintiffs have
brought claims alleging violation of several provisions of federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's
August 16, 2010 registration statement (as amended, effective as
of October 26, 2010) on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Pacific Biosciences stock pursuant or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering and were damaged thereby.  The
complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's IPO,
arising out of alleged omissions and misrepresentations in the
Company's August 16, 2010 registration statement (as amended,
effective as of October 26, 2010).  The complaints seek, among
other things, compensatory damages, rescission, and attorney's
fees and costs.

On December 21, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named in a purported class action lawsuit filed in
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Primo v. Pacific Biosciences et al., No. 4:11-CV-06599
(CW)), on behalf of all persons or entities who bought Pacific
Biosciences stock between October 27, 2010, and
September 20, 2011.  The complaint alleges violations of Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of
1934, arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the
Company and/or its employees during the class period.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,
rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes that the allegations in each of these pending
actions are without merit and intends to vigorously contest the
actions.  However, the Company says there can be no assurance that
it will be successful in its defense.


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on an appeal
from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On February 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers, directors and underwriters for the Stock
Offering.  An additional purported securities class action lawsuit
containing similar allegations was subsequently filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on February 20, 2009.  By order of the Court dated
March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action.  On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the
Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (formerly Coughlin Stoia) as lead
counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on
July 24, 2009.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on September
8, 2009.  On December 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's
motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to
amend.  Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on
January 27, 2010.  The lawsuit alleged violations of the
Securities Act and the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements made by the Company related to the
results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of its product candidate
fostamatinib (then known as R788).  The plaintiff sought damages,
including rescission or rescissory damages for purchasers in the
Stock Offering, an award of their costs and injunctive and/or
equitable relief for purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period between December 13, 2007, and February 9, 2009,
including purchasers in the Stock Offering.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on February
16, 2010.

On August 24, 2010, the Court issued an order granting the
Company's motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with
leave to amend.  On September 22, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice
informing the Court that it will not amend its complaint and
requested that the Court enter a final judgment.  On October 28,
2010, the plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment requesting entry
of such judgment in favor of the defendants.  On
November 1, 2010, judgment was entered dismissing the action.

The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2010, to
the Circuit Court appealing the district court's order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  The plaintiff filed its opening brief on February 23,
2011.  The Company filed its opposition brief on April 8, 2011.
On May 9, 2011, the plaintiff filed its reply brief.

On February 17, 2012, the Circuit Court heard oral arguments on
plaintiff's appeal.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  This lawsuit and any other
related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the
actual costs to be incurred relating to the lawsuit will depend
upon many unknown factors.  The outcome of the litigation is
necessarily uncertain, and it could be forced to expend
significant resources in the defense of this lawsuit, and the
Company may not prevail.  Monitoring and defending against legal
actions is time-consuming for the Company's management and
detracts from its ability to fully focus its internal resources on
its business activities.  In addition, the Company may incur
substantial legal fees and costs in connection with the
litigation.  The Company is not currently able to estimate the
possible cost to it from this matter, and it cannot be certain how
long it may take to resolve this matter or the possible amount of
any damages that the Company may be required to pay.  The Company
has not established any reserves for any potential liability
relating to this lawsuit.  It is possible that the Company could,
in the future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims
for monetary damages.  A decision adverse to the Company's
interests on this action could result in the payment of
substantial damages, or possibly fines, and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's cash flows, results of operations
and financial position.  In addition, the uncertainty of the
currently pending litigation could lead to increased volatility in
the Company's stock price.


ROADRUNNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Ariz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Roadrunner Communications misclassifies installation and repair
technicians as independent contractors to stiff them for overtime.

A copy of the Complaint in Baughman, et al. v. Roadrunner
Communications, LLC, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00565 (D. Ariz.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/20/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michelle R. Matheson, Esq.
          Darrel S. Jackson, Esq.
          Matthew E. Walls, Esq.
          MATHESON & MATHESON, P.L.C.
          15300 N. 90th Street, Suite 550
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: (480) 889-8951
          E-mail: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com
                  djackson@mathesonlegal.com
                  mwalls@mathesonlegal.com


RON WILSON: Attorney to Launch Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Ellis, writing for Anderson Independent Mail, reports that
attorney Candy Kern-Fuller said she lost money that she invested
with Ron Wilson and she is trying to start a class-action lawsuit
against the former county council member.

Mr. Wilson is the subject of two separate but related criminal
investigations into an alleged multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme,
according to a spokesman for the South Carolina Attorney General's
Office.

The spokesman, Mark Plowden, confirmed on March 16 that federal
officials and state authorities are working "hand-in-hand" on
investigating Mr. Wilson, alongside the South Carolina Securities
Division.

Mr. Wilson is accused of using his Atlantic Bullion & Coin
business in Easley to take money from clients who thought they
were buying silver while little, if any, silver was ever purchased
for them, according to a complaint from the attorney general's
office.

He was given about $71 million by investors between 2009 and 2012,
most for silver or silver investments, according to the complaint,
which does not indicate how much of that is alleged to be
fraudulent.

Mr. Wilson has not been arrested or charged with a crime,
officials said on March 16.

He has not been available for comment.  The state documents do not
mention any attorney for Mr. Wilson and it is not clear if he has
retained a lawyer since the complaint was made public on March 12.

Ms. Kern-Fuller said she invested about $10,000 with Mr. Wilson
and had removed the principal investment but lost out on the
purported earnings.

"I am disappointed," she said.  "But others had it much worse."

She said friends who also invested with Mr. Wilson have been
flooding her law office, Upstate Law Group, with questions.  By
March 16 at least 80 investors were interested in pursuing a civil
lawsuit against Mr. Wilson, Ms. Kern-Fuller said.

The investors were scheduled to meet with her on March 19.
Mr. Kern-Fuller said that because she invested with Wilson, she
was requesting an ethics ruling on whether she could represent
plaintiffs but in either case she would want an attorney
specializing in class-action lawsuits to be on board.

The 80-some investors had put as little as $4,000 up to as much as
$1.2 million in Mr. Wilson's trust, Ms. Kern-Fuller said.

Ms. Kern-Fuller said one woman had recently met Mr. Wilson and
handed him more than $65,000 in cash.  Several of Mr. Wilson's
clients have told the Independent Mail that he had meetings in
Easley where he gave sales pitches about the investments.

State Rep. Joshua Putnam, whose district includes Mr. Wilson's
business, said in a statement on March 16 that he "felt a deep
sense of responsibility for what occurred, disappointment in the
ethics of Ron Wilson and was compelled to see that South
Carolinians never be taken advantage of again."

Mr. Putnam said he is preparing legislation that would address
problems with cease and desist letters, such as the one Mr. Wilson
signed, and fraudulent business practices.  He said the
legislation would be released Thursday, along with further
details.

Mr. Putnam's statement does not mention that Ron Wilson was a
major donor to the state representative's 2011 campaign, giving
$1,000 on June 29.  Mr. Putnam did not respond to a March 16
request to comment on Mr. Wilson's donation.

Mr. Wilson met with state securities investigators in February.
The complaint alleges that he lied or misled investigators during
that meeting about both the nature of his business and the amount
of silver he had stored.

Mr. Wilson said in the February meeting that he had between $16.9
million and $20 million worth of silver stored in a Delaware
depository.  The depository had no record of Mr. Wilson, his
business or the silver, the complaint alleges.

The complaint was filed on March 12 in Richland County.  U.S.
Secret Service agents raided Mr. Wilson's Easley business on March
15 and in the parking lot agent Thomas Griffin said they intended
to remove computers, files and silver.

Mr. Griffin, the resident agent in charge of the Secret Service's
Greenville office, declined to confirm on March 16 what had been
removed.  He said search warrants for Atlantic Bullion & Coin and
the adjacent, yet-to-open Live Oak Farms business had been sealed.
The two businesses are in an Easley strip mall, Mr. Wilson kept
his Land Rover in a garage attached to the Live Oaks Farms, which
also is the name of a business run by his daughter, according to
Web sites for company.

The complaint accuses Mr. Wilson of violating five sections of the
State Securities Act.  It suggests a penalty of $10,000 for
Mr. Wilson and $10,000 for his business for each individual
violation.

Mr. Wilson agreed in a 1996 document that he would cease and
desist selling silver securities.  Mr. Plowden said that Mr.
Wilson restructured his business with the guise that he was
selling commodities, which is why investigators did not discover
anything amiss for so many years.

A commodity business, with little oversight, would generally give
customers the physical silver while a securities business would
generally sell a certificate or other form of silver investment.

Mr. Wilson sold securities without the required licenses or
oversight, the recent complaint alleges.

Mr. Wilson served as an Anderson County Council member from 2008
to 2010.  He was the national commander of the Sons of Confederate
Veterans from 2002 to 2004.  He unsuccessfully ran for the state
Senate in 2004 and served as a South Carolina Board of Education
member from 2005 to 2007.


SANOFI: Awaits Mandate Dismissing Santa Clara Suit vs. Aventis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi is awaiting a mandate ordering the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss a class action
lawsuit commenced by the County of Santa Clara, California,
against a subsidiary, according to the Company's March 6, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 18, 2005, the County of Santa Clara, California, filed a
lawsuit against Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. and fourteen other
pharmaceutical companies originally in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda, alleging that the
defendants had overcharged Public Health Service entities for
their pharmaceutical products in breach of pharmaceutical pricing
agreements between the defendants and the Secretary of Health and
Human Services.  Subsequently, the case was removed to the U.S.
District for the Northern District of California.  In May 2009,
the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
without prejudice.  All proceedings in the District Court were
stayed pending the decision of the Supreme Court concerning
whether plaintiffs have a private right of action.  On March 29,
2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion concluding that
plaintiffs do not have a private right of action, ruling in favor
of Aventis Pharmaceuticals and fourteen other defendants, and
restoring an order of dismissal that previously had been entered
by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Accordingly, the District Court is expected to
receive, in due course, a mandate ordering it to dismiss this
case.


SANOFI: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi is awaiting a court decision on a motion for class
certification filed in a purported securities class action lawsuit
pending in New York, according to the Company's March 6, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In November 2007, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Sanofi shares.  The complaint charged Sanofi and
certain of its current and former officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint
alleged that defendants' statements regarding rimonabant (a
product withdrawn from the market, formerly registered and
marketed under the trademark Acomplia(R) in Europe and Zimulti(R)
in the US) were materially false and misleading when made because
defendants allegedly concealed data concerning certain alleged
secondary effects of rimonabant, in particular, suicidality in
patients suffering from depression.  In September 2009, the motion
was dismissed with prejudice.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration.  On July 27, 2010, the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted plaintiff's motion to
reconsider and authorized plaintiffs to submit an amended
complaint.  In November 2010, the District Court heard arguments
on Sanofi's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint.  By
Order dated March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed a number of individual
defendants, however, denied Sanofi's request to dismiss the
Company, as well as one of its current officers and one of its
former officers.

On November 11, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

Sanofi says a reliable measure of potential liabilities arising
from this purported class action is not possible at this stage of
the litigation.


SANOFI: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Merial Over Heartgard Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit
commenced against its subsidiary alleging false and misleading
advertising of Heartgard(R) products, according to the Company's
March 6, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 31, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company's subsidiary, Merial Limited, alleging that
Merial engaged in false and misleading advertising of Heartgard(R)
and Heartgard(R) Plus by claiming 100% efficacy in the prevention
of heartworm disease, as well as the prevention of zoonotic
diseases.  Plaintiffs also request punitive damages and a
permanent injunction with respect to the alleged advertising.  The
proceedings are ongoing and the class has not been certified yet.

The Company says a reliable measure of potential liabilities
arising from this putative class action is not possible at this
stage of the litigation.


SANOFI: Settlement of AWP Suits vs. Units Gets Final OK in Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A global settlement in a litigation over average wholesale prices
involving Sanofi's subsidiaries was given final approval in
December 2011, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. (API) is a defendant in several U.S.
lawsuits seeking damages on behalf of multiple putative classes of
individuals and entities that allegedly overpaid for certain
pharmaceuticals as a result of the Average Wholesale Prices (AWP)
pricing which were used to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement
levels.  Aventis Behring and Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc. were also
defendants in some of these cases.  These lawsuits allege
violations of various statutes, including state unfair trade,
unfair competition, consumer protection and false claim statutes.

A group of eleven defendants, including Sanofi defendants, reached
a tentative global settlement of the claims of the insurers and
consumers, for a total of $125 million.  The defendants'
respective shares of the settlement amount are confidential.  This
settlement was granted preliminary approval by the U.S. District
Court in Boston in early July 2008.  In December 2011, the Court
granted the settlement final approval.  Once any objections are
resolved, this will resolve all class action lawsuits of the U.S.
District Court in Boston.  Sanofi says its share of the global
settlement is fully covered by existing reserves.


SANOFI: Unit Faces 10 Class Suits Over Frontline Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi's subsidiary is facing 10 putative class action lawsuits
alleging false advertising of Frontline(R) and other products,
according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

From October 2011 through January 2012, ten putative class actions
were filed against Merial Limited in various U.S. federal courts,
each alleging that the plaintiffs sustained damages after
purchasing defendants' products (Merial's Frontline(R) and/or
Certifect(R) brands and Bayer's Advantage(R) and Advantix(R)
brands) for their pets' flea problems.  These actions have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio for coordinated proceedings in multi-district litigation.

The complaints seek injunctive relief and contain counts for
violations of consumer protection or deceptive trade practices
acts, false advertising, breach of implied and express warranty
and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  Four of the
complaints seek $32 billion in damages, two complaints seek
greater than $4 billion in damages, and the remaining four
complaints seek damages in excess of $5 million, which is merely
the jurisdictional threshold.  The proceedings are ongoing and no
class has been certified.

The Company says a reliable measure of potential liabilities
arising from this putative class action litigation is currently
not possible.


SANOFI: Unit Settled DDAVP Direct Purchasers' Claims in August
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi's subsidiary agreed in August 2011 to resolve for $3.5
million the claims made by direct purchaser plaintiffs in
antitrust class action lawsuits over DDAVP(R) tablet, according to
the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Subsequent to the decision of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in February 2005 holding the patent
rights at issue in the DDAVP(R) tablet litigation to be
unenforceable as a result of inequitable conduct, eight putative
class actions have been filed claiming injury as a result of
Ferring B.V. and Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s alleged scheme to
monopolize the market for DDAVP(R) tablets in violation of the
Sherman Act and the antitrust and deceptive trade practices
statutes of several states.  On November 6, 2006, the District
Court dismissed these claims.  Oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal
of the decision to dismiss was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit in 2008.  By Order dated
October 16, 2009, the appellate court reversed and remanded the
case back to the District Court.  Petitions for rehearing and
rehearing en banc were denied.

In August 2011, Aventis Pharmaceuticals and Ferring reached an
agreement with direct purchaser plaintiffs resolving their claims.
Aventis Pharmaceuticals agreed to resolve these claims for $3.5
million.


SANTARUS INC: Settled Wage and Hour Class Suit Last Month
---------------------------------------------------------
Santarus, Inc., settled last month a wage and hour class action
lawsuit, according to its March 5, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In December 2010, a complaint styled as a putative class action
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by a person employed at the time by
the Company as a sales representative and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated current and former employees.  The complaint
sought damages for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law
Section 650 et seq. and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act,
including failure to pay for overtime work.  The complaint sought
an unspecified amount for unpaid wages and overtime wages,
liquidated and/or punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
damages.  The Company denied all claims asserted in the complaint,
and the case was never certified as a class action.

In February 2012, the Company settled this matter, and a dismissal
of the case with prejudice was entered by the court in March 2012.

Over the last several years, similar class action lawsuits have
been filed against many other pharmaceutical companies alleging
that the companies' sales representatives have been misclassified
as exempt employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
applicable state laws.  The issue of whether certain
pharmaceutical sales representatives are exempt under federal
law's outside sales exemption is currently under review by the
U.S. Supreme Court.

Santarus, Inc. -- http://santarus.com/-- is a specialty
biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring, developing and
commercializing proprietary products that address the needs of
patients treated by physician specialists.


SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Faces Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Shan Li, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a
subcontractor for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is being sued in a class-
action lawsuit by employees who allege that the company routinely
avoided paying its workers overtime.

Employees claim that Schneider Logistics Transloading &
Distribution Inc., which operates warehouses around the country,
required workers at three Mira Loma warehouses to sign waivers
giving up their rights to overtime premiums.

Filed in the California Central District Court, the suit alleged
that Schneider initially made a deal in 2008 to give employees 40-
hour workweeks (with four 10-hour days) in return for workers
giving up their right to overtime premiums when working more than
eight hours a day.  This "alternative workweek" schedule is legal
as long as both sides agree and comply.

However, Schneider failed to provide employees with regular
schedules, the suit alleges, and assigned erratic hours that
swerved from 20 hours one week to 100 hours the next.  The company
was therefore obligated to pay overtime premiums for work days
that exceed eight hours, the suit said.

Theresa M. Traber, a partner at the law firm representing the
workers, said that the class-action lawsuit could affect 120 to
150 Schneider employees.

"This is another case that illustrates the oppressive employment
practices that exist throughout the warehousing industry in the
Inland Empire," Ms. Traber said, "and in particular the pressure
brought to bear by large retailers like Wal-Mart to push down
prices of transporting goods so people at the bottom of totem
. . . are deprived of wages they are entitled to under the law."

Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman said the retail giant held all
subcontractors "to high standards" and expects them to "comply
with all applicable laws."

"From our standpoint, it is never acceptable for anyone doing work
for us to violate the law," Mr. Fogleman wrote in an e-mail.


SERVICEMASTER CO: "Rudd" Suit Deal to Be Implemented in 2012
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of
The ServiceMaster Company will be implemented during the first two
quarters of 2012, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

In the ordinary course of conducting business activities, the
Company and its subsidiaries become involved in judicial,
administrative and regulatory proceedings involving both private
parties and governmental authorities.  These proceedings include,
on an individual, collective, representative and class action
basis, regulatory, insured and uninsured employment, general and
commercial liability, wage and hour and environmental proceedings.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements in certain
cases, including with respect to putative collective and class
actions, which are subject to court approval.  As previously
reported, American Home Shield Corporation was sued in a putative
class action on May 26, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by Abigail Rudd, et al., and is
alleged to have violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act in connection with certain payments made to real
estate agencies.  On December 8, 2011, the court granted final
approval of a settlement to resolve this matter.

The settlement will be implemented during the first two quarters
of 2012, and the settlement is not expected to have a material
effect on the Company's reputation, business, financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.

If one or more of the Company's settlements are not finally
approved, the Company says it could have additional or different
exposure, which could be material.  At this time, the Company does
not expect any of these proceedings to have a material effect on
its reputation, business, financial position, results of
operations or cash flows; however, the Company can give no
assurance that the results of any such proceedings will not
materially affect its reputation, business, financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.


SILICON IMAGE: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Now Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit over Silicon Image, Inc.'s
initial public offering is now concluded, according to the
Company's March 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On December 7, 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants along with the Company's
underwriters in a securities class action lawsuit, captioned
"Gonzalez v. Silicon Image, Inc."  The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants participated in a scheme to inflate the price of the
Company's stock in the Company's initial public offering and in
the aftermarket through a series of misstatements and omissions
associated with the offering.  The lawsuit is one of several
hundred similar cases pending in the Southern District of New York
that have been consolidated by the Court.  In February 2003, the
District Court issued an order denying a motion to dismiss by all
defendants on common issues of law.  In July 2003, the Company,
along with over 300 other issuers named as defendants, agreed to a
settlement of this litigation with plaintiffs.  While the parties'
request for court approval of the settlement was pending, in
December 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed the District Court's determination that six focus
cases could be certified as a class action.  In April 2007, the
Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but
acknowledged that the District Court might certify a more limited
class.  At a June 26, 2007 status conference, the Court terminated
the proposed settlement as stipulated among the parties.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 14, 2007.  On
September 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in the six focus cases.  The class certification
motion is not expected to be resolved until after April 2008.  On
November 13, 2007, defendants in the six focus cases filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim,
which the District Court denied in March 2008.  Plaintiffs, the
issuer defendants (including the Company), the underwriter
defendants, and the insurance carriers for the defendants, have
engaged in mediation and settlement negotiations.

The parties have reached a settlement agreement, which was
submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval on
April 2, 2009.  As part of this settlement, the Company's
insurance carrier has agreed to assume the Company's entire
payment obligation under the terms of the settlement.  On
June 10, 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement agreement.  After September 10, 2009
hearing, the District Court gave final approval to the settlement
on October 5, 2009,  Several objectors have filed notices of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit from the district court's October 5, 2009 order approving
the settlement.  All but two of the objectors withdrew their
appeals, and Plaintiff moved to dismiss the remaining appeals, one
for violation of the Second Circuit's rules and one for lack of
standing.  On May 17, 2011, the Second Circuit granted the motion
to dismiss one objector's appeal for violations of the Court's
rules and remanded the other appeal to the District Court to
determine whether objector Hayes was a class member.  On August
25, 2011, the District Court issued its decision determining that
Hayes was not a class member.  On September 30, 2011, objector
Hayes filed a notice of appeal from the District Court's decision.

On January 9, 2012, objector Hayes dismissed his appeal with
prejudice.  No other appeals are pending, the order approving the
settlement is final, and the matter is now concluded.


SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Class Action Complaint Amended
------------------------------------------------
T.S. Last, writing for DChieftain.com, reports that attorneys
representing member-owners of Socorro Electric Cooperative filed
an amended countersuit against the co-op in 13th Judicial District
Court in Los Lunas on March 12.  The amended version retains many
of the same charges of breach of fiduciary duty by members of the
co-op's board of trustees and the former general manager, but
differs from the original complaint by naming different parties to
the lawsuit.

The initial cross claim, filed in August 2010 in response to
Socorro Electric's lawsuit against its members, named current and
former co-op officials individually as defendants.  This one lists
Socorro Electric Cooperative, Inc. as the cross claim defendant.
In addition, Carol Auffrey of Quemado and Herbert Myers of Socorro
are named as cross claim plaintiffs and representatives of the
class in the countersuit, which asks for class action
certification.  They replace Charlie Wagner, a member of the board
of trustees and a leader in the movement to reform the co-op.

The countersuit came in response to a lawsuit Socorro Electric
filed against all of its approximately 10,000 member-owners in
June 2010 in an effort to block new bylaws that require it to
operate with increased transparency.  Though the co-op lost the
lawsuit, Judge Albert J. Mitchell Jr. allowed the case to continue
to consider the merits of the countersuit.  He has yet to decide
whether he'll accept it or certify the class, but opened the case
up to discovery to assist him with the decision.

A status hearing was scheduled for March 14 in district court in
Los Lunas, but an aide in Judge Mitchell's office said on March 16
that hearing would be postponed due to recent filings.

                         Unraveling Knots

If the amended version is accepted by the judge, it could
potentially untie some snags created by the original countersuit.
Mr. Wagner, who has been excused from recent executive sessions
during co-op board meetings because he was a party in a case
against his colleagues, appears to be in the same boat with the
rest of them in the amended complaint.  It could also remove a
stumbling block pertaining to whether Socorro Electric's insurance
carrier is able to provide coverage to defend the case.  Co-op
attorneys have said Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange
has interpreted the countersuit as a dispute between trustees,
because of Mr. Wagner's involvement, and such disagreements are an
exception to providing coverage.

The amended countersuit includes many of the same charges as the
first version.  It claims:

   -- the co-op long maintained a system of unequal and improper
voting districts;

   -- patronage capital was withheld from members at times when
they should have received payments;

   -- members of the board of trustees received excessive amounts
of compensation;

   -- board members breached their fiduciary duty in numerous
ways, including with regard to contractual obligations to co-op
members and reporting financial and accounting records.

A copy of bylaws Socorro Electric was operating under prior to
Judge Mitchell's order to update them last year is included as an
exhibit.

                        Requesting Records

In support of its argument that trustees received excessive
compensation, the amended countersuit cites the amount of
compensation received by several board members, as reported by the
co-op on IRS 990 forms.

"On information and belief, compensation received by the board of
trustees of the SEC, including former trustees and officers, are
many multiples of the compensation paid other similar persons
working in similar positions for similar organizations," the
complaint reads.

It goes on to claim "The SEC's conduct in failing to report or
reporting inaccurate information to the IRS constitutes a breach
of fiduciary duty to the cross-claim plaintiffs and to the class."

The complaint states that members were not notified of patronage
capital -- money members of the private, non-profit corporation
accrue over time when the operation is profitable -- contrary to
the bylaws and Rural Electric Cooperative Act.

The filing seeks injunctive relief from the judge to realign
voting districts:

"Cross-claim plaintiffs and the class request that the court enter
an order that provides for and requires the formation and
implementation of new, revised trustees' election districts in a
manner the court deems practicable in accordance with the spirit
of 'one man, one vote.'"

A redistricting plan will be up for vote by the co-op's membership
at the annual meeting on April 14.

                            Not Immune

The complaint also asks for the judge to order the co-op to
provide accounting records for the past 10 years and to appoint an
independent accounting firm to review them.

While individual trustees and former co-op officials are no longer
specifically named in the amended complaint, the revised version
still asks that they be held accountable and be disgorged for all
expenses and compensation deemed excessive.

The complaint asks the judge to "Enter judgment that SEC is liable
for exemplary damages based on malice, willful, reckless or wanton
behavior, behavior or acts or omissions done in bad faith by the
SEC or the board of trustees in an amount sufficient to punish SEC
and to deter similar conduct in the future."

Members would be entitled to damages in the amount of patronage
capital that the complaint claims should have been retired and
paid to them during the relevant time period, and attorneys
representing members would be awarded fees.

The amended complaint was filed by William "Bill" Ikard of the
Ikard Wynne law firm of Austin, Texas, which in 2009 helped win a
class action settlement against Pedernales Electric Cooperative
that resulted in a $23 million being returned to members in the
form of patronage capital.  Ikard Wynne has been working in
concert with the Deschamps & Kortemeier law firm of Socorro,
attorneys for Auffrey and Myers.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Awaits OK of Consolidated Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc. is awaiting court approval of an agreement
reached in January 2012 to settle a consolidated class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's March 5, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic
Automotive, Inc. and several of its dealership subsidiaries that
purport to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs
and make allegations that certain products sold in the finance and
insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner.  One of these private civil actions was filed on
November 15, 2004, in South Carolina state court, York County
Court of Common Pleas, against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and some of
Sonic's South Carolina subsidiaries.  The plaintiffs in that
lawsuit were Misty J. Owens, James B. Wright, Vincent J. Astey and
Joseph Lee Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class.  The group of
plaintiffs' attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the South
Carolina lawsuit also filed another private civil class action
lawsuit against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and certain of its
subsidiaries on February 14, 2005, in state court in North
Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court, which similarly sought
certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs and alleged
that certain products sold in the finance and insurance
departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal
manner.  The plaintiffs in this North Carolina lawsuit were Robert
Price, Carolyn Price, Marcus Cappelletti and Kelly Cappelletti, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of the purported class.  The South Carolina state court
action and the North Carolina state court action were subsequently
consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration
before the American Arbitration Association.

On November 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration
filed a Motion for Class Certification as a national class action
including all of the states in which Sonic operates dealerships
except Florida.  Claimants are seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers.  The
parties have briefed and argued the issue of class certification.

On July 19, 2010, the Arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award on
Class Certification, certifying a class which includes all
customers who, on or after November 15, 2000, purchased or leased
from a Sonic dealership a vehicle with the Etch product as part of
the transaction, but not including customers who purchased or
leased such vehicles from a Sonic dealership in Florida.  The
Partial Final Award on Class Certification is not a final decision
on the merits of the action.  The merits of Claimants' assertions
and potential damages would still have to be proven through the
remainder of the arbitration.  The Arbitrator stayed the
Arbitration for thirty days to allow either party to petition a
court of competent jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the award.
On July 22, 2010, the plaintiffs in this consolidated arbitration
filed a Motion to Confirm the Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on
Class Certification in state court in North Carolina, Lincoln
County Superior Court.  On August 17, 2010, Sonic removed this
North Carolina state court action to federal court, and
simultaneously filed a Petition to Vacate the Arbitrator's Partial
Final Award on Class Certification, with both filings made in the
United Stated District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina.

On August 12, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina issued an Order granting
Sonic's Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award on Class
Certification and denied Claimant's Motion to Dismiss the same.
Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals on September 12, 2011.  The federal
court's stay of the arbitration proceeding remains in force.

At a mediation held January 16, 2012, Sonic reached an agreement
with the Claimants to settle this ongoing dispute in its entirety.
This agreement is subject to formal documentation and court
approval.  In the event that such formal documentation is
completed and court approval is received, Sonic says such a
settlement would not have a material adverse effect on Sonic's
future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Sonic is involved, and expects to continue to be involved, in
numerous legal and administrative proceedings arising out of the
conduct of its business, including regulatory investigations and
private civil actions brought by plaintiffs purporting to
represent a potential class or for which a class has been
certified.  Although Sonic vigorously defends itself in all legal
and administrative proceedings, the outcomes of pending and future
proceedings arising out of the conduct of Sonic's business,
including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits,
contractual disputes, class actions, purported class actions and
actions brought by governmental authorities, cannot be predicted
with certainty.  An unfavorable resolution of one or more of these
matters could have a material adverse effect on Sonic's business,
financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or
prospects.  Included in other accrued liabilities at December 31,
2011, and December 31, 2010, was approximately $7.3 million and
$9.1 million, respectively, in reserves that Sonic has provided
for pending proceedings.  Except as reflected in such reserves,
Sonic is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss, or a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of
the amount accrued, for pending proceedings.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Purnell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County,
denied a motion for class certification in the lawsuit commenced
by LaShone Purnell, according to Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.'s
March 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On May 14, 2010, Plaintiff LaShone Purnell filed a lawsuit on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated in the Superior
Court of the State of California, Orange County, against Sunrise
Senior Living Management, Inc., captioned LaShone Purnell as an
individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated v.
Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case
No. 30-2010-00372725 (Orange County Superior Court).  Plaintiff's
complaint is styled as a class action and alleges that Sunrise
failed to properly schedule the purported class of care givers and
other related positions so that they would be able to take meal
and rest breaks as provided for under California law.  The
complaint asserts claims for: (1) failure to pay overtime wages;
(2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest
periods; (4) failure to pay wages upon ending employment; (5)
failure to keep accurate payroll records; (6) unfair business
practices; and (7) unfair competition.  Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, statutory penalties provided for
under the California Labor Code, injunctive relief, and costs and
attorneys' fees.  On June 17, 2010, Sunrise removed this action to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. SACV 10-897 CJC (MLGx)).  On July 16, 2010,
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which
the Court denied.  The parties have completed briefing on class
certification, and the Court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion
for class certification on January 23, 2012.

On February 27, 2012, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

In addition, on January 31, 2012, the same counsel filed what that
counsel characterized as a related lawsuit captioned Cheryl
Miller, an individual on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc., a Virginia
corporation; and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC478075 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
On or about February 8, 2012, Plaintiff Cheryl Miller filed a
First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which was served on Sunrise on
February 15, 2012.  Plaintiff's FAC is styled as a class action
and alleges that Sunrise failed to pay all wages owed to employees
as a result of allegedly improper "rounding" of time to the
nearest quarter hour and that Sunrise failed to comply with the
California Labor Code by issuing "debit cards" to pay wages.  The
FAC asserts claims for: (1) failure to pay all wages due to
illegal rounding; (2) unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
practices; (3) failure to provide accurate pay stubs, (4) failure
to pay wages upon ending employment; (5) failure to comply with
Labor Code Section 212 regarding payment of wages, and (6) seeking
penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney
Generals Act.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
statutory penalties provided for under the California Labor Code,
injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees.

Sunrise believes that Plaintiff's allegations are not meritorious
and that a class action is not appropriate in this case, and
intends to defend itself vigorously.  Because of the early stage
of this lawsuit, the Company says it cannot at this time estimate
an amount or range of potential loss in the event of an
unfavorable outcome.


VERENIUM CORP: Settlement of IPO Shareholder Suits Now Final
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement resolving litigation over initial public offerings,
to which Verenium Corporation was a party, is now final, according
to the Company's March 5, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

In April 2009, the Company executed a settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in December 2002 in
a U.S. federal district court (the "Court").  This lawsuit is part
of a series of related lawsuits, referred to as the IPO Cases, in
which similar complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds
of other public companies, or Issuers, that conducted an Initial
Public Offering, or IPO, of their common stock in 2000 and the
late 1990s.  In February 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs
informed the Court that a settlement of all IPO Cases had been
agreed to in principle, subject to formal approval by the parties
and preliminary and final approval by the Court.  In April 2009,
the parties submitted a tentative settlement agreement to the
Court and moved for preliminary approval thereof.  In June 2009,
the Court granted preliminary approval of the tentative settlement
and ordered that notice of the settlement be published and mailed
to class members.  In October 2009, following a final fairness
hearing, the Court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case
and granted final approval to the settlement.  Thereafter, a
number of shareholders filed appeals to the Second Circuit,
objecting to the settlement.

On January 10, 2012, the last of these shareholder appeals was
dismissed with prejudice.  Accordingly, the settlement is now
final, all claims against the Company and its officers and
directors in the IPO Cases will be dismissed with prejudice, and
the Company's pro rata share of the settlement will be fully
funded by insurance.

Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Verenium Corporation (NASDAQ: VRNM)
-- http://www.verenium.com/-- develops and commercializes high-
performance enzymes for use in industrial processes.  Verenium
currently sells enzymes developed using its R&D capabilities to
industrial customers globally for use in markets including
biofuels, animal health and oil seed processing.


WALTER ENERGY: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC said it has filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Walter Energy, Inc. between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-
5164, toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail.  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. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 26, 2012.

The complaint charges Walter and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Walter, through its consolidated subsidiaries, mines and exports
hard coking coal for the global steel industry.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects.  Specifically, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse
facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing so-called "squeeze"
events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada
that significantly reduced Walter's coal production; (ii) that the
Company's commitment to ship more than 700,000 tons of coal in the
second quarter at first quarter sales prices would result in a
material adverse effect on Walter's average sales prices and
operating results during the second quarter; (iii) that Walter was
experiencing a significant decline in its margins and
profitability; and (iv) that, based on the foregoing, defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company and its business prospects during the Class Period.

On August 3, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its
operating results for its 2011 fiscal second quarter, the period
ended June 30, 2011.  For the quarter, the Company announced net
income of $107.4 million, or $1.71 per diluted common share,
significantly less than Wall Street estimates.  Then, On September
21, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its attempt to
"enhance" its historical statistical disclosure and its revisions
to its 2011 second half sales expectations.  In response to this
announcement, the price of Walter common stock declined from
$75.00 per share on September 20, 2011 to $66.25 on September 21,
2011, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Contact: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES JR., PC
         Telephone: (412) 391-5164
         Toll Free: 1(800) 391-5164
         E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


WORLD WRESTLING: Settlement of IPO-Related Suit Completed
---------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.'s settlement of a class action
lawsuit over its initial public offering is now complete,
according to the Company's March 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In December 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of federal securities laws relating to the
Company's initial public offering in 1999.  According to the
claims, the underwriters, who were also named as defendants,
allegedly engaged in manipulative practices by, among other
things, pre-selling allotments of shares of the Company's stock in
return for undisclosed, excessive commissions from the purchasers
and/or entering into after-market tie-in arrangements to
artificially inflate the Company's stock price.  The complaint
further alleges that the Company knew or should have known of such
unlawful practices.  In or around March 2009, the parties agreed
to a global settlement of the litigation in its entirety.  On
April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of settlement, which was granted by the court by order
dated June 10, 2009.  On October 6, 2009, the court granted final
approval of the settlement agreement, to which the Company is a
party, and various objectors filed notices to appeal this
decision.  The appeals were resolved during 2011, and the
settlement is complete, with no liability on the part of the
Company.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., a publicly traded company
(NYSE: WWE), is an integrated media organization and recognized
leader in global entertainment.


YMCA: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Assault Incidents
------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a married
couple claim in a class action that YMCAs, which advertise
themselves as safe for families, with "Christian values," are
actually "brothels" for homosexual men "cruising" for sexual
relationships, who subject members to unwanted advances.

In his complaint in Buncombe County Court, Michael Keister claims
he is one of many YMCA members who were victims of sexual assault
and unwanted advances at YMCA facilities.

Mr. Keister and his wife, Susan Lewis-Keister, sued the National
Council of the Young Men's Christian Association of the United
States of America dba YMCA of the USA, YMCA of Western North
Carolina and five North Carolina YMCA centers.

In a second complaint, Mr. Keister seeks damages for negligence
and infliction of emotional distress from YMCA of Western North
Carolina.

In the class action, Mr. Keister, of Asheville, says he decided to
buy gym memberships for his family at the local YMCA "because of
the YMCA's image as a safe place for families and children and as
[a] place that champions Christian values, such as decency,
kindness, and fairness."

But Mr. Keister says the YMCA misleads customers through its
marketing campaigns, cultivating a false image of places with
"high ethical standards and Christian values," when in fact they
tolerate "cruising" for homosexual relationships and allow members
to be subjected to unwanted sexual advances.

"In spring 2009, the image of the YMCA as a safe and protected
environment came crashing down for plaintiffs on several separate
visits to the facility," the complaint states.

"After renewing his membership at the facility, Keister
experienced his first, in what would eventually become a series of
unwanted sexual advances and activity taking place at the
Asheville YMCA facility.

"Keister was showering in the men's locker rooms showers when two
men entered the shower area together from the pool.  As Keister
stood there, only feet away, the shorter of the two men lathered
up the other man and began to fondle the taller man's genitals.
The showers were open and visible to anyone in the locker room.

"When the men noticed the shocked look on Keister's face, the
shorter man replied.  'What?', with a menacing tone that made it
seem as if Keister was the one who was acting inappropriately.

"'What?!' Keister responded, 'Not appropriate.'  'It's just not
appropriate.'

"Unsettled by what he was seeing, Keister left the shower area
immediately, got dressed, and reported the incident to the front
desk.

"The employee responded, 'We are aware of this behavior and we're
taking steps to address it.  You're not the first to complain.'
The employee assured Mr. Keister that it would not happen again.

"Shortly after this incident, Keister returned to the Asheville
YMCA only to be subjected to yet another inappropriate incident.

"This time Keister was in the steam room.  As members were coming
and going, Keister sat alone on the upper deck with his elbows on
his thighs and looking down at the floor.

"When the room had cleared of all but one patron, the man sitting
across the room began to clear his throat as if he were trying to
get Keister's attention.

"When Keister looked up at the man, the man revealed his erect
penis to Keister and began masturbating energetically while
staring at Keister.

"Keister left the steam room immediately and reported the incident
to a female manager on duty, determined to get answers.

"Like the employee before her, the YMCA's manager's response
surprised Keister.  She acknowledged that the YMCA has had a
problem with public sex acts in the men's locker room for years.
She assured him that the YMCA would take immediate steps to
address the issue and that it was safe for him to continue to use
the facilities.

"Having received this assurance from management, Keister relied on
this reassurance and continued to make use of the facility.

"A short time later, after a workout, Keister entered the sauna.
No one else was in the sauna when Keister entered.

"Soon, another man entered the sauna and sat down while Keister
was reading a newspaper.

"Suddenly, and seemingly out of nowhere, the man reached over and
firmly grabbed Keister's penis, yanking on it, and would not let
it go.

"Shocked, Keister grabbed the man's arm, pried the man's hand off
his penis and yelled in disbelief.

"The man ran out of the sauna.

"Still in shock from what happened, Keister tried to collect
himself and chase after the man.  He went into the dressing area
but could not locate him."

Mr. Keister says that after these incidents, he questioned whether
it was safe to bring his 3-year-old son to the YMCA.

He says he reported the sexual assault to the facility's new
manager, who assured Mr. Keister he would take steps to eliminate
the problem.

But Mr. Keister says the YMCA failed to take any real action.

"Later, Keister returned to the YMCA to ascertain what measures,
if any, had been taken," the complaint states.  "The sole
corrective action he observed was a sign in the men's locker room
prohibiting inappropriate behavior.  On his final visit to the
downtown Asheville YMCA center locker room, a man propositioned
Mr. Keister for a New Year's Eve date."

Mr. Keister says former YMCA employees confirmed that YMCA
management takes a "soft approach" to dealing with such
inappropriate conduct.

He says many other members have been the victims of unwanted
sexual advances at YMCA facilities.

According to the complaint, the YMCA has long tolerated cruising
-- defined as the "search in public places for a sex partner" --
at its facilities and has done nothing to prevent it.

"In the time following these incidents, Keister was troubled by
the way the YMCA discounted his complaints," the complaint states.

"Unable to comprehend the organization's apparent lack of concern
about the assault and its lack of urgency in addressing his
complaints, plaintiff investigated further.  In doing so, Keister
discovered that the Y-WNC is a microcosm of pervasive cruising at
YMCAs nationwide.  Indeed the Y-USA and its subordinate
organizations have turned a blind eye towards cruising for decades
and have harbored such illicit behavior, which has now become even
more prolific at YMCAs nationwide with the advent of the Internet
and social networking Web sites.

"The YMCA is widely acclaimed nationwide as one of the top
cruising spots for men.  As the YMCA knows, men who are seeking to
'cruise' and have sex in YMCA locker rooms, steam baths and saunas
post advertisements around the country on the popular Web site
www.craigslist.com ('Craigslist') and other Internet sites daily.
There are countless personal ads listed for men seeking men with
whom to engage in sex and other sexually explicit activities at
the YMCA. The content of such ads, some of which contain some of
the most indecent images on the web, confirms that 'cruising' and
public sex is a daily occurrence at YMCAs in North Carolina and
around the country."

Mr. Keister says the practice is so pervasive that many other
Web sites, two of which he names in the complaint, are dedicated
to describing the layout of various YMCAs and giving instructions
on how to best pursue sexual activity there.

"There is a published list of instructions on how to effectively
cruise at the YMCA," the complaint states.  "On Cruising Gays, for
example, it is recommended that cruisers 'start stroking in the
sauna or shower and look for a response.'  In addition, Cruising
Gays recommends that at YMCAs, cruisers 'go in the sauna with just
your towel wrapped around you, shift yourself around a few times
to see if.'  Cruisers also are advised to '[w]ait for a guy to
check you out and grab your dick.'"

Mr. Keister claims that many of the "cruising" ads are posted on
Web sites catering to the general public, and feature "YMCA" in ad
titles.

The complaint lists several Craigslist posts that advertise
cruising activities at YMCA centers, in graphic terms.

Mr. Keister says the YMCA is not only aware about the activities
taking place at its facilities, it tacitly promotes them.

The complaint states: "Upon information and belief, YMCAs around
the country and in North Carolina, in particular, are currently
being used as brothels for cruising, with the YMCA's knowledge and
implicit consent.  This poses inordinate and unforeseen risks to
the YMCA's non-cruising members and guests.

"Notwithstanding, the YMCA continues to represent to plaintiff and
the public at large that the YMCA 'promote[s] high ethical
standards and Christian values' and 'programs provide a healthy
and safe environment for families to share experiences, improve
relationships, and communicate on a different level.'

"Such claims are misleading, incomplete, and deceptive.  The YMCA
has a long history and awareness of cruising and its 'soft
approach' and tacit approval of cruising is putting its members,
guests, and consumers in harm's way."

Mr. Keister adds: "Fundamentally, members, such as plaintiffs, and
their families cannot engage in routine lavatory behavior at YMCAs
without 'cruising' men assuming they are signaling a desire for
sex.  Patrons are unknowingly answering 'yes' to solicitations for
sexual interaction with strangers while being oblivious to the
fact that the question is being posed to them.  Its patrons thus
are the unwitting targets and victims of sexual crimes, such as
the ones suffered by plaintiff Keister."

The Keisters seek class certification, restitution, and
compensatory and punitive damages for violations of the North
Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract.  And they want the YMCA to
stop the wrongful conduct.

YMCA Chief Operating Officer John Mikos did not return requests
for comment.

A copy of the Complaint in Keister, et ux. v. National Council of
the Young Men's Christian Association of the United States of
America d/b/a YMCA of the USA, et al., Case No. 12CV01137 (N.C.
Super. Ct., Buncombe Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/20/YMCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul A. Capua, Esq.
          Michael J. Volpe, Esq.
          CAPUA LAW FIRM, P.A.
          The Greenhouse
          164 South Depot Street
          Boone, NC 28607
          Telephone: (828) 264-0260
          E-mail: pcapua@capualawfirm.com


ZOLL MEDICAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Mass. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Zoll
Medical Corp. is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair
process to Asahi Kasei Corp., for $93 a share or $2.1 billion, in
Middlesex County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Rodriguez v. Zoll Medical Corporation,
et al., Case No. 12-1004 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/20/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN, MANDELCORN & ZEYTOONIAN, LLP
          110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: (781) 431-2231
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
          Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: soddo@robbinsumeda.com
                  kmcintyre@robbinsumeda.com
                  jrieger@robbinsumeda.com

               - and -

          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 706-9314
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Patrick Powers, Esq.
          POWERS TAYLOR LLP
          8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-4565
          E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Remains a Defendant in 30 Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., continues to defend itself
against 30 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company states: "We are one of several unrelated defendants in
30 lawsuits filed in Louisiana and Mississippi state courts
alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized
drilling mud containing asbestos and, in our case, allowed such
drilling mud to have been utilized aboard our offshore drilling
rigs. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The manufacture and
use of asbestos-containing drilling mud had already ceased before
we acquired any of the drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits.
We believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted and we
expect to receive complete defense and indemnity with respect to a
majority of the lawsuits from Murphy Exploration & Production
Company pursuant to the terms of our 1992 asset purchase agreement
with them. We also believe that we are not liable for the damages
asserted in the remaining lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our
1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation, and we
have filed a declaratory judgment action in Texas state court
against NuStar Energy LP, the successor to Diamond M Corporation,
seeking a judicial determination that we did not assume liability
for these claims. We are unable to estimate our potential
exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but do not
believe that ultimate liability, if any, resulting from this
litigation will have a material effect on our financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., is a global offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor with a fleet of 49 offshore rigs, consisting
of 32 semisubmersibles, 13 jack-ups and four dynamically
positioned drillships, three of which are under construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 29,064 Pending Suits v. General Cable at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation had 29,064 asbestos-related lawsuits
pending against it at the end of 2011, according to the Company's
February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company has been a defendant in asbestos litigation for
approximately 20 years. As of December 31, 2011, General Cable was
a defendant in 29,064 lawsuits. Also, 28,438 of these lawsuits
have been brought on behalf of plaintiffs by a single admiralty
law firm ("MARDOC") and seek unspecified damages. Plaintiffs in
the MARDOC cases generally allege that they formerly worked in the
maritime industry and sustained asbestos-related injuries from
products that General Cable ceased manufacturing in the mid-1970s.
The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a federal judge in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ("District Court") by reason of a transfer by the
judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL").

In the MARDOC cases in the MDL, the District Court in May 1996
dismissed all pending cases filed without prejudice and placed
them on an inactive administrative docket. To reinstate a MARDOC
case from the inactive docket, plaintiffs' counsel must show that
the plaintiff not only suffered from a recognized asbestos related
injury, but also must produce specific product identification
evidence to proceed against an individual defendant. During 2010,
the MDL Court ordered Plaintiffs to identify the defendants
against whom they intended to proceed in the Maritime cases.
General Cable was not named as a defendant against whom the
plaintiffs intended to proceed. As such it is now anticipated that
General Cable will be dismissed from all Maritime related
lawsuits.

In addition, Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by
the Company. As of December 31, 2011, General Cable was a
defendant in approximately 29,064 cases brought in Federal
District Courts throughout the United States. With regards to the
approximately 626 remaining cases, General Cable has aggressively
defended these cases based upon either lack of product
identification as to General Cable manufactured asbestos-
containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from
the use of General Cable product. In the last 20 years, General
Cable has had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases,
General Cable was dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack
of product identification.

For cases outside the MDL as of December 31, 2011, plaintiffs have
asserted monetary damages in 281 cases. In 146 of these cases,
plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount
(about $175,000 per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims
for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In 134
other cases pending in state and Federal District Courts (outside
the MDL), plaintiffs seek approximately $346 million in damages
from as many as 110 defendants. In 1 case, plaintiffs have
asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of $10
million. In addition, in relation to these 281 cases, there are
claims of $178 million in punitive damages from all of the
defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege
non-malignant injuries.

Based on the Company's experience in this litigation, the amounts
pleaded in the complaints are not typically meaningful as an
indicator of the Company's potential liability because (1) the
amounts claimed usually bear no relation to the level of
plaintiff's injury, if any; (2) complaints nearly always assert
claims against multiple defendants (a typical complaint asserts
claims against some 50 different defendants); (3) damages alleged
are not attributed to individual defendants; (4) the defendants'
share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several
liability; (5) the amount of fault to be allocated to each
defendant is different depending on each case; (6) many cases are
filed against General Cable, even though the plaintiff did not use
any of General Cable's products, and ultimately are withdrawn or
dismissed without any payment; (7) many cases are brought on
behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injuries,
and ultimately are resolved without any payment to that plaintiff;
and (8) with regard to claims for punitive damages, potential
liability generally is related to the amount of potential exposure
to asbestos from a defendant's products. General Cable's asbestos-
containing products contained only a minimal amount of fully
encapsulated asbestos.

Further, General Cable has approximately 20 years of experience in
this litigation, and has, to date, resolved the claims of
approximately 11,437 plaintiffs. The cumulative average settlement
through December 31, 2011 has been approximately $693 per case.
However, the average settlements paid to resolve litigation in
2011 and 2010 have increased significantly above that amount as
the mix of cases currently being listed for trial in state courts
and those which may be listed in the future, which may need to be
resolved, involve more serious asbestos related injuries. At
December 31, 2011 and 2010, General Cable had accrued, on a gross
basis, approximately $5.1 million and had recorded approximately
$0.6 million and $0.5 million of insurance recoveries for these
lawsuits, respectively. Management believes that the net amount of
$4.5 million and $4.6 million, as of December 31, 2011 and 2010,
respectively, represents the best estimate in order to cover
resolution of future asbestos-related claims.

In January 1994, General Cable entered into a settlement agreement
with certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for
the costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of
the asbestos litigation. Subject to the terms and conditions of
the settlement agreement, the insurers are responsible for a
substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the
defense or resolution of this litigation. In recent years, one of
the insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible
for a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement
agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings. As a
result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and the
Company has had to bear a larger portion of the costs relating to
these lawsuits. Moreover, certain of the other insurers may be
financially unstable, and if one or more of these insurers enter
into insurance liquidation proceedings, General Cable will be
required to pay a larger portion of the costs incurred in
connection with these cases. During 2006, the Company reached an
approximately $3.0 million settlement in cash for the resolution
of one of these insurers' obligations that effectively exhausted
the limits of the insurance company's policies that were included
in the 1994 settlement agreement.

Based on (1) the terms of the insurance settlement agreement; (2)
the relative costs and expenses incurred in the disposition of
past asbestos cases; (3) reserves established on the Company's
books which are believed to be reasonable; and (4) defenses
available to the Company in the litigation, the Company believes
that the resolution of the present asbestos litigation will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial results, consolidated cash flows or consolidated
financial position. However, since the outcome of litigation is
inherently uncertain, the Company cannot give absolute assurance
regarding the future resolution of the asbestos litigation.
Liabilities incurred in connection with asbestos litigation are
not covered by the American Premier indemnification.

General Cable Corporation develops, designs, manufactures,
markets, and distributes copper, aluminum, and fiber optic wire
and cable products for use in the energy, industrial,
construction, specialty, and communications markets worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 50,090 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had pending approximately 50,090 asbestos claims
as of December 31, 2011, as compared with approximately 52,220 as
of December 31, 2010, and 62,360 as of December 31, 2009,
according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one
of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases.
In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a
claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-
containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in
commercial ships.

Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. As of December 31, 2011, the Company had pending
approximately 50,090 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 52,220 as of December 31, 2010 and 62,360 as of
December 31, 2009. During 2011, the Company received approximately
4,410 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket
approximately 6,540 claims. The Company reports claims as closed
when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a
court or when the Company has reached agreement with the claimants
on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on
the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claim,
the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors.
The Company's total costs for the years 2011 and 2010 for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax benefits were approximately $33 million
and $14 million, respectively. The Company's costs for settlement
and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year as insurance
proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the
insured portion of the expenses.

Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos-
related disease. The predominant number of claims against the
Company are non-cancer claims. In a substantial number of the
pending claims, the plaintiff has not yet identified the claimed
injury. The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are
adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based
upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of
outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the
breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs
per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the
number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended
down in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos
liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including,
among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to
resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of
its asbestos liabilities.

CBS Corporation is a mass media company with operations in these
segments: entertainment; cable networks; publishing; local
broadcasting and outdoor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Had 5,443 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., recorded 5,443 pending
asbestos claims at end of  2011, according to the Company's
February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

AIG continues to receive claims asserting injuries and damages
from toxic waste, hazardous substances, and other environmental
pollutants and alleged claims to cover the cleanup costs of
hazardous waste dump sites, referred to collectively as
environmental claims, and indemnity claims asserting injuries from
asbestos. The vast majority of these asbestos and environmental
claims emanate from policies written in 1984 and prior years.
Commencing in 1985, standard policies contained an absolute
exclusion for pollution-related damage and an absolute asbestos
exclusion was also implemented.

The majority of AIG's exposures for asbestos and environmental
claims are excess casualty coverages, not primary coverages. Thus,
the litigation costs are treated in the same manner as indemnity
amounts. That is, litigation expenses are included within the
limits of the liability AIG incurs. Individual significant claim
liabilities, where future litigation costs are reasonably
determinable, are established on a case-by-case basis.

On June 17, 2011, Chartis, a division of AIG, completed a
transaction with NICO, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.,
under which the bulk of Chartis' net domestic asbestos liabilities
were transferred to NICO as part of Chartis' ongoing strategy to
reduce its overall loss reserve development risk. The transaction
with NICO covers potentially volatile U.S.-related asbestos
exposures. The transaction does not cover asbestos accounts that
Chartis believes have already been reserved to their limit of
liability or certain other ancillary asbestos exposure assumed by
Chartis subsidiaries.  Effective as of January 1, 2011, Chartis
ceded the bulk of its net domestic asbestos liabilities to NICO
under a retroactive reinsurance agreement with an aggregate limit
of $3.5 billion. The aggregate limit includes NICO's assumption of
collection risk for existing third-party reinsurance recoverable
associated with these liabilities. Chartis paid NICO approximately
$1.67 billion as consideration for this cession and NICO assumed
approximately $1.82 billion of net U.S. asbestos liabilities. As a
result of this transaction, Chartis recorded a deferred gain of
$150 million in the second quarter of 2011, which is being
amortized into income over the settlement period of the underlying
claims.

As of December 31, 2011, AIG's net liability for unpaid asbestos
claims and claims adjustment expense at end of year, reflecting
NICO transaction was $537 million.

As of December 31, 2011, AIG reported this asbestos claims count
activity:

     Claims at beginning of year                  4,933

     Claims during year:
          Opened                                    141
          Settled                                  (183)
          Dismissed or otherwise resolved          (289)
          Other                                     841

     Claims at end of year                        5,443

American International Group, Inc., (AIG) is an international
insurance organization serving customers in more than 130
countries.  AIG companies serve commercial, institutional and
individual customers through one of the most extensive worldwide
property-casualty networks of any insurer.  In addition, AIG
companies are providers of life insurance and retirement services
in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries have been named
as defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as
a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at formerly
owned facilities. The Company believes that pending and reasonably
anticipated future actions are not likely to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows. There can be no assurance, however, that
future legislative or other developments will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash
flows in a given period, according to the Company's February 23,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

No further asbestos-related update was reported in the Company's
latest SEC filing.

Goodrich Corporation is one of the largest worldwide suppliers of
aerospace components, systems and services to the commercial and
general aviation airplane markets.  It is also a supplier of
systems and products to the global defense and space markets. Its
business is conducted globally with manufacturing, service and
sales undertaken in various locations throughout the world. Its
products and services are sold principally to customers in North
America, Europe and Asia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26,000 Pending Claims v. Dana Holding at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had approximately 26,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims at December 31, 2011,
versus 30,000 at December 31, 2010, according to the Company's
February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company states: "In addition, approximately 1,000 mostly
inactive claims have been settled and are awaiting final
documentation and dismissal, with or without payment.  We have
accrued $89 million for indemnity and defense costs for settled,
pending and future claims at December 31, 2011, compared to $101
million at December 31, 2010.  We use a fifteen-year time horizon
for our estimate of this liability.

"At December 31, 2011, we had recorded $53 million as an asset for
probable recovery from our insurers for the pending and projected
asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $52 million
recorded at December 31, 2010.  The recorded asset represents our
assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to
provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs
for pending claims and projected future demands.  The recognition
of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to
recover under the respective contracts and on the financial
strength of the insurers.  We have coverage agreements in place
with our insurers confirming substantially all of the related
coverage and payments are being received on a timely basis.  The
financial strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually
with the assistance of a third party.  The recorded asset does not
represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the
amount we would expect to recover if we paid the accrued indemnity
and defense costs.  A 2011 settlement with one of the insurers
provided increased coverage on pending and projected claims,
resulting in an increased aggregate receivable as a percent of the
total liability at December 31, 2011.

"As part of our reorganization, assets and liabilities associated
with asbestos claims were retained in Dana Corporation which was
then merged into Dana Companies, LLC, a consolidated wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dana.  The assets of Dana Companies, LLC include
insurance rights relating to coverage against these liabilities
and other assets which we believe are sufficient to satisfy its
liabilities.  Dana Companies, LLC continues to process asbestos
personal injury claims in the normal course of business, is
separately managed and has an independent board member.  The
independent board member is required to approve certain
transactions including dividends or other transfers of $1 million
or more of value to Dana.

"During the second quarter of 2011, we reached an agreement with
an insurer to settle a long-standing claim pending in the
liquidation proceedings of the insurer and recorded the estimated
fair value of the recovery.  As a result, other income includes a
$6 million credit for this recovery of past outlays related to
asbestos claims.  During 2010, we recorded $1 million of pre-tax
expense ($2 million during the first quarter, offset by a
$1 million credit during the second quarter) to correct amounts
primarily associated with asbestos-related insurance receivables
at December 31, 2009.  These adjustments were not considered
material to 2010 or to the prior periods to which they relate."

Dana Holdings Corporation is headquartered in Maumee, Ohio and was
incorporated in Delaware in 2007.  It is a supplier of driveline
products (axles, driveshafts and transmissions), power
technologies (sealing and thermal-management products) and genuine
service parts for vehicle manufacturers world-wide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Continues to Seek Coverage for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company continues to pursue its lawsuit against its
insurers over coverage of asbestos claims, according to the
Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

Coca-Cola states: "During the period from 1970 to 1981, our
Company owned Aqua-Chem, Inc., now known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.
("Aqua-Chem"). During that time, the Company purchased over $400
million of insurance coverage, which also insures Aqua-Chem for
some of its prior and future costs for certain product liability
and other claims. A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain
boilers that contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from
outside suppliers. Several years after our Company sold this
entity, Aqua-Chem received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos,
a component of some of the gaskets. Aqua-Chem was first named as a
defendant in asbestos lawsuits in or around 1985 and currently has
approximately 40,000 active claims pending against it.

"In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified our Company that it
believed we were obligated for certain costs and expenses
associated with its asbestos litigations. Aqua-Chem demanded that
our Company reimburse it for approximately $10 million for out-of-
pocket litigation-related expenses. Aqua-Chem also demanded that
the Company acknowledge a continuing obligation to Aqua-Chem for
any future liabilities and expenses that are excluded from
coverage under the applicable insurance or for which there is no
insurance. Our Company disputes Aqua-Chem's claims, and we believe
we have no obligation to Aqua-Chem for any of its past, present or
future liabilities, costs or expenses.

"Furthermore, we believe we have substantial legal and factual
defenses to Aqua-Chem's claims. The parties entered into
litigation in Georgia to resolve this dispute, which was stayed by
agreement of the parties pending the outcome of litigation filed
in Wisconsin by certain insurers of Aqua-Chem. In that case, five
plaintiff insurance companies filed a declaratory judgment action
against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16 defendant insurance
companies seeking a determination of the parties' rights and
liabilities under policies issued by the insurers and
reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in excess of their
obligations. During the course of the Wisconsin insurance coverage
litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements with
several of the insurers, including plaintiffs, who have or will
pay funds into an escrow account for payment of costs arising from
the asbestos claims against Aqua-Chem.

"On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final
declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the
parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining
defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed. The judgment
directs, among other things, that each insurer whose policy is
triggered is jointly and severally liable for 100 percent of Aqua-
Chem's losses up to policy limits. The court's judgment concluded
the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation. The Georgia
litigation remains subject to the stay agreement. The Company and
Aqua-Chem continued to negotiate with various insurers that were
defendants in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation over
those insurers' obligations to defend and indemnify Aqua-Chem for
the asbestos-related claims. The Company anticipated that a final
settlement with three of those insurers would be finalized in May
2011, but such insurers repudiated their settlement commitments
and, as a result, Aqua-Chem and the Company filed suit against
them in Wisconsin state court to enforce the coverage-in-place
settlement or, in the alternative, to obtain a declaratory
judgment validating Aqua-Chem and the Company's interpretation of
the court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance coverage
litigation. Whether or not Aqua-Chem and the Company prevail in
the coverage-in-place settlement litigation, these three insurance
companies will remain subject to the court's judgment in the
Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.

"The Company is unable to estimate at this time the amount or
range of reasonably possible loss it may ultimately incur as a
result of asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem. The Company
believes that assuming (a) the defense and indemnity costs for the
asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem in the future are in the
same range as during the past five years, and (b) the various
insurers that cover the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem
remain solvent, regardless of the outcome of the coverage-in-place
settlement litigation, there will likely be little defense or
indemnity costs that are not covered by insurance over the next
five to seven years and, therefore, it is unlikely that Aqua-Chem
would seek indemnification from the Company within that period of
time. In the event Aqua-Chem and the Company prevail in the
coverage-in-place settlement litigation, and based on the same
assumptions, the Company believes insurance coverage for
substantially all defense and indemnity costs would be available
for the next 10 to 12 years."

The Coca-Cola Company is the world's largest beverage company. The
Company owns or licenses and markets more than 500 nonalcoholic
beverage brands, primarily sparkling beverages but also a variety
of still beverages such as waters, enhanced waters, juices and
juice drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, and energy and
sports drinks.  Its products are sold in more than 200 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brunswick Unit Still a Defendant in 2,500 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick Corporation's subsidiary, Old Orchard Industrial Corp.,
remains a defendant in more than 2,500 lawsuits involving claims
of asbestos exposure from products manufactured by Vapor
Corporation, a former subsidiary divested by the Company in 1990,
according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.

The substantial majority of the asbestos suits involve numerous
other defendants. The claims generally allege that Vapor sold
products that contained asbestos, and seek monetary damages.
Neither Brunswick nor Vapor is alleged to have manufactured
asbestos. Several thousand claims against Vapor have been
dismissed with no payment and no claim has gone to jury verdict.
In a few cases, claims have been filed against other Brunswick
entities alleging the sale of products with components that
include asbestos.  A majority of these suits have been dismissed
or settled. The Company does not believe that the resolution of
these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

Brunswick Corporation is a Delaware corporation, incorporated on
December 31, 1907. Brunswick is a global designer, manufacturer
and marketer of recreation products including marine engines,
boats, fitness equipment and bowling and billiards equipment.
Brunswick's engine products include: outboard, sterndrive and
inboard engines; trolling motors; propellers; engine control
systems; and marine parts and accessories.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 23,682 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's subsidiaries had 23,682 pending asbestos
claims at the end of 2011, according to the Company's
February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many defendants
in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with
components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such
components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not
manufactured by any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the
subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The
manufactured products that are alleged to have contained asbestos
generally were provided to meet the specifications of the
subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy.

The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the Company
considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each
claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos claimant
has fluctuated during the past several years. The Company expects
such fluctuations to continue in the future based upon, among
other things, the number and type of claims settled in a
particular period and the jurisdictions in which such claims
arise. To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed
for no payment.

Of the 23,682 pending claims as of December 31, 2011,
approximately 3,700 of such claims have been brought in the
Supreme Court of New York County, New York; approximately 550 of
such claims have been brought in the U.S. District Court, Eastern
and Western Districts of Michigan; approximately 200 of such
claims have been brought in the Superior Court, Middlesex County,
New Jersey; and approximately 50 claims have been brought in
various federal and state courts in Mississippi. The remaining
pending claims have been filed in various other state and federal
courts.

Claims activity related to asbestos is:

                                       Year Ended Dec. 31, 2011
                                       ------------------------
     (Number of Claims)

     Claims unresolved, beginning of period     24,764
     Claims filed                                4,927
     Claims resolved                            (6,009)
     Claims unresolved, end of period           23,682

     (In Dollars)

     Average cost of resolved claims           $15,397

The Company has projected each subsidiary's future asbestos-
related liability costs with regard to pending and future
unasserted claims based upon the Nicholson methodology. The
Nicholson methodology is a standard approach used by experts and
has been accepted by numerous courts. It is the Company's policy
to record a liability for asbestos-related liability costs for the
longest period of time that it can reasonably estimate.

The Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos-
related liability for pending and future claims that will be
resolved in the next 15 years and has recorded that liability as
its best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the
subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, the Company does
not believe the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably
possible loss is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no
accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be paid after
the next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related
liabilities as well as costs incurred related to litigation
against the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as incurred.

During the year ended December 31, 2009, an analysis of claims
data including filing and dismissal rates, alleged disease mix,
filing jurisdiction, as well as settlement values resulted in the
determination that the Company should revise its rolling 15-year
estimate of asbestos-related liability for pending and future
claims. The analysis reflected that a statistically significant
increase in mesothelioma filings had occurred and was expected to
continue for both subsidiaries. As a result, the Company recorded
an $11.6 million pretax charge, which was comprised of an increase
to its asbestos-related liabilities of $111.3 million offset by
expected insurance recoveries of $99.7 million, during the year
ended December 31, 2009.

Each subsidiary has separate insurance coverage acquired prior to
Company ownership of each independent entity. In its evaluation of
the insurance asset, the Company used differing insurance
allocation methodologies for each subsidiary based upon the
applicable law pertaining to the affected subsidiary.

For one of the subsidiaries, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled
on October 14, 2009 that asbestos-related costs should be
allocated among excess insurers using an "all sums" allocation
(which allows an insured to collect all sums paid in connection
with a claim from any insurer whose policy is triggered, up to the
policy's applicable limits) and that the subsidiary has rights to
excess insurance policies purchased by a former owner of the
business. Based upon this ruling mandating an "all sums"
allocation, as well as the language of the underlying insurance
policies and the assertion and belief that defense costs are
outside policy limits, during the year ended December 31, 2009,
the Company increased its future expected recovery percentage from
67% to 90% of asbestos-related costs following the exhaustion of
its primary and umbrella layers of insurance and recorded a pretax
gain of $17.3 million. The subsidiary expects to be responsible
for approximately 10% of its future asbestos-related costs.

For this subsidiary, during the year ended December 31, 2010, an
insolvent carrier that had written approximately $1.4 million in
limits for which the subsidiary had assumed no recovery made a
cash settlement offer of approximately $0.7 million. As such, the
subsidiary recorded a gain for this amount.

The subsidiary was notified in 2010 by the primary and umbrella
carrier who had been fully defending and indemnifying the
subsidiary for 20 years that the limits of liability of its
primary and umbrella layer policies had been exhausted. Since
then, the subsidiary has sought coverage from certain excess layer
insurers whose terms and conditions follow form to the umbrella
carrier. Certain first-layer excess insurers have defended and/or
indemnified the subsidiary, subject to their reservations of
rights and their applicable policy limits. Litigation between this
subsidiary and its excess insurers is continuing and a trial date
has been set for the fourth quarter of 2012. The subsidiary
continues to work with its excess insurers to obtain defense and
indemnity payments while the litigation is proceeding. Given the
uncertainties of litigation, there is a variety of possible
outcomes, including but not limited to the subsidiary being
required to fund all or a portion of the subsidiary's defense and
indemnity payments until such time a final ruling orders payment
by the insurers. While not impacting the results of operations,
the funding requirement could range up to $10 million per quarter
until final resolution. In addition, because a statistically
significant increase in mesothelioma claims had occurred and was
expected to continue to occur in certain regions, this subsidiary
recorded a $1.8 million pre-tax charge, which was comprised of an
increase in its asbestos-related liabilities of $18.1 million
partially offset by an increase in expected insurance recoveries
of $16.3 million, during the fourth quarter of the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In 2003, the other subsidiary filed a lawsuit against a large
number of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a variety
of disputes concerning insurance for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims asserted against it. Although none of these
insurance companies contested coverage, they disputed the timing,
reasonableness and allocation of payments.

For this subsidiary it was determined by court ruling in 2007,
that the allocation methodology mandated by the New Jersey courts
will apply. Further court rulings in December of 2009, clarified
the allocation calculation related to amounts currently due from
insurers as well as amounts the Company expects to be reimbursed
for asbestos-related costs incurred in future periods. As a
result, during the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company
increased its receivable for past costs by $11.9 million and
decreased its insurance asset for future costs by $9.8 million and
recorded a pretax gain of $2.1 million.

In connection with this litigation, the court engaged a special
master to review the appropriate information and recommend an
allocation formula in accordance with applicable law and the facts
of the case. During 2010, the court-appointed special allocation
master made its recommendation. As a result, during the year ended
December 31, 2010, the Company reduced the current asbestos
receivable by $2.8 million, decreased the long-term asbestos asset
by $1.2 million and recorded a net charge to asbestos liability
and defense costs of $4.0 million. In May 2011, the court accepted
the recommendation with modifications. A final judgment at the
trial court level in this litigation was rendered during the year
ended December 31, 2011, but appeals have been entered. As a
result of this judgment, the Company recorded a provision for $2.1
million during the year ended December 31, 2011, which is
reflected in the Balance Sheet as an increase of $1.4 million in
Other accrued liabilities and a reduction of $0.7 million in
Asbestos insurance asset. The Company made a payment of $5.0
million, which was previously accrued for, to return certain
overpayments to the insurers. In addition, because of the higher
settlement values per mesothelioma claim in 2011 in a specific
region, this subsidiary recorded a $0.7 million pre-tax charge,
which was comprised of an increase to its asbestos-related
liabilities of $4.7 million partially offset by an increase in
expected insurance recoveries of $4.0 million, during the fourth
quarter of the year ended December 31, 2011. This trend is not
expected to continue for this subsidiary. The subsidiary expects
to be responsible for approximately 16% of all future asbestos-
related costs.

Colfax Corporation is a diversified global industrial
manufacturing and engineering company that provides gas- and
fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and services to
commercial and governmental customers around the world under the
Howden and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $431.1MM Reserves at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation has established reserves of $431.1 million and
$429.7 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, for
the probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability
cost it believes the subsidiaries will pay through the next 15
years, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many defendants
in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with
components that are alleged to have contained asbestos.

The Company has also established recoverables of $370.3 million
and $374.4 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively,
for the insurance recoveries that are deemed probable during the
same time period. Net of these recoverables, the expected cash
outlay on a non-discounted basis for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims over the next 15 years was $60.8 million and $55.3
million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. In
addition, the Company has recorded a receivable for liability and
defense costs previously paid in the amount of $47.7 million and
$51.8 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, for
which insurance recovery is deemed probable. The Company has
included the reserves for the asbestos liabilities in Accrued
asbestos liability and Long-term asbestos liability and the
related insurance recoveries in Asbestos insurance asset and Long-
term asbestos insurance asset in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The receivable for previously paid liability and defense costs is
recorded in Asbestos insurance receivable and Long-term asbestos
insurance receivable in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The
Company also has reflected in Other accrued liabilities $27.6
million and $23.3 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010,
respectively, for overpayments by certain insurers and unpaid
legal costs related to defending itself against asbestos-related
liability claims and legal action against the Company's insurers.

Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

Colfax Corporation is a diversified global industrial
manufacturing and engineering company that provides gas- and
fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and services to
commercial and governmental customers around the world under the
Howden and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $12.2M 2011 Liability & Defense Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's asbestos liability and defense costs for the
year ended December 31, 2011, were $12.2 million, according to the
Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

Asbestos liability and defense costs (income) is comprised of
projected indemnity cost, changes in the projected asbestos
liability, changes in the probable insurance recovery of the
projected asbestos-related liability, changes in the probable
recovery of asbestos liability and defense costs paid in prior
periods, and actual defense costs expensed in the period.
Asbestos liability and defense costs (income) for the year ended
December 31, 2011, were $12.2 million.

Asbestos liability and defense costs increased by $4.3 million
during 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to a $2.1 million
provision related to a court judgment received for one of the
Company's subsidiaries' litigation against a number of its
insurers and former parent, a $1.8 million pre-tax charge because
of a statistically significant increase in mesothelioma claims had
occurred and is expected to continue to occur related to one of
the Company's subsidiaries and a $0.7 million pre-tax charge
resulting from higher settlement values per mesothelioma claim in
a specific region, which is not a trend that is expected to
continue, related to the other subsidiary. Additionally, lower
levels of legal spending in 2010 and a higher level of projected
insurance recovery driven by insurance policies triggered during
the 2010 periods contributed to the fluctuation in comparison to
the comparable 2010 periods.

Asbestos liability and defense costs were $7.9 million in 2010
compared to income of $2.2 million in 2009. The increase in
Asbestos liability and defense costs was primarily attributable to
a net pre-tax gain of $7.8 million recorded in 2009, comprised of
a $19.4 million gain to increase the insurance asset as a result
of favorable court rulings in October and December of 2009
concerning allocation methodology, partially offset by an $11.6
million charge to increase asbestos-related liabilities by $111.3
million, offset by an increase to expected insurance recoveries of
$99.7 million arising from a revision to the Company's 15-year
estimate of asbestos-related liabilities. Additionally, the
Company recorded charges totaling $4.0 million in the third and
fourth quarters of 2010 as a result of developments in the
litigation, which was partially offset by a $0.7 million gain
resulting from a settlement received from an insolvent carrier.

Asbestos coverage litigation expense includes legal costs related
to the actions against two of the Company's subsidiaries'
respective insurers and a former parent company of one of the
subsidiaries.  Asbestos coverage litigation expense for the year
ended December 31, 2011, was $10.7 million.

Legal costs related to the Company's subsidiaries' actions against
their asbestos insurers decreased by $2.5 million during 2011
primarily due to more trial days being conducted in 2010 than
2011. Legal costs related to the Company's subsidiaries' actions
against their asbestos insurers increased by $1.5 million during
2010 primarily due to costs associated with the trial by one of
the Company's subsidiaries against insurers and former parent that
began in January 2010. The trial phase of litigation against
insurers concluded during the third quarter of 2011 for one of the
Company's subsidiaries and is expected to conclude during the
fourth quarter of 2012 for the other subsidiary.

Colfax Corporation is a diversified global industrial
manufacturing and engineering company that provides gas- and
fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and services to
commercial and governmental customers around the world under the
Howden and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Has Net Reserves of $32.2MM at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant Inc. had reserves of $32,229,000 (net of reinsurance) at
the end of 2011 for claims including exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company states: "Our property and warranty line of business
includes exposure to asbestos, environmental and other general
liability claims arising from our participation in various
reinsurance pools from 1971 through 1985. This exposure arose from
a contract that we discontinued writing many years ago. We carry
case reserves, as recommended by the various pool managers, and
reserves for incurred but not reported claims (IBNR) totaling
$39,579,000 (before reinsurance) and $32,229,000 (net of
reinsurance) at December 31, 2011. We believe the balance of case
and IBNR reserves for these liabilities are adequate. However, any
estimation of these liabilities is subject to greater than normal
variation and uncertainty due to the general lack of sufficiently
detailed data, reporting delays and absence of a generally
accepted actuarial methodology for those exposures. There are
significant unresolved industry legal issues, including such items
as whether coverage exists and what constitutes a claim. In
addition, the determination of ultimate damages and the final
allocation of losses to financially responsible parties are highly
uncertain. However, based on information currently available, and
after consideration of the reserves reflected in the consolidated
financial statements, we do not believe that changes in reserve
estimates for these claims are likely to be material."

Assurant Inc. is a provider of specialized insurance products and
related services in North America and select worldwide markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Sees $7.4MM Cash Outflow in 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG estimates a net asbestos-related provision of
$7.4 million in 2012, according to the Company's February 23,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company states: "Our net asbestos-related provision is the
result of our revaluation of our asbestos liability and related
asset resulting from adjustments for actual settlement experience
different from our estimates and the accrual of our rolling 15-
year asbestos liability estimate, partially offset by gains on the
settlement of coverage litigation with asbestos insurance
carriers.

"We expect to have net cash outflows of $7,400,000 as a result of
asbestos liability indemnity and defense payments in excess of
insurance settlement proceeds for during 2012. This estimate
assumes no additional settlements with insurance companies and no
elections by us to fund additional payments. As we continue to
collect cash from insurance settlements and assuming no increase
in our asbestos-related insurance liability, the asbestos-related
insurance receivable recorded on our consolidated balance sheet
will continue to decrease.

                       2011           2010           2009
                       ----           ----           ----
Amount           $9,901,000     $5,410,000    $26,365,000
$ Change          4,491,000    (20,955,000)
% Change              83.0%        (79.5)%

"Net asbestos-related provision increased in 2011, compared to
2010, which was the net result of a decreased gain on the
settlement of coverage litigation with asbestos insurance carriers
in 2011, compared to 2010, of $7,900, partially offset by a
decreased provision related to the revaluation of our asbestos
liability of $3,400. Our 2011 and 2010 provisions included charges
to increase our asbestos liability for increased asbestos defense
costs projected over our 15 year estimate.

"Net asbestos-related provision decreased in 2010, compared to
2009, which was the result of an increased gain on the settlement
of coverage litigation with asbestos insurance carriers in 2010,
compared to 2009, of $12,800 and a decreased provision related to
the revaluation of our asbestos liability of $8,200. Our 2010 and
2009 provisions included charges to increase our asbestos
liability for increased asbestos defense costs projected over our
15-year estimate."

Foster Wheeler AG operates through two business groups: the Global
Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and its
Global Power Group. In addition to these two business groups, the
Company also report corporate center expenses, its captive
insurance operation and expenses related to certain liabilities,
such as asbestos, in the Corporate and Finance Group (C&F Group).
Foster Wheeler serves industries, including oil and gas, oil
refining, chemical/petrochemical, pharmaceutical; environmental,
metals and mining, power generation and power plant operation and
maintenance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler UK Units Have 301 Open Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
About 301 claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to
asbestos remain open against some of Foster Wheeler AG's
subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, according to the Company's
February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company states: "Some of our subsidiaries in the United
Kingdom have received claims alleging personal injury arising from
exposure to asbestos. To date, 997 claims have been brought
against our U.K. subsidiaries of which 301 remained open as of
December 31, 2011. None of the settled claims has resulted in
material costs to us. The following table summarizes our asbestos-
related liabilities and assets for our U.K. subsidiaries based on
open (outstanding) claims and our estimate for future unasserted
claims through 2026:

United Kingdom Asbestos           Dec. 31, 2011   Dec. 31, 2010
                                  -------------   -------------
Asbestos-related assets:

     Accounts and notes
       receivable-other              $2,677,000      $1,927,000

     Asbestos-related insurance
       recovery receivable           26,120,000      29,119,000
                                  -------------   -------------
Total asbestos-related assets       $28,797,000     $31,046,000
                                  -------------   -------------

Asbestos-related liabilities:

     Accrued expenses                $2,677,000      $1,927,000
     Asbestos-related liability      26,120,000      29,119,000
                                  -------------   -------------
Total asbestos-related liabilities  $28,797,000     $31,046,000
                                  -------------   -------------

Liability balance by claim category:

     Open claims                     $8,030,000      $5,782,000
     Future unasserted claims        20,767,000      25,264,000
                                  -------------   -------------
Total asbestos-related liabilities  $28,797,000     $31,046,000
                                  -------------   -------------

"The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable
injury. If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total
asbestos liability and related asset recorded in the U.K. would be
approximately $42,000,000."

Foster Wheeler AG operates through two business groups: the Global
Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and its
Global Power Group. In addition to these two business groups, the
Company also report corporate center expenses, its captive
insurance operation and expenses related to certain liabilities,
such as asbestos, in the Corporate and Finance Group (C&F Group).
Foster Wheeler serves industries, including oil and gas, oil
refining, chemical/petrochemical, pharmaceutical; environmental,
metals and mining, power generation and power plant operation and
maintenance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler US Units Have 124,540 Open Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
About 124,540 claims alleging personal injury arising from
exposure to asbestos remain open against some of Foster Wheeler
AG's subsidiaries in the United States, according to the Company's
February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

A summary of the Company's U.S. claim activity:

Number of Claims:                        2011     2010     2009
                                         ----     ----     ----
Open claims at beginning of year      124,420  125,100  130,760

New claims                              4,670    6,080    4,410
Claims resolved                        (4,550)  (6,760) (10,070)
                                      -------  -------  -------
Open claims at end of year            124,540  124,420  125,100
                                      -------  -------  -------
Claims not valued in the liability   (103,170) (97,440) (94,740)
                                      -------  -------  -------
Open claims valued
  in the liability at end of year      21,370   26,980   30,360
                                      -------  -------  -------

The Company states: "Claims not valued in the liability include
claims on certain inactive court dockets, claims over six years
old that are considered abandoned and certain other items.

"Of the approximately 124,540 open claims, our subsidiaries are
respondents in approximately 28,260 open claims wherein we have
administrative agreements and are named defendants in lawsuits
involving approximately 96,280 plaintiffs.

"All of the open administrative claims have been filed under
blanket administrative agreements that we have with various law
firms representing claimants and do not specify monetary damages
sought. Based on our analysis of lawsuits, approximately 54% do
not specify the monetary damages sought or merely recite that the
amount of monetary damages sought meets or exceeds the required
minimum in the jurisdiction in which suit is filed.

"The majority of requests for monetary damages are asserted
against multiple named defendants in a single complaint.

"Total U.S. asbestos-related liabilities are estimated through
December 31, 2026. Although it is likely that claims will continue
to be filed after that date, the uncertainties inherent in any
long-term forecast prevent us from making reliable estimates of
the indemnity and defense costs that might be incurred after that
date.

United States Asbestos            Dec. 31, 2011   Dec. 31, 2010
                                  -------------   -------------
Asbestos-related assets:

   Accounts and notes
     receivable-other               $43,677,000     $54,449,000

   Asbestos-related insurance
     recovery receivable            131,007,000     165,452,000
                                  -------------   -------------
Total asbestos-related assets      $174,684,000    $219,901,000
                                  -------------   -------------
Asbestos-related liabilities:

   Accrued expenses                 $50,900,000     $59,000,000
   Asbestos-related liability       243,400,000     278,500,000
                                  -------------   -------------
Total asbestos-related liabilities $294,300,000    $337,500,000
                                  -------------   -------------
Liability balance by claim category:

   Open claims                      $56,700,000     $78,460,000
   Future unasserted claims         237,600,000     259,040,000
                                  -------------   -------------
Total asbestos-related liabilities $294,300,000    $337,500,000
                                  -------------   -------------

"We have worked with Analysis, Research Planning Corporation, or
ARPC, nationally recognized consultants in the United States with
respect to projecting asbestos liabilities, to estimate the amount
of asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs at each year-end
based on a forecast for the next 15 years. Each year we have
recorded our estimated asbestos liability at a level consistent
with ARPC's reasonable best estimate.

"Based on its review of the 2011 activity, ARPC recommended that
the assumptions used to estimate our future asbestos liability be
updated as of December 31, 2011. Accordingly, we developed a
revised estimate of our aggregate indemnity and defense costs
through December 31, 2026 considering the advice of ARPC. In 2011,
we revalued our liability for asbestos indemnity and defense costs
through December 31, 2026 to $294,300,000, which brought our
liability to a level consistent with ARPC's reasonable best
estimate. In connection with updating our estimated asbestos
liability and related asset, we recorded a charge of $16,001,000
in 2011 primarily related to the revaluation of our asbestos
liability, which includes adjustments for actual settlement
experience different from our estimates and the accrual of our
rolling 15-year asbestos-related liability estimate. The total
asbestos-related liabilities are comprised of our estimates for
our liability relating to open (outstanding) claims being valued
and our liability for future unasserted claims through December
31, 2026.

"Our liability estimate is based upon the following information
and/or assumptions: number of open claims, forecasted number of
future claims, estimated average cost per claim by disease type
-- mesothelioma, lung cancer and non-malignancies -- and the
breakdown of known and future claims into disease type --
mesothelioma, lung cancer or non-malignancies, as well as other
factors. The total estimated liability, which has not been
discounted for the time value of money, includes both the estimate
of forecasted indemnity amounts and forecasted defense costs.
Total defense costs and indemnity liability payments are estimated
to be incurred through December 31, 2026, during which period the
incidence of new claims is forecasted to decrease each year. We
believe that it is likely that there will be new claims filed
after December 31, 2026, but in light of uncertainties inherent in
long-term forecasts, we do not believe that we can reasonably
estimate the indemnity and defense costs that might be incurred
after December 31, 2026.

"Through year-end 2011, total cumulative indemnity costs paid,
prior to insurance recoveries, were approximately $764,900,000 and
total cumulative defense costs paid were approximately
$367,300,000, or approximately 32% of total defense and indemnity
costs. The overall historic average combined indemnity and defense
cost per resolved claim through December 31, 2011, has been
approximately $3,100. The average cost per resolved claim is
increasing and we believe it will continue to increase in the
future.

"Over the last several years, certain of our subsidiaries have
entered into settlement agreements calling for insurers to make
lump-sum payments, as well as payments over time, for use by our
subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs
and, in certain cases, for reimbursement for portions of out-of-
pocket costs previously incurred. During 2011, 2010 and 2009, our
subsidiaries reached agreements with certain of their insurers to
settle their disputed asbestos-related insurance coverage. As a
result of these settlements, we increased our asbestos-related
insurance asset and recorded settlement gains.

"Asbestos-related assets under executed settlement agreements with
insurers due in the next 12 months are recorded within accounts
and notes receivable-other and amounts due beyond 12 months are
recorded within asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable.
Asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable also includes our
best estimate of actual and probable insurance recoveries relating
to our liability for pending and estimated future asbestos claims
through year-end 2026. Our asbestos-related assets have not been
discounted for the time value of money.

"Our insurance recoveries may be limited by future insolvencies
among our insurers. Other than receivables related to bankruptcy
court-approved settlements during liquidation proceedings, we have
not assumed recovery in the estimate of our asbestos-related
insurance asset from any of our currently insolvent insurers. We
have considered the financial viability and legal obligations of
our subsidiaries' insurance carriers and believe that the insurers
or their guarantors will continue to reimburse a significant
portion of claims and defense costs relating to asbestos
litigation. As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, we have not recorded
an allowance for uncollectible balances against our asbestos-
related insurance assets. We write off receivables from insurers
that have become insolvent; there have been no such write-offs
during 2011, 2010 and 2009. During 2011, we reached an agreement
with an insurer that was under bankruptcy liquidation and for
which we had written off our receivable prior to 2009. The asset
awarded under the bankruptcy liquidation for this insurer was
$4,500,000 and was included in our asbestos-related assets as of
December 31, 2011. Other insurers may become insolvent in the
future and our insurers may fail to reimburse amounts owed to us
on a timely basis. If we fail to realize the expected insurance
recoveries, or experience delays in receiving material amounts
from our insurers, our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

Foster Wheeler AG operates through two business groups: the Global
Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and its
Global Power Group. In addition to these two business groups, the
Company also report corporate center expenses, its captive
insurance operation and expenses related to certain liabilities,
such as asbestos, in the Corporate and Finance Group (C&F Group).
Foster Wheeler serves industries, including oil and gas, oil
refining, chemical/petrochemical, pharmaceutical; environmental,
metals and mining, power generation and power plant operation and
maintenance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Has $1MM Payable Under Trust in 2012
------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s remaining $1.0 million payable to an
asbestos trust is expected to be made during 2012, according to
the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

The Company states: "On July 12, 2010, our subsidiary Leslie
Controls, Inc. ("Leslie") filed a voluntary petition (the
"Bankruptcy Filing") under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and,
simultaneously, filed a pre-negotiated plan of reorganization (as
amended, the "Reorganization Plan" or "Plan") in an effort to
permanently resolve Leslie's exposure to asbestos-related product
liability actions. On February 7, 2011, the U.S. Federal District
Court for the District of Delaware (the "District Court") affirmed
the Bankruptcy Court's earlier order confirming Leslie's
Reorganization Plan, thus clearing the way for Leslie to emerge
from bankruptcy. On April 28, 2011, pursuant to the terms of the
Reorganization Plan, Leslie and CIRCOR contributed $76.6 million
in cash and a $1 million promissory note (the "Note") to fund the
Leslie Controls Asbestos Trust (the "Trust"), and Leslie emerged
from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Under the terms of the
Plan, all current and future asbestos related claims against
Leslie, as well as all current and future derivative claims
against CIRCOR, are now permanently channeled to the Trust, and
the only remaining financial obligation of Leslie and CIRCOR is
payment of the Note. On September 30, 2011, the District Court
entered an order for the final decree closing the Chapter 11 case.

"Leslie recorded an estimated liability associated with reported
asbestos claims when it believed that a loss was both probable and
could be reasonably estimated. By the fourth quarter of 2009 it
was determined that Leslie had claims experience sufficient to
provide a reasonable estimate of the liability associated not only
with Leslie's open asbestos claims but also with respect to future
claims. As a result, during the fourth quarter of 2009, Leslie
recorded an additional $39.8 million to its asbestos liability
accrual for the estimated indemnity costs associated with future
claims anticipated to be filed during the next five years.
Asbestos related defense costs continued to be expensed as
incurred and were not included in any future claim reserves.
During 2010, as a result of Leslie's Bankruptcy Filing and
Reorganization Plan, we accrued liabilities based on the terms of
the Reorganization Plan. As of December 31, 2010, we therefore
recorded net Leslie asbestos and bankruptcy liabilities for
resolution of pending and future claims of $79.8 million (all
classified as a current liability). As of December 31, 2011, the
net liability decreased by $78.8 million with the funding of the
Trust on April 28, 2011 and settlement of outstanding insurance
recoveries as well as claim indemnity and defense cost
liabilities. The remaining $1.0 million payable to the Trust is
expected to be made during 2012.

"A summary of Leslie's accrued liabilities, including
contributions to the Trust under the Reorganization Plan for
existing and future asbestos claims as well as incurred but unpaid
asbestos defense cost liabilities and the related insurance
recoveries:

                                         As of December 31
In Thousands                          2011     2010     2009
                                      ----     ----     ----
Existing claim indemnity liability      $0      $64  $57,716
Amounts payable to 524(g) trust      1,000   77,625        0
Incurred defense cost liability          0    2,142    2,544
Insurance recoveries receivable          0      (38)  (4,614)

Net Leslie asbestos and
   bankruptcy liability             $1,000  $79,793  $55,646

"The table provides information regarding Leslie's pre-tax
asbestos and bankruptcy related costs (recoveries) for the years
ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009. The $0.7 million of net
charges in 2011 is the result of additional bankruptcy related
costs incurred, partially offset by lower actual defense related
expenses than previously anticipated:

                                 For the Year Ended December 31
(In Thousands)                   2011         2010         2009
                                 ----         ----         ----
Indemnity costs accrued
  (filed cases)                    $0       $2,496       $7,861
Five year future indemnity
  cost accrued                      0            0       39,800
Adverse verdict interest costs
  (verdict appealed)                0       (2,390)      (1,026)
Defense cost incurred
  (recovered)                    (306)       7,501       12,312
Insurance recoveries
  adjustment                        0       (3,652)       2,069
Insurance recoveries accrued        0       (2,627)      (6,937)
Bankruptcy related costs          982       31,447            0
                            ---------    ---------    ---------
Net pre-tax Leslie asbestos
  and bankruptcy expense         $676      $32,775      $54,079
                            ---------    ---------    ---------

"Smaller numbers of asbestos-related claims have also been filed
against two of our other subsidiaries -- Spence Engineering
Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the stock of which we acquired in 1984;
and Hoke Incorporated ("Hoke"), the stock of which we acquired in
1998. Due to the nature of the products supplied by these
entities, the markets they serve and our historical experience in
resolving these claims, we do not believe that asbestos-related
claims will have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity of Spence or Hoke,
or the financial condition, consolidated results of operations or
liquidity of the Company."

CIRCOR International, Inc., is a spin-off of its former parent,
Watts Water Technologies, Inc., formerly known as Watts
Industries, Inc.  CIRCOR designs, manufactures and markets valves
and other highly engineered products and sub-systems used in the
energy, aerospace and industrial markets. It has a global presence
and operate 24 primary manufacturing facilities that are located
in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Morocco, India,
Brazil and the People's Republic of China.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexandria's Conditional Obligations Reach $10MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.'s conditional asset
retirement obligations reached $10,215,000 at December 31, 2011,
according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.

Some of Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.'s properties may
contain asbestos which, under certain conditions, requires
remediation.  Although the Company believes that the asbestos is
appropriately contained in accordance with environmental
regulations, its practice is to remediate the asbestos upon the
development or redevelopment of the affected property.  The
Company recognizes a liability for the fair value of a conditional
asset retirement obligation (including asbestos) when the fair
value of the liability can be reasonably estimated.  In addition,
for certain properties, the Company has not recognized an asset
retirement obligation when there is an indeterminate settlement
date for the obligation because the period in which the Company
may remediate the obligation may not be estimated with any level
of precision to provide for a meaningful estimate of the
retirement obligation.  At December 31, 2011, the Company's
conditional asset retirement obligations reached $10,215,000.

Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., is the largest owner and
preeminent REIT, and leading life science real estate company,
focused principally on science-driven cluster development through
the ownership, operation, management, selective acquisition,
development, and redevelopment of properties containing life
science laboratory space.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Has $10M Accrued Liability at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., and Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc., each reported an accrued liability of $10 million for
asbestos suits, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against Consolidated Edison, Inc., and Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc., and many other defendants, wherein a large
number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The
suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved
without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were
not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in
all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars;
however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly
exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.

In 2010, CECONY estimated that its aggregate undiscounted
potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may
be brought over the next 15 years is $10 million. The estimate was
based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and
risk factor assessment. Actual experience may be materially
different. In addition, certain current and former employees have
claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on
alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current
rate agreements, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets
(for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its
asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims. The accrued
liability for asbestos suits and workers' compensation proceedings
(including those related to asbestos exposure) and the amounts
deferred as regulatory assets for the Companies at December 31,
2011 were:

                                          Con Edison   CECONY
(millions of dollars)                        2011       2011
                                          ----------   ------
Accrued liability - asbestos suits           $10        $10
Regulatory assets - asbestos suits            10         10
Accrued liability - workers' compensation     98         93
Regulatory assets - workers' compensation     23         23

The Companies identified future asset retirement obligations
associated with the removal of asbestos and asbestos-containing
material in their buildings and equipment within the generating
stations and substations, and within the steam and gas
distribution systems. The Companies also identified asset
retirement obligations relating to gas pipelines abandoned in
place. The estimates of future liabilities were developed using
historical information, and where available, quoted prices from
outside contractors. The obligation for the cost of asbestos
removal from the Companies' generating stations and substation
structures was not accrued since the retirement dates cannot be
reasonably estimated.

At December 31, 2011, the liabilities of Con Edison and CECONY for
the fair value of their legal asset retirement obligations were
$145 million, as compared with $109 million at December 31, 2010.
In addition, Con Edison and CECONY increased utility plant, net of
accumulated depreciation, for asset retirement costs at December
31, 2011 by $38 million, as compared with $18 million at December
31, 2010. Pursuant to the accounting rules for regulated
operations, CECONY also recorded a reduction of $107 million and
$91 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, to the
regulatory liability associated with cost of removal to reflect
accumulated depreciation and interest accretion costs.

Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc. has two
regulated utility subsidiaries: Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc. (CECONY) and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R).
CECONY provides electric service and gas service in New York City
and Westchester County.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $49.6MM Remains Due Under Cooper's Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc remains liable for $49.6 million in
remaining payments due under a settlement agreement, according to
the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

In October 1998 Cooper sold its Automotive Products business to
Federal-Mogul Corporation. These discontinued businesses
(including the Abex Friction product line obtained from Pneumo-
Abex Corporation ("Pneumo") in 1994) were operated through
subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold
to Federal-Mogul pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated
August 17, 1998 ("1998 Agreement"). In conjunction with the sale,
Federal-Mogul indemnified Cooper for certain liabilities of these
subsidiary companies, including liabilities related to the Abex
Friction product line and any potential liability that Cooper may
have to Pneumo pursuant to a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement (the
"Mutual Guaranty") between Cooper and Pneumo. On October 1, 2001,
Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed a Chapter 11
bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of reorganization and
Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in December 2007. As part of
Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, Cooper and Federal-Mogul
reached a settlement agreement that was subject to approval by the
Bankruptcy Court resolving Federal-Mogul's indemnification
obligations to Cooper. On September 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
issued its final ruling denying Cooper's participation in the
proposed Federal-Mogul 524(g) trust resulting in Cooper
implementing the previously approved Plan B Settlement, where
Cooper continued to resolve through the tort system the asbestos
related claims arising from the Abex Friction product line that it
had sold to Federal-Mogul in 1998. On February 1, 2011, Cooper
entered into a settlement agreement that closed on April 5, 2011,
resolving Cooper's liability under the Mutual Guaranty with
Pneumo.

As a result of the April 2011 settlement the Company and its
subsidiaries have no further obligations under the Mutual
Guaranty. Under the settlement agreement, a subsidiary of Cooper
will make payments to the Settlement Trust totaling $307.5 million
($250 million was paid at closing and the remainder is due in
installments over four years, subject to certain adjustments).
Cooper made the $250 million initial payment to the Settlement
Trust on April 5, 2011. Other payments due under the settlement
agreement total approximately $49.6 million, after certain
reductions for indemnity and defense payments made by Cooper
subsequent to the February 1, 2011 settlement agreement and prior
to the closing on April 5, 2011.  At December 31, 2011, the
remaining payments are due in installments in April of each year
as follows: $9.1 million in 2012, $17.0 million in 2013, and
$11.75 million in each of 2014 and 2015.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Cooper Industries plc is a
global electrical products manufacturer with 2010 revenues of
US$5.1 billion.  The Company has seven operating divisions with
leading market positions and world-class products and brands
including: Bussmann electrical and electronic fuses; Crouse-Hinds
and CEAG explosion-proof electrical equipment; Halo and Metalux
lighting fixtures; and Kyle and McGraw-Edison power systems
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Remains a Defendant in Filter Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard,
Inc., by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard
Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years
ago. As of February 9, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in
42 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc., was a defendant in two Filter
Cases, including one that also names Lorillard Tobacco, according
to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

Since January 1, 2010, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached
agreement to pay, a total of approximately $18.5 million in
settlements to finally resolve 70 claims, including the Lenney
case. The related expense was recorded in selling, general and
administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income.
Since January 1, 2010, verdicts have been returned in three Filter
Cases, Cox v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al., which was tried
in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Lenney v.
Armstrong International, Inc., et al., tried in the Superior Court
of California, San Francisco County, and McGuire v. Lorillard
Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the
Circuit Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky. The
jury in the Cox case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco.
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Lorillard Tobacco from their
appeal to the California Court of Appeals and the Cox case is
concluded. In the Lenney trial, the jury found in favor of the
plaintiffs as to their claims for compensatory damages and damages
for loss of consortium, but it determined that plaintiffs were not
entitled to an award of punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco or
Hollingsworth & Vose.

Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard
Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the
filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material. The final judgment entered by the trial court awarded
plaintiffs a total of approximately $1.1 million in compensatory
damages, damages for loss of consortium and costs from Lorillard
Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose. Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose have noticed an appeal to the California
Court of Appeals. In 2012, Lorillard Tobacco reached agreement
with the plaintiffs to resolve plaintiffs' pending claims, and any
claims they might assert in the future, for an amount that is
included in the total for settlements reached since January 1,
2010. The jury in the McGuire case returned a verdict for
Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose. As of February 9,
2012, the deadline for plaintiff to seek post-trial relief or to
appeal had not expired. As of February 9, 2012, ten Filter Cases
were scheduled for trial or have been placed on courts' trial
calendars. Trial dates are subject to change.

Lorillard is the third largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the
United States. Founded in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest
continuously operating tobacco company in the United States. The
Company maintains its headquarters and manufacture all of its
products at its Greensboro, North Carolina facility.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS International Still a Defendant in PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
TMS International Corp. and its former subsidiaries have been and
may in the future be subject to asbestos-related personal injury
claims. Its former landfill and waste management business,
together with two non-operating subsidiaries of IU International
Corporation ("IU"), were spun off to the stockholders of its
Predecessor Company in October 2002. The two former subsidiaries
of IU were subject to asbestos-related personal injury claims. The
Company believes that it has no obligations for asbestos-related
claims regarding the spun-off subsidiaries. In addition, the
Company has been named as a defendant in certain asbestos-related
claims relating to lines of businesses that were discontinued over
20 years ago. Although the Company has various indemnities,
contractual protections, insurance coverage and legal defenses
with respect to asbestos-related claims related to these former
lines of business, the Company may be liable for those claims if
the indemnities and contractual protections fail, if its insurance
coverage is exhausted or if a court does not recognize its legal
defenses, according to the Company's
February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2011.

TMS International Corp., through its subsidiaries including Tube
City IMS, is the largest provider of outsourced industrial
services to steel mills in North America and has a substantial and
growing international presence. The company provides services at
82 customer sites in 11 countries and operates a global raw
materials procurement network.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company's subsidiaries continue to
defend themselves against asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of
those claims have been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company
(IR-New Jersey) or Trane and generally allege injury caused by
exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold
by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad
brake shoes. Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or
manufacturer of asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured
products utilized asbestos-containing components such as gaskets
and packings purchased from third-party suppliers.

The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an
estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a
detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to
update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities.

At December 31, 2011, over 90 percent of the open claims against
the Company are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been
placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of
which have little or no settlement value against the Company,
particularly in light of recent changes in the legal and judicial
treatment of such claims.

The Company's liability for asbestos-related matters and the asset
for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries are included in
these balance sheet accounts:

In millions                                      December 31,
                                                2011      2010
                                                ----      ----
Accrued expenses & other current liabilities   $69.7     $75.5
Other noncurrent liabilities                   868.6     945.0

Total asbestos-related liabilities            $938.3  $1,020.5

Other current assets                           $23.5     $26.3
Other noncurrent assets                        298.9     319.9

Total asset for probable asbestos-related
   insurance recoveries                       $322.4    $346.2

The (costs) income associated with the settlement and defense of
asbestos-related claims after insurance recoveries, for the years
ended December 31, were:

In millions                            2011     2010     2009
                                       ----     ----     ----
Continuing operations                 $(1.2)   $(1.4)   $13.8
Discontinued operations                (8.9)   (17.4)    (1.5)

Total                                $(10.1)  $(18.8)   $12.3

The Company records certain income and expenses associated with
its asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries
within discontinued operations, as they relate to previously
divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was
sold in 2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos
liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded
within continuing operations.

On January 12, 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory
judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to
defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants are
several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies
that have been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim
defense and indemnity costs. The action involves IR-New Jersey's
unexhausted insurance policies applicable to the asbestos claims
that are not subject to any settlement agreement.

Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most
of its insurers, including the New Jersey litigation. The
settlements collectively account for approximately 95% of its
recorded asbestos-related liability insurance receivable as of
December 31, 2011. Most of Trane's settlement agreements
constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer
signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its
costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to
certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer
signatories certain releases and indemnifications.

In April 1999, Trane filed an action in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Middlesex County, against various primary and lower layer
excess insurance carriers (the NJ Litigation). The NJ Litigation
originally sought coverage for environmental claims and later was
expanded to include claims for coverage for asbestos-related
liabilities. The environmental claims against the insurers in the
NJ Litigation have been resolved or dismissed without prejudice
for later resolution. Similarly, Trane has resolved all claims
against the insurers for asbestos-related liabilities, having
settled with the last remaining defendant in the NJ Litigation,
effective June 29, 2011. By order entered on August 3, 2011, the
court in the NJ Litigation dismissed the last remaining claims by
or against Trane.

Trane remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in
November 2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County,
Wisconsin, relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset
of Trane's historical asbestos-related liabilities. Trane also is
pursuing claims against the estates of insolvent insurers in
connection with its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims.
The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information. The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results. Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage are expected to result in
the projected total liability to claimants substantially exceeding
the probable insurance recovery.

Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company
that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company continues to face asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits, according to the Company's February 21, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches, and other automotive
components from the early 1900s. Along with other vehicle
manufacturers, the Company has been the target of asbestos
litigation and, as a result, are a defendant in various actions
for injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to
Ford parts and other products containing asbestos. Plaintiffs in
these personal injury cases allege various health problems as a
result of asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in
older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in its
facilities, or asbestos aboard its former maritime fleet. The
Company believes that it is being targeted more aggressively in
asbestos suits because many previously-targeted companies have
filed for bankruptcy.

Most of the asbestos litigation the Company face involves
individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of its vehicles
over the years. The Company is prepared to defend these cases, and
believe that the scientific evidence confirms its long-standing
position that there is no increased risk of asbestos-related
disease as a result of exposure to the type of asbestos formerly
used in the brakes on its vehicles. The extent of the Company's
financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very difficult
to estimate and could include both compensatory and punitive
damage awards. The majority of its asbestos cases do not specify a
dollar amount for damages; in many of the other cases the dollar
amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum, and the vast
majority of these cases involve multiple defendants, with the
number in some cases exceeding one hundred. Many of these cases
also involve multiple plaintiffs, and often the Company is unable
to tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making claims
against it (as opposed to other defendants). Annual payout and
defense costs may become significant in the future.

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is a producer of cars and trucks. The
Company and its subsidiaries also engage in other businesses,
including financing vehicles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Faces 12,000 Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation had approximately 12,000 premises and product
asbestos claims pending in several jurisdictions at December 31,
2011, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Like hundreds of other industrial companies, the Company has been
named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal
injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal injury or
death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of FMC or to
asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or equipment
manufactured or sold by discontinued operations. The machinery and
equipment businesses the Company owned or operated did not
fabricate the asbestos-containing component parts at issue in the
litigation, and to this day, neither the U.S. Occupational Safety
and Health Administration nor the Environmental Protection Agency
has banned the use of these components. Further, the asbestos-
containing parts for this machinery and equipment were accessible
only at the time of infrequent repair and maintenance. A few
jurisdictions have permitted claims to proceed against equipment
manufacturers relating to insulation installed by other companies
on such machinery and equipment. The Company believes that,
overall, the claims against FMC are without merit.

As of December 31, 2011, there were approximately 12,000 premises
and product asbestos claims pending against FMC in several
jurisdictions. Since the 1980s, the Company has had discharged
approximately 100,000 asbestos claims against FMC, the
overwhelming majority of which have been dismissed without any
payment to the plaintiff. Settlements by the Company with
claimants since that time have totaled approximately $43.6
million.

The Company intends to continue managing these cases in accordance
with its historical experience. The Company has established a
reserve for this litigation within its discontinued operations and
believes that any exposure of a loss in excess of the established
reserve cannot be reasonably estimated. The Company's experience
has been that the overall trends in terms of the rate of filing of
asbestos-related claims with respect to all potential defendants
has changed over time, and that filing rates as to the Company in
particular have varied significantly over the last several years.
The Company is a peripheral defendant -- that is, it has never
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing components. As a
result, claim filing rates against the Company has yet to form a
predictable pattern, and it is unable to project a reasonably
accurate future filing rate and thus, it is presently unable to
reasonably estimate its asbestos liability with respect to claims
that may be filed in the future.

FMC Corporation, a chemical company, provides solutions,
applications, and products for agricultural, consumer, and
industrial markets.  The company was founded in 1884 and is
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had 746 Open Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation had 746 open occupational and asbestos claims at
the end of 2011, according to the Company's February 21, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2011.

Casualty reserves represent accruals for personal injury,
occupational injury and asbestos claims.  During 2010, the Company
increased its self-insured retention amount for these claims from
$25 million to $50 million per injury for claims occurring on or
after June 1, 2010.  Currently, no individual claim is expected to
exceed the self-insured retention amount.  To the extent the value
of an individual claim exceeds the self-insured retention amount,
the Company would present the liability on a gross basis with a
corresponding receivable for insurance recoveries.  These reserves
fluctuate based upon the timing of payments as well as changes in
independent third-party estimates, which are reviewed by
management.  Actual results may vary from estimates due to the
number, type and severity of the injury, costs of medical
treatments and uncertainties in litigation. Most of the claims
relate to CSXT unless otherwise noted.  Defense and processing
costs, which historically have been insignificant and are
anticipated to be insignificant in the future, are not included in
the recorded liabilities.

During 2011, there were no significant changes in estimate
recorded to adjust casualty reserves. During 2010, the Company
reduced casualty reserves by $49 million, resulting in an after-
tax effect on earnings from continuing operations and net earnings
of $30 million and an after-tax effect on earnings per share of
$0.03.

                    Occupational & Asbestos

Occupational claims arise from allegations of exposures to certain
materials in the workplace, such as solvents, soaps, chemicals
(collectively referred to as "irritants") and diesel fuels (like
exhaust fumes) or allegations of chronic physical injuries
resulting from work conditions, such as repetitive stress
injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing loss.

The Company is also party to a number of asbestos claims by
employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace.  The
heaviest possible exposure for employees resulted from work
conducted in and around steam locomotive engines that were largely
phased out beginning around the 1950s. Other types of exposures,
however, including exposure from locomotive component parts and
building materials, continued until these exposures were
substantially eliminated by 1985.  Additionally, the Company has
retained liability for asbestos claims filed against its
previously owned international container shipping business.
Diseases associated with asbestos typically have long latency
periods (amount of time between exposure to a disease and the
onset of the disease) which can range from 10 to 40 years after
exposure.

An analysis of occupational claims is performed quarterly by an
independent third-party actuarial firm and reviewed by management.
Management performs a quarterly review of asserted asbestos
claims, and an analysis is performed annually by an independent
third-party specialist and reviewed by management. The objective
of the occupational and asbestos claims analyses performed by the
third-party actuarial firm and specialist is to determine the
number of incurred but not reported ("IBNR") claims.  With the
exception of carpal tunnel, management has determined that seven
years is the most probable time period in which unasserted claim
filings and claim values can be estimated.  Carpal tunnel claims
use a three-year period to estimate the reserve due to the shorter
latency period for these types of injuries.

The third party specialists analyze CSXT's historical claim
filings, settlement amounts, and dismissal rates to determine
future anticipated claim filing rates and average settlement
values for occupational and asbestos claims reserves.  The
potentially exposed population is estimated by using CSX's
employment records and industry data.  From this analysis, the
third-party specialists provide an estimate of the IBNR claims
liability.

Undiscounted liabilities recorded related to occupational and
asbestos claims were:

(Dollars in Millions)             December 2011   December 2010
                                  -------------   -------------
Occupational:

Incurred but not reported claims       $26             $25
Asserted claims                         17              15

Total liability                        $43             $40

Asbestos:

Incurred but not reported claims       $42             $40
Asserted claims                         26              41

Total liability                        $68             $81

A summary of occupational and asbestos claims activity is:

                                           Fiscal Years

                                      2011            2010
                                      ----            ----
Asserted Claims

Open Claims - Beginning of Year      1,376           3,782

New Claims Filed                       224             250
Claims Settled                        (370)           (287)
Claims Dismissed                      (484)         (2,369)

Open Claims - End of Year              746           1,376

During 2011, there were no significant changes in estimate of
occupational or asbestos reserves. During 2010, the Company
reduced occupational reserves by $12 million primarily
attributable to a decrease in the number of repetitive stress
injury claims and lower settlement values for irritant claims.
Also during 2010, the Company reduced its reserves for asbestos
claims by $13 million, primarily related to claims that were
determined to have no value due to lack of sufficient medical
evidence. Adjustments in reserves are included in materials,
supplies and other in the consolidated income statements.

CSX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides rail-
based transportation services. It offers traditional rail service
and the transport of intermodal containers and trailers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Host Hotels Records $3MM Liability
---------------------------------------------------
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc., and Host Hotels & Resorts, L.P.,
acquired two properties with environmental liabilities, primarily
asbestos in non-public areas of the properties, for which they
have recorded the present value of the liability, or approximately
$3 million. The amount is based on management's estimate of the
timing and future costs to remediate the liability. The Company
will record the accretion expense over the period it intends to
hold the hotel or until the item is remediated, according to the
Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. is a publicly owned real estate
investment trust (REIT). The firm primarily engages in the
ownership and operation of hotel properties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleco Power's Removal Cost Estimated at $300,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation's subsidiary estimates liability for removal
of asbestos at $300,000 at the end of 2011, according to the
Company's February 22, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

Under the authoritative guidance for asset retirement and
environmental obligations, Cleco Power determined that a liability
exists for cleanup and closing costs of solid waste facilities
associated with its generating stations that use lignite and coal
for fuel. Applying these guidelines, Cleco Power determined that a
liability exists for costs which may be incurred in the future for
removal of asbestos from its general service buildings, the
removal of transmission towers on leased right-of-ways and for the
abatement of PCBs in transformers.

At December 31, 2011, and 2010, the liability for solid waste
facility closure costs at the generating station using lignite is
estimated at $0.5 million and is included in other deferred
credits. At December 31, 2011, and 2010, Cleco Power's liability
for removal of asbestos is estimated at $0.3 million and also is
included in other deferred credits.

Cleco Corp. is a regional energy provider headquartered in
Pineville, Louisiana.  It has two primary businesses: Cleco Power,
a regulated electric utility that serves approximately 279,000
customers in Louisiana, and Cleco Midstream, a competitive
wholesale generation business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Holdings' ARO at Dec. 31 Was $18.1 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2011, UIL Holdings Corporation's Asset
Retirement Obligations, including estimated conditional AROs, was
$18.1 million and consisted primarily of obligations related to
the removal or retirement of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB)-contaminated equipment, gas pipeline and cast iron gas
mains.  The long-lived assets associated with the AROs are gas
storage property, distribution property and other property.  As of
December 31, 2010, UIL Holdings' ARO was $17.8 million.

No further asbestos-related updates were reported in the Company's
February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

UIL Holdings Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates in
the energy sector in the United States. The company, through its
subsidiary, The United Illuminating Company, engages in the
transmission and delivery of electricity to its customers in 17
municipalities in southwest Connecticut. UIL Holdings Corporation,
through its Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation and The Southern
Connecticut Gas Company subsidiaries operates as a natural gas
distribution company in Connecticut; and through The Berkshire Gas
Company subsidiary operates as a natural gas distribution company
in western Massachusetts. These subsidiaries operate in 63 cities
and towns in Connecticut and western Massachusetts. The company
was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in New Haven,
Connecticut.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pending Cases vs. Fluor Corp. Have Decreased
-------------------------------------------------------------
The number of pending asbestos-related cases against Fluor
Corporation has decreased over the past year, according to the
Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

The company is a defendant in various lawsuits wherein plaintiffs
allege exposure to asbestos fibers and dust due to work that the
company may have performed at various locations. The company has
substantial third party insurance coverage to cover a significant
portion of existing and any potential cost, settlements or
judgments. No material provision has been made for any present or
future claims and, based upon the Company's historical experience
with these types of claims and an analysis of the pending claims,
the company does not believe that there is a reasonable
possibility that any potential losses arising from these claims
would have a material adverse impact on its financial position,
results of operations or cash flows. Over the past year, the
number of pending asbestos-related cases has decreased. This
decrease reflects the dismissal or settlement of a number of cases
against the company as well as a decline in the number of cases
filed against the company during the year. In addition, the cases
resolved by the company during the year involved little or no
payment by the company.

Fluor Corporation is a holding company. It is a professional
services company providing engineering, procurement, construction
and maintenance, as well as project management services on a
global basis. Fluor serves a diverse set of industries worldwide,
including oil and gas, chemicals and petrochemicals,
transportation, mining and metals, power, life sciences and
manufacturing. It is also a primary service provider to the United
Services federal government.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITC Holdings Records $3.6MM ARO at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
ITC Holdings Corp. recorded asset retirement obligations of
$3.6 million at the end of 2011, according to the Company's
February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company has identified conditional asset retirement
obligations primarily associated with the removal of equipment
containing polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs") and asbestos. The
Company records a liability at fair value for a legal asset
retirement obligation in the period in which it is incurred. When
a new legal obligation is recorded, the Company capitalizes the
costs of the liability by increasing the carrying amount of the
related long-lived asset. The Company accretes the liability to
its present value each period and depreciate the capitalized cost
over the useful life of the related asset. At the end of the
asset's useful life, the Company settles the obligation for its
recorded amount or incur a gain or loss. The standards for asset
retirement obligation applied to the Company's Regulated Operating
Subsidiaries require it to recognize regulatory assets or
liabilities for the timing differences between when the recovers
legal asset retirement obligations in rates and when it would
recognize these costs under the standards. There have not been any
significant changes to the Company's asset retirement obligations
in 2011. The Company's asset retirement obligations as of December
31, 2011 and 2010 of $3.6 million and $3.3 million, respectively,
are included in other liabilities.

ITC Holdings Corp. (NYSE: ITC) is the nation's largest independent
electricity transmission company. Based in Novi, Michigan, ITC
invests in the electric transmission grid to improve system
reliability, expand access to markets, lower the overall cost of
delivered energy and allow new generating resources to
interconnect to its transmission systems. ITC's regulated
operating subsidiaries include ITCTransmission, Michigan Electric
Transmission Company, ITC Midwest and ITC Great Plains.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket's Undiscounted Liability Is $11MM
------------------------------------------------------------
NewMarket Corporation has provided an undiscounted liability
related to premises asbestos claims of $11 million at year-end
2011, according to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in personal injury lawsuits involving
exposure to asbestos. These cases involve exposure to asbestos in
premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by
subsidiaries of NewMarket. The Company has never manufactured,
sold, or distributed products that contain asbestos. Nearly all of
these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and
involve multiple defendants. The Company maintains an accrual for
these proceedings, as well as a receivable for expected insurance
recoveries.

During 2005, the Company entered into an agreement with Travelers
Indemnity Company resolving certain long-standing issues regarding
its coverage for certain premises asbestos claims. In addition,
the Company's agreement with Travelers provides a procedure for
allocating defense and indemnity costs with respect to certain
future premises asbestos claims. The lawsuit the Company had
previously filed against Travelers in the Southern District of
Texas was dismissed. The Company also settled its outstanding
receivable from Albemarle Corporation for certain premises
asbestos liability obligations.

The Company has provided an undiscounted liability related to
premises asbestos claims of $11 million at year-end 2011 and $14
million at year-end 2010. The liabilities related to asbestos
claims are included in accrued expenses (current portion) and
other noncurrent liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Certain of these costs are recoverable through the Company's
insurance coverage and agreement with Albemarle Corporation. The
receivable for these recoveries related to premises asbestos
liabilities was $7 million at December 31, 2011 and $10 million at
December 31, 2010. These receivables are included in trade and
other accounts receivable, net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets
for the current portion. The noncurrent portion is included in
other assets and deferred charges.

NewMarket Corporation is the parent company of Afton Chemical
Corporation and Ethyl Corporation.  Afton Chemical develops and
manufactures petroleum additives that enhance the performance of
lubricating oils and fuels.  Ethyl Corporation manufactures diesel
cetane improver and gasoline performance additives.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Remains a Defendant in PI Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by its heritage companies in the
past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has
generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that
this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will
not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated
into any such products were primarily encapsulated and used as
internal components of process equipment, and the Company does not
believe that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred
during the use of this equipment.

According to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011, Flowserve's practice is to
vigorously contest and resolve these claims, and the Company has
been successful in resolving a majority of claims with little or
no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims
have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from
other companies, and the Company believes that a substantial
majority of existing claims should continue to be covered by
insurance or indemnities. Accordingly, the Company has recorded a
liability for its estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers or other
companies for its estimated recovery, to the extent it believes
that the amounts of recovery are probable and not otherwise in
dispute. While unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms
regarding these claims could have a material adverse impact on the
Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows, the Company currently believes the likelihood is
remote. In one asbestos insurance related matter, the Company has
a claim in litigation against relevant insurers substantially in
excess of the recorded receivable. If its claim is resolved more
favorably than reflected in this receivable, the Company would
benefit from a one-time gain in the amount of such excess. The
Company is currently unable to estimate the impact, if any, of
unasserted asbestos-related claims, although future claims would
also be subject to existing indemnities and insurance coverage.

Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service
provider of comprehensive flow control systems. Flowserve develops
and manufactures precision-engineered flow control equipment
integral to the movement, control and protection of the flow of
materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had 8,072 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation had 8,072 pending asbestos claims at the
end of 2011, according to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company continues to receive asbestos and environmental
claims. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries
asserted by people who were exposed to asbestos or products
containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily to
pollution and related clean-up costs.

The Company's exposure to asbestos, environmental and other
discontinued lines claims arises principally from assumed
reinsurance coverage written during the 1960s through the
mid-1980s, including reinsurance on primary insurance written on
large U.S. companies, and from direct excess insurance written
from 1972 through 1985, including substantial excess general
liability coverages on large U.S. companies. Additional exposure
stems from direct primary commercial insurance written during the
1960s through the mid-1980s. Other discontinued lines exposures
primarily relate to general liability and product liability mass
tort claims, such as those for medical devices and other products.

Underwriting losses of $25 million in 2011 related to a $26
million unfavorable reestimate of asbestos reserves and a $5
million unfavorable reestimate of other reserves, primarily as a
result of the Company's annual review using established industry
and actuarial best practices, partially offset by a $26 million
decrease of its allowance for future uncollectible reinsurance and
environmental reserves essentially unchanged. The cost of
administering claims settlements totaled $11 million in 2011 and
$13 million for each of 2010 and 2009.

The Company may continue to experience asbestos and/or
environmental losses in the future. These losses could be due to
the potential adverse impact of new information relating to new
and additional claims or the impact of resolving unsettled claims
based on unanticipated events such as litigation or legislative,
judicial and regulatory actions. Environmental losses may also
increase as the result of additional funding for environmental
site cleanup. Because of its annual review, the Company believes
that its reserves are appropriately established based on available
information, technology, laws and regulations.

The Company continues to be encouraged that the pace of industry
asbestos claim activity has slowed, perhaps reflecting various
state legislative and judicial actions with respect to medical
criteria and increased legal scrutiny of the legitimacy of claims.

Reserve additions for asbestos in 2011 totaling $26 million were
primarily for products related coverage due to increases for the
assumed reinsurance portion of discontinued lines where the
Company is reliant on its ceding companies to report claims.

During the last three years, 57 direct primary and excess
policyholders reported new claims, and claims of 75 policyholders
were closed, decreasing the number of active policyholders by 18
during the period. The 18 decrease comprised (4) from 2011, 1 from
2010 and (15) from 2009. The decrease of 4 from 2011 included 16
new policyholders reporting new claims and the closing of 20
policyholders' claims.

Pending, new, total closed and closed without payment claims for
asbestos and environmental exposures for the years ended
December 31, are summarized in the table:

Number of Asbestos Claims           2011     2010     2009
                                    ----     ----     ----
Pending, beginning of year         8,421    8,252    8,780

New                                  507      788      814
Total closed                        (856)    (619)  (1,342)

Pending, end of year               8,072    8,421    8,252
                                   =====    =====    =====
Closed without payment               664      336      469
                                   =====    =====    =====

The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
personal property and casualty insurance, life insurance, and
retirement and investment products business primarily in the
United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still a Defendant in 2,321 Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company is presently named as a defendant
in 2,321 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted
certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica,
asbestos, or coal dust, according to the Company's February 22,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company categorizes the product liability losses that it
experiences into two main categories, single incident and
cumulative trauma. Single incident product liability claims are
discrete incidents that are typically known to the Company when
they occur and involve observable injuries and, therefore, more
quantifiable damages. Therefore, the Company maintains a reserve
for single incident product liability claims based on expected
settlement costs for pending claims and an estimate of costs for
unreported claims derived from experience, sales volumes and other
relevant information. The Company's reserve for single incident
product liability claims was $4.7 million and $5.2 million at
December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Single incident product
liability expense during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010
and 2009 was $1.5 million, $0.2 million and $0.5 million,
respectively. The Company evaluates its single incident product
liability exposures on an ongoing basis and make adjustments to
the reserve as new information becomes available.

Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to
harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that
occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods
of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis or coal
worker's pneumoconiosis. The Company is presently named as a
defendant in 2,321 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have
contracted certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure
to silica, asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits mainly
involve respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and
sold by the Company. The Company is unable to estimate total
damages sought in these lawsuits as they generally do not specify
the injuries alleged or the amount of damages sought, and
potentially involve multiple defendants.

Mine Safety Appliances Company engages in the development,
manufacture, and supply of products that protect people's health
and safety in the fire service, homeland security, oil and gas,
construction, and other industries, as well as military worldwide.
Its safety products integrate a combination of electronics,
mechanical systems, and materials to protect users against
hazardous or life threatening situations. The company offers
respiratory protection products and portable and fixed gas
detection instruments comprising single- and multi-gas hand-held
detectors, multi-point permanently installed gas detection
systems, and flame detectors and open-path infrared gas detectors.
It also provides thermal imaging cameras for the fire service
market.  Mine Safety Appliances Company was founded in 1914 and is
based in Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loews' CNA Unit Still Exposed to Asbestos Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Loews Corporation's subsidiary, CNA Financial Corporation, remains
exposed to asbestos and environmental pollution claims, according
to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

CNA's property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have exposures
related to A&EP claims. CNA's experience has been that
establishing claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for
casualty coverages relating to A&EP claims are subject to
uncertainties that are greater than those presented by other
claims. Additionally, traditional actuarial methods and techniques
employed to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more
traditional property and casualty exposures are less precise in
estimating claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for A&EP.
As a result, estimating the ultimate cost of both reported and
unreported A&EP claims is subject to a higher degree of
variability.

On August 31, 2010, CNA completed a retroactive reinsurance
transaction under which substantially all of its legacy A&EP
liabilities were ceded to National Indemnity Company ("NICO"), a
subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., subject to an aggregate
limit of $4.0 billion ("Loss Portfolio Transfer"). If the other
parties to the Loss Portfolio Transfer do not fully perform their
obligations, CNA's liabilities for A&EP claims covered by the Loss
Portfolio Transfer exceed the aggregate limit of $4.0 billion, or
CNA determines it has exposures to A&EP claims not covered by the
Loss Portfolio Transfer, CNA may need to increase its recorded net
reserves which would result in a charge against CNA's earnings.
These charges could be substantial.

Loews Corporation is one of the largest diversified holding
companies in the United States, with five operating subsidiaries:
CNA Financial Corporation, one of the largest U.S. commercial
property-casualty insurers; Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., one
of the world's largest offshore drilling companies; HighMount
Exploration & Production LLC, a domestic natural gas exploration
and production company; Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, an
operator of interstate natural gas pipeline systems; and Loews
Hotels, one of the country's top luxury lodging companies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Ct. Dismisses Complaint v. GE, et al.
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frederick J. Martone of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, in a March 7, 2012 order granted the motion
to dismiss filed by defendants in the asbestos case, Linda
Aguirre; Norma J. Garcia, Plaintiffs, v. Amchem Products Inc.;
Certainteed Corp.; DB Riley Inc.; Foster Wheeler Corp.; General
Electric Co.; Georgia Pacific Corp.; Goulds Pumps Inc.; Honeywell
International Inc.; Ingersoll-Rand Co.; Owens-Illinois Inc.; Union
Carbide Corp., Defendants, No. CV 11-01907-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz.).

The Court agreed with the Defendants' argument that the causes of
action are not identified, the only factual allegations in the
complaint refer to companies that are not defendants, and no
information regarding the time period, location, or objects of
asbestos exposure is provided.

A copy of the Judge Martone's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/kVd8sJfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Ct. Reverses Dismissal of Whipkey Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Whipkey, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
William Whipkey, appeals a trial court's decision granting
defendants-appellees' motion to administratively dismiss her
complaint.  Finding merit to the appeal, a three-member panel of
the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, in
a March 8, 2012 order reversed and remanded the ruling.

The Appellate Court held that Marilyn -- by submitting hospital
records documenting William's diagnosis of lung cancer, history of
smoking, and asbestos exposure, and reports from competent medical
authority -- provided ample evidence demonstrating William's
occupational asbestos exposure was a substantial factor in causing
his lung cancer.

The case is Marilyn Whipkey, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of William Whipkey, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
Aqua-Chem, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 96672 (Ohio).
A copy of the March 8 Decision is available at http://is.gd/Hj0dbW
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Junks Suit v. Crane Co.
-------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Parkins, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware, New
Castle County, in a March 12, 2012 memorandum opinion granted
summary judgment in favor of Crane Co., individually and as
successor to Chapman Valve Co., after finding that Crane does not
owe a duty to Ralph Curtis Wolfe for asbestos-containing parts
used with or added to its products after sale and that Mr. Wolfe
was not exposed to original asbestos-containing parts of Crane's
products.

Judge Parkins found that there is no evidence in the record to
support a finding that Crane's asbestos was in Mr. Wolfe's
workplace.  Mr. Wolfe, the Court noted, did not know whether any
of the valves on which he worked contained original asbestos-
containing components.  There is no evidence as to the type of
valves on which Mr. Wolfe actually worked and, most importantly,
there is no evidence that Crane's valve's original asbestos-
containing parts were present in Mr. Wolfe's work area, the Court
concluded.

The case is In Re Asbestos Litigation: Ralph Curtis Wolfe and
Janice Wolfe. Limited to: Crane Co, C.A. No. N10C-08-258 ASB
(Del.).  A copy of Judge Parkins' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/51oDKlfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Porter Hayden Must Show Source of Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, in a memorandum dated March 6, 2012, denied
Porter Hayden Company's motion for partial summary judgment
seeking a determination that National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, PA and American Home Assurance Company bear the
burden of demonstrating that a claim falls under the completed
operations hazard, and thus is subject to an aggregate limit on
liability.  The Court agreed with the Insurers that it is
incumbent upon Porter Hayden to establish the source of coverage
for claims as part of its prima facie case.

Insofar as Porter Hayden argues that it was conducting operations
that resulted in the release of asbestos fibers, like "tie-in"
operations or asbestos removal operations, during the relevant
policy periods, then the burden is on Porter Hayden to prove that,
Judge Blake ruled.

The case is National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh,
PA, et al v. Porter Hayden Company, Civil No. CCB-03-3408 (D.
Md.).  A copy of Judge Blake's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/T2cef9from Leagle.com.

Porter Hayden is represented by:

         Robert Eric Johnston, Esq.
         Donald Robertson McMinn, Esq.
         Marc S. Mayerson, Esq.
         Stephanie D. David, Esq.
         HOLLINGSWORTH LLP
         1350 I Street, N.W.
         Washington, D.C. 20005
         Tel: (202) 898-5800
         Fax: (202) 682-1639
         E-mail: rjohnston@hollingsworthllp.com
                 dmcminn@hollingsworthllp.com

National Union is represented:

         Timothy R Dingilian, Esq.
         Kristen Clare Vine, Esq.
         Brian Charles Malone, Esq.
         JACKSON AND CAMPBELL PC
         One Lafayette Centre, South Tower
         1120 20th Street, NW
         Washington, D.C. 20036-3437
         Tel: (202) 457-1600
         Fax: (202) 457-1678
         E-mail: tdingilian@jackscamp.com
                 kvine@jackscamp.com
                 bmalone@jackscamp.com

American Home Assurance is represented by:

         Timothy R. Dingilian, Esq.
         Kristen Clare Vine, Esq.
         Brian Charles Malone, Esq.
         JACKSON AND CAMPBELL PC
         One Lafayette Centre, South Tower
         1120 20th Street, NW
         Washington, D.C. 20036-3437
         Tel: (202) 457-1600
         Fax: (202) 457-1678

            -- and --

         David C. Austin, Esq.
         MORVILLO ABRAMOWITZ GRAND IASON ANELLO AND BOHRER PC
         565 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Tel: (212) 856-9600
         Fax: (212) 856-9494
         E-mail: daustin@maglaw.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Not Entitled to Liability Reduction
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a March 6, 2012 memorandum, Judge Catherine C. Blake of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a motion
for partial summary judgment filed by National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, and American Home Assurance
Company finding that the measure of the Insurers' indemnification
liability is not limited to the percentage paid out to the
claimants.

In their motion, the Insurers argue they are obligated to
indemnify the Porter Hayden Bodily Injury Trust only for the
actual sums which the Trust pays out to claimants.  In other
words, the Insurers seek a declaration from the Court that the
amount of their indemnification obligation should be substantially
reduced from the full value of the claims to the specific sums
which the PHBIT is able to distribute to claimants.

Porter Hayden Company, by contrast, contends it is entitled to
indemnification in the gross amount of allowed value of claims to
the Trust.

The case is National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh,
PA, et al v. Porter Hayden Company, Civil No. CCB-03-3408 (D.
Md.).  A copy of Judge Blake's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/rGwewafrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Refuses to Rule on Work-Related Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court for the New York
County entered a decision and order dated March 5, 2012, holding
in abeyance the motion filed by defendant David Fabricators of
N.Y., Inc. s/h/a David Fabricators of New York, Inc., for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted
against it pending an application to the Workers' Compensation
Board for a determination of the parties' rights under the
Workers' Compensation Law.

The Court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary
jurisdiction to determine factual issues concerning whether an
individual is covered by the WCL.  Judge Heitler pointed out that
the controlling authorities confirm that the Court should not
express its opinion regarding the applicability of the WCL in
these circumstances where the parties have failed to avail
themselves of the expertise of the Workers' Compensation Board in
the first instance.

The case is Patricia Calamari, Plaintiffs, v. Bakers Pride Oven
Co., et al., Defendants, 190186/10, Motion Seq. 001 (N.Y.).  A
copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/YgBwL2from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Steel Lawyer Calls John Crane "Plaintiff Foil"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve of The Madison / St. Clair Record reports that
Moments before an asbestos case was set to go to trial in Madison
County on March 6, lawyers for the two remaining defendants
announced a settlement.

Plaintiffs Dennis Kimball, Sr. and his wife Carla Kimball, both of
Minnesota, filed suit less than a year ago on Aug. 1, 2011.

A jury had already been selected to hear the Kimballs'
mesothelioma case.

John Crane, an international gasket maker with headquarters in the
Chicago area, and Crane Company, an industrial products
manufacturer based in Stamford, Conn., were the last two of 56
defendants to settle.

Ed Burns -- ed.burns@djoalaw.com -- of O'Connell & Associates in
Elgin, represented John Crane.

Jeffrey King -- jeffrey.king@klgates.com -- of K&L Gates in Boston
and Nicole Behnen -- nbehnen@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli
Shughart in St. Louis represented Crane Co.

"By the time we selected a jury, we were down to two Crane
defendants with three lawyers," said Associate Judge Clarence
Harrison.

Ted Giarnaris -- tgianaris@simmonsfirm.com -- Nicholas Angelides
and John Barnerd of the Simmons firm in Alton represented the
plaintiffs.

Dennis Kimball, Sr. had been employed from 1966 until 2011 as a
millwright, power plant consultant and maintenance worker at
various locations, including Illinois, his complaint stated.

During his employment, he was exposed to asbestos coming from
fibers he worked around.  Kimball Sr. allegedly learned of his
disease on May 11, 2011.

Harrison did not disclose the terms of the settlement.

John Crane, which also operates in Africa, Asia, Europe, the
Middle East and Russia, is typically named as a defendant in
Madison County asbestos cases, particularly in cases where the
plaintiff is from out of state.

Critics have said that John Crane, an Illinois corporation, is
repeatedly named as a defendant to establish that Madison County
is an appropriate venue for out of state plaintiffs.

An attorney for U.S. Steel, which was hit with a whopping $250
million verdict in 2003 (but later reduced), argued that John
Crane was a "plaintiff foil" because its lawyers were seen
conferring with the plaintiff's lawyers during jury selection.

Again in 2005, a defense attorney said that the plaintiff attorney
in a trial against General Electric made a "sweetheart deal" with
John Crane by not presenting any evidence or listing any witnesses
against John Crane.

Burns declined to respond at the time.  But his partner Dan
O'Connell of O'Connell & Associates denied an improper
relationship with asbestos plaintiffs.

Madison County Case Number 11-L-743.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Halts Demolition on Contaminated House
-------------------------------------------------------------
MyFoxPhilly relates that there is a huge headache for homeowners
in one West Deptford, N.J., neighborhood.  They are stuck with a
half-demolished house that they say is dangerous!

Mike Crowley has power of attorney over the owner of the house.
He wanted to purchase and fully rehabilitate the home and then
sell it.  But late February, the township hired a contractor and
began demolishing the house despite Crowley's claims that he had
warned them the place was full of asbestos!

In fact, Crowley gathered a sample of demolition debris from the
yard and had it tested.  Sure enough, the debris sample contained
asbestos.  The majority of all the cases you've heard about, over
all the years of asbestos, the vast majority of them have been
from inhalation of the dust.  When you demolish a home, you are by
definition generating that dust.

A superior court judge has ordered demolition work be temporarily
stopped while Crowley's asbestos allegations are investigated.

As for the neighbors, they just wanted the vacant home torn down.
They consider Crowley a troublemaker, and they don't buy his
promise that he can rehab this place and sell it.

None of them would share their views with us on camera, but as I
related to Cowley, they did not seem overly concerned about the
asbestos.

A court hearing on the demolition of this house is set for next
Friday, March 16.  In the meantime, the place sits half-
demolished, with asbestos debris scattered about.

A dispute between Crowley and the township with neighbors stuck in
the middle.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Debate Over Bill to Pay Off Widowed Families
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Wood of The Daily Telegraph reports that Attorney-General
Greg Smith provoked a screaming match in the lower house of NSW
parliament on March 8, when he said the government would not
support a "premature and opportunistic" bill to allow families of
asbestos disease sufferers to claim for damages after death.

The bill was brought on by the opposition, who argued the
government had to implement recommendations from the October 2011
Law Reform Commission report into the compensation scheme.

It suggested families should be able to claim for damages up to
12 months after a family member has died of an asbestos-related
illness.

In voting to refuse the bill, Mr. Smith said the opposition had
"fallen over itself" to put it before parliament.

He said the government supported asbestos victims, and would
respond to the Law Reform Commission's recommendations based on
"legal and actuarial assessments".

Opposition leader John Robertson said the government had "turned
its back" on the families of asbestos victims.

"Asbestos victims and their families have a right to fair and
reasonable compensation.  Families of asbestos victims should not
be further disadvantaged because their loved one passes away
before their case is finalized," Mr. Robertson said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Visitors May Have Been Exposed in Corgi Hosiery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmarthen Journal at thisissouthwales.co.uk reports that visitors
to an Ammanford knitwear company may have been exposed to
asbestos, a government body has found.

Corgi Hosiery, based in New Road, Pantyffynnon, is said to the
favorite sock maker of Prince Charles.

But the firm was recently convicted of failing to protect
employees from asbestos while work was being done to its factory
roof -- a charge which will cost it GBP40,000.

Following the conviction, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
said it was not only the staff who were at risk, but that members
of the public also could have been exposed to the potentially
deadly substance.

HSE inspector Anne Marie Orrells said: "Nowadays, the risks of
exposure to asbestos are well known so this serious incident was
inexcusable.

"Corgi Hosiery should have ensured measures were taken to exclude
employees and visitors from the area while the roof work was being
carried out.

"As a result of these failings, both workers and visitors to their
premises were exposed to potentially deadly asbestos - containing
materials."

The firm was founded in 1892 by the great-grandfather of the
current directors.  Prince Charles visited the factory in 2010
after the asbestos situation had been resolved.

Corgi's offence started in 2008 when its directors, Chris Jones
and his sister Lisa Wood, carried out work to the factory roof.

Knowing the building contained asbestos, Jones, 45, contracted out
work to remove the potentially deadly substance to local firm
Dragon Cladding.

The HSE said employees had access to the building when this work
was being done, with one worker based there throughout.

It added that visitors to the factory could have entered the works
area and were therefore potentially exposed to asbestos.

The firm pleaded not guilty to the charges at Swansea Crown Court
last month.  But the jury found it guilty, and Judge Richard
Twomlow fined it GBP25,000 with prosecution costs of GBP15,000 at
a sentencing last week at Merthyr Crown Court.

But Jones said he still had the full backing of his staff.

"We are relieved the whole thing is behind us," he said.

"I have just had a text from one of the staff saying: 'Glad it's
over, and I for one am proud to wear my Corgi Hosiery shirt."

Stuart Phillips, 25, of Manordeilo, Llangadog, the director of
Dragon Cladding, pleaded guilty to failing to assess risks and to
implement a safe system of work.

He was sentenced in Merthyr, alongside Corgi, and fined GBP4,000
with costs of GBP1,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Mesothelioma Victims Plea on Government Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paddy McGuffin at Morning Star Online reports hundreds of
asbestosis sufferers across Britain are dying without proper
compensation due to government inaction, a group of lawyers
claimed.

Figures obtained by not-for-profit campaign group Association of
Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) show that mesothelioma, a deadly
asbestos-related lung cancer, was recorded as the underlying cause
of 177 deaths in Scotland in 2010 compared with 149 deaths in 2006
and 140 in 2007.

Many workers who develop the fatal disease are unable to pursue
claims for damages because they can no longer trace the employers
who exposed them to asbestos or the employers' insurance
companies.

The onset of symptoms often comes decades after a worker has
inhaled asbestos fibers, during which time employers go out of
business and insurance documents can be lost or destroyed.

In 2010 the government pledged to establish a "fund of last
resort" which would act as a safety net for those unable to obtain
compensation as a result.

APIL president David Bott said: "The government proposed to set up
a fund of last resort shortly before the general election, but
almost two years has now passed and nothing has been heard about
it since.

"Sick and dying workers who are prevented from bringing valid
cases are left effectively subsidizing insurance companies which
have taken the money in premiums but are not paying the
compensation people need."

Jim Sheridan MP, chairman of Parliament's all-party group on
occupational safety and health, said: "Without the safety net of a
fund of last resort sufferers can be left with no other way of
obtaining the compensation which should at least give them some
comfort in the last days of their life."

The government promised in 2010 a consultation on establishing an
employer liability database to help victims seek compensation -
but again no further action has been taken.

TUC head of health and safety Hugh Robertson said it was
"appalling" that hundreds of people have died without getting the
fair compensation they deserve due to government inaction."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Takers for US Navy Facility Demolition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Malone of The Pueblo Chieftain reports that two of
lawmakers' chief arguments against funding the demolition of
vacant, contaminated buildings near the Colorado State Fair pose a
chicken-or-the-egg quandary.

They say it is the federal government's responsibility, and that
the Colorado Department of Agriculture has not made it a priority
in its funding requests.  But which came first?

For a total cost of $1, the federal government rented the site at
Northern and Acero avenues from the state between 1947 and 1997 to
house the U.S. Naval and Marine reserves.

"I can't get over the fact that we leased that to them for $1, and
now we've got a $500,000 bill," said Rep. J. Paul Brown, R-
Ignacio, who serves on the Capital Development Committee, which is
mulling a $451,000 request to demolish the five vacant buildings
that comprise the complex.

A shooting range on the site is not being targeted for demolition.

When the federal government vacated the buildings, some abatement
of asbestos was done, but an assessment by the State Fair soon
afterward showed unsafe levels of asbestos and lead paint.  The
Fair notified the Navy that it would not accept the building.

"It's been a logjam ever since," said Rep. Keith Swerdfeger, R-
Pueblo West.

The Colorado Attorney General's Office reviewed the matter and
determined that the state owns the tainted property, like it or
not.

"It's a state building in all practicality," Swerdfeger said.
"Trying to move the federal government just isn't going to happen
right now."

Stubbornly, the Department of Agriculture has not listed the
project among its priorities for capital funding during the 15
years since the problem arose.

"It's never been on the list because there's been a strategy to
get the feds to pay for it," said Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, who
since last summer has championed demolition of the buildings.

Pace's push has met resistance from some members of the Capital
Development Committee because of the project's historic absence
from agriculture's list.

Instead of making a late addition to its recommended list of
projects, the committee on March 6 chose to instruct the Joint
Budget Committee to consider the project if state revenues exceed
expectations, and to pass a resolution of the Legislature calling
on Congress to solve the problem.

"Now pay up," Brown said to punctuate the message Colorado
lawmakers intend to send to Congress.

Congressman after congressman has pestered the U.S. Department of
Defense to take responsibility for the buildings without success.
Pace doesn't expect a resolution from the Colorado General
Assembly to change that.

"I don't expect any movement from the feds," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Del Puerto Hospital Still Stir Up Neighbors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Partridge of The Patterson Irrigator reports that less
than five months after the former Del Puerto Hospital building was
boarded up because of vandalism, asbestos-laden materials from
inside have been found littering nearby ground as the property
continues to suffer blight problems.

A cleanup crew began wetting down the material, which is known to
cause lung ailments when its particles are inhaled, and sealed up
the building on E Street near Ninth Street.

The city of Patterson cited Sacramento-based property manager Red
Shield Servicing regarding the mess in late February.

It was the latest of a handful of nuisance-abatement citations at
the former hospital property, which also was the site of an
interior fire this past summer.  Neighbors said it appeared the
culprits of the most recent vandalism were extracting copper wire
from the building, and clothing left on the premises seemed to
indicate people squatted on the property until recently.

One area resident, who did not want to give his name for fear of
retaliation from the culprits, said the asbestos materials were
lying on the ground for nearly three months.

Hugo Rayo, code enforcement officer for the city of Patterson,
noted that vacant buildings often are targets for vandals.

"Obviously, it's a continual nuisance," Rayo said of the hospital
property.

In addition to calling for Red Shield to abate the property by
Monday, March 12, the city reached out to the county's Department
of Environmental Resources, which contacted the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District.

A valley air district representative inspected the site Feb. 27 to
test for asbestos, and the city sent a notice Feb. 28 mandating
Red Shield Services remove the debris.

On Feb. 29, the district contacted Red Shield representatives,
recommending that the site be secured and cleaned as soon as
possible, valley air district spokeswoman Jaime Holt said.  She
noted that test results confirmed March 2 that the material found
on the property contained 13% asbestos.

Mesa Environmental Services, which received a contract from Red
Shield to remove the asbestos, began cleaning up the property
March 7 and completed the job within the past week.

Vandalism has been an on-again, off-again problem at the property
the past two years, Rayo said.  The city notified Red Shield in
June that debris was found on the property, and someone burned old
furniture and other items inside the building in July, Rayo said.

Red Shield, which works on behalf of a group of investors that
owns the building, addressed some of those complaints by boarding
up the place in October.

Del Puerto Hospital closed in the spring of 1998 after 48 years of
operation.  The property sits directly between Patterson Ambulance
Co.'s headquarters and Sutter Gould Medical Foundation's Patterson
Care Center.  A portion of the property backs up to a play yard at
Las Palmas Elementary School.

The building was more recently used by The Living Center, a drug
rehabilitation center that shut down in 2007 after the property
went into foreclosure.  Several investors are listed on the
property deed, signed in December 2007.

A relative of one of the owners, who spoke on condition of
anonymity this week, said that Red Shield's president, Ron Bieber,
organized the investors from various cities to refinance a loan on
the building when it was still occupied by The Living Center.
They had no intention of buying the building, she said, and they
ended up acquiring it when previous owners Troy and Sherry Dorman,
who ran The Living Center, defaulted on the loan.

At least two of the investors have since died.  The relative said
that, to her knowledge, the families that own the building do not
know one another, and Bieber is calling the shots.

"At this point, legally, I don't know what I can do," she said.
"We're kind of hanging out in the wind."

Bieber said by phone earlier last week that his company did not
own the property.  He did not later return calls after the
Irrigator learned that Red Shield manages the property and was
initially named as the trustee when the property was foreclosed.

The parcel's caretaker, Patterson resident Bob Crone, would not
comment on the matter, as he is employed by Red Shield.

A cleanup crew sealed the property with caution tape and posted
notices stating that asbestos was on the property.  While some of
that tape was removed, the warning signs remained posted.

Chad Vargas is CEO of the Del Puerto Health Care District, which
runs the ambulance district and a health center in western
Patterson and has its central offices right next door.  He
expressed worry about safety hazards, noting that a representative
from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
stopped by.  Vargas had urged his workers to avoid parking in the
lot alongside the property.

Meanwhile, the Patterson Joint Unified School District will send a
consultant it more routinely uses to check for asbestos at local
schools to take a look at Las Palmas, just in case there are any
problems, said Steve Menge, the district's assistant
superintendent of administrative services.  He stressed that the
district takes asbestos issues seriously.

Fibers found in asbestos -- the name given to a group of natural
minerals used in building supplies, brake pads and other materials
known for heat-resistance -- can cause serious lung ailments if
the particles become airborne and are inhaled.

Long-term exposure to serpentine asbestos, the most common form of
asbestos, can result in lung cancer or asbestosis -- a scarring of
the lining of the lungs -- according to Mike Sharp, owner of
Modesto-based Hazard Management Services.

Even short-term exposure to amphibole types of asbestos, commonly
used in pipe wrap, can cause mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer
related specifically to asbestos, Sharp said.  However,
mesothelioma symptoms typically take 10 to 40 years to show up, he
said.

Sharp, who is also an instructor at the University of California,
Berkeley, Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, said
it was hard to say whether people who work nearby could be harmed
if they were downwind of those materials.

"It may not be doing them any harm, but it's not doing them any
good," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Call to Quebec's NDP MPs to Expose Paradis' Role
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Caplan of The Globe and Mail relates that despite Stephen
Harper and Jean Charest, it appears increasingly likely Canada
will export no more Quebec-mined asbestos to countries like India
and Indonesia, where it could bring misery and death to those who
come in contact with it.  Almost all those affected would be very
poor workers and their families.  But to the bitter end, the two
leaders have been determined to preserve Canada's shameful record
of knowingly exporting a carcinogen.

In the face of denunciations of asbestos exports by virtually all
health authorities, the Prime Minister made it a point during last
year's election campaign to visit the riding held by Christian
Paradis, home to one of Canada's two last remaining asbestos
mines.  Both mines are now closed, but Mr. Paradis wants them
re-opened.  He has long been a proponent of asbestos exports,
dismissing out of hand all the proven health risks as well as all
the Canadians who have died hideous, prolonged deaths from
exposure to the substance.

Mr. Harper has since promoted Mr. Paradis to be Industry Minister.
And last June, a month after forming his majority government, he
chose to celebrate St. Jean Baptiste Day in his young minister's
riding -- and in the town of Thetford Mines itself, the actual
home of the asbestos mine Mr. Paradis wants to see re-opened.

As for the Charest government, despite the condemnation of
asbestos use by every public health authority in Quebec, it has
approved a $58-million loan guarantee to the mines if private
investors can come up with another $25-million.  The good news is
the asbestos peddlers have been claiming for the past 18 months
they're on the verge of getting their share finalized, but so far
they have failed to do so.  It appears the protests against
asbestos have scared off the usual money men.  If this private
money isn't anted-up, the two mines will remain closed and the
industry will cease operating entirely.  But the fact remains the
key move is in the hands of the Quebec government.  If the Premier
withdraws his loan guarantee, asbestos exports will be kaput.  And
there is substantial pressure on him to do so.

It's time to make that pressure irresistible.

Sadly, the Parti Quebecois has been timid at best on the issue,
and most disgraceful of all, the Quebec Federation of Labour,
actually continues to support the re-opening of one of the mines
and the export of asbestos, even though the Canadian Labour
Congress, the Confederation of National Trade Unions and many of
the QFL's own affiliated unions disagree.  Another fine case of
solidarity forever, and tant pis for the doomed workers in Asia.

Yet the Charest government is under renewed attack on asbestos
from other sources.  Since this entire effort has been conducted
in Quebec, barely a word has penetrated the vast space leading to
the Rest Of Canada.  But have no doubt the ROC is very much
involved here.  We may function, tragically, as two separate
nations on most practical and cultural matters.  But Indians and
Indonesians know they're dying from Canadian asbestos.  It's just
another way the Harper government is eroding Canada's reputation
abroad.

But "amazing things" on the asbestos file are going on, reports
the Rideau Institute's indomitable Kathleen Ruff, who has done
more than any other Canadian to terminate our asbestos exports.
"La Presse has taken on the asbestos industry," she told me.
"They have run a superb series of hard-hitting, investigative
articles and commentaries, the best I've seen anywhere in the
world.  I'm sure the journalist, Charles Cote, will win an award.
He surely deserves one."

La Presse called on victims to come forward and family members
have done so, mostly on behalf of women who had never worked with
asbestos yet died from exposure to it, perhaps in a school, and
were denied any support or compensation.  "The day after the first
La Presse article appeared, the Quebec government agreed that a
list of asbestos in Quebec buildings which it has kept secret for
years will now be made public."  Ms. Ruff, who has been naming and
shaming an unaccountably intransigent Charest government for
years, adds: "It is so great to have a positive achievement for
once."

To help add pressure on the government, the Montreal Gazette also
chimed in this week, running a tough op-ed by the head of the
provincial division of the Canadian Cancer Society directly
attacking the Charest government: "It is time for Quebec to stop
investing in asbestos".

There is a growing feeling that now is the opportunity to force
the Premier to withdraw his loan guarantee, which should close the
door to asbestos mining forever.  Beyond both French- and English-
language media, there are the voices of virtually the entire
medical establishment of Quebec, of Canada and indeed of the
world.  At the same time, in the House of Commons, the new force
of Quebec NDP MPs have been outspoken in demanding the mines
remain closed.

Now is the time for an even greater effort, hopefully the final
push.  As federal Industry Minister, Mr. Paradis continues to put
strong counter-pressure on the Charest government to get the mines
re-opened.  That noxious role should be exposed and Mr. Paradis
and the Prime Minister publicly shamed.  Quebec's NDP MPs should
also be raising the issue in their own ridings so that citizens
can add to the pressure on the Premier.  What a sweet triumph it
would be for this new crop of MPs from Quebec, mocked and
ridiculed by smart-aleck commentators after their unexpected
victories less than a year ago, if they could help end forever
Canada's long-standing export of poison to poor countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPSM Provides Data for Constructors/Electricians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clapper Patti Schweizer & Mason (CPSM), mesothelioma lawyers in
California, have represented construction workers and electricians
from all over the United States who developed or died from
mesothelioma after deadly exposure to asbestos while on the job.
Electricians are an often overlooked group that is at high risk of
occupational exposure to asbestos.

CPSM has added essential information to their website for
specifically for electricians in hopes that this would help
prevent unwanted exposure and protect those working in this
profession.

Electricians are at a higher risk of exposure because they not
only have to deal with construction materials but also electrical
products likely to contain asbestos.  Many electricians are called
in for repairs or during renovations of older homes.  According to
the Environmental Protection Agency, almost every physical
structure built before 1980 contains asbestos materials, putting
electricians who work in such environments at risk of daily
exposure, often in tight and confined spaces.

Electrical work almost always involves drilling and/or removing
parts of a building to access and repair/replace the existing
electrical system. Asbestos is commonly found in walls, floors,
ceilings and roofs - the places electricians commonly have to
disturb in order to get to the area they need to work.
Electricians are most likely to encounter asbestos in the
following products:

     -- Ceiling tiles
     -- Cement siding
     -- Cement wallboard
     -- Circuit breakers
     -- Electrical cloth
     -- Electrical panel partitions
     -- Gaskets
     -- Insulation- wall, wiring, heating units, hot water tanks,
boiler, etc.
     -- Spackling compounds
     -- Switchgears
     -- Thermal paper

Even today, with all the knowledge about the dangers of asbestos,
many electricians do not adequately protect themselves from deadly
exposure on the job, creating a much higher risk of mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is caused by inhaling microscopic airborne asbestos
fibers, which then lodge in the lining of the internal organs of
the body.  Years after the time of exposure, these fibers develop
into tumors and cause a fatal type of asbestos cancer called
mesothelioma or irreversible scarring of the lungs known as
asbestosis.

The mesothelioma attorneys at Clapper Patti Schweizer & Mason have
updated their website for electricians as part of their mission to
provide safety information for those who work in occupations that
remain at risk of asbestos exposure. Electricians in particular
are urged to educate themselves and take the highest amount of
precaution, both for themselves and to ensure they do not carry
toxic fibers home on their body or clothing and unwittingly expose
their family members.

If you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact CPSM today
to speak directly with an asbestos attorney as well as to get
access to up-to-date mesothelioma treatment information.

                About Clapper Patti Schweizer & Mason

CPSM fights for the rights of individuals who have been diagnosed
with mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos.  CPSM
focuses exclusively on handling mesothelioma lawsuits,
representing clients nationwide for more than 30 years.  With such
experience, CPSM has expert knowledge of not only the asbestos
industry but also how to get the maximum recovery for clients with
the least interruption to their lives in the shortest amount of
time.  Call today 1-800-440-4262.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminants Spark Urge to Relocate Academy
------------------------------------------------------------
Hayley Ringle of The Republic at azcentral.com reports that The
asbestos removal scheduled for this week at Gilbert Classical
Academy, the latest in a string of maintenance issues there, has
fueled the push by parents and district officials to expand the
specialty school and move it.

A flooring company set to replace carpeting in three classrooms
during the December break found the asbestos beneath tile below
the carpeting, said Gilbert Public Schools' Superintendent Dave
Allison.

The asbestos was immediately covered up, an air-quality test
showed no contaminants and work is planned during spring break to
replace the carpeting and remove asbestos, Allison said.

"There is no danger as long as the asbestos is covered up," he
said.  "The job will be finished during spring break.

"Whenever you do any renovations, you've got to assume that there
is asbestos.  When you do renovations, you've got to do it in a
certain procedure to avoid any asbestos dust.  All building
managers and principals have had training in this."

The school, built in the 1970s, initially was Greenfield
Elementary.  It became the academy six years ago.

Its rigorous honors curriculum for seventh grade to seniors
requires students to wear uniforms, perform 80 hours of community
service and take music classes through 10th grade.  Failing grades
are not permitted.  The school graduated its first 29 seniors last
year.

The academy has a waiting list of almost 300 students, and 30% of
them live in Gilbert but don't attend schools in GPS, Principal
Jodie Dean said.  This year's enrollment is 338 students.

"With the trends in education, it's imperative that GPS maintains
its competitive edge by targeting the market of college-bound
students looking for that rigorous educational experience," said
Dean, who went to kindergarten at the school when it was
Greenfield Elementary.  "The demand is there."

With lagging enrollment in the once- fast-growing district, what
to do with the academy will be explored in the district's
strategic plan.  The school could be moved to another campus
within the district, Allison said.

Besides the recent asbestos find, the school has been plagued by
water-pressure and water-temperature issues, other plumbing
problems and lack of a gym.  Athletic games are played in the old
Gilbert High gym 5 miles away at the district office.

"The problems have been fixed with the water.  The only other
issue is we've outgrown this current location," Dean said. "That's
why it's so important that within the next year the district will
look at the ability to relocate us."

Next year, the school will take in 120 new students, and this
year's senior class will graduate 22, she added.

"The rate of attrition has dramatically decreased, and this school
could use an updated campus," she said.

Echoing other parents, PTO President Michele Frasier and volunteer
Julie Smith agree.

Frasier's daughter graduated last year, and Frasier has a freshman
daughter attending this year. Her family has been involved since
the school opened.

"I do look forward to a better facility," Frasier said.  "I think
we've proven ourselves and are ready to grow."

Smith has an eighth-grade son at GCA and a daughter set to attend
seventh grade in the fall.  She believes that the asbestos issue
is the "needle that broke the camel's back."

Smith added that there should have been a general parent meeting
to answer questions and share results of the air- quality test.
She said "there has been information," but the process hasn't been
as open as parents would have liked to relieve anxieties.

"It's a great school.  I just wish it was in a better building,"
said Smith, who is running for the school board in November.  "It
needs to move to a new facility with double the space.  The school
just needs a lot of (tender, loving care).  I think it is the
perfect site for a gifted school."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DPH Vows Danvers Dumpers Will Face Prosecution
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Trapani of The Danvers Herald relates that thanks to an
observant custodian who noticed construction debris in the
dumpster behind the Thorpe Elementary School March 5, materials
containing asbestos have been safety removed from the area.

Danvers Public Health Director, Peter Mirandi, confirmed that the
samples from the debris did come back from the lab as "hot" --
containing asbestos.  The town is now responsible to pay the
approximately $2,900 to properly dispose of the material.

"We've got a company on board to dispose of it the right way and
then we'll be in compliance," Mirandi said.

Mirandi said that since the materials were outside in the dumpster
instead of in an enclosed area, there was no immediate danger to
the public or to the school children.  Asbestos was formerly used
as insulation material in buildings and can cause issues when the
material is broken open like during renovations, the fibers from
the asbestos can settle into the lungs.

Mirandi said that when the custodian was concerned over the
material he found in the dumpster he immediately called Walter
Konochuk at the Danvers Department of Public Works.  The DPW in
turn contacted the health department and the police.

The bins were moved to the Danvers transfer station where they
were kept isolated out back.  In a bit of ironic timing, the state
Department of Environmental Protection happened to be at the
transfer station that day during a routine inspection.  They
offered to test the debris, which saved the town the expense of
sending it to a lab on their own.

The DEP will be on location in Danvers when the dumpsters are
removed in case there is evidence that can be uncovered when they
transfer the material from the current containers to the ones used
for transport and disposal.

The DEP is assisting in the investigation of the illegal dumping
and Mirandi confirms that if they are able to find who did it they
will face prosecution for improper removal and improper disposal
of asbestos.

Mirandi said that Konochuk said the debris resembled older
bathroom tile, green and black colored, that could potentially be
from a wall or a floor in a home that dates back to the 1950s or
1960's in the Woodvale neighborhood.

Residents are encouraged to call the Danvers Department of Health
with any tips or information regarding the dumping.  Officials
said the dumping happened two times from March 4 to March 5.

Mirandi said that anytime residents see questionable items in a
dumpster they should contact officials.

"Asbestos is not something you can see with the naked eye,"
Mirandi said, "But if you see fuzzy stuff sticking out and it
looks like it is construction debris then you should call and then
we can have it tested in a lab."

The dumpster has been replaced behind the Thorpe School and now
has a chain attached to it so it can be locked to prevent any
future illegal dumping.

Residents with potential information about the asbestos dumping
situation should call Peter Mirandi at 978-777-0001 extension
3025.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yorkshire School Carcinogen-Free by April 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that a South Yorkshire primary school has been
closed temporarily after asbestos was found in part of the
building.

The asbestos was found at Whiston Junior School, Rotherham, on
March 8 as work was carried out before refurbishment over the
Easter holidays.

The school would remain closed until after Easter while the
asbestos is cleared, Rotherham Council said.

Head teacher Jackie Williams said initial tests had not revealed
any health risk to children or teachers.

"Further tests and work will be completed to ensure that the
refurbishment work can continue safely for all concerned," she
said.

Mrs. Williams added that the decision to close the school had "not
been taken lightly", but that the safety and well-being of staff,
pupils and visitors was "always our first priority".

While the clean-up work is carried out, year six pupils from the
school would be taught at Whiston Worrygoose School, Rotherham
Council confirmed.

Other year groups would have lessons at the Magna Science and
Adventure Centre, with arrangements made to transport pupils.

Joyce Thacker, Strategic Director of children and young people's
services at Rotherham Council, said: "The council does have
monitoring procedures in place for its public buildings, including
schools, and it is through this work that the issue has been
identified and action taken immediately."

The school is expected to re-open fully after the Easter holidays
on Monday, 16 April.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Azko Nobel's Move to Reveal Trust Claims Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Tremoglie of Legal Newsline reports that the defense
counsel in a Texas asbestos case has filed a motion to "compel
settlement trust submissions."

The defendants maintain that plaintiffs were eligible to file
claims with several different trusts.  State asbestos
Multidistrict Litigation Judge Mark Davidson in Houston denied the
motion.

The motion was filed Jan. 31 on behalf of Azko Nobel Inc. by the
law firm of Segal, McCambridge, Singer and Mahoney in Austin.
According to the motion, "MDL discovery requires Plaintiffs to
provide information regarding claims made or anticipated to be
made with bankruptcy trusts."

This ruling is the first time a defendant has asked that a
plaintiff be compelled to make a trust submission.

The request was based on an expert report written by a bankruptcy
trust expert.  This report indicated the plaintiffs are eligible
to receive large amounts of money from trusts that were
established by bankrupt companies to pay claims to asbestos
victims.  These companies were involved in the manufacture,
distribution, sales and use of asbestos and asbestos products.

The defendants in the cases wanted to know if there had already
been claims against the trust, because the defendants will get
settlement credits for any money the plaintiffs received from the
trusts.  The rule in Texas is that one has to provide information
regarding the trusts with which the plaintiffs anticipate filing.

But Davidson said he does not have the authority to compel the
plaintiffs to provide the information.  He said also this was an
issue the state Legislature is in the process of reviewing.

Davidson hears all the MDL asbestos cases in Texas.  By ruling
this way, Davidson may have set a precedent in Texas that no
defendant will be able to compel a plaintiff to make an asbestos
trust submission.  The net effect is that plaintiffs will only
make applications to trusts after the state tort claim has been
resolved.

According to critics of this ruling, this will result in
plaintiffs collecting settlement funds from both the trusts and
the defendants -- solvent companies that were, generally, not
involved in manufacturing or distributing asbestos.

If the plaintiffs have not filed trust claims in advance of the
state tort case, the defendants not only have to pay the state
tort damages but also miss out on settlement credits from the
trusts that they are entitled to under state law.

It can also be to the plaintiffs' advantage because when
submissions for claims are made to the asbestos trusts plaintiffs
have to show information that is pertinent to the state tort
trial.  This information does not always come out during discovery
in the state tort case.

Rochelle Rottenstein, a Long Island, N.Y., attorney who has
litigated consumer injury, mass tort and class action lawsuits for
25 years, said she agrees with Judge Davidson's decision.

"In my view, the state court judge was correct in using his
discretion to deny defendants' motion to compel the plaintiffs'
potential/actual trust claim submission information," Rottenstein
said.  "Although it's a close call, and some judges have allowed
similar motions, the procedural rules in Texas regarding the
production of settlement agreements should only pertain to actual
agreements -- not anticipated settlement claims, or even claims
made (and not agreed to be paid)."

However she also said the defendants' motion was warranted because
the defense counsel was doing its job by trying to minimize the
client's potential liability through off-sets.  But Rottenstein
thinks that motions to compel claims information should not be
granted automatically and should depend on the actual facts of the
case.

Another New York attorney, James Stengel -- jstengel@orrick.com --
of Orrick, Harrington and Sutcliff, said he has been actively
involved in creating a level playing field so that solvent
defendants get full credit for liability of bankruptcy.

Stengel primarily represents clients in large, complex and multi-
party class action litigation and has handled significant actions
involving the chemical, tobacco and medical device industries.

"Solvent defendants deserve to see the full array of exposures and
potential claims against bankrupt entities," he said.  "There are
a variety of ways to do this.  If in this instance to compel
submission was the answer, that would have been appropriate."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Individual Unions Oppose Opening of Mines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Northsunm32 of Allvoices reports that even though there is plenty
of evidence of the health risks of asbestos, Conservative Prime
Minister Stephen Harper and Quebec Liberal Premier Jean Charest
have been trying to have two Quebec mines reopen to export even
more of the material to countries such as India and Indonesia.  In
those countries working with the asbestos often brings misery or
even death to poor workers.  The asbestos is a known cause of a
type of lung cancer.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has supported the industry and in
particular Christian Paradis a Conservative MP who represents a
riding that contains Canada's last two remaining asbestos mines.
The mines are both closed at present.  Paradis wants them
re-opened.

Paradis dismisses the evidence of international health experts on
the matter.  Many Canadian miners suffered from ailments caused by
contact with asbestos and many died as a result.  To show his
support for Paradis Harper promoted him to Industry Minister.

The Liberal provincial government of Jean Charest went even
further and approved a 58 million dollar loan to help open the
mines if another 25 million will be put up by private investors.
In spite of optimistic announcements that the money is forthcoming
the negative reaction to the idea of reopening the mines may have
frightened investors away.

The health agencies in Quebec, the national Canadian Labour
Congress, the CNTU all oppose opening the mines.  The Quebec
Federation of Labour supports the re-opening although many of its
individual unions have opposed this.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Visiting Councilors May Be Exposed to Carcinogens
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Meneaud of The Bradford Telegraph and Argus reports that
Bradford councilors have been warned they may have been exposed to
potentially-deadly asbestos during a visit to the city's former
Odeon cinema.

Trespassers who have broken into the building may also be at risk
according to its owners, the Homes and Community Association
(HCA).

Warning letters have been sent to councilors who visited the
building before they made the controversial decision allowing it
to be demolished.

The move comes after the HCA commissioned consultants to carry out
a survey of the potential risk as the building had deteriorated
further.

A spokesman said "very high" levels of asbestos were discovered
and the HCA is now taking urgent action to remove the dangerous
substance.

Councilor Mike Ellis (Con, Bingley Rural), chairman of the
regulatory and appeals committee, was joined by six other members
and officers for the visit.

They were given protective suits when they entered the building
with Council officers for the visit, organized by the Odeon's
previous owners Yorkshire Forward, said Councilor Ellis.

He said: "I can confirm that we have been notified about the
problems that have come to light and that there is the possibility
that we have been exposed.

"I would say that perhaps they could have been more vigilant."

However, Councilor David Robinson (Lab, Wyke), who was also in the
party, said he was satisfied any contamination would have been
"minimal".  He said: "I do not have any concerns because of the
precautions which were taken.  The suits, the masks and the shoes
we wore were, to my mind, adequate for the visit."

The agency has informed the Health and Safety Executive.

A spokesman said: "As part of the due diligence process on taking
ownership of the assets of Yorkshire Forward, the HCA decided to
take urgent action to determine the structural integrity of the
former Odeon Cinema in Bradford.  In particular, we commissioned
specialist consultants to carry out a survey of potential risk
from asbestos in the building.

"The latest survey has shown that the structure has deteriorated
and that there are very high levels of asbestos in the building.
These do not pose a risk unless they have been disturbed and only
to people who have entered the building recently without
appropriate precautions.

"Now that we are aware of these issues we are contacting anyone
who has been authorized to enter the building and we are making
every effort to contact those people who may have entered the
building without the permission of the current and previous
owners.

"If anyone has any concerns, they should contact their GP."

A spokesman for Bradford Council said the procedure to allow
councilors into the Odeon in 2009 rested with the owners,
Yorkshire Forward.  He said risk assessment was completed and the
presence of asbestos was known but "appropriate" precautions were
taken.  Routes around the building were restricted to avoid areas
where asbestos might have been present.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turnall Profits Hike On Non-Asbestos Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Gazette (Harare) reports roofing products manufacturer,
Turnall Holdings, said this week it had made a breakthrough into
the Mozambican market and regained ground in South Africa after
commissioning the US$5 million non-asbestos plant in Bulawayo last
year.

Demand for the new roofing product is blossoming in South Africa,
which banned the use of asbestos roofing sheets in 2008, a top
Turnall executive told Property Gazette.

Turnall's marketing director, Edwin Kondo, said the Zimbabwe Stock
Exchange-listed firm's new range of non-asbestos products were now
the most sought-after roofing materials in Africa's biggest
economy.

"On the issue of substitutes, Turnall Holdings invested in a non-
asbestos plant at its current premises in Bulawayo and was
successfully commissioned early last year," Kondo said.

"The US$5 million venture has seen Turnall returning into the
lucrative South African market as well as the Mozambican market
with the new tech range of products.  This new range of products
have made serious inroads into the South Africa construction
sector to the extent that new tech products have become the
preferred roofing solution in that country," he added.

South Africa is just one of the countries the world over that has
banned asbestos, but in actual fact, 85% of the countries in
world, the United States of America included, still permit the
import of chrysotile asbestos and products containing it.

The emerging economies of the world, known as the BRIC countries
(Brazil, Russia, India and China), are all chrysotile asbestos
producing and consuming economies.  These are countries with the
fastest growing economies in the world.

The ban in South Africa was a result of a legacy of misuse of
asbestos unlike in Zimbabwe where chrysotile is the only variety
produced and has not been banned.  There is, however, no intention
either to ban it locally as efforts are underway to resuscitate
the asbestos mining operations in Mashava and Zvishavane.

In addition, demand of chrysotile asbestos the world over is
outstripping supply and is in the region of two million tons
annually.  China, for instance, consumes all its production and
cannot afford to export.

The lobby against the banning and use of chrysotile has been very
successful considering that last year in October, chrysotile
producing and consuming countries, including Zimbabwe,
successfully blocked, for the fourth time, the parties to the
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent in
International Trade of Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides from the
listing chrysotile as a hazardous substance.  The fifth Conference
of Parties to discuss the listing was held in Geneva last year.

High demand for asbestos products in the world's fastest growing
economies, the BRIC, had also extinguished uncertainties posed by
threats from Western lobbyists demanding a complete ban of
asbestos worldwide.

The global campaign against asbestos reached its climax in 2003
when the lobby held the first independent conference in Canada, a
country that had ironically led the worldwide pro-chrysotile
(white asbestos) lobby.

Zimbabwe, which mined chrysotile asbestos at the closed Shabanie-
Mashava Mines (SMM), was among the pro-asbestos advocates, arguing
that chrysotile was harmless.

Kondo said, however, that exports of the new products had remained
low since commissioning of the new plant, but Turnall was working
on improving capacity.

"Turnall's vision to achieve a turnover of US$300 million by 2015
is still achievable taking into account the fact that the economic
performance continues to remain stable and businesses are able to
contribute meaningfully to the Gross Domestic Product of this
country."

"The increase in foreign direct investment into the construction
sector will spur industry to fully utilize the available resources
and machine capacity.  Capacity utilization at Turnall has been
improving steadily since dollarization and is now in the region of
75% upwards.  This has been a result of the 100% importation of
chrysotile fiber from as far afield as Russia," said Kondo.

Zimbabwe's asbestos industry had enjoyed close links with the
global markets and asbestos processors like Turnall had benefited
from the economic advantages associated with their proximity to
SMM Holdings' closed asbestos mines.

However, the asbestos processors had lived under the shadow of
uncertainty as the anti-asbestos movement pushed for alternative
products to replace the traditional industrial fiber.

Last week, Turnall reported a US$3,9 million profit for the year
ending Dec. 31, 2011, compared to US$3,4 million registered in the
prior comparative period in 2010.

The results were driven by growth in some key economic sectors in
the period under review.

Turnall produces and supplies fiber cement, roofing and pipe
products.

It attributed the improvement in profitability to growth in a
number of economic sectors in Zimbabwe during the review period.

These include mining, agriculture and financial services.

The firm said the improvements in turn had a positive impact on
the construction sector and infrastructure development in general.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Ex-Welder's Mate to Pursue Legal Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Eastbourne Herald reports that the family of a man who died
from an industrial disease is to continue its legal action.

An inquest ruled that Terence Grimes, who had been a welder's mate
during his working life, died from a malignant mesothelioma which
had been caused by working with asbestos.

Mr. Grimes died at his home in Green Walk, Lower Willingdon, last
November and his family is in talks with solicitors to take legal
action against his former employers.

The inquest heard Mr. Grimes had been diagnosed with a malignant
tumor, had undergone chemotherapy and was on morphine to control
the pain.

His widow Barbara Grimes said her husband, who worked for BAA at
Gatwick Airport in more recent years, had wanted to die at home
and managed to do so with the help of Macmillan Cancer Support
nurses just after his 69th birthday.

Mrs. Grimes said her late husband had been exposed to asbestos
while working at ICI when he was a welder's mate working on
pipework.

Recording a verdict of death by industrial disease, East Sussex
coroner Alan Craze said the mesothelioma had been the
"overwhelming" cause of death.

He also said at least 95% of mesothelioma are caused by asbestos
and that of the three different types of asbestos, blue and brown
asbestos are 10 times more dangerous than white asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old City Hall Redo Expected to Complete By April
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Crow of The Journal-Standard reports that the City of
Freeport has begun work on repairing the old City Hall building at
230 W. Stephenson St.

On March 6, contractors tore up asbestos tiles from the basement
and removed partition walls, which will enable work on the
stabilization of the southwestern corner of the building.  "It'll
be done in the foreseeable future," said Freeport Finance Director
Craig Joesten.  "All the work will be done in progression.  This
will be a continuous process for three or four weeks."

The workers were able to complete the extraction of the tiles and
walls on March 7.  The next step in the process is to have an air
quality sample done to ensure that the asbestos has been
adequately removed.  The results of this test were expected to be
completed as soon as March 12.  After the air is deemed to be
clean, work will begin to stabilize the building.

"This work we are undertaking is to stabilize that problem corner
of the building," said Joesten.  "It'll put the building into a
safe mode so we can reevaluate our options over the next 18
months."

Excavating will begin on the problem corner and then the building
will be stabilized.  The area will then be water-proofed to
protect it from future problems.  Finally, gravel will be used to
fill in the hole where the work was done.

"It's really important to get this done," said Freeport Mayor
George Gaulrapp.  "That's what people from 'Citizens for Saving
City Hall' want to know, is where we are so we can have more
information to move forward.  We want to make sure things are set
so we can have a plan for the future no matter what."

"Citizens for Saving City Hall" is currently in the process of
creating a "study group" to research and evaluate the best
solutions for the future of the building.

"It has had a civic presence in the community for over 100 years,"
said Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Division Manager Mike
Jackson.  "It is a unique building to our region.  It's a place of
noteworthiness."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Points to Carcinogenic Dust From Books
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Parsons of The Argus (UK) reports that an Eastbourne teacher's
widow believes he was killed by asbestos dust on history books.

Susan Beck, whose husband Neville died from asbestos-related
cancer, is suing East Sussex County Council for not protecting him
from the deadly particles in his classroom.

In papers filed at the High Court, Mrs. Beck and Zoe Pilkington --
the executors of the Eastbourne history teacher's estate -- are
seeking compensation of more than GBP200,000 for his death.

According to the claim, Mr. Beck was exposed to asbestos in a
cupboard where he stored his books during more than 20 years of
teaching.

The writ said: "The deceased was employed as a history teacher at
Ratton Secondary School between about 1972 and 1998 during the
course of which he was exposed to foreseeably harmful levels of
asbestos.

"In the classroom, there was a large floor-to-ceiling cupboard
which contained two shelves which were made of asbestos.

"The deceased kept his books and equipment in the cupboard.  He
placed items in and took items out of the cupboard several times
every day.

"The cupboard was locked outside of lessons so that the cleaners
did not have access to it.  The cupboard and shelves were not
cleaned by anyone else.

"There was asbestos dust in the cupboard and, in particular, on
the two shelves and which was sufficient in quantity for the
deceased to have to wipe the dust and other items when they were
taken out.

"The deceased was not provided with any respiratory protection nor
warning about the risks of asbestos inhalation.

"As a result of the exposure he developed malignant mesothelioma
as a result of which he suffered pain, injury, loss and damage and
died prematurely on April 14, 2009, aged 71 years and one month."

A spokeswoman for East Sussex County Council said she could not
comment on the case as it was still ongoing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Webber v. Ford Motor Un-Ends With Post Trial Move
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel of The Legal Intelligencer reports that a
hotly contested Philadelphia asbestos case has resulted in a post-
trial motion in which the plaintiffs' counsel claims that the
verdict sheet in the case was developed because of alleged ex
parte contact by the defense lawyers with the leadership of
Philadelphia's civil courts.

The plaintiffs' post-trial motion came in the wake of a defense
motion during the trial seeking the recusal of the presiding judge
as well as a mistrial.

The case of Webber v. Ford Motor Co. also involved several other
unique legal issues.

A jury found for three defendants in a case involving the theory
that Ford Motor Co. was liable for the plaintiff's asbestos-
related disease because the design of the Ford vehicles
necessitated the use of brake products containing asbestos.

The case was one of the very first asbestos cases to be tried
straight-through after Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge John
W. Herron, the administrative judge of the trial division, ordered
the end of reverse bifurcation in all asbestos cases unless both
sides agree to it.

During the trial, the three nonsettling defendants -- Ford,
Honeywell International Inc. and Pneumo Abex -- moved for mistrial
and the recusal of Senior Judge Esther R. Sylvester.

The plaintiffs' expert on damages for medical expenses, Chad
Staller, was giving direct testimony Feb. 10 and defense counsel
asked to see the document Staller was referring to, according to
the motion for mistrial and recusal by Honeywell.

During the exchange, Sylvester said, "'You are not entitled to
anything until cross-examination.  Please don't stand up and ask
for anything.  Do you understand? Because I'm going to call -- the
sheriff was in here, I'm going to call the sheriff."

Two sheriff's officers appeared at 9:48 and 9:53, the motion said.
The sheriffs stood by the defense table in full view of the jury
and were an "overt and intentional intimidation of defense
counsel," according to defense court papers.

In addition to the allegation about the sheriffs, defense lawyers
raised several other issues in their recusal motion.

"Judge Sylvester has consistently raised her voice to defense
counsel, spoken to counsel in a taunting and intimidating fashion,
paced behind her bench in anger during argument, and gesticulated
in a frustrated and aggressive fashion.  More often than not, her
conduct and demeanor in this regard cannot be discerned from the
written record. . . .  Such conduct is a clear violation of a
judge's duty to maintain high standards of conduct, integrity, and
decorum, while presiding over trial," Honeywell's counsel, Scott
F. Griffith -- sgriffith@rawle.com -- of Rawle & Henderson, said
in the motion.

In separate motions, Pneumo Abex's counsel, Thomas P. Hanna --
thanna@kjmsh.com -- of Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna &
Reber in Philadelphia, and Ford's counsel, Sharon L. Caffrey --
SLCaffrey@duanemorris.com -- of Duane Morris in Philadelphia,
joined in Honeywell's motion for recusal and mistrial.

Caffrey said in Ford's motion that Sylvester commented on the
weight of the evidence.

In response, plaintiffs' counsel Robert E. Paul --
info@prmpclaw.com -- of Paul Reich & Myers said in court papers
that it was defense counsel who "constantly interrupted the court,
refused to accept its rulings, attempted to violate court rulings
and have lengthened the trial by their behavior."

The defendants did not write in their motion that the court
officer explained on the record that sheriff's deputies appear in
the courtroom for routine surveillance of courtrooms, the
plaintiffs' papers said.

In another issue, plaintiffs' counsel said in the motion for post-
trial relief that Sylvester committed an error of law to have the
jury answer in question number one of the verdict sheet if
"exposure to asbestos [is] a factual cause of George Webber's
peritoneal mesothelioma" and answer in question four of the
verdict sheet if "the exposure to the defective product of the
following defendants [is] a factual cause of George Webber's
peritoneal mesothelioma."

Peritoneal mesothelioma is a rare type of cancer that arises in
the lining surrounding the abdominal cavity known as the
peritoneum.

"The adoption of this form of verdict sheet was the direct result
of the intimidation of the court by defendants," Paul wrote in a
motion for post-trial relief filed Feb. 27.  "Defendants
communicated ex parte to Judges Herron, [Philadelphia Common Pleas
Court's Allan L.] Tereshko [supervising judge of the trial
division's civil section], and [Philadelphia Common Pleas Court's
Sandra Mazer] Moss [coordinating judge of the mass tort program,
Complex Litigation Center] falsely complaining about illusory
favoritism toward plaintiffs in a letter never sent to plaintiffs
counsel.  Adoption of this verdict sheet was at direct ex parte
instigation by defendants."

Paul said in an interview March 2 that the letter was advising the
judges of the defendants' motion that Sylvester should recuse
herself.  He said he has since seen the letter.

In Paul's motion, he said that "the court made clear when it noted
that the supervising judges had proposed the verdict sheet in
response to the ex parte contact at a meeting convened by the
supervising judges after the ex parte letter from defendants."

Sylvester did not specify in court if the meeting involved Herron,
Moss or Tereshko, or some combination of them, Paul said.

Herron said in a short interview that a letter and a brief was
sent to other judges and him, but Herron said that he does not
know if it was sent ex parte.  Defendants said they sent the
letter to plaintiffs' counsel, but the plaintiffs said they didn't
get it, Herron said.

Herron said that he was not going to comment further on post-trial
motions and that further response would only be appropriate from
defense lawyers involved in the case.

Sylvester did not respond to a request for comment left at her
chambers on March 2.

The plaintiff and his wife said in court papers his peritoneal
mesothelioma was diagnosed in October 2010.  The plaintiffs argued
that Webber was exposed to asbestos from brake linings and
clutches used in Ford vehicles, from Bendix brakes and brake
linings and from Abex brake linings.  Honeywell is the successor
to Bendix.

Webber was exposed to asbestos while working on Ford vehicles with
a friend, Charles Hummel, and exposed as a bystander when he came
in contact with his father Jim Webber's clothing after Jim Webber
was working with or near Fords whose brakes, clutches and gaskets
were being removed and installed, the plaintiffs said in court
papers.

Ford argued in its motion for a compulsory nonsuit that it could
not be held strictly liable for Webber's mesothelioma because
plaintiffs' counsel argued, "'I don't have any evidence that Mr.
Webber actually bought a Ford brake shoe and put it in.  What we
do know is that Ford was responsible for the design of their
vehicle.'"

"A manufacturer may not be held liable for a defective product
that the manufacturer neither manufactured or supplied, even
though it was foreseeable that the defective product might be used
in conjunction with the manufacturer's original equipment," Ford
said in court papers.

Even though the brakes were not made by Ford, Ford could have
liability because it designed its automobiles to use brakes that
contained asbestos, Paul said in an interview.

Asbestos plaintiffs' counsel, when arguing that a carmaker is
liable to an asbestos plaintiff because the design of vehicles
required the use of brakes containing asbestos, have beaten
summary judgment motions on the same theory, Paul said.

This case was the first to go to trial because the other cases
have settled, Paul said.

In another issue, the jury found that George Webber was exposed to
asbestos from the products of all seven defendants and that the
products of all seven companies were defective but then found that
exposure to the defective products of all seven defendants was not
a factual cause of Webber's peritoneal mesothelioma.

The jury was clearly confused, Paul said, because they answered
the two questions on causation in conflicting ways.  If they did
not believe Webber's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to
asbestos, "why didn't they just answer question number one 'No'
and go home?" Paul asked.

The trial defendants offered evidence from potential exposure to
asbestos from the settled defendants, which were Georgia-Pacific,
BorgWarner, Fel-Pro and Union Carbide, but the defendants failed
to show Webber breathed asbestos from the settled defendants'
products, the plaintiffs' post-trial motion said.

Pneumo Abex argued in court papers that Webber's possible use of
Abex brakes was in the mid-1990s, eight years after Abex stopped
manufacturing and selling "asbestos-containing automotive friction
parts."

Honeywell said in court papers that "the weight of the scientific
and medical literature demonstrates that exposure to chrysotile
asbestos fibers -- the only type of asbestos found in Bendix
brakes -- does not cause peritoneal mesothelioma."

There is no credible evidence that any fiber type but amphibole
asbestos is capable of causing peritoneal mesothelioma, Honeywell
also argued in court papers.

As well, the brake changes the plaintiff performed personally or
with his friend took place between the 1980s and the 2000s when
brakes were asbestos-free, Honeywell said in its motion for
compulsory nonsuit.

In another issue, the plaintiffs argue that Sylvester should not
have allowed the alternative juror to sit with the eight-member
jury.  Plaintiffs' counsel said in their post-trial motion that,
because the motion was made by Abex's counsel in front of the
jury, "this ploy was a deliberate intent to embarrass the court
and plaintiff's counsel into agreement with Abex's counsel to seat
the alternate juror after ex parte contact.  Having sat together
as a jury, plaintiffs were afraid that objection to this
suggestion would prejudice the jurors against plaintiffs as the
jurors would feel that plaintiffs were being unfair and
unreasonable if they objected."

The alternate juror was elected as the foreman, the plaintiffs'
papers said, and "two of the duly certified jurors [of nine] did
not agree to the verdict when polled so only six of the duly
certified jurors actually joined in the vote," the plaintiffs'
papers said.

The plaintiffs also said in their post-trial brief that they
should not have been barred from proceeding on a negligence theory
in addition to the strict liability theory.

Honeywell's attorneys also included Kevin Hexstall --
kehexstall@mdwcg.com -- of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman &
Goggin and Bruce T. Bishop of Willcox & Savage in Norfolk, Va.

Ford also was represented by Joseph F. Lagrotteria --
joseph.lagrotteria@leclairryan.com -- of Leclair Ryan in Newark,
N.J.

Pneumo Abex also was represented by John R. Brydon --
jbrydon@bhplaw.com -- of Brydon Hugo & Park in San Francisco.

Griffith and Caffrey declined comment.  A Honeywell corporate
spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.

Hanna, an attorney for Pneumo Abex, could not be reached for
comment.

Fellow plaintiffs' counsel were Maune Raichle Hartley French &
Mudd.

The jury issued its verdict Feb. 24.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gillam Has Always Been a Hazmat Disposal Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Paul of The Winnipeg Free Press reports that the mayor
of a small northern Manitoba town at the centre of a public uproar
over asbestos hoped the issue will be buried sometime before
March 10.  Literally.

"I didn't expect this kind of reaction," said Gillam Mayor Jim
Goymer after reports from as far away as Toronto put the Manitoba
hunting and fishing centre on the map.

Some residents in the remote town of 1,200, about 1,000 kilometers
north of Winnipeg, are reportedly furious that tons of asbestos
debris were dumped in the town's landfill before being buried.

One resident voiced the fear that Gillam would be known as the
Chernobyl of northern Canada.

"The people just . . . the word that jumps to mind is panic," said
the mayor.  "There were so many bags at once that it created an
uproar."

He said the town hired a contractor to dig a hole to bury the
1,000-ton shipment.  It's a routine disposal method approved by
the province.

Asbestos debris has been shipped to Gillam for disposal for years.

The latest shipment, which arrived by winter road from northern
Ontario, is to be buried March 6, the mayor said.

The mayor believes the uproar is due to some residents being
unaware of Gillam's history as an asbestos disposal site.

Gillam's landfill is one of the province's registered waste-
disposal sites, along with Thompson and Winnipeg.

In this case, the shipment was double the size of normal debris
shipments delivered annually from Manitoba Hydro sites.

It was a mixture of asbestos wallboard and contaminated soil from
Winisk, Ont., the site of a former distant-early-warning station.

The system of Cold War-era radar stations in the Far North was
mothballed in the 1990s and now is being dismantled.

The shipment arrived in 1.2-metre cubes wrapped in plastic, with
warning tags.

Gillam is taking extra precautions with the shipment after the
public outcry erupted.

The road into the dump was reportedly blocked to keep people away
from the bags.  "It's not a problem as long as people don't
disturb the packages," Goymer said.

Manitoba Conservation approved the shipment.

"I suspect some residents were surprised this product showed up.
And at least one of the bags has a small tear in it," said Don
McInnis, a Manitoba Conservation assistant deputy minister.

"They're concerned and they're asking their town about it.  We'll
be following up with the town and making an inspection."

He said the form of the asbestos from Winisk is considered
unlikely to crumble or disperse into the air and is not a health
hazard.

Asbestos has been linked to lung disease and cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: KDEP Aids Cleanup After Calamity, Warns of Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak of The Mesothelioma Center reports that Kentucky will
provide $50,000 grants in 31 counties to help with solid waste
cleanup needed after the devastating tornadoes that rocked the
state last week.

The grants will come with a warning: Beware of the asbestos.  It's
everywhere now.

The storm system that swept through 10 states, spawned 42
tornadoes and killed 40 people -- including 22 in Kentucky -- left
behind a massive cleanup project that will continue to endanger
residents.

An exposure to asbestos, which often is overlooked after a
crushing storm like this, can cause serious long-term health
issues that might lie dormant for decades.  The inhalation of
microscopic asbestos fibers, which become airborne when disturbed
during cleanup, can cause mesothelioma cancer.

The Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KDEP) has
specific guidelines for proper disposal of debris in the wake of
severe weather.

In Indiana, where  13 people died and big parts of small towns
Maryville and Henryville were leveled beyond recognition, the
state has similar guidelines.  It issued a similar warning.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials are touring
both states to further assess damage and determine the extent of
the federal assistance available.

"Kentuckians should be aware of health, safety and compliance
hazards associated with debris handling and disposal.  These
hazards include burning of debris, asbestos removal and mold
growth,"  according to a KDEP news release.

Included in that warning is an emphasis on the prohibition of
burning any debris from homes and businesses, which would spread
the asbestos for miles.  It warns homeowners that the most
dangerous materials containing asbestos are likely to be in
insulation, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, linoleum, transite siding
and roofing shingles.

Homes and most any building constructed before 1980 likely were
built with large quantities of asbestos.  It was used extensively
because it was heat resistant and helped fireproof and soundproof
construction. Its flexibility also helped make buildings sturdier.

Unfortunately, asbestos also was toxic, which didn't become
obvious to everyone -- and cause any outrage -- until the late
'70s, when its use became heavily-regulated.  Asbestos materials,
when disturbed through renovation or demolition or just the aging
process, becomes dangerous.

State officials are urging resident to use qualified
professionals, ones that have proper safety equipment, to handle
any asbestos materials.

This is hardly a new phenomena.  Asbestos exposure became a big
issue a year ago following the tornadoes that ripped through
Alabama, destroying 2,370 homes in Tuscaloosa County.

There was both federal and state oversight of the asbestos removal
in commercial buildings there, but little attention paid to the
waste removal from single-family homes.

The lack of oversight caused considerable concern among residents
and environmental activists, particularly because of the extremely
dry conditions that accompanied the cleanup period, making it
easier for the asbestos fibers to become airborne.

The same storm that raged through Kentucky and Indiana, damaged
the roof of Murphy High School in Murphy, North Carolina.
Although the damage wasn't bad enough to close the school, it did
expose the asbestos insulation in the cafeteria, forcing officials
to move the dining facilities into the gymnasium indefinitely.

In Kentucky, the state is taking applications to help pay the cost
of collecting, transporting and disposing of the waste generated
by the tornadoes, reminding residents that building materials
should be taken to construction and demolition landfills, warning
of the asbestos dangers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medway Council Hunts Down Illegal Fly-Tippers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Hill at kentnews.co.uk reports that Medway Council is warning
people about the dangers of fly tipping asbestos after the
hazardous material was dumped in a quiet country lane.

The waste was tipped in Chapel Lane, Halling -- an unmade single-
track country road.

The rubbish consisted of guttering, rubble, a kitchen work-top, a
mattress and roofing sheets used on garages and industrial roofs.
The sheets contain a type of asbestos called Chrysotile.  The
rubble in the builders' bags was from BATS building supplies in
Strood.

Also found at the site were two contact sheets used for a printing
business.  The sheets advertised a firm called Awesome Events.  A
note was also found among the rubbish that read: "Pam, just gone
to pick rest of bits up, will be back to finish it today, Thank
you.  Jim."

On the reverse of the note was a monetary figure GBP1,200, which
the council's enforcement officers believe could be the price paid
for the job.

Medway Council portfolio holder for community safety and customer
contact Cllr Mike O'Brien said: "This is intentional dumping of a
hazardous material and totally irresponsible.  By tipping this
waste in a public area those responsible have exposed the public
to the risk of breathing in asbestos fibers.

"This is especially upsetting as it follows on from the report
last week in the media about the number of asbestos related deaths
in Medway.

"Chapel Lane is very remote and those responsible for the fly-
tipping would need to have good local knowledge to use this area
for tipping waste.

"The council's officers will use the evidence found at the site to
track down those responsible for this.

"I urge anyone who knows who dumped this asbestos to inform
council officers.  We will be investigating this case and will
seek to prosecute those who illegally fly-tipped this dangerous
material."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Testify in Case Over Sailor's Death
------------------------------------------------------------
The Reading Post reports that working with asbestos on ships
during the 1950s caused the death of an 82-year-old man from
Theale, an inquest heard.

Ronald Kennedy, of High Street, died on Friday, Dec. 16, last
year, from a malignant mesothelioma.

On Tuesday, March 6, Ravi Sidhu, deputy coroner for Berkshire,
read a statement made by Mr. Kennedy before his death as part of a
civil court case in relation to working with asbestos.

In it he explained how he worked with asbestos aboard ships for 56
hours a week and slept in an engine room.

Reading the statement, Mr. Sidhu said: "I can't recall where the
asbestos lagging on board the ships came from, but I can recall
that moving of the asbestos would be performed.

"I'd then have to apply it to various pipes -- mix asbestos powder
with water and apply it as a paste."

The inquest also heard testimony from Dr. Christopher Davies, a
consultant physician at Spire Dunedin Hospital in Bath Road, who
confirmed that Mr. Kennedy had spent many years working with and
living close to asbestos.

Mr. Sidhu told the inquest how Mr. Kennedy was admitted to Royal
Berkshire Hospital on March 30, 2010, after an x-ray showed what
doctors thought was an "underlying bronchial cancer" and then to a
hospital in London on April 12, 2010, after a CT scan showed there
was a "considerable amount of fluid" in his chest.

He was eventually diagnosed with epithelioid mesothelioma on May
18, 2010.

Giving his verdict, Mr. Sidhu said: "The mesothelioma was
regretfully going to cause his death and that was because he had
had exposure to asbestos throughout the course of his working
life.

"He was exposed to asbestos.

"It was that asbestos that caused the mesothelioma that caused his
death."

He recorded that Mr. Kennedy died of "the industrial disease of
malignant mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurbrugg Hospital Toxic Debris Remain Unheeded
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Rieger of CBS Local relates that Riverside resident Bob Grab
says, "I want it cleaned up," referring to the old Zurbrugg
Hospital site.

He can see from his home what's left of the tattered and shredded
tarps that barely cover the piles of construction debris, portions
of which the EPA says contain asbestos.

"I went to the township, I asked what was going to be done about
it, [they told me] 'Deps going to handle it or the builder's going
to handle it,'" says Grab.

"Eleven months ago, we reported that state investigators found
bags containing asbestos buried in the ground, in dumpsters and
scattered in a boiler room that still stands during a criminal
investigation.  Instead of getting cleaned up by the developer,
the Teicher organization, it's become a source of tension between
neighbors and township officials.

"How does it make me feel? Angry, frustrated," says Judy Kerchner,
who lives next to the site and also says it's not secure.

"I see kids who are up and down on the rubble," Kerchner adds.

She also said that warning signs that used to read "Danger,
asbestos.  Do not enter," are missing from the fences.

Township business administrator Meghan Jack says the EPA may be
able to move things along faster, but they haven't received a
timeline.

"We have been told they are working with the owner of the property
and his attorney in order to access the sight for remediation,"
says Jack.

Nearby residents have letters from the state about the asbestos
and have even had their homes tested, but Jack says Riverside
never got a report that tells them what's in the piles.

"It bothers me because they're our advocates, or they're supposed
to be our advocates," says Kerchner.

Attempts to reach owner Fred Teicher and his environmental
attorney by phone were unsuccessful.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPSM Provides Data for Industrial/Plant Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a study by the National Institute of Health (NHI),
between 1940 and 1979 over 27 million workers in the United States
alone were exposed to airborne asbestos fibers on the job.  Of
those, included were industrial workers who were exposed then and
continue to be exposed to the deadly fiber that causes
mesothelioma.  Mesothelioma is an incurable cancer in the lining
of the lungs (pleural mesothelioma), abdomen (peritoneal
mesothelioma), and heart (pericardial mesothelioma.) Exposure to
asbestos is the primary cause and often occurred during the course
of work without victims even realizing they were being exposed to
a deadly carcinogen.

Industries with heavy use of asbestos and asbestos products are:

     -- Chemical Plants
     -- Construction (residential, commercial, and industrial)
     -- Factories
     -- Industrial Plants
     -- Mechanical Plants
     -- Power Plants
     -- Pulp and Paper
     -- Railroads
     -- Refineries
     -- Shipbuilding
     -- Textile Industry
     -- Manufacturing Plants

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), asbestos was
known for being highly heat, fire and erosion resistant and was
used in hundreds of thousands of materials, causing high risk of
exposure to millions of tradespeople and others that came into
contact with such products.  Most people working on the job were
never given warning about the dangers of asbestos, offered
protective clothing or equipment, nor given any training.

Occupational duties for industrial workers could frequently
require work around vats, tanks, vessels, boilers, steam pipes,
hot water pipes and refrigerated storage rooms that often had
asbestos insulation.  Much of this work would be performed in
enclosed spaces and on a daily basis, increasing risk of exposure.

Mesothelioma is caused by inhaling microscopic asbestos fibers,
which then lodge in the lining of internal body organs and then
decades later develop into a fatal cancer.  Sometimes, although
more rare, workers would bring home the fibers in their hair or on
clothes and shoes, exposing their spouses and other family
members, known as secondary exposure.

Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason (CPSM) have represented hundreds
of industrial workers who were diagnosed with mesothelioma.
Having witnessed the suffering of asbestos victims and sorrow of
their family members, CPSM offers up-to-date recommendations,
advice and sources on how to avoid exposure to asbestos if you
work around industrial products that contain asbestos.  They also
give extensive advice on the rights of workers diagnosed with
mesothelioma and steps to take to get compensation for their
illness.

          About Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason

CPSM is a top national mesothelioma law firm with more than 30
years of protecting the rights of individuals who have been
injured by the large asbestos corporations and manufacturers.  The
asbestos attorneys at CPSM have a long history of exclusively
handling mesothelioma lawsuits and helping get just compensation
for asbestos victims and their families.  A pioneer in the field,
opening the first asbestos law firm in California that specialized
in this field, CPSM remains dedicated to giving the utmost in
personal service to their clients while at the same time fighting
hard for victims and their families. If you or a loved one has
been diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact Clapper, Patti,
Schweizer & Mason today for a free case evaluation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peacock's "Toxic Chronicles" Will Highlight AIAAC
------------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos remains one of the most lethal and widespread toxins in
the world.  In an effort to shine a light on this man-made danger
that kills tens of thousands of people every year and is still not
banned in the United States, the non-profit Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization (ADAO) will hold its 8th Annual
International Asbestos Awareness Conference, "Asbestos: An
International Public Health Crisis," March 30-April 1, 2012 in Los
Angeles, CA.

A highlight of the conference will be the highly provocative
journalism presented by keynote speaker, Matt Peacock, award-
winning journalist with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Peacock has chronicled the harrowing story of asbestos for more
than 30 years: from the factories where workers frequently had
asbestos 'snowball' fights and the Australian mines where
Aboriginal children played in the toxic tailings to the millions
of homes worldwide where asbestos continues to threaten the lives
of home renovators.

Peacock is an adjunct Professor of Journalism at the Sydney's
University of Technology and is the author of the book Killer
Company, a history of Australia's largest asbestos manufacturers,
James Hardie, which is being dramatized for the TV series Devil's
Dust.

"We are truly honored to have Matt as this year's Asbestos
Awareness Conference keynote speaker," said Linda Reinstein,
President/CEO and co-founder of ADAO.  "His commitment to exposing
the dangers of asbestos and the criminals who profit from it
reflects ADAO's mission -- a world free of asbestos and asbestos-
related diseases."

ADAO's international conference brings together renowned doctors,
scientists, researchers, public health representatives and, most
importantly, asbestos victims and their families -- in a united
forum to enhance asbestos awareness, education and collaboration.

"An estimated 107,000 people will die this year from asbestos-
related diseases," said Reinstein.  "As long as asbestos continues
to be used in our country and across the globe, we cannot stop
educating the public about asbestos exposure and fighting for its
universal ban."

ADAO's conference mission is to provide the most advanced medical,
occupational and environmental information available about
asbestos-related diseases to individuals throughout the world.
Conference presentations will focus on preventing exposure,
advances in diagnosing and treating asbestos-related diseases,
providing patient resources and a global advocacy session.  For a
complete list of conference events or to register, visit
http://bit.ly/xJVhLF

          About Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (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
an independent global organization dedicated to preventing
asbestos-related diseases through education, advocacy, and
community.  For more information, visit
http://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bernie Banton's Life Chronicled in "Devil's Dust"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma News, sponsored by Mesothelioma law firm Baron &
Budd, P.C., reports that the story of Australia's leading advocate
for asbestos disease victims will make its cinematic debut later
this year.

The two-part miniseries, titled Devil's Dust, will chronicle the
life of Bernie Banton, a longtime James Hardie employee who died
from asbestos exposure in 2007.  Banton devoted the last years of
his life working to ensure that Australian companies compensated
victims for asbestos diseases such as mesothelioma.

Devil's Dust is based on the book, Killer Company, written by
journalist Matt Peacock.  Peacock exposed James Hardie's notorious
history as an asbestos company that amassed a fortune while it
killed thousands of workers and customers.  In his book, Peacock
puts a human face on the asbestos tragedy by profiling Banton.

Banton was a long-time employee at James Hardie, where he helped
manufacture building products loaded with asbestos.  Banton was
diagnosed with asbestosis, pleural mesothelioma and pleural
disease in 1999.  All of Banton's diseases are directly attributed
to his working near asbestos.

James Hardie had produced asbestos products for many years in
Australia.  Peacock found evidence that James Hardie executives
were aware of the dangers associated with asbestos by the 1960s
but chose not to warn employees.  In the years that followed many
of the workers developed similar symptoms and James Hardie
couldn't hide from the secrets it harbored.  Finally in 1983,
James Hardie warned the public.  The damage was already done.

Anybody who breathes in or unwittingly ingests the microscopic
asbestos fibers are at risk of developing disease, such as
mesothelioma.  Many companies around the world failed to provide
adequate safety measures to keep workers safe.  Inspections of
some manufacturing plants during the 1970s showed motes of
asbestos dust hanging in the air.  Workers ate their lunches
nearby and at the end of the day endangered their loved ones by
carrying the dust home on their clothing.  In Peacock's book, he
told anecdotes of workers who had 'snowball' fights with clumps of
asbestos and Aboriginal children who played in the asbestos
refuse.

Banton fought for himself and his Australian cohorts against the
billion-dollar companies.  His work ensured that the victims
received just compensation from the responsible companies.  Today
the Bernie Banton Foundation ensures that Banton's legacy for
advocacy for asbestos disease and mesothelioma victims continues.

Actor Anthony Hayes will play Banton in the series.  Don Hany and
Ewen Leslie will also appear.

Filming will begin mid-March 2012 with the series to air in
Australia later in the year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calgary Univ. Faculty's Death Raises Red Flags
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that some University of Calgary employees fear
they're working in a 'sick building' after a colleague recently
died of a lung disease.

They are concerned they might have been exposed to asbestos during
renovations at Craigie Hall, a 50-year-old building on the south
side of the campus.

Amelia Labbe, who ran the Spanish centre in the building, died
last November of pulmonary fibrosis -- a scarring of the lungs.

Her husband John Labbe said doctors didn't determine what caused
the disease, but he believes it was her work environment.

"The 2003 renovation -- I believe all the dust and everything is
what got her.  But it's only a suspicion," he said.

Craigie Hall is included in the university's 2006 asbestos
management plan, which flags, among other things, the ceiling and
floor tiles in the building.

Rachel Schmidt was head of the French, Italian and Spanish
department at the time.  She also has questions about a renovation
project to remove the asbestos.

"Ceiling tiles and accumulated dust from the ceiling space had
spilled into the work area and had basically resulted in air
quality in which those of us who were within the entire wing could
not breathe," she said. Schmidt eventually shut down the
department for a few days until the debris was cleaned up, but she
says the dust lingered.

Labbe said his wife was worried.  "Basically she came home.  She
was angry.  She said ceiling tiles were coming down, the room was
full of dust," Labbe said.

The university declined interview requests from CBC News,
releasing a statement instead saying that air quality tests show
employees are not being exposed to asbestos in Craigie Hall.

Officials say they are now doing another review of air quality.

Schmidt said no one warned her during the renovations that there
might be asbestos in the building, which was built when the
cancer-causing substance was still widely used as insulation.

"I think that we need an honest accounting from the university as
to where the asbestos was at the time of these construction
projects," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suntrust Tower Will be Tested for Carcinogens
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Shattuck of Georgia State University's The Signal reports
that the university may soon have to remove asbestos from the
walls of the Suntrust Tower.  The dormant asbestos contained in
the walls poses little risk to students or faculty at present,
although any construction work that would open the walls might
expose occupants to the carcinogen if not properly removed, said
Jeff Winslett, the project leader of the contracting company that
formerly managed the building's construction work.
He says that, during the building's remodeling from 1981 to 1991,
asbestos was removed from the space between the building's floors,
although the walls were left alone.  He estimates the cost of
abating the contaminated walls to around four times that of
ordinary renovation work because of the extra layer of precaution
and effort involved.

As the project is still in its design phase, the university has
not begun testing for asbestos, which will be done before any
construction begins, according to Kim Bauer, the director of
Facilities and Design and Construction Services.  She says the
majority of renovations will occur with the mechanical systems in
the building with very few walls being removed or added.

However, if asbestos is detected, the university will have it
professionally removed, which Bauer says will not significantly
impact the timeframe or cost of construction.  "Our standard
policy is to test for asbestos prior to renovations and if
asbestos is found, it is professionally and safely removed and
then the air is tested to confirm that it is clean prior to any
occupants occupying the area."

The Physics and Astronomy departments will be moving into floors
six and twelve next September along with University Relations.
The Communications department is scheduled to move into floors
eight through eleven in December.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regulators to Restrict Alternative Demolition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Cary of the Tri-City Herald reports that the Department of
Energy and its regulators have agreed to restrict the use of heavy
equipment to demolish buildings that still have asbestos out of
concern for worker health.

The agreement, signed Monday, March 12, comes after the
Environmental Protection Agency inspector general issued an early-
warning report in December, saying that removal of asbestos in
alternative ways at Hanford and elsewhere potentially threatened
health and safety.

Hanford contractors have conducted no demolition of buildings with
asbestos in alternative ways since then, in part because none had
been scheduled, said DOE spokesman Geoff Tyree.

Hanford workers had been removing by hand all asbestos possible
before demolishing buildings using heavy equipment, typically an
excavator with shears.

That included panels of transite, or cement asbestos board, siding
that were bolted onto buildings.  The mid-century siding is common
in Hanford buildings.

But when workers needed to be lifted seven stories high to remove
138-pound transite siding panels at Hanford's 384 Power House in
2008, workers instead used mechanical demolition, prying off
panels as gently as possible and lowering them to the ground with
an excavator equipped with a bucket and "thumb."

The practice spread to central Hanford buildings, even if work did
not need to be done at high elevations, until mechanical
demolition of about 26 buildings with asbestos had been completed
by the end of 2011.

The transite siding is considered nonfriable because it doesn't
easily crumble into a powder that can be breathed in.  Breathing
in fine fibers of asbestos can cause cancer and other lung
diseases, sometimes decades after exposure, according to the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control.

However, Hanford regulators EPA and the Washington State
Department of Ecology now are concerned that mechanically removing
siding could cause it to "become crumbled, pulverized or reduced
to powder."

Last month, in response to worker concerns raised after the EPA
inspector general's early warning, top Hanford and union officials
sent a message to all Hanford employees saying tighter controls
would be placed on areas that contained asbestos.

That includes siding or roofing material that could break or blow
off buildings that have not been demolished and areas where
asbestos-containing materials may remain on the ground after
buildings have been demolished.

During the mechanical demolition of buildings with asbestos
materials, monitoring was done and no readings indicated workers
were exposed above limits set by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, according to DOE.  Additional sampling is
being done at demolition sites.

Restrictions are being placed on mechanical demolition as a
precaution, said Dennis Faulk, EPA Hanford program manager.

But if additional mechanical demolition is approved, there will
need to be a compelling reason for it, he said.

"DOE and EPA will protect the work force, protect the environment
and comply with laws," he said.

EPA in Washington, D.C., has issued a plan of corrections that
includes communicating National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants and Occupational Safety and Health Administration
requirements for demolition of asbestos-containing structures.

That includes notifying field offices that appropriate waivers
must be issued for unapproved methods of asbestos removal and
retracting approval for any work plans with unapproved methods of
asbestos demolition.

EPA also recommends that any worker who might have been exposed to
asbestos because of alternative demolition methods be notified.
DOE is developing plans to contact former workers, most likely by
letter.

It also has posted information at www.hanford.gov.  Look for it in
the rotating topics near the upper left corner.

"We'll be working with EPA and providing any information they
request as they work through their corrective actions," Tyree
said.  "Our goal is to ensure our workers continue to be safe as
they do environmental cleanup."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Takers for C$25MM Needed to Restart Mines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Mann of MarketWatch says there have been some suspect
Canadian mining ventures over the years.  But none were probably
as sketchy -- or as unhealthy -- as this one.

The provincial government of Quebec is doggedly trying to lure
investors to reopen the Jeffrey Mine in lovely, pitted, Asbestos,
Quebec.  It was closed last year for financial reasons after a
cave-in.  Quebec's leader has been trying to find money to kick-
start the mine for over a year, in fact.  So far, investors have
stayed away.  Quelle surprise.

Asbestos, you have to admit, doesn't have quite the same allure as
gold or silver.

That's right, asbestos.  The same legally radioactive material
that makes litigation-averse governments and businesses here in
the U.S. close and clean buildings if even a trace of it is found.
The same cancerous mineral that has attorneys trolling for
lawsuits on cable-TV on behalf of victims afflicted with
mesothelioma, a particularly aggressive form of cancer caused by
asbestos exposure.

Asbestos was banned in Europe in 2005.  The World Health
Organization estimates that more than 107,000 people die each year
from chrysotile-related lung cancer, mesothelioma and respiratory
diseases from workplace exposure. Chrysotile is the type of
asbestos mined in Quebec.

Asbestos, long used in construction for its heat-resistant
properties, had been mined in Quebec for 130 years until its two
mines shut down last year.  But Quebec Premier Jean Charest wants
to reopen the Jeffrey mine, despite overwhelming medical evidence
of asbestos' carcinogenic effects: He gave the mine a C$58 million
bank-loan guarantee if Montreal investment group Balcorp Group
could raise C$25 million from investors.  So far, no takers.

Even though this seemingly bizarre story has attracted little
notice outside Quebec, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is
now under media scrutiny and criticism for appointing Christian
Paradis as his Industry Minister.  Paradis, who hails from
Asbestos, where the Jeffrey mine is located, badly wants it
reopened.  During last year's Quebec provincial holiday, Harper
showed up in Paradis' district, in the town of Thetford Mines,
where another shuttered asbestos mine is located.

But asbestos, which is mixed with concrete and used to make pipes,
doesn't have a whole lot of friends in its home province these
days.

French-language Montreal newspaper La Presse recently carried a
hard-hitting investigative series of articles interviewing victims
of asbestos who didn't even work in the mines.  Some women may
have been exposed from being in a school building, another from
washing her miner husband's clothes.  Quebec's provincial
government, reacting to the series, relented and released a secret
list of Quebec buildings that contain the carcinogenic mineral.

Quebec's medical community wants to keep the mine closed, too, not
just Charest's political opposition.  "It's time for Quebec to
stop investing in asbestos," ran a recent Montreal newspaper
headline over an opinion piece written by the executive director
of the Quebec division of the Canadian Cancer Society.

Even though mine officials insist the Quebec variety of asbestos,
chrysotile, is safer, the Cancer Society's Suzanne Dubois insisted
all forms of asbestos cause cancer.  Mesothelioma, a cancer of the
lung linings, can strike up to 20 years after exposure to
asbestos.  That explains the legal TV ads we've been seeing
recently in the U.S.

One opposition politician, Quebec assembly minister Amir Khadir,
said at a recent news conference that "a credible source" told him
financial institutions have balked at putting up the $25 million
in investment capital needed to secure the $58 million government
loan.

Khadir told the news conference he'd consulted the V.P. of a major
financial institution, "And he said the business plan did not
respond to any logical market criteria."  No surprise there.

Jeffrey Mine execs say they have customers in India and Indonesia.
Quebec Premier Charest is trying to provide political cover for
the loan offer by insisting the mine won't get provincial money
unless it can show its product will be handled safely by overseas
clients.  But videos have recently surfaced in Canada showing
workers handling asbestos in those two countries without
protection.

The bad press has been "devastating" his industry, admitted
Bernard Coulombe, president of the shuttered Jeffrey Mine.

In a three-hankie statement widely reported in Canadian media,
Coulombe said, "We are so criticized, so misunderstood, so
tarnished." Awww.

Balcorp head Baljit Chandra had said his group was close to
securing the necessary funding to secure the provincial money.  He
said that last fall.  I've tried unsuccessfully to reach Balcorp
for comment through its sparse-looking website.

Critics in Canada have said Harper and Paradis have been putting
pressure on Charest to keep the $58 million Quebec offer on the
table.  But others are saying that given the recent overwhelming
opposition to restarting asbestos mining now coming from Quebec's
medical, environmental, and media establishments, it's a good time
politically for Charest to pull the plug on the dubious loan
guarantee.

The reason he hasn't yet? Hundreds of potential jobs in the
asbestos mines.  "These jobs don't grow on trees, you know," one
Charest supporter told a Canadian radio station.

Maybe Charest should encourage prospective mine employees who want
their jobs back to consider stuffing envelopes at home.

True, it wouldn't pay nearly as much.  But it won't give you
cancer, either.

Or, the Asbestos mine could go the way of the nearby city of
Thetford Mines, where the other asbestos mine is closed --
permanently.

The former head office of the asbestos company in Thetford Mines
is now headquarters of Oleotek, a thriving green chemistry
institute.

In other words, Thetford Mines has adapted its economic model to
changing times.  Asbestos' Jeffrey Mine should do the same.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sandy Cape Remains Open Despite Carcinogens Find
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that the Shire of Dandaragan says a popular
camping site near Jurien Bay is safe despite a five-year-old child
discovering chunks of deadly asbestos while playing in the area.

Archie Maslen discovered what he thought were dinosaur fossils but
his mother was horrified when they turned out to be pieces of
asbestos.

Cathy Maslen and her family were staying at the campsite known as
Sandy Cape 14 kilometers north of Jurien Bay.

The asbestos is believed to be leftover from farmers' shacks
constructed as early as the 1920s.

The Shire of Dandaragan says it does warn of a minimal risk of
exposure to campers but conducts checks of the site at least three
times a week.

CEO Tony Nottle says he will investigate the concerns but says he
won't shut the campsite down.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Navy's Sinkex Program Raises Safety Alarms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hall of The Mesothelioma Center reports that a military
exercise involving the sinking of ships may be causing inadvertent
environmental exposure to asbestos and other pollutants.

The program -- known as Sinkex , short for sinking exercise -- is
the Navy's performance of target practice with live missiles and
bombs to destroy old Naval ships.

The problem is that some of these ships have been known to contain
toxins, including asbestos, PCBs, lead and mercury, potentially
leaking into the environment.

Asbestos exposure has been linked to the development of
mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the lungs, in
addition to lung cancer, asbestosis, and pleural plaques.

Concerns are being raised by some who fear that the government
program is not considering the well-being of the environment.

The Navy's sinking exercise has gone on for decades, and many
within the ranks deem this use of target practice as necessary for
national security.

Sinkex allows the Navy to use live fire to study the "weapons
lethality" in simulated environments.

Records from the past 12 years show that over 109 old U.S.
warships were sank using missiles, torpedoes, and large guns.
Many of the exercises occurred off the coasts of Florida,
California, Hawaii and other states.

Florida and California are two states with the highest amount of
mesothelioma cases, a disease exclusively linked to asbestos
exposure.

All of the ships that were destroyed were listed as old, peeling,
rusty and no longer suitable for military use.  Within the same
12-year period, at one of the six approved ship-breaking
facilities, 64 ships were recycled.

According to reports from The Associated Press, the Navy retained
minimal records of the hazardous substances that were aboard ships
that were disposed through the Sinkex program.  Because of this,
the real environmental and health dangers cannot be fully
understood.

In 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required that
the Navy take more steps to document waste on the ships, in
exchange for exemption from federal pollution laws that deemed any
dumping in the ocean as illegal.

AP also cites new proof that warships sunk off the coast of
Florida may have caused increased levels of a toxic substance
known as polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCB, in nearby fish.

Sinkex was paused for two years during the 1990s because critics
believed that the program was out of bounds of the federal Toxic
Substances Control Act's rules of PBC releases.

Today, the program continues.

"The Sinkex program provides numerous benefits to the Navy by
making target vessels available for at-sea live-fire exercises,"
said Christopher Johnson, Navy spokesman.

"Each vessel is put through a rigorous cleaning process that
includes the removal, to the maximum extent practicable, of all
materials which may degrade the marine environment."

The relationship between the Navy and toxic materials date back
decades, with an unfortunately close one with asbestos.

This naturally-occurring mineral was used for its insulation and
heat-resistant properties in countless naval products including
ship piping, tiling, ceiling, flooring, engines and other
components.

Consequently, Navy veterans have historically represented a
sizable portion of those with asbestos-related diseases.  Some
estimates say veterans account for as much as one-third of all
mesothelioma cases.

The VA now provides certain benefits to veterans with known
asbestos exposure stemming from military service.

Because the dangers of asbestos were not completely understood
until the 1960s, widespread use of the substance was common.

Battleships, aircraft carriers, cruisers, submarines, destroyers,
frigates, marine ships, escort carriers and other naval vessels
were all known to contain asbestos.

Asbestos exposure has been limited in recent years because of
reduced use.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Passes Asbestos Awareness Resolution
------------------------------------------------------------
Belluck & Fox LLP-sponsored About Mesothelioma.net reports that
the National Asbestos Awareness Week resolution passed by the
United States Senate this month contains important facts about the
dangers of asbestos.

Resolution 389 notes that inhaling asbestos fibers can cause
serious respiratory diseases such as mesothelioma, asbestosis and
other health problems.  Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer of
the chest cavity or abdominal cavity associate with asbestos
exposure.  Abestosis is a chronic scaring of the lung that causes
breathing difficulty.

Asbestos was used in the construction of a substantial number of
houses and office buildings built prior to 1975 in the U.S.  It is
a leading cause of work-related cancer or occupational cancer.  A
significant portion of people with asbestos disease are veterans
who were exposed to asbestos on naval ships and in shipyards, the
resolution says. Symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take 10
years to 50 years to appear, so people exposed to asbestos in the
1960s may only recently have been diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Early diagnosis of asbestos-related disease gives some patients
more treatment options and improves their prognosis.  But
mesothelioma is difficult to diagnose and is often diagnosed when
the disease is advanced.  There is no cure for mesothelioma and
little is known about late stage treatment of the disease.  The
expected survival time for people diagnosed with mesothelioma is
between six months and two years.

Safety and prevention of asbestos exposure has significantly
reduced the incidence of asbestos in the U.S., the resolution
says.  The United States has cut its consumption of asbestos, but
continues to import and use almost 1,100 metric tons of asbestos
for certain products such as roofing materials.  Even today
thousands of workers face exposure to asbestos.

The co-sponsors and key supporters of the resolution include Sens.
Max Baucus of Montana, Barbara Boxer of California, Richard Durbin
of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, Johnny Isakson of
Georgia, Patty Murray of Washington, Harry Reid of Nevada, Jon
Tester of Montana.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Hosts Pre-Demolition "Abatement Class"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Knight of the Bendigo Advertiser reports that Bendigo
Health workers are brushing up on their asbestos knowledge.

Bendigo Health's new Bendigo Hospital project team recently hosted
an asbestos education session as part of the lead-up to a major
demolition project.

New Bendigo Hospital executive director David Walker said the
information session was designed to put staff at ease and enhance
their understanding of asbestos.

The session provided information about typical asbestos locations,
the removal process and air monitoring.

"Part of the demolition works for the new hospital involve
asbestos removal so we've got WorkSafe here and an asbestos
removal specialist explaining to the staff what's involved in
asbestos removal," he said.

"Whenever you mention the word asbestos people get edgy so this is
just about ensuring staff know what the processes are and
detailing the precautions we will take.  It's still a few weeks
away until we actually start the demolition but the first thing
we'll do is the asbestos removal.

"So that will involve specialist firms and there will be a whole
range of processes involved on how they can remove the asbestos
material.

"So it's fairly low risk, it's low risk asbestos most of it, and
it's actually in the roofing and some other panels.

"We'll also be blocking off all the air intake ducts and putting
extra filters on them and a whole range of other things.

"It's not something that's done lightly, it's something we take
seriously."

Asbestos is a natural mineral that was used to improve the
strength, heat and fire properties in a range of construction
materials.

In Australia, asbestos was widely used in construction and other
industries between 1945 and 1980.

From the 1970s there was increasing concern about the dangers of
asbestos and its use was phased out.

In 2003, the use of asbestos was banned in Australia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Toxic Business Thrives in Thetford Mines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guillaume Lavallee of the AFP News Agency reports that it's an
unlikely match, but a green chemistry institute is thriving in the
old headquarters of a Canadian mine in a sign that the former
world capital of asbestos is diversifying.

"We started with just two friends and two desks in an office, with
no computer," recalled David Berthiaume, who runs Oleotek, a
research centre that develops industrial products from vegetable
oils and animals fats, rather than oil byproducts.

The oleochemistry centre, which now has a team of 11 a decade
after its launch, has since migrated to spacious premises next to
the former asbestos mine in Thetford Mines.

The city along with the nearby town of Asbestos benefited in the
1960s from the extraction of huge mineral deposits of the material
banned by Europe in 2005.

A carcinogenic product, asbestos was long used in construction,
where it was favored for its resistance to heat and fire.

But over the past 25 years the asbestos industry has collapsed,
forcing Thetford Mines, a city of 25,700 some 240 kilometers east
of Montreal, to adapt its economic model to the changing times.

"We gave this some thought around here.  We said to ourselves,
'apart from asbestos, what else could we produce here?'" explained
Berthiaume, 36.

His centre has since launched a first start-up, Innoltek, which
produces non-toxic concrete form release oil for the construction
and precast concrete markets.

Once a mono-industrial city riddled with craters and slag heaps of
snow-capped mining debris, Thetford Mines has since made huge
strides in opening up its economy to new industries, from
manufacturing and transportation to tourism, wind energy and
research.

"In 20 years, 1,000 more jobs were created than were lost, but the
salaries are not the same," said the city's Mayor Luc Berthold.

The average salary in Thetford Mines was among the highest in
Canada during the 1970s, due to the extra compensation paid for
working in risky mining jobs.

"People who worked in the mining sector had special training,
whether in tinsmithing, mechanics, welding, etc.  It was a good
place to foster new businesses because there was specialized
labor," said Luc Remillard, president of the local economic
development agency.

There is no public data on the unemployment rate in the city, but
the Chaudieres-Appalaches region that includes Thetford Mines has
5.7% unemployment, according to the Quebec Institute of
Statistics.  Remillard estimated Thetford Mines is on equal par
with the regional figures.

For the first time in 130 years, Canada no longer produces
asbestos.  The Jeffrey Mine located in Asbestos -- until recently
the world's biggest asbestos mine -- is now shuttered.

But it could soon receive a $58-million loan guarantee from the
Quebec government to resume activities in the spring, despite
protests from a local coalition asking authorities to halt further
investments in the asbestos industry.

After a cave-in, LAB Chrysotile closed its Lake Asbestos Mine in
October, near Thetford Mines.  After going into bankruptcy, it is
now seeking a new investor to start its operations back up again.

Despite the success of its economic diversification and the risks
associated with asbestos, Thetford Mines officials are adamant
about relaunching the Lake Asbestos Mine, which once employed 350
workers.

"Replacing 350 jobs with small businesses takes time.  The easiest
way for us to keep an active economy is to safeguard our mining
operations," Berthold said.

"I don't have a miracle solution.  We've been looking for five
years for a big business to create 350-400 jobs here, but they
don't come a dime a dozen."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIF Grants Over AU$700,000 To First Recipients
---------------------------------------------------------------
OHS News at safetyculture.com.au reports that Employment and
Workplace Relations Minister, Bill Shorten announced the first
recipients of the Asbestos Innovation Fund.

Applicants coming from New South Wales, Victoria, Western
Australia and Queensland have been awarded grants under the
Comcare Asbestos Innovation Fund.  The fund which aims to promote
awareness of the dangers of asbestos and examine new ways to treat
people suffering from asbestos-related illnesses was launched in
December 2010 by the Federal Government.

Mr. Shorten is encouraged by the strong number of applicants for
funding a number of projects.

Jocelyn McLean from the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital at Camperdown
in Sydney received AU$30,000 to be used in developing a living
well program for patients following treatment to optimize recovery
and improve patients' quality of life.

Dr. Malcolm Feigen of Austin Health in Melbourne was given
AU$185,500 over two years.  The fund will be used to examine the
effects of high dose hemithoracic radiotherapy for localized
pleural mesothelioma, using advances in technology.

Brian Sketcher from Asbestos Audits in Queensland received
AU$40,000 to be used in promoting his booklet Identifying Asbestos
in your Home to audiences not only in Queensland, but in other
States as well.  He will also develop a second resource book for
electricians.

Mark Brims from BSC Electronics in Perth received AU$250,000 over
two years.  The fund will be used in developing a portable real
time asbestos fiber air based early warning system.  Benjamin
Hardaker from AECOM in Sydney received AU$28,500 to test a proof
of concept around the design and development of a field tool used
to assess soil sites for potential asbestos contamination.

The Baw Baw Shire Council in Victoria was given AU$170,000 over
30 months.  This will be used in developing a domestic asbestos
awareness and training program for Local Government professionals,
home renovators and workers in the waste and building industries.

According to Mr. Shorten, an estimated 30 to 40 thousand
Australians will be diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness
over the next twenty years.

"Many Australians unfortunately believe asbestos no longer poses a
danger to the community, or places them at serious risk by
handling this deadly material, especially home renovators who
often don't realise the dangers involved.

"The Asbestos Innovation Fund, underwritten by Comcare, the
Federal health and safety regulator, is a key way of raising the
awareness of the dangers of asbestos and hopefully of finding new
ways of treatment for those suffering from asbestos-related
diseases," said Minister Shorten.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Leads Carcinogen Handling Co In Charleston
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Wise of The Post and Courier relates that Donna Gonzales
doesn't always wear business attire with a string of pearls when
she goes to work.

In fact, she prefers not to.

Gonzales is in her element when she steps into a one-piece, zip-up
body suit with a hood that fits tightly around her face before
slipping into some steel-toed boots and strapping on a pair of
safety glasses, a full-face respirator and a hard hat.

"I like to get dirty," she said.

Gonzales works in environmental remediation.  Asbestos, lead and
mold are what brings in the bread for her small North Charleston
company that has taken on some very big projects.

Among them are the former Cigar Factory on peninsular Charleston,
the old Powerhouse on the former Navy base and Garco, the General
Asbestos and Rubber Co. in North Charleston that once churned out
the cancer-causing agent she labors to get rid of.

Gonzales is the chief executive officer of Chembion Environmental
LLC, a Remount Road firm that employs 18 people and works on
projects large and small throughout South Carolina, North Carolina
and Georgia.

Gonzales said she is passionate about making the world around her
a better place, one building at a time, and she takes her job
personally.  Both her father and mother died of lung cancer, a
result of asbestos in both cases, Gonzales believes.  He was 59.
She was 66.

"That's really why I do what I do," she said.

Her father worked at shipyards long before the dangers of cancer-
causing asbestos were known.  Her mother was a homemaker, but she
smoked and handled his dirty clothes.

"He was diagnosed with asbestosis in the early 1970s, and it
developed into lung cancer," Gonzales said.  "You are 80 times
more likely to develop lung-related diseases if you work around
asbestos-related materials unprotected.  The primary point of
entry is respiratory."

She believes her mother inhaled the asbestos on her father's work
clothes and her smoking multiplied the damage.

"If you are a smoker, it has a synergistic relationship," Gonzales
said.

Environmental cleansing of old buildings first piqued Gonzales'
interest in the 1980s, when she started working for the city of
North Charleston as a code inspector and later the primary code
official for the city.

The city began to purge itself of hundreds of vacant and
dilapidated houses and other structures and she was among those
who signed off on their cleansing process before the bulldozers
came in.

By 1995, she was so proficient in the process that she started her
own consulting and remediation business under her name as a
sideline to her day job.  She has been doing the work so long that
her remediation certification number from the state is 11 out of
hundreds of people who are certified now.

She stopped working for the city in 2001 and struck out on her own
the next year to start Chembion Environmental, a name derived from
the words "chemical" and "biological" as a continuation of her
previous business.

"I like to see the renovation of old buildings," she said.  "I
like to see them recharged and rebuilt, but you have to do it
carefully and follow the rules.  You have to know how to set it up
where there is no cross-contamination with the outside air."

All the points of entry to a contaminated building have to be
cordoned off, and it must be totally contained with double layers
of thick plastic.  Windows, light fixtures, vents and wall sockets
-- anything that could lead to air escaping from a room being
cleaned -- must be covered, she said.

Then she has to make sure there is enough negative pressure within
the enclosed contaminated area to remove all of the toxic fibers
from the air through a three-stage filtering system without
releasing any carcinogenic materials outside the containment area.

"It is 99.97% clean air by the time it goes back outside," she
said.  "A third party tests the air outside to make sure it's
clean.  If not, they will shut you down until it is."

Workers exiting the contaminated area must undergo a five-stage
decontamination process.  They leave the "dirty room" to walk into
an air-locked enclosure, then a shower where all the wash-off
flows through filters, then another air-locked room before
entering a "clean room."

"It's quite a lot of work," Gonzales said. "It's not cheap, but
it's necessary."

In 2009, she had the task of cleansing the exterior of the iconic
Powerhouse on the former Navy base.  All of the coal hoppers,
steam lines, fittings and gaskets had to be gleaned of asbestos
before they could be removed from the structure that once provided
electricity throughout the sprawling military installation and
shipyard.

The building, with its massive arched windows, now sits without
all of the bulky attachments, inside a fence.  Though heavily
vandalized from spray paint, broken glass and stolen copper pipe,
it awaits the next phase of remediation on its interior.

"Asbestos-free" stickers mark some of the interior piping where
the Navy cleaned up part of it before it left Charleston in 1996,
but the building still needs a good bit of attention.

"It's going to take a lot of work," Gonzales said as she walked
through the maze of heavy equipment inside the structure last
week.  "But it's beautiful, and it's worth keeping."

Gonzales's attention to detail also can be found in her work on
the old Garco plant, which manufactured asbestos and rubber for
nearly 75 years until asbestos was linked to cancer and the
company went out of business.

The Beach Co. is redeveloping the site eventually for multifamily
residential, office and retail uses, but Gonzales oversaw the
removal of 700 tons of asbestos-containing material and the
decontamination of nearly 50 buildings before most of them were
demolished.

"She came in and advised us on the process, put together the
protocols, got them approved by the state Department of Health and
Environmental Control and then performed the work in conformance
with those protocols and never received any kind of safety
violation from DHEC," said Kent Johnson, vice president of
development and acquisitions for The Beach Co.  "We had absolutely
no problems in that whole process because of her involvement and
professionalism.  She did a great job."

Because so much asbestos and other hazardous materials are still
around, Gonzales doubts their cancer-causing effects will be
eradicated anytime soon.

But she hopes the work she and other remediation companies
complete will help people breathe a little easier that one less
old structure has been decontaminated.

"You have to care about what you are doing, and your people have
to have the same mind-set," she said.  "We are here to make a
difference, do it the right way and save lives."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Upton Residents Say No To Compost Plant Operation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Retford Trader && Guardian reports that villagers in Upton and
Heapham are waiting in earnest to find out whether a composting
plant has been granted an operational extension.

In 2007, the composting and treatment facility at Sturgate
Airfield, Upton, near Gainsborough, was granted conditional
planning permission for processing 74,999 tons of waste.

The site, owned by Land Network Gainsborough Ltd, was given 15
conditions to follow but breached two.

They have re-applied and expected the decision to come before
Lincolnshire County Council's planning committee Monday, March 12.

But concerns have been raised by people who live nearby, who say
the plant is in the wrong place.

They say they have been plagued by odor, noise, dust and flies
since the plant opened.  And more worryingly, roofing sheets
containing asbestos have been found on the site.

"We are worried that this asbestos could have been shredded during
the composting process and harmful dust flung into the air around
us," said one resident who wished to remain anonymous.

The Environment Agency said it had inspected the site and found no
evidence to suggest the asbestos had been shredded.

"The material has now been moved to an appropriately permitted
facility," said a spokesman.

Residents also object to the sheer scale of composting operations
that could develop if the plant is given permission to process
74,999 tons a year.

"There are discrepancies in the council's own reports about
whether the limit is 74,999 of waste coming into the site or
74,999 tons of compost as an end product," said the resident.

"The latter could result in a limitless amount of green waste
being brought into the site, and increase operations
dramatically."

"In our view this is the wrong place for such a plant, and this is
the perfect opportunity for the county council to do the sensible
thing, turn it down and move it somewhere else."

Philip Bates, director of Land Network Gainsborough, told the
Gainsborough Standard he has no plans to increase his operation.

"The application says that we can have 'up to 74,999 tons' but
that doesn't mean we're going to," he told the Standard in
November.

"We're just seeking to confirm the planning application that was
made four years ago that we made an error on."

Council officers recommended councilors to approve the application
on March 12.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cardiff Surveyor Misses Target, Fined GBP8,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
PP Construction Safety reports that PHH Environmental (UK) Ltd.
has been fined for putting the health of demolition workers at
risk after a building survey failed to identify the presence of
asbestos.

An asbestos survey was commissioned between Jan. 15 and 25, 2010,
on an about to be demolished cinema in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales.  The
client relied on the survey which was provided to a demolition
contractor.  However, when demolition was underway workers
discovered asbestos and found they had disturbed it.

PHH Environmental (UK) Limited, of Cardiff, pleaded guilty to
breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act
1974.  The company was fined GBP5,000 and ordered to pay costs of
GBP3,000.

HSE inspector Steve Richardson investigated the case.  He said:

"Anyone carrying out refurbishment or demolition work relies upon
accurate asbestos surveys to reduce the risk of them being exposed
to deadly asbestos fibers.

It is essential that those surveys are comprehensive, intrusive
and undertaken by competent persons -- if not lives are needlessly
put at risk."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition in Warrnambool Stirs Unaware Neighbors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Quirk of The Warrnambool Standard reports that residents
living near a controversial demolition in Mickle Crescent have
raised fears for their health after dust particles from the site
entered their home.

Warrnambool City Council has tested the site for asbestos and told
Rodger and Margaret Brough, who live near the Mickle Crescent
house, the tests had come back negative.

Dust samples were taken from the exterior of two neighboring homes
and from the interior of another and no asbestos was detected in
the samples, the council reported.

The house, built by the late clothing industry icon Sir Fletcher
Jones, was demolished two weeks ago, despite opponents attempting
to have the house included in council's heritage overlay.

Mr. Brough, whose elderly father-in-law also lives in the house,
said dust from the demolition had blown in.

"Yes, there is dust in the house and there is quite significant
amounts in rooms adjacent to the demolition," he said.

"Certainly all the evidence we've looked at is that because the
property wasn't included in the heritage overlay they didn't have
a lot of obligations.

"There is no obligation to notify residents, although it's
recommended by WorkSafe."

Mrs. Brough said since the demolition their lives had been put on
hold while they waited for the test results.

"It just highlights the protocol that when asbestos is being
removed from a house neighbors should be kept informed," she said.

"We have had our hands tied as we waited for these results."

The council's health and local laws manager Murray Murfett said
neighbors near the site had raised some concerns regarding the
dust.

"Council is monitoring the site and . . . will continue working
with Worksafe and other agencies to ensure safety on the work
site," he said.

The tests come after residents said they were caught unaware by
the demolition.

Mr. Brough said he and other residents had been working to get the
house included in the heritage overlay when he was told by a
neighbor the roof was coming off on Saturday, Feb. 25.  The house
was demolished within two days.

A planning permit was not needed for the demolition because the
heritage overlay did not apply to the property.

The house was the subject of controversy recently when workers at
a Warrnambool demolition business used an oxy torch to remove
asbestos sheeting during a total fire ban.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Delay Anglesea Skate Park Upgrades
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Deane of the Surf Coast Times reports that following 12 months
of hard work getting Anglesea Skate Park upgrades off the ground,
a recent discovery of asbestos on site could set plans back as
investigations and clean-up ensue.

A number of small pieces of asbestos were found and according to
Surf Coast Mayor Brian McKiterick, Council took immediate action
and closed the park as soon as the presence of the dangerous
substance was verified by Environmental Health officers.

"The site has been closed as a precautionary measure and will
remain closed until further notice," Cr McKiterick said.

"Fencing and signage were installed over the weekend and further
tests commissioned."

Chairperson of the Anglesea Skate Park committee Paul Weight said
earth moving works and heavy rain in the region could have
contributed to the finding.

"The potential is there in the area, with a lot of older 1960s
buildings," he said.

"We've raised $22,000 in the community, plus $45,000 from Surf
Coast Shire to fix up the old skate park, and add new facilities
including a large freestyle area, and multi-purpose event stage.

"We've done $10,000 worth of works, and it's very exciting -- we
were literally about to start stage two."

Mr. Weight said many local youths were disappointed when they
learnt about the delay.

"It's up to the authorities now," he said.  "We just want the
public area to be safe so young people can enjoy their recreation,
and we believe this will be done with due diligence.  We just hope
it's not a drawn out process."

Cr McKiterick said the health of the local community was the
number one priority, which is why they had acted so quickly.

"Council has engaged a fully-qualified occupational hygienist to
undertake further tests to determine the origin of the asbestos,
assess the extent of any contamination on the site and the level
of potential public health risk."

The results of these tests will determine any further site
treatment and other actions that may be required.  The findings in
Anglesea come amid recent confirmation of asbestos in the Jan Juc
Creek Reserve as a result of underground storm water works as part
of the RACV Torquay Resort project.

Comprehensive results of secondary top soil tests along the trench
lines were unavailable as the Surf Coast Times went to press.

However, according to project manager Bruce Van Every, a detailed
remediation plan will be implemented and the RACV will engage a
specialist removal company to ensure there is no risk during the
clean-up.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coulombe Says WHO Statistics a "Fantasy"
---------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma News Center reports representatives from the
Canadian asbestos industry are appealing to the federal government
in Ottawa to help them challenge death toll estimates released by
the World Health Organization (WHO) which state that more than
100,000 people each year die of asbestos-related diseases.

According to a Canadian Press article, Bernard Coulombe, president
of the now-silent Jeffrey Asbestos Mines, claims that the
statistics touted by WHO are "an exaggeration based on unfounded
evidence."

"Where are those deaths? And name at least 10 of those deaths,"
Coulombe said in an interview from the Quebec town of Asbestos.
"It's absolutely a fantasy."

He says that WHO, the health agency of the United Nations, has
repeatedly failed to respond to his request to provide scientific
evidence to back up those statistics.  He has asked the Canadian
government to step in and demand answers to his questions;
particularly, how WHO personnel arrived at that 100,000 figure.

"This bad publicity hurts us enormously as a corporation," said
Coulombe, whose mine closed last year, citing financial problems.
The other asbestos mine in Quebec is now closed as well and
proponents of a ban on asbestos production and export are hoping
to keep them closed for good.  Coulombe, however, is trying to
secure a $58 million bank loan from the Canadian government so
that he can re-open what was once Canada's largest and most
profitable asbestos mine.

The World Health Organization, in the meantime, says it stands
behind its figures, noting that they relate specifically to
individuals who suffer asbestos exposure at work.  The statistics,
say Ivan Ivanov, a team leader with the organization's public
health and environment department, are gathered from published
research done by reputable scientists.  He did note, however, that
the figures are a scientific estimate, not a list of names
submitted by doctors around the world.

While Canada maintains that its form of asbestos -- chrysotile --
is not as dangerous as other forms if handled correctly, it is the
goal of WHO to see all countries stop the use of all kinds of
asbestos, stressing that even low levels of exposure can cause
diseases such as asbestosis and pleural mesothelioma.

"In the industry, they use any kind of arguments, basically, to
refute data that they don't like," Ivanov said.  "Whatever numbers
WHO publishes -- some people like them, some people don't."  He
adds that they will reply to Ottawa if the government makes an
official request in regards to the statistics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Prompt Macedon for All School Check
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Valente of the Macedon Ranges Weekly reports that asbestos
particles found in a Woodend kindergarten have prompted Macedon
Ranges Council to audit all its kindergartens.

A 2006 report had failed to detect asbestos at the Woodend
kindergarten.

The report has been used by the council as a guide for works since
2006.

The asbestos was detected on Feb. 23 in a power box.

Council assets and environment director Dale Thornton said the
asbestos was considered safe until it was unintentionally
disturbed by a workman out of hours.

"It was removed from the power box, tests were conducted and as a
further precaution council also arranged for the entire power box
to be replaced," he said.

"It was hidden behind another board but should have been detected.
The 2006 report was thorough but this one omission has led to the
need for another review."

The Woodend kindergarten was closed on Feb. 23 and reopened on
Feb. 27.

All council-managed kindergartens, which include one each in
Macedon, Kyneton and Lancefield and two in Gisborne, as well as
its kindergarten buildings in Romsey and Riddells Creek will be
audited.

"The audits are not invasive and do not create a hazard.  They
will be conducted out of hours, wherever possible," Mr. Thornton
said.

"Asbestos is found in most buildings and homes that are over 25
years old.  Council will action anything that is recommended for
action.  Asbestos that is safe will be tagged and checked
regularly."

In October 2010, Grant Avenue Kindergarten in Gisborne was closed
for three weeks after "unsafe" asbestos sheeting in the 40-year-
old building was found.

The council is seeking quotes from accredited companies for the
audit, which is expected to begin this month.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Says Loan Should Be Used on Non-Toxics
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Dubois, executive director of the Quebec division of the
Canadian Cancer Society, writing for The Montreal Gazette, relates
that there has been much discussion in the media lately regarding
the status of asbestos in Quebec.  The province is at a historic
juncture: for the first time in 130 years, it no longer produces
this mineral resource.  This break in production is an opportunity
to put an end to the use of a recognized carcinogen.  There is no
safe application of asbestos, which has already claimed too many
lives, here and elsewhere.

All forms of asbestos cause cancer, including lung cancer, pleural
and peritoneal mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer and ovarian cancer.
Yet the government of Quebec is set to assist in the reopening of
the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos with loan guarantees of $58 million,
quashing public discussion of this critical issue in the process.

The Canadian Cancer Society is firmly opposed to all investment of
public funds in asbestos mining.  The society believes that
greater effort must be made to manage asbestos wherever it is
present (producing a registry of buildings that contain it, and
removing it when possible).  It also believes that workers in
Quebec's asbestos industry must be supported through direct
investment designed to transform their regional economy.

Voices in favor of an asbestos ban continue to be heard.  Reports
by recognized researchers and medical associations in May 2011 (on
modifications to the Mines Act), a letter signed by 16 public-
health directors in January 2011, campaigns by Coalition pour que
le Quebec ait meilleure mine, repeated calls by victims, and
statements by five MNAs on Feb. 23 all deliver the same message:
stop supporting the asbestos industry.

But our governments are playing deaf: they privilege short-term
economic considerations and fail to consider the resulting costs
and the impact on people's health and lives.  Even worse, Canada
is delaying progress at the international level by refusing to
allow the addition of chrysotile asbestos to the list of hazardous
substances recognized by the Rotterdam Convention, a United
Nations treaty that has been in effect since 2004.  How can you
act with caution when you refuse to face reality and admit a
particular product's toxicity?

The reality of asbestos-related diseases is a cruel one, yet such
diseases are preventable.  On Feb. 9, Radio-Canada's Enquete
reported the poignant story of a woman and her daughter who
contracted mesothelioma, a particularly aggressive form of cancer,
from washing work overalls belonging to her husband, who worked in
the asbestos industry.  La Presse recently reported the case of a
woman who succumbed to mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos at
her workplace, a cafeteria at a high school.  This illustrates the
urgent need for a registry of buildings that contain asbestos, and
public access to this information.

At the same time, two communities (Asbestos and Thetford Mines)
are hoping for a recovery in this industry in order to sustain
their economic development.  In a spirit of solidarity, the Quebec
government should invest the $58 million earmarked for the
asbestos industry in projects designed to promote diversification,
creativity and local initiatives.  This is not the antithesis of
economic development; instead, it is a matter of contributing to
the economy by supporting public health.

Every year, more than 100,000 people worldwide die of asbestos-
related diseases.  As a consequence of past negligence, 70% of
deaths for which a claim is filed with the Commission de la sante
et de la securite du travail are asbestos-related.  Ignoring what
is happening with regard to asbestos in public and private
buildings, and what will happen as a result of the asbestos we
produce, is an untenable position.  The Canadian Cancer Society is
calling on the government to take cogent and courageous action on
this issue and to stop supporting an industry whose product is a
recognized carcinogen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Thanks Sponsors of "Asbestos Awareness Week"
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), which combines
education, advocacy and community as the leading U.S. organization
serving as the voice of asbestos victims, applauds Senator Max
Baucus (D-MT) and cosponsors for again introducing a resolution
declaring the first week of April as "National Asbestos Awareness
Week" that seeks to "raise public awareness about the prevalence
of asbestos-related diseases and the dangers of asbestos
exposure."

Additional cosponsors and key supporters include: Senator Barbara
Boxer (D-CA), Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), Senator Dianne
Feinstein (D-CA), Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Senator Patty
Murray (D-WA), Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), and Senator Jon Tester
(D-MT).

"Asbestos Awareness Week is a rallying cry to keep the tragedy of
Libby from happening again.  It's also an opportunity to remind
people that much more work lies ahead to help victims of asbestos-
related diseases," said Baucus, who was instrumental in urging the
EPA to declare its first ever public health emergency in Libby,
Montana.  "Although we can never fully right the outrageous wrong
that took place in Libby, we can fight to make sure the community
has the tools it needs to heal.  And, we can keep working hard to
make sure the public is aware of the tragic impact of asbestos
exposure."

"ADAO applauds the U.S. Senate for its introduction of the Eighth
Annual Resolution recognizing National Asbestos Awareness Week,"
said Linda Reinstein, President and Co-Founder of the Asbestos
Disease Awareness Organization.  "Since 2005, we have seen strong
momentum towards raising awareness to prevent environmental and
occupational asbestos exposure to eliminate asbestos-caused
diseases.  We look forward to the passage of this important Senate
Resolution designating April 1 -- 7 to be a week of awareness and
moving closer to a future without asbestos."

Asbestos is a known human carcinogen and exposure can cause
mesothelioma, lung, gastrointestinal, laryngeal and ovarian
cancers, as well as non-malignant lung and pleural disorders.
Studies estimate that 107,000 workers around the world will die
every year of an asbestos related disease -- equaling 300 deaths
per day.

ADAO will hold its Eighth Annual International Asbestos Conference
on March 30 -- April 1, 2012, in Los Angeles, California.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Letter Pleas for Dr. Leitch to Choose Ethics
-------------------------------------------------------------
A letter addressed to an editor at madhunt.com from John
Gruetzner, President of Simcoe-Grey Federal Liberal Riding
Association, relates:

The prestigious scientific journal Nature wrote an editorial this
month that ends with the line "The way forward is clear: it is
time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free."

The article is written in support of the Canadian Science Writers
Association Letter sent Feb. 16 to the Conservative government to
protest the Harper government's heavy hand in the suppression of
tax payer funded research and facts generated by scientists
working in Canada.

Members of the Canadian Medical Association last year asked
Simcoe-Grey MP, Dr. Kellie Leitch, to choose ethics over exports
and called upon her to advocate the Harper government to change
its position and accurately label asbestos or prohibit its export.

An article published last year noted: "More than 300 Canadian and
American medical experts signed a letter sent to MP Dr. Kellie
Leitch calling on her to oppose any export of asbestos from
Canada."

Dr. Leitch's unique response at the time was that her expertise
was in orthopedics.

As a member of Parliament, she is no doubt aware that millions are
currently being spent to remove asbestos from Parliament Hill
because of the danger to your personal health.  Her government's
failure to properly label asbestos as a hazardous material outside
of Canada is a gross denial of the facts.

The Simcoe-Grey area has recently been poorly ranked in Ontario
with respect to the percentage of students that go on to post-
secondary education.  Our students need inspiration about the
importance of knowledge.

I am confident that many local area high school principals would
be reluctant to permit the Conservative government's attitude
towards science to guide their science teachers in the classrooms.

The future of the Canadian economy is tied to success in the
research, development and application of science.  History grants
status on Socrates and Galileo for standing up in the pursuit of
the truth and the facts.

It is now time for Dr. Leitch and the Conservative government to
stop suppression of scientists.  I hope that the Conservative
party can change its policies and foster, not destroy scientific
freedom.

Does the Conservative Party of Canada really need to take so much
inspiration from the Bush-Cheney administration that it needs to
ridicule facts and logic that are the basis of good science?

Please let the voters of Simcoe-Grey know via this newspaper
whether or not you support the value of independent scientific
research to our economy and society in Canada.

Please let us know whether or not you personally condone the
actions of the Prime Minister and your party to suppress
scientists in Canada.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sam Hider Reopens After Test Came Up Negative
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cherokee Phoenix reports that the Sam Hider Clinic, which was
closed March 2 and 5, to investigate the possible threat of
asbestos in the air is set to re-open Tuesday, March 6 after
testing came up negative for airborne contaminants.

"During the expansion efforts in the clinic's contract health
area, an employee noticed something that he thought might be
asbestos and alerted the environmental programs office," Cherokee
Nation Health Services Executive Director Connie Davis said.  "We
wanted to err on the side of caution and closed the building while
an independent contractor came in and tested the area."

Some of the tile and adhesive debris in the renovation area tested
positive for trace amounts of asbestos, but Davis said the tests
for airborne asbestos came back negative Saturday and that re-
opening the clinic does not pose a health or safety risk.

"Now that we know it is there, we will be taking additional
precautions," interim Medical Director Dr. Doug Nolan said.  "A
barrier is now up around the construction area.  Any tiles that
tested positive for asbestos will be properly disposed of to avoid
the risk of making the asbestos airborne and a threat to the
employees and patients at the Sam Hider Clinic.  The adhesive that
tested positive will be resealed under new floor tile to prevent
it from becoming airborne."


                           *********

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  * * *