CAR_Public/120525.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 25, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 103

                             Headlines

BP PLC: Opt-Outs in Class Action Settlement a Landmine Potential
BP PLC: City of Robertsdale Agree to Oil Spill Settlement
CASSELS BROCK: Launches Counterclaims Against Law Firms
COCA-COLA CO: Sued for Falsely Marketing Simply Orange Products
ERNST & YOUNG: NELA Says Class Action Waivers Undermine FLSA

NMI RETIREMENT: Retirees Mull Class Action Over Pensions
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits Decision on "Sateriale" Suit Appeal
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI's Indemnification Bid Still Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Collora" Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed in Mo.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Await Decision in "Tatum" Suit

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend 6 Class Suits in Canada
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Lights" Class Suits
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Suit Remains Stayed in Illinois
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit Remains Pending in Missouri
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Class Suit Remains Stayed in W.V.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Payment Bid Hearing in "Scott" Suit on June 18
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Thompson" Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Brown" Class Suit Set for October 5
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Turner" Suit vs. RJR Remains Pending in Ill.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Unit Got Favorable Judgment in "Smith" Suit

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed
RIDGEWOOD WATER: Chances for Rate Hike Suit Settlement Slim
SANTA MONICA: MALDEF Files Class Suit Over Wage Violations
SERVICE CORP: Antitrust Suit Dismissal Appeal Remains Pending
SERVICE CORP: Appeal in "Garcia" Class Suit Remains Pending

SERVICE CORP: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in "Sands" Suit
SERVICE CORP: Defends Wage and Hour Suits in Various States
SERVICE CORP: Faces "Baio" Class Action Suit in Florida
SERVICE CORP: Faces "Zinn" Class Action Suit in Florida
SINCLAIR IMPORTS: Recalls Threadless Carbon Bike Handlebar Stem

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Black Truck Drivers Lose Class Cert. Bid
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Jacobs' Plea for En Banc Review Remains Pending
TENET HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Hospital Fees
TIM W.E. SGPS: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Suit v. Unit
TIME WARNER: Appeal From Dismissal of Set-Top Cable MDL Pending

TIME WARNER: 2nd Cir. Appeal in "Swinegar" Suit Remains Pending
TIME WARNER: Appeal From "Fink" Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
TIME WARNER: "Brantley" Plaintiffs Ask for En Banc Rehearing
TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Downs" Class Suit vs. Insight
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Settled Colorado Class Suit in April 2012

TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Unit Faces TCPA Violations Class Suits
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Sued for Denying Mental Health Coverage
VELTI PLC: Unit, TrafficMarketplace.com in Talks Over iPhone Suit
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: 7th Cir. Affirms Durom Class Action Dismissal

* Accounting-Related Securities Class Actions Up in 2011
* N.J. Committee Unanimously Approves Class Action Bill

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Junks Crane Co.'s Motion for Reargument
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Refuses to Junk Suit v. Crane Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Bid to File Appendix in Bernard Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Moves Time to Perfect Appeal in Dummitt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Junks Portions of Suit v. York Int'l.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Affirms Discharge of Worker's Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Ct. Reverses Judgment in Personal Injury Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Widow Calls For More Safety At Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appalling Living Conditions at Wittenoom Told
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement and Demolition at Kensington Resume

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oakland VA Service Fails Get Flak From Congress
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition of Old Peru Power Station Begins
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Mayor Diagnosed With Pulmonary Fibrosis Dies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Redmond Street Closed for Decontamination
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coffs Harbour Waste Facility Faces EPA Charges

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NOB Bill Crafted to Effect Upon Governor's Nod
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor That Found HazMat Faces $4,200 Fine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: JFK at St. Michel's Extends Temporary Shutdown
ASBESTOS UPDATE: JFK School Closed For Rest of School Year
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plan for Toxic Dump In Christchurch Irks Citizens

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oak Ridge Workers File Claim In Roane Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Binghamton U Campus-Wide Abatement Underway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Perth Residents Warned of Toxins From Blaze
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Complicates Earthquake Recovery Laws
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Developer Sentenced to 3 years in Probation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Geelong Admits Knowledge of Beach Contaminants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thieves Stuck in Contaminated Building For 5 Hrs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Links Size of Fibers to Cancer Occurrences
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Officer Says Fibro In Drinking Water Is OK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Greenwich Plan Deadline Moved Due to Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Long Island School Abatement Irks Parents
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Christchurch Residents Win On Toxic Waste Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Battin Building Remediation Costs Exceed Value
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Preliminaries on Geelong Clean-Up Plan Underway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill to Have Employers Reimburse NHS Proposed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACECO Workers Walk Out From Hazardous Conditions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Office of Compliance to Close AOC Workers' Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Weirton Steel Property Case Starts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chevy Chase Fire's Toxic Rubble Displaces Tenants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anxious Christchurch Councilors Forced U-Turn

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Debris in Kensett Awaits Official Decision
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Building Owner Admits Environmental Crimes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celebrity Dies of Lung Cancer Due to Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: National Restorations Systems Faces $19,050 Fine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogenic Debris Appear at Fyansford Property

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manly Vale Park Cleared of Illegally Dumped Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Test Clears Marshalltown Fire Debris of Hazards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Truck Full of Hazardous Materials Hits Bridge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Underway For Pacific Highway Upgrade
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UAE Still Needs to Enforce Anti-Asbestos Rules

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicopee Council Votes Out Library Abatement Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: B.F. Goodrich and Guard-Line Face Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: York Carriageworks Employee Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spring Valley Illegal Renovation Led to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remediation Works Underway in Punta Gorda School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Spends More For Extra Abatement Requirements
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Benian Australia and Brian Bentley Face Penalty
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hepa Filter Containing Toxic Dust Burglarized
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tax Dispute Win Pulls James Hardie From The Red
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Tobacco Can't Appeal Interlocutory Order

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Agency's PD Claims Not Limited to VAT
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Exposed to Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Faces 8,000 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 57,398 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Remains Defendant in 2,418 Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 26,000 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Had 715 Active Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,300 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Parsons" Suit Remains Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Had $917MM ARO at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Still Involved in Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich Corp. Still Defendant in Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Still Defending Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco International Estimates $52MM Liability

                          *********

BP PLC: Opt-Outs in Class Action Settlement a Landmine Potential
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that BP Plc
appears to be well on its way to concluding an estimated $7.8
billion settlement to resolve most of its civil liability from the
Gulf of Mexico oil spill.  But a potential landmine lurks in the
settlement documents: under certain circumstances, the company can
invoke a little-noticed provision that allows it to walk away from
the deal.

The potential landmine is opt-outs.  In a settlement of a class
action, class members can reject the deal and decide to go it
alone.  Defendants have to be prepared for the possibility that a
high volume of opt-out litigation will undermine the goal of
global resolution.  BP certainly is prepared: Its settlement
agreement with plaintiffs claiming economic and property damages
includes a provision that gives BP the right to terminate the deal
if the total of opt-outs "exceeds a number agreed to by the
parties."

So what's the number? That's the $7.8 billion question. The
settlement agreement doesn't say.  In fact, the document states
that the opt-out number that could trigger a blowup is to be
submitted to the court "in a sealed envelope."

It's not clear why BP is keeping the number secret.  A spokesman
for BP said that it was "part of the settlement negotiation
process."

Others said they suspect there's more to it.  Plaintiffs' lawyer
Tony Buzbee -- tbuzbee@txattorneys.com -- of the Buzbee Law Firm,
who is weighing whether to recommend the settlement to his
clients, said BP may want the number kept under seal so that
lawyers with lots of clients do not team up and threaten to opt
out in an effort to extract a favorable deal.  "They don't want a
coalition of attorneys getting together saying we're not going to
participate unless you treat us differently," said Mr. Buzbee, who
added that he's never before encountered an opt-out provision with
a secret trigger.

Edward Sherman, a professor at Tulane University Law School, said
that by keeping the trigger number private BP was also giving
itself the option of accepting the deal even if the opt-outs
exceed its threshold.  "They can go ahead and accept it, and
they're not committed to a public number," Mr. Sherman said.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New
Orleans granted preliminary approval to the pact between BP and
thousands of private plaintiffs affected by the spill.  Judge
Barbier set a fairness hearing date for November 8, when he will
consider granting final approval.  In the meantime, plaintiffs who
are part of the class have until August 31 to file objections to
the settlement.  Those plaintiffs also face a deadline of October
1 to opt out of the settlement.


BP PLC: City of Robertsdale Agree to Oil Spill Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
The City of Robertsdale will receive about twice the expected
amount of settlement money from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil
spill following a final agreement, officials said on May 18.

The Robertsdale City Council voted on May 18 to accept a final
settlement from BP for municipal revenue lost during the spill.
The city should receive a final total of more than $40,000 for
sales taxes, business license fees and other revenue lost when the
Gulf Coast economy was hit by the effects of the spill, Ken
Raines, lawyer for the city, said.

Robertsdale has already received $20,000.  The new agreement will
give the city another $21,000 to $22,000 after fees, such as 4
percent to the Plaintiff's Steering Committee, are deducted, Mr.
Raines said.

"This will be the final settlement," Mr. Raines said.

Mr. Raines said that under the settlement, BP will also pay his
attorney's fees in the case and that he will not bill the city for
his time.

Mr. Raines said the settlement came after U.S. District Judge Carl
Barbier approved a class-action settlement to resolve claims
against BP.  While the plaintiffs in the class-action suit are
individuals and businesses, resolution of the action has also
allowed claims by government entities to be resolved, Mr. Raines
said.

He said that BP officials have recalculated some of the claims for
losses by local governments and those new estimates will bring in
more money for Robertsdale.

Mayor Charles Murphy said he was pleased by the settlement and
that city officials had not expected more money after the first
$20,000.

In other action at the May 18 meeting, the council:

* Heard the annual report on the city sewer system.  The report
was sent to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management,
Greg Smith, city engineer, said.

Mr. Smith told council members that improvements to the system in
the last year have cut the amount of rainwater coming into the
treatment plant.

"In general our flows were down, so we think that the Rock Creek
project was a success, because the heavy flows have dropped
substantially," Mr. Smith said.  "The flip side of that is that
our peak flows have actually gone up and that's a result of us
having a tighter system."

Mr. Smith said the city plans to replace the pumping station at
Palmer Street.  The station, which is about 50 years old, is the
oldest facility in the city system.  "After that is replaced, all
the system will be up-to-date," he said.

He said another planned improvement is to remove solid material,
known as sludge, at the city's sewage treatment plant.

"It's been accumulating since 1980 or so when that plant was put
on line," Mr. Smith said.  "Probably in the near future we'll
clean that out and hopefully that will be good for another 30
years or so."

* Awarded a bid for storm debris removal to TAG Grinding.

Mr. Smith said 10 companies submitted proposals, but five did not
meet bidding specifications.  He said the TAG submission was the
lowest of the bids meeting specifications.

The contract includes removing limbs and other debris from public
road rights-of-way and temporary storage facilities as well as
processing the material and hauling it to disposal sites.  The bid
also includes prices to remove hazardous material and other items,
such as refrigerators.


CASSELS BROCK: Launches Counterclaims Against Law Firms
-------------------------------------------------------
Kendyl Sebesta, writing for Law Times, reports that Cassels Brock
& Blackwell LLP has shocked lawyers across the country after it
sued more than 150 practitioners and law firms in the midst of
highly publicized conflict of interest allegations against it.

"It's quite a complicated web they've spun," says Russell Hart --
rhart@grj.ca -- a partner at Gerrand Rath Johnson LLP who's one of
the more than 150 lawyers named in the claim.

"The tremendous amount of paperwork and logistics that went into
it is stunning.  It's very, very unusual.  It just happened I was
the unfortunate one named."

Mr. Hart's Saskatchewan law firm was one of the more than 100
across the country that advised General Motors of Canada Ltd. auto
dealers in May 2009 on "wind-down agreements" introduced during
the company's financial troubles.

The dealers have accused GM of using "shock and awe" tactics to
pressure them into closing their businesses over the course of six
days in 2009 in a bid to secure a government bailout.

A class action lawsuit led by Trillium Motor World Ltd., one of
the 240 dealers forced to close up shop, alleges many of them had
a right to cancel the agreements and sue for breach of duty of
fair dealing under the province's franchise laws.

The claim on behalf of more than 200 dealers is seeking $750
million in damages.  Cassels Brock has now launched the
counterclaim against the lawyers and law firms.  None of the
allegations in either claim has been proven in court.

"Every one of the class members lost their businesses as a direct
result," says David Sterns -- dsterns@sotosllp.com -- a lawyer at
Sotos LLP who represents the auto dealers in Trillium Motor World
Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. and Cassels Brock &
Blackwell LLP.

"They are in dire straits and haven't been able to recover.
They've been caught up in a whirlwind."

Cassels Brock, the class action alleges, had an undisclosed
conflict of interest in the case because the firm advised both the
Canadian Automobile Dealers Association and the federal government
during the negotiations.

According to the claim launched by Trillium in 2010, Cassels Brock
had a contractual relationship and an obligation to provide legal
advice to the auto dealers about the "wind-down agreements."  It
also had a fiduciary duty to the auto dealers, the claim alleges.

In Cassels Brock's counterclaim against the law firms and lawyers
like Mr. Hart, it alleges they should cover any damages it may
have to pay.  It also seeks costs.

The more than 150 lawyers and law firms named in the lawsuit range
from sole practitioners in Saskatchewan to Bay Street heavy
hitters.  It identifies some of them simply as John Doe.  The
claim alleges they, not Cassels Brock, were negligent in advising
on the agreements.

"The WDAs (wind-down agreements) required each dealer to obtain
independent legal advice before executing a WDA," Cassels Brock
writes in its counterclaim.

"Each of the dealers who signed a WDA did so after obtaining
independent legal advice from one of the third parties, as set out
in Schedule A. Cassels did not provide independent legal advice to
any of the dealers in relation to the WDAs."

Some people connected to the case call it an unusual move that
could set an interesting legal precedent.

"I imagine the process of being served was very surprising to
those lawyers," says Mr. Sterns.  "It's unusual that the lawyers
who advised the auto dealers aren't being sued by my clients, yet
they are being sued by Cassels Brock.  One wouldn't expect that."

Superior Court Justice George Strathy also hinted at the potential
impact of the conflict of interest allegations against Cassels
Brock in his certification ruling in the class action last year.

He noted that determining whether Cassels Brock was in a
solicitor-client relationship with all of the class members;
whether it owed contractual, fiduciary or other duties to the
class; and whether there was a breach of them were all important
questions to consider.

"These are weighty questions," wrote Justice Strathy.  "A negative
answer to the first two questions will send the plaintiffs packing
insofar as Cassels is concerned.  A positive answer to all will
significantly advance the claims of the class against Cassels."

A ruling in favor of the dealers in the class action could mean
lawyers and law firms would owe duties to members of a class they
represent even if they don't advise them directly on a particular
deal and could apply to any member of the group, Judge Strathy
hinted.

That could have spell trouble for the legal profession, says Mr.
Hart, who notes a ruling in favor of the dealers in the class
action could cause lawyers to become significantly more cautious
about who they represent in the future.

"In our case, it appears to be a purely academic move," says
Mr. Hart of the counterclaim.  "It seems as though they're just
trying to see how far they can take it.  We'll have to wait and
see how it goes."

Still, most involved in the case are saying little about the
Cassels Brock's move.

Cassels Brock declined to comment about its counterclaim, as did
most of the lawyers and law firms named in it.

"I think it's safe to say that we were all really surprised," says
Patrick Brennan, co-leader of Bennett Jones LLP's financial
services practice.  A defendant in the counterclaim, he declined
to comment further on the matter.

In the meantime, GM and Cassels Brock both lost appeals of the
Superior Court's certification decision in the class action in a
Divisional Court ruling in March.  Cassels Brock is now seeking
leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

As for the legal strategy behind Cassel Brock's counterclaim, Hart
says, "One could only speculate."

"As for the true legal strategy and tactic behind the suit, I'm
afraid I have no idea.  We'll have to see what comes to light in
the upcoming months."

Still, Mr. Hart says he isn't worried.

"Yes, I was named in the suit, but it's really quite irrelevant to
the client's case," says Mr. Hart, who adds his inclusion in the
action "was quite improper, really."

According to Mr. Sterns, discoveries will begin later this year in
the class action.


COCA-COLA CO: Sued for Falsely Marketing Simply Orange Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy M. DaSaro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 3:12-cv-02586 (N.D.
Calif., May 18, 2012) arises out of the Defendant's alleged
deceptive practices in falsely marketing its Simply Orange(R) line
of orange juice products as "100% Pure Squeezed Orange Juice" and
"pure, natural orange juice."

The complaint says Coca-Cola reinforces its claim with other
explicit promises of its commitment to purity and quality, and the
name itself, "Simply Orange" indicates that the product is
wholesome, untainted juice.  In reality, however, Simply Orange is
anything but pure squeezed orange juice for it undergoes extensive
unnatural processing to extend shelf-life, Mr. DaSaro alleges.
Hence, he seeks relief in this action individually, and on behalf
of all purchasers of Simply Orange in the United States from
January 1, 2008, to the present, for the Defendant's violations of
the Magnuson-Moss Act, among other laws.

Mr. DaSaro is a resident of New York.  He purchased Simply Orange
Juice Products during the Class Period.

Coca-Cola is a Delaware corporation and a producer of orange juice
in the United States, through its Simply Orange brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com


ERNST & YOUNG: NELA Says Class Action Waivers Undermine FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360, reports that arbitration
agreements that bar employees from pursuing wage-and-hour claims
on a classwide basis undermine the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
National Employment Lawyers Association said on May 21 in a brief
urging the Second Circuit to reject an appeal by Ernst & Young
LLP.

The appeals court should affirm a New York federal judge's
decision not to compel individual arbitration of former Ernst &
Young accountant Stephanie Sutherland's overtime claims against
the company, which she is hoping to pursue as a collective action,
NELA said.


NMI RETIREMENT: Retirees Mull Class Action Over Pensions
--------------------------------------------------------
Haidee V. Eugenio, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that NMI
Retirement Fund administrator Richard S. Villagomez said the Fund
is trying to recoup from 120 retirees an estimated $5 million in
overpayments arising from the pension agency's own misapplication
of a law prior to 2001.  Affected retirees were planning to meet
May 24, to discuss the possibility of a class action suit against
the Fund.

The Fund sent the letters on or about May 8, 2012, addressed to
retirees who separated from government as far back as 19 years ago
or longer.

One of those letters was addressed to former police officer and
former quarantine officer Frederick C. Ngeskabei, 52, who is being
asked to return $225,000 to the Fund by having up to 50 percent
cut in his bi-monthly pension until the full amount is recovered.

"I retired in 1993, that's 19 years ago and now they want me to
pay back $225,000.  It's not my fault. Why do I have to suffer
from their own mistakes?" Mr. Ngeskabei told Saipan Tribune on
May 22.

The Fund has also asked retired police major Antonio O. Kiyoshi to
pay back $93,000.  Mr. Kiyoshi granted an interview with the
Saipan Tribune last week, saying the Fund should not punish
retirees for the agency's own mistakes.

Messrs. Ngeskabei and Kiyoshi said they also plan to appeal with
the Fund board of trustees, but the board now lacks a quorum.

Rep. Tony Sablan (R-Saipan) wrote a letter to the Fund's
Villagomez on May 17, the day the story about Kiyoshi came out, to
inquire about the number of retirees that were mailed a similar
letter, the total dollar amount involved, and the statutory
reference or basis for the Fund's decision, among other things.

Mr. Villagomez, in a May 21 response to Mr. Sablan's letter, said
the Fund sent approximately 120 adverse action letters resulting
from the Fund's internal audit of the top overtime earners.

He said a number of benefits was overstated as a result of a
misapplication of the law prior to 2001.

"I am duty bound to recollect these funds as these funds are
necessary to pay properly accrued benefits to other members.  The
total amount that we seek to recoup as a result of these 120
letters is approximately $5,000,000," Mr. Villagomez told
Mr. Sablan in his letter.

Mr. Villagomez said these adverse actions are based upon the law
in place "at the time these individuals retired."  He was
referring to 1 CMC 8313(p) that required overtime and compensatory
time to be used to calculate eligibility only but not to calculate
the amount of benefit given to a retiree.

"The affected members' benefit amounts were calculated taking
overtime and compensatory time into consideration in violation of
this provision.  As stated above, these are administrative actions
appealable to the board of trustees.  While the board of trustees
has been kept apprised of the ongoing audit, the board of trustees
took no part in my decision as it was an administrative matter.
This is consistent with the Fund's administrative process,"
Mr. Villagomez told Mr. Sablan.

Mr. Sablan, in an interview on May 22, said he is drafting a bill
that would prevent the Fund from going after these 120 retirees
because of the Fund's own miscalculations.  He said he might
introduce the bill on the floor in the May 24 session, or in the
next few days.

"In these difficult times, retirees are forced to have up to 50
percent cut in their benefits every other week, and it's not even
their fault.  And with the bankruptcy proceedings, who knows,
these same retirees will have additional cuts of say 50 percent in
their pensions so these retirees will end up not receiving any
pension at all," Mr. Sablan told Saipan Tribune.

He said he asked the House legal counsel to see whether a statue
of limitation could apply to the Fund matter.

"The Fund allowed this mistake to go on for so long.  We're not
talking about one year or two years but a decade or more.  Now all
of a sudden they want these people who retired several years ago
to pay back," said Mr. Sablan, a former immigration director and
currently chairman of the Saipan and Northern Islands Legislative
Delegation's Committee on Health, Education and Welfare.

Mr. Ngeskabei said retirees who received adverse action letters
from the Fund planned to meet last May 24, 6:00 p.m., at Minatchom
Atdao pavilion in Susupe to map out a plan to address their
concerns, including a possible class action suit against the Fund.

"I am currently receiving $39,000 a year in pension.  The Fund
said it will be reduced to $27,000.  We all know that the economy
is so bad, the prices of medicine, gas and almost every item are
high, we can't afford to lose up to 50 percent of our pension
every two weeks," he added.

Mr. Sablan said his office has heard of a lot of complaints and
concerns from retirees about the notices of adverse action,
prompting him to write to the Fund.

Sen. Frank Cruz (R-Tinian) and Senate floor leader Pete Reyes (R-
Saipan) had said the Fund should be prepared for a possible class
action from affected retirees.

The NMI Retirement Fund is the first public pension agency on U.S.
soil to seek bankruptcy protection in court.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits Decision on "Sateriale" Suit Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. is awaiting a court decision on an appeal
from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed against its
subsidiary, according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed
in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash
certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007.  The plaintiffs allege
that in response to the defendants' action to discontinue
redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the
plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise
and that the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to
exchange for Camel Cash.  The plaintiffs allege unfair business
practices, deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory
estoppel.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages,
costs and expenses.

In January 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
prompted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in February
2010.  The class definition changed to a class consisting of all
persons who reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem
Camel Cash certificates, from October 1, 2006 (six months before
the defendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel Cash
certificates as of March 31, 2007.  The plaintiffs also brought
the class on behalf of a proposed California subclass, consisting
of all California residents meeting the same criteria.  In May
2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for
lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and, alternatively, for
failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  In July 2010, RJR
Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
granted with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss in September
2010.  In December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to
dismiss with prejudice.  Final judgment was entered by the court
and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in January 2011.
Briefing is complete.  Oral argument was scheduled for May 7,
2012.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI's Indemnification Bid Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A request for indemnification in a class action lawsuit filed
against a subsidiary of the purchaser of Reynolds American Inc.'s
former international tobacco business remains pending, the Company
disclosed in its April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

By purchase agreement dated May 12, 1999, referred to as the 1999
Purchase Agreement, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. ("RJR")
and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") sold their
international tobacco business to Japan Tobacco Inc. ("JTI").
Under the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco retained
certain liabilities relating to the international tobacco business
sold to JTI.  Under its reading of the indemnification provisions
of the 1999 Purchase Agreement, JTI has requested indemnification
for damages allegedly arising out of these retained liabilities.
As previously reported, a number of the indemnification claims
between the parties relating to the activities of Northern Brands
in Canada have been resolved.  The other matters for which JTI has
requested indemnification for damages under the indemnification
provisions of the 1999 Purchase Agreement are:

   * In a letter dated March 31, 2006, counsel for JTI stated
     that JTI would be seeking indemnification under the 1999
     Purchase Agreement for any damages it may incur or may have
     incurred arising out of a Southern District of New York
     grand jury investigation, a now-terminated Eastern District
     of North Carolina grand jury investigation, and various
     actions filed by the European Community and others in the
     U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
     referred to as the EDNY, against RJR Tobacco and certain of
     its affiliates on November 3, 2000, August 6, 2001, and
     October 30, 2002, and against JTI on January 11, 2002.

   * JTI also has sought indemnification relating to a Statement
     of Claim filed on April 23, 2010, against JTI Macdonald
     Corp., referred to as JTI-MC, by the Ontario Flue-Cured
     Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, referred to as the Board,
     Andy J. Jacko, Brian Baswick, Ron Kichler, and Aprad
     Dobrenty, proceeding on their own behalf and on behalf of a
     putative class of Ontario tobacco producers that sold
     tobacco to JTI-MC during the period between January 1, 1986,
     and December 31, 1996, referred to as the Class Period,
     through the Board pursuant to certain agreements.  The
     Statement of Claim seeks recovery for damages allegedly
     incurred by the class representatives and the putative class
     for tobacco sales during the Class Period made at the
     contract price for duty free or export cigarettes with
     respect to cigarettes that, rather than being sold duty free
     or for export, purportedly were sold in Canada, which
     allegedly breached one or more of a series of contracts
     dated between June 4, 1986, and July 3, 1996.  A motion to
     dismiss has been filed.

   * Finally, JTI has advised RJR and RJR Tobacco of its view
     that, under the terms of the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR
     and RJR Tobacco are liable for a roughly $1.7 million
     judgment entered in 1998, plus interest and costs, in an
     action filed in Brazil by Lutz Hanneman, a former employee
     of a former RJR Tobacco subsidiary.  RJR and RJR Tobacco
     deny that they are liable for this judgment under the terms
     of the 1999 Purchase Agreement.

Although RJR and RJR Tobacco recognize that, under certain
circumstances, they may have these and other unresolved
indemnification obligations to JTI under the 1999 Purchase
Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco disagree with JTI as to (1) what
circumstances relating to any such matters may give rise to
indemnification obligations by RJR and RJR Tobacco, and (2) the
nature and extent of any such obligation.  RJR and RJR Tobacco
have conveyed their position to JTI, and the parties have agreed
to resolve their differences at a later time.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Collora" Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Collora v. R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., remains stayed in Missouri, according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR
Tobacco and B&W in Missouri.  In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County,
Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003.
In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general
division: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.  In April 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc.  A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time.  There is
currently no activity in the case.

RAI says in the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Await Decision in "Tatum" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco"), filed a class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
alleging that the defendants, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.
("RJR"), RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the
RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA.  The actions
about which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in
1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco
Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby
separating NGH's tobacco business and food business.  As part of
the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities
had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate
tobacco and food businesses.  The plaintiff contends that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the
RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the
companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings
Corp., referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR
401(k) plan approximately six months after the spin-off.  The
plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999
Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR
401(k) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion
for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds
after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such
discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty.  In his complaint, the
plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the
defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount
equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as
a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003.  In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot.  In
April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part,
dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee
and the RJR Pension Investment Committee.  The remaining
defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and
affirmative defenses in June 2007.  The plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification, which the court granted in September
2008.  The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of
the case was reached.  In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs
and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in
January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class.  A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no
resolution of the case was reached.  The district court overruled
the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the
class.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010.  During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial.  On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.

The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on
February 4, 2011.  A decision is pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend 6 Class Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. disclosed in its April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012, that it continues to defend six
class action lawsuits in Canada.

The six putative Canadian class actions were filed against various
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including the
Company's subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR
Tobacco"), and one of its affiliates, in courts in the provinces
of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and
Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs' counsel have been actively
pursuing only the action pending in Saskatchewan at this time:

   * In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for
     Saskatchewan against Canadian and non-Canadian
     tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of
     its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of
     all individuals who were alive on July 10, 2009, and who
     have suffered, or who currently suffer, from chronic
     obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or
     cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes
     designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or distributed by
     the defendants.

   * In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, dependents and family members, who
     purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured,
     marketed or distributed by the defendants.

   * In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, and their dependents and family
     members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes manufactured by
     the defendants.

   * In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, dependents and family members, who
     purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured,
     marketed or distributed by the defendants for the period of
     January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt out period as set
     by the court.

   * In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
     in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007,
     and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic
     respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of
     25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
     marketed, or distributed by the defendants.

   * In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
     in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007,
     and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from heart
     disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes
     designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed
     by the defendants.

In each of these six cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; the right to waive the torts and claim
disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the defendants
received from the sale of tobacco products to putative class
members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act and
other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems just.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these six actions to Japan Tobacco Inc.  Subject to a
reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco
and its current or former affiliates in these actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Lights" Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits
alleging that the use of the term "lights" constitutes unfair and
deceptive trade practices, according to the Company's April 26,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The "lights" class-action cases are pending against R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") or Brown & Williamson Holdings,
Inc. ("B&W") in Illinois (2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2),
California (1) and Arizona (1).  The classes in these cases
generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.
In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003.  In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages.  Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay
execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion.
Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12
billion bond requirement.  On December 15, 2005, the Illinois
Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the
case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the
case.  On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment.
The case was dismissed with prejudice the same day.  In December
2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from judgment,
stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal.  The trial court
granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition
for relief from judgment in February 2009.  In March 2009, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate
Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a reversal of the
February 2009 order and remand to the circuit court.  On February
24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order, concluding that
the two-year time limit for filing a petition for relief from a
final judgment began to run when the trial court dismissed the
plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006.  The appellate court
therefore found that the petition was timely, reversed the order
of the trial court, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois
Supreme Court.  On September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court
denied Philip Morris' petition for leave to appeal and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings.  The
plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from the judgment in
February 2012.

RAI says in the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Suit Remains Stayed in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Howard v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., remains stayed in Illinois, Reynolds American Inc.
disclosed in its April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., another case filed
in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a
judge certified a class in December 2001.  In June 2003, the trial
judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution
of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case.  The plaintiffs appealed
this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005.
There is currently no activity in the case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit Remains Pending in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December
1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri in February 1999.  The action was brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including Reynolds
American Inc.'s subsidiary R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR
Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), and
parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. ("RJR"), by tobacco product users
and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouri
consumers.  The plaintiffs allege that their use of the
defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to
nicotine.  The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages.  The case was remanded to the
Circuit Court in February 1999.  There has been limited activity
in this case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Class Suit Remains Stayed in W.V.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
("RJR Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), and
parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. ("RJR"), seeking to recover $1
million in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an
unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive
damages.  The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly
have personal injury claims arising from their exposure to
respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.  The plaintiffs
allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to
asbestos products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become
addicted to tobacco.  In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral
Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North American and
Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong
World Industries, Inc.  Pursuant to Section 362(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to
all defendants.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Payment Bid Hearing in "Scott" Suit on June 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees is scheduled
for June 18, 2012, in the class action lawsuit captioned Scott v.
American Tobacco Co., according to Reynolds American Inc.'s
April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On November 5, 1998, in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., a case
filed in District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the trial
court certified a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of
Louisiana residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996.
The case was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR
Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), seeking
to recover an unspecified amount of damages to pay for medical
monitoring and smoking cessation programs.  In July 2003, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs'
claim for medical monitoring and found that cigarettes were not
defectively designed.  However, the jury also made certain
findings against the defendants on claims relating to fraud,
conspiracy, marketing to minors and smoking cessation.
Notwithstanding these findings, this portion of the trial did not
determine liability as to any class member or class
representative.  What primarily remained in the case was a class-
wide claim that the defendants pay for a program to help people
stop smoking.

In May 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591
million on the class's claim for a smoking cessation program.  In
September 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond, pursuant
to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to $50 million
collectively for Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA") signatories,
and noticed their appeal.  RJR Tobacco posted $25 million (the
portions for RJR Tobacco and B&W) towards the bond.  In February
2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld the class
certification and found the defendants responsible for funding
smoking cessation for eligible class members.  The appellate court
also ruled, however, that the defendants were not liable for any
post-1988 claims, rejected the award of prejudgment interest,
struck eight of the 12 components of the smoking cessation program
and remanded the case for further proceedings.  In particular, the
appellate court ruled that no class member, who began smoking
after September 1, 1988, could receive any relief, and that only
those smokers, whose claims accrued on or before September 1,
1988, would be eligible for the smoking cessation program.  The
plaintiffs had previously expressly represented to the trial court
that none of their claims accrued before 1988 and that the class
claims did not accrue until around 1996, when the case was filed.
The defendants' application for writ of certiorari with the
Louisiana Supreme Court was denied in January 2008.  The
defendants' petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court was denied in June 2008.  In July 2008, the trial court
entered an amended judgment in the case, finding that the
defendants are jointly and severally liable for funding the cost
of a court-supervised smoking cessation program and ordered the
defendants to deposit approximately $263 million together with
interest from June 30, 2004, into a trust for the funding of the
program.  The court also stated that it would favorably consider a
motion to return to defendants a portion of unused funds at the
close of each program year in the event the monies allocated for
the preceding program year were not fully expended because of a
reduction in class size or underutilization by the remaining
plaintiffs.

In December 2008, the trial court judge signed an order granting
the defendants an appeal from the amended judgment.  In April
2010, the court of appeals amended but largely affirmed the trial
court's July 2008 judgment and ordered the defendants to deposit
with the court $242 million with judicial interest from July 21,
2008, until paid.  The defendants' motion for rehearing was
denied.  In September 2010, the defendants' application for writ
of certiorari or review and their emergency motion to stay
execution of judgment with the Louisiana Supreme Court were
denied.  In September 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the
defendant's motion to stay the judgment pending applicants' timely
filing, and the Court's disposition, of a petition for writ of
certiorari.  The defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2010.  The court
denied the petition in June 2011.  RJR Tobacco accrued $139
million, the portions of the judgment allocated to RJR Tobacco and
B&W, in the second quarter of 2011.  RJR Tobacco paid the judgment
in August 2011.

In December 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for assessment of
attorneys' fees and costs for the prosecution of the case.  On
January 6, 2012, the defendants filed exceptions and motion to
strike seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' motions, which were
denied by the trial court.  On April 4, 2012, the defendants filed
an application for supervisory writs with the Louisiana Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeal.  A decision is pending.  Hearings are
scheduled on the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees on June
18, 2012.  Discovery is underway.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Thompson" Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. remains stayed in Minnesota, Reynolds American Inc.
disclosed in its April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in
February 2005 in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, RJR
Tobacco removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  In October 2007, the U.S. District Court
remanded the case to state district court.  In May 2009, the court
entered an agreed scheduling order that bifurcates merits and
class certification discovery.  The parties were engaged in class
certification discovery.  In July 2009, the plaintiffs in this
case and in Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. filed a motion to
consolidate for discovery and trial.  In October 2009, the court
companioned the two cases and reserved its ruling on the motion to
consolidate, which it said will be reevaluated as discovery
progresses.  In February 2010, a stipulation and order was entered
to stay proceedings in this case and in Dahl until completion of
all appellate review in Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc.  There is
currently no activity in the case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Brown" Class Suit Set for October 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a California class action lawsuit involving a subsidiary
of Reynolds American Inc. is scheduled for October 5, 2012,
according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On April 11, 2001, in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case
filed in June 1997 in Superior Court, San Diego County,
California, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a class composed of residents of California who
smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10,
1993, through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to the
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.
The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR
Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), seeking
to recover restitution, disgorgement of profits and other
equitable relief under California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 et seq. and Section 17500 et seq.  However, the
underlying substantive claims have been reduced to include
primarily allegations regarding the use of the descriptor "lights"
and statements made during the class period about the health risks
of cigarettes.  Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs'
claims that the defendants violated Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code pertaining to unfair
competition.  The court, however, refused to certify the class
under the California Legal Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs'
common law claims.  In March 2005, the court granted the
defendants' motion to decertify the class, and in September 2006,
the California Court of Appeal affirmed the order decertifying the
class.

In November 2006, the plaintiffs' petition for review with the
California Supreme Court was granted, and in May 2009, the court
reversed the decision of the trial court, and the California Court
of Appeal that decertified the class and remanded the case to the
trial court for further proceedings.  In March 2010, the trial
court found that the plaintiffs' "lights" claims were not
preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act
and denied the defendants' second motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiffs filed a tenth amended complaint in September 2010.
RJR Tobacco and B&W filed their answers to the complaint.
Subsequently, on February 24, 2011, the court found that the named
class representatives were not adequate, were not typical, and
lacked standing.  The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was
denied.  The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the
complaint by adding new class representatives and denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The plaintiffs filed an eleventh
amended complaint adding new class representatives in July 2011.
Trial is scheduled for October 5, 2012.  The defendants have filed
motions challenging the standing of the newly named class
representatives and to decertify the case.  A hearing was
scheduled for May 2, 2012.

RAI says in the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Turner" Suit vs. RJR Remains Pending in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Reynolds American Inc.'s
subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, remains pending in
Illinois, according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified
a class in November 2001.  In June 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a
motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of the
Price v. Philip Morris Inc. case, which the judge denied in July
2003.  In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of
Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order
request.  In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR
Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal
decision in Price.  On October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the
court's denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order request and
remanded the case to the circuit court.  A status conference
occurred on April 25, 2012.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Unit Got Favorable Judgment in "Smith" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Kansas court granted in March 2012 summary judgment in favor of
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary, according to the Company's
April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

A number of tobacco wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
("RJR Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), in
federal and state courts, alleging that cigarette manufacturers
combined and conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation
of antitrust statutes and various state unfair business practices
statutes.  In these cases, the plaintiffs asked the court to
certify the lawsuits as class actions on behalf of other persons
who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more
of the defendants.  As of March 31, 2012, all of the federal and
state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers had been
dismissed.

In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February
2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the
court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings,
Inc. ("RJR"), seeking to recover an unspecified amount in actual
and punitive damages.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants
participated in a conspiracy to fix or maintain the price of
cigarettes sold in the United States.

In an opinion dated March 23, 2012, the court granted summary
judgment in favor of RJR Tobacco and B&W on the plaintiff's
claims.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November
1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs
brought an environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") class action
against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including Reynolds American
Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco")
and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc. ("RJR"), on behalf of all residents of
Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been
exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were
manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury
as a result of that exposure.  The plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.  In
October 2004, the trial court stayed this case pending the outcome
of the appeal in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


RIDGEWOOD WATER: Chances for Rate Hike Suit Settlement Slim
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Kleimann, writing for Wyckoff, reports that Glen Rock and
Midland Park filed a $3.3 million class action lawsuit claiming
Ridgewood funneled water utility revenue into its own municipal
operating budget to avoid making hard cuts.

Officials in Ridgewood say their neighbors are taking their class
action lawsuit to the media because their case is weak.

The class action suit filed by Wyckoff, Glen Rock and Midland Park
in Bergen County's Superior Court seeks $3.3 million in refunds,
charging that Ridgewood has "been engaged in sham accounting to
artificially inflate the costs of the Water Utility and decrease
the expenses of the village."

On May 16, officials from Glen Rock, Midland Park and Wyckoff held
a press conference where attorney Joseph Fiorenzo again called for
the combined 26 percent rate hikes in 2010 and 2011 to be
rescinded and $3.3 million refunded to ratepayers.

"Generally, such tactics are used to inflame the situation due to
lack of confidence in the legal merits of their case," Ridgewood
Village Attorney Matt Rogers replied in a statement sent to media
on May 18.

Ridgewood in its statement did not address the alleged actions
spelled out in the lawsuit.

The suit alleges the village has funneled hundreds of thousands of
dollars to subsidize its police and fire departments, its
engineering department, the municipal attorney, expensive health
and pension obligations, among others.

The alleged bilking between 2004-2009 led to an operating loss for
the utility, Mr. Fiorenzo said, adding that had the books been
done properly, the utility would have shown a substantial profit.

"Evidence revealed . . . that there was no 'loss' to justify the
extraordinary water rate increase," Mr. Fiorenzo wrote in a
statement.  "Rather, Ridgewood has been bilking the ratepayers of
Wyckoff, Glen Rock and Midland Park by having the ratepayers pay
for a substantial portion of the operating expenses of the Village
of Ridgewood."

His statements came less than a week after mediation between the
parties hit a dead end.

Mr. Rogers in his statement said the village would shirk the media
spotlight, claiming its preference to continue a "good faith and
responsible effort" to keep water prices low for all Ridgewood
Water ratepayers.

"On behalf of the Village of Ridgewood and Ridgewood Water, we
continue to scrutinize the applicable law and remain confident in
our case and the legal process," he wrote.

Officials in the village have publicly maintained they've done
nothing wrong and have in the past called the suit "bombastic" but
"baseless."

They've been quick to point out Ridgewood Water rates are
significantly lower than that of most neighboring utilities and
have previously stated the rate hikes were needed to keep the
utility financially solvent.

The lawsuit seeks to rescind the dual rate hikes while refunding
$1.64 million to Wyckoff, $1.04 million to Glen Rock, and $619,000
to Midland Park.

Sources have said there appears a slim chance the two parties
reach a settlement.  Once the discovery period concludes, the case
is likely to be heard by Judge Menelaos Toskos.


SANTA MONICA: MALDEF Files Class Suit Over Wage Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Chandler, writing for SantaMonicaPatch, reports that four
Los Angeles car washers sued their employers on May 21 seeking
unpaid wages and restitution for time they allegedly worked off
the clock, without overtime pay and without rest or meal breaks.

The class action lawsuit was filed against the owners of three
carwashes, including ones in Venice and Santa Monica, on behalf of
"washeros" Esteban H. Carmona, Marcial H. Carmona, Anselmo Leyva
and Pedro Cruz.

"These three car washes denied the workers the wages they are
entitled to," said Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund attorney Nicholas Espiritu.  He said the businesses devised a
"systemic practice designed to maximize the amount of work they
get out of their workers while minimizing the pay that they get."

Named in the lawsuit are Santa Monica Car Wash and Detailing at
2510 Pico Blvd. in Santa Monica, Millennium Car Wash at 2454
Lincoln Blvd. in Venice and Bubble Bee Car Wash at 2711 Del Amo
Blvd. in Lakewood, owned by Edna, Bijan and Kambiz Damavandi.

Mr. Espiritu said the four car washers were regularly required to
arrive to work up to 30 minutes early, but were not allowed to
clock in until there were enough cars to wash.

Workers who did not report to work early were punished in various
ways, according to the suit, which alleges the car wash owners
also required employees to buy materials for work and
intentionally issued inaccurate work records in an effort to
conceal unlawful labor practices.

State law requires that employees get a meal break after no more
than five hours of work or that they receive compensation for the
day the meal is not provided, according to the suit, which alleges
that management at the car washes prohibited meal breaks or
delayed them past the five hour cut-off without compensation.

The car wash owners could not be reached for comment.  A woman who
answered the phone at Millennium Car Wash said the company
management was not on-site and she did not know their reaction to
the suit.

The MALDEF lawsuit seeks unpaid wages spanning the past four years
for as many as 100 workers employed during that time.  It also
seeks an injunction against each of the car washes.

At a press conference on May 21 in Santa Monica, Maria Elena
Durazo, of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO,
said there is a pattern of abuse in the car wash industry.

"Here we go again," she said.  "Wage theft is still occurring
every day in Los Angeles County."

Earlier this year, the state Attorney General's office announced
settlement of a lawsuit it had filed against eight other
California car washes -- including Bonus Car Wash in Santa Monica
-- over similar accusations as those levied on May 21 against the
Damavandi family.

Months before the settlement, Bonus Car Wash became the first in
Southern California to unionize.  On May 21, Ms. Durazo urged
Santa Monica customers to patronize Bonus Car Wash, and called on
the Santa Monica City Council "to stand up and defend these
workers."

Additional car washers and members of other local unions, Clergy
and Laity United for Economic Justice and Santa Monica-Malibu
Unified School District Board of Education member Oscar de la
Torre were also in attendance at the May 21 press conference.
They opened the event with chants, "up with the workers, yeah
yeah! Down with the bosses, boo, boo!" and closed it with, "si se
puede!"


SERVICE CORP: Antitrust Suit Dismissal Appeal Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International is named as a defendant in an
antitrust case filed in 2005.  The case is Cause No 4:05-CV-03394;
Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. Service Corporation
International, et al.; in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas -- Houston ("Funeral Consumers Case").
This was a purported class action on behalf of casket consumers
throughout the United States alleging that the Company and several
other companies involved in the funeral industry violated federal
antitrust laws and state consumer laws by engaging in various
anti-competitive conduct associated with the sale of caskets.
Based on the case proceeding as a class action, the plaintiffs
filed an expert report indicating that the damages sought from all
defendants range from approximately $950 million to $1.5 billion,
before trebling.  However, the trial court denied the plaintiffs'
motion to certify the case as a class action.  The Company denies
that it engaged in anticompetitive practices related to its casket
sales, and it has filed reports of its experts, which vigorously
dispute the validity of the plaintiffs' damages theories and
calculations.  The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' claims on
September 24, 2010, and the plaintiffs filed an appeal on October
19, 2010.  The Company says it cannot quantify its ultimate
liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


SERVICE CORP: Appeal in "Garcia" Class Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International's appeal from an order
certifying a class in the lawsuit initiated by Reyvis Garcia and
Alicia Garcia against its subsidiary remains pending, according to
the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris
Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland
Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc., was
filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No.
04-25646 CA 32.  Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the
decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park
South in March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise
Memorial Gardens, Inc.  Initially, the lawsuit sought damages on
the individual claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of
Eloisa Garcia.  Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor recordkeeping,
spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not
afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of
the decedent could not be readily located.  Subsequently, the
decedent's grave was located and verified.  In July 2006,
plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class of
all persons buried at this cemetery whose burial sites cannot be
located, claiming that this was due to poor recordkeeping, maps,
and surveys at the cemetery.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
third amended class action complaint and added two additional
named plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief.  On May 4,
2011, the trial court certified a class and the Company is
appealing that ruling.

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

The Company says it cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if
any, for the payment of any damages.


SERVICE CORP: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in "Sands" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit
commenced by F. Charles Sands, according to the Company's
April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The case, captioned F. Charles Sands, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial Park, et al.;
Case No. BC421528; in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles -- Central District, was
filed in September 2009 against SCI and certain subsidiaries
regarding the Company's Eden Memorial Park cemetery in Mission
Hills, California.  The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of
cemetery plot owners and their families.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the
appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery operations.  The
plaintiff claims the cemetery damaged and desecrated burials in
order to prepare adjoining graves for subsequent burials.  In
February 2012, the court held a hearing on the plaintiff's motion
for class certification and, so far, no order has been issued
relating to that hearing.

The Company says it cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if
any, for the payment of any damages.


SERVICE CORP: Defends Wage and Hour Suits in Various States
-----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International (SCI) is defending class action
lawsuits commenced in various states alleging violations of wage
and hour laws, according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company is named a defendant in various lawsuits alleging
violations of federal and state laws regulating wage and hour
overtime pay, including but not limited to the Prise, Bryant,
Bryant, Helm, Stickle, and Southern lawsuits.

The lawsuit, captioned Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
and Service Corporation International; Cause No. 06-164; in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania (the "Wage and Hour Lawsuit"), was filed by two
former Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc. employees in December 2006
and purports to have been brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") on behalf of all Alderwoods and SCI-affiliated
employees who performed work for which they were not fully
compensated, including work for which overtime pay was owed.
Although the court initially conditionally certified a class of
claims as to certain job positions for Alderwoods employees, the
court granted the Company's motion to decertify the class on
September 9, 2011.

Plaintiffs allege causes of action for violations of the FLSA,
failure to maintain proper records, breach of contract, violations
of state wage and hour laws, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit,
quantum meruit, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unpaid wages, liquidated,
compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.  The Company says
it cannot quantify the Company's ultimate liability, if any, in
this lawsuit.

The lawsuit captioned Bryant, et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No. 3:07-CV-5696-
SI; in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, was filed on November 8, 2007, against SCI and various
subsidiaries and individuals.  It is related to the Wage and Hour
Lawsuit, raising similar claims and brought by the same attorneys.
This lawsuit has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania and is now Case No. 08-CV-
00891-JFC.  The Company says it cannot quantify its ultimate
liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

The cases, Bryant, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et
al.; Case No. RG-07359593; and Helm, et al. v. AWGI & SCI; Case
No. RG-07359602; in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Alameda, were filed on December 5, 2007, by counsel for
plaintiffs in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit.  These cases assert state
law claims similar to the federal claims asserted in the Wage and
Hour Lawsuit.  These cases were removed to federal court in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco/Oakland Division.  The Bryant case is now Case No. 3:08-
CV-01190-SI and the Helm case is now Case No. C 08-01184-SI.  On
December 29, 2009, the court in the Helm case denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action.  The
plaintiffs modified and refiled their motion for certification.
On March 9, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' renewed motions to
certify a class in both of the Bryant and Helm cases.  The
plaintiffs have also (i) filed additional lawsuits with similar
allegations seeking class certification of state law claims in
different states, and (ii) made a large number of demands for
arbitration.  The Company says it cannot quantify its ultimate
liability, if any, in these lawsuits.

Counsel for plaintiffs in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit filed a case
captioned Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et
al.; Case No. 08-CV-83; in the U.S. District Court for Arizona,
Phoenix Division, on January 17, 2008, against SCI and various
related entities and individuals asserting FLSA and other
ancillary claims based on the alleged failure to pay for overtime.
In September 2009, the Court conditionally certified a class of
claims as to certain job positions of SCI affiliated employees.
On April 20, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
decertify the class.  The Company says it cannot quantify its
ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

This lawsuit, Southern, et al. v. SCI Kentucky Funeral Services,
Inc.; Case No. 11CIO6501; in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Division
Eight, Kentucky, was filed on October 6, 2011, against an SCI
subsidiary and purports to have been brought on behalf of
employees who worked in Kentucky as funeral directors.  The
plaintiffs allege causes of action for various violations of
Kentucky wage and hour laws, and breach of contract.  Plaintiffs
seek unpaid wages, compensatory and exemplary relief, damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post judgment interest.
The Company says it cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if
any, in this lawsuit.


SERVICE CORP: Faces "Baio" Class Action Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International is facing a class action lawsuit
filed by Michele Baio in Florida, according to the Company's April
26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

Michele Baio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Beth David Memorial Gardens, Inc. et al.; Case No.
502012CA006532MB, was filed in the Circuit Court of the 15th
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County of Florida. This
case was filed by counsel for plaintiffs in the lawsuits commenced
by F. Charles Sands, and David Zinn and Michael Graff on April 5,
2012, regarding the Beth David Memorial Gardens and Chapel located
in Hollywood, Florida.  Although the Company acquired the cemetery
in connection with its 2006 acquisition of Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
the Company never managed the cemetery and sold it to a third
party shortly after closing on the Alderwoods acquisition.  The
plaintiff seeks to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and
their families.  The plaintiff alleges the cemetery engaged in
wrongful burial operations and did not disclose them to customers.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory, consequential and punitive
damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee
cemetery operations.

The Company says it cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if
any, for the payment of any damages.


SERVICE CORP: Faces "Zinn" Class Action Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International is facing a class action lawsuit
in Florida, according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The case, captioned David Zinn and Michael Graff, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Service Corporation
International, et al.; Case No. 502012CA006536MB, in the Circuit
Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County of
Florida, was filed by counsel for plaintiffs in the lawsuit
commenced by F. Charles Sands on April 5, 2012, regarding the
Company's Star of David Memorial Gardens Cemetery and Funeral
Chapel & Bailey Memorial Gardens located in North Lauderdale,
Florida.  The plaintiffs seek to certify a class of cemetery plot
owners and their families.  The plaintiffs allege the cemetery
engaged in wrongful burial operations and did not disclose them to
customers.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and
punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to
oversee cemetery operations.

The Company says it cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if
any, for the payment of any damages.


SINCLAIR IMPORTS: Recalls Threadless Carbon Bike Handlebar Stem
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributors, Sinclair Imports, of Reno, Nevada, and Quality
Bicycle Products, of Bloomington, Minnesota, and manufacturer,
Race Productions NV, Belgium, announced a voluntary recall of
about 105 units of 4ZA Threadless Carbon Bicycle Handlebar Stem.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The bicycle handlebar stems can crack or break, posing a fall
hazard.

The firm received one report of a handlebar stem breaking
resulting in minor injuries.

The recall involves all 4ZA 31.8 threadless bicycle handlebar
stems sold as individual aftermarket components.  The stems are
black and have the words "4ZA Cycling Performance" painted on the
carbon extension between the steerer clamp and handlebar clamp.
The recalled stems range in extension lengths from 90mm to 130mm,
approximately 3.5 to 5 inches.  A picture of the recalled products
is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12183.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
specialty bicycle retailers and via Web sites from January 2005
through April 2010 for about $59.

Consumers should immediately stop using their bicycles and contact
the bicycle retailers where the stems were purchased to obtain a
free replacement stem.  Other bicycle shops can handle the
replacement process by contacting the manufacturer's current
distributor, Quality Bicycle Products, Inc.  For additional
information, please contact Quality Bicycle Products, Inc. ("QBP")
toll-free at (877) 745-7703 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.ridley-
bikes.com/


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Black Truck Drivers Lose Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to certify a class of black truck drivers who claim
they get less profitable routes because of their race.

Lead plaintiff Steve Bluford claimed that Swift Transportation
fired him in 2009 after two years on the job because he is black.

The truck driver filed a discrimination charge with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission one week after his firing from
Swift, which claims to be the largest trucking company in the
world with more than 16,000 trucks, 40 facilities in the U.S. and
Mexico, and $3.4 billion in revenues.

Though Mr. Bluford's EEOC charge did not include classwide
allegations, he claimed that "the managers showed favoritism
towards the drivers of non color by assigning them the better
routes and more profitable deliveries compared to the assignments
that their counterparts would get.  They would also be assigned
the trucks that were in better operating conditions to these same
persons."

Mr. Bluford filed a class action against the trucking giant for
race discrimination after his EEOC charge failed.

The federal complaint alleged that Mr. Bluford's fleet manager,
Donovan Rood, treated black employees differently than white
employees, once stating, "I am sick of babysitting these
[expletive] monkeys."

As a result of Mr. Rood's discrimination, Mr. Bluford said black
employees received less lucrative routes, assignments and
promotions.  Mr. Rood's actions were especially injurious because
truckers are paid based on the distance of a route and the time of
day it is driven, according to the complaint.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall dismissed
Mr. Bluford's class allegations, agreeing with Swift that "a Title
VII plaintiff can only bring those claims in his complaint in
federal court that were included in his original EEOC charge."

"Bluford's EEOC charge does not include any allegations of class-
wide discrimination," Judge Kendall wrote.  "Bluford's charge
states only that 'I have been harassed on numerous occasions by
Donavon and by younger employees who work there.  Also, because I
gross more pay than them; they have Retaliated against me.  I
believe that I have been discriminated against on the basis of my
Race, Black and Retaliated against . . .' (emphasis supplied)."

"All of the language in the charge specifically references Bluford
as an individual and his treatment by Swift as an individual,"
Judge Kendall added.

"Because the original charge contains no reference to any class-
wide allegations, the amendment may not introduce those charges
for the first time and expand the scope of the allegations in the
charge."

The judge did uphold the individual discrimination claims over
Mr. Bluford's allegedly less desirable assignments, termination
and mistreatment.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Bluford v. Swift
Transportation, Case No. 11-cv-06932 (N.D. Ill.) (Kendall, J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/22/Swift.pdf


TEMPUR-PEDIC: Jacobs' Plea for En Banc Review Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On January 5, 2007, a purported class action was filed against
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division (Jacobs
v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North
America, Inc., or the Antitrust Action).  The Antitrust Action
alleges violations of federal antitrust law arising from the
pricing of Tempur-Pedic mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North
America and certain distributors.  The action alleges a class of
all purchasers of Tempur-Pedic mattresses in the United States
since January 5, 2003, and seeks damages and injunctive relief.
Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June 25,
2007, based on a motion filed by the Company.  Following a
decision issued by the United States Supreme Court in Leegin
Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. on June 28, 2007, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts of the
Antitrust Action on July 10, 2007.  On December 11, 2007, that
motion was granted and, as a result, judgment was entered in favor
of the Company and the plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.  On December 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion
to Alter or Amend Judgment," which was fully briefed.  On May 1,
2008, that motion was denied.  Jacobs appealed the dismissal of
their claims, and the parties argued the appeal before the United
States Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit on December 11,
2008.  The Court rendered an opinion favorable to the Company on
December 2, 2010, affirming the trial court's refusal to allow
Jacobs to alter or amend its pleadings and dismissing its claims.
Jacobs has subsequently petitioned the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals for an "en banc" review of the three judge panel's ruling.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company continues to strongly believe that the Antitrust
Action lacks merit, and intends to defend against the claims
vigorously.  Based on the findings of the court to date and an
assessment of the Company's meritorious defenses, the Company
believes that it is remote that it will incur a loss with respect
to this matter.  However, due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the
Antitrust Action at this time, and can give no assurance that
these claims will not have a material adverse affect on the
Company's financial position or results of operations.


TENET HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Hospital Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greta Weiderman, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reports
that John and Patricia Thomas of St. Louis have filed a class
action lawsuit in St. Louis County Circuit Court against Tenet
Health Systems.

The lawsuit seeks to recover the amounts that Saint Louis
University Hospital and Des Peres Hospital, both owned by Tenet,
have charged for what the suit alleges are misleading and
undisclosed "hospital" facility fees for non-hospital services at
doctors' offices and outpatient clinics affiliated with those
hospitals, according to a press release by the Thomases' lawyer,
the C. Marshall Friedman Law Offices.

"Tenet's practices regarding charging hospital facility fees for
outpatient visits is misleading, deceptive and improper," their
attorney Robert Friedman said in a statement.  "Patients have no
idea that by walking into one doctor's office instead of
another's, they will pay hundreds of dollars more for the same
simple in-office procedure.  And Tenet tries to reassure its
patients that its billing changes will not affect their bottom
line when in fact these patients are paying much more for the same
doctor's visits."

Officials from Tenet requested time to review the lawsuit before
making a comment.

Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare Corp. owns Saint Louis University
Hospital and Des Peres Hospital.  Saint Louis University Hospital
is a 356-bed academic teaching hospital, and Des Peres Hospital is
a 143-bed acute care community hospital.

Dallas-based Tenet is the 11th largest public company in North
Texas, with $9.2 billion in revenue last year, according to Dallas
Business Journal research.


TIM W.E. SGPS: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Suit v. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 1, 2010, the Brazilian Federal Public Prosecutor filed
a class-action lawsuit against TIM w.e. SGPS, S.A.'s Brazilian
subsidiary, Total Spin Brasil Servicos de Telecomunicacoes Ltda.
("Total Spin"), and Globo Participacoes e Comunicacoes S.A. (TV
Globo) before the 11th Federal Civil Court of Sao Paulo in
connection with Total Spin's participation in the marketing
campaign "Torpedao Campeao", alleging that misleading statements
made in connection with the campaign caused collective damages to
consumers and seeking R$7 million in restitution of amounts paid
by consumers during the campaign and collective moral damages.  On
March 10, 2011, Total Spin submitted a challenge seeking to reduce
the damages claim to R$0.1 million.  On March 25, 2011, Total Spin
filed a response memorandum seeking full dismissal of the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company believes the claim is likely to be dismissed by the
court on the basis that a similar claim has already been dismissed
by the court for lack of evidence in pretrial stages.  The Company
believes this claim is without merit and intends to contest it
vigorously.


TIME WARNER: Appeal From Dismissal of Set-Top Cable MDL Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable
Television Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions
filed in federal district courts throughout the U.S.  These
actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order
transferring the cases for pretrial proceedings to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On
July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated
class action complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"), alleging
that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
various state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade
practices statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television
services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes.  The
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble
monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged
practices.  On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on
April 8, 2011.  On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


TIME WARNER: 2nd Cir. Appeal in "Swinegar" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On November 14, 2008, the plaintiffs in Mark Swinegar, et al. v.
Time Warner Cable Inc., filed a second amended complaint in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, as a purported class action,
alleging that the Company provided to and charged the plaintiffs
for equipment that they had not affirmatively requested in
violation of the proscription in the Cable Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 (the "Cable Act") against "negative option
billing" and that such violation was an unlawful act or practice
under California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL").  The
plaintiffs are seeking restitution under the UCL and attorneys'
fees.  On February 23, 2009, the court denied the Company's motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint and, on July 29, 2010, the
court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment.  On
October 7, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a declaratory
ruling with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
requesting that the FCC determine whether the Company's general
ordering process complies with the Cable Act's "negative option
billing" restriction.  On March 1, 2011, the FCC issued a
declaratory ruling finding that informed consent is adequate to
satisfy the requirements under the Cable Act.  On March 29, 2011,
the Los Angeles County Superior Court vacated its prior summary
judgment ruling and, on May 12, 2011, the court granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment.  On June 13, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision,
which the court denied on July 28, 2011.  On September 26, 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the California Court of
Appeals for the Second District.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


TIME WARNER: Appeal From "Fink" Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit captioned
Jessica Fink and Brett Noia, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc.
remains pending, according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On August 7, 2009, the plaintiffs in Jessica Fink and Brett Noia,
et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., filed an amended complaint in a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that the Company uses a throttling
technique which intentionally delays and/or blocks a user's high-
speed data service.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  On
September 6, 2011, the district court partially granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment and/or for partial judgment
on the pleadings, but denied the motion as to two claims under the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 ("CFAA") and one common law
fraud claim.  On October 28, 2011, the district court granted the
Company's motion for reconsideration and dismissed the CFAA claims
with prejudice.  On September 30, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint and, on December 23, 2011, the district
court granted with prejudice the Company's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' second amended complaint, terminating the action.  On
January 23, 2012, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


TIME WARNER: "Brantley" Plaintiffs Ask for En Banc Rehearing
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al.,
filed in April 2012 a petition for en banc rehearing in connection
with an appeals court's affirmation of the dismissal of their
lawsuit, Time Warner Cable Inc. disclosed in its April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California against the Company.  The complaint, which also
named as defendants several other cable and satellite providers
(collectively, the "distributor defendants") as well as
programming content providers (collectively, the "programmer
defendants"), alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.  Among other things, the complaint alleged
coordination between and among the programmer defendants to sell
and/or license programming on a "bundled" basis to the distributor
defendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming to
subscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (or "a
la carte") basis.  The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a
purported nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, are
seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages
and an injunction to compel the offering of channels to
subscribers on an "a la carte" basis.  On December 3, 2007, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this action that, among
other things, dropped the Section 2 claims and all allegations of
horizontal coordination.  On October 15, 2009, the district court
granted with prejudice a motion by the distributor defendants and
the programmer defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended
complaint, terminating the action.  On April 19, 2010, the
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit and, on June 3, 2011, the court reaffirmed the
district court's decision.  On July 7, 2011, the plaintiffs filed
a petition for en banc rehearing and, on October 31, 2011, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit withdrew the June 3,
2011 decision and directed that the appellate panel be
reconstituted to consider the plaintiffs' appeal.

On March 30, 2012, a reconstituted panel affirmed the district
court's dismissal of the plaintiff's third amended complaint and,
on April 10, 2012, the plaintiffs filed another petition for en
banc rehearing.

The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Downs" Class Suit vs. Insight
---------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit
commenced by Michelle Downs and Laurie Jarrett against its
subsidiary, according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On August 9, 2010, the plaintiffs in Michelle Downs and Laurie
Jarrett, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. filed a
second amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, as a purported class action,
alleging that the Company's subsidiary, Insight Communications
Company, L.P., violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by
tying the sales of premium cable television services to the
leasing of set-top converter boxes, which is similar to the
federal claim in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust
Litigation.  The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease
such alleged practices.

The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Settled Colorado Class Suit in April 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit initiated in Colorado was settled in April
2012, Tyco International Ltd. said in its April 26, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 30, 2012.

In 2002, the SEC's Division of Enforcement conducted an
investigation related to past accounting practices for dealer
connect fees that ADT had charged to its authorized dealers upon
purchasing customer accounts.  ADT Security Services, originally
American District Telegraph, now also known as simply ADT, is a
division of Tyco International and a worldwide supplier of
electronic security systems, fire alarm systems, communication
systems, and integrated building management systems.

The investigation related to accounting practices employed by the
Company's former management, which were discontinued in 2003.
Although the Company settled with the SEC in 2006, a number of
former dealers and related parties have filed lawsuits against the
Company in the United States and in other countries, including a
class action lawsuit filed in the District Court of Arapahoe
County, Colorado, alleging breach of contract and other claims
related to ADT's decision to terminate certain authorized dealers
in 2002 and 2003.  In February 2010, the Court granted a directed
verdict in ADT's favor dismissing a number of the plaintiffs' key
claims.  Upon appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the
verdict in ADT's favor in October 2011.

The parties agreed to settle this matter in April 2012 with no
cash consideration being paid by either side, which is subject to
final court approval.  Although the Company has favorably resolved
the class action lawsuit in Colorado, a number of claims related
to the 2002 and 2003 decision to terminate certain authorized
dealers outside the United States remain outstanding.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company says it
recorded its best estimate of probable loss related to these
outstanding claims.  While it is not possible at this time to
predict the final outcome of these lawsuits, the Company does not
believe these claims will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Unit Faces TCPA Violations Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd.'s ADT unit is facing class action lawsuits
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 30, 2012.

ADT Security Services, originally American District Telegraph, now
also known as simply ADT, is a division of Tyco International and
a worldwide supplier of electronic security systems, fire alarm
systems, communication systems, and integrated building management
systems.

ADT has been named as a defendant in two punitive class actions
that were filed on behalf of purported classes of persons who
claim to have received unsolicited "robocalls" in contravention of
the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  These
lawsuits were brought by plaintiffs seeking class action status
and monetary damages on behalf of all plaintiffs who allegedly
received such unsolicited calls, claiming that millions of calls
were made by third party entities on ADT's behalf.  ADT asserts
that such entities were not retained by, nor authorized to make
calls on behalf of, ADT.  These matters have been consolidated in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois into one civil action.  Each violation under the TCPA
provides for $500 in statutory damages ($1,500 if a willful
violation is shown).

ADT believes that it has meritorious defenses to these claims and,
accordingly, intends to vigorously defend against these actions.
The Company has made no provision for this contingency as a
reasonable estimate of loss cannot be made at this time.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Sued for Denying Mental Health Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------
ExpertClick reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed against
United Healthcare Insurance Company, US Behavioral Plan, and
California United Behavioral Health, which contracts with
employers such as the University of California to provide mental
health services to policyholders.  The class-action suit alleges
that these companies, which are part of United Healthcare
Insurance Company, have violated the California Mental Health
Parity Act, which requires insurers to provide treatment for
mental-health diagnoses according to "the same terms and
conditions" applied to medical conditions.  Specifically, the
defendants are accused of denying and improperly limiting coverage
by conducting concurrent and prospective reviews of routine
outpatient mental health treatments when no such reviews are
conducted for routine outpatient treatments for other medical
conditions.  Defendants are also accused of violating the Unruh
Act, by discriminating against a class of persons with mental
disabilities and psychiatric conditions; violating California's
law prohibiting unfair competition, breaching the terms of its own
insurance contract with policyholders, and the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.

The law suit was filed in Santa Barbara Superior Court on behalf
of the plaintiff, who works in Santa Barbara.  Her mental health
coverage was improperly reduced.  She was having four weekly
outpatient psychotherapy sessions.  But in September 2011, she was
informed that she would be limited to one weekly session for one
month.

Plaintiff is represented by the Los Angeles-based class-action
trial lawyers of Cohen McKeon LLP, and Meiram Bendat, founder of
the mental health insurance-advocacy service, Psych-Appeal.  "This
is an important case because it addresses an issue that impacts a
wide range of people who are covered by health insurance" said
lead attorney, Michael L. Cohen.  "For too long, people who suffer
from severe mental health issues have not received health
insurance coverage on the same terms as conditions that are
applied to other conditions."  Specifically, the lawsuit seeks
certification of a class consisting of hundreds and perhaps
thousands of UC employees who were subject to improper review and
denial of treatment for severe mental health illnesses.

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

For further information, please contact:

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


VELTI PLC: Unit, TrafficMarketplace.com in Talks Over iPhone Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Velti plc's subsidiary is negotiating with TrafficMarketplace.com
in connection with its demand for indemnification relating to a
consolidated litigation over iPhone application, according to the
Company's April 26, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In re iPhone Application Litigation is a purported nationwide
class action filed in the Northern District of California against
Apple Inc. and certain other parties, including the Company's
subsidiary Mobclix Inc., and the result of a Multi-District
Litigation consolidation of numerous class actions filed in state
and federal courts throughout the United States.  The action
alleges that the defendants, through the promotion of software
applications, or "apps", developed, marketed, and provided or sold
for use with Apple's devices, improperly and unlawfully access,
capture, alter and/or use personal information they obtained from
"app" users.

The defendants responded to the complaint via a successful
pleading challenge.  See In re iPhone Application Litig., 2011 WL
4403963 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2011) (Order Granting Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Article III Standing Without
Prejudice).  In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs dropped
several of the entities named as defendants in the initial
consolidated complaint, including Mobclix, ostensibly to better
their chances of surviving a second pleading challenge.  A hearing
regarding the remaining defendants' challenge to this amended
pleading was scheduled for May 3, 2012.

Defendant TrafficMarketplace.com recently demanded that Mobclix,
pursuant to an agreement between the parties, defend and indemnify
it for costs related to the In re iPhone Application Litigation
class action.  TrafficMarketplace.com and Mobclix are negotiating
this demand.

Mobclix was named as a defendant in a similar litigation regarding
Google devices, but within several months was dismissed from that
action without prejudice.

Because the filed actions are in the very early stages, and due to
the inherent uncertainty surrounding the litigation process, the
Company says it is unable to reasonably assess the likelihood of
any particular outcome of these litigations (or potential
litigations) at this time.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: 7th Cir. Affirms Durom Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Zimmer
Holdings, the maker of a hip replacement device, did not mislead
its investors about problems associated with its product, a
federal appeals court has ruled.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on May 21 ruled
against two unions that hoped to initiate a class action lawsuit
against Zimmer, which makes the Durom Acetabular Component.  The
product is known as the Durom Cup and is used to replace the
socket in a hip joint.

Attorneys representing the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union
719 Pension Fund and the Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia
said the company hid problems with the Durom Cup from investors,
but Seventh Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook ruled that wasn't the
case.

Surgeon Lawrence Dorr had reported high failure rates with the
Durom Cup in 2008.  Zimmer made public his research and promised
to investigate, concluding that his failure rate was higher than
other surgeons' and owed the figure to improper surgical
technique.

"Zimmer did not try to hide the failures Dr. Dorr had
encountered," Judge Easterbrook wrote.  "Dorr made a public
announcement, and so did Zimmer, which added (what was anyway
evident) that lower sales and more products-liability litigation
might ensure.

"Three months before Dorr made his public statement in April 2008,
Zimmer had announced that the Durom Cup was challenging to implant
and that changes in labeling or training might be required.  No
one could predict how serious the problem would turn out to be, so
Zimmer's decision not to try to quantify the effect (during a call
with investors in January 2008) can't be treated as fraud."

The plaintiffs also claimed the company delayed revealing quality-
control problems at a plant in Dover, Ohio.  They said the company
knew of the problems in 2007 but did not disclose them in the
January 2008 call.

In April, the company closed some of the production lines in its
plant for a month, estimating that recalls and lost sales would
cost the company $70 million to $80 million.

In July 2008, Zimmer cut its revenue growth and net earnings
projections.  The plaintiffs said the company should have used
those projections during the January call.

"(Q)uality control is an issue at all medical companies," Judge
Easterbrook wrote.  "Knowing of 'problems,' which are common,
differs from knowing that a facility must be closed and some of
its products recalled."

Judge Easterbrook added, "The allegations of this complaint
concern the problems Zimmer faced in 2008; in a different year the
headaches would have come from a different plant or a different
product, but the fact that these particular problems occurred --
and that information came out over time, as more news accumulated
-- does not imply that any manager was lying to investors."

The case was filed in Indiana's Southern District, and the Seventh
Circuit's decision affirmed the decision of Judge Sarah Evans
Barker.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in
San Francisco and Cohen & Malad in Indianapolis.


* Accounting-Related Securities Class Actions Up in 2011
--------------------------------------------------------
According to Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements --
2011 Review and Analysis, a new report by Cornerstone Research,
securities class action filings that involve accounting
allegations increased in 2011 from 2010, which had the lowest
number of accounting case filings in recent years.  Of the 188
securities class actions filed in 2011, 70 included accounting
allegations, compared with 46 in 2010.  This increase can be
attributed in part to the number of Chinese reverse merger filings
in 2011, which are significantly more likely to involve
restatements of financial statements and, as a result, include
alleged violations of generally accepted accounting principles.

The number of accounting case filings involving financial
statement restatements also increased, reversing a four-year trend
of declines.  In 2011, 20 accounting case filings included
restatements, compared to 12 case filings in 2010.  Declines in
the number of financial statement restatements had been widely
attributed to improved corporate governance practices as a result
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).  In 2010, however, the number of
restatements by public companies increased, which may have
contributed to the increase in case filings involving
restatements.

For the second consecutive year, more than 60 percent of
accounting case filings included allegations of internal control
weaknesses.  Only 17 percent of initial filings with these claims
were accompanied by company announcements reporting the presence
of internal control weaknesses over financial reporting.  During
2006 to 2011, accounting cases with internal control allegations
that were accompanied by announcements of internal control
weaknesses by the company tended to settle for higher amounts.

In addition to the 188 new class actions, plaintiffs also filed
amendments to 164 cases during 2011.  Amendments frequently
resulted in changes in class periods to include accounting-related
announcements, including investigations of accounting
irregularities by regulators, auditor resignations, or
announcements of restatements of financial statements.  For cases
in which the class period was extended, 56 percent included new
accounting allegations.  Amendments also added accounting-related
defendants, most often members of the audit committee.  Of
complaints amended in 2011, one in four named audit committee
members, up from less than one in 10 in the corresponding initial
filings.

A sharp decline in the number of settlements occurred in 2011, and
in contrast to the prior five years, accounting cases constituted
less than half of the total volume of settlements.  However,
accounting cases continued to represent a disproportionately
higher share of total settlement values.  As in past years,
accounting cases resulted in higher settlement outcomes,
particularly for cases in which companies faced SEC actions.

Commentary

Dr. Elaine M. Harwood, Vice President of Cornerstone Research:

-- As we approach the tenth anniversary of the passage of SOX, it
is interesting to observe the increase in allegations related to
SOX 404 reporting in recent years.  This trend suggests that
plaintiffs believe that including allegations of internal control
weaknesses will bolster their position in litigation, regardless
of whether material weaknesses were actually present, but
settlements in recent years do not support that position.

-- Amended filings in 2011 resulted in the addition of accounting-
related defendants and allegations, likely increasing the
complexity of these cases.  The added complexity of accounting
cases may explain why they are still less likely to be dropped or
dismissed and settle for a disproportionately higher total
settlement value than non-accounting cases.

Additional Key Findings

-- Accounting cases continue to be dismissed less frequently than
non-accounting cases.  For example, of the securities class
actions filed in 2006, only 38 percent of accounting cases were
dismissed by the end of 2011, compared with 46 percent of non-
accounting cases.

-- For cases filed during 2006 through 2011 that reached
disposition by the end of 2011, only 8 percent of accounting cases
were voluntarily dismissed, compared with 27 percent of non-
accounting cases.  A relatively low percentage of both accounting
and non-accounting cases reached a ruling on summary judgment.

-- Cases involving write-downs settle for higher values than cases
not involving write-downs (even when compared with cases involving
restatements).  Cases involving financial statement restatements,
however, settle for a significantly higher percentage of
"estimated damages."  This suggests that the higher settlement
values associated with cases involving write-downs are due in part
to the higher investor losses involved with these cases.

The full text of the report is available at the Cornerstone
Research Web site at http://is.gd/WtZ1gj


* N.J. Committee Unanimously Approves Class Action Bill
-------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the New
Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee on May 21 unanimously approved
a bill that would change how class action lawsuits proceed.

A894 would allow a defendant in a class action lawsuit to
immediately appeal a judge's order granting class certification.
Under current rules, defendants have to wait until after a
judgment is entered to appeal.

The bill passed with a 7-0 vote.  Five of the committee's members
are Democrats.

Assemblymen Gary Chiusano, a Republican, and John Wisniewski, a
Democrat, are the bill's sponsors.  The New Jersey Lawsuit Reform
Alliance says the bill is also good for plaintiffs who are denied
class certification.

"This means that defendants who believe the court made a mistake
will not have to incur the time and expense of going to trial only
have to do it all over again because the class certification was
erroneous from the start," the group says.

"Plaintiffs who are denied class status can appeal that decision;
today, a denial of class would usually mean the end of their
case."

The bill notes that several other states -- including Connecticut,
Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas -- permit interlocutory appeals
of class certifications.

A judge must rule that there is a class made up of plaintiffs who
have been similarly affected by the defendant's alleged conduct
for a class action lawsuit to proceed.

"As New Jersey tries to grow its economy and combat a 9 percent
unemployment rate, litigation expenses are an unneeded barrier to
economic development," NJLRA says.

"Providing a right to an immediate interlocutory appeal is a tax-
free, budget-neutral initiative to free up capital for job
creators."

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Junks Crane Co.'s Motion for Reargument
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Parkins, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware, New
Castle County, denied Crane Co.'s motion for reargument for its
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned IN RE ASBESTOS
LITIGATION: HAROLD HOWTON REED GRGICH Limited to: Crane Co., C.A.
Nos. N11C-03-218 ASB, N10C-12-011 ASB (Del.), after determining
that Crane Co. has offered a rehash of its prior arguments and has
not met its burden of demonstrating "newly discovered evidence, a
change in the law or manifest injustice."  A copy of Judge
Parkins' May 1, 2012 Decision is available at http://is.gd/FeF3VU
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Refuses to Junk Suit v. Crane Co.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Superior Court, New York County,
denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint and claims asserted in the case captioned EILEEN A.
ROMERO as Executrix for the Estate JOSEPH McCARTHY, Plaintiff, v.
A.C. and S., Inc., et al. Defendants, 113260/01, Motion Seq. 1
(N.Y.), after determining that the issues in the case are similar
to two previously decided cases which hold that Crane Co. had an
affirmative duty to warn consumers against the hazards associated
with asbestos because the evidence demonstrated that Crane Co.
recommended the use of asbestos-containing products in conjunction
with its valves and other equipments.  A copy of Judge Heitler's
May 11, 2012 Decision is available at http://is.gd/RAGMVGfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Bid to File Appendix in Bernard Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, denied on May 10, 2012, a leave to supplement record
on appeal with appendix in the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY
ASBESTOS LITIGATION; BERNARD, v. BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES CORP. -
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Motion No. M-1874 (N.Y.).  A copy of
the May 10 Decision is available at http://is.gd/9aWs6Jfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Moves Time to Perfect Appeal in Dummitt
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, enlarged the time to perfect appeal to the November
2012 Term in the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION: DUMMITT, v. A.W. CHESTERTON - CRANE CO, Motion No.
M-1882 (N.Y.).  A copy of the May 17, 2012 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/zyBFPHfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Junks Portions of Suit v. York Int'l.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Parkins, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware, New
Castle County, denied York International Corp.'s motion for
summary judgment on product nexus after finding, for the second
time, that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to product
nexus despite.  Judge Parkins, however, granted York's motion for
summary judgment on component parts after finding that the
Plaintiffs did not offer any citation to the record supporting
their assertion that the Defendant recommended asbestos-containing
replacement parts; and on misrepresentation and conspiracy because
the motion for this issue was unopposed.

The case is IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ANITA COSNER Limited to:
York International Corp., C.A. No. N10C-12-100 ASB (Del.).  A copy
of Judge Parkins' May 14, 2012 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/DtYg2ufrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Affirms Discharge of Worker's Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third
Department, affirmed a decision by a Workers' Compensation Law
Judge discharging a workers' compensation claim filed by the widow
of John Angelo, who died to what was determined to be asbestos-
related pleural disease.  The WCLJ discharged the employer's
workers' compensation carrier.  The WCLJ established the case for
causally-related death, established an average weekly wage of
$838.46 "per payroll in the underlying [occupational disease]
case" and awarded benefits at the statutory maximum rate of $500
per week.  The case is NORMA ANGELO, AS WIDOW OF JOHN ANGELO,
DECEASED, Respondent, v. OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL, Respondent, AND
SPECIAL FUND FOR REOPENED CASES, Appellant, WORKERS' COMPENSATION
BOARD, Respondent, 513773 (N.Y.).  A copy of the May 17, 2012
Decision is available at http://is.gd/5YTOpNfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Ct. Reverses Judgment in Personal Injury Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal arose from the personal injury and death of J.C.
Williams from asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis and other
complications.  J.C. Williams and his wife filed a petition
against multiple defendants seeking damages from alleged asbestos
exposure.  After the death of J.C. Williams and multiple motions
for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed two defendants,
held that punitive damages were not permitted, and denied a
partial motion for summary judgment regarding the applicability of
comparative fault.  The trial court certified all of its judgments
as final and appealable.

In a May 16, 2012 decision, Judge Terri F. Love of the Court of
Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, found that the trial court
erroneously made a finding of fact in determining that comparative
fault principles do not apply to the case sub judice.  Therefore,
the Court granted the defendants' writ.  The Court also found that
the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in regards to
the applicability of punitive damages due to the need to evaluate
subjective facts for proper adjudication.  Additionally, the Court
found that the trial court erred by granting Union Carbide
Corporation's motion for summary judgment regarding causation
because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether it
exposed J.C. Williams to asbestos and if the exposure was a
substantial contributing factor.  Furthermore, the Court found
that the trial court erred in granting Dow's partial motion for
summary judgment regarding causation.  Accordingly, the Court
reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The case is J. C. WILLIAMS AND BETTY WILLIAMS, v. ASBESTOS
DEFENDANTS; BUCYRUS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CBS CORPORATION (F/K/A
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION); THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY;
ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC; ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC.; FOSTER-WHEELER
LLC (FORMERLY FOSTER-WHEELER CORPORATION); GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY; ET AL., No. 2011-CA-0716 (La.).  A copy of Judge Love's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/7TJFemfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Widow Calls For More Safety At Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hawick News reports that the widow of a Hawick man killed by
exposure to asbestos has vowed to continue to campaign for better
working conditions.

Margaret Turnbull is the wife of Walter Turnbull, who died aged 83
in December last year of mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure
to asbestos.

The devoted husband, father of four, grandfather and great-
grandfather was exposed to the deadly dust while working as an
engineer at Dingleton Hospital in Melrose and Bangour Hospital in
West Lothian in the 1950s and 1960s.  He carried out boiler
repairs and overhauls of the boiler and pipe work systems which
involved the removal of asbestos lagging.

"To have my husband taken away from us because of illness he
suffered while carrying out his day-to-day work was just
devastating," said Mrs Turnbull.  "He was never given any warnings
about the dangers of asbestos, and never provided with any masks
to stop him inhaling the dust but when he got home from work he
would be covered head to toe in dust.  It was impossible to avoid
it."

Mrs. Turnbull spoke out in the aftermath of the recent Workers'
Memorial Day, an event held to raise awareness of the dangers that
can be posed by workplaces due to negligence by employers.

"I hope Workers' Memorial Day reminds employers of the need to
protect their workers from any dangers to avoid unnecessary
injuries or illness from just doing your job.  Sadly nothing can
bring my husband back but I just hope things can be improved so
that others do not have to suffer the pain of losing a family
member just because of the work they carried out."

Elaine Mitchell, from law firm Irwin Mitchell, said "basic
failings" were at fault for the loss of workers like Mr. Turnbull.

She said: "Time and time again we are approached for help by
people whose lives have been shattered by the loss of a loved one
at work.

"Unfortunately, many accidents in the workplace are the result of
basic failings in following health and safety guidance.  Thousands
die from industrial illness such as those caused by asbestos
exposure and the numbers are shocking."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appalling Living Conditions at Wittenoom Told
--------------------------------------------------------------
Science Network of Western Australia relates that Bassendean-born
entertainer Rolf Harris has contributed his voice to an
informative and emotive new online resource, the Australian
Asbestos Network.

Launched in March 2012 and funded by the National Health and
Medical Research Council, the Murdoch-led initiative features
medical information, information about asbestos in homes and the
environment, as well as a powerful library of recorded stories
from those affected by the carcinogen.

Mr. Harris provides several stories, including his experiences
working at the asbestos mine at Wittenoom in the Pilbara.  He also
reflects on his father's death from asbestosis as a result of
exposure to asbestos insulation at East Perth Power Station, where
he worked as a turbine operator.

"People should be educated to the fact that you don't mess around
with that sort of material," Mr. Harris says.

"Don't drill into it, don't sand it down, don't create dust from
it, don't saw it up.  If you decide to get rid of it, get people
who are experts on the demolition and removal of asbestos
material."

Asbestos was widely used in the post-war construction boom and
renovators of older homes and buildings are urged to be conscious
and get informed.

The website includes a DIY Renovator's Guide with tips on how to
recognize asbestos and how to handle and dispose of it safely.

"While asbestos is dangerous, we want to assure the public that
with the right knowledge and preparation, they can reduce their
risk from potentially harmful exposure," says Associate Professor
Gail Phillips, one of Murdoch's Chief Investigators on the
project.

Readers can discover how far health and safety has come in a
section devoted to the social history of Wittenoom.

Running from 1943 to 1966, the town mined and milled blue asbestos
(crocidolite) in conditions described as 'appalling'.

According to former worker Rod Powell, "In the mill, they had face
masks hanging up, but you couldn't use them.  They were full of
asbestos. . .  Nobody put them on.  It was too hot."

Mr. Powell recalls workers sleeping on top of bags of asbestos
fibers being shipped to Port Hedland.

"They were laying on them, breathing it in, 'cause [we had] no
warnings about it, so they didn't know any better."

To subdue red dust, asbestos tailings were openly spread around
the town of 200 families, raising the incidents of cancer in those
who were children at the time.

Considered a global mesothelioma hotspot, WA has seen 1,500 people
diagnosed with the cancer since it was first recognized in the
early 1960s.

More details at australianasbestosnetwork.org.au


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement and Demolition at Kensington Resume
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deidre Williams of The Buffalo News reports that work has resumed
at the asbestos-laden Kensington Heights apartment complex on
Buffalo's East Side.

The project involves abatement and demolition of two of the high-
rises at the site, which has been vacant since 1980.  The
remaining four buildings will be enclosed to contain the asbestos
inside the towers.

A community meeting later this month will address how the
neighborhood will be affected, according to the Buffalo Municipal
Housing Authority, which owns the site.

In July, Aria Contracting Corp. -- the company hired by BMHA to do
the work -- will begin demolishing the two buildings.  It should
finish by Oct. 31.

The entire project is in compliance with a plan approved by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the state Department of
Labor and the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority, said Modesto
Candelario, BMHA's assistant executive director.

The approvals came after the EPA halted work at the site last
summer, charging the authority with violating the federal Clean
Air Act because the potentially hazardous substance was being
improperly removed.

A 23-count federal indictment charged two contractors and nine
individuals involved in the asbestos removal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oakland VA Service Fails Get Flak From Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthias Gafni of the MediaNews Group reports that bay area
veterans wait nearly a year on average for their disability claims
to get processed at the regional center in Oakland, according to a
highly critical federal report released on May 10, leading one
East Bay congressman to call the facility a bureaucratic "black
hole."

The Oakland office handles benefits claims for veterans from
Bakersfield north to the Oregon border.  It had almost 32,500
claims waiting an average of 269 days -- compared with a national
target time of 180 days -- when the Department of Veterans Affairs
inspector general visited in December.  As of April, the delay for
veterans had increased to 320 average days.

Some wait far longer.  Vietnam War veteran Richard Carpino, a 70-
year-old retired plumber living in Lodi, spent more than seven
years in the toxic boiler room of a Navy destroyer, where he was
exposed to asbestos.  Starting in 2000, he spent more than a
decade fighting for his proper disability pay.  Even after a
congressman wrote a letter on Carpino's behalf, it took 15 months
more before his claim was accepted and he received payments.  He
now gets $2,924 per month from the VA.

As for the struggle and wait, Carpino said, "The military was
easier.  There really was no fighting there."

The 320 average pending days at the Oakland center compares with
an average of 241 days last month at the other 56 facilities
nationwide, according to statistics provided to Rep. Jerry
McNerney's office.

The VA inspector general report also found 39% of 90 disability
claims inspected were incorrectly processed, and of the eight
major office functions inspected in Oakland, only five were in
compliance.

"There are very high-performing regional centers," McNerney said
by phone from Washington, D.C. "Ours is not.

"What's bothering me is that it has to come to this, where we have
congressional hearings (and) bad press before getting any action,"
he said.  "The veterans with disabling injuries, by and large, get
taken care of pretty quickly; it's the ones on the margins who are
depending on disability assistance that are affected, and their
families."

McNerney said that at a recent Lodi town hall meeting veterans
complained about the long waits.  "They feel like they are in a
black hole," he said.

After numerous denials of his claims, Carpino approached
McNerney's office in 2008.  By June 2010, with his lung capacity
about half of normal, Carpino applied for 100% disability, and
included a letter from the Pleasanton congressman with the
application.  More than a year later, on Sept. 28, the VA awarded
him the full coverage, including retroactive pay.

"Anytime they would deny me and gave me the reason, I would go on
to the computer and the VA files and find another reason that made
me eligible," Carpino said.  "It took me 11 years.  Eleven years
is too long to get compensated.  We're trying to find a way to
speed it up," he said.

The 10 oldest Oakland claims had been pending for between 1,040
and 3,187 days, according to the report.  The facility, with 269
full-time employees inside the Ron Dellums Federal Building in
downtown Oakland, failed to follow VA policy and provide monthly
reviews of claims older than a year, the report found.

A call to the VA media office Thursday was not immediately
returned.  But officials at the Oakland facility concurred with
all the report's findings, and management said a plan is in place
to ensure that 95% of claims completed by July will be those
pending more than one year.

As of last month, it took an average of 125 days before an Oakland
VA employee first eyeballed a veteran's claim, according to
McNerney's office.  Carpino said such long waits may dissuade
returning soldiers from trying to access the help they need.

"There are a lot of young guys coming out of Iraq that don't want
to get involved in it and don't want to deal with the VA," he
said.  "A lot of guys are maimed so bad, they have no arms or legs
and they have to fight for every last bit and that's not right."

The Oakland VA facility has pledged to increase staffing in
critical areas, boost training and advance software to speed up
and improve its claims process, according to the report.

"The thing I want to see is concrete results, not talk about plans
to do this and that," McNerney said.  "It's a disgrace that we're
sitting and talking about this today."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition of Old Peru Power Station Begins
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Dankert at NewsTribune reports that excavators made two piles
of rubble while demolishing Peru's old coal-fired electric station
on Water Street.

One pile was a dusty jumble of bricks and mortar.  The other was a
tangle of metal -- separated out by the contractor to extract cash
value from the job.

The city of Peru deeded the property to the contractor but the
city is not paying the company for the work.  The company agreed
to this because of the potential scrap value.  The arrangement
cleared the city of liability during tear-down.  Once the land is
cleared and leveled, the city will take possession again and hopes
to have a park there.

The city began this project last year with A-Unified LLC of
Cincinnati, Ohio.  A-Unified removed a few metal items then hired
a company to remove asbestos first, per state orders.  Asbestos
removal proceeded in fits and starts, with weeks of inactivity.

This spring, Global Construction Group, Cross Lanes, W.V. took
over the contract.  It finished asbestos removal and began
demolishing the structure April 26.

Two excavators working from the west side knocked down as much of
the building as possible before hitting the wall -- a tall wall.
Cranes will be needed to bring down the rest, including the tall
smokestack.  Workers have loaded scrap metal onto semitrailers
that took it away.

Sam Wadas of Peru was down there watching the work.  "I used to
work here back in '67 after I was in the Navy," Wadas said.  His
father, Walter Wadas, also worked at the plant, he said.  Sam
Wadas worked there about a year.  "It wasn't for me," he said.
"Then I went to work for Caterpillar in Aurora."

A representative of Global Construction Group said it would take
90 days from April 26 to tear down the building and recover the
scrap.  Parts of the building are more than 100 years old.  In
addition to asbestos, the Illinois River regularly floods the
building.  The plant was closed 11 years ago.  The city looked for
a buyer for two years and never found one.  The city uses a newer
building to the west that contains electric generators.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Mayor Diagnosed With Pulmonary Fibrosis Dies
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bolton News reports that a former Westhoughton mayor died
after his heart stopped as he was being taken to hospital by
ambulance, an inquest heard.

Ronald Halliwell, who was a Liberal Democrat member of
Westhoughton town council from 1999 to 2007, and Mayor in 2004 to
2005, died on Feb. 22.

The 78-year-old was being moved from his home in Henry Street,
Westhoughton, to an ambulance when his heart stopped, Bolton
Coroner's Court was told.

The father of two was pronounced dead at the Royal Bolton Hospital
later that day.

The inquest heard that the former joiner, who had worked with
asbestos, was diagnosed with incurable pulmonary fibrosis five
months before his death.  He suffered from breathlessness and was
being treated with oxygen.

On the day he died, Mr. Halliwell's symptoms had worsened and his
GP had requested an ambulance to take him to hospital.

At the inquest, Mr. Halliwell's wife, Florence, and his daughters,
Karen Humphreys and Janet Halliwell, criticised paramedics for
asking Mr. Halliwell to slide down the stairs on his bottom,
rather than carry him in a chair.

But deputy coroner Alan Walsh accepted it was up to the paramedics
to determine the best way to move a patient.

He recorded a verdict of natural causes and said Mr. Halliwell's
death was not caused by asbestos.

After the inquest, Mrs. Humphreys said: "He put family first every
time and gave a lot back to the community.  It is a great loss,
not just to us but to Westhoughton."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Redmond Street Closed for Decontamination
----------------------------------------------------------
The Bulletin at bendbulletin.com reports a portion of Southeast
10th Street in Redmond was slated to be closed as crews work to
remove construction debris and soil from the area.

The road was closed between U.S. Highway 126 and Southwest
Veterans Way from 7 a.m. Monday, May 14 through 5 p.m. Friday,
May 18.  Traffic was to be detoured through Southeast Veterans
Way.

The city says the area was a military property during World War
II, and some of the construction debris may contain asbestos.
Specialized contractors have been hired to remove the debris.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coffs Harbour Waste Facility Faces EPA Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports the Environmental Protection Authority has found
three Coffs Harbour operations have breached asbestos disposal
regulations.

A state-wide crack-down involved 19 unannounced visits to licensed
and unlicensed facilities in Sydney, the Hunter, the Illawarra and
the mid north coast.

The EPA says in Coffs asbestos was wrongly classified and hidden
under other building waste at the transfer stations.

Spokesman Steve Beaman says no decision has been made yet on
action against the Coffs Harbour facilities.

"We're currently reviewing the evidence and we'll consider that
evidence carefully before we consider what recourse action we'll
take," he said.

"The fines range from five thousand dollar on the spot fines up to
a million dollars for a corporation.  So they're significant fines
that apply if you're caught doing the wrong thing."

Mr. Beaman said education is the key to stopping the dangerous
practice.  "All sorts of people do it and the issue about this is
about people misclassifying their waste at waste transfer
stations," he said.

"So hiding asbestos under loads of building and demolition waste,
that's something that we need to crack down on and stop that
practice."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NOB Bill Crafted to Effect Upon Governor's Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carey Restino of The Arctic Sounder reports that some long-delayed
projects in the Upper Kobuk region may now move forward thanks to
legislation that paved the way for construction in areas that have
naturally occurring asbestos.

Gov. Sean Parnell recently signed into law a bill that would allow
the use of gravel aggregate with naturally occurring asbestos.

According to Rep. Reggie Joule, D-Kotzebue, the regulations
regarding asbestos in aggregate had all but put a stop to
development in the region for some time.

New home construction, road construction and work on a sewage
treatment facility had all been put on hold.  It was putting a
noose on economic development, he said.

"We were able to work with all the state agencies and communities
to craft a piece of legislation that will find a way forward for
the communities to do the things that they need to do to stimulate
economic development and build homes and complete some of the
projects they needed to do," Joule said.

The state looked to California where similar legislation is in
place to allow for construction in areas with naturally occurring
levels of asbestos.  While there was opposition by some in the
Legislature to the law, which offers some protection to the state
from lawsuits pertaining to asbestos exposure, the bill ultimately
passed.

Standards and regulations must be followed for the use of
aggregate with naturally occurring asbestos including public
notice, workplace environmental controls and handling procedures.

Joule said testimony by the state epidemiologist concluded that
ordinary dust in many villages was more of a health risk than the
asbestos, though others debated the health risks.

Projects in some areas may move ahead this summer, Joule said, or
at the very least, be slated for start next year.

"The bill was crafted so it was effective immediately on the
governor's signature, so hopefully we will begin to see the fruits
of all that deliberation this summer but certainly by next
season," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor That Found HazMat Faces $4,200 Fine
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Ylisela, Jr., of Crain's Chicago Business relates that on
Sept. 12, Tom Shelton entered a construction trailer at 14th
Street and Blue Island Avenue looking for answers.  The owner of a
small Michigan drilling company, Mr. Shelton had unearthed
asbestos-covered boiler pipes on the site, temporarily halting
construction of the new 12th District police station, and he
worried that his crew, which included two of his sons, had been
exposed to the potentially dangerous fibers.

Inside the trailer, he asked Andy Horn and James Harrell of the
city Public Building Commission, the agency managing the
construction, what they were doing to safeguard the site.  The men
assured him that the agency's environmental contractor had
determined the asbestos was "non-friable," meaning it couldn't
easily crumble into dust and harm workers' lungs.  And they
reminded Mr. Shelton that he had been ordered to resume work.

Mr. Shelton wasn't having any of it. "I had the stuff all over
me," he recalls.  Frustrated, he pulled a clump of asbestos out of
his pocket and held it out to the two men.  "If it's not friable,"
he told them, "then I guess you gentlemen have nothing to worry
about."  With that, he crushed the material in his hands,
spreading a cloud of dust over a nearby conference table.
Stunned, Messrs. Horn and Harrell fled the trailer, Mr. Shelton
says.

The confrontation eventually cost Mr. Shelton, 52, a lot: After
refusing to return to the site, his DT Boring was fired for
"nonperformance" and, he says, is now struggling to stay afloat.
The incident also provides a snapshot of what can go wrong on a
PBC-managed construction project.

Plainfield-based Harbour Contractors Inc. won the 12th District
station general construction contract with a low bid of $21.5
million in 2010.  The building design called for an 82-well
geothermal system to circulate water for heating and cooling.
Harbour hired Arlington Heights-based Optimal Energy LLC to do
that work for $943,000.

Optimal, in turn, hired Mr. Shelton's Portland, Mich.-based
company for $830,000. Mr. Shelton, who is not a minority
contractor, says he had completed about 85% of the job when, on
Aug. 19, he dug up some old utility pipes from a demolished
Chicago Housing Authority row house that were buried in soil.  The
pipes appeared to be wrapped in asbestos, he says.

On Aug. 31, Optimal Vice President Neil Piazza instructed Mr.
Shelton to stop working and to place caution tape around the
contaminated soil.  But the commission's environmental contractor,
Loop-based Environmental Design International Inc., judged the
site to be safe even before it collected samples for testing.  In
an email that same day, EDI Vice President Scott Dileto wrote,
"From looking at the pictures . . . I don't think the material is
friable and should be alright (sic) without plastic as long as it
doesn't get disturbed."

On Sept. 2, lab results showed the samples were indeed asbestos,
but Mr. Dileto still declared in an email that it was "not really
a friable material."  Based on that assessment, Harbour ordered
everyone back to work.  The company did not return phone calls.
Mr. Dileto directs Crain's questions to his client, the Public
Building Commission.

In a written statement, the PBC says that it did not take
possession of the land until after the demolition and did not
discover any asbestos during its environmental assessment.  It did
notify the state of the contamination, but only after Mr. Shelton
discovered it, records show.  The commission also acknowledges the
Sept. 12 faceoff between Mr. Shelton and Messrs. Horn and Harrell.

Mr. Shelton refused to go back to work until the asbestos was
removed.  He says Harbour agreed to pay him for the cost of the
work stoppage but never did.  On Jan. 27, Harbour fired Optimal
Energy for nonperformance, and Optimal in turn fired Mr. Shelton.

In February the federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration fined Mr. Shelton $4,200 for exposing his employees
to asbestos, a known carcinogen, even though it was Mr. Shelton
who had alerted the agency to the problem.  The matter is still
pending.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: JFK at St. Michel's Extends Temporary Shutdown
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Montreal Gazette reports that John F. Kennedy High School in
St. Michel, along with is business school, Was closed again May 14
as the English Montreal School Board awaits results of inspections
following the discovery of traces of asbestos in the air.

The school was closed May 10 and 11.  An asbestos-removal firm
eliminated traces of asbestos found in two ventilation rooms, the
board said.

Air quality testing in the rooms deemed them to be safe.  But
further precautionary tests in other parts of the building
revealed other traces of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: JFK School Closed For Rest of School Year
----------------------------------------------------------
The Montreal Gazette reports that students from John F. Kennedy
High School are to be moved to another facility for the rest of
the school year after traces of asbestos were discovered in two
ventilation rooms in their building in the St. Michel district.

Students at John F. Kennedy Business Centre, which shares the same
building, will also be relocated.

The decision comes with just weeks left in the school year and
final exams looming.  Students from JFK High School will finish
the year at Rosemount High School.  Students from JFK Business
Centre will be moved to a few different sites.

The English Montreal School Board held a meeting for parents on
the night of May 21 with Montreal's public health department at
Rosemount High School.

The John F. Kennedy facility has been closed since the first week
of May.  The board announced May 9 that traces of asbestos were
discovered in two ventilation rooms last month.  It said it was
closing the high school and centre May 10 and 11 for precautionary
reasons while air quality testing was done.  A firm had removed
the asbestos and those rooms were deemed safe, the board said in a
statement.  But testing in other parts of the building showed
traces of asbestos.  The facility remained closed on May 14.

According to the EMSB, tests have come back negative in terms of
the asbestos being airborne.  However, it has decided to continue
with further testing, which it can't do while students are in the
building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plan for Toxic Dump In Christchurch Irks Citizens
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gorman of The Press, New Zealand, reports that a proposal to
dump 5000 tons of toxic asbestos at the Burwood Resource Recovery
Park has residents worried.

The asbestos is from old sewerage pipes damaged in the earthquakes
and subsequently replaced.

It is unclear whether the material is the highly carcinogenic blue
asbestos or the slightly less dangerous brown asbestos.

A meeting of nearby residents and other interested groups was held
on May 7 to outline the proposal.

Christchurch City councillor Glenn Livingstone, who represents the
ward, said he agreed with residents' concerns that they did not
want asbestos close to their homes.

Livingstone, who is also a member of the Canterbury Waste
Committee, said he did not know why the dangerous material could
not be dumped at Kate Valley, as other asbestos from quake
demolitions had been.

It was not clear if the proposal was being pushed by the city
council or the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, he said.

Invitations to last week's meeting had not been received by all
affected residents.

A Burwood resident said only about 30 people attended the meeting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oak Ridge Workers File Claim In Roane Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Munger of Knoxville News Sentinel reports that a half-dozen
Oak Ridge cleanup workers who first raised concerns about
unwitting and unprotected exposures to asbestos, PCBs and other
hazards more than a decade ago are now seeking compensation in a
lawsuit filed in Roane County Circuit Court.

The lawsuit filed May 5 seeks damages from a number of government
contractors who were involved in cleanup operations at the
Department of Energy's K-25 plant in 2000-2001.  Those contractors
included BNFL Inc., now doing business as TSB FA Nuclear Services
Inc., which headed a multiyear, $300 million DOE project that
dismantled and decontaminated three uranium-enrichment facilities
at the Oak Ridge site.

The six plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit -- Christopher Todd
Upton, Leslie Darnell Jones, Jeffery Lynn Keylon, Paul Steven
Vance, James David Parten and Timothy Edward Robbins -- worked as
independent contractors for R&R Electric Corp., a subcontractor
that reportedly was involved in the demolition of "synchronous
condensers" at the site.

According to the lawsuit, some of these large pieces of electrical
equipment had been purchased from BNFL by American Technology
Inc., which in turn subcontracted the demolition to R&R and other
companies.

The plaintiffs claim they were told that the condensers did not
contain asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls and other hazards, and
that their requests for respirators and other protective equipment
were refused by the contractor teams at Oak Ridge.  The workers
said they were exposed at the site while cutting up the equipment
with chop saws.

"The chop saws created thick clouds of fine dust and debris, which
completely coated Plaintiffs' bodies and clothing every day, and
which they breathed continuously," the lawsuit alleges.

Also, while working at the site, the defendants said they were
exposed to smoke from fires in 2000 when BNFL and another
contractor, Coy Superior Inc., attempted to burn insulating
material and wrapping off the large copper coils that had been
removed from the condensers to salvage the copper.

"The coils were burned in open fires in the BNFL switchyard over a
period of a week, creating huge plumes of smoke," the lawsuit
states.  "On information and belief, the insulating material and
wrapping contained significant quantities of ACM (asbestos-
containing material)" that was distributed throughout the site.

The lawsuit contends the materials also had PCBs, which during
combustion can create dioxin and furan, highly toxic and cancer-
causing compounds.

While contractors reportedly denied knowledge that the equipment
contained asbestos, the lawsuit states that the Department of
Energy had manuals confirming that the condensers did contain
asbestos and that BNFL had access to these manuals.

The lawsuit is seeking unspecified compensation for pain and
suffering, increased risk of cancer and other diseases.  James
Scott, the lawyer representing the six workers, indicated there
have been medical problems related to the exposures at the Oak
Ridge site but he said he was not yet prepared to discuss those
publicly.

According to the court documents, the workers' legal case against
the contractors began in January 2003 and was transferred to U.S.
District Court in Pennsylvania.  It was later transferred to U.S.
District Court in Eastern Tennessee, but was dismissed without
prejudice in May 2011.  It was then filed in Roane Court Circuit
earlier this month.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Binghamton U Campus-Wide Abatement Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Racow of The Binghamton University Pipe Dream News reports
that projects are currently underway at Binghamton University to
remove asbestos -- a chemical that can cause cancer in humans who
are exposed to it -- from several campus buildings, including
Science II and Tuscarora Office Building.

A dumpster of hazardous asbestos material sits outside of College-
in-the-Woods Dining Hall.  The University is overseeing asbestos
removal work in numerous buildings throughout the campus.

Asbestos is a group of mineral fibers commonly used in building
construction up until the 1960s and '70s for its strength and
flame-retardant qualities.

According to Arthur Frank, a physician and chair of the department
of environmental and occupational health at the Drexel University
School of Public Health, asbestos exposure can cause both non-
malignant diseases like asbestosis -- scarring of the lungs and
the lining of the lungs -- and cancers, typically mesothelioma or
lung cancer.

The University has overseen asbestos removal work this semester in
the Old University Union, Lecture Hall and West Gym, among other
buildings.  Asbestos removal projects will begin between now and
the start of the fall semester in the Heating Plant, Fine Arts
Building, Central Campus Quad area, Couper Administration Building
and other campus buildings.

Many campus buildings not already named contain asbestos, from the
numbered Science buildings to the Engineering Building, Computer
Center, and all the residential buildings of Hinman College,
College-in-the-Woods and the Dickinson Community.

Asbestos is now highly regulated by New York state and federal
agencies.  Karen Fennie, spokeswoman for Physical Facilities, said
that BU goes "above and beyond what is required regarding
monitoring and testing" for asbestos.

"We've done removal of asbestos for years on campus without any
safety issues, without any exposure issues, probably because we
are so diligent about the way we go about managing this," Fennie
said.

Some see reason for concern, however.

Jenna Fierstein, president of Student Environmental Action
Coalition (SEAC) and a senior double-majoring in biology and
environmental studies, said that she was bothered by the proximity
of asbestos work in a Science II hallway that remained open to
foot traffic and where classrooms remained in use.

"I've had a lot of classes in Science II this semester," Fierstein
said.  "And every time I go in there, I see the construction thing
with that big plastic barrier that says, 'warning, asbestos.'  It
kind of bothers me that they're just doing construction in an area
where students are heading back and forth."

Buildings undergoing asbestos removal are not limited to abatement
workers because such a step would be beyond what is required of BU
under New York and U.S. laws and regulations, Fennie said.

"We do what we're required," Fennie said.  "We do asbestos removal
in a safe manner.  The state set up the parameters for us to
follow and we follow them."

Fierstein expressed doubts.

"Following state laws and regulations just means that they're
doing only what's minimally required," she said.  "And that's not
a very good defense.  I mean, it's a good legal defense if you
don't want to be sued . . . but it doesn't actually make it so
that they're putting students' safety and health as their top
priority."

Kate Harrigan, a sophomore majoring in French, said she has not
taken much notice of campus asbestos projects.

"I think I saw some signs in the library during my freshman year
about asbestos removal," Harrigan said.  "It concerns me that I'm
not more aware about it."

The majority of Binghamton University's Vestal campus was built in
the 1950s, '60s and '70s, when asbestos use was still prevalent.
Buildings constructed with asbestos in them include campus
mainstays like the Lecture Hall, Glenn G. Bartle Library, Old
Union and the dormitories of Dickinson Community, Hinman College
and CIW.

The Binghamton University Asbestos Field Guide, a document
Physical Facilities maintains for its employees, states that "as a
generality, unless there is documentation otherwise, assume that
asbestos may be present" in campus buildings.

The Field Guide, available on BU's website by computers connected
to the campus network, lists the most common locations of asbestos
within campus buildings -- ranging from ceiling tiles to window
caulking, dry wall compound and fire doors -- and checks off for
each building the status of asbestos at these locations.

Fennie said the Field Guide may not include the location of all
asbestos on campus.  She called the possibility that campus
buildings built in more recent decades contain asbestos "highly
unlikely," but she did not rule it out.

"Think about the complexity of constructing a building and all the
materials that are used," Fennie said.  "And think about every
single ingredient in a product used that you'd have to go through
to say, 'this building is 100 percent asbestos-free.'"

Robert Mulcahy, asbestos coordinator and safety manager at BU,
said that BU aims to say just that, at added expense and effort,
for at least one facility: the Innovative Technologies Complex
(ITC) across Murray Hill Road from campus.  He said guaranteeing
that the ITC is free of asbestos is a necessary step for the
University to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) certification as to the ITC's status as a "green"
facility.

Fennie said that BU tests for the presence of asbestos in any
building prior to beginning renovation work, regardless of the
building's age, in order to comply with OSHA regulations.  She
also said that for reasons relating to funding, BU will often wait
to have asbestos removed from a building until a time when the
building is also set to undergo other renovations.

"It's kind of done on a project-by-project basis," Fennie said.
"[Funding for asbestos abatement] all comes from the State.  In
the case of a capital project like the East Gym renovation, the
cost of asbestos removal was rolled into that and paid for with
our capital project funds . . . But it's not like the State says,
'we're gonna give you an infinite amount of money to remove all
the remaining asbestos on campus.'  I don't think the State has
that kind of money."

Mulcahy said that costs of asbestos abatement projects on campus
vary widely depending on projects' sizes.

"If we just have one of our construction crews doing a job, it
could be $2,500, all the way up through $1 million, depending on
the scope of the project," Mulcahy said.  "With the East Gym, I
know it ended up being more than $1 million."

Within the last four years, asbestos removal has also occurred in
College-in-the-Woods as well as in the Engineering Building, East
Gym, Decker Student Health Services Center and other areas of
campus.

The Decker Student Health Services Center is the only one of these
buildings that is now completely free of asbestos, according to
the Field Guide.

Asbestos removal projects are currently underway on the third
floor of Science II and in the Tuscarora Office Building.  Two
Brothers Contracting, Inc. of Whitesboro, N.Y., is performing the
abatement in both buildings.  Two Brothers Contracting's workers
are removing some 3,940 square feet and 500 linear feet of
asbestos containing material from Science II, and they are
removing some 10,307 square feet and 200 linear feet of asbestos
containing material from Tuscarora.

BU's construction news webpage also states that the north end of
the Old Union, the English department hallway in Bartle Library
and the former Dickinson Dining Hall will undergo asbestos
abatement this summer.

Ariella Sklar, a sophomore majoring in psychology, said asbestos
projects on campus do not trouble her.

"It doesn't bother me if [University officials] say it's safe,"
Sklar said.  "We have to trust them."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Perth Residents Warned of Toxins From Blaze
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fran Rimrod and Rhianna King of The Sydney Morning Herald report a
massive West Perth factory blaze has been contained, however
residents have been warned to stay away as there is a chance
asbestos particles may be in the air.

The Fire and Emergency Services Authority says the area is no
longer being affected by smoke or fumes, but adjacent premises
have been affected by asbestos.

ChemCentre and the DEC's Pollution Response Unit have been
monitoring air at the site.

Firefighters are mopping up to make the area safe so the City of
Vincent can take over cleanup operations.

Police confirmed there was asbestos in the roof of the building
and ChemCentre, as well as the Department of Environment and
Conservation's Pollution Response Unit, are at the scene to
conduct air monitoring and analysis to confirm the type of
chemical involved.

The fire had engulfed the entire building, which was once home to
wholesale food production factory Comgroup, and people south-west
of the fire were evacuated from their homes by police wearing
masks.

FESA was warning people in the area to stay inside with doors and
windows closed and air-conditioners switched off.

A caller to Paul Murray's morning show on Radio 6PR said the blaze
made for a spectacular scene when it was first noticed.

"It's well going now," he said.

"The flames are coming right out of the roof."

Resident Zoe Emonson said she arrived at her Charles Street home
to see a plume of smoke rising from the factory.

She called the fire brigade and police arrived shortly after and
evacuated her home and surrounding areas.

"There was smoke everywhere.  Police were saying it's dangerous,
and highly volatile . . . and there was asbestos," she said.

She said the factory had been abandoned for two years and that she
had seen squatters in the area in recent days.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Complicates Earthquake Recovery Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gorman of The Press reports that the Christchurch City
Council's proposal to dump asbestos-containing material in part of
Bottle Lake Forest goes against commitments made late last year,
the Green Party says.

The plan to dump up to 5,000 tons of damaged concrete pipes
containing asbestos has angered Parklands and Waimairi Beach
residents, some of whom say they were not told about the proposal
and about a public meeting last week.

The council says special earthquake legislations means resource
consent for the Burwood Resource Recovery Park will be granted
regardless of public input, although the views of locals will be
taken into account in setting conditions on the work.

Council city water and waste unit manager Mark Christison said a
guarantee had been given to those who attended last week's meeting
that the asbestos-dumping part of the consent application would be
looked at again.

Green MP Eugenie Sage said the asbestos plan "reneged" on
assurances given last November by Environment Canterbury
commissioner Peter Skelton and Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker that
waste with asbestos would continue being transported to the Kate
Valley landfill.

"These [assurances] were made in the context of the order-in-
council, which changed the regional and city plan rules to provide
for disposal of earthquake waste at Burwood," she said.

Parker said in November that ways needed to be found to ensure
waste was managed as close as possible to its source.

"It became clear that we needed to find ways to minimize the
impact upon the Kate Valley regional landfill.  It was also
important to reduce the number of truck movements to and from the
site and Kate Valley for local residents and people living near
the arterial routes," he said then.

"Opening up the new [Burwood] landfill cell will keep disposal and
recovery costs to a manageable level and hugely reduce the number
of truck movements between Burwood and Kate Valley.

"Materials like asbestos and other hazardous wastes will still be
trucked to the regional landfill, but the majority of materials
unable to be recycled or reused, which are not hazardous, will be
safely disposed of in the new Burwood cell."

Sage said the asbestos application highlighted the problems with
Canterbury earthquake recovery legislation shortcutting Resource
Management Act processes.

"The community and the environment are short-changed because there
is no chance for public submissions or challenge through the
Environment Court," she said.

Christison previously said residents' views would be taken into
account by commissioners when setting conditions on the consents.

"We gave an undertaking at the meeting [with locals last week]
that we would take another look at the asbestos issue," he said.

That would take about two weeks.

The consent application by the recovery park and city council has
three sections:

   -- For the sorting and recycling of quake waste at the park.

   -- For permanent disposal of waste in a new cell at the
landfill.

   -- For permanent disposal of mixed hardfill, asbestos and
contaminated silt and water in discrete cells at the park.

A consent hearing is not required and only a limited number of
groups needed to be consulted, in this case local residents'
associations, Ngai Tahu, the Canterbury District Health Board and
the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board.

Christison was unsure whether the material would contain blue
asbestos, the most dangerous, or the slightly less poisonous brown
variety.

"As far as health and safety legislation is concerned, asbestos is
asbestos," he said.

Bower Ave resident of 10 years Philippa Grey who went to the
meeting was surprised at how few locals were there and estimated
only 30 attended.

"They said they didn't look at any other sites.  It sort of came
out that it was cheaper, easier and closer to have it here," she
said.

"It's very hush-hush."

A limited number of residents had been told about the meeting, she
said.

Heathglen Ave resident of five years Chris Aston-Grieve said she
heard of the meeting only "through the grapevine" and rang the
council to complain.

"They don't even cover the trucks now that come with the silt.
There's muck and dust everywhere.  It's horrible living here," she
said.

"I've had 21 respiratory bugs since last June.

"I don't want asbestosis as well."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Developer Sentenced to 3 years in Probation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Morris of The Kansas City Star reports that Anthony Crompton,
the former real estate director of a nonprofit agency that
littered a Kansas City development site with asbestos, was
sentenced Tuesday, May 15, to a half-way house and federal
probation.

Crompton, 42, admitted in October that he violated the Clean Air
Act by improperly removing asbestos-containing materials while
demolishing numerous homes to make way for the proposed Citadel
Plaza Redevelopment Project.

Though the prosecutor said a sentence of probation would reflect
Crompton's cooperation against his co-defendant, former Community
Development Corporation of Kansas City president William M.
Threatt, Jr., U.S. District Judge Gary Fenner disagreed.

Fenner noted that the redevelopment site -- bounded by 60th Street
to the north, 63rd Street to the south, Prospect Avenue on the
east and Brooklyn Avenue to the west -- remains significantly
contaminated with asbestos and has become an even greater burden
for the city to redevelop.

"Given the impact of the conduct you participated in on the
community at large, and your clear knowledge that asbestos was
present and not being handled as required by law . . . some period
of incarceration is called for," Fenner said.

Fenner ordered Crompton to serve three years on probation,
including five months in a half-way house.

Threatt, 71, who also was charged in the case, pleaded guilty in
February.  His sentencing date has not been set.

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

Health inspectors quickly shut down work at the site as they
investigated and confirmed the newspaper's findings.

Acting U.S. Attorney David Ketchmark acknowledged Tuesday that the
contamination occurred because the corporation was trying to save
money on an expensive cleanup effort, and was not part of an
effort to unjustly enrich its officers.

"They wanted to take that material out under the cover of darkness
to limit their development costs," Ketchmark said.  "Because
corners were cut, the city is suffering, because that property has
become an eyesore."

After purchasing much of the property from Research Medical
Center, the development corporation announced plans to build a 35-
acre shopping center, including a full-service grocery, retailers,
restaurants and homes.

Years passed, however, and the area became more and more
contaminated with building materials that had been left in huge
piles and in nearby woods.

In June 2010, federal prosecutors charged Threatt and Crompton
with ignoring environmental laws that require careful inspection,
removal, disposal and detailed recordkeeping of asbestos-
containing building materials.

Crompton apologized to Fenner for his part in the scheme.

"I take full responsibility for my actions," Crompton said.
"Nothing like this will ever happen again."

Earlier this year the city agreed to pay $15 million to settle
lawsuits related to the case.  For its money, the city obtained
most of the property and the rights to make another redevelopment
attempt.

In pleading for straight probation for Crompton, defense lawyer
Mike Yonke noted that his client had helped prosecutors resolve
the case against Threatt.

"Mr. Crompton has cooperated with the government, and his
agreement to testify was instrumental in having Mr. Threatt come
in and plead," Yonke said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Geelong Admits Knowledge of Beach Contaminants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mandy Squires of The Geelong Advertizer reports the City of
Greater Geelong and State Government have known about asbestos on
the city's beaches for years and failed to act.

Geelong's city services manager Gary Van Driel on May 15 admitted
the council had alerted the Department of Sustainability and
Environment (DSE) to the presence of dumped asbestos on Western
Beach crown land three years ago and asked it to investigate.

As little as the second week of the month, members of the public
could walk over broken pieces of asbestos on the Corio Quay
shoreline and on the top of the cliff, at the end of Crowle St in
North Geelong.

The area, immediately in front of the GrainCorp terminal, is
popular with fishermen and people exercising dogs.

Litter in the area also indicates it is used by groups of young
people as a meeting place.

Questions put to the DSE by the Geelong Advertiser on May 14
asking if it knew of the asbestos problem at Corio Quay before
this month were not answered.

A Geelong Advertiser story on Saturday, May 12, revealed there was
a large quantity of asbestos buried in a cliff and scattered
across a beach, near the GrainCorp pier and terminal.

As a result of the story, the Environment Protection Authority
(EPA) launched an investigation into the site.

"EPA Victoria was made aware of a large quantity of demolition
waste suspected of including amounts of asbestos in the landscape
of a Geelong North beach last week, after a report was made to the
EPA by a journalist at the Geelong Advertiser," EPA spokesman,
Scott Samson, said in an official statement on May 14.

"The site was inspected by EPA and EPA continues to investigate
the site.  Initial inspection of the site suggests erosion and
tidal flows over many years may have caused the demolition waste
to become exposed."

Mr. Van Driel said it appeared the asbestos had been on the site
for many years and could relate to old sheds which had been
demolished.

The council was now working with the DSE and EPA to determine the
best clean-up method for the site, he said.

In the meantime, it had erected barriers around the site to
prevent further public access, Mr. Van Driel said.

When broken, asbestos dust fibers can be carried in the air and,
if breathed in, can cause the deadly lung disease mesothelioma,
asbestosis or lung cancer.

Mr. Van Driel said the council would also employ an expert to
ascertain the extent and condition of asbestos dumped in the area
and develop a long-term plan for asbestos management in Geelong.

A 2007 City of Greater Geelong report, uncovered by the Geelong
Advertiser this week, refers to coastal erosion at Moorpanyal Park
in North Shore and "current asbestos removal operations",
indicating the council was aware of asbestos problems on the North
Geelong foreshore some time ago.

The Geelong Port Structure Plan, adopted by the City in October
2007, states one of the objectives of the port precinct is: "To
ensure public health is not endangered by contaminants at
Moorpanyal Park."

Moorpanyal Park is just a short distance from the GrainCorp pier
and terminal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thieves Stuck in Contaminated Building For 5 Hrs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland State Police have apprehended two suspects after they
broke into a condemned hospital building.

Police say Matthew Blizzard and Dennis Dyer broke into a Spring
Grove Hospital Center building that was condemned in the 1970s
because of asbestos and mold in order to steal copper piping and
wiring.

Spring Grove Police responded to the Hamilton Building after
reports of suspicious men carrying saws and crowbars were
reported.

Officers found the two men, Blizzard on the ground floor, Dyer
escaped into the in the attic area.  Blizzard was taken into
police custody immediately.

After about 5 hours, Dyers was given verbal warnings that the K-9
units were about to be released and SWAT team members would
follow.

Minutes later, Dyer called his girlfriend in Dundalk and said that
he could see police around the building.  He then exited through a
porthole in the roof of the building, jumped to the ground and
surrendered to police.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Links Size of Fibers to Cancer Occurrences
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MesotheliomaHelp.net sponsored by Belluck & Fox, LLP, reports that
in a new study, medical researchers at the University of Nebraska
and Duke University investigated the relation between the size and
shape of asbestos fibers and incidence of lung cancer among
workers employed at asbestos textile mills.  Asbestos, a mineral
fiber, causes respiratory disease in humans including pleural
abnormalities; asbestosis, a chronic scarring of the lungs; lung
cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the chest
cavity and abdominal cavity.

Writing in the May issue of the journal Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, the researchers reported tracking the
health and vital status of more than 6,100 workers employed at
textile mills that used asbestos in North and South Carolina from
1940 to 1973.  As part of the research, the researchers estimated
the size of asbestos fibers the workers were exposed to, depending
on their particular job, based on an analysis of 160 historical
dust samples from the textile mills.  Certain jobs have a greater
occupational risk of exposure to asbestos.

The researchers observed an increased risk of lung cancer among
textile workers exposed to asbestos fibers of all lengths and
diameters.  They noted that the risk of lung cancer increased as
the length of the asbestos fibers increased.  The research
supports the hypothesis that lung cancer is associated most
strongly with exposure to long, thin asbestos fibers.

People may be exposed to asbestos in workplaces or homes if
products containing asbestos are disturbed and tiny asbestos
fibers are released into the air.  Asbestos fibers may get trapped
in the lungs if inhaled and remain in the lungs for a lifetime.
The fibers can accumulate and cause scarring and inflammation,
leading to disease.

Asbestos is classified as a known cause of cancer by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the International Agency for Research on
Cancer.

Mesothelioma is the most common form of cancer associated with
asbestos exposure.  Symptoms of mesothelioma typically take 20
years to 40 years after exposure to asbestos.  Most people
diagnosed with mesothelioma and asbestos related disease are older
workers, retired workers and veterans who were exposed to asbestos
in a workplace or in the service.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Officer Says Fibro In Drinking Water Is OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Nicoll of The Marlborough Express reports that Picton
residents have nothing to fear from drinking water which runs
through asbestos cement water pipes, says a health official.

Construction crews repairing a burst pipe under Devon St. on May 5
wore masks, raising concern over potential risks of drinking water
contaminated with asbestos.

Nelson Marlborough District Health Board medical officer of health
Ed Kiddle said inhaling asbestos fibers can cause lung cancer, but
there was no danger in ingesting it in small quantities such as
those that might be found in drinking water.

"We may get some minuscule amounts in the water but there's no
evidence of problems arising from ingesting it," Dr Kiddle said.

Asbestos-based products were commonly used in construction until
the 1980s, Marlborough District Council operations and maintenance
engineer Steven Rooney said.

About 30% of Blenheim's water pipes are made from the material.

Crafar Crouch Construction water reticulation officer Wayne Bowden
said contractors wore masks when repairing the pipes to avoid
breathing in any of the dangerous fibers.

"Drinking asbestos is not a risk in a burst situation because it
is never dry . . . It is only because of the saw [used to cut out
the broken pipe], which dries it to dust, that it becomes
airborne."

Marlborough District Council engineering officer Kerry Walsh said
at least one pipe has burst in Picton every month over the last
four months.

They replaced broken asbestos cement pipes with plastic material
such as PVC.

The council planned to replace all pipes from Oxford St. across to
York St. and down to Broadway St. in June as part of ongoing
maintenance as and when required, Mr. Walsh said.

The Health Ministry's draft guidelines for drinking-water quality
management, last updated in 2005, stated that studies showed
little evidence of danger to populations who had high amounts of
asbestos in their drinking water.

Extensive studies on animals showed consuming asbestos did not
consistently increase the number of cancerous stomach tumors.

"The weight of the evidence shows ingested asbestos is not
hazardous to health," the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Greenwich Plan Deadline Moved Due to Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Chamoff of Greenwich Time reports Asbestos was recently found
above ceiling tiles in the Eastern Greenwich Civic Center
gymnasium during the last part of a long-awaited roof replacement
at the aging facility, extending the project a few weeks.

Alan Monelli, the town's building superintendent, said workers
replacing the ceiling tiles damaged by the leaky roof found that
tape holding the insulation to the duct work in the gym contained
asbestos.  A company was called in to remove the substance, and
they are scheduled to wrap up work at the Harding Road facility in
Old Greenwich before the month's end.

Monelli said while finding asbestos during work in old buildings
is routine, the location was fairly unusual.

"It's a little bit more difficult to encapsulate when you're up 18
feet in the air," Monelli said.  "Usually we find it on a pipe
someplace on a floor tile."

Asbestos, once commonly used to insulate pipes, becomes dangerous
when it is disturbed and airborne particles are inhaled.  The work
to remove it includes encapsulating it in plastic.

The roof replacement cost the town $600,000, and was put in this
year's capital budget after lobbying from residents who use the
facility.  Monelli said the town has a separate fund with $50,000
earmarked for asbestos abatement, and that the work at the civic
center will likely cost around $20,000, mainly because the room is
so large.  There is just enough money in the account to cover it,
he said.

Asbestos could likely be found if work is done in other parts of
the building, Monelli said.

The work on the gym was supposed to be finished by June 1.  The
asbestos abatement will take about a week, but because the workers
will have to be brought back to replace the tiles and lighting
fixtures after the asbestos is removed, the gym probably won't
reopen until June 25, though Monelli is aiming to get the work
done earlier.

Billie Schock, director of the civic center, said the gym has been
closed all month for the roof replacement work, and a few June
events had to be moved because of the delay.  One birthday party
will be held at the Western Greenwich Civic Center, 449 Pemberwick
Road, another event was moved to the town's Dorothy Hamill Skating
Rink and one group will be using a different room at the Eastern
Greenwich Civic Center.

"We got through it without any disruption to the residents,"
Schock said.

In the meantime, other issues have led to problems for the 60-
year-old building, formerly used as an employee recreation center
by the Electrolux Corp., and purchased by the town in 1966.  The
stove in the civic center kitchen was declared unusable by the
town fire marshal in March because the building lacks a fire-
suppression system, Schock said.

The Greenwich Senior Center was supposed to hold its annual
lobster bake in the civic center gym on June 1, but after its chef
learned that the stove was not available, officials decided to
hold the event at their own building on Greenwich Avenue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Long Island School Abatement Irks Parents
----------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth for The Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance reports that parents
are angry that no one saw fit to keep them informed about the
asbestos abatement program at the Jamaica Avenue School in the
Plainview-Old Bethpage (NY) School District, fearing for the
health of their children.

The Long Island school, which is still owned by the district but
is leased to two day care programs, services about 100 Plainview
families and a total of several hundred children each day, notes
an article on the Plainview Patch.  The school property is also
used for other activities and by other organizations, including
the Plainview Youth Soccer League, which has chosen to hold its
games elsewhere during the renovations being carried out on the
building's roof.

The Jamaica Avenue School still boasts its original roof, which is
about 60 years old, say district officials.  The asbestos is not
contained in the roof deck but in the flashing, they confirm, and
the material is not thought to be friable.  A district
spokesperson maintains that simply removing the flashing will not
disturb the asbestos that's contained within.

"I want to say first and foremost, the safety and well-being of
the district's children comes first," said Kim Parahus, the
district's director of school facilities and operations.  "I can
say that as a parent, whether that's mine or anyone else's kids.
We would not and will not expose the children to any danger."

But parents of the children attending daycare at the facility said
they are greatly dismayed at the lack of communication on the part
of the district and fear that exposure to asbestos dust could
eventually lead to health problems for their children, including
the development of mesothelioma in the future.

"Parents were not given ample notice about this project," stressed
Jennifer Leest, who has a son at one of the onsite daycare
centers, "nor were we given more specific facts until one week
before the planned construction.  We have been told that the
District is keeping within what is considered 'code' for safety.
This is not enough for me."

One parent, who is an attorney, asked the district to "cease and
desist" all work at this time and has requested -- along with
other parents -- that the district wait until the summer break to
proceed with the work.  However, district officials say that won't
work because of summer classes and the fact that children play
outside frequently during the summer months.  The new roofing
material will be sprayed on and can circulate through the air,
they explain, which is why children can't be outside when that
step of the repair process occurs.

The work was scheduled to commence on Monday, May 21 if all went
as planned.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Christchurch Residents Win On Toxic Waste Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Gates of The Press reports that asbestos will not be
dumped on a site near Christchurch homes after a city council
U-turn.

The plan to dump asbestos, which came from damaged and dug-up
pipes around the city, at the Burwood Resource Recovery Park had
angered residents.

Council water and waste manager Mark Christison said the plan had
been shelved in response to concerns from Parklands and Waimairi
Beach residents.

"Given the concern raised by those at the meeting, we have
accelerated that decision and will be advising stakeholders that
it has been agreed that asbestos will not be disposed of at
Burwood and all asbestos would be disposed of at the Kate Valley
landfill," he said.

"The asbestos referred to in the proposal was asbestos contained
in cement pipeline material, which is low risk and not asbestos
from buildings.

"I apologize for any confusion this may have caused residents, the
mayor or elected members," Christison said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Battin Building Remediation Costs Exceed Value
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Laurel Outlook relates that what to do with the Battin federal
building is the question that Yellowstone County Commissioners,
economic development officials, and others are pondering.

It's an issue local governmental entities should be concerned
about even if they don't submit any proposals for its use,
emphasized Steve Arveschoug, director of Big Sky Economic
Development (EDA), as he advised his board members to "pass" on
making any proposals to acquire the federal Government Services
Administration's building.

His recommendation was unanimously accepted by the board members
of EDA and the Economic Development Corporation at their meeting,
with several commenting that they would like to see the property
returned to the private sector and go back onto the tax rolls.

Arveschoug advised that the city, county and EDA met with the
Congressional delegation "to explore options for federal support
of the remediation of the Battin building.  This needs to be
considered whether the building goes for a public use or private-
sector use," said Arveschoug.

The cost of asbestos abatement in the Battin Building may well
exceed the value of the property, leaving even a private sector
development questionable.

Arveschoug said that initially he envisioned forming some kind of
public-private partnership that would include EDA, the city and
county, and perhaps a private investor, to develop the 122,000-
square foot building to serve the need for space for the
governmental entities and lease or sell remaining space to the
private sector.  But with remediation and re-development costs
uncertain -- and estimated as high as $30 million -- he abandoned
the idea.

"It's a very expensive undertaking," said Arveschoug.

He told board members, "We are willing to provide some assistance
as needed, utilizing our traditional economic development tools,"
should either the city or a private developer put forward a plan.

Arveschoug reported that, should the building be put up for
auction, they have already had calls of interest from private
sector developers.

An EDA board member pointed out that the building is ideal for a
data center.

EDA board member, Carl Siroky, mechanical manager of Phillips 66
Refinery, pointed out that asbestos is safe as long as it is left
undisturbed.

"You can manage it," he said, suggesting that could be the "best
solution" for a private sector develop.

Another board member, Scott Chesarek, said most emphatically, "The
city needs to stay out of it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Preliminaries on Geelong Clean-Up Plan Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Geelong Advertiser reports that authorities planned to meet on
May 17 to discuss how to manage a Western Beach site where a large
amount of dumped asbestos has been discovered.

Preliminary work has started to prepare a plan to clean up the
affected North Geelong cliff and beach area, which sources believe
has contained asbestos for at least 20 years.  The City of Greater
Geelong, Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and
Environment Protection Authority officials were set to begin talks
on how to manage the site.

Geelong's city services manager Gary Van Driel said it was
important an agreement was reached with DSE, given the asbestos
was found on Crown Land.

The Geelong Advertiser revealed on May 16 that the council had
asked the DSE to investigate the site about three years ago.

However the area was only cordoned off just this month after
several inquiries from the Geelong Advertiser, with people able to
walk over broken asbestos on the shoreline and on the top of the
cliff at Crowle St.

Despite the Geelong Advertiser asking the DSE why it had not acted
at the site, it declined to answer the question.

Instead, DSE southwest public land services manager Greg Leece
said: "DSE has inspected the foreshore in front of the Geelong
Grain Corp Pier where asbestos has been exposed and is meeting
with the City of Geelong and EPA to plan actions for safely
remediating the site."

Contractors involved with the demolition of International
Harvester said the asbestos in the Corio Quay cliffs pre-dated the
removal of the factory two decades ago.

Dick Lewis, who was responsible for removing part of International
Harvester's asbestos roof, said workers dismantling the plant saw
the asbestos on the beach.

"That asbestos was there then, in the beach," the recycling and
demolition worker said.

Asbestos from the International Harvester factory which was
demolished between 1988 and 1993 had been disposed of at the
Fyansford tip, Mr. Lewis said.

Geelong Trades Hall is set to meet with council representatives
before the end of the month to discuss creating an asbestos-
mapping project across the city.

Mr. Van Driel said the council had engaged an independent
occupational hygienist to investigate and report on the material.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill to Have Employers Reimburse NHS Proposed
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Wales reports that employers would have to pay the
medical costs of staff who suffer from exposure to asbestos if
legislation proposed by a Welsh assembly member becomes law.

Pontypridd AM Mick Antoniw's bill would oblige companies to
reimburse the NHS for treating workers who suffer.  AMs backed the
proposal on Wednesday, May 16 -- the first step in what could be a
long process of passing legislation.

One expert said there was an argument for the idea but warned
employers could "plead ignorance" in old cases.

Mr. Antoniw worked on the cases of hundreds of victims and their
families as a solicitor before being elected to the assembly.  The
Labour AM said negligent employers should be accountable for the
cost to the NHS of asbestos-related diseases.

AMs approved a motion allowing him to introduce the Asbestos
(Recovery of Medical Costs) Bill by 54 votes to nil after a debate
in the Senedd.

The money raised by the legislation would go into a special fund
for ministers to spend on the care of victims.  The Welsh
government would be able to recover the cost of treatment from an
employer or an insurer after a judgment or settlement is reached
in civil claims.  It would to apply to employers outside Wales if
the victim was treated by the Welsh NHS.

Asbestos was widely used as a building material from the 1950s
until the 1980s, often as fireproofing and insulation.  The fibers
can cause lung complaints if inhaled, such as asbestosis and the
fatal mesothelioma.

Professor Stephen Spiro, vice-chair of the British Lung
Foundation, said the success of the proposed bill depended on when
asbestos was used.

"Asbestos has been known to be dangerous for some 20 years," he
said.

"Since the health hazard became known, he's (Mr. Antoniw) got a
point, but if it was before it was known to be a danger then an
employer could plead ignorance."

Prof Spiro estimated around 2,000 people a year required treatment
as a result of asbestos-related illnesses at a cost of between
GBP5,000 and GBP20,000.

"I would have thought it would be reasonable to have a cut-off -
since we had the knowledge that asbestos was dangerous, employers
should have been taking precautions," he said.

"And if they haven't then there is an argument for them to pay
back for treatment.

Mr. Antoniw highlighted the dangers for people working at power
stations, steel works and factories, and the risk of exposure in
some public sector buildings, including schools.

He said: "The cost of treating asbestos disease places a huge
financial strain on an already over-stretched NHS in Wales.

"I believe that where an employer has been negligent and civil
compensation is due NHS Wales should be reimbursed with the cost
of medical treatment."

He added: "It won't matter where the exposure occurred.  What is
important here is where the medical treatment actually is
received.

"If it takes place in Wales and the legislation is passed then it
will enable the [Welsh] government to recover the full costs of
that medical treatment.

"It doesn't create any new claim for damages that didn't already
exist and it will only apply where an individual has already been
able to establish that their employer was to blame for their
exposure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACECO Workers Walk Out From Hazardous Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Bryant at Gazette.net reports that five workers removing
asbestos from a Rockville building and their supporters are
demanding safer working conditions, a living wage and
representation at the work site.

Employed by ACECO, LLC, a Silver Spring-based licensed asbestos
abatement company, the workers went on strike, walking off the
job, at 10:30 a.m. Thursday, May 17.

Workers say they have been made to remove asbestos from the roof
of the Parklawn Building, home of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, without proper ventilation and safety
equipment.

ACECO declined to comment.

While workers removed asbestos from a contaminated area, the power
went off, said Clara Bolanos, a worker, through a translator.

"We are tired of the discrimination," Bolanos said.  "We are tired
of the abuse."

The workers are non-unionized and say they have been threatened
while discussing the option of joining a union.

"We have a right to form a union," said Rigoberto Velazquez, a
worker, through a translator.  "We have a right to improve working
conditions."

Demands also include higher wages.  Most workers make $12 per
hour.  The living wage in Montgomery is $13.20 per hour.  That
number will jump to $13.65 per hour, effective July 1.

An employer may reduce the hourly rate paid under the law by an
amount equal to, or less than, the per-employee hourly cost of the
employer's paid share of the employee's health insurance premium,
according to the Montgomery County wage requirements law.

ACECO has a health insurance plan, but most of the workers cannot
afford it, said Steve Lanning, director of organizing with
Laborers International Union of North America.

Workers also say they want to be able to form a union free of
intimidation and harassment.

About 20 people stood on a sidewalk across from the work site,
holding signs reading "ACECO on Strike" and "Asbestos Unsafe."

Representatives from Laborers International Union of North America
joined the workers in chants and cheers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Office of Compliance to Close AOC Workers' Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Dumain of CQ Roll Call reports that this month marks the
official conclusion of the case of 10 Architect of the Capitol
employees who were exposed to asbestos for years.

Unofficially, the bitterness engendered by the case will continue
to linger.

Thirteen years and more than $173 million later, with many of them
suffering health complications likely to last a lifetime, the
workers' supervisor is less satisfied with the outcome than the
agencies involved.

How this came to pass is a story, in part, about an agency
Congress created to ensure safety in the legislative branch
workplace that says it has never had adequate resources to do so.

The Office of Compliance is expected to close the books before the
month's end on the administrative complaint it filed in 2006, the
first and only such complaint since its inception in 1995.

A prelude to a lawsuit, the complaint charged the Architect of the
Capitol with failing to eliminate years-old health and safety
hazards first discovered in 2000 in the miles-long underground
utility system that provides steam and chilled water to Capitol
Hill.  Among those hazards were falling concrete, excessive heat
and asbestos.

Veteran lawmakers and staffers should remember the incident well:
Members of Congress were outraged, the national media weighed in
and the tunnel workers were compensated an undisclosed amount for
harassment they received in retaliation for whistle-blowing.

Under a settlement ultimately agreed to by the OOC and the AOC,
the latter agency promised to complete repairs to the tunnels in
five years.  Millions of dollars later, the OOC says the AOC has
fulfilled its obligations on time.

In official responses, both offices put a positive spin on the
saga's conclusion.

"The tunnel project shows what can be achieved when all of us on
Capitol Hill work together toward a common goal," OOC Executive
Director Tamara Chrisler said.

"Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers is extremely proud of the
efforts of AOC employees and contractors to make improvements to
the utility tunnel system, and to have achieved the goals of the
settlement agreement so successfully," AOC spokeswoman Eva Malecki
added.

But ex-tunnel supervisor John Thayer, who now runs a taxidermy
business in Maryland and still suffers from asbestos poisoning,
said he feels little vindication.

"After 15 years of ignoring health issues, you don't settle with
anybody," Thayer said of the OOC.  "This announcement's just
paperwork.  That's all it is."

As federal employees, Thayer and the others were barred under the
Federal Employees' Compensation Act from suing their employer for
personal injuries they incurred as a result of the conditions in
the tunnels.

It took six years before the OOC filed an administrative complaint
against the AOC, from the time the Office of Compliance issued its
first citation in 2000 to the time it piled on two more at the
beginning of 2006.

The OOC first threatened legal action in February 2006.  The AOC
agreed to settle 16 months later.

But what was happening during those years between citations? Why
were there no follow-up visits to ensure that the warnings were
being taken seriously? Could the AOC have been forced to address
the hazards sooner?

In an interview with Roll Call, OOC General Counsel Pete Eveleth
would not elaborate on what happened before he arrived at the
agency in 2003.

He did, however, suggest that the agency was -- and still is --
overwhelmed by the number of hazards in Congressional properties
and lacked sufficient resources to fully inspect all facilities.

Though the OOC is responsible for monitoring safety compliance in
legislative branch agencies on and off Capitol Hill, it wasn't
until fiscal 2006 that the OOC had the money to hire a full-time
employee to conduct Occupational Safety and Health Administration
inspections. Prior to that, the OOC had one detailee from the
Labor Department and two part-time contractors to cover the entire
16 million-square-foot Capitol campus.

As of May 17, the agency has three staffers monitoring all
legislative branch facilities for OSHA compliance, but only one is
full time.

"Given the aging of the facilities on Capitol Hill and the
complexity of the maintenance, certainly having one full-time
inspector to address all the various types of hazardous conditions
is woefully inadequate," said David Marshall, an attorney with
Katz, Marshall & Banks who represented the tunnel workers'
retaliation complaint.

Thayer, who still harbors considerable resentment about the case,
attributed the AOC's delay in addressing the hazards to an "out of
sight, out of mind" mentality.

"We're talking about a 100-year-old tunnel system that nobody
sees.  Nobody ever goes down there," he said.

He added that while the OOC was also evidently understaffed and
overworked, he couldn't condone the decision not to take the AOC
to court.

"I told them this when they signed the 'landmark agreement,'"
Thayer recalled of his conversation with the OOC in 2006.  "I told
them, 'Why aren't you holding [the AOC] responsible for the
citations, and not only citations, but the reissuing of citations?
Now you're going to give them another five years to fix the
problem? You let them off the hook.'"

However belated the OOC's actions may have been, Eveleth said the
complaint and its fallout carried real weight -- and, like
Chrisler and Malecki, he is willing to give the AOC some credit
for its compliance post-settlement.

"Filing the complaint sent a message that we will not put people's
lives at risk in circumstances when employing offices offer no
viable solutions for abating a very serious hazard," he said.
"This settlement could serve as a template for mutually resolving
future complex abatements of dangerous safety hazards."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Weirton Steel Property Case Starts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Law of The Herald-Star reports that an expected two-day
hearing began Wednesday, May 16 in Jefferson County Common Pleas
Court concerning a lawsuit filed by the Ohio Attorney General's
Office and the state Environmental Protection Agency against a
company that bought the former Weirton Steel property along the
Ohio River in the city and the alleged improper removal of
asbestos.

The lawsuit was filed in March 2010 in Jefferson County Common
Pleas Court against Arthur David Sugar, Sr., and his company, Dave
Sugar Excavating of Petersburg, Honey Creek Contracting Co. of New
Middletown, Excavation Technologies of Petersburg, ADS Leasing
Corp., and John S. Evan of Poland and his company, Howland Co. of
Youngstown.

Sugar purchased the former Weirton Steel site at 200 Slack St. in
2005.

The site, according to the lawsuit, contains asbestos-containing
waste materials and friable asbestos material.

The lawsuit claims Sugar's company and Evan and his company
created an air nuisance and failed to remove regulated asbestos-
containing material prior to demolition.

Sugar and his construction company, Honey Creek Contracting Co.,
in April 2010 pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Columbus to
conspiracy and four counts of violating the Clean Air Act rules
related to the improper removal and handling of asbestos in
connection with work at the former Weirton Steel plant.

Sugar personally was fined $10,000 and the company was fined
$50,000.

The common pleas lawsuit said Sugar and his companies failed to
provide written notice to the Ohio EPA on days that parts of the
facility were demolished.  Sugar and his companies and Evan and
his company failed to wet the asbestos, seal it in approved
containers, properly label and seal the container, the lawsuit
also states.

Attorney Clint White of the state attorney general's office told
Common Pleas Judge Joseph Bruzzese, Jr., on May 16 that Sugar saw
a "potential for big money" in scrap metal from the Weirton Steel
property.

White said there is no safe level for asbestos, adding the
material can cause serious respiratory damage and cancer when
inhaled.

Attorneys Charles Dunlap, representing Sugar, told Bruzzese the
issue of asbestos removal violations had been settled in federal
court.  Sugar hired other companies after that to properly remove
the asbestos.

David Moore, representing Evan, said the case centers on the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the asbestos
removal regulations.

Bruzzese is presiding over the hearing and he will determine
monetary damages, if any, against the companies.  The judge in
March granted a partial summary judgment ordering Sugar and Honey
Creek Contracting to comply with asbestos removal regulations.

White said the state will be asking for damages in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chevy Chase Fire's Toxic Rubble Displaces Tenants
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin for the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance reports that
after a devastating fire that ripped through an apartment building
in Chevy Chase, MD, earlier in May, residents were told that they
could not return to their homes not because of the extensive fire
damage but for the asbestos found during the post-fire clean up.

Nearly 20 residences at the Round Hill Apartments were either
fully destroyed or damaged by the fire.  Fire officials now
believe that the fire was intentionally set, but the motive or the
person involved has yet been identified.

After the fire was contained and extinguished, officials let
residents return to the homes to retrieve personal belongings.
The apartment complex was considered unsafe for some inhabitants
as it underwent restoration after the fire.

Late last week, officials informed residents, as many were packing
up personal items, that parts of the complex were unsafe, not from
the fire damage, as it would be expected, but from asbestos
contamination.

Many of the residents were devastated to learn that they could not
return to their homes because of the risk of asbestos exposure.

Though it is unclear from reports, but it is possible that the
asbestos became a serious health threat to residents after the
fire exposed and damaged building materials that contained
asbestos.  Most, if not all, public and private buildings built up
until the latter part of the twentieth century contained products
with asbestos.

As an incredibly versatile material, asbestos is a naturally-
occurring mineral that had numerous manufacturing applications
including usage in building, electrical and plumbing materials.

Naturally, asbestos does not pose an immediate health threat to
people, but when the material is disturbed in any way, the
resulting fibers become highly toxic.  Linked to many deadly
diseases, asbestos exposure is the only known cause of
mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that attacks the lining of the
lungs, heart or abdominal wall.

In most cases of mesothelioma or other asbestos exposure related
diseases, the disturbed asbestos fibers become airborne and are
more likely to become inhaled or ingested.  Once asbestos
particles are inhaled, they can become lodged in the lungs,
resulting in considerable damage that may lead to mesothelioma,
asbestosis or even lung cancer.

With Round Hill Apartments, it is unclear when residents will be
able to return to their homes or how long it will take for the
apartment complex to not only be fully decontaminated from the
lingering asbestos but when the restoration from the fire will be
completed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anxious Christchurch Councilors Forced U-Turn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gorman at The Timaru Herald reports pressure from anxious
Christchurch City councilors has forced a U-turn by council staff
planning to dump asbestos in Bottle Lake Forest.

The change of heart comes with an apology and an admission that
nearby residents should have been better consulted.

Parklands and Waimairi Beach residents just a few hundred meters
from the controversial site earmarked for the dumping of up to
5,000 tons of asbestos-containing concrete pipes have been
outraged at the plan and the lack of consultation.

The May 17 announcement that the material would go to the Kate
Valley landfill in North Canterbury instead of the Burwood
Resource Recovery Park was greeted with delight.

Bower Ave resident Philippa Grey said it was "awesome".

"That's fantastic.  We're rapt.  There are going to be so many
pleased people," she said.

"We are so thankful, from me personally and all the residents,
that they have listened to us and taken it on board and made the
right decision."

Mayor Bob Parker said residents were "not the only ones" pleased
with the scrapping of the Burwood option.

"I'm very pleased.  This will come as a large relief to people and
it's great news," he said.  "It will take a bit more weight off
the shoulders of folk in the east."

Council city water and waste unit manager Mark Christison said he
had made the decision to remove Burwood as an asbestos dump from
the resource consent application and apologised for "any confusion
this may have caused residents, the mayor or elected members".

"It's always a question about how far out you take the
consultation; always a matter of judgment.  Maybe myself and
others didn't quite get it right this time," he told The Press.

City councilors met Christison before the May 16 council meeting
to express their concern about the plan.  The Press understands
they were close to unanimous in their opposition to it.

Cr Aaron Keown, a member of the Canterbury regional landfill joint
committee that had not been told of the asbestos dump, said he did
not get a chance to follow through on his threat to go to council
chief executive Tony Marryatt about the plan.

"Mark [Christison] explained it to us really well.  It was agreed
in a couple of minutes.  It never went to a debate," Keown said.

"He said, `If it's the will of the council we can take it to Kate
Valley', so done deal.

"Tony Marryatt gives him a nod, Bob [Parker] gives him a nod and
everybody is happy.  It was pretty quick and painless."

Burwood-Pegasus councillor Glenn Livingstone said he was
"delighted" council staff had listened and reacted to the anger of
the community.

"The council has taken seriously their legitimate concerns and I'm
also delighted that a very serious potential health matter has
been averted," he said.

Earlier, Canterbury District Health Board member Andrew Dickerson
raised his concerns about the resource consent process.

"They have only invited a handful of parties to make submissions.
I wouldn't have expected something like that in a democratic
country like New Zealand," he said.

Green Party MP Eugenie Sage said it was "one of the shortest
campaigns ever", and the decision would remove stress from the
community.

"It does highlight the need for the Canterbury earthquake
legislation to be reviewed to give us back the normal RMA
[Resource Management Act] processes where people can participate
and challenge," she said.

Gill Cox, the chairman of Transwaste Canterbury, which comprises
the Christchurch City and Ashburton, Hurunui, Selwyn and
Waimakariri district councils and operates the recovery park, said
he was not involved in the decision.

He did not think there would be any problems dealing with the
asbestos material at Kate Valley.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Debris in Kensett Awaits Official Decision
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that officials in the White County
town of are trying to work out a plan to dispose of the ruin of 4
burned buildings that contain asbestos.

The buildings burned almost three months ago but Mayor Max
McDonald says all the property owners have to agree on an asbestos
removal plan.

The Daily Citizen reports (http://is.gd/wmag4W)the city has been
taking bids but the cost is prohibitive.  The city owns 1 of the
buildings and the other three are in private hands.  Officials say
it wouldn't make sense to remove the buildings one at a time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Building Owner Admits Environmental Crimes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Fahys of The Salt Lake Tribune reports that owners of the
Boston Building in downtown Salt Lake City pleaded guilty on May
16 to a felony violation of the Clean Air Act in connection with
asbestos removed during the building's renovation five years ago.

At a hearing before U.S. District Judge David Nuffer, HP Boston
Building, LLC., agreed to a fine of $500,000 and three years
probation, the maximum sentence allowed for the offense.

The violation of the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants occurred when workers did the demolition and renovation
at 9 Exchange Place May 8 through about Sept. 13, 2007, without
being told about asbestos contamination in the ventilation system.

"Work practice standards for the handling of asbestos exist to
protect human life," said David B. Barlow, U.S. attorney for Utah.

"When companies have information that requires further
investigation regarding asbestos in their building and then fail
to take the necessary measures to protect their workers and the
public from asbestos exposure, they will not only have to spend
vast sums of money remediating the contamination, they will be
prosecuted."

"Exposure to asbestos can cause cancer and other serious
respiratory diseases, so demolition work must be conducted safely
and legally," added Lori Hanson, who oversees the Environmental
Protection Agency's criminal enforcement program in Denver.  The
sentence "demonstrates that those who 'cut corners' and commit
environmental crimes will be prosecuted."

Max Wheeler, an attorney who represented the real estate company
and entered the guilty plea on its behalf Wednesday, said asbestos
in the ventilation system had been overlooked during the initial
inspection of the building shortly after the company bought it in
2007.

When crews started the work, they knew about the hazardous
material in floor tiles and on pipes and took proper precautions.
But because they did not know about the asbestos in the
ventilation system, Wheeler said, they failed to take proper
precautions, as required under the law.

The attorney said the job was shut down as soon as the problem was
identified. The company spent $700,000 on the asbestos
remediation, he said.

"No question we made a mistake moving the material" when workers
were unaware of it, he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celebrity Dies of Lung Cancer Due to Toxic Dust
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hall of The Mesothelioma Center reports the Queen of Disco
Donna Summer died on May 17 in her Naples, Fla., home after a
quiet battle with lung cancer.  She was 63.

The five-time Grammy winner was best known for hits like "Love To
Love You Baby," "Bad Girls" and "Hot Stuff".

Summer did not openly discuss her battle with cancer or asbestos
exposure.  The news of her death came as a surprise to many.

Family, friends and fans are now recounting the positive memories
of the singer, in addition to the causes of her cancer.

Sources state that her cancer developed after inhaling toxic dust
from the 9/11 Attacks site.  This is likely to be asbestos-
contaminated dust, which has been known to affect countless New
Yorkers, specifically first-responders to the September attacks.

Asbestos is known to cause multiple diseases including lung
cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis and pleural plaques.  Exposure to
this hazardous material traditionally occurs to people  who work
in occupational fields and in industrial settings.

In the case of Summer, her proximity to Ground Zero may be the
culprit.

She was in her New York apartment on Sept. 11, 2001, when the
attacks occurred.  Asbestos dust clouds were prevalent throughout
the city following the collapse of the Twin Towers.

In 2008, Summer recounted her feelings of that dreadful day.

"I was really freaked out by the horrific experiences of that day.
I couldn't go out; I didn't want to talk to anybody.  I had to
keep the blinds down and stay in my bedroom.  I went to church and
light came back into my soul.  That heaviness was gone."

Lung cancer is cited as the leading cause of cancer deaths for
Americans, accounting for nearly 200,000 diagnoses each year.
Asbestos is believed to cause as much as 4% of all lung cancer
cases.

Like Summer, countless New Yorkers have developed asbestos-related
diseases and respiratory issues as a result of the dust cloud that
lingered in the city.  Thousands of Ground Zero workers have
reportedly developed chronic diseases after the attacks.

If it is confirmed that the Queen of Disco's cancer was caused by
asbestos exposure, she would join the list of other notable
Americans to have died from an asbestos disease.

According to sources, the death came unexpectedly to the family.
Relatives have reached comfort through reminiscing about the
singer's contributions to music, society and family.

"Early this morning, we lost Donna Summer Sudano, a woman of many
gifts, the greatest being her faith," the family released in a
statement.

"While we grieve her passing, we are at peace celebrating her
extraordinary life and her continued legacy.  Words truly can't
express how much we appreciate your prayers and love for our
family at this sensitive time."

President Barack Obama also commented on the news of Summer's
death by releasing a statement.

"Michelle and I were saddened to hear about the passing of Donna
Summer.  A five-time Grammy Award winner, Donna truly was the
'Queen of Disco.'  Her voice was unforgettable and the music
industry has lost a legend far too soon.  Our thoughts and prayers
go out to Donna's family and her dedicated fans."

ET reported that Summer will be laid to rest in Nashville, Tenn.

Summer is survived by a husband and three children.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: National Restorations Systems Faces $19,050 Fine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ira Kantor of The Boston Herald reports the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection has penalized National
Restorations Systems, Inc., $19,050 for asbestos violations
uncovered at the Boston Common Garage in September 2010.

The Illinois-based company has a regional office in Mansfield that
was hired as a subcontractor to conduct demolition and renovation
activities at the garage, located at Zero Charles Street in
downtown Boston, according to MassDEP.

On Sept. 8, 2010, a Boston public safety official stopped a
trailer containing suspected asbestos-containing materials.  The
vehicle and trailer were instructed to return to the site and the
materials in the trailer were sampled for the presence of
asbestos.  Tests would later reveal that samples of pipe-covering
contained asbestos, MassDEP said, adding the company failed to
submit notification prior to demolition and conduct proper
asbestos removal procedures.

National Restoration Systems will pay $9,500 of the penalty, and
if it remains in compliance for a period of one year, MassDEP has
agreed to suspend the remaining $9,550.

Company president Ron Reagan could not immediately be reached for
comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogenic Debris Appear at Fyansford Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mandy Squires of The Geelong Advertiser reports that asbestos has
surfaced on Fyansford land earmarked for residential development.

Geelong Trades Hall secretary Tim Gooden on May 18 said the land,
set to become Fyansford Green, was "another time bomb waiting to
happen."

The Geelong Advertiser has learned of several different asbestos-
plagued sites across the city, after an investigation earlier this
month revealed a North Geelong beach was littered with the
potentially lethal material.

An adjacent cliff was packed with exposed and broken asbestos
sheeting.

Mr. Gooden said the securely fenced parcel of vacant land on the
corner of Hyland St. and Deviation Rd. in Fyansford had links to
the old cement works.

It was understood much of the vacant land had been filled
following the demolition of buildings at the cement works, he
said.  Fragments of broken asbestos were now appearing on the
outside of the tall mesh and barbed-wire fence, where it could be
stepped on by pedestrians, Mr. Gooden said.

"It's going on to the footpath and that's a worry," he said.

A large billboard near the vacant land advertises the proposed
residential development Fyansford Green.

The slogan for the development is Life Evolves.

According to a website promoting the development Fyansford Green
is "an exciting new residential and commercial development based
on a sustainable living environment that offers a safe place for
people to live, shop, work and play".

Up to 2000 new homes are planned for the area.

Geelong Trades Hall is also set to investigate a Super Six
corrugated roof at a business in Belmont, which is reportedly
shedding fibers in high winds and impacting on locals.  Several
storage sheds along the Geelong waterfront were also replaced this
year -- at an estimated cost of $1.5 million each -- after work
was stopped over Christmas due to health concerns.

Meanwhile, Barwon Health is removing material believed to be
asbestos from a construction area on level three of Geelong
Hospital.

A licensed asbestos removalist was scheduled to carry out the work
at the hospital on May 21.

The material is contained in a small flange, measuring less than
one meter in length and its removal poses no risk to the public.

Mr. Gooden said asbestos was an ongoing issue across the city's
domestic and commercial sectors.  However, without a national
policy to deal with identifying and removing asbestos, it often
fell into the too hard and expensive basket.

"We have got this explosive mine all over the country but because
it's a silent killer, it's getting missed," he said.

"It's not that easy to get people to move stuff unless someone
kicks up a stink.

"It's all to do with cost.  No-one wants to pay for it."

Mr. Gooden said unions wanted to set up a national authority to
deal with the issue, which should have the goal of having the
country asbestos-free by 2030.

"This problem is not going to go away and people will continue to
die unless there is an overall and consistent plan to engage all
levels of government to, first, identify it and then . . . remove
it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manly Vale Park Cleared of Illegally Dumped Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Deare at whereilive.com.au reports visitors to a Manly Vale
park can rest assured no more asbestos materials remain, according
to a local soccer club.

Manly Vale Football Club president Terry Gatward was confident its
home ground of David Thomas Reserve posed no danger after a
specialist inspected the site.

Locals became alarmed when they found six fibro pieces among
mounds of top soil at the park.  Children often play on the dirt,
which is used to repair the field.

Warringah Council staff removed the pieces and called in an
independent occupational hygienist.

He declared it safe, to the relief of Mr. Gatward.

"We have to rely on the advice from experts.  This is a specialist
area," he said.

"I feel the council acted quickly and smartly."

However, Nicky Crowley, whose children play for the club, could
not believe the council had left some of the topsoil at the
ground.

"I wouldn't let my kids play in that dirt," she said.  "There was
asbestos found there and I still think all the dirt should be
removed."

A council spokeswoman said the pieces it found and tested
contained bonded asbestos and did not look like they were recently
broken.

"This means the asbestos was held together," she said.  She said
the fibro was illegally dumped.

"Dumping asbestos, especially in an area where children play, is
an appalling crime and we are asking anyone who has seen
suspicious activity to call council," she said.

Fines for illegally dumping asbestos can be as high as $1 million
for corporations and $25,000 for individuals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Test Clears Marshalltown Fire Debris of Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Alexander of the Times Republican reports that air samples
taken from 135 E. Main St. have come back asbestos free.

The company removing the debris, S.L. Baumauer Co., took samples
May 8 and 9 and submitted them to Ames Environmental, Inc., for
analysis, said Fire Chief Steve Edwards.

Edwards said he visits the site daily to see how the removal is
coming along.  Concerned citizens frequently stop him and ask
about the risk of asbestos exposure.  He said he hopes these
results will alleviate those concerns.

Tina Shapley, director of the Marshalltown Central Business
District, said she doubts there was asbestos in the building to
begin with.  If there was, she said, it was likely removed or
encased during one of many remodels throughout the years.

For safety, the Department of Natural Resources simply assumes any
building as old as the New England Building has asbestos.  Until
tests proved otherwise, the assumption was that the building
contained asbestos.

Mark Lamer, project manager at S.L. Baumeier Co., said the air
tests do not prove there is no asbestos in the rubble, just that
it isn't becoming airborne.

He said, since asbestos is used in one area of the building and
not in others, testing the debris would prove fruitless.  They
just have to make sure it stays wet while they are removing it.

Shapley said she has not heard complaints about the potential for
asbestos exposure and that the issue with the site is its
unsightliness, not whether it's a health hazard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Truck Full of Hazardous Materials Hits Bridge
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a truck believed to be carrying asbestos
sheeting has hit a bridge at Corinda in Brisbane's south-west,
spilling its load and causing traffic chaos.

Emergency services cordoned-off an area on the corner of Oxley and
Quarry roads.

Firefighters worked to dampen down the product and the
Environmental Protection Agency assessed the situation.

Oxley Road was closed in both directions at the rail overpass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Underway For Pacific Highway Upgrade
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Houghton of The Coffs Cost Advocate reports that removal
of asbestos on the Sapphire to Woolgoolga section of the Pacific
highway upgrade was set to continue on the week of May 21.

The asbestos was located in an old council water main after it was
identified in council records before work began on the project.

Contractors have removed more of the pipe and have set up
exclusions zones near the affected sites.

A Roads and Maritime Services spokesperson said on May 19 that the
bonded asbestos poses no danger to the public or workers.

"We removed two truckloads of fill from the site which included
asbestos," the spokesperson said.

"The asbestos will be taken to the Grafton tip, which is licensed
by the EPA as a disposal site for this material.

"The asbestos is currently at a secured site within a sign-posted
exclusion zone and covered with plastic."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UAE Still Needs to Enforce Anti-Asbestos Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vesela Todorova of The National reports asbestos remains a
potential killer six years after it was banned, and experts are
calling for safety regulations in Abu Dhabi to be expanded to the
rest of the country.

The substance is a known cause of cancer and its fibers can spread
through the air when old buildings are demolished.

Once a popular form of insulation, asbestos is either partially or
completely banned in 60 countries.  The UAE has prohibited its use
since 2006, which means the safe removal of the material will
remain an issue for years.

"There is still a misunderstanding that asbestos is not a problem
in the UAE," said Charles Faulkner, principal asbestos consultant
at WSP Environment and Energy, a consultancy in Abu Dhabi.

"Everyone associates the UAE with new buildings and asbestos is
viewed as an antiquated and obsolete material."

Dealing with it, he said, "differs from emirate to emirate and
from project to project.  It has progressed very well in Abu
Dhabi."

New health and safety guidelines in Abu Dhabi require that a
company must provide documents showing that asbestos has been
identified and safely removed from a building before it can be
demolished.  The assessment and removal can be carried out only by
licensed companies.

Mr. Faulkner said the rules were comprehensive and should be used
as the basis for federal legislation.  "Just as this is applied in
Abu Dhabi, there could be something of similar quality applied
throughout all seven emirates."

Asbestos pipes are still being manufactured and used in Dubai.
While the substance is safe if undisturbed, it can release tiny
fibers if it wears or breaks down.  These particles are easily
airborne and so small that, if inhaled, they penetrate deep into
the lungs, causing asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer.  The
diseases are almost always fatal.

Asbestos can be a risk to construction workers and anyone in the
vicinity of a demolition site.

Mr. Faulkner said more should be done to educate the construction
industry about the dangers.

Other experts say authorities should focus more on enforcement.
"The laws they are bringing in are fine," said Edward Forero of
GTS, a company that specializes in demolition and asbestos
removal.  "The problem is the enforcement side - there is no
enforcement agency."

Charles Kinniburgh, managing director of Angus Asbestos Removal,
said: "Implementation of the rules is still at the infancy stage.
The regulations are not policed very well.  If buildings are going
to be demolished, who is checking for asbestos and which company
is removing it, these checks are very important.

"There are still companies out there who are doing things they
should not do."

Engineer Abdulaziz Hussni Zarub, director of the health and safety
and environment division of Abu Dhabi Municipality, said the
government agency needed two to three more months to roll out the
new rules.

"The asbestos program is not yet implemented fully," he said.

The Abu Dhabi Government has already made provisions for handling
asbestos waste through the Centre of Waste Management - Abu Dhabi,
he said.

The municipality has also approved 36 contracting companies to
work on demolition projects.  Since October last year, it has
handed out 54 demolition permits, said Mr. Zarub.  There are about
300 buildings schedued for demolition in Abu Dhabi this year and
next.

Municipal authorities in Dubai and Sharjah were not available for
comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicopee Council Votes Out Library Abatement Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanette DeForge of The Republican reports that the Chicopee City
Council voted against spending $160,000 to remove asbestos and gut
much of the former library so its structural integrity can be
tested.

The council voted 11-2 against spending the $160,000 requested by
Mayor Michael D. Bissonnette.

The money was to come from the sale of real estate account.  About
$40,000 more is expected to be needed to hire a structural
engineer in the future, Bissonnette said.

The expenditure was originally proposed last month, but the City
Council tabled it until it could have a meeting with Bissonnette
about all of the capital improvement projects the city is facing
and to discuss the city's bonding situation.

"That is disappointing and surprising given that none of the
councilors had indicated that it was a problem after we held the
capital projects meeting," he said.

Bissonnette said he will now seek funding from grants or other
sources for the project.

Councilors did not bring up specific concerns then, but later some
said they did not think this is the time to start a new project
since the city is expecting to start construction of a new senior
center this year and should begin renovations of the old Chicopee
High School in the following year.  The police station also needs
to replaced or renovated.

"We have two projects with the senior center and the high school.
I think we need to be more prudent with our money, we just spent
$5 million on a snowstorm," Councilor Timothy S. McLellan said.

Councilor Jean J. Croteau, Jr., said he had mixed feelings about
the issue.  He understands the city cannot think about improving
the library until they know it's condition but said there are a
number of other projects happening at the same time.

In the end he voted against spending the $160,000.

Frederick T. Krampits agreed with Croteau that both sides of the
argument have merit, but said he is not sure now is a good time to
do the engineering study now.

"If we shelve the plans . . . five years later say we pull the
plans and we find out they are out-of-date," he said.

But Councilor Gerry Roy, who voted for spending the money,
disagreed saying no plans can be made without analyzing the
structure.

"We need to know what we are dealing with," he said. "I think the
mayor has done a good job dealing with the oddball projects he was
dealt."

If the library is found to be structurally sound, Bissonnette
would like to build a second floor, attach it to the adjacent city
hall and make it handicap accessible.  The building may allow the
school department to move from the administration building at 180
Broadway, which has serious structural problems.

Some councilors questioned if the School Committee is interested
in moving to the former library, but school officials have said
they are interested in pursuing the idea.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: B.F. Goodrich and Guard-Line Face Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
David Yates of The Southeast Texas Records reports B.F. Goodrich
and Guard-Line have recently been named as defendants in a lawsuit
alleging they exposed the late Roland Roberts to asbestos during
his refinery career.

Representing Roberts' estate, Rosella Roberts filed the suit May
15 in Jefferson County District Court.

According to the lawsuit, from 1961 to 1996 Roberts worked at the
Goodrich facility in Port Neches, where he was allegedly exposed
to asbestos.

"Sadly, this exposure led to his contraction of asbestos-related
lung cancer which ultimately took his life in May 2010," the suit
states.

The suit further alleges that the defendants knew or should have
known about the health hazards surrounding asbestos but
negligently failed to keep workers safe.

The plaintiff is seeking exemplary damages.

Attorney Devin McNulty of the Houston law firm Williams Kherkher
Hart & Boundas represents her.

Judge Bob Wortham, 58th District Court, is assigned to the case.

Case No. A192-447


ASBESTOS UPDATE: York Carriageworks Employee Dies of Mesothelioma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Bell of The Press reports a former York carriageworks
employee was exposed to asbestos on a "daily basis", an inquest
heard.

John Phillip Wright, of Linden Way, York, contracted the asbestos-
related disease mesothelioma after being repeatedly exposed to the
deadly dust at the factory where he worked between 1950 and 1970.

Mr. Wright died on October 4 last year in St Leonard's Hospice,
York, at the age of 77, after months of deteriorating health, his
widow Pauline Wright, told the court in a written statement.

The inquest heard how Mr. Wright had joined the carriageworks
shortly before his 16th birthday as an apprentice coach bodymaker
and repairer.

He worked on and off at the site until he left at the age of 37 to
work for a brief spell at Leeds Council before joining City of
York Council, where he stayed until he took early retirement at
the age of 60.

Mr. Wright was diagnosed with pleural thickening in 2001.  He
thought that was the extent of the asbestos disease that he would
suffer, but the court heard that his health began to deteriorate
in 2003 when he began to suffer heart problems which left to him
having a pacemaker fitted.

In December 2010, an X-ray revealed tumors on his lungs and he was
diagnosed with mesothelioma.

He was later admitted to St Leonard's Hospice, on Tadcaster Road,
York, where he later died.

A cause of death was given as malignant mesothelioma.

Before he died, Mr. Wright told Corries Solicitors how he often
worked in a dusty environment in different parts of the factory
with no protective clothing or facemask.

He also said in a statement that he was exposed to asbestos dust
on a "daily basis".

He said he often spotted "a fine blue, grey haze" and could see
bigger pieces of asbestos floating in the air, he said.

He recalled one occasion when a "blob of asbestos" dropped into a
colleague's coffee.

York Coroner Donald Coverdale recorded a verdict that Mr. Wright
died of the industrial disease malignant mesothelioma, a form of
cancer most frequently caused by exposure to asbestos.

The family's solicitor, Howard Bonnett, of Corries Solicitor,
said: "This is yet another sad case of a former carriage works man
dying prematurely.

"Mr. Wright had assumed that pleural thickening was the extent of
his asbestos disease and that he would enjoy a full and long
retirement with his wife, Pauline.  Regrettably this has not been
the case."

The Press reported earlier this year how at least 140 former York
carriageworks employees and their relatives have now been killed
by asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spring Valley Illegal Renovation Led to Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Wren of The Nyack-Piermont Patch reports that The
Village of Spring Valley has issued a stop work order at the old
Spring Valley High School, where officials said renovation work
being done without permits led to the collapse of a mezzanine in
the auditorium and a worker being briefly trapped in the rubble.

Although two workers suffered only minor injuries in the collapse
at the building, now the site of the United Talmudical Academy,
officials said workers and emergency personnel were exposed to
asbestos inside the building.

Spring Valley Fire Department Capt. Ray Canario said that all of
his departments volunteers who were in the building on may 18 to
investigate the collapse had to turn in their firefighting "bunker
gear" so it could be bagged and stored in a secure area to be
decontaminated.

Canario said Spring Valley has issued a stop work order on the
renovations of the old high school and that work was being done
without required permits and approvals.  Canario said he also
called in inspectors from the federal Occupational Safety and
Health Administration to investigate the worksite.

Inside the old high school, workers on May 18 were using a
jackhammer for demolition work. Canario said that at about 1:17
p.m. an emergency call was received alerting police and
firefighters that an area about 10-feet by 10-feet of the
mezzanine in the auditorium had collapsed.

Canario said two workers were in the area of the collapse, and one
worker was trapped by falling debris.  However, the worker was
able to free himself from the debris.  Both workers were taken to
the hospital for treatment.

A third worker in the building was not in the area affected by the
collapse.

Police and firefighters searched the building for anyone who might
have been trapped or injured.

"We're amazed no one was killed in this," said Canario.

During the search of the building, officials said they discovered
exposed asbestors.  As a result, Canario said all of the gear used
by firefighters needs to be specially cleaned to remove any
asbestos -- a natural mineral that has long been used for
insulation and heat protection but can cause illness when it gets
into the lungs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remediation Works Underway in Punta Gorda School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Mahung at Lovefm.com reports that preliminary work started
early on May 19 for the rehabilitation and reconstruction work on
three school buildings at St. Peter Claver School in Punta Gorda,
Toledo.

The preliminary work began with the removal of old and hazardous
asbestos roofing from three buildings which requires temporary
closure of school classes as explained by St. Peter Claver School
Project Coordinator Fabian Cayetano.

Fabian Cayetano said, "A request has been made from the Ministry
of Education for the closure of the school for the removal of the
asbestos from St. Peter Claver school building, three of them on
the following days, Friday May 18 which is Teachers Day, Monday
May 21 which is Commonwealth Day which is a holiday and two non
school days which are Tuesday May 22 and Wednesday May 23.  On
these days there will be no school and this will facilitate the
removal of the asbestos from St. Peter Claver building."

Because of possible negative effects on those removing the
asbestos, safety and protection measures for those involved at the
work site are implemented and adhered to as outlined by Anthony
Mai of the Ministry of Environment.

"The Department of the Environment and the Solid Waste Management
Authority has given strict procedure and conditions under which
the removal and disposal of the asbestos must occur.  For example
every person removing the asbestos must use personal protective
equipment for their own personal safety and also the Department
has set certain restrictions in terms of setback from the building
which no one will be able to enter.  Also at the end of the day
the asbestos will be placed within containers that is sealed with
plastic, when all the asbestos has been removed, this container
will be taken to the mile 24 dumpsite where it will be properly
disposed of," Anthony Mai said.

For the safety of members of the public who need to pass by the
buildings, the flow of traffic through the area has also been
temporarily diverted as directed by Punta Gorda Transport Manager
Ignacio Sho.

Ignacio Sho said, "I want to inform the public and the residents
of Punta Gorda that the street will be closed on Friday 18th,
Monday the 21st, Tuesday 22nd and Wednesday 23rd for the removal
of the asbestos roof.  That is the reason why certain streets will
be blocked off and I want the public to adhere to the street that
will be blocked off because it is for their personal safety.  The
following streets will be blocked off, corner Main Street and
corner of Clement Street, corner of Jose Maria Street and corner
of George Street and the street will be blocked off from six a.m.
to six p.m from Friday to Wednesday.  Also the James Bus manager
is also notified that the runs will be changed for the duration of
the project, starting Friday to Wednesday and after the project is
completed the street will be opened as normal."

Project officials here commented that the rehabilitation and
reconstruction project of three Claver School buildings financed
by the Caribbean Development Bank and the Government of Belize and
is being implemented by SIF with technical support from the
Ministry of Environment and Solid Waste Management Authority.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Spends More For Extra Abatement Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Thistleton of The Canberra Times reports Canberrans are
paying hundreds of dollars more to remove asbestos from their
homes than people in other jurisdictions, according to a licensed
operator.

Frank Williams, who has come out of retirement three times since
1982 to remove, inspect and assess asbestos in the ACT and
throughout NSW, said because of the higher costs, more people were
risking doing the work themselves.

Mr. Williams these days does inspections and assessments for
asbestos removalist firms including Gibson & Harriden of
Queanbeyan, whose employees Jamie Carpenter and Garry Harriden are
removing bonded asbestos from Queanbeyan South School's walkway.

He said the ACT required assessment, removal, and a final
inspection, whereas NSW had a more straightforward approach not
requiring as many assessments.

He has sent a submission to the ACT government pointing out the
cost disincentive and was told the system was foolproof.

"There's nothing foolproof about being ripped off,"  he said.

On average, having a licensed person remove bonded asbestos sheets
from a bathroom would cost about AU$700.  Asbestos in the roof or
under tiles could add several hundred dollars.

"In the worse-case scenario you are looking at AU$900,"  Mr.
Williams said.

"If you get a bathroom, laundry and toilet done, you're looking at
AU$1500 plus.  So if they think they can get it done by doing it
themselves, a lot of people will do it."

Bonded asbestos was not as deadly as friable asbestos, but
required a licensed operator to remove it.

"You've got to look at the cost against the risks.  A lot of
people don't think there is a risk with bonded asbestos which is
completely untrue," Mr. Williams said.

ACT Master Builders Association spokesman Jerry Howard said do-it-
yourself renovators inspired by celebrities on television home
shows were most at risk of asbestos-related diseases.

Mr. Howard served on an ACT asbestos taskforce in 2004 which had
estimated 4000 tradesmen and women, from painters, electricians,
air-conditioning installers to bricklayers, should be competent in
removing small amounts of bonded asbestos.

But only about 800 people from across the trades had undertaken
specific training.

Litigation specialist Theodora Ahlias said each year about 750
people in Australia were diagnosed with mesothelioma, a terminal
asbestos cancer, which made it a rare disease.

"I am seeing about 20 to 25 people diagnosed in the ACT, so for a
small place with a small population it is quite a prevalent
condition,"  Ms. Ahlias, a principal of Maurice Blackburn, said.

The disease has a latency period of between 25 to 50 years.  Ms.
Ahlias is now seeing a third wave of victims including children
exposed from when their mothers and fathers were renovating homes,
many being government homes built in the 1960s and 1970s.

Most homes in Canberra have asbestos.  If they were built before
1985 it is even more likely they will have asbestos, according to
Work Safe ACT.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Benian Australia and Brian Bentley Face Penalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that the Environment Protection Authority has
fined two companies in Victoria's Wimmera for dumping industrial
waste.

Benian Australia and Brian Bentley Transport in Warracknabeal were
both caught dumping construction debris, household waste, green
waste and tires.

The EPA's Tim Eaton says the illegal waste contained asbestos but
has now been cleaned up.

"We've since received . . . [reports] that the asbestos and
everything else went to appropriate facilities, so that's been
cleaned up to some costs to the companies," he said.

"We've issued penalty infringement notices to the tune of AU$6,000
in each case, which we hope sends the message that not only will
you have to clean up the waste but you'll pay a penalty for not
doing it properly in the first place."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hepa Filter Containing Toxic Dust Burglarized
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Post reports that a filter which collects particles of
asbestos from the air has been stolen.

The 'Hepa Filter' was taken from a garage in Bryn Hafod in
Wrexham.  It is described as being approximately 2ft to 3ft in
size, yellow in color and has the numbers 5042 clearly marked on
the top.

The filter has been confirmed as containing hazardous asbestos
fibers and if tampered with will contaminate the local environment
which includes any person in the close vicinity.

It is believed it could have been stolen on May 17.

A North Wales Fire and Rescue Service spokeswoman on May 20 urged
members of the public to beware and not to open it.

She said: "If the unit is seen people are requested to inform the
police immediately on 101 and not to tamper or open it.

"If individuals do come into close contact with the unit and it is
opened they are advised to seek immediate medical help."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tax Dispute Win Pulls James Hardie From The Red
----------------------------------------------------------------
Building products maker James Hardie has returned to profit for
the full year due to a win in a long-running tax dispute and
increased revenue from its operations in the United States and
Europe.

The company says it made AU$615 million in the financial year
ending March 31, including asbestos liabilities, ASIC expenses and
tax adjustments.

It posted a loss of AU$353 million in the preceding financial
year.

In February, James Hardie won a long-running battle against the
Australian Taxation Office that it says boosted revenue by around
AU$400 million.

Chief financial officer Russell Chenu says the profit turnaround
is unprecedented.

"The ATO was very prompt in paying the cash to us after the High
Court decision and that's left us in a very strong cash position,"
Mr. Chenu said.

Nevertheless, chief executive Louis Gries said it had been another
demanding financial year for the company.

"The favorable outcome from protracted tax litigation in Australia
late in the financial year resulted in the receipt of a AU$396
million cash refund during the fourth quarter," Mr. Gries said.

"The recognition of the related accounting adjustments in our
fourth-quarter and full-year results draws to an end the material
financial effects of a number of legacy issues we've managed in
the past few years."

Mr. Gries says the Australian housing construction market is
expected to remain soft but the company is still performing well
in this business.

"Obviously the Australian market is pretty soft, but I think like
the US our guys are pretty well positioned to perform well in the
softer market -- maybe not return as strongly as they did last
year, but certainly not drop off anywhere near the rate the
market's expected to drop off," he said.

The company also announced plans to buy back 5% of its shares.

"If we're right about how this business is going to run we're
going to have excess cash," Mr. Gries said.

"We're not going to do a major acquisition so we're going to give
it back to shareholders."

Shareholders will receive a final dividend of 38 cents per share.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Tobacco Can't Appeal Interlocutory Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited lost on a technicality in its
appeal from a bankruptcy court order that barred it from filing an
out-of-time proof of claim regarding its potential future demand
for contribution and indemnification in the Chapter 11 cases of
The Flintkote Company and Flintkote Mines Limited.

Delaware District Judge Leonard P. Stark said the Bankruptcy
Court's order was not yet final and an interlocutory review of the
Order is not warranted.  Judge Stark said ITCAN fails to present
exceptional circumstances justifying the need for immediate or
piecemeal review.  He said ITCAN will have an opportunity to show
that the Bankruptcy Court was in error should it choose to appeal
a final judgment of that court.

ITCAN took an appeal from portions of Bankruptcy Judge Judith K.
Fitzgerald's order dated Oct. 25, 2010, granting in part and
denying in part ITCAN's Amended Motion for Leave to File Out-of-
Time Proof of Claim.

The Bankruptcy Court had permitted ITCAN to file environmental
claims but not its alleged alter ego contribution and indemnity
claim against Flintkote.

Saying the Bankruptcy Court erred in its ruling with respect to
its potential future demand for contribution and indemnification,
ITCAN explained that, under the Third Circuit's previous Frenville
decision -- Avellino & Bienes v. M Frenville Co. (In re: M.
Frenville Co.), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984), and its "accrual
test" -- ITCAN -- an entity lacking any indemnity agreement with
the Debtors -- held no "claim" for alter ego contribution and
indemnity cognizable under 11 U.S.C. Section 101(5) that could be
filed.  According to ITCAN, under applicable state law, it would
simply have no claim or right to payment for contribution and
indemnity until such claim accrued under state law, that is, until
ITCAN suffered some loss or damage by the payment of the
underlying claim.

According to ITCAN, it was not until after the Third Circuit's
issuance of its decision on June 2, 2010, in Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Van
Brunt (In re Grossman's Inc.) 607 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2010), that
ITCAN held a "claim" for bankruptcy purposes; prior to that
decision, ITCAN "held only a 'demand' for potential future payment
in the event it were ever determined to be Flintkote's alter ego."

ITCAN said "Grossman's did not merely address the allowability of
claims, but fundamentally redefined what constitutes a 'claim'
under the Bankruptcy Code" by its determination, "contrary to
conclusions reached in earlier decisions, [that] a party holds a
'claim' within the meaning of section 101(5) if it holds a
contingent cause of action, even if no payment obligation
currently exists."  Thus, "in broadening the definition of 'claim'
previously defined under Frenville, Grossman's effected a
substantial change in law that, on its face, gave rise to ITCAN's
right to file an out-of-time proof of claim."

Because the Bankruptcy Court, however, "fundamentally
misunderstood" the en bane decision, ITCAN argued the Bankruptcy
Court erred and abused its discretion by denying ITCAN's
subsequent request for leave to file an out-of-time proof of claim
regarding its potential future demand for contribution and
indemnification, in the event it is ever determined to be
Flintkote's alter ego.

The proponents to the bankruptcy-exit plan in the Debtors' cases
-- The Flintkote Company, Flintkote Mines Limited, the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, and James J.
McMonagle, in his capacity as the Future Claimants Representative
-- objected, arguing that the Bankruptcy Court committed no error
or abuse of discretion and, further, that ITCAN's appeal must be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  The Plan Proponents said
ITCAN has improperly appealed from an interlocutory order without
seeking leave to do so under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 158(a)(3).  The Order
is interlocutory "because it resolved only one aspect of ITCAN' s
proposed proof of claim against Flintkote's estate, and only a
fraction of the broader dispute between ITCAN and the Plan
Proponents."

Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited is represented by Stephen M.
Miller, Esq., and Eric John Monzo, Esq., at Morris James LLP.

The case before the District Court is IMPERIAL TOBACCO CANADA
LIMITED, Movant/Appellant, v. THE FLINTKOTE COMPANY, FLINTKOTE
MINES LIMITED, THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY
CLAIMANTS, and JAMES J. McMONAGLE, in his capacity as FUTURE
CLAIMANTS REPRESENTATIVE,1 Respondents/Appellees, Civ. No. 11-
00063-LPS.

A copy of Judge Stark's May 21, 2012 Memorandum Order is available
at http://is.gd/56oZbyfrom Leagle.com.

                    About The Flintkote Company

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, The Flintkote Company
is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing and
distributing building materials.  Flintkote Mines Limited is a
subsidiary of Flintkote Company and is engaged in the mining of
base-precious metals.  The Flintkote Company filed for Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 04-11300) on April 30, 2004.
Flintkote Mines Limited filed for Chapter 11 relief (Bankr. D.
Del. Case No. 04-12440) on Aug. 25, 2004.  Kevin T. Lantry, Esq.,
Jeffrey E. Bjork, Esq., Dennis M. Twomey, Esq., Jeremy E.
Rosenthal, Esq., and Christina M. Craige, Esq., at Sidley Austin,
LLP, in Los Angeles; James E. O'Neill, Esq., and Laura Davis
Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, in Wilmington,
Del., represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  Elihu
Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New York,
N.Y.; Peter Van N. Lockwood, Esq., Ronald E. Reinsel, Esq., at
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in Washington, D.C.; and Philip E.
Milch, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, in Wilmington, Del.,
represent the Asbestos Claimants Committee as counsel.

When Flintkote Company filed for protection from its creditors, it
estimated more than $100 million each in assets and debts.  When
Flintkote Mines Limited filed for protection from its creditors,
it estimated assets of $1 million to $50 million, and debts of
more than $100 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Agency's PD Claims Not Limited to VAT
--------------------------------------------------------------
At the behest of the New York City Housing Authority, Bankruptcy
Judge Rosemary Gambardella clarified language in her Dec. 14, 2010
opinion that purports to limit NYCHA's claims against G-I
Holdings, Inc.'s bankruptcy estate to indemnity and restitution
related to abatement of non-friable asbestos-containing floor
tile, VAT, and disallow claims based on other asbestos-containing
materials.

NYCHA filed a proof of claim on Oct. 10, 2008, for asbestos
property damage to housing complexes in the amount of $500 million
to pay for the abatement of asbestos-containing materials
allegedly originally manufactured, mined, distributed, and sold by
G-I Holdings or its predecessors in interest.  On Dec. 10, 2008,
the Reorganized Debtors filed an objection to the NYCHA Claim, and
on Dec. 14, 2010, the Court issued its opinion granting in part
and denying in part the Objection.

Thereafter, discovery proceeded until conflicting interpretations
of the Dec. 14, 2010 Opinion compelled NYCHA to ask the Court to
correct a supposed mistake.  NYCHA believes the ruling has
typographical errors and should be modified to indicate that its
claims have been based on several asbestos-containing products,
including but not limited to VAT.

G-I Holdings objected, saying the Court must have intended to
limit NYCHA's claims solely to indemnity and restitution related
to abatement of VAT and disallowed claims based on other asbestos-
containing materials, as evidenced by the Court's 32 references to
VAT in the Opinion, as compared with once apiece for the other
materials.  G-I Holdings said any correction would be akin to
"unraveling the entire Opinion."

According to Judge Gambardella, the Dec. 14, 2010 Opinion did not
decide whether NYCHA had supported its claim with respect to the
different types of asbestos-containing materials.  There is only
one instance in the Opinion where the different types of materials
are distinguished.  Throughout the rest of the Opinion, the Court
continued to use "VAT" as a reference to the asbestos-containing
materials that are the subject of the NYCHA Claim.  Judge
Gambardella said completely absent from the Opinion is any
explanation as to either the allowance or disallowance of claims
based on the abatement of certain asbestos-containing materials as
distinct from others.

The judge said the Dec. 14, 2010 Opinion explicitly held that
Debtors' Motion to Disallow was premature as to restitution and
indemnity claims without further development of the factual record
and that NYCHA would be allowed a future opportunity to present
proofs in support.  To limit the subject asbestos-containing
materials without some explanation or without allowing NYCHA that
opportunity would create a reading of the Opinion in which it
contradicted itself.  The Court did not intend to limit the
subject of the NYCHA Claim to VAT tiles to the exclusion of other
asbestos-containing materials because to do so at this point would
be premature.  The judge said NYCHA will have an opportunity to
present further proofs related to each type of asbestos-containing
material included in its Proof of Claim and Supplemental
Submission with respect to the issues of fact identified in the
Dec. 14, 2010 Opinion.

To the extent NYCHA asks the Court to clarify that its claims
include all the product types specified in its claim and
supplemental submission, the Motion to Correct Mistake the Dec.
14, 2010 Opinion is granted, Judge Gambardella said.

A copy of the Court's May 17, 2012 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/fR6Us1from Leagle.com.

                        About G-I Holdings

Based in Wayne, New Jersey, G-I Holdings, Inc., is a holding
company that indirectly owns Building Materials Corporation of
America, a manufacturer of premium residential and commercial
roofing products.  The Company filed for bankruptcy after already
spending $1.5 billion paying asbestos claims from the 1967
acquisition of Ruberoid Co.

G-I Holdings, Inc., fka GAF Corporation, filed a chapter 11
petition (Bankr. D. N.J. Case No. 01-30135) on Jan. 5, 2001, and
continued to operate its business as a debtor-in-possession
pursuant to Sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.
ACI, Inc., a subsidiary of G-I Holdings, filed a voluntary chapter
11 petition (Bankr. D. N.J. Case No. 01-38790) on Aug. 3, 2001.
On Oct. 10, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order directing
the joint administration of the G-I Holdings and ACI bankruptcy
cases.

Dennis J. O'Grady, Esq., and Mark E. Hall, Esq., at Riker, Danzig,
Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, LLP, serve as co-counsel to the
Reorganized Debtors.  Andrew J. Rossman, Esq., and Jacob J.
Waldman, Esq., at Quinn Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, serve
as special counsel to Reorganized Debtors.

An Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors was appointed on
Jan. 18, 2001, by the U.S. Trustee to represent those individuals
who allegedly suffered injuries related to asbestos exposure from
products manufactured by the predecessors of G-I Holdings.
Lowenstein Sandler PC represents the Unsecured Creditors
Committee.  On Oct. 10, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court appointed C.
Judson Hamlin as the Legal Representative, a fiduciary to
represent the interests of persons who hold present and future
asbestos-related claims against G-I.  Keating, Muething & Klekamp,
P.L.L., is the principal counsel to the Legal Representative of
Present and Future Asbestos-Related Demands.

G-I Holdings is the successor-in-interest to GAF Corporation, an
entity named in approximately 500,000 asbestos-related lawsuits.
The Committee submitted that, as successor-in-interest to GAF, G-I
Holdings remained liable for roughly 150,000 asbestos-related
lawsuits filed, but unresolved, as of the Petition Date and for
unknown numbers of asbestos-related claims that would be filed in
the future.

In early 1994, GAF Building Materials Corporation, an indirect
subsidiary of GAF, formed a new corporation as a wholly-owned
subsidiary known as Building Materials Corporation of America.
Pursuant to that transaction, BMCA received substantially all of
the assets of GAF's roofing products business and expressly
assumed $204 million of asbestos-related liability, with G-I
indemnifying BMCA against any additional such liability.  BMCA,
also an indirect subsidiary of G-I Holdings, is the primary
operating subsidiary and principal asset of G-I Holdings.

In early 2007, the Debtors, the Committee and the Legal
Representative commenced mediation under the auspices of former
United States District Judge Nicholas H. Politan in an effort to
resolve the asbestos-related lawsuits.  Subsequently, the Parties
outlined the principal terms of a global settlement and endeavored
to complete a final global settlement with comprehensive
documentation in the form of a proposed Chapter 11 plan and its
ancillary documents.  To preserve the status quo, the Parties
mutually agreed to request a stay of all litigation which would be
covered under the final global settlement from this Court and
other courts of competent jurisdiction.  Although lengthy and
initially unsuccessful, the negotiations continued until the
parties reached a settlement culminating in an agreement in early
August 2008.

On Aug. 21, 2008, the Parties filed the Joint Plan of
Reorganization of G-I Holdings Inc. and ACI Inc. Pursuant to
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code that implemented the Global
Settlement of all asbestos-related lawsuits naming G-I Holdings
and any other related entities as defendant(s).  The Joint Plan of
Reorganization provided for the creation of an asbestos trust
pursuant to Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, to which all
asbestos-related lawsuits against the Debtors now and in the
future would be channeled.  Pursuant to the Global Settlement, the
Asbestos Trust would assume the Debtors' liability for asbestos-
related lawsuits, in exchange for cash on the effective date of
the Joint Plan of Reorganization in an amount not to exceed $215
million, and a note in the amount of $560 million issued by the
reorganized Debtors and secured by a letter of credit.

The Bankruptcy Court and Chief Judge Garrett Brown of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, by Order dated Nov.
12, 2009, jointly approved the Debtors' Eighth Amended Joint Plan
of Reorganization.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Exposed to Pending Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated still has pending asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012.

Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant, along
with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various state
courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to
asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle manufactured in limited
amounts between the late-1940's and the mid-1980's.  In addition
to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek punitive
damages.

To date, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of its
asbestos-related lawsuits with no material effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.  The Company
maintains insurance coverage that applies to the Company's defense
costs and payments of settlements or judgments in connection with
asbestos-related lawsuits.

On December 22, 2010, the Company settled a case involving alleged
asbestos-related injury.  The total amount of the award and
related loss, inclusive of insurance recoveries, was approximately
$5.8 million, which was recorded in discontinued operations in the
fourth quarter of 2010, as the related alleged asbestos-containing
product was manufactured by the Company's former on-highway brake
business.

Based on an ongoing evaluation, the Company believes that the
resolution of its remaining pending asbestos claims will not have
a material impact on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows, although these matters could result in
the Company being subject to monetary damages, costs or expenses,
and charges against earnings in particular periods.

Carlisle Companies Incorporated is a holding company for Carlisle
Corporation, and its wholly owned subsidiaries. Carlisle is a
diversified manufacturing company consisting of five segments,
which manufacture and distribute a range of products. Its segments
include Carlisle Construction Materials (CCM), Carlisle
Transportation Products (CTP), Carlisle Brake & Friction (CBF) and
Carlisle Interconnect Technologies (CIT).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Faces 8,000 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc., in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012, disclosed it had 8,000 pending asbestos-related
claims.

The Company states: "We are the subject of numerous lawsuits and
claims incidental to the conduct of our or certain of our
predecessors' businesses, including lawsuits and claims relating
to product liability and personal injury, including asbestos,
environmental, contractual, employment and intellectual property
matters.

"As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the aggregate self-
insured and insured contingent liability was $52.5 million and
$53.7 million, respectively, and the related insurance recovery
receivable for the liability as well as claims for past payments
was $22.1 million at March 31, 2012 and $22.1 million at
December 31, 2011. The asbestos liability included in those
amounts at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 was $41.9 million
and $42.4 million, respectively, and the insurance receivable
related to the liability as well as claims for past payments was
$21.7 million at March 31, 2012 and $21.8 million at December 31,
2011. We anticipate receiving a net tax benefit for payment of
those claims for which full insurance recovery is not realized.

"We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as one
of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in the
U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The
claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that we own or
formerly owned, or from products that we formerly manufactured for
specialized applications. Most of these cases involve numerous
defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. Historically,
most of the closed asbestos claims against us have been dismissed
without any indemnity payment by us; however, we can make no
assurances that this pattern will continue.

"Overall, we expect to recover approximately 48% of our future
indemnity costs. We have completed coverage in place agreements
with most of our larger insurance carriers."

Cytec Industries Inc. (Cytec) is a specialty chemicals and
materials company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
value-added products. Cytec has four business segments: Engineered
Materials, In-Process Separation, Additive Technologies, and
Coating Resins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 57,398 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., in its April 23, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, disclosed that it had 57,398
pending asbestos-related claims at the end of March 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Of the 57,398 pending claims as of March 31,
2012, approximately 19,400 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 9,900 claims were pending in Texas, approximately
5,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 5,500
claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which
legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits.

"Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company
has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of $2.54
million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after
the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California,
after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate
remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was
made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case
in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009.

"The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one
of which, the Patrick O'Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on
appeal. In an opinion dated January 12, 2012, the California
Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and
instructed the trial court to enter a judgment of nonsuit in favor
of the defendants.

"On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
James Baccus claim in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with
compensatory damages of $2.45 million and additional damages of
$11.9 million. The Company's post-trial motions were denied by
order dated January 5, 2009. The case was concluded by settlement
in the fourth quarter of 2010 during the pendency of the Company's
appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

"On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles, California. The amount of the
judgment entered was $0.68 million plus interest and costs. The
Company is pursuing an appeal in this matter.

"On February 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury
found that the Company was responsible for 0.5% of plaintiffs'
damages of $16.93 million; however, based on California court
rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment was entered
against the Company in the amount of $1.65 million, plus costs.
Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with the
trial court requesting judgment in the Company's favor
notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009, the
court advised that the Company's motion was granted and judgment
was entered in favor of the Company. The trial court's ruling was
affirmed on appeal by order dated August 25, 2011. The plaintiffs
appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court of California, which
dismissed the appeal on February 29, 2012; the matter is now
finally determined in the Company's favor.

"On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, state
court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a
$14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th
share of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On
February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in
the amount of $0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and
in the amount of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and
two other defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the
amount of $0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only,
in Nelson. All defendants, including the Company, and the
plaintiffs took timely appeals of certain aspects of those
judgments. The Nelson appeal is pending. The Company resolved the
Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the settled
claims for 2012.

"On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the
Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on
the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company has filed post-trial motions
seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to
reduce the damages, which the Company argues are excessive under
New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic
losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October
18, 2011, and a written decision is expected to be issued. The
Company anticipates that it will likely appeal any judgment that
may be entered on the verdict.

"On March 9, 2012, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, state
court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/8th share of a
$123,000 verdict in the Frank Paasch claim. The Company and
plaintiffs have filed post-trial motions. The Company anticipates
that it will likely appeal any judgment that may be entered on the
verdict.

"Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred
costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final
payment amount is determined.

"The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the three-month
periods ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 totaled $23.6 million and
$27.6 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of
settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of
activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally
lag the tort system activity by several months or more, and may
show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Cash payments of
settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other
required documentation are received by the Company, and
reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by
insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices,
transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and
the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The
Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs,
net of funds received from insurers, for the three-month periods
ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 totaled a $18.2 million net payment
and $12.7 million net payment, respectively.

"Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021
based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. As of
March 31, 2012, the Company's actual experience during the updated
reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed
generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's liability
estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the Company
considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as
the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate
rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects
on expected future settlement values. Based on this evaluation,
the Company determined that no change in the estimate was
warranted for the period ended March 31, 2012. A liability of $894
million was recorded as of December 31, 2011 to cover the
estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or subsequently
asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is attributable
to settlement and defense costs for future claims projected to be
filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when cash payments
are made in respect of settled claims and defense costs. The
liability was $871 million as of March 31, 2012. It is not
possible to forecast when cash payments related to the asbestos
liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected such
cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021, due
to the significant proportion of future claims included in the
estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a
claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated
costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability
to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion
of the total estimated liability at March 31, 2012 was $101
million and represents the Company's best estimate of total
asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period.
Such amount is based upon the HR&A model together with the
Company's prior year payment experience for both settlement and
defense costs."

Crane Co. manufactures and sells engineered industrial products in
the United States and internationally. The company operates in
five segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials,
Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Remains Defendant in 2,418 Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012, disclosed it remains a defendant in 2,418 lawsuits
in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted certain cumulative
trauma diseases related to exposure to silica, asbestos, and/or
coal dust.

The Company states: "We categorize the product liability losses
that we experience into two main categories, single incident and
cumulative trauma. Single incident product liability claims are
discrete incidents that are typically known to us when they occur
and involve observable injuries and, therefore, more quantifiable
damages. Therefore, we maintain 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. Our reserve for single incident product liability
claims was $4.7 million at both March 31, 2012 and December 31,
2011. Single incident product liability expense during the three
months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 was $0.3 million and $0.4
million, respectively. We evaluate our 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. We are presently named as a defendant in
2,418 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
us. We are 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.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 26,000 Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012, disclosed it had approximately 26,000 active
pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at March 31,
2012 and at 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 $85 million for indemnity and defense costs for settled,
pending and future claims at March 31, 2012, compared to $89
million at December 31, 2011. We use a fifteen-year time horizon
for our estimate of this liability.

"At March 31, 2012, we had recorded $52 million as an asset for
probable recovery from our insurers for the pending and projected
asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $53 million
recorded at December 31, 2011. 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.

Dana Holding Corporation (Dana) 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.  Its customer base
includes virtually every major vehicle manufacturer in the global
light vehicle, medium/heavy vehicle and off-highway markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Had 715 Active Cases at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2012, disclosed that it was a defendant in
approximately 715 active cases involving approximately 3,255
plaintiffs asserting asbestos-related claims.

The Company states: "Many of these cases involve multiple
defendants (typically from fifty to more than one hundred). About
2,570, or approximately 79%, of these plaintiff claims are
currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with
massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based upon U.S. Steel's experience
in such cases, it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs
who ultimately assert claims against U.S. Steel will likely be a
small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. During the three
months ended March 31, 2012, U.S. Steel paid approximately $2
million in settlements. These settlements and other dispositions
resolved approximately 40 claims. New case filings in the first
three months of 2012 added approximately 60 claims. At December
31, 2011, U.S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 695 active
cases involving approximately 3,235 plaintiffs. During 2011, U.S.
Steel paid approximately $8 million in settlements. These
settlements and other dispositions resolved approximately 130
claims. New case filings in the year ended December 31, 2011 added
approximately 275 claims. Most claims filed in 2012 and 2011
involved individual or small groups of claimants as many
jurisdictions no longer permit the filing of mass complaints.

"Historically, these claims against U.S. Steel fall into three
major groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos at U.S. Steel facilities (referred to as
"premises claims"); (2) claims made by industrial workers
allegedly exposed to products manufactured by U. S. Steel; and (3)
claims made under certain federal and general maritime laws by
employees of former operations of U. S. Steel. In general, the
only insurance available to U.S. Steel with respect to asbestos
claims is excess casualty insurance, which has multi-million
dollar retentions. To date, U.S. Steel has received minimal
payments under these policies relating to asbestos claims.
These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. U.S. Steel is
currently a defendant in cases in which a total of approximately
250 plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.
The potential for damages against defendants may be greater in
cases in which the plaintiffs can prove mesothelioma.

"In many cases in which claims have been asserted against U. S.
Steel, the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to U.S. Steel or its products or premises; however,
with the decline in mass plaintiff cases, the incidence of
claimants actually alleging a claim against U.S. Steel is
increasing. In addition, in many asbestos cases, the claimants
have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any
identifiable injury or compensable loss at all; that any injuries
that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure
to asbestos; or that such alleged exposure was in any way related
to U.S. Steel or its products or premises.

"The amount U.S. Steel has accrued for pending asbestos claims is
not material to U.S. Steel's financial position. U.S. Steel does
not accrue for unasserted asbestos claims because it is not
possible to determine whether any loss is probable with respect to
such claims or even to estimate the amount or range of any
possible losses. The vast majority of pending claims against U.S.
Steel allege so-called "premises" liability-based alleged exposure
on U.S. Steel's current or former premises. These claims are made
by an indeterminable number of people such as truck drivers,
railroad workers, salespersons, contractors and their employees,
government inspectors, customers, visitors and even trespassers.
In most cases the claimant also was exposed to asbestos in non-
U.S. Steel settings; the relative periods of exposure between U.S.
Steel and non-U.S. Steel settings vary with each claimant; and the
strength or weakness of the causal link between U.S. Steel
exposure and any injury vary widely as do the nature and severity
of the injury claimed."

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells steel mill
products, including flat-rolled and tubular products, in North
America and Central Europe. Operations in North America also
include transportation services (railroad and barge operations)
and real estate operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,300 Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012, disclosed it had 1,300 pending
asbestos-related claims.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past
several decades and through March 31, 2012, we have been named a
defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving
approximately 5,100 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately
1,300 claims were pending and 3,800 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and
through March 31, 2012, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of approximately one thousand dollars
per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals
based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount
of liability and related expenses, if any. We do not believe that
any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect
on our future results of operations, financial position or cash
flow, and, at March 31, 2012, we had approximately $1.8 million
accrued for liability and related expenses. With respect to
unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of
potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the
probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of
liability, if any. While we continue to pursue recovery for
recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through insurance,
indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are unable to
quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because
of the variability in coverage amounts, limitations and
deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with respect to our
insurance policies for the years in question."

Chicago Bridge and Iron Company NV (CB&I) is an integrated
engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) service provides
and process technology licensor, delivering solutions to customers
primarily in the energy and natural resource industries. CB&I
provides conceptual design, technology, engineering, procurement,
fabrication, construction and commissioning services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Parsons" Suit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------
In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.,
and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR, seeking to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive
damages individually and an unspecified amount for the class in
both compensatory and punitive damages. The class was brought on
behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims
arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and
cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of
tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to
develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. In December
2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux
Corporation of North American and Armstrong World Industries,
filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

No updates were reported in Reynolds American Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

Reynolds American Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarette and other tobacco products in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Had $917MM ARO at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Plc in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012, reported total asbestos-related obligations of
$917.6 million.

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 Inc. (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 March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, over 90% 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.

At March 31, 2012, the Company reported total asbestos-related
liabilities of $917.6 million and total asset for probable
asbestos-related insurance recoveries of $322.8 million.  The
Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to Ingersoll-Rand
Company and Trane Inc. was $126.0 million and $196.8 million at
March 31, 2012, and $126.9 million and $195.5 million, at December
31, 2011, respectively.

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.

Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most
of its insurers. The settlements collectively account for
approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance
receivable as of March 31, 2012. 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. 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.

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. All but one of
the defendants responded to IR-New Jersey's complaint. The
responding defendants generally challenged the Company's right to
recovery, and raised various coverage defenses.

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: Coca-Cola Still Involved in Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 30, 2012, disclosed that it remains involved in a lawsuit
for asbestos-related insurance coverage.

The Company 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% 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 that (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 a 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. It owns and markets a range of nonalcoholic sparkling
beverage brands, which includes Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Fanta and
Sprite. The Company's segments include Eurasia and Africa, Europe,
Latin America, North America, Pacific, Bottling Investments and
Corporate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich Corp. Still Defendant in Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012, disclosed that it 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.

Goodrich Corporation is a worldwide supplier of aerospace
components, systems and services to the commercial and general
aviation airplane markets. Goodrich also is a supplier of systems
and products to the defense and space markets. Its business is
conducted globally with manufacturing, service and sales
undertaken in various locations worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Still Defending Exposure Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012, disclosed that it remains a defendant in numerous
lawsuits alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure
to asbestos dust.

From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a
high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos.  The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958.  The typical asbestos
personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seek compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts.

As of March 31, 2012, the Company has determined that it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
approximately 4,700 plaintiffs and claimants.  Based on an
analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2011,
approximately 71% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary
damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount
sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial
court.  Approximately 27% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages
of $15 million or less, and 2% of plaintiffs specifically plead
damages greater than $15 million but less than $100 million.
Fewer than 1% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages $100
million or greater but less than $122 million.

In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-handling
agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the
country.  These agreements require evaluation and negotiation
regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria
established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims
include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable
probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's
former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in
1958.  Some plaintiffs' counsel have historically withheld claims
under these agreements for later presentation while focusing their
attention on active litigation in the tort system.  The Company
believes that as of March 31, 2012 there are approximately 350
claims against other defendants which are likely to be asserted
some time in the future against the Company.

The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits
or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
March 31, 2012, has disposed of the asbestos claims of
approximately 388,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average
indemnity payment per claim of approximately $8,200.  Certain of
these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over a
number of years.  Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately
$35 million at March 31, 2012 ($18 million at December 31, 2011)
and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per
claim.

The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability
(i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs
plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning
with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993,
the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.0 billion
through 2011, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-
related liability.

On March 11, 2011, the Company received a verdict in an asbestos
case in which conspiracy claims had been asserted against the
Company. Of the total nearly $90 million awarded by the jury
against the four defendants in the case, almost $10 million in
compensatory damages were assessed against all four defendants,
and $40 million in punitive damages were assessed against the
Company.

The Company continues to deny the conspiracy allegations in this
case and will vigorously challenge this verdict, if necessary, in
the appellate courts, and, therefore, has made no change to its
asbestos-related liability as of March 31, 2012.  While the
Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit, the
Company and other conspiracy defendants have successfully
challenged jury verdicts in similar cases.

The Company's reported results of operations for 2011 were
materially affected by the $165 million (pretax and after tax)
fourth quarter charge for asbestos-related costs and asbestos-
related payments continue to be substantial.  Any future
additional charge would likewise materially affect the Company's
results of operations for the period in which it is recorded.
Also, the continued use of significant amounts of cash for
asbestos-related costs has affected and may continue to affect the
Company's cost of borrowing and its ability to pursue global or
domestic acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its
operating cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be
sufficient to pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and
to fund its working capital and capital expenditure requirements
on a short-term and long-term basis.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., is a manufacturer of glass containers with
81 glass manufacturing plants in 21 countries. It produces glass
containers for beer, ready-to-drink low alcohol refreshers,
spirits, wine, food, tea, juice and pharmaceuticals. The Company
also produces glass containers for soft drinks and other non-
alcoholic beverages outside the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco International Estimates $52MM Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 30, 2012, recorded an estimated net liability of $52 million
as a liability for pending and future asbestos-related claims.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous
other companies are named as defendants in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims
based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or
distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos
or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components
manufactured by third-parties. Each case typically names between
dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. While the Company has
observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits over the past
several years, including lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-
related claims, a large percentage of these suits have not
presented viable legal claims and, as a result, have been
dismissed by the courts. The Company's strategy has been to mount
a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated suits
dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling suits before trial.
Although a large percentage of litigated suits have been
dismissed, the Company cannot predict the extent to which it will
be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. In addition,
the Company continues to assess and evolve its strategy for
resolving its asbestos claims, including pursuing other legal
alternatives for certain subsidiaries with asbestos liabilities
and limited assets. As part of the Company's strategy, it has also
entered into a cost-sharing agreement with an entity from which it
acquired a business several decades ago.

Under the agreement, insurance proceeds from policies that were
purchased by the seller prior to its acquisition by the Company
have been made available to the Company. To the extent there is
insufficient insurance for claims subject to the agreement, the
parties are required to share costs, although responsibility for
such excess costs gradually transitions to the Company over the
next nine to ten years. In 2022, the Company will ultimately be
responsible for all excess costs if available insurance policies
do not fully respond. While the Company expects that the insurance
policies it has gained access to under the agreement will be
sufficient to cover any increased liability resulting from this
arrangement, it cannot predict whether this will be the case.

As of March 30, 2012, there were approximately 5,000 lawsuits
pending against the Company, its subsidiaries or entities for
which the Company has assumed responsibility. Each lawsuit
typically includes several claims, and the Company has determined
that there were approximately 6,100 claims outstanding as of March
30, 2012, which reflects the Company's current estimate of the
number of viable claims made against it, its affiliates or
entities for which it has assumed responsibility in connection
with acquisitions or divestitures. This amount includes
adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted,
identify incorrect defendants or are duplicative of other actions.

Annually, during the Company's third quarter, the Company performs
an analysis with the assistance of outside counsel and other
experts to update its estimated asbestos-related assets
and liabilities. In addition, on a quarterly basis, the Company
re-evaluates the assumptions used to perform the annual analysis
and records an expense as necessary to reflect changes in its
estimated liability and related insurance asset. Due to a high
degree of uncertainty regarding the pattern and length of time
over which claims will be made and then settled or litigated, the
Company uses multiple estimation methodologies based on varying
scenarios of potential outcomes to estimate the range of loss. The
Company's estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance
recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is
predicated on the Company's legal strategy for resolving its
asbestos claims as well as being based on claim experience over
the past five years, and a projection which covers claims expected
to be filed, including related defense costs, over the next seven
years on an undiscounted basis. The Company has concluded that
estimating the liability beyond the seven year period will not
provide a reasonable estimate, as these uncertainties increase
significantly as the projection period lengthens. The Company also
periodically evaluates its strategy and the assumptions used in
calculating the liability and corresponding insurance assets,
including the five year look back and seven year look forward
periods to assess whether these assumptions continue to be
appropriate in light of trends and developments affecting the
Company's claims experience. The Company's estimate of asbestos-
related insurance recoveries represents estimated amounts due to
the Company for previously paid and settled claims and the
probable reimbursements relating to its estimated liability for
pending and future claims. In determining the amount of insurance
recoverable, the Company considers a number of factors, including
available insurance, allocation methodologies, solvency and
creditworthiness of the insurers. The Company believes that its
asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets as of
March 30, 2012 are appropriate.

As of March 30, 2012, the Company's estimated net liability of $52
million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance
Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related
defense costs of $275 million, and separately as an asset for
insurance recoveries of $223 million. Similarly, as of September
30, 2011, the Company's estimated net liability of $82 million was
recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
of $306 million, and separately as an asset for insurance
recoveries of $224 million.

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

Tyco International Ltd is a Switzerland-based holding company of
Tyco Group. The Tyco Group (the Group) is a diversifies, global
provider of diversified products ranging from electronic security
and alarm monitoring to fire-fighting equipment and breathing
apparatus, water purification and flow control solutions.


                           *********

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  * * *