CAR_Public/120601.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, June 1, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 108

                             Headlines

AIG INC: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in 2008 Securities Suit Pending
AIG INC: Still Defends Consolidated ERISA Class Action in N.Y.
AIG INC: Proposed Canadian Securities Class Action Still Pending
AMERICAN CAREER: Sued in Calif. for Withholding Financial Aid
ARIZONA: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Copayments

BLUE DIAMOND: Accused of Misbranding "All Natural" Products
CANADA: Gov't. Won't Appeal Ruling on Veteran Benefits Suit
CHINACAST EDUCATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Calif.
CHINACAST EDUCATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
CITIZENS REPUBLIC: Defends Suit Over Debit Transactions Posting

COST PLUS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Bed Bath & Beyond
DEBT PAY: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Debt Adjuster Fees
ECOLAB INC: June 8 Final Hearing Set For Merger Suit Settlement
ECOLAB INC: COREXIT Lawsuit Against Unit Still Pending
ECOLAB INC: Defends Against Wage-related Lawsuits

ENCSCO PLC: Has Pending Motion to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit
EQUITRUST LIFE: Faces Suit Alleging Contract Fraud and Deceit
FACEBOOK INC: British Investors May Join Class Action Over IPO
FEMA: Class Action Over Trailers Nears Settlement
FOREST OIL: Sued Over Untrue Statements in IPO Prospectus

IRAN: Supreme Court Refuses to Revive Class Action
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Loses Bid to Derail Katrina Class Action
MERCK: Canadian Claimants Seek to Recover More in Class Action
NEVADA: Stilwell's Suit Challenges State's Helmet Law
OSSIPEE, NH: Lakefront Homeowners Mull Tax Class Action

PITTSBURGH PENGUINS: Sued Over Text Message Alerts
SEI INVESTMENTS: Motion to Dismiss ETF-Related Suit Still Pending
SEI INVESTMENTS: Sept. 20 Hearing Set in Stanford-Related Suit
ST. JUDE: Discovery Ongoing in Minnesota Securities Class Action
ST. JUDE: Still Defends Silzone-Related Lawsuits

SYNGENTA CROP: Atrazine Settlement Final Hearing Set for October
WASHINGTON: Cities Face Class Action Over Cell Phone Service Tax
WMS INDUSTRIES: Still Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss Conlee Suit

* Hong Kong Plans to Introduce Class Actions to Protect Investors
* Lawyer Removed From Class Action Over "Flagrant Disrespect"

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thais Wear Shirts Promoting Safety of Chrysotile
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eternit Has Left Lebanon, Not Its Toxic Products
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SA State Says Secrecy Is Due To Privacy Reasons
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Future of Contaminated Gettysburg Relic Discussed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Picton Residents' Safety Reassured

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.6 Million Approved for Utah Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Pours in $200K for Fairfield Hospital Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Junks Crane Co.'s Motion for Reargument
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Won't Junk Suit v. Crane Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Bid to File Appendix in Bernard Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Moves Time to Perfect Appeal in Dummitt Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Junks Portions of Suit v. York Int'l.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Allows NYCHA to File Proofs of Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Discharge of Worker's Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Ct. Reverses Judgment in Personal Injury Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 1,121 Pending Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 16,000 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still a Defendant in PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Continues to Defend Filter Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Had $1MM Litigation Expense in 1Q
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 76,000 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 26 Pending Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 402 Pending Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Still Defending Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Still Defending Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Industries Still Defending Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Still Defending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Still Defending Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Awaiting Settlement Okay

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Still Faces Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison's Liability Was $10MM at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Facing 93 Suits Over Steam Main Rupture
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Unit's Net Liability Was $1MM at April 1

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadian Agency Lists 318 Contaminated Buildings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baie Verte Victims Wait for Registry and Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Build Motion Denied, Hearing Set July 10
ASBESTOS UPDATE: KAM Services Wins Salem Theatre Abatement Job
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. App. Ct. Rules Out Claim Against Hennessy

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AEI Owners Plead Not Guilty to Clean Air Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Disgusted Over Fraud in Montgomery Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vancouver Suites Repair an Excuse to Hike Rent
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Senate Committee Reviews Discovery Process
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Clears Ford in Exposure Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor Dept. Probes St. Patrick's for Hazards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Hazmat at Du Quoin High Protects, Inspires
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Superior Court Orders Tile Council to Pay $4.2MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazards at Service Canada Building Unconfirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Orchard Park Abatement Firm Faces $56,000 Fine

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren UE Facing Multi-million Dollar Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Friable Fibro Found in Last Mountain Pioneer Home
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Road Building Plan Using Recycled Debris Shelved
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Test Clears Alleged Improper Home Renovations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PA Supreme Ct Junks 'Any-Fiber' Theory

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seatmate Freezes Environment Minister's Program
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burial Site for Hazmats Was Klamath Sacred Ground
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Washington School Districts Up for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Begins at Former St Mark's Primary
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Historical Resto Demolished Due to Contaminants

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NPP to consider North Ridge Project in November
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W&L Wins Settlement in Second-Hand Exposure Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Shore Middle School Renovation Plan Approved
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Welcomes New Mesothelioma Study
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yokohama Court Dismisses Exposed Workers' Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Wins $1.5MM Verdict v. Fisher
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japanese Workers Call for Asbestos Laws Reform


                          *********

AIG INC: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in 2008 Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A renewed motion for class certification in a consolidated 2008
securities litigation against American International Group, Inc.,
is pending, the Company disclosed in its May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Between May 21, 2008 and January 15, 2009, eight purported
securities class action complaints were filed against AIG and
certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP, AIG's outside
auditors, and the underwriters of various securities offerings in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act) or claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
Securities Act). On March 20, 2009, the Court consolidated all
eight of the purported securities class actions as In re American
International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation.
Subsequently, on November 18, 2011 and January 20, 2012, two
separate, though similar, securities actions were brought against
AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP by the
Kuwait Investment Office and various Oppenheimer Funds,
respectively.

On May 19, 2009, lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of
purchasers of AIG Common Stock during the alleged class period of
March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and on behalf of
purchasers of various AIG securities offered pursuant to AIG's
shelf registration statements.  The consolidated complaint alleges
that defendants made statements during the class period in press
releases, AIG's quarterly and year-end filings, during conference
calls, and in various registration statements and prospectuses in
connection with the various offerings that were materially false
and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of AIG
Common Stock.  The alleged false and misleading statements relate
to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues.  The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act.  On August 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on September 27, 2010, the
Court denied the motions to dismiss.

On November 24, 2010 and December 10, 2010, AIG and all other
defendants filed answers to the consolidated complaint denying the
material allegations therein and asserting their defenses.

On April 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs.  On November 2, 2011, the Court terminated the motion
without prejudice to an application for restoration.  On March 30,
2012, the lead plaintiff filed a renewed motion to certify a class
of plaintiffs.

As of May 3, 2012, plaintiffs in the Consolidated 2008 Securities
Litigation have not specified an amount of alleged damages,
discovery is ongoing and the Court has not determined if a class
action is appropriate or the size or scope of any class.  As a
result, AIG is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation.

As of May 3, 2012, the actions initiated by the Kuwait Investment
Office and various Oppenheimer Funds are in their early stages, no
discussions concerning potential damages have occurred and the
plaintiffs have not specified an amount of alleged damages in
their respective actions.  As a result, AIG is unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
arising from these litigations.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/
-- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for
the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S.
and internationally.  The Company operates in three segments:
Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing.


AIG INC: Still Defends Consolidated ERISA Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., continues to defend a
consolidated purported class action in New York alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
according to the Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

Between June 25, 2008, and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain
directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's Retirement
Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight
purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of
participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its
subsidiaries.  On March 19, 2009, the Court consolidated these
eight actions as In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA
Litigation II.  On June 26, 2009, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  The action purports to be brought
as a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on behalf of all participants in
or beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG and its
subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG Common Stock.  In the
consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries
under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an
investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent
to do so.  The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other
things, the defendants' purported failure to monitor and/or
disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues .
On September 18, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On March 31, 2011, the Court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss with respect to one plan at issue, and denied defendants'
motions to dismiss with respect to the other two plans at issue.

On August 5, 2011, AIG and all other defendants filed answers to
the consolidated complaint denying the material allegations
therein and asserting their defenses.

On March 19, 2012, AIG and all other defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings.

As of May 3, 2012, plaintiffs have not specified an amount of
alleged damages, discovery is ongoing, and the Court has not
determined if a class action is appropriate or the size or scope
of any class.  As a result, AIG is unable to reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
litigation.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/
-- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for
the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S.
and internationally.  The Company operates in three segments:
Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing.


AIG INC: Proposed Canadian Securities Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An application to bring a putative securities class action lawsuit
before an Ontario court against American International Group,
Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's May 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class
action against AIG, AIGFP, certain directors and officers of AIG
and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP,
pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act.  If the Court grants the
application, a class plaintiff will be permitted to file a
statement of claim against defendants.  The proposed statement of
claim would assert a class period of November 10, 2006 through
September 16, 2008 (later amended to March 16, 2006 through
September 16, 2008) and would allege that during this period
defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in
quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in
violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum
non conveniens.  On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing
on the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in
a pair of actions captioned Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda 2012
SCC 17 (Van Breda).  On April 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of
Canada issued a decision in those actions, clarifying the standard
for determining jurisdiction over foreign and out-of-province
defendants, such as AIG.

The Supreme Court of Canada found, among other things, that in
order to be "doing business" in a province for purposes of
establishing jurisdiction, a defendant must have some form of
"actual," as opposed to a merely "virtual," presence in the
jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court of Canada also suggested that in
future cases, defendants may contest jurisdiction even when they
are found to be doing business in a Canadian jurisdiction if their
business activities in the jurisdiction are unrelated to the
subject matter of the litigation.

The hearing on defendants' motion has been scheduled and will
address, inter alia, whether, under the ruling in Van Breda, AIG
and AIGFP were "doing business" in Ontario for purposes of
jurisdiction.

In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, plaintiff alleged
general and special damages of $500 million, and punitive damages
of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the
Court finds appropriate.  As of May 3, 2012, the Court has not
determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's
application to file a statement of claim and no merits discovery
has occurred.  As a result, AIG is unable to reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
litigation

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/
-- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for
the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S.
and internationally.  The Company operates in three segments:
Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing.


AMERICAN CAREER: Sued in Calif. for Withholding Financial Aid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that the American
Career College kept financial aid money for itself, for services
it did not provide, instead of giving the money to students, a
student claims in a Los Angeles Superior Court class action.

Lashara Leonard sued American Career College on behalf of students
who did not receive financial aid for housing and transportation,
though they qualified for it.

"ACC is a college campus institutionally accredited by the
Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools, which has been
approved to participate in the Federal Student Aid Program through
the United States Department of Education," Ms. Leonard says in
the complaint.

ACC offers degrees in healthcare programs such as nursing and
dentistry at three campuses in Southern California.

According to the complaint, students are responsible for finding
their own housing and transportation: "ACC does not maintain any
student housing.  Further, ACC assumes no responsibility for
student housing.  ACC's online catalog represents that the total
cost of the program does not include transportation costs to and
from externship or clinical sites.  This cost is the student's
responsibility."

Ms. Leonard enrolled in the vocational nursing program at the Los
Angeles campus.  The college sent her a letter breaking down her
tuition costs and awards of financial aid after she was accepted,
but Ms. Leonard says she never got any of the money.

"Plaintiff has never received any of the funds allotted for
room/board, transportation, or personal [expenses]," according to
the complaint.

Ms. Leonard claims the college kept financial aid money from
hundreds of other students: "Plaintiff is informed and believes
that, as in her case, ACC has failed to disburse the housing,
transportation and/or personal funds to similarly situated
enrolled students," the complaint states.

"Allowing colleges to violate the financial aid laws by failing to
appropriately disburse financial aid income to the enrolled
students enriches the colleges by paying for services not rendered
while at the same time creating a debt for students who will be
newly entering the workplace."

Ms. Leonard says the college catalog misled students by asserting
that total tuition costs include fees for tuition and services
provided on campus, even though there are also built-in fees for
housing, transportation, and personal use, which the college does
not provide.

As an example, Ms. Leonard says, the catalog lists total tuition
for vocational nursing as $33,950, though tuition fees are only
around $18,600, so students are charged $15,000 for services they
do not actually receive.

"Defendant ACC intended to defraud plaintiff and those similarly
situat(ed) with plaintiff as evidenced by the fact that defendant
ACC provided no breakdown of the $33,950 tuition; failed to advise
plaintiff and those similarly situated that aid had been obtained
for housing, transportation, and personal funding; failed to
disburse the aid obtained for transportation, housing and personal
funding to plaintiff and those similarly situated, but instead
kept those funds and applied them to services ACC did not and does
not provide," according to the complaint.

Ms. Leonard says the college deceived and defrauded its students,
who had no reason to believe that their tuition costs included
services besides classroom instruction and campus services.

As a result, Ms. Leonard says, the students "incur the debts of
financial aid, [but] . . . they do not receive the full benefit of
the funding."

Ms. Leonard says the withholding of financial aid was "willful,
wanton, malicious, and despicable in that defendants knew that
they had obtained the financial aid on behalf of plaintiff and
those similarly situated for services defendants did not provide,
i.e., housing, transportation and personal costs, and failed to
advise the plaintiff and those similarly situated that they were
entitled to disbursements based on the aid received or to make
such disbursements to plaintiff or those similarly situated of
those sums not directly related to services provided by the
college."

She seeks rescission and punitive damages for fraud, conversion,
and unfair business practices.

She is represented by Sohaila Sagheb of Woodland Hills, who did
not return calls and e-mails seeking comment.


ARIZONA: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Copayments
----------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that Arizona is
forcing single adults and couples without minor children living
with them to pay copayments that exceed the "nominal" co-pays
authorized by the federal Medicaid Act, according to a federal
class action.

On Oct. 1, 2003, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System
(AHCCCS), "with retroactive permission from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, implemented an amended rule that
required certain Medicaid-eligible Arizonans to pay copayments
that exceed the limited, 'nominal' copayments authorized by the
federal Medicaid Act" if the participants are single adults and
couples who do not have a minor child living with them, according
to the complaint.

The rule "also allowed health care providers to deny care and
services to Medicaid beneficiaries who are unable to pay the
copayment, in violation of the federal Medicaid Act," the class
claims.

Lead plaintiff Flint Wood claims the "mandatory and heightened
copayments" were approved for a second time in 2006 and for a
third time on Oct. 21, 2011.

As "a result of the copayment requirements, eligible AHCCCS
participants, including persons with significant medical
conditions, for example, persons with deformities of the back and
spine, asthma, and major depression do not have the money to pay
for their copayments and are going without needed medical care,"
and "Medicaid-eligible persons are not fully participating in the
AHCCCS Medicaid program and their health is being adversely
affected," the class claims.

The co-pays include $4 for each generic prescription, $10 for a
brand name prescription, and $5 for an office visit.  Before the
rule was imposed in 2003, an office visit cost $1, the class says.

Mr. Wood, who suffered an ATV accident in 1999 that caused
bleeding in his brain and a spinal fracture, says AHCCCS wants him
to pay more than $60 per month for his medical care, though some
weeks he earns only $20, collecting aluminum cans and scrap metal
to sell.

Mr. Wood says he "often cannot afford his medications and has to
go days and sometimes weeks without some of his medications."

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to stop
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Director Thomas
Betlach and U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen
Sebelius "from continuing to violate the Medicaid provisions of
the Social Security Act, which strictly limit the imposition of
'copayments' on AHCCCS participants."

A copy of the Complaint in Wood, et al. v. Betlach, et al., Case
No. 12-cv-08098 (D. Ariz.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/29/AzMedicaid.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ellen Sue Katz, Esq.
          WILLIAM E. MORRIS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
          202 East McDowell Road, Suite 257
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 252-3432
          E-mail: eskatz@qwestoffice.net

               - and -

          Jane Perkins, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
          101 East Weaver Street, Suite G-7
          Carrboro, NC 27510
          Telephone: (919) 968-6308
          E-mail: perkins@healthlaw.org


BLUE DIAMOND: Accused of Misbranding "All Natural" Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Werdebaugh, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Blue Diamond Growers, Case No. 5:12-cv-02724
(N.D. Calif., May 29, 2012) is brought on behalf of a nationwide
class of consumers who, within the last four years, purchased the
Defendant's almond products (1) labeled with the ingredient
"evaporated cane juice," and (2) labeled "All Natural" despite the
fact that the product contains artificial or synthetic
ingredients, flavorings, coloring, and chemical preservatives.

In promoting ingredients of its Misbranded Food Products and their
naturalness and health benefits, the Defendant claims to
understand the importance of communicating responsibly about its
products, the Plaintiff asserts.  Nevertheless, he contends, the
Defendant has made, and continues to make, false and deceptive
claims on its Misbranded Food Products in violation of federal and
California laws that govern the types of representations that can
be made on food labels.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Los Gatos, California, who
purchased Blue Diamond Misbranded Food Products during the Class
Period.

Blue Diamond, a California corporation, is a producer of retail
food products, including the Misbranded Food Products at issue.
Blue Diamond, a cooperative of approximately five thousand
growers, is the world's largest almond processing and marketing
company.  Blue Diamond sells its products throughout the United
States of America and worldwide.  Blue Diamond brands include
Baked Nut Chips, Traditional Flavored Almonds, Bold Flavored
Almonds, Cooking & Baking Almonds, Nut Thins, and Almond Breeze
Almond Milk.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1901 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 350
          Campbell, CA 95008
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com


CANADA: Gov't. Won't Appeal Ruling on Veteran Benefits Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Auld, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
disabled veteran who launched a class-action lawsuit against the
federal government said he is thrilled Ottawa will respect a
Federal Court ruling and stop clawing back money from veterans'
pensions.

Dennis Manuge broke down on May 29 as he thanked his lawyers,
federal ministers and thousands of veterans he says will now see
repayment of possibly C$500 million that had been cut from their
monthly payments over a period of nearly 30 years.

"This has been a very difficult experience for Canada's disabled
veterans, including me," he said, with his 17-month-old daughter
and wife looking on.

"It is a relief that we are one step closer to being reimbursed."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Veterans Affairs Minister Steven
Blaney announced earlier in the day that they would not appeal the
decision handed down this month that found the government was
acting illegally by reducing veteran's long-term disability
benefits.

The ruling was a powerful victory for roughly 6,000 veterans, some
of whom have seen their payments slashed by thousands of dollars a
month.

"This is huge," said Alisa Sellar, whose now bed-ridden husband
developed multiple sclerosis after working for years as a fuel air
frame technician and saw his benefits cut by more than C$60,000.

"It's been a huge struggle for the last 11 years to try to keep
our home and look after my two children and their father.  . . .
This is going to make my life a lot easier."

The class action was filed in March 2007 on behalf of Mr. Manuge
and 4,500 other disabled veterans whose long-term disability
benefits were reduced by the amount of the monthly Veterans
Affairs disability pension they receive.

Peter Driscoll, Mr. Manuge's lawyer, said a veterans' ombudsman
estimated a settlement could exceed C$500 million if the payments
go back to 1985.  But, he added that the clawback provision has
been in place since 1979, which could significantly increase that
amount.

Mr. Driscoll said they would soon sit down with federal officials
to sort out those details.

"We believe the spirit that Minister MacKay talked about today
reflects reimbursing disabled veterans for the money that's been
clawed back under this policy," he said.

"So if that policy goes back to 1979, that is the decision of the
court."

Minister MacKay said the cost still had to be worked out and
wouldn't reveal how many people it might affect or how far back it
would go, but added that the departments were moving quickly to
settle the matter.

Asked why it took a court case to address complaints from veterans
across the country who said they were losing vital income after
becoming ill and disabled while serving in the military, Minister
MacKay said the government needed legal clarification on the
benefits.

"We now have that clarity and it has received considerable legal
and judicial oversight," he said.

"As a result of that court action, we are now moving forward out
of fairness and respect for those veterans to ensure those
benefits are fully paid."

The opposition praised the decision, but said it shouldn't have
taken a prolonged legal fight, parliamentary motions and multiple
ombudsmen's reports condemning the clawback to make it.

"I am very pleased for Dennis Manuge and for his tireless efforts
to obtain justice for himself and for thousands of veterans in
Canada," said Liberal veterans affairs critic Sean Casey.

"It is sad that the government had to be shamed into doing the
right thing, but regardless of their motives, the decision to
respect the Federal Court is a welcome development."

Minister Blaney said all three disability benefits awarded to
veterans will be aligned and not be deducted from the new Earnings
Loss Benefit under the New Veterans Charter.

Mr. Manuge joined the army in 1994 and spent almost 10 years in
uniform, serving a tour in Bosnia in 2001 after he was injured.
In 2002, while still serving, he began receiving a $444 monthly
disability pension on top of his pay, but that changed when he was
discharged for medical reasons in December 2003.

The military's compulsory insurance plan entitled Mr. Manuge to 75
per cent of his former income for two years because he had become
too physically disabled to do his job.


CHINACAST EDUCATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Chinacast Education Corp. and
its CEO Ron Chan Tze Ngon transferred millions of company dollars
into other accounts without informing shareholders, according to a
federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Puente v. ChinaCast Education
Corporation, et al., Case No. 12-cv-_____ (C.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/29/WheresMoney.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 24
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CHINACAST EDUCATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on May 26 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
stock of ChinaCast Education Corporation between February 14, 2011
and April 2, 2012, inclusive.

To join the ChinaCast class action, visit the firm's Web site at,
or call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may
also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class
action.

The action filed by the Rosen Law Firm is pending in the District
Court for Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against ChinaCast and its officers and directors for issuing false
and misleading information to investors about the Company's true
financial and business condition.  Specifically, the Complaint
alleges ChinaCast issued materially false and misleading financial
statements during the Class Period because of undisclosed material
weaknesses in the Company's internal controls and the alleged
wrongful transfer of $120 million in cash by CEO Chan from bank
accounts of ChinaCast's subsidiaries.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 25, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 szhang@rosenlegal.com


CITIZENS REPUBLIC: Defends Suit Over Debit Transactions Posting
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. and its banking subsidiary,
Citizens Bank, are defending themselves against a class action
complaint relating to their practice of posting debit card
transactions to customers' deposit accounts, according to the
Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012

In the first quarter of 2012, putative class action litigation was
filed against the Bank and the Corporation, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and in Genesee County
Circuit Court in the State of Michigan, relating to the Bank's
practices in posting debit card transactions to customers' deposit
accounts.  The class of plaintiffs, which purports to constitute
substantially all of the Bank's customers during the class period,
alleges that the Bank improperly reordered debit card transactions
from the highest amount to lowest amount before processing these
transactions in order to generate unwarranted overdraft fees.
Plaintiffs contend that the Bank should have processed such
transactions in the chronological order they were authorized or
from lowest to highest, and seek restitution for the fees they
claim were wrongly charged as well as a declaratory judgment and
attorney fees.  Citizens has filed a motion to dismiss the first
action filed in federal court.  The state court action has been
stayed, and the same lead plaintiff then filed suit in federal
court, where Citizens intends to file a motion to dismiss.  This
litigation is still in its early stages and there can be no
assurance that the outcome will not be adverse to Citizens, says
Citizens.  However, based on the information currently known,
Citizens does not believe the resolution of this litigation will
have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash
flows or financial condition.

Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. is a diversified banking and
financial services company registered as a bank holding company.
It provides full range of banking and financial services to
individuals and businesses through its banking subsidiary,
Citizens Bank.  These services include deposit products, loan
products, and other consumer-oriented financial services such as
safe deposit and night depository facilities, wealth management
services and Automated Teller Machines ("ATMs").


COST PLUS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Bed Bath & Beyond
-------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Dixon, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Cost Plus, Inc., Joseph H. Coulombe, Clifford J.
Einstein, Barry J. Feld, Danny W. Gurr, John C. Pound, Kim D.
Robbins, Fredric M. Roberts, Kenneth T. Stevens, Bed Bath & Beyond
Inc., and Blue Coral Acquisition Corp., Case No. 5:12-cv-02721
(N.D. Calif., May 25, 2012) is brought on behalf of the holders of
Cost Plus' common stock against certain officers, directors and
other persons and entities involved in a proposed transaction
through which the Company will merge with Bed Bath & Beyond for
alleged inadequate consideration.

Both the consideration to Cost Plus common shareholders
contemplated in the Proposed Transaction and the process by which
the Defendants propose to consummate the Proposed Transaction are
fundamentally unfair to her and the other common shareholders of
the Company, Ms. Dixon argues.  Hence, she seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed
Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, recover damages resulting from the Individual
Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good
faith, and due care.

Ms. Dixon is a citizen of New York and a shareholder of the
Company.

Cost Plus, a California corporation, is a specialty retailer of
casual home furnishings and entertaining products in the United
States.  The Company services its stores from its distribution
centers located in Stockton, California, and Windsor, Virginia.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.  Bed Bath & Beyond, a New York corporation, is a chain of
retail stores, operating under the names Bed Bath & Beyond,
Christmas Tree hops, Harmon and Harmon Face Values, and buybuy
BABY.  Blue Coral is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Bed
Oath & Beyond formed solely for the purpose of consummating the
Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          Vahn Alexander, Esq.
          Christopher B. Hayes, 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
                  valexander@faruqilaw.com
                  chayes@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


DEBT PAY: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Debt Adjuster Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Debt Pay Gateway and its top
executives Donald Cook and Christopher P. Queen prey upon
consumers with "criminally unlawful debt adjuster fees," a class
action claims in King County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Goucher v. Debt Pay Gateway, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-2-18759-2 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/29/DebtAdjust.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darrell W. Scott, Esq.
          Matthew J. Zuchetto, Esq.
          Boyd M. Mayo, Esq.
          Andrew S. Biviano, Esq.
          THE SCOTT LAW GROUP, P.S.
          926 W. Sprague Avenue, Suite 680
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 455-3966


ECOLAB INC: June 8 Final Hearing Set For Merger Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing for the approval of Ecolab Inc.'s settlement of a
consolidated merger-related lawsuit is set for June 8, 2012,
according to the Company's May 3, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On December 1, 2011, Ecolab completed its merger with Nalco
Holding Company, a leading water treatment and process improvement
company.  The total fair value of cash and stock consideration
transferred to acquire all of Nalco's common stock was
approximately $5.5 billion.

Following the announcement of the Nalco merger in July 2011, four
purported stockholders of Nalco filed putative class action
lawsuits against the members of Nalco's board of directors and
Ecolab, among other defendants, in the Circuit Court of the
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, State of Illinois.
The court consolidated the four putative class action lawsuits
into one action.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed
a consolidated amended complaint.  The consolidated amended
complaint alleges, among other things, that the merger transaction
was the result of an unfair and inadequate process, that the
consideration to be received by Nalco stockholders in the merger
was inadequate, that the preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus (filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the merger) contained misstatements
and omissions and that the members of Nalco's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Nalco stockholders.  The
consolidated amended complaint additionally alleges that Nalco and
Ecolab aided and abetted the Nalco board of directors in their
alleged breach of fiduciary duties.  The consolidated action
sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining Ecolab and
Nalco from proceeding with the merger.

On October 24, 2011, the parties to the consolidated action
reached an agreement in principle regarding settlement of the
consolidated action.  Under the settlement, the consolidated
action will be dismissed with prejudice on the merits and all
defendants will be released from any and all claims relating to,
among other things, the merger and any related disclosures.  The
settlement has been preliminary approved by the court, and a final
settlement hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2012.  In exchange for
the releases provided in the settlement, Ecolab and Nalco provided
additional disclosure in the joint proxy statement/prospectus
requested by plaintiffs in the consolidated action.  The parties
have agreed that the lead plaintiff may apply to the court for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, which,
under certain circumstances, the defendants have agreed not to
oppose.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, Ecolab Inc. --
http://www.ecolab.com/-- develops and markets programs, products,
and services for the hospitality, foodservice, healthcare,
industrial, and energy markets.  The company offers specialized
cleaners and sanitizers for washing dishes, glassware, flatware,
foodservice utensils, and kitchen equipment, as well as for
laundries and general housekeeping functions; food safety products
and equipment, water filters, dishwasher racks, and related
kitchen sundries; pool and spa treatment programs; janitorial
cleaning and floor care products; chemical dispensing device
systems; and dishwashing machines, detergents, and rinse
additives.


ECOLAB INC: COREXIT Lawsuit Against Unit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
An Ecolab Inc. subsidiary continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits relating to the COREXIT dispersant, which was
supplied for use in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, according to
the Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the Deepwater
Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf of
Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on April
20, 2010.  A massive oil spill resulted.  Approximately one week
following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under the
authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally
requested Nalco Company, now an indirect subsidiary of Ecolab, to
supply large quantities of COREXIT(R) 9500, a Nalco oil dispersant
product listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule.  Nalco Company responded immediately by providing
available COREXIT and increasing production to supply the product
to BP's subsidiaries for use, as authorized and directed by
agencies of the federal government throughout the incident.  Prior
to the incident, Nalco and its subsidiaries had not provided
products or services or otherwise had any involvement with the
Deepwater Horizon platform.  On July 15, 2010, BP announced that
it had capped the leaking well, and the application of dispersants
by the responding parties ceased shortly thereafter.

In June, July and August 2010, and in April 2011, Nalco Company
was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in eight
putative class action complaints filed in either the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Parker, et al. v.
Nalco Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01749-CJB-SS;
Harris, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-02078-
CJB-SS; Irelan v. BP Products, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 11-
cv-00881; Adams v. Louisiana, et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-
01051), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama, Southern Division (Lavigne, et al. v. BP PLC, et al.,
Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00222-KD-C; Wright, et al. v. BP, plc, et
al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00397-B) or the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division (Walsh,
et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-00143-RV-MD;
Petitjean, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00316-RS-
EMT) on behalf of various potential classes of persons who live
and work in or derive income from the Coastal Zone.  The Parker,
Lavigne and Walsh cases have since been voluntarily dismissed.
Each of the remaining actions contains substantially similar
allegations, generally alleging, among other things, negligence
relating to the use of the Company's COREXIT dispersant in
connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The plaintiffs
in each of these putative class action lawsuits are generally
seeking awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, Ecolab Inc. --
http://www.ecolab.com/-- develops and markets programs, products,
and services for the hospitality, foodservice, healthcare,
industrial, and energy markets.  The company offers specialized
cleaners and sanitizers for washing dishes, glassware, flatware,
foodservice utensils, and kitchen equipment, as well as for
laundries and general housekeeping functions; food safety products
and equipment, water filters, dishwasher racks, and related
kitchen sundries; pool and spa treatment programs; janitorial
cleaning and floor care products; chemical dispensing device
systems; and dishwashing machines, detergents, and rinse
additives.


ECOLAB INC: Defends Against Wage-related Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------
Ecolab, Inc. is defending itself against lawsuits over wages,
according to the Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in five wage hour lawsuits claiming
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act or a similar state law.
Four of the suits seek certification of a state class of certain
Institutional, Pest Elimination or Ecolab Equipment Care (formerly
GCS) division associates.  One of these actions, a federal action
alleging various California state law claims, has now been
certified for class treatment of California Pest Elimination
employees on certain of the claims.  None of the other suits based
on state law causes of action have been certified for class-action
status.  The fifth suit, in which a tentative settlement has been
reached, seeks certification of a national class of certain
independent contractors in the company's U.S. Other Services
segment, as well as the granting of certain employment benefits.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, Ecolab Inc. --
http://www.ecolab.com/-- develops and markets programs, products,
and services for the hospitality, foodservice, healthcare,
industrial, and energy markets.  The company offers specialized
cleaners and sanitizers for washing dishes, glassware, flatware,
foodservice utensils, and kitchen equipment, as well as for
laundries and general housekeeping functions; food safety products
and equipment, water filters, dishwasher racks, and related
kitchen sundries; pool and spa treatment programs; janitorial
cleaning and floor care products; chemical dispensing device
systems; and dishwashing machines, detergents, and rinse
additives.


ENCSCO PLC: Has Pending Motion to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc's motion to dismiss a remaining matter in the lawsuits
that arose over its merger deal with Pride International, Inc., is
still pending, according to the Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On May 31, 2011, Ensco plc completed a merger transaction with
Pride International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, ENSCO
International Incorporated, a Delaware corporation and an
indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary and predecessor of Ensco plc
("Ensco Delaware"), and ENSCO Ventures LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
Ensco plc ("Merger Sub").  Pursuant to the merger agreement,
Merger Sub merged with and into Pride, with Pride as the surviving
entity and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Ensco plc.

Following the announcement of the Merger, a number of putative
shareholder class action complaints or petitions were filed
against various combinations of Pride, Pride's directors, Ensco
and certain of the Company's subsidiaries.  These lawsuits, filed
in the Delaware Chancery Court and in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, challenged the proposed Merger and
generally alleged, among other matters, that the individual
members of the Pride board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties by approving the proposed Merger, failing to take steps to
maximize value to Pride's shareholders and failing to disclose
material information concerning the proposed Merger in the
registration statement on Form S-4; that Pride, Ensco and certain
of the Company's subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches of
fiduciary duties; and that the Merger improperly favored Ensco and
unduly restricted Pride's ability to negotiate with other bidders.
These lawsuits generally sought, among other remedies,
compensatory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning
the alleged fiduciary breaches, and injunctive relief prohibiting
the defendants from consummating the Merger.  In addition, the
plaintiffs in the derivative class action lawsuits related to
Pride's previously disclosed FCPA investigation amended their
petition to add claims related to the Merger.

In 2011, the Company entered into a stipulation of settlement with
the plaintiffs in the Delaware cases, under which Pride or its
successor agreed not to oppose any application by attorneys for
the class for fees and expenses not exceeding $1.1 million. The
plaintiffs in all but one of the remaining cases filed motions to
dismiss with prejudice, and these motions were approved in March
2012.  The Company's motion to dismiss in the remaining matter
currently is pending.  The Company says that at this time, it is
unable to predict the outcome of the matter or estimate the extent
to which it may be exposed to any resulting liability.  Although
the outcome cannot be predicted, the Company does not expect the
matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial
position, operating results or cash flows.

Ensco plc -- http://www.enscoplc.com-- provides offshore contract
drilling services to the oil and gas industry worldwide. It owns
and operates an offshore drilling rig fleet of approximately 77
rigs, including 7 drill ships, 13 dynamically positioned
semisubmersible rigs, 7 moored semisubmersible rigs, 49 jack up
rigs, and 1 barge rig used to drill and complete oil and natural
gas wells.  The Company's s drilling rigs are located in Brazil,
Europe and Mediterranean region, the Middle East and Africa
region, and the Asia Pacific rim region.  It serves government
owned, and independent oil and gas companies, as well as various
independent operators.  Ensco plc was founded in 1975 and is
headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


EQUITRUST LIFE: Faces Suit Alleging Contract Fraud and Deceit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Tabares and Rhodora Tabares; Judy L. Taylor; Elizabeth A.
Young; and Lorenzo and Rosalvo Urias, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated individuals v. Equitrust Life
Insurance Company, an Iowa corporation; Joseph Sackey, an
individual; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC 390195
(Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.) seeks damages under multiple
counts, including contract fraud and deceit, unfair competition,
professional negligence, and also requests punitive damages.

On May 29, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed with the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, an ex parte motion pursuant to the Supreme
Court Rule 204(B) for issuance of subpoenas for the oral and
records depositions of Custodian of Records of Milliman Inc. for
use in a foreign jurisdiction.

The information sought in the requested subpoena includes
correspondence and records and documents between the deponent and
the Defendants as well as other materials that are necessary to
prepare and present at trial.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William H. Hunter, Esq.
          29 South LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 782-5192
          E-mail: whh@whunterlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: British Investors May Join Class Action Over IPO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Watkins, writing for This is Money.co.uk, reports that
British investors are set to join the claimants seeking billions
of pounds from Facebook and its bankers after the chaotic
flotation of the social networking company.

Lawyers who launched a legal action against Facebook, its
executives and advisers told Financial Mail they had received
approaches from UK investors keen to join the class action.
David Rosenfeld, partner at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in New
York, said his firm had been contacted by hundreds of investors
from around the world.

The case highlights a growing trend in the US for stock market
flotations to become the subject of litigation.

According to legal consultant Cornerstone Research, almost one in
five initial public offerings in America lead to class action law
suits by investors.

Discount voucher firm Groupon has slumped 16 per cent since it
listed on Nasdaq in November and is the subject of a claim from
investors alleging that it misled the market about its prospects.
Facebook shares were issued at $38 (GBP24) on May 18, valuing the
group at $104 billion (GBP67 billion), but have fallen to below
$32.

About $24 billion of shares were sold, with the rest held by Mark
Zuckerberg and other founders, which means the drop cost
subscribers $3.85 billion.

The law suit names Facebook, Zuckerberg and other executives, and
Facebook's banks, including lead underwriter Morgan Stanley.

After issuing its prospectus on May 3, Facebook released a public
update on May 9, warning that growing use of mobile devices to
access the internet might hurt its revenues.

This was widely reported as a "profits warning".

The lawsuit says that Facebook briefed analysts at its adviser
banks, which then lowered earnings forecasts.

However, this revision was allegedly passed to just a few select
investors.  Mr. Rosenfeld said: "Their duty was to put that
information in the prospectus to all investors."

Morgan Stanley was constrained by US law, which forbids analysts
from issuing any research in the run-up to a flotation, other than
orally.

Sources confirmed that analysts from Morgan Stanley did contact
some clients to discuss the information.

A spokesman said: "Morgan Stanley followed the procedures for the
Facebook offering that it follows for all IPOs. These procedures
are in compliance with all regulations."

Facebook said the legal claim was "without merit" and that it
would defend itself vigorously.


FEMA: Class Action Over Trailers Nears Settlement
-------------------------------------------------
Michael Kunzelman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a class-action settlement agreement has been reached to resolve
nearly all the remaining court claims over allegations that
government-issued trailers exposed Gulf Coast residents to
hazardous fumes after Hurricane Katrina, a lead plaintiffs'
attorney said on May 28.

In a court filing on May 28, plaintiffs' lawyers and several
companies that manufactured FEMA trailers after the 2005 storm
asked U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt to approve an expanded
version of a multimillion-dollar deal initially announced in
April.

A separate agreement with four FEMA contractors that installed or
refurbished trailers was to be filed on May 29, lead plaintiffs'
attorney Gerald Meunier told The Associated Press.

Nearly two dozen FEMA trailer makers agreed last month to pay a
total of $14.8 million to resolve claims over elevated
formaldehyde levels in FEMA trailers following hurricanes Katrina
and Rita.

The expanded settlement agreement includes claims against trailer
manufacturers Gulf Stream Coach Inc., Forest River Inc., Jayco
Inc. and Monaco Coach Corp.  Representatives of the four companies
didn't immediately respond to e-mails seeking comment.

FEMA contractors Shaw Environmental Inc., Bechtel Corp., Fluor
Enterprises Inc. and CH2M Hill Constructors Inc. also have reached
agreements with the plaintiffs' lawyers, according to Mr. Meunier
and a lawyer for the contractors.

Contractors' attorney David Kurtz said the companies are proud of
the roles they played in response to Katrina.

"We agree, however, that all of the parties are best served by
settling this matter and saving the time and expense of further
litigation," Mr. Kurtz added.

The amount of money that would be paid by each of the eight
companies wasn't immediately disclosed.

Residents of Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi who lived
in FEMA trailers after the 2005 hurricanes are eligible to
participate.

Judge Engelhardt is expected to hold a fairness hearing on the
proposed settlement on Sept. 27.  If he approves the deal, a group
of Texas residents' claims against the Federal Emergency
Management Agency would be the only formaldehyde-related claims
that haven't been settled or dismissed by the judge, Mr. Meunier
said.

Mr. Meunier estimates that roughly 60,000 plaintiffs could benefit
from the entire settlement.  He said the deal is a "positive
development" for residents even if the amount of compensation is
lower than many had anticipated when the case started nearly five
years ago.

"But I think the outcome here reflects the realities of the case,"
Mr. Meunier said.

Mr. Meunier said the plaintiffs' lawyers tested a sample of FEMA
trailers but couldn't test every unit occupied by every plaintiff.

"I think that presented a challenge," he said.  "It was our belief
that to go on trying thousands of cases with that kind of
challenge in presenting the evidence . . . was not going to be a
very satisfactory alternative for the clients."

Daniel Balhoff, a court-appointed mediator who helped broker the
proposed settlement with FEMA trailermakers, said in a court
filing on May 28 that he believes the deal is "fair, adequate and
reasonable."

"The plaintiffs are faced with significant burden of proof issues
with respect to causation," he said.  "For many plaintiffs, the
manufactured home no longer exists or can no longer be located.
Further, many individual plaintiffs faced causation problems due
to the fact that they were smokers or had independent bases
separate from formaldehyde exposure for their health issues."

Formaldehyde, a chemical commonly found in building materials, can
cause breathing problems and is classified as a carcinogen.
Government tests on hundreds of trailers in Louisiana and
Mississippi found formaldehyde levels that were, on average, about
five times what people are exposed to in most modern homes.

FEMA, which isn't a party in the settlement, downplayed
formaldehyde risks for months before those test results were
announced in February 2008.  As early as 2006, trailer occupants
began reporting headaches, nosebleeds and difficulty breathing.

The federal agency provided trailers or mobile homes to more than
144,000 families after the hurricanes.  Plaintiffs' lawyers have
accused the trailer makers of using shoddy building materials and
methods in a rush to meet the agency's unprecedented demand for
temporary housing.

In October 2007, Judge Engelhardt was picked to oversee hundreds
of consolidated lawsuits and tens of thousands of related claims.
Since then, the case has generated more than 25,000 docket entries
and resulted in three trials for individual claims.  The juries in
all three trials sided with the companies and didn't award any
damages.

The settlement isn't the first in the litigation.  Last year, a
group of companies that manufactured mobile homes for FEMA after
Katrina agreed to pay $2.6 million to resolve thousands of related
claims.  Mobile homes are larger and sturdier than travel
trailers, which housed the majority of storm victims and are more
prone to elevated levels of formaldehyde.

Fleetwood Enterprises Inc., which supplied FEMA with travel
trailers before it filed for bankruptcy in 2009, agreed in 2010 to
a settlement resolving about 7,500 to 8,000 claims.  Terms of that
deal weren't disclosed.

Judge Engelhardt dismissed claims against FEMA by residents of
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Plaintiffs' attorneys have
asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to
overturn Judge Engelhardt's dismissal of the Louisiana claims.
The appeals court previously upheld his dismissal of the
Mississippi and Alabama claims.


FOREST OIL: Sued Over Untrue Statements in IPO Prospectus
---------------------------------------------------------
Bhaswati Mukhopadhyay, writing for Reuters, reports that Forest
Oil Corp. said a lawsuit was brought against it and Lone Pine
Resources Inc , which it earlier owned, that alleged Lone Pine
made false statements and hid certain facts in its initial public
offering prospectus.

The lawsuit claims that Lone Pine's IPO prospectus contained
untrue statements or omitted material facts related to forest
fires in Northern Alberta in May 2011 and the rupture of a third
party oil sales pipeline in Northern Alberta in April 2011, Forest
Oil said in a regulatory filing.

The lawsuit was brought as a purported class action in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County, on May 25.

The complaint also made a claim against Forest Oil since it was a
"control person" of Lone Pine at the time of the IPO.

Forest, an oil and natural gas company, said the claims were
without merit and it intended to fight them Vigorously.

Lone Pine shares debuted in May last year. Lone Pine had sold 15
million shares at $13 each in an IPO on the New York Stock
Exchange.

Forest Oil spun off Lone Pine last September.  After the IPO,
Forest Oil owned 82.3 percent of Lone Pine's common stock, which
it had planned to distribute to its shareholders within four
months.

The lawsuit was also brought against certain underwriters of Lone
Pine's IPO but it did not name the underwriters.

JPMorgan, Credit Suisse and TD Securities had led the underwriters
for the IPO.


IRAN: Supreme Court Refuses to Revive Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court has declined
to revive a lawsuit against Iran filed by Americans held hostage
at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran more than 30 years ago.

The justices on May 29 did not comment in letting stand lower
court decisions dismissing the $6.6 billion class-action lawsuit.

The lower courts found the agreement to release the hostages,
known as the Algiers Accords, precluded lawsuits against Iran.
The suit argued that legislation in 2008 gave the hostages the
right to sue.

Fifty-two American diplomats and military officials were held
captive for more than a year at the end of Jimmy Carter's
presidency by a group of Islamist students who supported the
Iranian revolution.

The hostages were released on Jan. 20, 1981, just minutes after
Ronald Reagan was sworn in to succeed Carter.


JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Loses Bid to Derail Katrina Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Rainey, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports that
Jefferson Parish and former Parish President Aaron Broussard have
lost their latest attempt to derail a class-action lawsuit that
was born in the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina.  Although it
took almost seven months to reach a ruling, the Louisiana 4th
Circuit Court of Appeal last week upheld a trial judge's decision
to let 49 plaintiffs collectively sue Mr. Broussard and the parish
for damages.  The property owners argue that the Broussard
administration's decision to evacuate 220 drainage pump operators
before Katrina's landfall in 2005 directly led to their houses
flooding.

Appellate judges Dennis Bagneris Sr., Roland Belsome and Charles
Jones shot down defense attorneys' arguments that District Judge
John Peytavin had erred.  Instead, they ruled that Judge Peytavin
correctly considered each plaintiff's case similar enough to join
a legal class, that calculating any damages need not adhere to a
specific formula and that a class-action lawsuit was the best way
to keep individual plaintiffs from being excluded from whatever
limited pool of money the defendants could be required to pay.

Dennis Phayer, attorney for Broussard and the parish, said he will
ask the state Supreme Court within a month to overturn the 4th
Circuit's ruling.  He said the appellate judges didn't properly
consider that each flooding incident must be investigated
separately, blunting any class action's capacity to simplify the
judicial process.

"For everyone of these plaintiffs, you're going to have a mini-
trial to explore just how your house was damaged," he said.

Mr. Phayer said he found it unusual for the appeals court to take
so long on a ruling that expanded very little on Judge Peytavin's
original opinion.  He also said it was odd that the court hadn't
designated the ruling for publication, restricting its use as a
precedent in future cases.

Judge Peytavin granted class status in September, splitting the
plaintiffs into two groups: one for West Jefferson and another for
East Jefferson, excluding those properties flooded from breaches
in the 17th Street Canal.

The lawsuit has been eclipsed in public by Mr. Broussard's more
exigent legal woes.  He faces a 38-count federal payroll fraud
indictment connected to him having his love interest hired as a
paralegal supervisor before he took office in 2004.

The flooding case wound up in the 4th Circuit in New Orleans after
all judges in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal, which presides over
Jefferson Parish courts, recused themselves because a court
employee was related to one of the litigants.  While neither was
identified, Mr. Broussard's son, Troy, is listed on the court's
Web site as its director of central staff.

Mike Delesdernier, lawyer and Jefferson Parish School Board member
whose house near the West Esplanade Avenue Canal in Metairie took
18 inches of water during Katrina, said the appeals court ruling
emphasizes less the importance of collecting damages than the need
to hold leaders accountable to the communities they represent.
"That's it in a nutshell," he said.  "Getting government to
respond to the people in the proper fashion."

The 4th Circuit's decision is just another notch in a long belt of
decisions that likely will stretch for months before the suit
comes to trial, assuming it's not settled.  Gerald Kaczmarek,
whose wife, Bridgette, is one of the plaintiffs' attorneys,
recalled how they waited two years for help on their flooded
Marrero home before giving up on southeast Louisiana all together.
The couple now lives in Colorado Springs, Colo.

"Even though we lived there all of our lives, it was just time to
move on," he said.


MERCK: Canadian Claimants Seek to Recover More in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Selena Ross, writing for Herald News, reports that the sorry tale
of Vioxx is winding its way to an end in Canada, with a court date
on May 20 moving a class action over the drug one step forward.

It looks like most Nova Scotia claimants in the class action will
walk away with some cash.  But not all are happy with the amounts
they're expecting -- numbers that rankle compared with what
Americans are getting, and which they say don't make much of a
dent in what the drug cost them before it was pulled off shelves
in 2004.

"I thought it would be much more than that," said one Dartmouth-
area man, now in his 70s, who suffered a stroke after taking the
painkiller manufactured by drug giant Merck.

The man, who didn't want his name published, had partial paralysis
and loss of speech, from which he eventually recovered.  As a
claimant who suffered a non-fatal stroke, he could be awarded a
maximum amount of C$5,000.

"It would hardly be worthwhile with that kind of money," he said.
"The expense and all of that was all out of our pocket -- and my
health."

Those who suffered heart attacks or problems considered more
serious than a stroke after taking Vioxx are eligible to get more.
Ontario lawyer Mike Peerless, who was the lead counsel in the
nationwide class action, said he expects some of those plaintiffs
to get amounts closer to C$50,000.

The total amount of the settlement with Merck, which was reached
in January but awaits approval by Canadian courts, was C$21.8
million to C$36.8 million before legal fees.  That's to be shared
by at least a couple of thousand claimants.  More still have a
chance to come forward.

Put those numbers beside the C$4.85 billion Merck agreed to pay in
the United States to settle 50,000 threatened lawsuits and they
look paltry.  Each American who settled under those terms got
about C$100,000 before legal fees.

What Canadians don't understand is how our legal system differs
from the American one, Mr. Peerless said.

Canada is more cautious in its rules, making it harder for people
to win multimillion-dollar injury lawsuits but ultimately keeping
away the litigious culture of the U.S.

"All the time, we get people saying, 'We're very upset, and how
come we're not getting as much money as the Americans?'"
Mr. Peerless said.  "And that is an easy question. And no Canadian
court is going to spend more than 10 minutes thinking about that.
Because that's just normal."

The Vioxx case was extremely complicated and hard to prove, and a
similar class action was thrown out in Australia, whose legal
system is akin to Canada's, he said.

Mr. Peerless said his firm reviewed five million pages of
documents from Merck and spent 15 years of lawyer time on the
settlement, which he called "spectacular."

If Nova Scotia Supreme Court approves, after May 29 lawyers will
notify claimants and potential claimants in the province about the
settlement that was reached in January.  They'll have a chance to
tell the court about their reaction.

At the next court date, likely to be in the summer, provincial
courts will give their approval, or not, of the January
settlement.

Vioxx, which flooded markets around the world, was shown to
increase the risk of stroke and heart attack and to have caused
hundreds of deaths.  After pulling it, Merck's market value
dropped US$28 billion almost overnight, according to the Canadian
Medical Association Journal.

Unhappy about the settlement's prospects, some Nova Scotians chose
not to join, or stay with, the class action.

Leslie Chetwynd of Lower Woods Harbour spent C$1.2 million on his
mother's care after she suffered two strokes in 2000 after taking
Vioxx.  She was left paralyzed, and Chetwynd, once a successful
businessman, paid for nursing care until she died in 2006.

He's had to mortgage his home and has lost other properties,
unable to afford the taxes on them.  To receive C$5,000, even
C$50,000, doesn't mean much, he said.  He dropped out of the suit.

"I don't think that, for people that's been injured by a drug and
paralyzed by a drug I don't think that's a beneficial amount in
anyone's case," he said.


NEVADA: Stilwell's Suit Challenges State's Helmet Law
-----------------------------------------------------
CBS Las Vegas reports that a new lawsuit challenging the state's
helmet law claims local law enforcement agencies violated a
motorcyclist's rights.

Attorney Travis Barrick is representing David Roy Stilwell in the
federal lawsuit, which claims officers from several agencies had
no probable cause to stop him.  The suit alleges officers did not
know about the federal standard for legal helmets.

Earlier this year, a federal judge tossed out a similar class-
action suit by Mr. Barrick, claiming it was too vague.


OSSIPEE, NH: Lakefront Homeowners Mull Tax Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Larissa Mulkern, writing for unionleader.com, reports that a group
of Ossipee lakefront homeowners is pursuing a class-action lawsuit
against the town over what they say are disproportionately high
property tax assessments.

The petitioners, Roland Cherwek and James Fitzpatrick Jr.
Revocable Trust, and 60 other property owners, filed suit through
their attorneys, Baldwin & Callen PLLC of Concord, against the
town last August.  But in order to file a class-action lawsuit,
the case must meet a set of criteria.

In January, Carroll County Superior Court Judge Steven Houran
disallowed the class-action certification and last month denied a
motion for reconsideration.  If the action had been approved, it
would have been the first "class-action" lawsuit over property
taxes in the state, according to the plaintiffs.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs and their attorney, Amy Manzelli,
will pursue the case with a motion asking the superior court's
permission to bring the issue to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

The lawsuit focuses on the legal issue that the base land rate for
the plaintiffs listed in the class-action is disproportionately
high and as such, they are entitled to tax abatements, said
Ms. Manzelli.

The town's select board has previously denied 62 requests for
property tax abatements, including those of Messrs. Cherwek and
Fitzpatrick.

In an interview on May 25, Mr. Fitzpatrick, who owns a waterfront
home with 200 feet of frontage, was asked how much his taxes have
gone up over the years.

Before he answered, he laughed.

"It's gone up . . . over the years from $1,600 (a year) to
$11,000-plus, now," he said.

When he first purchased the property, it included a small A-frame
cottage.  Over time, he and his wife built a house and a garage.

"Everybody is experiencing the same thing. The main problem with
our assessments is the land figure; everybody in town is assessed
the same way for buildings.  Nobody has any problem with the
assessment for buildings," he said.

"But the land rate, we're maintaining, is over-assessed by
$100,000 per waterfront lot," he said.

The rate that was used by the town's assessor for waterfront in
Ossipee is $400,000 value for the first one-sixth acre and $1,500
for each additional one-tenth of an acre.

Mr. Fitzpatrick said land sales over the last few years reflect
the reality of lower sales prices for land, roughly at $300,000
per waterfront lot, if you subtract the value of the home.

"None of us have any problem with our houses being more valuable.
The problem is the land is assessed way too high," he said.

Basically, the assessor disregarded a "bunch" of sales made over a
two- to three-year period that were sold at a lower value because
of death or divorce.

Mr. Fitzpatrick said those sales were unfairly factored into the
assessment formula as "forced sales" when they should not have
been.

The town experienced its updated revaluation in 2010.

"After the 2010 assessments, we realized our values went up 3
percent, and the rest of the town went down 23 percent," he said.

As for Judge Houran's order, Mr. Fitzpatrick said, while there has
never been a class-action suit regarding property tax abatements,
the plaintiffs have a solid case.

"I can't see where we don't meet every one of the guidelines," he
said.  "We would like to have the Supreme Court decide."

In court documents, Ossipee's attorney, Richard Sager of Sager &
Haskell PLLC, argued against allowing the class action.

"The seminal issue at hand is whether a particular parcel is
assessed disproportionately to other properties in town.  Given
that each parcel of real estate is unique in its physical
characteristics and location, it is impossible for the court to
establish a ruling that would adequately result in fair assessment
to all 60-plus properties of which the plaintiffs seek to have the
various owners certified as class," stated Mr. Sager.

"Rather, each parcel has to be examined individually to determine
whether or not it is assessed proportionately."

On May 25, Mr. Fitzpatrick said a meeting regarding the assessment
issue was planned for May 29 with town officials and attorneys in
the case.


PITTSBURGH PENGUINS: Sued Over Text Message Alerts
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Lemieux Group dba The
Pittsburgh Penguins promised to limit itself to three text
messages a week for those who sign up for the service on team
news, but "systematically" sent more than that, to consumers'
cost, according to a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Weiss v. Lemieux Group, L.P. d/b/a The
Pittsburgh Penguins, Case No. 12-cv-04585 (C.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/29/Penguins.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean P. Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Motion to Dismiss ETF-Related Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a second amended consolidated class action
lawsuit filed against SEI Investments Company's subsidiary in
connection with leveraged exchange traded funds advised by
ProShares Advisors LLC remains pending, according to the Company's
May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.

One of SEI's principal subsidiaries, SEI Investments Distribution
Co. (SIDCO) has been named as a defendant in certain putative
class action complaints (the Complaints) related to leveraged
exchange traded funds (ETFs) advised by ProShares Advisors, LLC.
The first complaint was filed on August 5, 2009.  To date, the
Complaints have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland.  The three complaints filed in the
District of Maryland have been voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiffs.  Two of them were subsequently re-filed in the
Southern District of New York.  Two of the complaints filed in the
Southern District of New York have also been voluntarily dismissed
by plaintiffs.  The Complaints are purportedly made on behalf of
all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired shares in various
ProShares leveraged ETFs pursuant or traceable to allegedly false
and misleading registration statements, prospectuses and
statements of additional information.  The Complaints name as
defendants ProShares Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust; ProShares
Trust II, SIDCO, and various officers and trustees to ProShares
Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust and ProShares Trust II.  The
Complaints allege that SIDCO was the distributor and principal
underwriter for the various ProShares leveraged ETFs that were
distributed to authorized participants and ultimately
shareholders.  The complaints allege that the registration
statements for the ProShares ETFs were materially false and
misleading because they failed adequately to describe the nature
and risks of the investments.  The Complaints allege that SIDCO is
liable for these purportedly material misstatements and omissions
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The Complaints
seek unspecified compensatory and other damages, reasonable costs
and other relief. Defendants have moved to consolidate the
complaints, which motion has been granted.  The Court appointed
lead plaintiff on July 13, 2010, and an amended consolidated class
action complaint was filed on September 25, 2010 asserting
substantially the same claims.  Defendants moved to dismiss on
November 15, 2010. On December 16, 2010, lead plaintiff informed
the Court and Defendants that lead plaintiff elected to file a
second amended consolidated complaint, which was filed on January
31, 2011.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
complaint on March 17, 2011.  Oral argument on this motion was
held on February 2, 2012.  While the outcome of this litigation is
uncertain given its early phase, SEI believes that it has valid
defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the lawsuits
vigorously.

Based in Oaks, Pennsylvania and founded in 1968, SEI Investments
Co. -- http://www.seic.com/-- is a publicly owned investment
manager.  The firm provides wealth management and investment
advisory services to its clients through its subsidiaries.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Sept. 20 Hearing Set in Stanford-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification hearing in a lawsuit filed against SEI
Investments Company's subsidiary in East Baton Rouge over the
firm's role in providing back office services to Stanford Trust
Company has been set for September 20, 2012, according to SEI's
May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.  The
Fifth Circuit also denied a rehearing petition with respect to its
opinion.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana.  Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana.  One of the five
actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also
names SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC) as a defendant.  Two of the
other actions also name SPTC as a defendant.  All five actions
name various defendants in addition to SEI, and, in all five
actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of action under
the Louisiana Securities Act.  The putative class action
originally included a claim against SEI and SPTC for an alleged
violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Two of the
other five actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana
Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy.  In addition, another
group of plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana,
against SEI and SPTC and other defendants asserting claims of
negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent
misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the
Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and
conspiracy.  The underlying allegations in all the actions are
purportedly related to the role of SPTC in providing back-office
services to Stanford Trust Company.  The petitions allege that SEI
and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale
of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International
Bank.  Two of the five actions filed in East Baton Rouge have been
removed to federal court, and plaintiffs' motions to remand are
pending.  These two cases have been transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.  On August 31, 2011, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order and
judgment that the causes of action alleged against SEI and SPTC in
the two remanded actions were preempted by federal law and the
Court dismissed these cases with prejudice. The Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit granted an expedited appeal of the U.S.
District Court's order and judgment.  The appeal was briefed, and
oral argument was held on February 7, 2012.  On March 19, 2012, a
panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the
decision of the U.S. District Court and remanded the actions for
further proceedings.  On April 2, 2012, SEI filed with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit a petition for rehearing en
banc of the panel's opinion. On April 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals denied the petition for rehearing.

The case filed in Ascension Parish was also removed to federal
court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to the Northern District of Texas. The schedule for
responding to that complaint has not yet been established. The
plaintiffs in the remaining two cases in East Baton Rouge have
granted SEI an extension to respond to the filings. SEI and SPTC
filed exceptions in the putative class action pending in East
Baton Rouge, which the Court granted in part and dismissed the
claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and denied
in part as to the other exceptions. SEI and SPTC filed an answer
to the East Baton Rouge putative class action; plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification; and SEI and SPTC also filed a
motion for summary judgment against certain named plaintiffs which
the Court stated will not be set for hearing until after the
hearing on the class certification motion. Following the decision
by the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, the Court in the East Baton Rouge action issued an order
staying the proceedings in the East Baton Rouge class action
pending the outcome of the appeal of the order and judgment of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Following the panel opinion of the Court of Appeals on March 19,
2012, the Court in the East Baton Rouge action scheduled a hearing
on class certification for September 20, 2012.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion to
dismiss, the lack of discovery regarding damages, causation,
mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss,
the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss,
if any, with respect to the foregoing lawsuits.

Based in Oaks, Pennsylvania and founded in 1968, SEI Investments
Co. -- http://www.seic.com/-- is a publicly owned investment
manager.  The firm provides wealth management and investment
advisory services to its clients through its subsidiaries.


ST. JUDE: Discovery Ongoing in Minnesota Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a securities class action complaint
against St. Jude Medical, Inc. after a Minnesota federal court
refused to dismiss the case, according to the Company's May 3,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In March 2010, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and
certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical
common stock between April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009.  The
lawsuit relates to the Company's earnings announcements for the
first, second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary
earnings release dated October 6, 2009.  The complaint, which
seeks unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys'
fees, alleges that the Company failed to disclose that it was
experiencing a slowdown in demand for its products and was not
receiving anticipated orders for CRM (Cardiac Rhythm Management)
devices.  Class members allege that the Company's failure to
disclose the above information resulted in the class purchasing
St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially inflated price.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted
in the lawsuit.  In December 2011, the Court issued a decision
denying a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in October
2010.  The defendants filed their answer in January 2012, and the
discovery phase in the case has begun.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology
and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable
neuromodulation devices.


ST. JUDE: Still Defends Silzone-Related Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits
relating to its products with Silzone(R) coating, according to the
Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in
March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product
with Silzone(R) coating, which the Company stopped selling in
January 2000.  The Company has vigorously defended against the
claims that have been asserted and will continue to do so with
respect to any remaining claims.

The Company has two outstanding class actions in Ontario, one
individual case in Ontario, one proposed class action in British
Columbia by the provincial health insurer, and one individual
lawsuit in federal court in Nevada.  In Ontario, a class action
case involving Silzone patients has been certified, and the trial
on common class issues began in February 2010.  The testimony and
evidence submissions for the trial were completed in March 2011,
and closing briefing and argument were completed in September
2011.  No final ruling from the common issues trial has been
issued.  Depending on the Court's ultimate decision, there may be
further proceedings, including appeals, in the future.  A second
case seeking class action status in Ontario has been stayed
pending resolution of the ongoing Ontario class action.  The
complaints in the Ontario cases request damages up to C$2 billion
(the equivalent as at March 31, 2012).  The proposed class action
lawsuit by the British Columbia provincial health insurer seeks to
recover the cost of insured services furnished or to be furnished
to patients who were also class members in the British Columbia
class action that was resolved in 2010.  Although that lawsuit
remains pending in the British Columbia court, there has not been
any activity since 2010.  The individual case in Ontario requests
damages in excess of $1 million (claiming unspecified special
damages, health care costs and interest), and the complaint filed
in the lawsuit in Nevada requests damages in excess of $75,000.
Based on the Company's historical experience, the amount
ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any relationship to
the amount claimed.

The Company has recorded an accrual for probable legal costs,
settlements and judgments for the Silzone-related litigation. The
Company is not aware of any unasserted claims related to Silzone-
coated products. For all Silzone legal costs incurred, the Company
records insurance receivables for the amounts that it expects to
recover based on its assessment of the specific insurance
policies, the nature of the claim and the Company's experience
with similar claims.  Any costs (the material components of which
are settlements, judgments, legal fees and other related defense
costs) not covered by the Company's product liability insurance
policies or existing reserves could be material to the Company's
consolidated earnings, financial position and cash flows.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology
and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable
neuromodulation devices.


SYNGENTA CROP: Atrazine Settlement Final Hearing Set for October
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Ambrosio, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Syngenta
Crop Protection Inc. has reached a $105 million settlement to
resolve the claims of an estimated 2,000 community water systems
over the presence of atrazine in drinking water (City of
Greenville v. Syngenta Crop Protection, S.D. Ill., No. 3:10-cv-
00188, settlement filed 5/24/12).

The proposed settlement, filed May 24 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, would end a class action
lawsuit filed in 2010 by communities in Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
and other Midwestern states.  The lawsuit alleged that Syngenta
designed, marketed, and sold atrazine "knowing that it would
contaminate public water supplies when used as intended."

Atrazine is one of the most widely used herbicides in the United
States, registered for uses on a variety of crops, including corn,
sorghum, and sugarcane, according to the Environmental Protection
Agency.  The plaintiffs alleged that atrazine "continuously
entered their water supplies, thereby injuring their property
rights."

Syngenta said in a May 24 statement that it "continues to stand
by" the safety of atrazine, which it said is supported by
scientific evidence that concludes "no one ever has or ever could
be" exposed to high enough levels of the herbicide in water to
affect their health.

"This settlement is good for the company and the farmers who
depend on atrazine, as well as our retailers, distributors,
partners and others who have been inconvenienced by this ongoing
and burdensome litigation," Syngenta said.

Syngenta said atrazine is "one of the best understood herbicides
in the world" and meets "the most stringent safety requirements in
the world."

Under the proposed settlement agreement, Syngenta expressly denies
any liability, and the plaintiffs acknowledge that they are not
aware of any new scientific studies relating to atrazine.

Garry Niemeyer, president of the National Corn Growers
Association, said in a May 25 news release that he is "relieved"
that a settlement has been reached that will allow for farmers to
continue using atrazine.

Hearing Set for May 30

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois is
scheduled to hold a May 30 hearing on the proposed settlement.

Syngenta and the plaintiffs urged the court to grant preliminary
approval to the proposed settlement, which they say is "within the
range of possible approval."

The proposed allocation plan provides that the $105 million
settlement fund will be paid to any community water system that
submits a valid claim.  All valid claims will receive a fixed
payment, with the rest of the settlement fund to be paid on a
"pro-rata basis" based on a water system's related history of
atrazine detection, its size, and the age of its claim.

The proposed settlement also includes a plan to direct notice to
all members of the class action lawsuit that would be bound by the
agreement.  If the court accepts the proposed settlement and
notice plan, a notice would be mailed to all members and published
in June, with an August deadline for objecting to or opting-out of
the settlement, and a scheduled October final hearing on the
fairness of the proposal.


WASHINGTON: Cities Face Class Action Over Cell Phone Service Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle McNiel, writing for The Wenatchee World, reports that
eight North Central Washington cities have been named, along with
most of the cities in Washington, in a class-action lawsuit over
the taxation of cell phone service.

The Wenatchee City Council voted on May 24 to join with other
cities to hire a law firm to defend themselves in the suit, which
was filed in King County Superior Court.

Also named in the lawsuit are East Wenatchee, Cashmere, Chelan,
Quincy, Ephrata, George, and Okanogan, along with about 150 cities
in the state.

New Cingular Wireless wants to get back municipal taxes paid to
cities.

According to court documents, the cell company collected the tax
from its customers and then paid it to each of the cities.
However, due to a coding error, New Cingular accidentally also
taxed its customers for internet service, which is prohibited by
state and federal laws.

The company was sued by its customers and, as part of a settlement
agreement, is now asking cities to pay back the money that was
erroneously collected and given to them.

New Cingular has received refunds from several cities already.
The lawsuit targets cities that either refused to pay or failed to
respond to their request for a refund.

Wenatchee City Attorney Steve Smith said the company is seeking
about $42,000 from the city.

The city will retain the law firm Ogden Murphy Wallace, whose
office in Seattle is already representing several cities, to
represent the city in the suit.  The city will have to pay $1,600
up front and then pay what will equate to less than 2 percent of
the total legal fees to defend the cities, Mr. Smith said.


WMS INDUSTRIES: Still Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss Conlee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WMS Industries Inc. is still awaiting a court order on its fully
briefed motion to dismiss a stockholder class action lawsuit in
Illinois, according to the Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.

On May 25, 2011, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Wayne C. Conlee.
On October 13, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in the Conlee lawsuit.  As amended, the lawsuit alleges that,
during the period from September 21, 2010 to August 4, 2011, (the
date the Company announced its fiscal 2011 financial results), the
Company made material misstatements and omitted material
information related to its fiscal year 2011 guidance. Plaintiff
seeks to certify a class of stockholders who purchased stock
between these dates.  The lawsuit specifically alleges violations
of (i) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section
20(a) of the 34 Act. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages.  The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on December 8, 2011, which has since been fully briefed.
It is not certain when the court will rule on the motion.

WMS Industries Inc. is engaged in the design, manufacture and sale
of coin-operated and home video games, pinball and novelty games
and video lottery terminals and gaming devices.


* Hong Kong Plans to Introduce Class Actions to Protect Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Mao, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Hong Kong,
where the securities regulator this month proposed introducing
civil liability for banks working on initial share sale
prospectuses, may also allow class-action lawsuits to help
investors seek damages.

The city's Law Reform Commission on May 28 recommended legislation
to allow a group with a common complaint to sue through a
representative.  The new regime initially will apply to product
liability and consumer fraud cases and not to purchasers of
securities, the commission said.

Hong Kong currently allows multiparty proceedings under rules the
city's then-chief justice Andrew Li criticized as restrictive and
inadequate in 2004.  Losing parties must pay all or part of their
opponent's legal fees under Hong Kong law, a deterrent for
individual investors seeking damages.

As a result, litigation risk for bankers and companies selling
shares in Hong Kong has been relatively low to date, according to
Jeff Maddox, a lawyer who had advised on capital raising in Hong
Kong, New York and Singapore stock exchanges.

"There's less than a three percent chance of getting sued after a
listing here compared to a 20 to 25 percent chance in the U.S.,"
said Mr. Maddox, a Hong Kong-based partner at Cadwalader,
Wickersham & Taft LLP, citing industry statistics.

Allowing class actions was recommended by a sub-committee of the
law commission in 2009 following losses by thousands of investors
on notes guaranteed by failed Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

                       Criminal Liability

The need for class actions "most typically arises where a large
number of persons have been adversely affected by another's
conduct, but each person's loss is too small" to make individual
litigation viable, the commission said on May 28.

Its final recommendation comes two weeks after the Securities and
Futures Commission, Hong Kong's market regulator, proposed
extending criminal and civil liability laws to initial share sale
arrangers who sign off on misleading or inaccurate prospectuses.

The SFC said tighter laws are needed to protect investors after
finding substandard work by investment banks arranging IPOs. In
one case, it alleges that Chinese fabric-maker Hontex
International Holdings Co. misled investors in its listings
prospectus in 2009.

Buyers of products sold by consumer banks or brokerages will be
allowed to seek permission to sue as a class under the proposed
new regime, the law commission's Anthony Neoh said on May 28.

                         Not Like Facebook

Their lawsuits can be financed by the city's Consumer Legal Action
Fund, with a general government fund recommended when other types
of group suits are allowed.  Contingency fees and other forms of
litigation funding aren't recommended by the commission, and the
type of lawsuits around the Facebook Inc. IPO won't be covered by
the proposed regime initially, he said.

Mr. Neoh said the proposals would have to be acted on by the
government and declined to speculate on when class actions would
actually be allowed or on when they would be extended to cover
shareholders of publicly-listed companies.

"Legislation has to be drafted and introduced," he said.
Civil liability will have a positive influence on the behavior of
market participants, SFC Chief Executive Officer Ashley Alder said
May 22.  That said, the current litigation system can be "off-
putting -- in part because of expense," he said.

There have been no investor lawsuits against Citic Pacific Ltd.
(267), which plunged after it announced a potential $2 billion
loss on wrong-way bets in 2008, six weeks after directors first
learned of the information.

                            Too Complex

Three retirees tried to pursue the steelmaker and property
developer's former chairman in the small claims tribunal, where
parties represent themselves, to avoid the potential legal costs
involved in a trial.  The case was dismissed on the grounds that
it was too complex for the tribunal.

"If Hong Kong were to allow class actions, the risk of facing
potential shareholder class-action lawsuits might well be a
powerful driver for a change in mindset and behavior in the
market," said Tim Mak, a Hong Kong-based financial services
regulatory lawyer at Herbert Smith LLP.

"Some might argue that a class-action system would encourage
higher standards of corporate governance and listed- company
management behavior," he said.

"Over and above any potential criminal responsibility, the
possibility of being on the receiving end of a class action
lawsuit would be an additional risk that market participants would
need to take seriously," Mr. Mak said.

                        Stock Market Boom

This year there have been at least six disputes between accounting
firms and mainland Chinese companies, including Boshiwa
International Holding Ltd. (1698), a Shanghai-based Harry Potter
apparel licensee whose auditor resigned in March due to
disagreements over financial information.

Hong Kong, which Britain returned to Chinese rule in 1997, has
benefited as $159 billion of IPOs by companies from the mainland
in the past decade swelled the value of its stock market.  First-
time sales peaked at $58 billion in 2010 before declining by more
than half last year, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

The SFC's aim with its recent proposals on IPO sponsors is to
encourage vigilance not to put bankers in prison, according to Mr.
Alder.

Gareth Hughes, a Hong Kong-based disputes lawyer at Ashurst LLP
said that a group lawsuit regime has been long-awaited and is
welcomed.

"That said, the devil is in the detail, not least given the mixed
results in other jurisdictions and the scope for abusive claims,"
he said.  "It may well be some time before such a regime is in
place."


* Lawyer Removed From Class Action Over "Flagrant Disrespect"
-------------------------------------------------------------
JDJournal reports that a lawyer from Florida and his law firm have
been removed from a case by a federal judge.  The firm was removed
from a fair labor class action because of "flagrant disrespect"
from an earlier case that involved the same corporate defendant
and the same opponent counsel.  The lawyer removed is that of
Richard Celler, from Morgan & Morgan, who sued a limousine company
and corporate officers in both cases mentioned.  U.S. District
Judge Cecilia Altonaga said that Mr. Celler issued "choice
statements" when he sent an e-mail to opposing counsel in the
earlier case and also disparaged opposing lawyers to his clients.

Mr. Celler has also been accused of "deplorable behavior" in the
earlier case.  His actions included hosting depositions at Dunkin'
Donuts, showing up to those depositions in shorts and t-shirts,
and even drawing pictures of penises and playing Angry Birds while
at deposition testimonies.

In the order from Judge Altonaga, the behavior from the first case
by Mr. Celler still affects the second case because it embarrassed
the defendants and caused strain in their relationship with their
lawyer, Jason Coupal.  Judge Altonaga said that Mr. Celler showed
"flagrant disrespect" by using unprofessional conduct
consistently.

Judge Altonaga mentioned an e-mail sent by Mr. Celler to Mr.
Coupal in the first case regarding a possible settlement between
the two parties involved outside of court.  Judge Altonaga said
that the e-mail contained an "utter lack of professionalism."
Part of the e-mail is below:

"It is apparent that your MO is trying to purposefully delay
things as much as possible.  This is because it appears (from what
I observed at trial), you are not a trial lawyer.  If you want to
play in the sand box with trial lawyers, you are going to do it
the right way or we are going to call you out to the judge --
every time. . . . . We are not interested, nor are our clients, in
settlement discussions with you as long as you are the lawyer on
the other side.  You are causing your client a great disservice.
If you were not on the other side of the table, we would have a
better chance of any resolution and would sit with the principals
of the company.  I have told Scott Tinkler this.  Time to put your
boots on and get to work. No more whining, no more complaining
about how you have no support staff, no more complaining about how
much work you have to do. Nobody on this side of the Internet
cares."


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thais Wear Shirts Promoting Safety of Chrysotile
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Panpimol Krishnamra of the Bangkok Post reports that certain
business operators are denying the widely known fact that all
forms of asbestos are dangerous, claiming chrysotile, or white
asbestos, is safe, the World Health Organization said.

WHO representative to Thailand Dr. Maureen E. Birmingham said she
has seen T-shirts espousing the safety of chrysotile and even
falsely attributing the claim to the WHO.

The T-shirts are being distributed by certain construction
material producers which use chrysotile in their products.

The designs on the shirts claim the WHO has certified chrysotile
as safe.

"They are using the WHO's name in a misleading way," Dr.
Birmingham said.

"The WHO has been very clear that all forms of asbestos, including
chrysotile, can cause cancer," she said.

There is no known safe level of exposure to any form of asbestos.

Dr. Birmingham said it was hard to prevent asbestos fibers from
spreading and even a low level of exposure can cause cancer.

This has prompted the WHO and the International Labour
Organization to recommend that all asbestos use be stopped
worldwide.

Asbestos is a mineral fiber, commonly used in building
construction materials and products such as cement, roofing, water
supply lines and fire blankets.  It can also be found in
automobile brakes and clutches.

Dr. Birmingham said about 107,000 people around the world die from
asbestos-related diseases each year.  Inhaling asbestos fibers can
cause lung cancer or mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the
chest and the abdominal cavity.

There is also convincing evidence of asbestos exposure leading to
laryngeal and ovarian cancer.

She said that when asbestos starts to deteriorate, which can be
caused by water, vibration, drilling, cutting or blending, fibers
float into the air and can infiltrate the lungs when inhaled.  The
resultant cancer usually does not usually show up until 20-30
years after the exposure.

"It's like a ticking timebomb in Asia.  We need to take action
now," Dr. Birmingham said.

Dr. Nopporn Chuenklin, deputy director general of the Department
of Disease Control, said while almost 50 countries have banned the
use of asbestos and turned to safe substitutes, Thailand is still
Asia's third-biggest importer of asbestos after India and China.

Vithaya Kulsomboon, associate professor in the Department of
Social Pharmacy, Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of
Pharmaceutical Sciences, said only three manufacturers in Thailand
-- the Siam Cement Group, Mahaphant and Bendix -- have stopped
using asbestos in their products after the previous government
declared it a class 4 hazardous material last year.

The then-Democrat-led administration sought to ban the production,
import and export of asbestos from April 2011, but the Industrial
Ministry requested a delay in its enforcement while it looked into
viable substitutes for the product.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eternit Has Left Lebanon, Not Its Toxic Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Van Meguerditchian of The Daily Star Lebanon reports the Batroun
town of Shekka in Beirut, known for its stunning beaches, has a
less pristine past that might still be killing its residents.
Until 2000, Shekka housed the Eternit Company, the country's
biggest importer of the carcinogen asbestos.  In 1998, Lebanon
banned imports of most types of asbestos -- but it didn't ban
selling or using what was already there.  Experts have said that
asbestos still poses a serious health risk, both in Shekka and
across the country.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous mineral, once commonly
used as building insulation, as well as in fire blankets, brake
linings, gaskets and water pipes.  After a decades-long honeymoon
with the substance, which was especially popular in the mid-20th
century, a link with cancer was established and it was banned in
many countries.

According to a 2010 World Health Organization report, some 125
million workers worldwide were exposed to asbestos in the
workplace, and more than 107,000 die yearly from asbestos-linked
diseases.  Thousands of workers developed mesothelioma, a rare
form of cancer which is linked to exposure.

In Lebanon, 60 asbestos-linked deaths have been recorded.

Eternit closed in 2000 amid outcry and Lebanese government
pressure.  The town, however, is still reeling from the Eternit
years.  Around 10 years ago, a football coach was diagnosed with
mesothelioma -- a cancer usually caused by asbestos exposure --
one year after he began coaching a local team.

According to eye-witnesses, shortly after the closure of Eternit,
asbestos waste was dumped on the football field.  Pipes the
factory made are still scattered around the area.

Many locals have been diagnosed with asbestos-related illnesses.

There was never a major cleanup in Shekka or the rest of the
country, and products that contain asbestos imported before the
ban are still in circulation.  Today, asbestos can still be found
in air-conditioners, at construction sites, in the breaks of
trucks, and on ironing board covers.

One major Beirut importer of asbestos products told The Daily Star
that the company he dealt with has not fulfilled what he considers
their legal and environmental responsibilities to its Lebanese
partners.

Joseph Arbajian, co-owner of the import business Arbajian
Brothers, said that "we had been buying products that contained
asbestos since the 1950s.  Now [we] are stuck with poisonous
products that we can't sell or dispose of."

According to Arbajian, Federal-Mogul, the automotive supplier who
he bought the products from, has been providing to Americans and
Europeans through a special injury fund, but not to Lebanese.

Experts who oversee the disposal of asbestos and asbestos-waste
are required to wear protective clothing and special respiratory
equipment.  The material can only be disposed at designated waste
storage facilities.  There are no such facilities in Lebanon.

Environment Minister Nazim Khoury said his ministry's doors are
open to anyone who wants to file a request for help in disposing
of contaminated products.  "If there are still asbestos products
around the country, the owners should file a request to the
Environment Ministry to receive help for their disposal," Khoury
told The Daily Star.

He added that although Lebanon does not have the capacity to store
asbestos waste, it has signed an international agreement that
requires co-signers to help with cleanup and disposal.

Some have said that the 1998 law is not comprehensive enough.
Signed by former Health Minister Suleiman Franjieh and former
Environment Minister Akram Chehayeb, the law bars the importing of
Crocidolite, Amosite, Anthophyllite, Actinolite and Tremolite but
allows a common asbestos called Chrysotile, known as white
asbestos.

According to Hanna Bou Habib, an expert on chemical safety and
hazardous waste management at the Environment Ministry, white
asbestos poses a minimal health risk.

But Joseph Kattan, a doctor of hematology and oncology at Hotel
Dieu Hospital, describes all types of asbestos as dangerous and a
direct cause of cancer.

"If one type of asbestos is less aggressive, it doesn't mean that
it is not dangerous," Kattan told The Daily Star.

Kattan explained that mesothelioma is usually caused by
occupational or environmental exposure to asbestos.

"Unlike various speculations on other types of cancers, there is
clear and strong evidence on the cause and effect relationship
between asbestos contamination and mesothelioma," Kattan said.

"A person spending hours on the road could also be vulnerable to
asbestos contamination from the air, [contamination] which comes
from car exhaust," he added.

The only study on mesothelioma in Lebanon was carried out in 2007
by Kattan and others found 17 new diagnoses of the cancer that
year.

He believes that the rate of diagnoses in the years following the
study should be similar.

Kattan also argues that despite the import ban, pipes made with
the banned types have been brought into the country since the ban.

"Pipes made of asbestos were imported from Turkey in 2008 to be
used for irrigation in the Bekaa," he said, adding that
consequently some may be consuming asbestos fibers.

Officials at the Environment Ministry told The Daily Star that
that no asbestos has been imported into the country since 2006.

Dr. Marwan Ghosn of Hotel Dieu, who co-authored the mesothelioma
study with Kattan, said that the period between asbestos exposure
and the development of the cancer can be more than 30 years.

"The stronger the exposure to asbestos, the shorter the patient's
latency exposure," he explained.

Dr. Arafat Tfayli, who specializes in hematology and oncology at
the American University of Beirut's hospital, said that
asbestosis, which is a less serious disease than mesothelioma, can
be diagnosed with a simple x-ray.

According to Tfayli, many cases of asbestosis do not develop into
cancer, but patients with asbestosis are at greater risk of
mesothelioma.

"When a worker exposed to asbestos goes home, his family members
are likely to be at risk as well," Tfayli said.

In cases of asbestosis and mesothelioma, early detection is the
key to a possible cure.

But he said most patients consider shortness of breath, a symptom
of both diseases, to be a symptom of aging rather than something
more serious.

Treatment is possible, says Tfayli, who currently has a 72-year-
old mesothelioma patient.

"If possible, a complex lung removal surgery can provide a patient
with an effective cure," he added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SA State Says Secrecy Is Due To Privacy Reasons
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheradyn Holderhead of The Advertiser in Australia reports the
State Government is keeping secret a list of schools, hospitals
and public servant housing containing high risk asbestos.

The most recent asbestos management report, obtained under Freedom
of Information, revealed there was asbestos at two Education
Department sites that needed to be removed promptly and 141 where
asbestos needed to be removed as soon as practicable.

SA Health had 37 sites flagged for asbestos removal and the
Planning Department had 93 sites -- most of which were houses
occupied by teachers, police officers, medical staff and other
government employees.

When approached by The Advertiser for the location of these sites,
an Education Department spokesman initially said the department
did not have the information and then advised: "The department
will not be releasing the locations of these sites, as disclosure
renders each liable to heightened security risks such as targeted
vandal attacks."

A Planning Department spokesman provided the suburbs but said
detailed addresses could not be provided for privacy reasons,
because most were houses tenanted by government employees.

SA Health could not provide the list before The Advertiser's
deadline but said when one was identified, measures were put in
place immediately to ensure there were no threats to staff,
patients or visitors.

Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire, who obtained the summary
report, said it appeared the Government was "embarrassed" so was
trying to hide the problem.

"The Government must create a priority action plan to remove any
hazardous asbestos quickly and ensure there is a proper education
program," he said.

"Wouldn't you want to know if you worked or lived in a place where
there was asbestos?

"The Education Department can't sweep this under the carpet . . .
because safety of staff and students is paramount."

Asbestos Disease Society of SA operations coordinator Ian Sheppard
said the Government was doing more about asbestos than other
states.

An Education Department spokesman said of the two highest risk
sites, one was closed pending demolition and the second was
incorrectly identified as high risk.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Future of Contaminated Gettysburg Relic Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that officials say they plan to try
to auction off a large electric battlefield map at Gettysburg that
for decades helped visitors understand the crucial Civil War
battle, but they may be forced to destroy it.

The National Park Service pulled the plug on the 1960s-era device
at Gettysburg National Military Park in 2008 after opening a new
museum and visitor center.  The map, which had been used for 70
years, has been in storage ever since.

Park officials in April asked the federal government to let it
auction the map to the highest bidder, the Philadelphia Inquirer
said.  But they must first get a waiver from the General Services
Administration because the map contains asbestos -- and without
such a waiver, officials say, the map will be destroyed.

Some fans who thought the map was already history were surprised
to hear that it might be resurrected.

"I thought it was dead and buried," said John Dekeles, of Post
Falls, Idaho, who filmed one of the last map shows.

He and others launched efforts to save the device, drawing up
plans to move it to a nearby site and petitioning the Smithsonian,
West Point and the Naval Academy to adopt it.  Despite their
efforts, the map sits in four pieces in an airtight shipping
container at an undisclosed location.

The map was created by Joseph Rosensteel, who grew up on the
battlefield and whose family founded the park's original museum.
His grandfather collected artifacts as a teenager days after the
battle while helping to bury bodies, and the thousands of items
were the basis for the museum opened in the family farmhouse in
1921.

His grandson spent five years researching troop movements over the
6,000 acres and laying out his map with topographic features such
as roads, waterways and orchards before the first electric-map
show opened in 1938.  The current map was constructed in 1963 out
of plaster and concrete, and the shows were performed in an
auditorium built to house it for the battle's 100th anniversary
commemoration.

Park officials were divided over whether there should be a new
place for the map in the new museum a mile away.

"We finally came to the conclusion that it was outdated as an
interpretive device," park spokeswoman Katie Lawhon said.

Fans, however, say the new Gettysburg Museum and Visitor Center
doesn't provide visitors with the same comprehensive overview that
the old-fashioned map did, despite its galleries, interactive
exhibits, the restored Cyclorama painting and a triple-screen
movie narrated by actor Morgan Freeman.

"It concisely interprets and orients people; it's always been good
at that," said Curt Musselman, president of the Historic
Gettysburg-Adams County group, who now makes maps for the park
service and credits with the map in part for his decision to
become a cartographer.  "And for all the millions, the museum does
not have such a concise or effective orientation."

Park officials, however, want the map auctioned off quickly so
they can concentrate on preparing for events for the battle's
150th anniversary, Lawhon said.

"We want to move forward and focus on 2013," she said.

Dekeles, who saw the map on trips to the battlefield when he and
his family made annual trips to a train show in nearby York,
bought the domain name www.savetheelectricmap.com when he found
the map was to be retired and filmed the show with night-vision
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Picton Residents' Safety Reassured
---------------------------------------------------
Jared Nicoll of The Marlborough Express reports that some Picton
residents had their properties flooded for the second time this
month when water erupted through the road "like a geyser" from a
burst asbestos-cement water pipe.

A trunk line pipe which helps to feed the town's main water supply
burst through Devon St, only about 10 meters from where another
water pipe burst on May 5, sending a flood of water ankle-deep
down Scotland St. and onto Nelson Square shortly before 10am on
Friday, May 25.

John and Colleen Smith's home, on the corner of Scotland St. and
Nelson Square, was surrounded by water yet again, although this
time the pair were in Blenheim when it happened.  "There's no real
damage, just the garden's been watered again," Mrs. Smith said.

"I heard it burst up like a geyser, just like last time.

"[The water] might get third time lucky and it'll make it through
the house."

Crafar and Crouch water reticulation officer Wayne Bowden said the
pipe faced "immense pressure" from the water which wore it down
over time.

"It would've just burst out of the ground, when it goes it goes."

The asbestos-cement trunk pipe, which carries water from Barnes
Dam up Essons Valley down to the town, was only used to support
the main water supply and only one home would have briefly gone
without water, he said.

"No-one really will go without water, in fact it's quite the
opposite here."

Marlborough District Council engineering officer and operations
supervisor Kerry Walsh said the pipe would be repaired as quickly
as possible.

"The main line is not performing -- we've had a number of problems
around Picton lately."

Auckland University School of Medicine head professor Des Gorman
said there was "no risk" to drinking water which had small traces
of asbestos from pipe fragments.

"Asbestos is only a problem when it is in the lungs, not the gut.
We are more than happy to reassure people of that."

Former geological and nuclear sciences doctor Malcolm Laird said
it was "highly unlikely" to find asbestos in water reserves before
it ran into the pipes in Picton.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.6 Million Approved for Utah Abatement
---------------------------------------------------------
Amy Joi O'Donoghue of KSL.com Utah reports that nearly $1.6
million in grants is funneling into Utah to help a trio of
entities assess potential environmental problems or start cleanup
of known sites already compromised by contaminants.

Utah's share of the 2012 Brownfields money is part of more than
$69 million in funding announced on May 24 by the Environmental
Protection Agency in a program aimed at revitalizing communities
impacted by blight and potential environmental hazards.

Recipients are scheduled to detail the significance of the EPA
money in an event scheduled for Thursday, May 31.

Salt Lake City through its redevelopment agency will receive
$301,865 to assess possible environmental contamination along the
North Temple corridor, and Utah State University gets $200,000 for
asbestos removal for a collection of buildings on the former
Intermountain Indian School site in Brigham City.

Another $1 million is being directed to the Wasatch Front
Brownfields Coalition, which includes Salt Lake County, the
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and the city of Ogden in
Weber County.

In that instance, the money is being deposited into a revolving
loan/grant fund that is designed to be self- sustaining to target
eight priority sites covering 294 acres that include Salt Lake
City's former fleet yard and the Swift Building in Ogden.

Emily Farmer, redevelopment manager for Salt Lake County, said the
coalition was formed after both Ogden and the county submitted
unsuccessful applications to the EPA Brownfields program for a
million-dollar loan fund in 2010.

"The idea was to pool our resources and become more competitive in
the application process," Farmer said.

The sites that made it on the list for cleanup were prioritized
based on having immediate needs, their potential for redevelopment
as well as their proximity to transit and potential health
hazards.

In the project application, for example, remediation of Salt Lake
City's former fleet yard is described as a crucial first step for
redevelopment that could help foster the advent of a modern
streetcar line connecting the city's transit hub to the 900 South
light rail station.

Rehabilitation of Ogden's properties such as the old stockyards
north of 24th Street and the Swift Building will not only inject
new life into the west-side area of that city, but help protect a
pair of rivers.

"The Ogden and Weber rivers flow through this cluster of
Brownfields sites and the waterways are bounded not by parks and
green space, but rather junk yards, industrial shops and blighted
neighborhoods," the coalition's application reads.

Farmer said both Ogden and Salt Lake County have been past
recipients of grant moneys that helped assess what contaminants
need to be addressed at various sites, and the revolving loan fund
is the next step in the process to get remediation under way.

Salt Lake's North Temple corridor project, in contrast, is in the
preliminary stage of assessing what could potentially exist in
that area, said Nicholas Rupp, spokesman with Redevelopment Agency
of Salt Lake City.

"We want to be proactive in identifying these areas in our city,"
he said.  "This money will allow us to poke around and identify
any areas of concern."

In Brigham City, USU will use its Brownfields grant to pay for
asbestos removal at seven World War II-era buildings still
standing.  First used to house convalescing Army troops as the
Bushnell Hospital until 1947, the barracks-style buildings went on
to serve as living quarters for students at the Intermountain
Indian School for 34 years.  After closing in 1984, the buildings
stood vacant.

"They have become really derelict,' said Thomas Lee, dean of USU's
Brigham City campus.  "All have been vandalized, are in bad
condition and can't be reused."

USU bought 40 acres of the former Intermountain Indian School
property in December 2010 and most of the 18 buildings on the
campus have been torn down.  Asbestos removal has been completed
on some structures and demolition completed, but seven buildings
remain, Lee said.

The university's Brigham City campus now occupies space with an
applied technology center at an old shopping center down the road,
but Lee said the goal is to establish a new campus at the site.
He said one of the original buildings will be rehabilitated to
serve as a museum detailing the history of the hospital and the
Indian school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Pours in $200K for Fairfield Hospital Cleanup
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Miller of Newstimes.com reports that cleanup of the former
Fairfield Hills State Hospital buildings has taken its time.

But a $200,000 grant from the federal Environmental Protection
Agency should re-energize the work.

"It will help tremendously," Newtown's Director of Economic and
Community Development Elizabeth Stocker said.

U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy and U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, both
D-Conn., announced the grants.  Newtown, Meriden and Waterbury
also received EPA grants for hazardous substance cleanup.

"This is terrific news for Waterbury, Meriden and Newtown," Murphy
said in a news release.  "In a state with so many old factories
like Connecticut, we have a huge opportunity to turn these old
buildings into new jobs now by cleaning them up and redeveloping
the sites."

"Clean, healthy communities are places where people want to live,
work and start businesses," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said.
"We're providing targeted resources to help local partners
transform blighted, contaminated areas into centers of economic
growth."

Stocker said the town will use the grant money to deal with issues
like asbestos and lead paint at Fairfield Hills.

The state built the campus from the 1930s to the 1950s as a state
mental hospital.  More than 20 buildings sit on the 185-acre site.

Connecticut closed Fairfield Hills in 1995.  In 2004, Newtown
purchased the site.  The town moved its municipal center there and
added walking trails that curve throughout the campus.

Stocker said the town wants to renovate some of the buildings and
demolish others.  The Brownfields grant will help in either case.

If the town wants to use the building, it will have to remove
asbestos and either remove lead paint from any surfaces or cap it,
she said.

If a building is torn down, Stocker said, it makes financial sense
to remove the asbestos first to reduce the cost of removing
hazardous material.

"Let's say you have a brick wall covered with asbestos," Stocker
said.  "It makes more sense to remove the asbestos first.  If you
demolish the bricks and asbestos together, the bricks will be
considered hazardous as well."

Stocker said the work is sort of a race against time.  Many of the
buildings at Fairfield Hills have largely been unoccupied since
the state closed the facility.

"Ten buildings are scheduled for reuse," Stocker said.  "But it
depends on their quality, They haven't been used, and they
continue to deteriorate."


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 on 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. Super. Ct.), 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/FeF3VUfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Won't Junk Suit v. Crane Co.
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Superior Court, New York County,
denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal
of 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. Super. Ct.), 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: NY Ct. 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. Sup. Ct.).  A
copy of the May 10 Decision is available at http://is.gd/9aWs6J
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Moves Time to Perfect Appeal in Dummitt Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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. Sup. Ct.).  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
International'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 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. Super.
Ct.).  A copy of Judge Parkins' May 14, 2012 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/DtYg2ufrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Allows NYCHA to File Proofs of Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York City Housing Authority filed a proof of claim 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.  The
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey issued an
opinion on December 14, 2010, granting in part and denying in part
the Debtors' Objection to the NYCHA Claim.  Thereafter, discovery
proceeded until conflicting interpretations of the December 14,
2010 Opinion brought the Motion to Correct Mistake in the Court's
December 14, 2010 Opinion, pursuant to Rule 60(a) and (b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable by Rule 9024 of
the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and 11 U.S.C. Sec. 105,
filed by NYCHA.

In a May 17, 2012 opinion, Bankruptcy Judge Rosemary Gambardella
granted the motion pointing out that the December 2012 Opinion
explicitly held that the Debtors' Motion to Disallow was premature
as to restitution and indemnity claims without further development
of the actual record and that NYCHA would be allowed a future
opportunity to present proofs in support.  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 December Opinion, Judge Gambardella held.

The case is In Re: G-I Holdings, INC., et al., (f/k/a GAF
Corporation), Debtors, Case Nos. 01-30135 (RG), 01-38790 (RG)
(Jointly Administered)(Bankr. D. N.J.).  A copy of Judge
Gambardella's Decision is available at http://is.gd/fR6Us1from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court 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. Sup. Ct.).  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. App. Ct.).  A copy of Judge
Love's Decision is available at http://is.gd/7TJFemfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 1,121 Pending Cases at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas 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 as of March 31, 2012, the Company
was a party to 1,121 pending cases involving an aggregate of 7,947
claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated
and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the
Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical
refining and exploration industries.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought. Of the 7,947 claims pending at March 31, 2012, 69
set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating
the statutory minimum or maximum).

In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
approximately $6.3 million. All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately 40% of the
Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective
February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place
agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the
coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims
when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-place
agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity coverage
available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed by the
carriers and provides a methodology for the administration of such
expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely there
will be a period within the next one or two years, prior to the
commencement of coverage under this agreement and following
exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage, during
which the Company will be solely responsible for defense costs and
indemnity payments, the duration of which would be subject to the
scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operations or cash flows.

TriMas Corporation is a global manufacturer and distributor of
products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. The
Company is principally engaged in six reportable segments with
diverse products and market channels: Packaging, Energy, Aerospace
& Defense, Engineered Components, Cequent Asia Pacific and Cequent
North America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 16,000 Pending Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner 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 has 16,000 pending asbestos-related
product liability claims.

The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies who have
historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the
Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of
many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We
believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in
general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction
products that were manufactured many years ago and contained
encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation
and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these
products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of both March 31,
2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had approximately 16,000
pending asbestos-related product liability claims, respectively.
Of the approximately 16,000 outstanding claims at March 31, 2012,
approximately half were pending in jurisdictions that have
undergone significant tort and judicial reform activities
subsequent to the filing of these claims.

"The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects
that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product
liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to
indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the
Company or its insurers. In 2012, of the approximately 800 claims
resolved, 74 (9.3%) resulted in any payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2011,
of the approximately 1,800 claims resolved, 288 (16%) resulted in
any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the
Company.

"Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance
carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to
the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the
Company has substantial excess insurance coverage available for
potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004,
primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the
alleged exhaustion of their policy limits.

"A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty
Company and related companies ("CNA") against the Company and
certain of its other historical general liability insurers. The
court has issued a number of interim rulings and discovery is
continuing. CNA and the Company have entered into a settlement
agreement resolving their coverage disputes, pursuant to which CNA
will pay amounts over a four year period from 2011-2015 to the
Company. The Company is vigorously pursuing the litigation against
the remaining insurers.

"Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of pending or
future claims or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be
enacted at the state or federal levels, due to the encapsulated
nature of the products, the Company's experience in vigorously
defending and resolving claims in the past, and the Company's
significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers, management
does not believe that asbestos-related product liability claims
are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

"To date, the Company has paid and accrued $200.6 million in
defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and
has received $81.1 million in cash and notes from insurers,
including CNA. The net balance of $119.5 million, is expected to
be fully recovered, of which approximately $34.7 million is
expected to be recovered within one year. Timing of recovery is
dependent on final resolution of the declaratory judgment action
or additional negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2011,
insurers owed $109.8 million in association with these claims.

"In addition to the $119.5 million net balance relating to past
settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a
liability of $64.1 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs at March 31, 2012. The
Company also has a related asset of $64.1 million to recognize
proceeds from the insurance carriers. Insurance carrier
reimbursement of 100% is expected based on the Company's
experience, its insurance contracts and decisions received to date
in the declaratory judgment action. At December 31, 2011, the
comparable value of the insurance asset and accrued liability was
$61.7 million."

BorgWarner Inc. is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still a Defendant in PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Like other companies in recent years, Badger Meter, Inc., is named
as a defendant in numerous pending multi-claimant/multi-defendant
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and integrated into or
sold with a very limited number of the Company's products. The
Company is vigorously defending itself against these claims.
Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
these matters, the Company does not believe the ultimate
resolution of these issues will have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position or results of operations, either
from a cash flow perspective or on the financial statements as a
whole. This belief is based in part on the fact that no claimant
has proven or substantially demonstrated asbestos exposure caused
by products manufactured or sold by the Company and that a number
of cases have been voluntarily dismissed, Badger Meter, Inc.,
disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

Badger Meter, Inc., is a manufacturer and marketer of products
incorporating liquid flow measurement and control technologies
serving markets globally. The Company's products are used in a
variety of applications, including water, oil and lubricants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Asbestos Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, 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 is one of several
unrelated defendants in lawsuits filed in state courts alleging
that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud
containing asbestos and, in its case, allowed such drilling mud to
have been utilized aboard its offshore drilling rigs.

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

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., is an offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor. Its fleet includes 49 offshore rigs,
consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, 13 jack-ups and four positioned
drillships, three of which are under construction. Its diverse
fleet offers a range of services worldwide in both the floater
market (ultra-deepwater, deepwater and mid-water) and the non-
floater, or jack-up, market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Continues to Defend Filter Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard,
Inc., by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard
Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years
ago, Lorillard, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2012.

As of April 23, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 32
Filter Cases, including two consolidated multi-plaintiff actions.
Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in five Filter Cases, including
four that also name Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2011,
Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a
total of approximately $11.2 million in settlements to finally
resolve 42 claims, including the Lenney case. The related expense
was recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses on
the consolidated statements of income. Since January 1, 2011,
verdicts have been returned in the following two Filter Cases:
Lenney v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al., tried in the
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, and McGuire v.
Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried
in the Circuit Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County,
Kentucky. In the Lenney trial, the jury found in favor of the
plaintiffs as to their claims for compensatory damages and damages
for loss of consortium, but it determined that plaintiffs were not
entitled to an award of punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco or
Hollingsworth & Vose.

Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard
Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the
filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material. The final judgment entered by the trial court awarded
plaintiffs a total of approximately $1.1 million in compensatory
damages, damages for loss of consortium and costs from Lorillard
Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose. Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose noticed an appeal to the California Court of
Appeals.

In 2012, Lorillard Tobacco reached agreement with the plaintiffs
to resolve plaintiffs' pending claims, and any claims they might
assert in the future, for an amount that is included in the total
for settlements reached since January 1, 2011. The jury in the
McGuire case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose. As of April 23, 2012, the court has not
entered final judgment; accordingly, the deadline for plaintiff to
seek post-trial relief or to appeal has not expired. As of April
23, 2012, nine Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or have been
placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial dates are subject to
change.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes. Its principal products are
marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick
and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United
States of America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Had $1MM Litigation Expense in 1Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated and PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) each own 50%
of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC).
Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several other
defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.  On April 16,
2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Corning, with other relevant parties, has been involved in ongoing
efforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would resolve the
concerns and objections of the relevant parties.  A proposed PCC
plan of reorganization (Amended PCC Plan) is currently filed in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
but has not been confirmed by the Court.

The Amended PCC Plan does not include certain non-PCC asbestos
claims that may be or have been raised against Corning.  Corning
has recorded an additional $150 million for such claims in its
estimated asbestos litigation liability.  The liability for the
Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to
be $658 million at March 31, 2012, compared with an estimate of
the liability of $657 million at December 31, 2011.  In the three
months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, Corning recorded asbestos
litigation expense of $1 million and $5 million, respectively.
Corning also has an equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe
N.V. (PCE), a Belgian Corporation that is a component of the
Company's proposed resolution of the PCC asbestos litigation.  At
March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the fair value of PCE
significantly exceeded its carrying value of $141 million and $138
million, respectively.  The entire obligation is classified as a
non-current liability as installment payments for the cash portion
of the obligation are not planned to commence until more than 12
months after the Amended PCC Plan becomes effective and the PCE
portion of the obligation will be fulfilled through the direct
contribution of Corning's investment in PCE (currently recorded as
a non-current other equity method investment), according to
Corning Incorporated's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 76,000 Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012, states: "We are a defendant in
numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal
injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in
certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our
facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against
multiple defendants in state and Federal courts. To date, we have
disposed of approximately 101,100 claims by defending and
obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement.
The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross
payments to date, including legal costs, totaled approximately
$391 million through March 31, 2012 and $388 million through
December 31, 2011.

"Because claims are often filed and disposed of by dismissal or
settlement in large numbers, the amount and timing of settlements
and the number of open claims during a particular period can
fluctuate significantly. The passage of tort reform laws and
creation of deferred dockets for non-malignancy claims in several
states has contributed to a decline in the number of claims filed
in recent years.

"During the first quarter of 2012, approximately 500 new claims
were filed against us and approximately 3,000 were settled or
dismissed. The amount expended on asbestos defense and claim
resolution by Goodyear and its insurance carriers during the first
quarter of 2012 was $3 million. At March 31, 2012, there were
approximately 76,000 asbestos claims pending against us. The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and
other relief.

"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We
had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $138 million at March
31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. At March 31, 2012, we estimate
that it is reasonably possible that our gross liabilities, net of
our estimate for probable insurance recoveries, could exceed our
recorded amounts by approximately $10 million.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $68
million and $67 million as of March 31, 2012 and December 31,
2011, respectively. We expect that approximately 50% of asbestos
claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance
through the period covered by the estimated liability. Of these
amounts, $8 million was included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts Receivable at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. The
recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect
under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary carriers
as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from
certain of our excess coverage insurance carriers.

"We believe that, at March 31, 2012, we had approximately $160
million in limits of excess level policies potentially applicable
to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims. We
also had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining
aggregate limits, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense
costs for asbestos premises claims on a per occurrence basis,
pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements at March 31, 2012.

"With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is
reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in
excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be
reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject
to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not
limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure),
alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and
disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of these
characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal
issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by
us."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires. The
Company, together with subsidiaries and joint ventures, develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes tires for a range of
applications. The Company also manufactures and markets rubber-
related chemicals for various applications. The Company is an
operator of commercial truck service and tire re-treading centers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 26 Pending Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Minerals Technologies Inc.'s subsidiaries are among
numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials.  The
Company currently has 77 pending silica cases and 26 pending
asbestos cases.  To date, 1,389 silica cases and 9 asbestos cases
have been dismissed. One asbestos case was dismissed in the first
quarter of 2012.  Most of these claims do not provide adequate
information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the
Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability,
if any.  Additional claims of this nature may be made against the
Company or its subsidiaries.  At this time management anticipates
that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost
of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its
financial position or results of operations, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2012.

"The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to
date.  We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage.  The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense
of these cases since inception was approximately $0.2 million, the
majority of which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc pursuant to
the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with
the Company's initial public offering in 1992.  Our experience has
been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these
lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or
jury verdicts in these lawsuits."

Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based
company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a range of
specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral products
and supporting systems and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 402 Pending Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Since 1990, AK Steel Holding Corporation (or its predecessor,
Armco Inc.) has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. The
great majority of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of
people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting
the premises of a current or former AK Steel facility. The
majority of asbestos cases pending in which AK Steel is a
defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for damages. In
the cases that do include specific dollar claims for damages, the
complaint typically includes a monetary claim for compensatory
damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal amount for
punitive damages, and does not attempt to allocate the total
monetary claim among the various defendants.

At December 31, 2011, the Company had 402 pending asbestos cases,
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.

In each case, the amount described is per plaintiff against all of
the defendants, collectively. Thus, it usually is not possible at
the outset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of a
claim against AK Steel. In fact, it usually is not even possible
at the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will
pursue a claim against AK Steel. Typically, that can only be
determined through written interrogatories or other discovery
after a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multiple
plaintiffs and multiple defendants, AK Steel initially only
accounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. After AK Steel
has determined through discovery whether a particular plaintiff
will pursue a claim against it, it makes an appropriate adjustment
to statistically account for that specific claim. It has been AK
Steel's experience to date that only a small percentage of
asbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify AK Steel as a target
defendant from whom they actually seek damages and most of these
claims ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a small
fraction of the damages initially claimed.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five
asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK
Steel. AK Steel intends to continue to vigorously defend the
asbestos claims asserted against it. Based upon its present
knowledge, the Company believes it is unlikely that the resolution
in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against AK Steel will have
a materially adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results
of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However,
predictions as to the outcome of pending litigation, particularly
claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial
uncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantly
variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of
bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically
defending asbestos claims, (3) the uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, (4) the type and severity of the disease alleged to be
suffered by each claimant, and (5) the potential for enactment of
legislation affecting asbestos litigation.

AK Steel Holding Corporation (AK Holding) is an integrated
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels
and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation (AK Steel). The Company's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and
specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in sheet
and strip form. In addition, the Company's operations include
European trading companies that buy and sell steel and steel
products and other materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Still Defending Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy 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 one of its subsidiaries, Fairmont
Supply Company (Fairmont), which distributes industrial supplies,
currently is named as a defendant in approximately 7,300 asbestos-
related claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Maryland, Texas and Illinois.

The Company states: "Because a very small percentage of products
manufactured by third parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past
may have contained asbestos and many of the pending claims are
part of mass complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a
hundred or more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to
determine how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or
plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing
products supplied by Fairmont. In addition, while Fairmont may be
entitled to indemnity or contribution in certain jurisdictions
from manufacturers of identified products, the availability of
such indemnity or contribution is unclear at this time, and in
recent years, some of the manufacturers named as defendants in
these actions have sought protection from these claims under
bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect
to these asbestos cases. Based on over 15 years of experience with
this litigation, we have established an accrual to cover our
estimated liability for these cases. This accrual is immaterial to
the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and is included in
Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Past
payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been
material."

CONSOL Energy Inc. produces coal and natural gas for energy and
raw material markets. The company is involved in the mining,
preparation, and marketing steam coal primarily to electric power
generation industry; and metallurgical coal to steel and coke
producers. Its coal products comprise thermal, high volatile
metallurgical, low volatile metallurgical, and other coal. In
addition, the company explores for unconventional gas, including
coalbed methane, Marcellus, Utica, Chattanooga, Huron and New
Albany shales.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Still Defending Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation remains a defendant in a substantial number
of lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by its heritage companies in the
past, 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.

The Company states: "While the overall number of asbestos-related
claims has generally declined in recent years, there can be no
assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost
per claim will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials
incorporated into any such products were primarily encapsulated
and used as internal components of process equipment, and we do
not believe that any significant emission of asbestos fibers
occurred during the use of this equipment.
Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved
claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities
from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority
of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or
indemnities. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our
estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a
related receivable from insurers or other companies for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute. While
unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these
claims could have a material adverse impact on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we
currently believe the likelihood is remote. In one asbestos
insurance related matter, we have a claim in litigation against
relevant insurers substantially in excess of the recorded
receivable. If our claim is resolved more favorably than reflected
in this receivable, we would benefit from a one-time gain in the
amount of such excess. We are currently unable to estimate the
impact, if any, of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although
future claims would also be subject to then existing indemnities
and insurance coverage."

Flowserve Corporation engages in the design, manufacture,
distribution, and service of industrial flow management equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Industries Still Defending Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc., in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 30, 2012, disclosed that there are a number of product
liability, asbestos and workers' compensation claims pending
against the Company and its subsidiaries.  Many of these claims
are proceeding through the litigation process and the final
outcome will not be known until a settlement is reached with the
claimant or the case is adjudicated.  The Company estimates that
it can take up to ten years from the date of the injury to reach a
final outcome on certain claims.  With respect to the product
liability and workers' compensation claims, the Company has
provided for its share of expected losses beyond the applicable
insurance coverage, including those incurred but not reported to
the Company or its insurance providers, which are developed using
actuarial techniques. Such accruals are developed using currently
available claim information, and represent management's best
estimates, including estimated legal fees, on an undiscounted
basis.  The ultimate cost of any individual claim can vary based
upon, among other factors, the nature of the injury, the duration
of the disability period, the length of the claim period, the
jurisdiction of the claim and the nature of the final outcome.

Katy Industries, Inc., is a diversified corporation focused on the
manufacture, import and distribution of commercial cleaning
products and consumer home products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Still Defending Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, 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 the Company was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by approximately 15,496  plaintiffs, which is a net
decrease of 1,285 claims from those previously reported.

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive
damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.  Since January 1,
1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases
that have been resolved as follows: 40,515 of those claims were
dismissed, 20 were tried to defense verdicts, seven were tried to
plaintiff verdicts (two of which are being appealed), one was
resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 603 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.  In the quarter ending March 31, 2012 defense verdicts
were entered in two such cases in Common Pleas Court in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages
in the design, manufacture, and sale of welding, cutting, and
brazing products worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Still Defending Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries are defendants in various
legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to
asbestos) incidental to its past and current business activities.
As of March 31, 2012, December 31, 2011 and March 31, 2011, the
Company's condensed balance sheets included liabilities for these
legal actions of $16.8 million, $16.4 million and $16.2 million,
respectively.  These liabilities do not include costs associated
with legal representation.  Based on its analysis, and considering
the inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, the Company
does not believe that it is reasonably possible that these legal
actions will materially adversely affect its financial position or
results of operations in the near term, 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.

Olin Corporation engages in the manufacture and sale of chlor
alkali products in the United States and internationally.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Awaiting Settlement Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
For over 30 years, PPG Industries, Inc., has been a defendant in
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos. Most of PPG's potential exposure relates to
allegations by plaintiffs that PPG should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known
as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation ("PC"). PPG and Corning Incorporated are each 50
percent shareholders of PC. PPG has denied responsibility for, and
has defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC products.
As of the April 16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos
claims against PPG, PPG was one of many defendants in numerous
asbestos-related lawsuits involving approximately 114,000 claims
served on PPG. During the period of the stay, PPG generally has
not been aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos
claims.

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located
in Pittsburgh.  As a consequence of the bankruptcy filing and
various motions and orders in that proceeding, the asbestos
litigation against PPG (as well as against PC) has been stayed and
the filing of additional asbestos suits against them has been
enjoined, until 30 days after the effective date of a confirmed
plan of reorganization for PC substantially in accordance with the
settlement arrangement among PPG and several other parties.

On May 14, 2002, PPG announced that it had agreed with several
other parties, including certain of its insurance carriers, the
official committee representing asbestos claimants in the PC
bankruptcy, and the legal representatives of future asbestos
claimants appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a
settlement arrangement relating to certain asbestos claims against
PPG and PC (the "2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement").

On March 28, 2003, Corning Incorporated announced that it had
separately reached its own arrangement with the representatives of
asbestos claimants for the settlement of certain asbestos claims
against Corning Incorporated and PC (the "2003 Corning Settlement
Arrangement").

The terms of the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and the 2003
Corning Settlement Arrangement were incorporated into a bankruptcy
reorganization plan for PC along with a disclosure statement
describing the plan, which PC filed with the Bankruptcy Court on
April 30, 2003. Amendments to the plan and disclosure statement
were subsequently filed. On November 26, 2003, after considering
objections to the second amended disclosure statement and plan of
reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving
such disclosure statement and directing that it be sent to
creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting.  In December
2006, the court denied confirmation of the second amended PC plan
of reorganization, on the basis that the plan was too broad in the
treatment of allegedly independent asbestos claims not associated
with PC.

Among others, the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement called for
aggregate cash payments to an asbestos settlement trust of
approximately $998 million, payable according to a fixed payment
schedule over 21 years, beginning on June 30, 2003, or, if later,
the Effective Date.

A modified third amended PC plan of reorganization (the "third
amended PC plan of reorganization"), including a modified PPG
settlement arrangement (the "2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement"),
was filed with the Bankruptcy Court on January 29, 2009. The
parties also filed a disclosure statement describing the third
amended PC plan of reorganization with the court. The third
amended PC plan of reorganization also includes a modified
settlement arrangement of Corning Incorporated.

On June 16, 2011 the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision denying
confirmation of the third amended PC plan of reorganization.
Although denying confirmation, PPG believes that the decision
viewed favorably many features of that plan. Several parties filed
motions for reconsideration of specific aspects of the Bankruptcy
Court's ruling. PPG filed a motion jointly with PC, Corning
Incorporated, the official committee representing asbestos
claimants, and the legal representatives of future asbestos
claimants, and requested a deferred hearing and briefing schedule
in view of potential plan amendments that might be considered in
response to the June 16, 2011 ruling. Those amendments, along with
other technical amendments, were filed on September 23, 2011.
Since that time, the September 23, 2011 amendments have been the
subject of briefings, settlement negotiations, proposed further
amendments, and hearings and status conferences before the
Bankruptcy Court, the most recent of which was held on April 16,
2012. At that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court deferred rulings on
the motions for reconsideration pending an order regarding
confirmation of the third amended PC plan of reorganization,
scheduled the objecting insurers' motion for a case management
order for the June 21, 2012 omnibus hearing, and ordered further
submissions in connection with the question of whether the
remaining insurer objectors have standing to object to the third
amended PC plan of reorganization.

PPG does not expect the Bankruptcy Court to lift the stay until
after confirmation or rejection of the third amended PC plan of
reorganization.  Beginning in late 2006, the Bankruptcy Court
lifted the stay with respect to certain premises claims against
PPG. As a result, PPG and its primary insurers have settled
approximately 500 premises claims. PPG's insurers agreed to
provide insurance coverage for a major portion of the payments
made in connection with the settled claims, and PPG accrued the
portion of the settlement amounts not covered by insurance. PPG,
in conjunction with its primary insurers as appropriate, evaluates
the factual, medical, and other relevant information pertaining to
additional claims as they are being considered for potential
settlement. The number of such claims under consideration for
potential settlement, currently approximately 375, varies from
time to time.

PPG has no obligation to pay any amounts under the third amended
PC plan of reorganization until the Funding Effective Date.

Of the total obligation of $854 million under the 2009 PPG
Settlement Arrangement at March 31, 2012, $610 million is reported
as a current liability and the present value of the payments due
in the years 2013 to 2023 totaling $244 million is reported as a
non-current liability in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet.

If the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement is not implemented, for any
reason, and the Bankruptcy Court stay expires, PPG intends to
defend vigorously the pending and any future asbestos claims,
including PC Relationship Claims, asserted against it and its
subsidiaries.

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

PPG Industries, Inc., manufactures and supplies protective and
decorative coatings. The company offers coating products for
automotive and commercial transport/fleet repair and refurbishing,
specialty coatings for signs, and light industrial coatings; and
sealants, coatings, technical cleaners, and transparencies for
commercial, military, regional jet, general aviation aircraft, and
transparent armor for military land vehicles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Still Faces Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation continues to defend asbestos-related
cases against it, 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.

An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978
sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an
installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary
discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other
than the proceeds from insurance settlements received.  To date,
the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of
without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against
the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and
anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently
projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50
years for these claims is approximately $4,900,000(excluding costs
of defense).

Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain
of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the
Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or
settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary.
These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion of this
primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is now
insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted that the
aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The
subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the
claims being brought against the subsidiary.

In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate
settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005
and in the first quarter of 2007 for $15,000,000 and $20,000,000,
respectively. The payments under the latest settlement and release
agreement were structured to be received over a four-year period
with annual installments of $5,000,000, the final installment of
which was received in the first quarter of 2010. The proceeds of
both settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims
and costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos
litigation. During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and
the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim
Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay
27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the
subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a
minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. The agreement
continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either
party by providing the other party with a minimum of two years
prior written notice.  At the end of the term of the agreement,
the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this
insurer regarding the application of the policy limits.

The Company also believes that, if the coverage issues under the
primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely
to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the
subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state
guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the
subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in
respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to
the subsidiary.

If the subsidiary's assets and insurance coverage were to be
exhausted, claimants of the subsidiary may actively pursue claims
against the Company because of the parent-subsidiary relationship.
Although asbestos litigation is particularly difficult to predict,
especially with respect to claims that are currently not being
actively pursued against the Company, the Company does not believe
that such claims would have merit or that the Company would be
held to have liability for any unsatisfied obligations of the
subsidiary as a result of such claims. After evaluating the nature
of the claims filed against the subsidiary and the small number of
such claims that have resulted in any payment, the potential
availability of additional insurance coverage at the subsidiary
level, the additional availability of the Company's own insurance
and the Company's strong defenses to claims that it should be held
responsible for the subsidiary's obligations because of the
parent-subsidiary relationship, the Company believes it is not
probable that the Company will incur any material losses.

All of the asbestos cases pursued against the Company challenging
the parent-subsidiary relationship are in the early stages of
litigation. The Company has been successful to date having claims
naming it dismissed during initial proceedings. Since the Company
may be in this early stage of litigation for some time, it is not
possible to estimate additional losses or range of loss, if any.

Quaker Chemical Corporation develops, produces and markets a range
of formulated chemical specialty products for various heavy
industrial and manufacturing applications and, in addition, offers
and markets chemical management services (CMS).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos that was used in certain components of its products many
years ago, 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.

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

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

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

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims
and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related
to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we
agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or
because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some
instances, the divested business has assumed the liabilities;
however, it is possible that we might be responsible to satisfy
those liabilities if the divested business is unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
component systems business, semiconductor systems business and
Rockwell Collins avionics and communications business, the spun-
off companies have agreed to indemnify us for substantially all
contingent liabilities related to the respective businesses,
including environmental and intellectual property matters.

"In connection with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale."

Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Rockwell Automation) is a global
provider of industrial automation power, control and information
solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison's Liability Was $10MM at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., and Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc.'s accrued liability for asbestos suits at March 31,
2012, is $10 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.

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

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

Con Edison has two regulated utility subsidiaries: CECONY and O&R.
CECONY provides electric service and gas service in New York City
and Westchester County. The company also provides steam service in
parts of Manhattan. O&R, along with its regulated utility
subsidiaries, provides electric service in southeastern New York
and adjacent areas of northern New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania
and gas service in southeastern New York and adjacent areas of
eastern Pennsylvania. Con Edison has the following competitive
energy businesses: Consolidated Edison Solutions, Inc. (Con Edison
Solutions), a retail energy services company that sells
electricity and also offers energy-related services; Consolidated
Edison Energy, Inc. (Con Edison Energy), a wholesale energy supply
and services company; and Consolidated Edison Development, Inc.
(Con Edison Development), a company that develops and participates
in infrastructure projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Facing 93 Suits Over Steam Main Rupture
---------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2007, a Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
(CECONY) steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has
been reported that one person died and others were injured as a
result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were
damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing
asbestos. The response to the incident required the closing of
several buildings and streets for various periods. Approximately
93 suits are pending against the company seeking generally
unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for
personal injury, property damage and business interruption. The
company has not accrued a liability for the suits. The company has
notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the
policies in force at the time of the incident will cover most of
the company's costs, which the company is unable to estimate, but
which could be substantial, to satisfy its liability to others in
connection with the incident.

No further updates were reported in Consolidated Edison, Inc., and
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing
with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.

Con Edison has two regulated utility subsidiaries: CECONY and O&R.
CECONY provides electric service and gas service in New York City
and Westchester County. The company also provides steam service in
parts of Manhattan. O&R, along with its regulated utility
subsidiaries, provides electric service in southeastern New York
and adjacent areas of northern New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania
and gas service in southeastern New York and adjacent areas of
eastern Pennsylvania. Con Edison has the following competitive
energy businesses: Consolidated Edison Solutions, Inc. (Con Edison
Solutions), a retail energy services company that sells
electricity and also offers energy-related services; Consolidated
Edison Energy, Inc. (Con Edison Energy), a wholesale energy supply
and services company; and Consolidated Edison Development, Inc.
(Con Edison Development), a company that develops and participates
in infrastructure projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Unit's Net Liability Was $1MM at April 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary had a net asbestos
liability of $1 million at April 1, 2012, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2012.

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

"As of December 31, 2011, the net Leslie asbestos and bankruptcy
liability was $1.0 million, which represents the remaining payment
to the Trust after the initial funding of $78.8 million was made
on April 28, 2011. This remaining $1.0 million was paid to the
Trust in late April 2012.

"There were no ongoing pre-tax costs associated with Leslie's
asbestos litigation for the three months ended April 1, 2012. The
$1.0 million bankruptcy related charges for the period ending
April 3, 2011 is comprised solely of bankruptcy related
professional fees.

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

CIRCOR International, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets
valves and other engineered products and sub-systems used in the
energy, aerospace and industrial markets. It has a global presence
and operates 24 manufacturing facilities, which are located in the
United States, Canada, Western Europe, Morocco, India, Brazil and
the People's Republic of China.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadian Agency Lists 318 Contaminated Buildings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike De Souza of Postmedia News, Ottawa, reports that the federal
government says it doesn't actively keep track of projects to
remove asbestos from infrastructure, despite owning 318 buildings
that contain the cancer-causing substance, according to a recently
compiled list from Public Works and Government Services Canada.

More than one-third of the buildings are in the Ottawa-Gatineau
region, but the locations listed span the country from coast to
coast to coast -- including the Supreme Court of Canada, RCMP
buildings, the East, Centre and West blocks of Parliament and the
National Press Building in Ottawa.

The list does not include buildings owned by departments and
agencies outside of Public Works, such as the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which has identified the
toxic substance in 21 Canadian-owned buildings, including official
residences of diplomats in the Vatican, Beijing, Tokyo, Washington
and Los Angeles.  Numerous federal departments and agencies also
operate buildings containing asbestos within Canada.

The government says it does not specifically track any asbestos-
removal projects since the substance is only removed when required
by renovations or maintenance that "results in unavoidable
disturbance" of the carcinogen.

"Once the asbestos is removed from a building, an asbestos
management plan is no longer required," said Public Works
spokeswoman Mylene Dupere.  "Therefore, PWGSC does not maintain
such a list."

The government has spent millions of dollars in recent years
removing the carcinogen from various buildings under renovation,
including Parliament's West Block, which has been closed since
2011, forcing MPs and staffers into other buildings.

Updated on Jan. 30, the Public Works list includes 165 buildings
in Ontario, 29 in Quebec, 40 in British Columbia, 18 in Manitoba,
17 in Nova Scotia, 16 in the Northwest Territories, 13 in New
Brunswick, seven in Newfoundland and Labrador, four in the Yukon,
four in Saskatchewan, three in Alberta, and two in Prince Edward
Island.

But the department said it was not aware of any "national
inventory of buildings containing hazardous material in Canada."

A recent analysis of buildings owned by the Quebec government
concluded that province alone owned 289 buildings with asbestos,
including about 50 in the Montreal region, Radio-Canada reported
last month.

John Bennett, executive director of Sierra Club Canada, an
environmental group, questioned why federal buildings have not yet
been cleaned up, noting that asbestos removal has been going on
for about 30 years.  He said the government needs to improve its
record-keeping.

"They should know exactly where the asbestos is and where it's
removed," Bennett said.

"There should definitely be a program to pro-actively remove it.
The problem is usually it gets airborne in a renovation or when
it's disturbed, but unless you're inspecting it and double-
checking, you don't know that.  You don't know whether it's been
airborne."

The numbers emerged following revelations in newly released
memorandums that a leased government building, Place Vincent
Massey in Gatineau, Que., was flagged about eight years ago for
potential health concerns because of the presence of chrysotile
asbestos -- a cancer-causing substance mined by companies in
Quebec that the federal and provincial governments say can be used
safely.

The government discovered the asbestos following a 2004 survey by
a firm, Seacor Environmental Inc., that found the carcinogen in a
drywall filler compound on exterior perimeter walls, kitchenette
floor tiles, cement parging on pipe fittings and hot water tanks.

The building is leased by the government from the Heafey Group, a
Quebec-based real-estate management company.

While the 2010 memos, released to Postmedia News under access-to-
information legislation, indicated the asbestos levels did "not
pose an immediate health threat," they questioned why management
didn't adequately keep track of the toxic substance.

"Both the building owner and Environment Canada representatives
would have been aware of the contents of this survey and
management plan through regular operations and project meetings,"
wrote Pierre-Marc Mongeau, the acting associate assistant deputy
minister in a June 7, 2010, memorandum to the deputy minister and
top bureaucrat at Public Works.  "What is not clear is why
recently, there was no general knowledge of this information.
This will be investigated to ensure better records managements and
communications in the future."

Five months later, the associate deputy minister was told that the
asbestos was being removed by that building's owner.

"Asbestos remediation is being undertaken in tandem with floor by
floor base building work, and is being conducted with safety
precautions that exceed provincial standards," wrote John McBain,
an assistant deputy minister from the department's Real Property
Branch, in a Nov. 17, 2010 memo.

"A communications strategy has been implemented, should
Environment Canada employees have any questions or concerns.
Environment Canada is comfortable and satisfied with the measures
PWGSC has implemented."

McBain also wrote that Environment Canada was "very pleased with
the manner in which the renovations are being managed by PWGSC."

The Place Vincent Massey building has generated numerous headlines
since Postmedia News reported last July that Environment Canada
was planning to buy brand new workstations for the building and
would attempt to dump its existing furniture through an online
auction after spending about $141,000 to keep it in storage.

It was not immediately clear whether contractors had finished
removing the asbestos, but the renovated floors of the building
are expected to accommodate twice as many workstations at the end
of the process.

Buildings that contain asbestos compiled by The Public Works and
Government Services Canada, as of Jan. 30, 2012 (listed by
province or territory):

Newfoundland and Labrador:

   -- St. John's: Pleasantville- Bldg. 223; Data Taxation Centre;
and NWAFC -- 80 East White Hills Rd.

   -- Bonavista, COCB 21-28 Church Street

   -- Trepassey, GOCB 108/110 Harbour Drive

   -- Burgeo, GOCB -1 Main Road

   -- Grand Bank, GOCB -2 Church Street

Prince Edward Island:

   -- Charlottetown: RCMP "L" Division Admin and Daniel J
MacDonald

Nova Scotia:

   -- Halifax: Ralston Building; RCMP "H" Division; and GOCB -1713
Bedford Row

   -- Dartmouth: Marine House 176 Portland St.

   -- Sydney: Sydney Arts Bldg.; Manpower Bldg.; and Sydney
Science Bldg.

   -- Amherst: GOCB -30-40 Heveloct St

   -- Antigonish: GOCB -325 Main Street

   -- Arichat: GOCB -2451 High Road

   -- Kentville: GOCB -495 Main St

   -- New Glasgow: GOCB- 340 East River Rd

   -- Sherbrooke: GOCB -15 Main St.

   -- Shelburne: GOCB -162 Mowatt St

   -- Westville: GOCB -1870 Main Street

   -- Yarmouth: GOCB -15 Willow Street and Fisheries Bldg.

New Brunswick:

   -- Saint John: Customs Building and Postal Stn A, Annex

   -- Fredericton: RCMP J 1445 Regent Street

   -- Moncton: Gulf Fisheries Center and 310 Baig Boulevard

   -- Clair: C&I Border Crossing 790 Main St.

   -- Grand Falls: GOCB -373-377 Broadway

   -- Moncton: GOCB -1075 Main Street

   -- St. Croix: C&I Border Crossing 2785 Route 4

   -- St. Leonard: C&I Border Crossing

   -- Saint Quentin: GOCB -193 Canada Street

   -- Woodstock: GOCB -380 Main Street

   -- Shediac: DSS Building 10 Weldon

Quebec:

   -- Quebec City: Residence du gouverneur (Citadelle); 155 Pte-
aux-Lievres; 165 Pte-aux-Lievres; 104 Dalhousie; 112 Dalhousie;
130 Dalhousie; 901 Cap-Diamant; 330 Gare du Palais

   -- Montreal: 1420, Ste-Catherine and 400, Youville/105, McGill,
Montreal; and 715 Peel

   -- Gatineau: Hull Armoury; Portage 1; Portage 2; Portage 3;
Portage 4; L'Estrie Language School; Asticou Centre; Bisson
Centre; National Printing Bureau; National Printing Bureau CHP

   -- Sherbrooke: 50 Place de la Cite

   -- Rigaud: 475 Ch. Grande Ligne

   -- Sept-Iles: 701 Laure

   -- Matane: 150 Dion

   -- Rimouski: 180 de la Cathedrale

   -- Ste-Foy: 1141 de l'Eglise

   -- St-Laurent: 3155 Cote-de-Liesse

   -- Shawinigan: 4695 12e Av

Ontario:

   -- Ottawa: Booth Administration; Brooke Claxton; Butler Hut;
Canadian Police Information Centre; Confederation CHP; Tunney's
Pasture CHP; Exhibition Commission; Finance; Finance Annex; Jean
Talon; Jeanne Mance; L. H. Nicholson; Main Statistics; National
Police Service; R. H. Coats; RCMP CHP; Sir Charles Tupper; Sir
William Logan; Major General Pearkes; Place de Ville A/B; Thomas
D'Arcy McGee; Health Protection Branch; Capital Square; Anderson
Rd #1; Canadian Police College; Chemical and Radioactive Ores;
Dressing and Processing Laboratory; Fuel Research Lab; Geological
Survey of Canada; Geomatics Canada; Machine Shops and Stores; Ore
Dressing Laboratory; Physical Metallurgy Research Lab; Ore
Dressing Laboratory; Environmental Health Centre; Laboratory
Centre for Disease Control; Willet; General Records; L. B.
Pearson; National Library; Personnel Records; Sussex Tower;
Tunney's Pasture CHP; Tunney's Pasture CHP Tunnels; National
Research Centre CHP; DND Data Centre; Connaught; Taxation Centre;
Place Vanier; Film Storage Building; Rideau Falls Laboratory;
Federal Studies Centre; Jackson; LaSalle Academy; Plouffe Park;
Saint Andrews Tower; PBX; Occupational Health Unit; Radiation
Protection; Sir Frederick Banting; Edward Drake; Insurance; Sir
Leonard Tilley; Beacon Hill Shopping Centre; Cornwall Armoury;
Constitution; Supreme Court of Canada; Animal Disease Research
Institute - Bldg. 201; Animal Disease Research Institute - Bldg.
206; Brouse Slater; Central Experimental Farm; Central
Experimental Farm CHP; Central Experimental Farm CHP Tunnels;
Booth Street Central Heating Plant; CHP - Animal Disease Research
Institute; CIBC; Cliff Street CHP; Cliff Street CHP Tunnels; Hope
Chambers; Justice; National Capital Commission Garage; National
Press; Nelms; Norcano; NRC M-23; Oak Street Complex; O'Brien; East
Block; Centre Block; West Block; Wellington; National Press;
Brouse/Slater; Booth Street Complex; Bank of Montreal; Dover;
Justice; Confederation; Birks; Victoria; La Promenade; Bates;
CIBC; Bank of Nova Scotia; Fisher; Langevin; Postal Station B;
Hope; Blackburn; Norcano; Saxe; Marshall; O'Brien; Nelms; and
Canada Four Corners.

   -- Toronto: GOCB, 4900 Yonge St; GOCB, 25 St Clair Ave E; GOCB
(Dom Public), 1 Front St W; GOCB (Dominion Pblc), 338 Keele; and
GOCB (Canada Centre), 200 Town Centre Court; GOCB (AES), Lab
Annex; Canadian Atmospheric Research Lab (CARL) - 4905 Dufferin
Street; and GOCB (AES), 4905 Dufferin Street.

   -- Thunder Bay: GOCB (PS "P"), 33 Court; GOCB (Nat Revenue),
201 May St N; GOCB, 130 Syndicate Ave; and GOCB (PS "F"),221
Archibald St N.

   -- Kitchener: GOCB, 15-29 Duke

   -- Amherstburg: GOCB, 66 Richmond

   -- Chatham: GOCB, 10 Centre

   -- Windsor: GOCB, 441 University Ave and GOCB, 185 Ouellette
Ave

   -- Sarnia: GOCB, 105 Christina St

   -- London: GOCB, 451 Talbot and GOCB (Dom Public), 457 Richmond

   -- Brantford: GOCB, 58-70 Dalhousie E

   -- Niagara Falls: GOCB, 5853 Peer St and GOCB, 4551 Zimmerman
Ave

   -- St. Catharines: GOCB, 32-46 Church St

   -- Stratford: GOCB, 75 Waterloo St

   -- Kitchener: GOCB (Nat Revenue), 166 Frederick

   -- Canadian Forces Base Borden: GOCB (DSS Print Plant)

   -- Kapuskasing: GOCB, 22 Circle

   -- Timmins: GOCB, 120 Cedar St S

   -- Sudbury: GOCB, 19 Lisgar

   -- Sioux Lookout: GOCB, 45 Prince St

   -- Fort Frances: GOCB, 303 Scott

   -- Kenora: GOCB, 100 Fourth Ave

   -- Tobermory: GOCB, Hwy 6 & Duke

   -- Chatham: GOCB (Judy Lamarsh), 65 William Street S.

   -- Sault Ste. Marie: GOCB, 22 Bay St

   -- Bracebridge: GOCB, 98 Manitoba

   -- Oshawa: GOCB, 310 Simcoe St S

   -- Kingston: GOCB (Custom's House), 294 King; GOCB (Old Post
Office), 86 Clarence; Caretaker's Residence

   -- Belleville: GOCB, 11 Station; Regional HQ, 494 Dundas St E;
and GOCB, 1 North Front St.

   -- Parry Sound: GOCB, 74 James St

   -- Barrie: GOCB, 48 Owen

   -- Cornwall: GOCB (Sir Lionel Chevrier), 111 Water Street E.

   -- Sudbury: GOCB (Tax Data Centre), 1050 Notre Dame

   -- Cornwall Island: Customs Building and Warehouse, Inter. Hwy.
Bridge

Manitoba:

   -- Winnipeg: RCMP 'D' Division Police Divisional Headquarters;
RCMP Duplex 1 Units 1 and 2; RCMP Duplex 2 Units 1 and 2; RCMP
Medical Ctr Duplex 3 Units 1 and 2; Winnipeg Tax Centre; Cdn Grain
Commission Building; Victory Building; Customs Examining
Warehouse; Stanley Knowles Federal Building; Winnipeg MacDonald
Building; Revenue Canada Warehouse; and Federal Records Centre.

   -- Selkirk: Shipyard

   -- Lockport: SALD Warehouse; Lock House at St. Andrews Lock and
Dam; Power House at St. Andrews Lock and Dam; and Warehouse at St.
Andrews Lock and Dam.

   -- Brandon: GOCB Brandon Federal Building

Saskatchewan:

   -- Regina: Alvin Hamilton Building, 1975 -Scarth St.; GOCB
Regina 1975 -Scarth St.; and Income Tax Building 1955 - Smith St.

   -- Saskatoon: GOCB Saskatoon 101 -22 St. E.

Alberta:

   -- Edmonton: Archives Building

   -- Red Deer: GOCB Red Deer 4909- 50 St

   -- Lethbridge: J. D. Higinbotham Building

British Columbia:

   -- Vancouver: Sinclair Centre -- Complex; Library Square;
Douglas Jung Building; Harry Stevens Building; Standards Building;
Fairmont Complex - Operations #1; Fairmont Complex -
Administration #2; Fairmont Complex - Barracks #3; Fairmont
Complex - Training Academy #6; Fairmont Complex - VIP Security #5;
Fairmont Complex - Generator #7; Fairmont Complex - Storage #8;
Fairmont Complex - PCB Storage #9; Fairmont Complex - Storage #10

   -- Surrey: Surrey Taxation Data Centre; Burnaby Fraser Tax
Services Building; and Surrey Federal Operation Building.

   -- Delta: Annacis Marine Base (#1); Annacis Island Office
Building (#2); and Annacis Island Warehouse (#3).

   -- Richmond: GOCB -12551 No. 1 Rd.;

   -- Victoria: 1230 Government Street; 816 Government Street;
1415 Vancouver Street

   -- Nanaimo: GOCB -60 Front Street.

   -- Port Alberni: GOCB -4877 Argyle Street

   -- Campbell River: GOCB -940 Alder Street

   -- Kamloops: GOCB -317 Seymour Street

   -- Kelowna: GOCB -471 Queensway Avenue

   -- Penticton: GOCB -277 Winnipeg Street

   -- Vernon: GOCB -3101 32nd Avenue

   -- Clearwater: 1121 E Yellowhead Hwy S

   -- Revelstoke: GOCB -307 3rd Avenue

   -- Prince George: 280 Victoria Street and 3690 Massey Drive.

   -- Vanderhoof: GOCB -192 Stewart Road West

   -- Smithers: 3177 Tatlow Road

   -- Fort Nelson: GOCB -4804 51st Avenue West

   -- Prince Rupert: GOCB -417 2nd Avenue West

   -- Queen Charlotte: GOCB -137 Bay Street


Northwest Territories:

   -- Yellowknife: Trades Shop Buildings 1 & 2

   -- Inuvik: Warehouse 1 (Prov Lt B); Warehouse 2 (Prov Lt C);
Inuvik Tradeshop (Prov Lt F); GOCB Inuvik 187- MacKenzie Rd;
Garage/Appliance Repair Shop (Prov Lt E); Warehouse 3 (Prov Lt D);
Warehouse 4 (Prov Lt F); and Warehouse 9621-102 St.

   -- Norman Wells: 4 Bay Garage -woodland Ave

   -- Hay River: GOCB Hay River 10 Capital Cres

   -- Fort Simpson: GOCB Fort Simpson 9606-100 St.; Office Plex
9709-99 St.; and Garage - Ft.

   -- Fort Smith: GOCB Fort Smith 149 McDougal Rd.

   -- Yellowknife: Henry Larson Building.

Yukon:

   -- Whitehorse: 419 Range Road; 421 Quonset Huts; 421 Range
Road; and Elijah Smith Building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baie Verte Victims Wait for Registry and Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Quinn, CBC News, Newfoundland & Labrador, reports a project
to set up a registry of workers exposed to asbestos at a Baie
Verte Peninsula mine -- which some miners and their union hope
will ultimately lead to more former workers receiving compensation
-- is long overdue.

Gathering the miners' health information began in 2008.  At the
time, it was expected to take a year and a half.

The risks of asbestos exposure are well known.  Inhaling the
fibrous mineral can cause a chronic lung condition called
asbestosis.  It has also been shown to lead to different types of
lung cancer, including one known as mesothelioma.

But a broad view of what has happened to the estimated 3,000
people who worked at the Baie Verte mine is not known.

Former miners and their union at the mine, which operated from the
mid-1950s to the early 1990s, have been raising questions for
decades.

In 1977, miners went on strike for 14 weeks demanding measures to
reduce the workers' exposure to asbestos particles.

The year before, the miners' union brought in a physician known
for his work on industrial disease, Dr. Irving Selikoff came to
Newfoundland from the U.S.  He examined more than 400 miners and
concluded one in 10 working at the mine had an asbestos-related
illness.

He predicted the effects of exposure to asbestos could take
decades to manifest in others who were working in the mine at the
time.

It's unclear if he was right because miners who worked at Baie
Verte are now living across the province and the country.

A plan announced in 2008 promised to begin answering questions
miners and their representatives at the United Steelworkers Union
have asked.

According to a government news release at the time a Memorial
University research unit called SafetyNet and Workplace, Health,
Safety and Compensation Commission (WHSCC) would work together to
build a registry detailing the health of former miners.

As part of the project a website was built where former miners and
their families could comment and reconnect.

They left comments like this:

"My name is Doli Dinel (Tobin).  I am the daughter of Thomas Tobin
and the contact for him.  My dad and his family has suffered all
of his life because of the illness he suffered from working at the
mine in Baie Verte."

Another wrote:

"Hi My Grandfather worked there.  He died seven years ago of the
cancer.  I wish he was still alive.  The day he died I had to come
home from school.  He was the best Grandfather I had ever had.  I
loved him so much."

Work to create the registry was expected to take 18 months but
almost four years later it hasn't been made public.

The work stalled when there was a complaint that researchers had
access the medical files of some former mine workers without the
workers' consent.

After the office of the province's privacy commissioner and
Memorial University reviewed what happened the work to create the
registry continued.

SafetyNet gave its report to the government months ago.

A Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
spokesperson recently told CBC News in an email that the registry
will be made public in Baie Verte this spring.

The union hopes the registry and SafetyNet's report will lead to
more people receiving compensation for injuries caused by exposure
to asbestos.

Its officials have said that it is important to act quickly
because people who worked in the mine die every year.

Union officials have said for years that they don't believe
everyone who deserves compensation is receiving it.  They hope the
registry will help to broaden the definition of who is eligible
for compensation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Build Motion Denied, Hearing Set July 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victor A. Patton of The Merced Sun-Star reports the judge in the
Firm Build asbestos case has denied a defense motion that would
have dismissed the entire case against defendants Rudy Buendia,
III, Joseph Cuellar and Patrick Bowman.

Defense attorneys recently filed the motion in Judge John
Kirihara's court.

They contended that the case against their clients should be set
aside because the prosecution failed to provide members of the
Merced County grand jury proper instructions in November 2010.

Deputy District Attorney Walter Wall disputed the motion, saying
the grand jury was instructed properly.  Even if the defense's
claims were true, Wall argued, they would amount to a harmless
error and would not affect the charges.

Kirihara sided with the prosecution in denying the motion during a
hearing Tuesday, May 15.

The defendants, all former executives with the defunct nonprofit
Firm Build, are suspected of using at least nine high school
students to remove asbestos from a renovation project at Castle
Commerce Center from September 2005 to March 2006.

All three have pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include
dozens of federal and state asbestos exposure violations.

Evidentiary hearings in the Firm Build case were launched in
Kirihara's court May 15, in response to another motion filed by
the defense.  Bowman is represented by Ralph Temple, Buendia is
represented by Kirk McAllister and Cuellar is represented by
Douglas Foster.

With the latest motion, defense attorneys are hoping to dismiss
roughly 12 charges against each of their clients, claiming the
three-year statute of limitations had run out.

Lee Andersen, former Merced County Office of Education
superintendent, was among the first witnesses called to testify.

Andersen's time as the superintendent came under the scrutiny of
prosecutors with the Stanislaus County District Attorney's office
last year.  They accused Andersen of breaking the state's mandated
reporting law (a misdemeanor) because he knew the students were
exposed to asbestos, but waited more than a year to notify law
enforcement.

The law requires educators to report child abuse or neglect to law
enforcement within 36 hours of receiving the information.  Still,
the Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office determined
Andersen couldn't be prosecuted because the one-year statute of
limitations had run out.

Stanislaus County prosecutors were asked by Merced County District
Attorney Larry Morse II to investigate Andersen, because a
possible conflict of interest existed with Morse's office.

While on the stand last week, Andersen reiterated testimony he
gave to the Merced County grand jury in 2010, saying he directed
staff to look into the exposure allegations when he found out
about them in 2008.

"The conclusion that we drew was that students might have been
exposed to asbestos on the work site," Andersen said.

Under questioning from Wall, Andersen testified that because the
possible asbestos exposure happened in the past (in 2005-06), he
wasn't personally obliged to report it.

Before the hearing, Andersen's attorney Katherine Hart said her
client would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination, unless he was granted immunity by the prosecution
to testify.  The prosecution granted Andersen's request, with the
condition that his testimony was truthful.

Morse said his office allowed Andersen to have immunity because
Stanislaus County prosecutors already had determined the one-year
statute of limitations had run out.

"He has information that I believe can help us establish the
sequence of events," Morse said.

The victims, who were about 16 and 17 between 2005 and 2006,
allegedly removed asbestos from the Automotive Training Center
without the required safety equipment, on numerous occasions,
under the direction of Firm Build.

Many of those victims, who are now grown men, have hired attorneys
and are pursuing a civil case against Merced County Office of
Education.

The hearings in the Firm Build case are scheduled to continue on
July 10.

The three defendants are free on bail.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: KAM Services Wins Salem Theatre Abatement Job
--------------------------------------------------------------
wjbdradio.com reports that on May 21, the Salem City Council was
asked to award a bid for asbestos removal from the basement at the
Salem Community Theatre and Cultural Center.  KAM Services of
Mattoon submitted the low bid of just under $10,000.  City Manager
Bill Gruen said the contractor has looked at the work that needs
to be done and felt that they can do it for the amount of their
bid.  The asbestos was disturbed earlier during a clean-up of the
theatre.

The council was asked to pay for the work through UDAG funds
earlier repaid to the city by a former industry provided a low
interest loan.  The fund as of May 21, has a balance of $63,700
with no projects completed with the money in a number of years.

The council was also asked to seek approval from the Illinois
Department of Transportation to use $147,800 in motor fuel tax
funds for the annual oil and chip street improvement projects.
Additional paperwork was also underway before the council to allow
the city to receive an additional $170,000 in state dollars for
the upcoming overlay of South College Street.

The meeting was set at 6:00 pm on May 21 at Salem City Hall.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. App. Ct. Rules Out Claim Against Hennessy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports a manufacturer
of lathes and other machines used on asbestos-filled vehicle brake
linings is not responsible for the death of an auto mechanic who
inhaled the fibers, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday, May 22.

The 2-1 decision by the Second District Court of Appeal in Los
Angeles comes two weeks after an appeals court in San Francisco
reinstated lawsuits by other asbestos victims against the same
manufacturer, Hennessy Industries.  The dispute may be headed to
the state Supreme Court.

The federal government sought to outlaw asbestos in new products
in 1989, but the ban was overturned in court, and the fibers are
still commonly used in brake shoes.

Tuesday's ruling upheld a Los Angeles judge's dismissal of a
wrongful-death suit by the family of Richard Barker, who died of
asbestosis and lung cancer in 2008.

Barker had worked as a mechanic from 1967 to 1995 and, according
to the suit, unknowingly inhaled asbestos that was released from
brakes by lathes and arcing machines made by Hennessy subsidiary
Ammco Tools.

The suit relied on a 2004 appeals court ruling allowing a lamp
maker to sue tool companies for lung disease he said was caused by
metal particles released by grinding and sanding.  That court said
the tool manufacturers could be held responsible for hazards
caused when the tools were used for their intended purpose.

In Barker's case, however, the court said the use of the machines
on asbestos-laden brake parts was "neither inevitable nor
intended," because the machines could be used on other equipment,
or on brakes that contained no asbestos.

Because "Hennessy's machines could be used in a manner that was
not necessarily harmful," the company was not responsible for
asbestos emissions from another manufacturer's products, and had
no duty to warn Barker of the potential dangers, said Justice
Kathryn Doi Todd in the majority opinion.

She said the case also differed from the lawsuits reinstated by
the San Francisco court on May 7.  Those suits, Doi Todd said,
alleged that Hennessy's grinding machines were designed for use on
brake parts, and that all brake parts contained asbestos at the
time the victims were exposed.

But dissenting Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst said Hennessy never
offered evidence that asbestos-free brake shoes and drums were in
use when Barker was exposed.  She said his case was similar to the
San Francisco suits and should also be allowed to proceed.

"If Hennessy's machines contributed substantially to the harm by
releasing asbestos fibers and making them more dangerous, no one
else was in a better position to provide safeguards" or bear the
costs, Ashmann-Gerst said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AEI Owners Plead Not Guilty to Clean Air Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Laforme of the Marblehead Patch reports that the office of
Attorney General Martha Coakley has announced the arraignment of
two Lynnfield residents in a case involving the improper removal
and disposal of asbestos in Marblehead.

According to the announcement, David Harder, Jr., 47, and Julie
Rosati, 51, both of Lynnfield, were arraigned on 12 counts of
violating the Massachusetts Clean Air Act, two counts of violating
the Massachusetts Solid Waste Act, and four counts of evasion of
unemployment insurance.  The charges stem from asbestos removal
work performed on various buildings in Marblehead, Lynn, and
Beverly.

Harder, along with Luiz Dias, 43, of Pelham, NH, was also
reportedly arraigned for filing false statements for the
protection of the environment, and conspiracy to file false
environmental reports.  Rosati is also charged with filing false
statements for the protection of the environment.

The case was the result of the interagency Massachusetts
Environmental Strike Force and reportedly began in September 2010
when officials learned that AEI Environmental, LLC, and its
owners, Harder and Rosati, were allegedly storing bags of asbestos
at a self-storage facility in Lynnfield in violation of the Clean
Air Act.  Upon further investigation, authorities found hundreds
of bags of asbestos debris from company work.

Officials also charge that the defendants were not properly
licensed to remove asbestos, and that they failed to notify the
state Department of Environmental Protection about their asbestos
work.  Coakley's office alleges that Harder would convince other
contractors on location to file the state asbestos notifications,
apparently to make it look like the work was performed by another
entity.

Also, the defendants are accused of falsifying documents used by
the Mass. DEP to ensure safe asbestos work, and they are also
accused of failing to follow proper asbestos abatement procedures.
They also allegedly failed to make unemployment insurance payments
for their employees.

On March 18, an Essex County Grand Jury reportedly returned
indictments against AEI Environmental, Harder, Rosati, and Dias.
The defendants were arraigned in Essex Superior Court and each
entered individual pleas of not guilty.

They are due back in court on June 16 for a pre-trial conference,
with AEI Environmental expected to be arraigned at that point.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Disgusted Over Fraud in Montgomery Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien of The Southeast Texas Record reports that Texas
attorney Brent Coon submitted 20 claims to asbestos bankruptcy
trusts on behalf of a Florida woman's estate without the client's
new lawyers knowing, court records in Delaware show.

Those claims also painted a different picture as to how June
Montgomery was exposed to asbestos.  Her lawsuit, filed in
Delaware against 22 companies, said her husband Arthur brought the
material home from work on his clothes.

In one of her bankruptcy trust submissions, however, she claimed
exposure through her employment at Samuel Ward Manufacturing in
Boston.  Florida law, which governed the Delaware case, allows
juries to apportion percentages of liability to non-defendants.

Judge Peggy Ableman, of the New Castle County Superior Court,
showed disgust during a November hearing after the claims were
brought to light by Scott Barnes, an attorney with Florida firm
Levin Papantonio.  June's son Brian, who represented her estate
after her April 2010 death, mentioned two bankruptcy settlements
to Barnes on Nov. 5, the Saturday before a trial was to begin.

"This is dishonesty at its highest level," Ableman said.  "This is
a guy who got checks and never reported those to you.  It affected
their discovery."

Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. had filed a motion Oct. 27 seeking
disclosure of pre-trial settlements, but Barnes replied that there
were none.  Ableman denied the motion as moot.

More than 60 bankruptcy trusts have been created to allow former
asbestos defendants pay out claims.  The trust system acts
independently of the civil justice system, where solvent companies
are sued.

"This is really seriously egregiously bad behavior," she said.
"This is misrepresenting.  This is trying to defraud.

"I don't like that in this litigation, and it happens a lot.  And
I'm trying to put an end to it.  This is an example of the games
that are played."

Coon's firm had referred the Montgomerys to the Levin firm.  At a
deposition the day after Barnes' email brought the bankruptcy
claims to light, Brian Montgomery testified that he did not
attempt to make the Levin firm and its co-counsel aware of the
claims.

He also said that he had no plans to ask Coon about the status of
other claims.  Foster Wheeler wrote in a motion to dismiss the
case that Brian Montgomery would not definitively say if Coon was
still acting on behalf of the estate with his consent.

At the time of the motion, Montgomery's estate had settled with
the bankruptcy trusts of Keene, Celotex and Johns Manville.

Two bankruptcy claim forms indicated that June Montgomery died on
April 3, 2010.  The company argued that proves someone with the
family had contacted Coon's firm after the firm referred it to
Levin Papantonio.

"In other words, if Brian Montgomery did not have further contact
with the attorneys at Brent Coon & Associates (except, of course,
to accept checks from them and deposit the same), someone
representing his family or the estate must have contacted the
lawyers at Brent Coon's office to advise them that Mrs. Montgomery
had died," the motion says.

"Although it is not clear from this record who that person was, it
seems reasonable to suspect that the individual worked for one of
the other three law firms that have been representing the
Montgomery family and estate in this litigation."

Another inconsistency pointed out by the company involved drywall
work conducted by Arthur Montgomery.

He had associated Georgia Pacific with his drywall work, but
claims were submitted by Coon to United States Gypsum and National
Gypsum -- companies whose primary products were drywall-related,
the company said.

"In other words, the representations to the bankruptcy trusts
paint a much broader allegation of exposure to asbestos than
either Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel let on during the course
of the litigation in Delaware," the motion says.

"In an effort to obtain money from 20 other entities, Plaintiff
admitted that Mrs. Montgomery was exposed to asbestos from their
products.  Yet Plaintiff did not share that information with
Plaintiff's own experts, likely because Dr. Legier would say that
all of those exposures were substantial factors in causing Mrs.
Montgomery's disease, thereby severely undermining the claimed
'bystander' exposure from work Mr. Montgomery did as an
electrician."

After a February hearing before Judge John Parkins, the two sides
agreed to dismiss the case. Had the plaintiff wanted to proceed,
the defense would have been allowed to conduct new discovery paid
for by the plaintiff.

Foster Wheeler was the lone remaining defendant that had not
settled.  Coon could not immediately be reached for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vancouver Suites Repair an Excuse to Hike Rent
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Colebourn of The Province reports that a stop-work order has
been issued on a major apartment renovation in East Vancouver
after construction workers could not produce the needed paperwork
to remove potentially hazardous asbestos from the building.

WorkSafe BC spokesman Donna Freeman on May 22 confirmed work in
some suites has been halted at 1850 Adanac St. after questions
were raised about the removal of asbestos-containing debris from
the rental units.

"I'm told there was a stop-work order," said Freeman.  "They have
to produce a hazardous material survey," she said.  "It is a
document they need to produce before they can continue work."

Some of the renovation can continue said Freeman, but any new
demolition needs approval.

"In some areas we have allowed work to resume and in the other
suites work cannot continue until they provide our officers with
safe work procedures given the concern over the asbestos."

At a rally outside the apartment, the plight of tenants living in
the 53-year-old East Vancouver building will be brought to the
attention of Vancouver's politicians, city councilor Adriane Carr
told those gathered.

Carr told the tenants she was shocked to hear of the problems they
have encountered with potentially hazardous dust and debris from
the work in the 80-unit building.

"From what I have heard I do intend to raise this at council next
week," said Carr.  "They are ripping out the walls that are full
of asbestos."

Tenants at the once-affordable apartment building say some of the
tenants have been asked to vacate their units slated for
upgrading, then told they must pay more to relocate to other
units.

Shane Simpson, the New Democrat MLA for Vancouver-Hastings told
the tenants they should be concerned about the levels of asbestos
in the dust and debris lying around the complex.

"The halls are full of dust," said resident Jeff Mohoric.

Lorelei Hill said the tenants feel the owner, Ashurwin Holdings
Ltd, is simply doing the work to bump up the rent.  She said the
units are in excellent condition and did not need an upgrade.

"It is an excuse to go in and renovate and get rid of people so
they can increase the rents," she said.

Simpson noted both the tenants and workers are at risk with
asbestos being removed in an unsafe manner.

"There has not been proper permitting done for the renovation
work," said Simpson.

"There has been asbestos clearly identified in this building and
when you rip it up it is a health concern.  What has been done is
simply not safe."

A certified asbestos-removal company repaired damaged units after
a fire in 2009.

Lorenzo Aquilini is listed as a director of Ashurwin Holdings
Ltd., the company that owns the building.

Simpson said he has yet to receive a reply from the company but
the city of Vancouver did confirm that no permit exists for
ongoing asbestos removal from the building.

WorkSafeBC inspectors visited 1850 Adanac and issued a stop-work
order under Part 6 of B.C. Occupational Health and Safety
guidelines, said Simpson.

Simpson said post-renovation rent increases also appear to exceed
limits set by the Residential Tenancy branch and he has encouraged
tenants to appeal.

The building's management company, Royal Providence Management
Inc., said Ashurwin Holdings will respond with a statement to the
media in the upcoming days.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Senate Committee Reviews Discovery Process
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett of Legal Newsline reports that a bill that would
change the discovery process in asbestos litigation was scheduled
to be heard in a Louisiana Senate committee Tuesday, May 22.

House Bill 477, an asbestos bankruptcy trust bill, would require
plaintiffs in asbestos exposure lawsuits to provide a list of all
potential defendants during the discovery process.

Proponents of the change say it will keep plaintiffs from
recovering twice for the same injury.

"One of the trends we have seen in asbestos litigation all over
the country is plaintiff's attorneys who are abusing the system
because of a lack of transparency between these bankruptcy trusts
and our court systems," said Melissa Landry, executive director of
Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch.

The issue lies in the distinction between lawsuits and claims
against bankruptcy trusts.  Former asbestos producers who were
forced out of business due to the proliferation of asbestos-
related suits were liquidated and their remaining assets put into
trusts that regularly pay out damages to those suffering from
asbestosis and mesothelioma.

Mark Behrens -- mbehrens@shb.com -- an attorney and expert in
asbestos litigation with Shook, Hardy and Bacon in Washington,
D.C., said there is no communication between trusts and the torts
system.  Behrens said the change would help give juries a better
picture of damage recovery.

"When you can't tell what claims are being made you can't tell
whether the plaintiff is making a false claim or an exaggerated
claim," said Behrens.  "So there is a problem there in the lack of
transparency that would allow an unscrupulous plaintiff to file a
false claim knowing that they probably can't get caught in a lie.
Also, in the tort system, what plaintiff's lawyers do is game the
system by filing their torts claims first and then wait until the
torts case is resolved before they file those trusts claims."

Deb Kuchler -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- who provides defense in
asbestos cases for New Orleans-based Kuchler, Polk, Schell, Weiner
and Richeson, said the change would provide a better picture of
how claims are being paid out and whether those claims are being
paid out proportionately.

"A defendant who might be 1 percent at fault might have to pay 20
percent of the verdict because there may be only five defendants
left," Kulcher said.  "So we'd like to give the jury a more
complete picture of what the real exposure was."

In the end Kulcher said the change would likely tighten up the way
damages are awarded in asbestos cases.

"One of the goals is to try and prevent multiple recoveries for
the same claim," Kulcher said.  "The second goal is to have full
disclosure of the underlying facts of exposure."

HB477 passed the House unanimously.  If it passes the Senate and
is signed by the governor it would be the first legislation of its
kind in the country.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Clears Ford in Exposure Case
----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reports that an appeals court in
California has ruled that Ford Motor Company had no duty to
protect a woman from asbestos brought home on the clothing of her
brother and father.

The Monday, May 21, decision of the Second Appellate District
overturned a judgment from Los Angeles County Superior Court that
placed 5% of the blame for Eileen Honer's mesothelioma on Ford.  A
jury ordered the company to pay $40,000.

"While the overall policy of preventing future harm is ordinarily
served, in tort law, by imposing the costs of negligent conduct
upon those responsible, the policy question is 'whether that
consideration is outweighed, for a category of negligent conduct,
by laws or mores indicating approval of the conduct or by the
undesirable consequences of allowing potential liability," Judge
Fred Woods wrote.

Woods was citing the 2011 decision of the state Supreme Court in
Cabral v. Ralph's Grocery Company.  In that case, a truck driver
working for Ralph's Grocery stopped his tractor-trailer on the
side of a highway, and Adelelmo Cabral collided with it and died.

A jury found Ralph's at fault for 10 percent of the damages, and
the Supreme Court agreed with the finding in that case.

Other factors considered, and decided in Ford's favor, included
the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of
certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the
connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered
and the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct.  Those
issues were outlined in a 1968 decision by the Second District.

The court also pointed at a Michigan Supreme Court decision in
2007.  It said, "imposing a duty on a landowner to anybody who
comes into contact with somebody who has been on the landowner's
property" (and secondarily exposed to asbestos as a result) "would
create a potentially limitless pool of plaintiffs."

Honer said she washed the clothes of her brother and father, who
worked as insulators at Ford's Lincoln-Mercury plant in Metuchen,
N.J. She was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2004.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor Dept. Probes St. Patrick's for Hazards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth C. Crowe, II, of the Times Union (Watervliet, N.Y.)
reports that the state has launched an investigation at the
historic St. Patrick's Church site to determine if there is an
asbestos problem, officials confirmed Tuesday, May 22.

A state Department of Labor investigator visited the site in the
middle of the city's 19th Street district, Leo Rosales, a state
Department of Labor spokesman, said.  "The department is
conducting an asbestos investigation," Rosales stated.

Mayor Michael Manning said he had been informed by the pastor of
the Immaculate Heart of Mary Parish, the Rev. L. Edward Deimeke,
that "an issue had arisen with asbestos."

Nigro Companies has submitted an application to the City Council
to rezone the 3.5-acre property to business from residential to
allow construction of a Price Chopper Supermarket.

Nigro Companies has said it would demolish the buildings on the
site to clear the property for the 40,200-square-foot supermarket
and a 2,600-square-foot commercial building.

The St. Patrick's property includes the church, rectory and
school.

The three buildings have been posted by the parish as private
property to prevent anyone from entering without parish
permission.

A parish representative could not be reached for comment about the
investigation.

The City Council has scheduled a public hearing for 7 p.m., May 30
at the senior citizen building regarding the rezoning request.

The Department of Labor investigates sites where demolition or
renovations may occur to ensure that if asbestos is present it is
properly abated to prevent a threat to public health.

Contractors have been removing portions of the church interior,
windows and other items over the last several months.

In early 2011, the demolition of the former Troy City Hall at 1
Monument Square was halted by the state until proper asbestos
abatement was undertaken.

Older buildings such as the church, rectory and school, often are
found to contain asbestos, which was used as an insulating
material.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Hazmat at Du Quoin High Protects, Inspires
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak of The Mesothelioma Center reports school districts all
across America have been wrestling in recent years with the task
of removing and disposing of toxic asbestos from older buildings,
often struggling financially with the high cost of abatement.

Officials at Du Quoin High School in Illinois are facing just the
opposite.  They are working hard, and contemplating a major
expenditure, to save the asbestos tile in their aging gymnasium
lobby, and make it a part of their sparkling new facility.

No one wants to let it go.

At issue is "Crazy Joe," the Indian mascot made from asbestos tile
that was inlaid on the lobby floor when it was first built in
1955.

The thought of leaving behind Crazy Joe when demolition of the old
facility begins soon is like treading on sacred ground.  For three
generations now, he has been an integral part of this small town
in Southern Illinois.

"I'd be very sad to see it go, if it was taken away," Du Quoin
resident Shirley Anheuser told television station WSIL-TV.
"That's part of the Indian tradition."

Du Quoin, a town of just seven square miles and an estimated
population of 7,500 in Perry County, originally was named after
Chief Jean Baptiste Ducoigne of the Kaskaskia Indian tribe.

When the school originally was built, Crazy Joe was handcrafted
into the floor.  Many at the school believe he watches over, and
protects, the entire student body.  He has been on the school's
yearbook cover, the school handbook and the sports uniforms.  He
also has served as the guardian of sportsmanship, too.  He is a
proud mascot.

The problem now is how to move him before demolition begins.
Asbestos tile was common in construction through much of the 20th
century -- valued for its strength and heat resistance, but its
use declined rapidly in the mid-'70s when awareness to the dangers
of asbestos became more pronounced.

District officials are getting advice from asbestos abatement
companies on the safest and most economically feasible way to move
the 10-foot circle of tile.  One option would be cutting out Crazy
Joe, along with the eight-inch concrete slab beneath him to keep
the asbestos encapsulated.  It would take a sizeable forklift,
along with an abatement expert to move it into place and seal it
safely in the new gymnasium lobby.

The tile design was patterned after a photograph of the original
Du Quoin Indian, which has hung on the lobby wall for close to 60
years.

The new school being built is expected to provide a more modern
look with much-needed technology, yet officials do not want to
lose the school's most noted tradition.

Exposure to asbestos fibers can cause a variety of respiratory
issues, including mesothelioma cancer.  Although it is not banned
in the United States like it is in many countries, its use is
highly regulated.  Older schools around the country are going to
great lengths to remove it entirely.

It rarely is used in any new school construction.  It would take
special permitting from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to allow its use in a state school today.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Superior Court Orders Tile Council to Pay $4.2MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Tepfer at CT Post reports that the family of a New Haven
tile setter, who died after contracting an asbestos-related
cancer, was awarded $2.4 million.

A Superior Court jury deliberated about three hours Tuesday,
May 22, before finding the Tile Council of North America liable in
the death of Hannibal "Scottie" Saldibar and awarding his family
$1.6 million.  Judge Dale Radcliffe then ordered the association
to pay an additional $800,000 in punitive damages.

"The jury made an informed decision based on the facts of the
case," said the Saldibar's lawyer, Brian Kenney.

A spokesperson for the tile association couldn't be reached for
comment.

The 84-year-old Saldibar, who worked as a tile setter for 30
years, died in January 2010, nine months after being diagnosed
with mesothelioma, a form of cancer connected to asbestos contact.

Although it is a trade association, Kenney said Tile Council of
North America developed the asbestos-containing mortar used by
tile setters for many years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazards at Service Canada Building Unconfirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Kamloops Daily News reports that the city's Service Canada
building is on a list of federal buildings that might contain
asbestos.

However, The Daily News was not able to confirm on Tuesday,
May 22, whether or not the cancer-causing substance was removed
from 317 Seymour St. during extensive renovations that took place
within the last decade.

Calls were made to MP Cathy McLeod, McLeod's Kamloops office and
SNC Lavalin, the company that manages the building, but none could
provide a definite answer by deadline Tuesday.

A recently compiled list from Public Works and Government Services
Canada has revealed the federal government owns 318 buildings that
contain asbestos.

More than one-third of the buildings are in the Ottawa-Gatineau
region, but the locations listed span the country from coast to
coast to coast -- including the Supreme Court of Canada, RCMP
buildings, the East, Centre and West blocks of Parliament and the
National Press Building in Ottawa.

The list does not include buildings owned by departments and
agencies outside of Public Works, such as the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which has identified the
toxic substance in 21 Canadian-owned buildings, including official
residences of diplomats in the Vatican, Beijing, Tokyo, Washington
and Los Angeles. Numerous federal departments and agencies also
operate buildings containing asbestos within Canada.

The government says it does not specifically track any asbestos-
removal projects since the substance is only removed when required
by renovations or maintenance that "results in unavoidable
disturbance" of the carcinogen.

"Once the asbestos is removed from a building, an asbestos
management plan is no longer required," said Public Works
spokeswoman Mylene Dupere. "Therefore, PWGSC does not maintain
such a list."

The government has spent millions of dollars in recent years
removing the carcinogen from various buildings under renovation,
including Parliament's West Block, which has been closed since
2011, forcing MPs and staffers into other buildings.

Updated on Jan. 30, the Public Works list includes 165 buildings
in Ontario, 29 in Quebec, 40 in British Columbia, 18 in Manitoba,
17 in Nova Scotia, 16 in the Northwest Territories, 13 in New
Brunswick, seven in Newfoundland and Labrador, four in the Yukon,
four in Saskatchewan, three in Alberta, and two in Prince Edward
Island.

But the department said it was not aware of any "national
inventory of buildings containing hazardous material in Canada."

A recent analysis of buildings owned by the Quebec government
concluded that province alone owned 289 buildings with asbestos,
including about 50 in the Montreal region, Radio-Canada reported
last month.

John Bennett, executive director of Sierra Club Canada, an
environmental group, questioned why federal buildings have not yet
been cleaned up, noting that asbestos removal has been going on
for about 30 years. He said the government needs to improve its
record-keeping.

"They should know exactly where the asbestos is and where it's
removed," Bennett said.

"There should definitely be a program to pro-actively remove it.
The problem is usually it gets airborne in a renovation or when
it's disturbed, but unless you're inspecting it and double-
checking, you don't know that. You don't know whether it's been
airborne."

  
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Orchard Park Abatement Firm Faces $56,000 Fine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Business First reports that the federal Occupational Safety and
Health Administration has cited Aria Contracting Corp. for eight
alleged serious safety violations while removing asbestos at a
former warehouse in Buffalo.

OSHA seeks $56,000 in fines from the Orchard Park asbestos removal
contractor following an inspection at 2925 Main St.  Aria
employees were found to be working in ripped and torn protective
suits, were not wearing respiratory protection and had not been
adequately trained on asbestos hazards, according to the
complaint.

Inspectors said Aria had not conducted an initial exposure
monitoring to accurately determine the airborne concentrations of
asbestos to which the workers were exposed, barriers had not been
placed over all openings to the area where the work was being
performed and a competent person had not ensured all proper
safeguards were followed.

"Inhalation of asbestos fibers by workers may lead to lung disease
and other disorders," said Arthur Dube, OSHA's area director.
"That is why it is essential effective protective measures,
including proper protective gear and adequate and effective
employee training, be in place and in use whenever necessary."

Also, an employee was exposed to a 30-foot fall while climbing
from the elevated basket of a scissors lift into an opening on the
building's third floor.

Aria also was cited for failure to make all required records
available to OSHA for review.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren UE Facing Multi-million Dollar Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Rush of KSDK reports that current and former employees of
Ameren UE are suing the company for millions of dollars.  The
lawsuit states Ameren exposed them to asbestos.

Four current employees and two Ameren retirees are suing Ameren,
claiming the company didn't do enough to keep them safe from
asbestos exposure.

The Ameren Service Center on Singleton Street in downtown St.
Louis is only in limited use right now.

The company says most of the 60 to 70 Ameren employees who
normally work there were relocated last month after tests showed
asbestos was in the flooring of the building.

An Ameren spokesperson would not say when the testing was done or
what led to it, but a lawyer representing the current and former
workers claims the asbestos came to light during construction on
the roof.

"I do think they knew about the presence of asbestos in this
particular building prior to September of 2011, that's when the
construction started on the roof.  I do think that they had
knowledge of it before that," said Lawyer Timothy Engelmeyer.

The lawsuit claims Ameren failed to take steps to protect its
employees from asbestos exposure.  In addition to seeking lifetime
medical monitoring, the lawsuit asks for $5 million per person in
punitive damages.

Engelmeyer added, "Exposure to a deadly disease that has no cure,
I'm not sure there is a number you could say, or you could ask
anybody, you know, is $5 million worth knowing that you've been
exposed to asbestos, probably not."

The lawyer says his firm represents a total of 40 to 50 former and
current Ameren employees, so they expect more names to be added to
the lawsuit.

So far, he says his clients have not shown ill effects of asbestos
exposure, but those can take years to form.

An Ameren spokesperson would not comment on the lawsuit, but in a
statement stated results of air samples taken in the area were
significantly below the clearance levels sets by EPA.

The City of St. Louis does not require companies to test for
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Friable Fibro Found in Last Mountain Pioneer Home
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tonaya Marr of The Regina Leader-Post reports the third assessment
into the Saskatoon Health Region's aging facilities has revealed
uncovered -- or friable -- asbestos at Last Mountain Pioneer Home
in Strasbourg.

"(In) the first two (facilities) we didn't have any findings of
significance like this," said Nilesh Kavia, vice-president of
finance and corporate services for the Saskatoon Health Region.
"Our hope is that if we do have findings, they will be in areas
that aren't accessed and are not regularly accessed."

The asbestos was discovered in Last Mountain Pioneer Home at two
employee-access areas -- the boiler room and attic.  Last Mountain
Pioneer Home provides long-term care for 36 residents of all ages.
Residents are not being evacuated from the building, and employees
are continuing their work, though they have been informed of the
discovery of asbestos in the building.  Both areas have been
restricted to protect the health of residents and employees.

"We've been told that the risk to patients, staff and visitors is
extremely low and we're doing air tests to confirm that," said
Kavia.

An air-quality test is being conducted by a third-party assessor
to check the safety of the rest of the building.  The health
region has decided to begin future asbestos reviews with the air-
quality test, to give reviewers a clearer idea with what they're
dealing.

"It's not a substitute step, but it is a new step for us," said
Kavia.  "Air quality assessments are quicker and they provide
assurance that the area is OK and then we can go in either
parallel or as follow up to do a review of the presence of
asbestos."

If the air tests indicate that the asbestos level in the facility
is higher than the allowable threshold, measures to protect
residents and staff would be taken.

On top of the air-quality tests, part of the inspection process
looks at areas where asbestos fibers could easily be released.

The health effects to staff that entered the boiler room and the
attic are expected to be minimal.

"The maintenance staff go in and out for short periods of time,"
said Dr. Ross Findlater, deputy medical officer with the Saskatoon
Health Region.  "I expect that we'll conclude that there wasn't
much of an exposure there."

In order to continue their work, maintenance staff have been shown
how to use the proper protective gear used around asbestos.

"Once you've identified (asbestos), then you can protect people
from it, so it's important to identify where it is," said
Findlater.

Strasbourg's long-term care home was the third facility reviewed
in the health region's ongoing systematic review of buildings
built before 1980.  Facilities in Lanigan and Nokomis have also
been reviewed, with no findings.  Between 20 and 30 facilities are
expected to be assessed in the review.

The Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region is also in the process of
reviewing their facilities, but would not release more details
about the review in advance of an anticipated announcement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Road Building Plan Using Recycled Debris Shelved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that the Australian State Government has
suspended a program to build roads from recycled construction and
demolition material due to concerns about traces of asbestos.

The Environment Minister Bill Marmion announced the project last
December, but the Transport Minister Troy Buswell suspended the
program earlier this month.

"We have some concerns about the testing regimes in place to make
sure there is no asbestos in the recycled material," Mr. Buswell
said.

The Opposition's environment spokeswoman Sally Talbot wants to
know why proper tests were not carried out initially.

"Mr. Marmion has clearly botched the implementation of this scheme
to cut the corners," she said.

"He should have known that in Western Australia we have a zero
limit for asbestos in our civil contracts."

Mr. Buswell says some of the mixture has been used on the Great
Eastern Highway but a review is being carried out to ensure there
are no health and safety issues.

The Government says it wants to use recycled material but won't
compromise the health and safety of West Australians.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Test Clears Alleged Improper Home Renovations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Algona Upper Des Moines reports the Iowa Division of Labor had a
less-than-48 hour turnaround in testing for asbestos to clear a
home currently being remodeled across the street from Bryant
Elementary.

"They normally have a 10-day turnaround, so it was an incredible
turnaround," stated Algona Public Works Director Jason Etnyre.

Concerns were initially raised about renovations at 220 N. Moore
Street, an apartment building owned by James Prince of Mason City.
According to an anonymous complaint dated May 10, Prince was
accused of illegally and improperly removing asbestos siding from
the building.

"The immediate concern in regards to this issue came from the fact
that this property is located directly south of the Bryant
Elementary School," said Etnyre.  "With students and staff present
on the playground and in the classroom, an apparent immediate
threat was present in regards to air quality."

According to Etnyre, after a review of city code and discussion
with city staff, it was decided to contact the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources and the Iowa Division of Labor to get assistance
and guidance in the situation.

Senior Industrial Hygienist for the Iowa division of Labor, Jeff
Ellis, ordered expedited testing on the siding and tar paper that
was being removed from the property.  The lab received the siding
and tar paper on Monday, May 14.  Results were received Wednesday,
May 17.

"The expedited testing results came back to show that there was
absolutely no asbestos present in the product being removed by Mr.
Prince and his friends," said Etnyre.

Etnyre stated the quick turnaround was due to a concerted effort
between Marty Fonley, Rick Adams and Brad Sudol with the Algona
Community School District, IDNR Asbestos Specialist Tom Wier,
Secretary of State Michael Mauro, Don Peddy and Jeff Ellis with
the Iowa Division of Labor Services and Alex Moon, IDNR Land
Quality Bureau.

"Our primary concern was helping ensure the safety and well-being
of the students and faculty of Bryant Elementary," said Etnyre.

According to Etnyre, Prince recently purchased the apartment
building as a foreclosure and has been doing a lot of renovation
to the building.

The expedited testing was not billed to Prince or the city.

"This is what the Iowa Division of Labor does," said Etnyre.  "The
only cost to the city and the school district are the hours that
Marty, Rick and Brad and I put in."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PA Supreme Ct Junks 'Any-Fiber' Theory
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek of Legal Newsline reports the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court on May 23 rejected the "any-fiber" theory of
asbestos causation.

The Court, in its 53-page ruling, sided with Allegheny County
Common Pleas Court Judge Robert J. Colville.

"In the present case, Judge Colville was right to be circumspect
about the scientific methodology underlying the any-exposure
opinion," the state's high court said.

"Simply put, one cannot simultaneously maintain that a single
fiber among millions is substantially causative, while also
conceding that a disease is dose responsive."

The lawsuit underlying the appeal was selected as a test case for
the admissibility of expert opinion evidence to the effect that
"each and every fiber" of inhaled asbestos is a substantial
contributing factor to any asbestos-related disease, including
mesothelioma, a type of cancer.

In February 2005, plaintiff Charles Simikian filed a product
liability action against defendants Allied Signal Inc. and Ford
Motor Company, and others, alleging that his exposure to asbestos-
containing friction products, such as brake linings, caused his
mesothelioma.

Simikian had worked for 44 years as an automotive mechanic.

After Simikian's death, his wife, Diana Betz, was substituted as
the plaintiff.

The lawsuit was among a number of similar ones pending in the
common pleas court.

Allied and Ford anticipated that the plaintiffs would rely on
expert opinion that each and every exposure to asbestos -- no
matter how small -- contributes substantially to the development
of asbestos-related diseases.

This opinion often is referred to as the "any-exposure," "any-
breath" or "any-fiber" theory of legal causation.

Seeking to preclude such opinion testimony, the defendants filed
global motions challenging its admissibility under the litmus of
general acceptance in the relevant scientific community applicable
to novel scientific evidence.

They referenced a litany of techniques used for various purposes
in science, arguing that none of these -- alone or in combination
-- supports the any-exposure theory.

More specifically, the defendants contended that the methodology
underlying the any-exposure theory is "novel" and "scientifically
invalid."

Thus, they urged that the theory be deemed inadmissible at all
trials of asbestos cases against them.

In its May 2006 ruling, the common pleas court -- while it did not
discount that a single fiber may possibly increase the risk of
developing a disease -- did not accept that an unquantified
increase in risk could serve as proof that a defendant's product
was a substantial cause of a plaintiff's or decedent's disease.

In an April 2010 ruling, the state's Superior Court ruled
otherwise.

The majority regarded Colville's review of the mechanics of Dr.
John C. Maddox's methodology, and the judge's decision not to
address the epidemiological studies, as "inapt."

Maddox, a pathologist, was brought in by the plaintiffs as their
primary causation expert.

The intermediate court also concluded that Colville had abused his
discretion in ruling for the defendants.

According to the majority, the judge's approach violated the tenet
that judges are to be guided by the scientists in assessing the
reliability of a scientific method, not the reverse.

As a result, the superior court sided with the plaintiffs.

Allied and Ford appealed to the state's high court.  A number of
business groups and organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, filed amicus briefs on their behalf.

Legal Newsline is owned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform.

Allied and Ford argued that the superior court "simply ignored"
the extensive evidence, as well as the "strong logic" supporting
Colville's ruling, and "improperly substituted" its judgment for
his.

On appeal, they maintained that the any-exposure opinion remains a
hypothesis, or assumption.

In a 6-0 ruling, the state's high court agreed.

"Colville spent considerable time listening to the attorneys'
arguments but was unable to discern a coherent methodology
supporting the notion that every single fiber from among,
potentially, millions is substantially causative of disease.
Moreover, he appreciated the considerable tension between the any-
exposure opinion and the axiom (manifested in myriad ways both in
science and daily human experience) that the dose makes the
poison," Justice Thomas G. Saylor wrote.

"Contrary to the perspective of the superior court majority, Judge
Colville was not misguided in his desire to probe how Dr. Maddox
could simultaneously maintain that mesothelioma is dose-responsive
and that each and every fiber among millions is substantially
causative."

Saylor continued, "Given both the controversial nature of the any-
exposure opinion and its potency in asbestos litigation, Judge
Colville pursued the sensible course of permitting evidentiary
development so that he could make an informed assessment."

The Court disagreed that the defendants could not address Maddox's
methodology through the testimony of risk assessors, toxicologists
and epidemiologists.

"Dr. Maddox identified himself as a community hospital pathologist
'try[ing] to present the medical literature as I understand it.'
He did not indicate, however, that his opinion was based on a
particular clinical diagnosis; indeed, he expressed no familiarity
whatsoever with Mr. Simikian's individual circumstances," Saylor
wrote.

"Instead, Dr. Maddox offered a broad-scale opinion on causation
applicable to anyone inhaling a single asbestos fiber above
background exposure levels.  In doing so, he took it upon himself
to address (and discount) the range of the scientific literature,
including pertinent epidemiological studies."

The Court said Maddox's any-exposure opinion was not "couched" in
terms of a methodology or standard peculiar to the field of
pathology.

"Indeed, the pathologist acknowledged that the rendition of a
broad and generally applicable opinion concerning specific
causation was outside the range of his usual professional
activities," Saylor wrote.

While the superior court was correct that Colville did not
"embellish" his opinion with specific citations to the record, the
judge's findings and conclusions are "amply supported," the Court
said.

The Court reversed the superior court order and remanded the case
"for consideration of whether there were remaining, preserved
issues on appeal which were obviated by the intermediate court's
approach to the common pleas court's ruling."

Justice Joan Orie Melvin -- who has since been suspended from the
Court in the wake of charges that she allegedly used her staff to
perform campaign work -- did not participate in the decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seatmate Freezes Environment Minister's Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Emerson of The West Australian reports that a "landmark"
State Government program to lift its recycling rate by crushing
building waste into road base has been suspended amid concerns it
could release asbestos fibers.

The development has raised serious questions over the level of
communication across Government after Environment Minister Bill
Marmion was publicly defending the program despite colleague Troy
Buswell halting it 10 days earlier.

In December, Mr. Marmion trumpeted the deal between the Waste
Authority and Main Roads to use recycled construction and
demolition waste to build roads, declaring it "a new era for waste
recycling in WA".

The deal paved the way for more than a million tons of the waste
to be diverted from landfill a year, boosting WA's low recycling
record.

But it was repeatedly criticized by one of WA's biggest waste
management companies, Eclipse Resources, because asbestos, which
is indistinguishable from concrete, was in many older WA buildings
being demolished.

On May 11, Mr. Marmion defended the program in a statement to The
West Australian, saying there was no risk to public health.

But after inquiries by the newspaper, the Transport Minister
revealed he had suspended the program on May 1 "to ensure the
highest possible level of safety to the public and those engaged
in road construction".

"While Main Roads has a zero limit regarding the level of any
asbestos contained in recycled building material, concerns have
been raised with me by sections of the recycling industry," Mr.
Buswell said.

Mr. Marmion said he only found out the program had been suspended
after he received a letter from Mr. Buswell -- whom he sits next
to in Parliament -- on May 18.

About 85,000 tons of waste was crushed for sub-base on the Great
Eastern Highway upgrade before the program was suspended.

Mr. Buswell said testing had revealed there was no asbestos in the
accepted waste.  He expected to receive a Main Roads review in
conjunction with the Department of Environment and Conservation
and Health Department.

Shadow environment minister Sally Talbot said the suspension of
Mr. Marmion's waste project without his knowledge showed his
colleagues held him in contempt.

"It's time for Mr. Marmion to go before he can do any more damage
to our community and the environment of WA," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burial Site for Hazmats Was Klamath Sacred Ground
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Aschbrenner of Herald and News reports that in search of
cultural artifacts, members of the Klamath Tribes scoured the
ground on Thursday, May 24, at a site off Old Fort Road, where
federal agencies plan to excavate and bury asbestos-contaminated
soil.

The archeological survey of the 90-acre site is one of the final
steps before the Environmental Protection Agency can begin an
estimated $20 million project to cleanup the North Ridge Estates
area.

In the 1940s, Marine recuperation barracks were built with
asbestos-containing materials at the site a few miles northeast of
Klamath Falls.  The buildings were demolished decades later,
mixing the cancer-causing asbestos with the soil.  About a dozen
homes on the property have sat empty since residents were
relocated in 2006 due to health concerns.

Historically, the area around North Ridge was home to gathering
sites and spiritual areas for the Klamath Tribes, said Perry
Chocktoot, director of Tribes' Culture and Heritage Department.

Tribal members worry about looters scouring the site for
artifacts, which is illegal, he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Washington School Districts Up for Abatement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Finn at KIMATV.com reports that two school districts in the
Valley, are gearing up for major asbestos cleanup projects.

The cancer causing material will be removed from Wapato and
Eisenhower High Schools.  Wapato High employees has finished
clearing the science wing.

After the asbestos is cleaned, the building will be demolished to
make room for an all-new facility.

"We just can't have it torn down with all that in it, so we
certainly have to go through the process of safely removing that
material so we can demolish and move ahead from there.  So,
unfortunate that we have to do that, but it's just a part of the
process and we knew it was there," said Mike Balmelli, Wapato
School Spokesperson.

Wapato's cleanup is expected to cost at least half-a-million
dollars.  Yakima school district clean is scheduled for next
school year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Begins at Former St Mark's Primary
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fife Today reports that residents near a derelict school which was
set on fire have been told to limit use of their gardens because
debris from it may contain white asbestos.

A clean-up is under way following a May 22 blaze at the former St
Mark's primary in the Tollcross area of Glasgow.

Asbestos specialists are clearing the debris and residents are
urged not to try to do the work themselves.

People have also been asked not to cut their hedges or lawns until
the work is complete while plot holders at Tollcross Allotments
are advised not to use their plots until the clear-up is finished.

Glasgow City Council said there is no immediate risk to public
health and that air quality is being monitored and is well within
acceptable limits.  The council said it has written to residents
in four streets at the site, providing advice and explaining how
the clean-up is being carried out.

Properties near the former school in Muiryfauld Drive were
evacuated on Tuesday,  May 22.  Police said the fire was started
deliberately.

The council said a "substantial amount" of work to clear the
debris has already been done and will continue "between 7am and
10pm each day until it is finished", a spokesman said.

"Atmospheric and ground-level monitoring will continue while the
clearance work is under way.  The process for removing the debris
has been agreed with the Health & Safety Executive.  The work is
being carried out by specialist contractors, Hunter Demolition,
and overseen by Glasgow City Council.

"Anyone finding material they are concerned about should not
interfere with it but notify Glasgow City Council immediately on
0141 287 0999."

Demolition of the building was due to start on May 26.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Historical Resto Demolished Due to Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Yorkshire Post relates that it had been hoped to save the
legendary fish and chip shed from which Harry Ramsden first served
his food back in the 1920s but the discovery of asbestos has led
to its demolition.

The decrepit, wooden building was used by him to serve the first
portion of fish and chips in December 1928 and the intention of
the new owners was to protect it as part of the restaurant's rich
history.

The Wetherby Whaler group officially reopened the original
flagship at White Cross, Guiseley, near Leeds, earlier after
spending GBP500,000 refurbishing it.

Asked May 25 by the Yorkshire Post what had happened to the shed,
a spokeswoman for the company said: "It was in a very poor state
of repair but once asbestos was found it had to be disposed of and
demolished professionally.

"We were surprised to find asbestos and everyone involved was sad
to see it go."

The branch of Harry Ramsden's was originally run from the shed --
complete with a tree growing through it -- before moving into its
Art-Nouveau-style building in 1931 so it had a certain sentimental
heritage for old customers and staff.

The Wetherby Whaler spokeswoman added: "It was removed with a
heavy heart -- ultimately there was a simple yet plain reason for
why it had to be removed."

Last year Harry Ramsden's chief executive Joe Teixeira had the
unpleasant task of deciding to shut the Guiseley outlet -- the
company's first ever branch -- after revealing that it was a loss-
maker.  The brand still has a worldwide resonance with branches in
Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and Singapore as well as somewhat closer
outlets in Manchester, Belfast and Glassgow.

The restaurant's reopening as a Wetherby Whaler on May 23 was
witnessed by a crowd of MPs, councillors, employees and local
celebrities including Dickie Bird OBE.

Harry Ramsden's daughter Shirley Dillon and granddaughter Jayne
Dinan were the guests of honor at the event.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NPP to consider North Ridge Project in November
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Aschbrenner of Herald and News reports that if all goes
according to plan, the $20 million cleanup of an asbestos-
contaminated site off Old Fort Road will be funded in the fall and
the project could be under way next spring, federal officials say.

Last September, the 90-acre North Ridge Estates site, northeast of
Klamath Falls, was placed on a list of properties that need
federal funding for environmental cleanup.

The National Priorities Panel, which allocates funding for
properties on the so-called Superfund list, will consider the
North Ridge project in November, said Denise Baker-Kircher,
remedial project manager with the Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Environmental Cleanup.

If the panel allocates funding for North Ridge, the cleanup could
begin in May and take about three years to complete, she said.
But with federal funding tight, there's no guarantee.

The site has been a health concern for years.  In the 1940s, the
military built about 80 buildings, primarily Marine recuperation
barracks, in the area using materials that contained asbestos.  In
the 1960s and '70s, a developer demolished the buildings, mixing
asbestos with the soil.

The North Ridge neighborhood, nestled between two steep ridges on
Old Fort Road, is now like a ghost town.  A few residents remain,
but 18 homes sit empty, vacated in 2006 due to concerns about the
cancer-causing asbestos.  The cleanup project will require
excavating and burying about 300,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil, Baker-Kircher said.  The top 2 to 4 feet of soil will be
removed and stockpiled in one of two areas.  The stockpiles will
be covered with layers of rock and dirt and re-vegetated to
prevent asbestos from being unearthed or washed away, she said.

During the project, workers will wear respirators and the ground
will be kept moist with hose trucks and rain curtains to prevent
asbestos-laced dust from rising into the air, said Cliff Walkey,
hydrogeologist with the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality.

Once the cleanup is complete, residents should be able to return
to their homes, Baker-Kircher said.  The stockpile areas, where
asbestos material is to be buried and covered, will be safe for
people to be around.  They could even be turned into a park, she
said.

Government agencies already have spent more than $9 million since
2003 cleaning up the site, according to Herald and News archives.
One stockpile site, covered with a thick black tarp, can be seen
from Old Fort Road.

Baker-Kircher advised people to stay away from the area.  When
someone walks on the contaminated soil, the asbestos fibers are
stirred up and can be breathed in, she said.  When inhaled, the
fibers can lead to various health problems including cancer.

Baker-Kircher, who visited Klamath Falls this week to update local
officials on the progress of the cleanup, said she would be back
in July with a more detailed plan for the project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W&L Wins Settlement in Second-Hand Exposure Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., on May 25 announced a settlement in the
case of a client whose lawsuit alleged that an industrial
equipment manufacturer's asbestos-laden parts gave him cancer.

The case, which was filed in Schenectady, NY (Index #2769/2010,
Sup. Ct. NY), settled on May 19 after the lone remaining defendant
agreed to terms with Weitz & Luxenberg.  The settlement,
consisting of an undisclosed amount said by the firm to be
"substantial," will benefit the client and his family.

Robert Jones, 75, was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma -- a
rare cancer that attacks the lining of the lungs -- two years ago,
the same week in May in which his lawsuit was brought to its
successful conclusion.

Mesothelioma's only known cause is exposure to asbestos, common
among military servicemen, utilities workers, and, like Mr. Jones,
people who worked in the manufacturing industry.

Jones, an engineer, never worked directly with machinery on his
visits to power houses and shipyards across the country.
According to Ben Darche -- bdarche@weitzlux.com -- the lead
attorney on the case, such fact patterns can often be difficult
for lawyers to work with.  But Weitz & Luxenberg's trial team was
able to show a link between Jones' job and his asbestos cancer.

Said Darche, "Robert's exposure was difficult to prove against the
last remaining defendant in the lawsuit, a manufacturer who
supplied parts to GE; we had to draw the connection.  He didn't
work directly with machinery, and he had numerous other sources of
exposure to asbestos.  It turned out that his day-to-day
interaction with men and women who worked on turbines insulated
with asbestos brought him into contact with it.  This second-hand
asbestos exposure was part of what contributed to Mr. Jones
developing cancer.

"Obviously it's a difficult battle for anyone in this situation,
but I'm glad Weitz & Luxenberg was able to help him and his family
get compensation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Shore Middle School Renovation Plan Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian McCready of The Milford-Orange Bulletin reports that the
Board of Education has unanimously approved a five-year schools
capital improvement plan that continues to prioritize renovating
East Shore Middle School.

According to the plan, the school board is seeking $6.8 million
next year to complete renovations at East Shore.  School officials
plan to break ground on a $12 million addition at East Shore.

The $12 million will pay for eight additional classrooms and an
expanded media center and cafeteria.  However, the $12 million
will not pay for everything officials hope to address, which is
why an additional $6.8 million is requested.

Mayor Ben Blake had hoped all of the necessary work at East Shore
would cost $12 million, but bids recently came in more than $3
million higher.

Deputy Superintendent of School Operations James L. Richetelli,
Jr., said the additional $6.8 million requested for East Shore
would complete everything on school administrators' needs list,
which includes replacing the roof and windows, and installing
sprinklers throughout the building.  Technology upgrades include
smart boards and asbestos abatement.

Also next year, school officials are seeking $1 million for
asbestos/lead abatement at Joseph A. Foran High, and $500,000 for
asbestos abatement at various schools.

In 2013-14, the school board is asking for $7.84 million for
various school projects including $1 million each for Foran and
Jonathan Law high schools for continued asbestos abatement.  It's
expected to cost $2.2 million to replace Harborside Middle
School's windows, and $320,000 to upgrade the school's intercom.
Meadowside Elementary School is in line to receive $220,000 for a
reconfigured bus and parent drop off area.

In 2014-15, the school board is seeking $10.28 million with a bulk
of funds being requested for roof replacement projects at six
schools: Calf Pen Meadow, John F. Kennedy, Live Oaks, Mathewson,
Harborside, and West Shore Middle.  Each roof project is estimated
to cost about $1.275 million.

In 2015-16 the school board requested $5.23 million with funds
being spent primarily on asbestos abatement projects at various
schools.

The next substantial school project occurs in 2016-17 as school
officials hope to receive $6.5 million for a music/chorus addition
along with other renovations to West Shore.

Richetelli stressed the capital plan is just a "planning tool."
The school board will soon begin a long-range planning study to
determine the effects of the district's enrollment, which is
expected to decrease by 1,000 pupils over the next decade.

Richetelli said after the yearlong study is completed the
district's capital priorities could change.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Welcomes New Mesothelioma Study
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York mesothelioma lawyer Joseph W. Belluck voiced optimism on
May 26 about new medical research that examines the role played by
a protein that has been linked to the development of malignant
mesothelioma.

An international team of researchers from New York, Hawaii and
Italy, including Dr. Harvey Pass of the NYU School of Medicine,
conducted the study, which was recently published in the online
journal, Cancer Research, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported.

The study identifies the role of the protein, HMGB1, in the growth
and development of mesothelioma.  When inhibiting the HMGB1 using
antibodies in laboratory mice, the researchers observed that it
had reduced the growth of mesothelioma cells in the mice and
extended their survival.

According to the Star-Advertiser, those findings "have been
welcomed as an important step in improving the prospects for early
detection of mesothelioma and developing strategies for
prevention."

"As an attorney who has worked closely with mesothelioma sufferers
and their families, I'm very optimistic about this new research
and the hope it provides for all of those who must deal with this
devastating disease," said Belluck, a founding partner of the New
York personal injury firm, Belluck & Fox, LLP.

"Our firm will continue to encourage and support all efforts to
improve our understanding of this disease, to improve treatment
and, hopefully, to move us closer to finding a cure."

Mesothelioma is a highly aggressive cancer that impacts the outer
lining of the lungs and abdomen.  It is caused by exposure to
asbestos, a naturally occurring heat- and fire-resistant mineral.
Asbestos has been used in a variety of equipment, industrial
machinery and consumer products.

Mesothelioma victims typically show disease symptoms many years
after exposure to asbestos in an occupational setting.  The
disease is terminal, but aggressive therapy can prolong the lives
of patients who are diagnosed early.

The New York mesothelioma lawyers of Belluck & Fox, LLP, have a
history of providing legal assistance to those who have suffered
mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure, including obtaining two
verdicts in the Supreme Court of New York in August 2011 for a
combined total exceeding $51.5 million. (Dummitt v. A.W.
Chesterton, No. 190196/10; Konstantin v. 630 Third Avenue
Associates, No. 190134/10).

                   About Belluck & Fox, LLP

Belluck & Fox, LLP, is a nationally recognized law firm that
represents individuals with asbestos and mesothelioma claims, as
well as victims of crime, motorcycle crashes, lead paint and other
serious injuries.  The firm provides personalized and professional
representation and has won over $400 million in compensation for
clients and their families.

Partner Joseph W. Belluck is AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and is
listed in Best Lawyers in America, New York Magazine's "Best
Lawyers in the New York Area" and in Super Lawyers.  Mr. Belluck
has won numerous cases involving injuries from asbestos, defective
medical products, tobacco and lead paint.

Partner Jordan Fox is a well-known asbestos and mesothelioma
attorney who has been named to the Best Lawyers in America, New
York Magazine's "Best Lawyers in the New York Area" and to Super
Lawyers.  On two separate occasions his verdicts were featured as
the National Law Journal's Largest Verdict of the Year.

Belluck & Fox, LLP, won a coveted spot on a list of America's best
law firms, which was published jointly by U.S. News & World Report
and Best Lawyers magazine.  The listing showcased 8,782 different
law firms ranked in one or more of 81 major practice areas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yokohama Court Dismisses Exposed Workers' Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Yomiuri Online reports that the Yokohama District Court
on May 25 rejected a damages claim led by former construction
workers suffering from lung cancer and other health problems due
to asbestos at construction sites.

The former workers were among the 87 plaintiffs who filed the suit
seeking 2.89 billion yen in damages from the government and 44
construction material makers.  The plaintiffs also included the
bereaved families of workers who died after developing health
problems.

The Yokohama case was the first to receive a ruling in a series of
similar damages suits filed in recent years by asbestos victims in
places including Tokyo, Hokkaido and Osaka prefectures.

A key point in the suits is whether the government and
construction material makers should be held responsible for health
problems developed by independent contract workers who worked at
many construction sites.

Most asbestos damages suits are filed against the operators of
asbestos-handling plants by those who had worked there.  In that
case it is easier to establish a relationship between the disease
and the workplace environment.

In the Yokohama suit, the plaintiffs claimed the government should
have been aware of the danger of asbestos by 1965 at the latest.
But the government promoted the use of asbestos by maintaining its
designation as a noncombustible construction material under the
building code, according to the plaintiffs.

However, Friday's ruling, written by presiding Judge Toshiko
Eguchi, upheld the government's view that medical knowledge of the
danger of asbestos was established in Japan in 1972, when an
international organization clearly noted the risks.

The treatment of asbestos in the building code at the time should
not be considered illegal, according to the ruling read by Judge
Susumu Aoki, who acted on behalf of Eguchi.

The government did not take specific steps to limit the use of
asbestos in construction, but it did take action to regulate the
use of the hazardous material, the ruling noted.

The plaintiffs claimed the 44 companies should be held responsible
as a single offender as they effectively worked together to
manufacture and distribute construction materials that contained
asbestos.

The ruling disagreed, saying the companies should not be treated
as a single offender because they produced different types of
asbestos-containing materials over different periods.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Wins $1.5MM Verdict v. Fisher
------------------------------------------------------------
A recent ruling by the New York Court of Appeals upheld a $1.5
million asbestos verdict obtained by the New York mesothelioma
lawyers of Belluck & Fox, LLP, including the landmark finding by
the jury that the defendant, Fisher Controls International, LLC,
acted with a reckless disregard towards the safety of the
plaintiff, Ronald Drabczyk.

The case is Drabczyk v. Fisher Controls International, LLC (Erie
County Index No. 2005/1583).

Drabczyk, who resided in Buffalo, New York, died from his exposure
to asbestos in 2005.  Despite only being assessed a small
percentage of fault, the finding that Fisher was reckless means it
is liable for the entire judgment under New York law.

In the May 8 court order, the Court of Appeals denied a motion
that had been filed by Fisher, seeking to set aside the reckless
disregard finding made by an Erie County jury in October 2009.

In declining to address Fisher's motion, the Court of Appeals also
declined to address arguments made by Crane Co., another valve
manufacturer who had filed a brief in support of Fisher and
pleaded with the Court of Appeals to decide an issue that could
have benefited both Fisher and Crane Co. in future asbestos cases.

The Court of Appeals' ruling upholds the jury's finding that
Fisher had acted with a reckless disregard for the man's safety.

As a result of the reckless misconduct finding, under New York
law, the Iowa-based valve manufacturer is liable for the full $1.5
million amount of the judgment (reduced by settlements received by
the plaintiff from other parties).

"This is the first asbestos verdict in the country against Fisher
for injury resulting from exposure to asbestos in Fisher
products," said Seth Dymond, a New York mesothelioma attorney and
a Belluck & Fox partner who handled the appeal for the law firm.

"This verdict reaffirms that corporations that fail to warn
workers of known dangers in their products will be held fully
accountable for the damage they cause," Dymond said.  "And if they
act with a reckless disregard for workers' safety, they will be
responsible for the full weight of the verdict under the laws of
the State of New York no matter their percentage of fault."

According to court documents, Mr. Drabczyk had worked at the
Hooker Chemical plant in Niagara Falls, NY, from 1970 to 1996.  He
repaired and refurbished valves sold by Fisher, which is a
subsidiary of St. Louis-based Emerson Electric Co.  More than half
of the valves that Fisher sold to the repairman's employer
contained asbestos.  Further, Fisher supplied asbestos-containing
replacement parts to the plant for use in its valves that further
exposed Mr. Drabczyk to lethal doses of asbestos.

According to Dymond, in October 2004, the valve repairman was
diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the chest
that is caused by exposure to asbestos.  He filed the personal
injury action in Erie County Supreme Court before he passed away
in November 2005, just 13 months after his diagnosis.

After a four-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in October
2009, apportioning five percent of the liability for the man's
damages, including pain and suffering, to Fisher.  The same jury
found that Fisher had acted with reckless disregard for the man's
safety.

Under New York law, a defendant is only liable for its share of
fault unless, among other factors, it is found to have acted
recklessly.  Once that finding is made, the defendant can be held
liable for the full amount of damages.

Belluck & Fox partner Jordan Fox led the trial team that obtained
the verdict and the judgment, which was entered in September 2010.
Dymond handled the post-verdict litigation for the New York
personal injury firm.

The Supreme Court of New York denied Fisher's motion to set aside
the verdict in July 2010.  The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial
Department, affirmed in part in February 2012.  The Court of
Appeals' May 8 ruling denied Fisher's motion to review the case.

The ruling comes after two Belluck & Fox mesothelioma verdicts --
a $32 million verdict in Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton (No.
190196/10) and a $19.5 million verdict in Konstantin v. 630 Third
Avenue Associates (No. 190134/10) -- were listed among the top 10
New York verdicts of 2011 .

                     About Belluck & Fox, LLP

Belluck & Fox, LLP, is a nationally recognized law firm that
represents individuals with asbestos and mesothelioma claims, as
well as victims of crime, motorcycle crashes, lead paint and other
serious injuries.  The firm provides personalized and professional
representation and has won more than $500 million in compensation
for clients and their families.

Partner Joseph W. Belluck is AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and is
listed in Best Lawyers in America, New York Magazine's "Best
Lawyers in the New York Area" and in Super Lawyers.  Mr. Belluck
has won numerous cases involving injuries from asbestos, defective
medical products, tobacco and lead paint.

Partner Jordan Fox is a well-known asbestos and mesothelioma
attorney who has been named to the Best Lawyers in America, New
York Magazine's "Best Lawyers in the New York Area" and to Super
Lawyers.  On two separate occasions his verdicts were featured as
the National Law Journal's Largest Verdict of the Year.  Two of
his recent verdicts were listed among the top ten verdicts in New
York State for 2011.

Belluck & Fox, LLP, is featured on the list of America's best law
firms, which was published jointly by U.S. News & World Report and
Best Lawyers magazine.  The listing showcases 8,782 different law
firms ranked in one or more of 81 major practice areas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japanese Workers Call for Asbestos Laws Reform
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mainichi (Japan) relates that a court's dismissal of a lawsuit
by former construction workers and families of those who claim
they were sickened after being exposed to asbestos at construction
sites has highlighted the need for a government framework for
compensation for such workers.

The Yokohama District Court on May 25 dismissed a damages suit
filed by 87 people -- former construction workers and members of
the bereaved families of victims of asbestos-related illnesses --
against the government and 44 construction material makers.  It
was one of many class actions filed by about 500 such construction
workers across the country, and the first case to be ruled on by a
court.

Fire- and heat-resistant asbestos, which had been imported since
1960 was used primarily as a construction material.  Particles of
asbestos, released if the material is cut with an electric saw,
can cause lung cancer and mesothelioma in those who inhale them.

In the past rulings, courts awarded compensation to those who
claimed that they were sickened after working at asbestos
factories and other workplaces over a long period, recognizing the
causal relationship between their exposure to the toxic material
and their illnesses.

However, construction workers typically move from one construction
site to another over a short period of time.  If they have been
exposed to asbestos at multiple sites and contracted an illness,
it is difficult to specify where and when they were exposed to the
fateful dose.

In its May 25 ruling, the Yokohama District Court upheld the
government's claim that the theory that asbestos can cause lung
cancer and mesothelioma was established in 1972.  However, it was
in 1975 that the government enforced regulations on the use of
asbestos, such as a ban on spraying it.

The plaintiffs argued that the government was late in enforcing
asbestos regulations.  However, the court concluded that the delay
"did not go beyond accepted limits and cannot be deemed as
irrational."  The court also asserted that it cannot judge whether
the government's regulations on the use of asbestos in 1976 and
later were appropriate because proof presented by the plaintiffs
was insufficient.  Furthermore, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' claim that production of materials that included
asbestos, even after asbestos-related risks had been confirmed,
constituted a joint unlawful act among construction materials
makers.

"Questions remain over whether those other than the defendants
were responsible for the plaintiffs' health damage.  The
plaintiffs failed to sufficiently prove that point," the ruling
said.

The ruling has given the public the impression that the court was
extremely reluctant to recognize the companies' culpability for
the plaintiffs' health damage, while requiring the plaintiffs to
present detailed evidence to prove the causal relationship between
their exposure to asbestos and their illnesses.

Still, the ruling pointed out the government's lack of awareness
of the risks involved in construction work using materials
containing asbestos.  Moreover, the court mentioned the unique
working conditions at construction sites and said, "If the
plaintiffs have not received sufficient compensation for their
health damage, the nation as a whole -- which has benefited from
construction materials containing asbestos -- may be responsible
for compensating them."  It thus urged the government to consider
whether to improve legal regulations on asbestos and introduce a
system to compensate victims.

Some of the plaintiffs in the class action suits are urging the
government as well as asbestos and construction material
manufacturers to set up a fund to extend relief to those sickened
after exposure to the material "so that the victims don't have to
launch damages suits."

The number of patients with asbestos-related diseases is feared to
increase as the symptoms of such illnesses appear after an often
decades-long incubation period.

The government should take the latest court ruling's view
seriously and launch concrete action to create a system to
compensate victims.


                           *********

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  * * *