CAR_Public/120622.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 22, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 123

                             Headlines

ADIDAS AMERICA: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over adiPure Shoes
AETERNA ZENTARIS: To Defend Two Securities Class Actions
BEL AIR LIGHTING: Recalls 99,700 Outdoor Wall Mount Lanterns
CENTRO: Court Approves Shareholder Class Action Settlement
EDIC: Recalls 53,000 Air Movers/Blowers Due to Fire Hazard

FERNLEY CITY, NV: Settles Flood Class Action for $1.7 Mil.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Consolidated Suit Remains Pending in D.C.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss "Russell" Suit Still Pending
HOUSTON AMERICAN: Faces "Silverman" Class Action Suit in Texas
HUMANA INC: Trial in "Sacred Heart" Suit Set for Oct.

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Defends MERS-Related Class Suit in Ohio
INTERNET GOLD: Abandonment Bid in Suit vs. Unit Approved in Nov.
INTERNET GOLD: Abandonment of Class Claim vs. Pelephone Approved
INTERNET GOLD: Abandonment of Suit Over Phone Bills Approved
INTERNET GOLD: Appeal From Dismissal of Suit vs. Unit Pending

INTERNET GOLD: Appeal From NIS900,000 Award Remains Pending
INTERNET GOLD: Appeal in Suit Over Disconnecting Calls Rejected
INTERNET GOLD: Appeal in Suit Over Disconnection Signal Pending
INTERNET GOLD: Awaits Approval of Customer Suit Settlement
INTERNET GOLD: Awaits Ruling on Unit's Bid to Appeal to Sup. Ct.

INTERNET GOLD: Bezeq and Pelephone Faces Suit in Jerusalem
INTERNET GOLD: Bezeq Int'l. Faces Suit Over Use of Calling Cards
INTERNET GOLD: Suit Over Unlawful Ad on Music on Hold Pending
INTERNET GOLD: Claim in Suit Over Illegal Collection Dismissed
INTERNET GOLD: Continues to Face Suits Filed by Customers

INTERNET GOLD: Court Approves Abandonment of Class Cert. Bid
INTERNET GOLD: Abandonment of Suit Seeking Restitution Gets OK
INTERNET GOLD: Court Okays Withdrawal of Broadcast Omission Suit
INTERNET GOLD: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Suit vs. Unit
INTERNET GOLD: Court Struck Out Class Claim in Suit vs. DBS

INTERNET GOLD: Deal in Hearing-Impaired Subscribers Suit Okayed
INTERNET GOLD: Deal in Suit Over Reception Disturbances Approved
INTERNET GOLD: Defends Class Suit vs. Unit Over Internet Speed
INTERNET GOLD: Pretrial in Customer Suit Scheduled for Sept. 6
KENNETH COLE: Faces More Suit Over Going Private Transaction

LAWRENCE HOUSE: Violates Landlord Tenant Ordinance, Suit Says
LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Suit Over Retention of Users' Personal Info
NESTLE DREYER'S: Sued for Misclassifying Sales Representatives
NUTREX RESEARCH: Sued For Selling Diet Supplements with DMAA
OIL COMPANIES: To Install ATC to Settle Kansas Class Action

OKLAHOMA: Children's Rights Seek $9.5MM in Legal Costs
PLIMUS INC: Court Upholds Most Claims in False Ad Suit
QBE: Class Action Over Inflated Premiums Pending
SOUTHERN GYMS: Class Action Over Locker Room Photos Can Proceed
SUPERMAX: Mentally Ill Prisoners File Class Action in Colorado

TECO PEOPLES: Class Action Over 2010 Gas Explosion Can Proceed
THOMAS LIGHTING: Recalls 83,750 Ceiling Mounted Light Fixtures
TOYOTA MOTOR: Removes "Martinez" Suit to Calif. District Court
UNITED STATES: Gov't. Has Immunity From Guatemala Syphilis Case
WELLPOINT INC: Former Anthem Members Part of Settlement

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Flips Damages Award vs. R.J. Reynolds
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Fraud Suit v. Lawyers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules for Perini in Casey Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms WCB's Judgment v. Employer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Junks Deposition Notices to Doucet Defendants

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couscouris Asbestos Suit Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Asbestos Reserves Reached $499.9MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Had $157.3MM Insurance at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Paid $3MM to Settle Claims in 1Q
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Had $803MM Reserves at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Centerpoint Energy Still Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi & NL Involved in Asbestos-Related Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Still Faces Asbestos-Related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany International Defending 4,440 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Continues to Defend Asbestos Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal From PI Settlement Plan Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $2MM Asbestos-Related Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Theft Added to List of DEP Charges v. Site Owner
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lethal Fibro Still Present in Northampton Library
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW to Spend AU$60MM on Police Stations Cleanup

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Feud Host's Death Linked to Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Firm Indicted Over Unlawful Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Closes Iqaluit Public Health Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Traces Found in Arkansas Neighborhood
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Readies for Bankruptcy Exit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BHP Facing Millions in Damages in Aussie Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HK Agency Continues Monitoring on Borrett Road
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Slows Demolition of Hancher Auditorium
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peritoneal Mesothelioma Common Outside Workplace
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5% of Cancer Deaths in Britain Work-Related

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Get Favorable Ruling in Delaware Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Work Closes Joe Evins Federal Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe on Contaminated N.Y. Warehouse Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal to Cost Texas School District $1 Million
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 107 Deaths in Swindon and Wiltshire in 3 Years

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Basilica of Bom Jesus to Get Eco-Friendly Roof
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Australian Parliament Chamber
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xenia Receives $2.7MM Grant to Fix Legacy Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheffield Firm Fined for Putting Workers at Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Rules Cited for Drop in Philly Court Filings

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Employees Sue BNSF for Lung Diseases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dover Property Owners Fined for Improper Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Michigan City Receives $200,000 Cleanup Grant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Mesothelioma Victims Urged to Explore Options
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Building Owner Fined for Putting Men at Risk

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition at Connecticut School Moving Slowly
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Kills Two Ex-York Carriageworks Employees
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diesel Exhaust Poses Cancer Risk, WHO Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abandoned Demolition Dump in NZ Prompts Query
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron and Budd Cited for Top 2 Verdicts in 2011

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auto Mall Owner Pushes for Safe Chemicals Act


                          *********

ADIDAS AMERICA: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over adiPure Shoes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a New York man has
sued a unit of Adidas AG, claiming he was duped about the
potential fitness benefits of a line of shoes designed to mimic
the effect of running barefoot.

In a class action lawsuit filed in federal court in Brooklyn on
June 15, plaintiff Joseph Rocco said the $90 pair of adiPure shoes
he purchased did not deliver the increased training efficiency and
decreased risk of injury promised in advertisements.

The lawsuit was filed against Adidas America Inc., a U.S.
subsidiary of German-based Adidas, which makes the adiPure shoes.

Contrary to Adidas' claims, the shoes actually increase the risk
for bruising and foot damage, due to their decreased padding and
other structural differences from more traditional running shoes,
Mr. Rocco said in the lawsuit.  Mr. Rocco said he and other
customers were never warned about the potential hazards and that,
as a result, he suffered compound fractures after training in the
shoes.

The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of everyone who purchased
adiPure shoes since their debut in August 2011.  Mr. Rocco is
seeking a refund for the shoes, as well as statutory damages.

Adidas did not immediately return a request for comment.

Adidas launched the adiPure shoes to capitalize on the burgeoning
fitness trend of "barefoot running" -- running in shoes with
articulated toes and minimal padding.

It is apparently the first such lawsuit against Adidas over
advertisements for adiPure.  In March, a class action lawsuit was
filed against Vibram -- the maker of barefoot-style running shoe
FiveFingers -- over similar claims of promoting the shoes'
unproven health benefits.

The case is Rocco et al. v. Adidas America Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, no. 12-3015.


AETERNA ZENTARIS: To Defend Two Securities Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Aeterna Zentaris Inc. on June 19 disclosed that the Company has
learned that two putative class action lawsuits have been filed
against it alleging failures to disclose certain information under
U.S. federal securities laws.  The Company is in the process of
reviewing the allegations, believes they are without merit and
stands behind its continuous public disclosure record. Aeterna
Zentaris believes that there is absolutely no basis for the
lawsuits, and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.

Aeterna Zentaris -- http://www.aezsinc.com-- is an oncology and
endocrinology drug development company currently investigating
treatments for various unmet medical needs.  The Company's
pipeline encompasses compounds at all stages of development, from
drug discovery through to marketed products.


BEL AIR LIGHTING: Recalls 99,700 Outdoor Wall Mount Lanterns
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Bel Air Lighting Inc., of Valencia, California, and
manufacturers, Zhongshan De Gao Lighting Co. Ltd. and Zhongshan
Huayi Lighting Co. Ltd., of Guangdong, China, announced a
voluntary recall of about 99,700 outdoor wall mount lanterns.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

An electrical short circuit can occur in the lanterns' internal
wiring, posing a risk of fire, burn and electric shock to
consumers.

The firm has received seven reports of incidents, including two
reports of lanterns catching fire.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves outdoor wall-mount lanterns made of cast
aluminum in a rust color with beveled glass.  A question mark
shaped piece of metal connects the lantern body to the wall-mount
plate.  The lanterns were sold at Lowe's stores under the
Portfolio brand name with item number 253366 and at lighting
showrooms with item number 44181.  The brand name and item number
are printed on the product's packaging.  Lanterns included in the
recall are 19.25-inches tall by 9.75-inches wide by 9.25-inches
deep and have a three-light candelabra base cluster inside.  Part
number "E194303" is printed on the base plate and on a label
affixed to one of the light sockets.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12198.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Lowe's stores and in lighting showrooms nationwide and at
Lowes.com from June 2006 through May 2012 for about $48.

Consumers should immediately stop using the lanterns and contact
Bel Air Lighting for a free replacement lantern.  For additional
information, contact Bel Air Lighting at (888) 770-7018 between
7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.regcen.com/belairlighting/


CENTRO: Court Approves Shareholder Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Leonie Wood, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the Federal Court in Melbourne has formally approved Australia's
biggest-ever settlement in a class action, a AUD200 million deal
for Centro shareholders, bringing to an end more than four years
of complex and expensive litigation.

In a brief hearing on June 19, Justice John Middleton said he was
satisfied that the deal, covering almost 6000 institutional and
retail shareholders in two class actions, was fair and reasonable.

Of the AUD200 million, AUD67 million will be paid by Centro's
former and long-time auditing firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, which
made certain admissions about negligence in the way it handled the
audit of Centro's 2006-07 accounts.  The balance of AUD133 million
will be paid by Centro-related companies.  After legal costs and
distributing a commission to the litigation funders, the
shareholders are likely to share in a pool of just more than
AUD120 million.

Lawyer Toby Borgeest -- TBorgeest@slatergordon.com.au -- of Slater
& Gordon, which represented about 5000 individual shareholders,
said checks were expected to be sent by the end of the year.

IMF, which funded a class action run by law firm Maurice
Blackburn, confirmed to the stock exchange that it will recoup
AUD42 million from the settlement.

Outside the court, IMF's investment manager, Wayne Attrill, said
while the outcome in the Centro case was likely to have a positive
effect on corporate behavior in Australia, it would not by itself
put an end to poor conduct.

Lawyer Martin Hyde, of Maurice Blackburn, said there was a lot of
pressure on companies in tough economic times, and while most
companies would never find themselves the subject of a class
action, the settlement in Centro would send a strong message to
improve corporate standards generally.

Mr. Hyde said the overwhelming number of claimants in the Centro
settlement were retail shareholders, although the value of
superannuation funds' claims outweighed those of smaller
shareholders.

He said clients and the firm were "absolutely delighted" with the
settlement.  None of the shareholders participating in the class
action objected to the settlement.

PwC declined to comment on June 19.  In his brief decision,
Justice Middleton said reaching a deal must have been difficult
"not just because of the complex legal and factual issues
involved, but because of the changing events occurring in the
marketplace whilst the trial was in progress".

Justice Middleton noted that if the case had continued, the final
determination would hinge on difficult and controversial aspects
of law "and appeals would be inevitable".

"Such a process brings greater uncertainty to recovery, and would
involve substantial delay even if liability were to be
established," he said.  Centro's 2006-07 accounts included
significant mistakes, notably more than AUD3 billion of short-term
debt was wrongly classified as long-term debt and crucial details
about guarantees Centro made in favor of a US-based associate
company after balance date were not disclosed in the accounts.

When Centro admitted in December 2007 that it was having
difficulties refinancing its short-term debt, the Australian stock
exchange asked Centro about the accuracy of its 2006-07 accounts,
triggering an internal review into all its debt.

According to The Australian's Sarah Danckert, shareholders in the
Maurice Blackburn claim will receive AUD150 million of the
settlement, while shareholders in the Slater & Gordon claim will
get AUD50 million.


EDIC: Recalls 53,000 Air Movers/Blowers Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
EDIC, of Los Angeles, California, announced a voluntary recall of
about 53,000 air movers/blowers.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The air mover/blower's internal electrical capacitor can fail and
overheat, posing a fire hazard.

EDIC is aware of four incidents involving fires that resulted in
property damage.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves air movers/blowers that are used to dry
floors in homes and other buildings.  "Aqua Dri" is printed on the
top of some of the air movers.  Model "3004AD" or model
"3004ADxxx" (with additional letters) is printed on the serial
number plate on the back of the units.  Model numbers with "N" are
not included in this recall.  The air movers' plastic housing
measures about 18 inches high by 18 inches long by 18 inches deep
and has a 25-foot yellow electrical cord.  A picture of the
recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12199.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold to flood remediation contractors and other
service professionals nationwide from January 2003 through
September 2011 for between $160 and $285.

Users should immediately stop using the recalled air
movers/blowers and contact EDIC for a free repair kit to be
installed by users.  For additional information, contact the firm
toll-free at (888) 289-8720 between 8:30 a.m. through 4:00 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday, by fax at (323) 667-0144, by
e-mail at recall@edic-usa.com or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.EDIC-USA.com/


FERNLEY CITY, NV: Settles Flood Class Action for $1.7 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reno, Nevada attorney, Lee T. Hotchkin and colleagues recently
reached a settlement in a class action lawsuit for their clients,
victims of the Fernley, Nevada flood of January 2008.  The
settlement provides $1,725,000.00 for the Truckee River Canal
embankment failure and resulting flooding.  The overflowing and
breach of the canal resulted in more than 800 homes being flooded.

The legal team included Cal Dunlap, Treva Hearne, Monique Laxalt,
Robert Hager, Robert Maddox and Gene Leverty.  The Truckee River
Canal is part of the Newlands Irrigation Project, which provides
surface water for Fernley and Fallon area farmers through water
diversions from the Truckee River to Lake Lahontan.  The Truckee
River Canal, carries the diverted water more than 30 miles from
Derby Dam on the Truckee River to the man made lake.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Consolidated Suit Remains Pending in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against Harman International
Industries, Incorporated and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court")
seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock between
April 26, 2007, and September 24, 2007 (the "Class Period").  The
original complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects.  The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was
entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of the
Company's common stock therefore would not have been artificially
inflated during the Class Period.  The Kim Plaintiff alleged that,
following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be
completed, the price of the Company's common stock declined,
causing the plaintiff class significant losses.

On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of the Company's officers in the Court seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between April 26, 2007, and
September 24, 2007.  The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint
are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim
complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton
complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through
January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations
alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose "significant
problems" relating to its portable navigation device sales
forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January
14, 2008.  The amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants
revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND
sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00
per share in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in the
Company's share value and additional losses to the plaintiff
class.

On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR).  That
same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public Retirement System as
lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law firm Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel.

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint").  The Consolidated
Complaint, which extends the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contends that Harman and certain of the Company's officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding the Company's financial condition
in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008.  In particular, the
Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants knowingly or
recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG
radios, portable navigation devices and the Company's capital
expenditures.  The Consolidated Complaint alleges that when
Harman's true financial condition became known to the market, the
price of the Company's common stock declined significantly,
causing losses to the plaintiff class.

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety.  Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.  The motion is now fully briefed.

As of March 31, 2012, the case remained open with no new
developments.  No further updates were reported in the Company's
April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss "Russell" Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Russell (the "Russell Plaintiff") filed a complaint on
December 7, 2007, captioned Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al., in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia and an amended
purported putative class action complaint on June 2, 2008, against
Harman and certain of its officers and directors alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") and seeking, on behalf of all participants in and
beneficiaries of the Savings Plan, compensatory damages for losses
to the Savings Plan as well as injunctive relief, imposition of a
constructive trust, restitution, and other monetary relief.  The
amended complaint alleges that from
April 26, 2007, to the present defendants failed to prudently and
loyally manage the Savings Plan's assets, thereby breaching their
fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing the Savings Plan
to invest in the Company's common stock notwithstanding that the
stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment for the
Participants' retirement savings."  The amended complaint further
claims that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to monitor
the Savings Plan fiduciaries, failed to provide the Savings Plan
fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Savings Plan participants,
adverse facts regarding Harman and its businesses and prospects.
The Russell Plaintiff also contends that defendants breached their
duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests
of participants in and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan with
undivided loyalty.  As a result of these alleged fiduciary
breaches, the amended complaint asserts that the Savings Plan has
"suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of
millions of dollars of the retirement savings and anticipated
retirement income of the Savings Plan's Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on
August 5, 2008.  The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on
October 20, 2008.  The motion is now fully briefed.

As of March 31, 2012, the case remained open with no new
developments.  No further updates were reported in the Company's
April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


HOUSTON AMERICAN: Faces "Silverman" Class Action Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston American Energy Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit in
Texas, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 27, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
Houston American Energy Corp. and certain of its executive
officers: Steve Silverman v. Houston American Energy Corp. et al.,
Case No. 4:12-CV-1332.

The complaint generally alleges that, between March 29, 2010, and
April 18, 2012, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in making materially false and misleading statements including
certain statements related to the status and viability of the
Tamandua #1 well.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

The Company says additional similar lawsuits may be filed.
Houston American Energy and its officers believe all of the claims
in the lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend
themselves against these claims.


HUMANA INC: Trial in "Sacred Heart" Suit Set for Oct.
-----------------------------------------------------
Trial in the case captioned Sacred Heart Health System, Inc., et
al. v. Humana Military Healthcare Services Inc., is currently
scheduled for October 2012, according to the Company's April 30,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Humana Inc.'s subsidiary, Humana Military Healthcare Services,
Inc. ("Humana Military"), was named as a defendant in Sacred Heart
Health System, Inc., et al. v. Humana Military Healthcare Services
Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00062 MCR/EMT (the "Sacred Heart"
Complaint), a purported class action lawsuit filed on February 5,
2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida asserting contract and fraud claims against Humana
Military.  The Sacred Heart Complaint alleged, among other things,
that, Humana Military breached its network agreements with a class
of hospitals in six states, including the seven named plaintiffs,
that contracted for reimbursement of outpatient services provided
to beneficiaries of the DoD's TRICARE health benefits program
("TRICARE").  The Complaint alleged that Humana Military breached
its network agreements when it failed to reimburse the hospitals
based on negotiated discounts for non-surgical outpatient services
performed on or after October 1, 1999, and instead reimbursed them
based on published CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charges (so-called
"CMAC rates").  Humana Military denied that it breached the
network agreements with the hospitals and asserted a number of
defenses to these claims.  The Complaint sought, among other
things, the following relief for the purported class members: (i)
damages as a result of the alleged breach of contract by Humana
Military, (ii) taxable costs of the litigation, (iii) attorneys
fees, and (iv) any other relief the court deems just and proper.
Separate and apart from the class relief, named plaintiff Sacred
Heart Health System Inc. requested damages and other relief for
its individual claim against Humana Military for fraud in the
inducement to contract.

On September 25, 2008, the district court certified a class
consisting of all institutional healthcare service providers in
TRICARE former Regions 3 and 4 which had network agreements with
Humana Military to provide outpatient non-surgical services to
CHAMPUS/TRICARE beneficiaries as of November 18, 1999, excluding
those network providers who contractually agreed with Humana
Military to submit any such disputes with Humana Military to
arbitration.  On March 3, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the
district court's class certification order and remanded the case
to the district court for further proceeding.  On June 28, 2010,
the plaintiffs sought leave of the district court to amend their
complaint to join additional hospital plaintiffs.  Humana Military
filed its response to the motion on July 28, 2010.  The district
court granted the plaintiffs' motion to join 33 additional
hospitals on September 24, 2010.  On October 27, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint claiming the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida has subject
matter jurisdiction over the case because the allegations in the
complaint raise a substantial question under federal law. The
amended complaint asserts no other material changes to the
allegations or relief sought by the plaintiffs.  Humana Military's
Answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint was filed on November 30,
2010.  The Company is currently involved in discovery on this
matter, with trial currently scheduled for October 2012.

Headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, Humana Inc. --
http://www.humana.com/and its subsidiaries, is a health care
company that offers a wide range of insurance products and health
and wellness services that incorporate an integrated approach to
lifelong well-being.  As of December 31, 2011, the Company had
approximately 11.2 million members in its medical benefit plans,
as well as approximately 7.3 million members in its specialty
products.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Defends MERS-Related Class Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated continues to defend a class
action lawsuit related to the mortgage electronic registration
system, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On January 17, 2012, the Company was named a defendant in a
putative class action filed on behalf of all 88 counties in Ohio
against MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other financial institutions
that participate in the mortgage electronic registration system
(MERS).  The complaint alleges that recording of mortgages and
assignments thereof is mandatory under Ohio law and seeks a
declaratory judgment that the defendants are required to record
every mortgage and assignment on real property located in Ohio and
pay the attendant statutory recording fees.  The complaint also
seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  Although Huntington has
not been named as a defendant in the other cases, similar
litigation has been initiated against MERSCORP, Inc. and other
financial institutions in other jurisdictions throughout the
country.


INTERNET GOLD: Abandonment Bid in Suit vs. Unit Approved in Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's application for abandonment in the purported class
action lawsuit against a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden
Lines Ltd. was approved in November 2011, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In September 2010, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with an application for its
certification as a class action, against Bezeq - The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. ("Bezeq").  The claim alleges that
Bezeq violated the Consumer Protection Law in that it avoided
providing its customers with a written document that includes the
details required under the Consumer Protection Law when changing
or adding to an agreement as part of an on-going transaction.  The
plaintiff petitioned for mandamus and declaratory relief to order
Bezeq to comply with the provisions of the law, and for monetary
relief (financial and non-financial) from October 10, 2008, up to
the date of the filing of the claim, in the amount of NIS98
million.  In October 2010, similar claims were filed by the
plaintiffs against Pelephone, Bezeq International Ltd. and DBS
Satellite Service (1998) Ltd.  On September 20, 2011, the
plaintiff filed an agreed application for abandonment and on
November 22, 2011, the application was approved.


INTERNET GOLD: Abandonment of Class Claim vs. Pelephone Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The abandonment of claim against a subsidiary of Internet Gold -
Golden Lines Ltd. was approved in June 2011, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In October 2010, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with a motion to certify it as a class
action, against Pelephone Communications Ltd.  The plaintiff
alleged that Pelephone is acting in contravention of the Consumer
Protection Law by failing to provide its customers with a written
document containing the details when entering into an agreement to
change or add to a continuing transaction.  In June 2011, the
Court approved the abandonment of the claim.


INTERNET GOLD: Abandonment of Suit Over Phone Bills Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's abandonment of a purported class action lawsuit
against a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. was
approved in September 2011, according to the Company's April 30,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In August 2009, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with an application for its
certification as a class action, against Pelephone Communications
Ltd. and other respondents in respect of services provided by the
respondents and charged for through cellular phone bills
(information sent by SMS).  In September 2011, the plaintiff filed
an application to withdraw from the action and a ruling was issued
approving the abandonment.


INTERNET GOLD: Appeal From Dismissal of Suit vs. Unit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of a purported class action
lawsuit against a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.
remains pending, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

On May 4, 2009, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with a motion to certify it as a class
action, against Bezeq International Ltd.  The plaintiff alleged
the improper increase in the tariffs for Internet access services
following the first year of operation and improper charges for
services that that it did not order.  The plaintiff sought
reimbursement of the excess amounts paid by entire group of
customers, for whom the price of the services provided to them was
raised after the first year, by NIS216 million.  On June 5, 2011,
the Court dismissed the claim and the motion to certify it as a
class action, and ordered the plaintiff to pay expenses of
NIS50,000.  On September 4, 2011, the plaintiff appealed the
decision to the Supreme Court.


INTERNET GOLD: Appeal From NIS900,000 Award Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from a ruling directing them to pay costs
totaling approximately NIS900,000 remains pending, according to
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s April 30, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On September 2, 2007, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with a motion to certify it as a class
action against several corporations operating eCommerce sites,
including Goldmind's P1000 Web site, which was owned by the
Company at the time, as well as against several suppliers.
Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd., is a
Company subsidiary.  The petitioners claimed that these sites have
deceived and defrauded participants in online auctions by
unrightfully preventing them from winning products that the sites
determined as "under-priced."  The plaintiffs also claimed that
this practice was carried out through the use of fictitious
bidders during the auction process.  On June 1, 2011, the Court
rejected the motion to certify the claim as a class action against
all respondents, as it ruled, among other things, that the
plaintiffs did not prove any of the pre-conditions for the
certification of a class action according to the Israeli law.  The
Court further ruled that plaintiffs shall pay the respondents
costs totaling approximately NIS900,000.  On July 17, 2011, the
plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.


INTERNET GOLD: Appeal in Suit Over Disconnecting Calls Rejected
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit
seeking a refund of amounts filed against Internet Gold - Golden
Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary was rejected in October 2011, according to
the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In August 2006, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with an application for its
certification as a class action to refund amounts in respect of
the time of disconnecting calls made from a cellular network to
the networks of Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
or HOT.  In October 2010, the Court dismissed the claim and in
December 2010, the claimants filed an appeal with the Supreme
Court.  In October 2011 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal.


INTERNET GOLD: Appeal in Suit Over Disconnection Signal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit involving two of Internet
Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiaries remains pending, according
to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

In November 2006, a claim and application for certification as a
class action was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court, in
Israel, against Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
("Bezeq"), Pelephone Communications Ltd. ("Pelephone"), HOT
Telecom, Cellcom Israel Ltd. and Partner Communications Company
Ltd., in the amount of NIS158 million.  The plaintiffs allege that
when completing a call made from a cellular line to a fixed line,
if the call is disconnected by the fixed line call recipient,
Bezeq and HOT delay sending the disconnection signal for
approximately 60 seconds, which is then reflected in airtime costs
and interconnect fees.  In a procedural arrangement among the
parties, it was decided that the claim would be heard against
Bezeq and HOT, while the claim against Pelephone, Partner and
Cellcom would be heard as part of a similar claim filed against
them in August 2006 alleging damages of NIS100 million.  On
October 28, 2010, the Court denied the application and on December
16, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the decision in the
Supreme Court.


INTERNET GOLD: Awaits Approval of Customer Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is awaiting court approval of
its settlement of a purported class action lawsuit alleging it
violated its obligations to its customers, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On December 13, 2010, a motion for certification of a class action
against the Company was filed at the Tel Aviv-Jaffa district court
in the amount of NIS600 million.  The plaintiff alleges that the
Company violated its obligations to its customers by failing to
air broadcasts which it is obligated to air under the terms of its
basic package, it removed channels without approval, it breached
its obligation to invest in elite genres and breached obligations
regarding the broadcasting of advertisements, promos and marketing
and commercial content.  At October 30, 2011, a motion was filed
in court for approval of a settlement agreement.

On January 9, 2012, the parties filed a motion for a ruling in the
case.  On February 26, 2012, the Attorney-General submitted that
the settlement was not to be approved because it contains flaws
which give rise to the fear that it is not appropriate, fair and
beneficial to the members of the class and that it violates the
purposes of the Class Action Law, including deterrence against
breaking the law and the granting of appropriate relief to those
harmed by its breach.

On February 27, 2012, the court handed down a ruling whereby the
parties will have to respond to the submission of the Attorney-
General within 15 days.  A hearing of the motion for approval of
the settlement agreement was set for April 4, 2012.


INTERNET GOLD: Awaits Ruling on Unit's Bid to Appeal to Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is awaiting a court decision on
its subsidiary's petition for leave to appeal to the Israeli
Supreme Court a district court ruling approving class
certification of claims over calling cards, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

During the second quarter of 2008, four claims were filed with the
District Court for the Central District together with an
application for its certification as a class action against Bezeq
International Ltd.  The four claims were later consolidated into
one claim.  The claims related to the use of international calling
cards to the Philippines, Thailand and Nepal.  The plaintiffs, who
are foreign workers, claimed, among other things, that (i) the
calling cards provide an average of 50% of the call duration
indicated to the purchasers of the cards; (ii) when Bezeq
International deduct the time spent on unsuccessful call attempts
it does not use units of round minutes as it indicates; (iii)
Bezeq International provides misleading information about the
number of units on the card; and (iv) it formed a cartel with
other international communication companies that raised the prices
of calling cards.  The plaintiffs seek court approval to file
their claim as a class action on behalf of groups of people that
include anyone who purchased the relevant calling cards during the
seven year period prior to filing the claim or during the
proceedings themselves.  The plaintiffs estimate that the damages
caused to all the members of the group is NIS1.1 billion.  The
plaintiffs also petitioned the Court to order the defendant to
cease its alleged improper conduct.  The court accepted the
application for certification as a class action on the grounds of
deception on November 3, 2010, but dismissed some of the grounds
for the claimed action and ruled that the existence of deception,
if existed, ceased after the purchase of a number of calling
cards.  Bezeq International filed a leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court.  The proceedings in the District Court will be stayed until
the ruling of the Supreme Court in the matter of the leave to
appeal is determined.


INTERNET GOLD: Bezeq and Pelephone Faces Suit in Jerusalem
----------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiaries, Bezeq - The
Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. and Pelephone Communications
Ltd., are facing a purported class action lawsuit in Jerusalem,
Israel, brought on behalf of the handicapped members of the
public, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In February 2012, an action was filed with the Jerusalem District
Court, together with an application for its certification as a
class action, against Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp.,
Ltd., Pelephone and two other cellular companies.  The plaintiffs
allege that the respondents do not offer the handicapped members
of the public accessible handsets and services in an appropriate
manner, and that they are therefore in breach of the law and the
regulations.  The plaintiffs applied to certify the claim as a
class action in the name of a group of handicapped persons and
they are petitioning for an order to instruct the respondents to
rectify the alleged deficiencies and to allow accessible service
for handicapped people.  The plaintiffs are also claiming monetary
compensation of NIS361 million against all the respondents for the
losses they allege (monetary loss, non-monetary loss, and
infringement of autonomy).


INTERNET GOLD: Bezeq Int'l. Faces Suit Over Use of Calling Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bezeq International Ltd., a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden
Lines Ltd., is facing a purported class action lawsuit related to
the use of international calling cards, according to the Company's
April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On February 19, 2012, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with an application for its
certification as a class action, seeking monetary damages against
Bezeq International Ltd. and two other licensees based on facts
similar to those alleged in the 2008 action with respect to the
use of international calling cards.  The plaintiff alleged that
the Respondents misled customers who purchased dialing services by
means of pre-paid international calling cards with respect to the
number of minutes on the card.  The applicant estimates the amount
claimed from Bezeq International (as well as from each of the
other respondents), in the name of the entire group, to be NIS2.7
billion.


INTERNET GOLD: Suit Over Unlawful Ad on Music on Hold Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary is defending a
purported class action lawsuit alleging it unlawfully broadcasts
its own advertising on Music on Hold, according to the Company's
April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In October 2011, an action was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with an application for its
certification as a class action, alleging that Bezeq - The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. ("Bezeq") unlawfully broadcasts its
own advertising on the Music on Hold (music played to callers
while the dial-up to a Bezeq subscriber is under way) about
subscribing to the service.  The plaintiffs estimate the total
amount of the claim for all members of the group at NIS199.5
million, and it includes a request to refund the service fees to
subscribers for the service as well as a request for compensation
in respect of prohibited advertising (for callers to subscribers
to the service).  The claim seeks damages from the date on which
Bezeq commenced this service.


INTERNET GOLD: Claim in Suit Over Illegal Collection Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
An additional claim filed in the purported class action lawsuit
against a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. was
dismissed by summary judgment in March 2012, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

In November 2006, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court against Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
("Bezeq") together with an application for its certification as a
class action, in the amount of approximately NIS189 million,
alleging unlawful collection of money in cases of disconnection
due to non-payment.  Following the opposition of Bezeq to
broadening the claim, the plaintiff filed an additional claim with
the District Court for the Central District in February 2011, with
an application for its certification as a class action, for
approximately NIS44 million, alleging that there should have been
a rebate of payments for "associated services" for the period
during which the line was disconnected.  The additional claim was
dismissed by summary judgment on March 28, 2012.


INTERNET GOLD: Continues to Face Suits Filed by Customers
---------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. continues to defend itself and
its subsidiaries against class action lawsuits filed by costumers,
according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

During the normal course of business, customers of the Company and
its subsidiaries filed claims against them.  These are mainly
motions for certification of class actions concerning contentions
of unlawful collection of payment and impairment of the service
provided by the Group companies.  As of December 31, 2011, the
amount of the additional exposure for customer claims amounts to
NIS 6.5 billion (beyond the provisions included in these financial
statements).  Of these claims, there are claims amounting to
NIS1.03 billion, which, at this stage, cannot be estimated.  There
are other claims for which the Group has additional exposure
beyond the aforesaid, which cannot be quantified, as the exact
amount of the claims is not stated in the claim.  In the opinion
of the managements of the Group companies, based, inter alia, on
legal opinions as to the likelihood of success of the claims, the
financial statements include appropriate provisions of NIS26
million, where provisions are required to cover the exposure
arising from such claims.


INTERNET GOLD: Court Approves Abandonment of Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's abandonment of an application for certification as a
class action against an Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.
subsidiary was approved in February 2012, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In October 2009, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with an application for its
certification as a class action, against Pelephone Communications
Ltd.  The plaintiff alleges that Pelephone was in breach of its
license in that it offered benefits for purchase of a handset and
refunded competitors' penalties, for a period that is longer than
the 18-month commitment period.  In February 2012, the court
approved the plaintiff's abandonment of the application for
certification as a class action.


INTERNET GOLD: Abandonment of Suit Seeking Restitution Gets OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Israeli court approved in May 2011 the abandonment of a
purported class action lawsuit against an Internet Gold - Golden
Lines Ltd. subsidiary, according to the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In October 2010, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with a motion to certify it as a class
action, against Pelephone Communications Ltd. and others.  The
plaintiffs are seeking restitution of the amounts collected for
services provided by respondents Unicell, Telemeser and Select by
cellular telephone.  In May 2011, the applicants abandoned the
application and undertook not to file it again, with the approval
of the Court.


INTERNET GOLD: Court Okays Withdrawal of Broadcast Omission Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Israeli court approved a plaintiff's withdrawal of a purported
class action lawsuit asserted against a subsidiary of Internet
Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. alleging it omitted certain broadcasts,
according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On December 13, 2010, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with an application for its
certification, against DBS Satellite Service (1998) Ltd. seeking
damages of NIS600 million.  The plaintiff alleged that DBS
violated its obligation to its customers by omitting broadcasts it
was committed to air in its Basic Package, removed channels
without approval and did not comply with its obligation to invest
in quality genres and its obligations regarding the broadcast of
commercials, promos and marketing and commercial content.  The
applicant defined the group as all of the DBS's subscribers during
the seven years prior to the filing of the action.  In October
2011, an application was filed with the court to approve a
settlement according to which DBS will open a new channel for all
its subscribers and the class representative and its attorneys
will receive a monetary payment.

On February 26, 2012, the Attorney General submitted its position
regarding the settlement proposal, stating that the settlement
cannot be approved in that it raises concerns that it is
inappropriate, unfair, favors the members of the group, and that
it fails to heed the rationales of the Class Action Law.  On April
22, 2012, pursuant to a motion to abandon the claim filed by the
plaintiff with DBS' consent, the Court approved the withdrawal of
the claim.


INTERNET GOLD: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Suit vs. Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A district court in Israel denied plaintiff's motion to certify a
class in the lawsuit alleging that Internet Gold - Golden Lines
Ltd.'s subsidiary collects payment from its customers for services
they have not requested, according to the Company's April 30,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In June 2010, a claim was filed with the District Court for the
Central District, together with a motion to certify it as a class
action, for a personal amount of NIS958 (plus linkage and
interest) against Pelephone Communications Ltd.  The total amount
of the action is not stated, but the application notes that it is
estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of shekels.  According
to the claim, Pelephone collects payment from its customers for
services that the customers have not requested and transfers their
personal information to external suppliers without their approval,
which contravenes the agreement with its subscribers and the law.
The claim is for restitution of those fees and for orders
instructing Pelephone, among other things, to cease such actions.

On March 12, 2012, the Court rejected the motion to certify the
claim as a class action and dismissed the personal claim of the
plaintiff.


INTERNET GOLD: Court Struck Out Class Claim in Suit vs. DBS
-----------------------------------------------------------
An Israeli court struck out in November 2011 an application to
certify a claim as a class action against DBS Satellite Service
(1998) Ltd., a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.,
according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In November 2011, the Tel Aviv District Court, in Israel, struck
out an application to certify a claim as a class action against
DBS Satellite Service (1998) Ltd. that alleged that DBS did not
live up to its obligation to provide its customers with a document
that outlines their right to cancel their contracts should they
make a change and/or addition to the service provided to them
under the "ongoing transactions."  Similar claims were also filed
against Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.,
Pelephone Communications Ltd. and Bezeq International Ltd.


INTERNET GOLD: Deal in Hearing-Impaired Subscribers Suit Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a class action lawsuit against DBS Satellite
Service (1998) Ltd., a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines
Ltd., was approved in January 2012, according to the Company's
April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In January 2012, a settlement that was agreed upon in September
2011 was confirmed by the Tel Aviv District Court, in Israel.  The
settlement was in regard to a claim and a motion to certify it as
a class action that had been filed against DBS in December 2010.
The claim alleged that DBS was in breach of its obligations to its
hearing-impaired subscribers in that it did not comply with is
obligations under the Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities
Law, 1998, and under the Television Broadcasting (Subtitles and
Sign Language) Law, 2005, and violated the directives of the
Council in this regard.  Under the settlement agreement, during
the period of the benefit, DBS will provide an additional 90 hours
that are accompanied by subtitles and sign language and pay a
monetary sum to the class representative and his attorney.  On
February 15, 2012, the parties published advertisements in the
press announcing the approval of the settlement.


INTERNET GOLD: Deal in Suit Over Reception Disturbances Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tel Aviv District Court approved in February 2012 a settlement
of a class action lawsuit over reception disturbances in Internet
Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. subsidiary's broadcasts, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

In February 2012, a settlement was confirmed by the Tel Aviv
District Court, in Israel.  The settlement related to a claim and
an application to certify it as a class action that was filed
against DBS Satellite Service (1998) Ltd. in 2007 alleging
reception disturbances in DBS's broadcasts and problems in the
functioning of DBS's service system during in September 2007.
Under the settlement, DBS will give anyone who was a subscriber
during the period of the disturbances (from September 6, 2007,
through October 9, 2007) and lived in communities in the north of
Israel, as specified in the agreement, certain bonuses and pay a
monetary sum to the class representative and his attorney.  It was
further determined that the parties must advertise approval of the
settlement in the press, and internal messages (yesmail) must be
sent to subscribers who lived in northern communities during the
period of the disturbances.


INTERNET GOLD: Defends Class Suit vs. Unit Over Internet Speed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is defending
itself from a purported class action lawsuit alleging it failed to
provide its Internet customers with the speed it had undertaken in
their contracts, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 8, 2011, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with a motion to certify it as a class
action, against Bezeq International Ltd.  The plaintiffs alleged
that during October 2011, Bezeq International failed to provide
its Internet customers with the speed it had undertaken in their
contracts.  The plaintiffs are seeking restitution of the monthly
charge and compensation for distress, and they estimate the total
amount of monetary compensation claimed from Bezeq International
to be NIS120 million.


INTERNET GOLD: Pretrial in Customer Suit Scheduled for Sept. 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
A pretrial in a lawsuit asserting Internet Gold - Golden Lines
Ltd.' excessive and unrealistic "collection expenses", is set for
September 6, 2012, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

During the normal course of business, claims were filed against
the Company by its customers.  These are mainly motions for
certification of class actions and the ensuing claims concerning
the alleged unlawful collection of payment and impairment of the
services provided by the Company.  At December 31, 2011, these
claims amount to NIS903,839,000.  In the opinion of the management
of the Company, based, inter alia, on legal opinions as to the
likelihood of success of the claims, the financial statements
include appropriate provisions of NIS3,383,000, where provisions
are required to cover the exposure resulting from such claims.

Of these claims, there are claims amounting to NIS 13,693,000,
which cannot yet be estimated.  These claims include a lawsuit
filed in November 2011.

On November 23, 2011, a motion for certification of a class action
against the Company was filed in the Central District Court in the
sum of NIS13,618,000.  According to the applicant, where customers
have not settled their debts and the matter has been transferred
to external lawyers, the Company collects excessive and
unrealistic "collection expenses" in contravention of the law.
The application requests, inter alia, declaratory orders and
orders instructing the Company not to collect more than is
permitted plus monetary compensation.

On February 23, 2012, the court approved a joint motion of the
parties for approval of a procedural hearing in which the Company
will file its response to the motion for approval by June 21,
2012, and the applicant will be permitted to file its response to
the response by August 8, 2012.  A pretrial was set for
September 6, 2012.


KENNETH COLE: Faces More Suit Over Going Private Transaction
------------------------------------------------------------
KBC Asset Management NV, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Kenneth D. Cole, Paul Blum, Michael J.
Blitzer, Robert C. Grayson, Denis F. Kelly, Philip R. Peller, KCP
Holdco, Inc., KCP Mergerco, Inc., Kenneth D. Cole Productions,
Inc., Case No. 652085/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 14, 2012) alleges
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
KCP and its public shareholders.

The Plaintiff also alleges that Holdco and Mergerco aided and
abetted KCP's Board in breaching its fiduciary duties in
connection with Mr. Cole's proposed going private transaction.
The Plaintiff contends that by placing the interests of Mr. Cole,
to protect his ownership stake and control of the resulting
private company, above the interests of the Company's public
shareholders, the Board has approved a transaction that
significantly undervalues KCP.

KBC is the owner of KCP Class A common stock.

KCP, a New York corporation, designs, sources and markets a broad
range of fashion footwear, handbags, and apparel and, through
license agreements, designs and markets apparel and accessories
under its Kenneth Cole New York, Kenneth Cole Reaction, Unlisted,
and Le Tigre brand names, as well as footwear under the
proprietary trademark Gentle Souls.  The Company also designs,
develops, and sources private label footwear and handbags for
selected retailers.

Mr. Cole has served as the Company's Chairman of the Board since
its inception in 1982, was president until February 2002 and chief
executive officer until May 2008.  As of June 6, 2012, Mr. Cole
beneficially owns 503,653 shares of the Company's Class A common
stock and 7,890,497 shares of the Company's super-voting Class B
common stock, which represents nearly 46% of the Company's
outstanding common stock and nearly 89% of the common
shareholders' voting power.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Holdco is a Delaware corporation, created by Mr. Cole for the
purpose of consummating the Proposed Transaction.  Mergeco is a
New York corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Holdco,
created by Mr. Cole for the purpose of consummating the Proposed
Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ira M. Press, Esq.
          J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
          E-mail: ipress@kmllp.com
                  bwalker@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Deborah Sturman
          STURMAN LLC, Esq.
          275 Seventh Avenue, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 367-7017
          Facsimile: (917) 546-2544
          E-mail: sturman@sturman.ch


LAWRENCE HOUSE: Violates Landlord Tenant Ordinance, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Packard and D. James Metzgar, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lawrence House, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company, Case No. 2012-CH-22174 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., June 15, 2012) is a consumer class action lawsuit
stemming from the Defendant's violations of the Chicago
Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance.

The Defendant failed to notify its tenants, including the
Plaintiffs, that its apartment building in which they lived was in
foreclosure, the Plaintiffs assert.  The Defendant owns a high-
rise apartment building commonly known as Lawrence House, which is
located at the corner of Lawrence and Kenmore Avenues, in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.
They are tenants of the Lawrence House.

The Defendant is a limited liability company headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.  The Defendant owns the Lawrence House.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul F. Markoff, Esq.
          Karl G. Leinberger, Esq.
          MARKOFF LEINBERGER, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1050
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 726-4162
          Facsimile: (312) 674-7272
          E-mail: paul@markleinlaw.com
                  karl@markleinlaw.com


LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Suit Over Retention of Users' Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Szpyrka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LinkedIn Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
5:12-cv-03088 (N.D. Calif., June 15, 2012) is brought against
LinkedIn for failing to properly safeguard its users' digitally
stored personally identifiable information or PII, including e-
mail addresses, passwords, and login credentials.

LinkedIn violated its own User Agreement and Privacy Policy by
failing to utilize long-standing industry standard protocols and
technology to protect the Plaintiff and the Class members' PII,
Ms. Szpyrka alleges.  She asserts that in direct contradiction to
its promise to protect users' information, LinkedIn failed to
comply with basic industry standards by maintaining millions of
users' PII in its servers' databases in a weak encryption format,
and without implementing other crucial security measures.

Ms. Szpyrka is a resident of the state of Illinois.  She is a
registered user of LinkedIn's services.

LinkedIn, a Delaware corporation, is an Internet company that owns
and operates the Web site www.LinkedIn.com -- a social networking
Web site with over 120 million registered users worldwide.

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.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, 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
                  ascharg@edelson.com
                  cdore@edelson.com


NESTLE DREYER'S: Sued for Misclassifying Sales Representatives
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nestle misclassified sales
representatives as exempt from overtime laws, withheld earnings
and provided inaccurate wage statements, a class claims in
Alameda County.

A copy of the Complaint in Sciaroni, et al. v. Nestle Dreyer's Ice
Cream Company, et al., Case No. 12635122 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/19/nestle.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Teague P. Paterson, Esq.
          Costa Kerestenzis, Esq.
          Susan Garea, Esq.
          BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC
          Ross House, 2nd Floor
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 625-9700
          E-mail: tpaterson@beesontayer.com


NUTREX RESEARCH: Sued For Selling Diet Supplements with DMAA
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nutrex Research and the
Vitamin Shoppe sell diet supplements with dangerous and illegal
DMAA (dimethylamyllamine), a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ibarolla v. Nutrex Research, Inc., Case
No. 12-cv-04848 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/19/DietSupps.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alyson Oliver, Esq.
          Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
          OLIVER LAW GROUP, PC
          950 West University Drive, Suite 200
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 327-6556
          E-mail: aoliver@oliverlg.com
                  nsuciu@oliverlg.com

               - and -

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


OIL COMPANIES: To Install ATC to Settle Kansas Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carole Donoghue, writing for CSP Daily News, reports that seven
major oil companies and three large retail chains will spend
several millions of dollars to install automated temperature
compensation (ATC) at their branded stations in hopes of settling
a long-running class action lawsuit in Kansas City.

The deals detailed in court documents are likely to be described
as a win by both sides of the litigation.  The class-action
attorneys can claim that the industry has admitted cheating
consumers by selling so-called "hot fuel" -- gasoline and diesel
that is warmer than the standard 60-degree-Fahrenheit gallon.

Refiner and retailer groups are expected to contend that the total
amount that some of the refiners will pay into a specially created
fund -- $21.6 million -- is relatively small, compared to the
billions of dollars first mentioned by the trial attorneys.
Additionally, some will point out that state weights and measures
officials have yet to allow the installation of ATC at retail and
are unlikely to do so in the near future.

Two-thirds of the money to be paid by six refiners -- Shell, BP,
ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, CITGO and Sinclair -- will provide
financial incentives for their retailers and wholesalers to
"defray the costs" of installing ATC at retail and to pay for
"meaningful disclosures" at the pump about the energy content of
"hot fuel."  The remaining one-third will go to state Weights and
Measures departments to help them pay for inspection and
regulation of ATC at retail.'

The seventh refiner, Valero Energy, will post the actual
temperature of the motor fuel in its tanks at stations in 24
states and will convert to ATC equipment at its branded outlets
when enough of its peers in the market have done so to make ATC an
industry standard in the affected region, according to the just-
unveiled agreements.

Meanwhile, chain retailers Sam's Club, Casey's and Dansk
Investment Group (formerly West Coast marketer USA Petroleum) have
agreed to gradually convert their retail sites to ATC.

The class-action lawsuit, filed six years ago, represents
consumers in 28 states.  The plaintiffs sued 120 refiners and
retailers for failing to install ATC devices at retail.  They
claim that marketers overcharge consumers for fuel in hot weather,
when fuel expands in volume at the station, only to shrink later
in the car's tank.  The trial lawyers said refiners and retailers
were pocketing $3.5 billion a year in extra profits from "hot
fuel" sales to consumers but abandoned the unjust enrichment claim
in March.

Lawyers for the class-action plaintiffs are asking the federal
court to conditionally certify the classes and preliminarily
approve the class settlements. The agreements are supposed to go
into effect 10 days after the court issues final approval of the
deals.

CSP Daily News first reported on the plans to establish a special
ATC fund in a news flash on April 18.  The amount each refiner
will pay varies.

BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell must pay $5 million each,
while CITGO and Sinclair will contribute $800,000.  Valero will
pay $200,000 to contribute to the costs of carrying out the public
notice plan and administering the settlement.  It will also pay
$4.5 million in attorneys' fees and litigation costs as approved
by the court.

BP marketers in 25 states will be impacted by the settlement deal,
Casey's agreement will involve stores in five states, and the
Exxon and ConocoPhillips' deals will each affect marketers in 28
states.  For CITGO and Shell retailers, 27 states are involved,
while Valero will have to make changes eventually in 24 states,
Sinclair in 11 states and Sam's in 25 states.

After five years, any money remaining in the fund will be pooled
for a sixth and final year for payment to retailers or W&M
departments.  Anything left after that will go to non-profit
organizations.  The fees and litigation costs of the trial
attorneys will be capped at 30% of the fund for each refiner, or
no more than $1.5 million.

The agreements signed with Sam's, Casey's and Dansk are similar to
that previously inked by Costco.  They will install ATC devices at
any sites they operate in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

Casey's obligation to convert its sites will be suspended if it
purchases the majority of its fuel in the relevant state on a non-
temperature adjusted basis, while Dansk will be allowed to phase
in ATC devices at the stations it owns in California over a three-
year period.  Casey's has also agreed to pay up to $700,000 in
litigation costs, Sam's will pay up to $3 million and Dansk will
pay up to $58,000.

The three companies have also agreed to install ATC at any new
retail stations they open in the conversion states.  Additionally,
if Sam's starts to buy fuel on a temperature-adjusted basis in the
states of Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania or Utah, it
will also convert all dispensers in those states to ATC.

Attorneys' fees, litigation costs and the costs of notice and
settlement administration will all be deducted from the special
fund before the proceeds are paid out.  It is not clear how much
will be left in the fund at the end of the day but the money will
be shared out to the ATC states based on the volume of fuel sold
in each state, the average temperature of that fuel, and the
maximum number of stations in each state between January 2004 and
the present.

Under the settlements, no state will receive less than 1% of the
fund amount.  The agreements were also modified to reflect the
fact that some refiners have fewer stations in a particular state
and that some marketers buy fuel on a non-temperature-corrected
basis, or that the average fuel temperature is close to -- or even
below -- the 60-degree-Fahrenheit standard.

To receive payments, a retailer or wholesaler must submit a
written statement to the settlement administrator listing the
states where he will install ATC or make disclosures about the
temperature of motor fuel and the corresponding energy content.
He must also say how much it will cost and provide the working he
intends to use of any disclosures, and detail the authorization
that he has received from the state's weights and measures
department.

State weights and measures departments looking to collect from the
fund must also tell the administrator how they have adopted
regulations or authorized the use of ATC and how they expect to
use the money to implement the system.

To ensure that settlement money is available to eligible parties
later in the settlement period, the fund administrator may not
disburse more than 25% of the total amount of money in each of the
first two years.

During the six years of litigation, more than 400 depositions were
conducted, 25 experts were deposed and almost a terabyte --
equivalent to 1,000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica -- were
produced in the discovery process, according to court documents.


OKLAHOMA: Children's Rights Seek $9.5MM in Legal Costs
------------------------------------------------------
Ginnie Graham, writing for Tulsa World reports that the group that
sued the Oklahoma Department of Human Services citing failures in
the state's child-welfare system is asking $9.5 million for its
costs associated with the federal class-action lawsuit, according
to a court filing made on June 18.

Children's Rights, a New York-based nonprofit, in January came to
a settlement agreement, which led to a pending improvement plan
overseen by a three-person panel.

"(The case) has effected historic and comprehensive reform of the
Oklahoma foster care system," the motion states.  "The attention
of both the Executive and Legislative branches of State
Government, as well as the Commission, are now keenly focused on
comprehensive and transformational change.  The tenor of the
public discussion has been dramatically and forever changed.

"Gone is the culture of denial and inattention.  Come is the
culture of openness and engagement.  Gone is a Commission which
turned a blind eye.  Come is an inquiring and active Commission.
Gone is a system with no accountability.  Come is a system with
hallmark accountability.

"But for the dedication and resources of the lawyers for
Children's Rights, none of these changes would have occurred.
This historic and comprehensive reform did not come easily."

DHS may file a motion countering the claim, and a judge may set an
evidentiary hearing.

The legal costs cover 36,187 hours of work during the four years
of the lawsuit, which included 18 attorneys and 13 paralegals at
the nonprofit.

About $1 million was spent in non-recoverable costs by Children's
Rights and its attorneys.

The cost to DHS for its defense has been about $7 million, and the
commission approved another $2 million last fall.

The nonprofit filed the federal lawsuit in Tulsa's U.S. Northern
District on behalf of nine foster children in February 2008 and it
gained class-action status in May 2009.

Through the years, the nonprofit's lawyers complained the agency
was resistant to settling and dragged its feet with extensive
filings.  DHS officials claimed it was exercising its right to a
defense.

The motion states the private firm contracted by DHS -- Riggs,
Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison & Lewis -- spent about 1,000 more
hours on the lawsuit than the nonprofit.  The motion argues the
difference is important to show the efficiency of the Children's
Rights attorneys.

It argues the private firm did not complete the same type of work
including: Not conducting a pre-filing investigation, carried no
burden of proof, had access to all DHS documents and witnesses,
received assistance from DHS employees and in-house lawyers and
was not responsible for the settlement negotiations, which were
led by Kent Meyers of Crowe & Dunlevy.

"Defendants' overly aggressive litigation tactics were motivated
by a patently unjustified denial of the serious, systemic problems
plaguing DHS," the motion states.

"Despite the defendants' constant efforts to derail plaintiffs
from pursuing their claims, the settlement agreement reflects for
the first time a broad legislative, executive and public
recognition that the Oklahoma foster care system is in need of
substantial reform and provides a process through which those
reforms will be planned and implemented."

The motion details the efforts Children's Rights undertook and the
obstacles it encountered.

Children's Rights attorneys moved to compel for compliance with
outstanding discovery requests on eight occasions.  A U.S.
magistrate criticized DHS for its rate of production of child case
files.

At one point, two DHS oversight commissioners refused to give
depositions, citing medical reasons, the motion states.  One
commissioner resigned, and the other -- Jay Dee Chase, who is a
current commissioner -- was ordered by Magistrate Frank McCarthy
to give a deposition.

The motion includes a breakdown of billable hours by attorneys,
showing the local firm of Fredric Dorwart, Lawyers, worked pro
bono.  Also, the New York office of Kaye Scholer LLP had donated
its services.

The hourly rates of the attorneys are based on equivalent rates of
local lawyers, except for Executive Director Marcia Lowry, who led
the arguments against DHS.

The motion argues that her $700 an hour charge, which is a New
York rate, is justified for her unique and extensive experience in
child welfare institutional reform litigation.

"No firm in Oklahoma was willing or able to maintain this suit on
its own," the motion states.

Since its founding in 1995, Children's Rights has sued 15 other
states and jurisdictions seeking improvements in child-welfare
systems, with all but two ending in judicial consent decrees or
orders.

It did not seek damages in the Oklahoma case.

"The result achieved by the plaintiff class is superior," the
motion states "Without requiring this court to actively intervene,
the Oklahoma foster care system is now objectively accountable for
its action in at least 15 key performance areas.

"The settlement agreement obtained by the plaintiff class may well
serve as a model for systems across the country."

The nonprofit was sought by several Oklahoma attorneys and child
advocates, who claimed no firm or organization in the state had
the resources or expertise to challenge the current child-welfare
system.

Children's Rights has net assets of about $14 million, according
to its 2010 tax records.

Expenses that year were about $5.7 million and revenue was about
$4.9 million.

Ms. Lowry, who led the legal arguments against DHS, has the
group's top salary at $233,842.

Legal costs received by Children's Rights in other states include
$6.4 million in Michigan and $10.5 million in Georgia.

The group has filed lawsuits against child-welfare systems in
Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin
and Washington, D.C.

Legal fees breakdown

The $9.5 million costs requested by Children's Rights in its
federal lawsuit against DHS covered more than 36,000 hours of work
over the course of four years.  It includes:

An 8-month investigation by attorneys of the state's foster-care
system that led to the 87-page complaint filed in February 2008 in
Tulsa's U.S. Northern District federal court.

Extensive legal research to identify potential legal claims.

Preparation of lengthy and complex brief in response to multiple
motions filed by DHS to dismiss the case.

Preparation of legal briefs arguing for the class-action status,
which was granted in May 2009.

Review of millions of pages of documents produced by DHS in
discovery.

Taking and defending more than 80 fact and expert depositions.

Participating in settlement negations over several months.

Outcome:

A settlement agreement reached in January requires an improvement
plan be created by the agency to address specific performance
areas.  The plan is pending approval by an oversight panel of
three people, who are out-of-state experts in the field and hired
in agreement by the parties.  The plan will:

Hire more child-welfare workers in all areas to lower caseloads to
no more than 12.

Recruit 500 foster families and 150 therapeutic foster families.

Eliminate shelter use for young children.

Reduce the number of placements for foster children.

Improve training for workers and foster families.

Provide better ongoing support for workers and foster families.

Restructure the organization.

Cost breakdown:

Attorney's fees: $8.3 million

Out-of-pocket expenditures: $1.2 million

Non-recoverable expenditures: $1 million

Source: Court filing


PLIMUS INC: Court Upholds Most Claims in False Ad Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge upheld most of a class action that claims Plimus, an online
marketer, defrauds customers with phony reviews to induce them to
pay for "lifetime access" to material that's already free on the
Internet.

Lead plaintiff Kimberly Yordy sued Plimus and its corporate parent
Great Hill Partners in January.

She claims the defendants use "fabricated consumer reviews,
testimonials, and fake blogs that are all intended to deceive
consumers seeking a legitimate product and induce them to pay."

Ms. Yordy says Plimus works with dozens of affiliate sites that
offer the "free" digital goodies using the false advertisements.

"In the end, the only things provided to registered members of any
of the Unlimited Download Websites include access to digital goods
that are already available for free elsewhere on the internet,
such as eBooks found at Project Gutenberg, (a public domain online
library) or else, simply provides links to torrent search engines
that allow a consumer to download already publicly shared digital
goods," the complaint states.

What's more, Ms. Yordy says, aside from the fact that torrent
search engines are available for free online, "accessing and
downloading files through a torrent search engine is illegal and
constitutes copyright infringement of the digital goods acquired.
Accordingly, defendants and the unlimited download Web sites are
promoting and profiting by directing consumers to illegal means of
obtaining digital goods, all the while taking affirmative steps to
give consumers the distinct impression that their conduct is
legal."

Ms. Yordy cites a movie download site she describes as a paid
affiliate of Plimus, and says it shows fabricated "consumer
reviews" praising the phony service, which were written by the
company or its affiliates.

Plimus sought dismissal, claiming it is only the payment processor
for online merchants and had no control over the ads.

But U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson upheld most of the
claims against the company in an 11-page order.

Judge Henderson found Ms. Yordy had standing to sue and had raised
a reasonable argument that Plimus had control over the allegedly
misleading information.

The complaint had enough specific facts to support claims for
fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, Judge
Henderson found.

"By specifying the retail sales contract, the specific term, her
own performance and the performance of the class she seeks to
represent, and the loss of the sum of money paid for the
[unlimited download Web site] access, plaintiff has sufficiently
stated a claim for breach of contract," Judge Henderson wrote.

He granted Plimus' motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim,
which is not allowed as a stand-alone cause of action in this
case.

The parties are scheduled for a case management conference on July
23.

A copy of the Order on Motion to Dismiss in Yordy v. Plimus, Inc.,
Case No. 12-cv-00229 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/19/Plimus.pdf


QBE: Class Action Over Inflated Premiums Pending
------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for Business Day, reports that insurance
company QBE faces a $240 million profit hit as legal pressure is
stepped up for it to slash its "grossly excessive" premiums on a
controversial US product.

Through US subsidiaries, QBE is a major player in "force-placed"
home insurance, which is taken out by financiers when home owners
to whom they have lent money fail to take out their own insurance.

In 2009, as American households fell behind on their bills
following the credit crisis, the number of force-placed insurance
policies issued spiked dramatically, creating a lucrative flow of
premiums for QBE.

The allegedly inflated premiums are ultimately paid by
householders through increased mortgage repayments -- a fact that
has sparked class action lawsuits and a crackdown by a New York
state regulator.

After public hearings into force-placed insurance last month, the
New York Department of Financial Services has given insurance
companies, including QBE, until July 6 to slash premiums in the
state by between 15 per cent and 30 per cent.

If a 30 per cent price cut flows through to the entire US market
by 2013, QBE's pre-tax profit will be cut by $240 million, Merrill
Lynch analyst Andrew Kearnan said in a note to clients last week.

While describing the scenario as unlikely, he said that together
with falling placement rates and erosions to profit margins as the
size of the force-placed market shrinks, it could lead to a one-
off hit to after-tax profit of 10 per cent.

In evidence to the NYDFS last month, the executive director of
consumer group the Centre for Economic Justice, Birny Birnbaum,
said premiums were pushed up because insurance companies compete
to get business from lenders by providing them with "kickbacks".

"Rates continue to be grossly excessive in violation of statutory
requirements that rates be reasonable and not excessive," he said.

Nicholas Pastor, QBE's chief US actuary, told the hearing of a
"surge" in force-placed policies and a rise in their length of
operation after the global financial crisis.

"These factors have resulted in lower loss ratios than anticipated
in recent years," he said.

QBE faces additional pressure from a pair of class action lawsuits
in Florida in which home owners accuse it of profiteering,
collusion and the payment of kickbacks and commissions to
financiers.

In the most advanced of the two lawsuits, it has emerged that
banking group Wells Fargo has stopped charging an 11 per cent
commission, the cost of which was ultimately borne by home owners,
but QBE has refused to pass on the saving.

David Franske, executive vice-president of Wells Fargo's insurance
arm, said it asked Assurant and QBE to make an equivalent premium
cut.

"Assurant had said they would attempt to do that in most states,"
he said in a deposition filed with the Florida Southern District
Court.  "QBE has said they would not."

Wells Fargo and QBE last month failed in a bid to stop the class
action when the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, which is yet to
rule on a timetable for the class action case, threw out their
appeal petition.


SOUTHERN GYMS: Class Action Over Locker Room Photos Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that a Louisiana
woman who was photographed in her gym's changing room can
represent a class of women with similar claims, a state appeals
court ruled.

The Baton Rouge Police Department notified the woman, identified
by the court as Jane Doe, about the pictures in April 2010.

Terry Telschow, an assistant manager at Anytime Fitness, admitted
to taking the photos with a hidden pen camera, which he placed in
the ladies locker room about a dozen times between November 2009
and April 2010.

Ms. Doe learned that there were other victims while working with
the police to confirm her identity in the images that depicted her
in different stages of undress.

She sued Mr. Telschow, Anytime Fitness, and the gym's parent and
insurance companies.  The trial court certified her class action
suit on behalf of "all females who physically entered the women's
restroom/locker room/changing room" at the gym's location on
Government Street.

The defendants appealed the class certification, claiming that
Ms. Doe failed to show that the class was sufficiently numerous.

A three-judge panel of the Lake Charles-based Third Circuit Court
of Appeal affirmed.

"Doe presented evidence of a list of approximately 250-300 women
that went into Anytime Fitness during that time period.  Any of
those women that entered into the area Telschow was videotaping
could have been exposed to his camera," Judge John Saunders wrote
for the court.  "Thus, each woman could potentially have suffered
damages due to the fear of images surfacing depicting them in
various stages of undress."

A copy of the decision in Doe v. Southern Gyms, LLC, et al., Case
No. 71767-B (La. Ct. App.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/19/southerngyms.pdf


SUPERMAX: Mentally Ill Prisoners File Class Action in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold & Porter LLP on June 18 disclosed that a class-action
lawsuit was filed on June 18 alleging that the U.S. Bureau of
Prisons is mistreating mentally ill prisoners at the Supermax U.S.
penitentiary in Florence, Colorado.  Eleven prisoners filed the
case on behalf of all mentally ill prisoners at the facility.  The
defendants are the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and several of
its top officials with responsibility for the operation of the
prison.  According to papers filed in the U.S. District Court for
Colorado, extended confinement in isolation is likely to
exacerbate all types of mental illness, increasing the risk of
violence against prison staff and other inmates, and reducing the
likelihood that these prisoners will ever be able successfully to
re-enter society at the end of their sentences.

The lawsuit, styled Bacote, et al v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
seeks to compel BOP to comply with its own existing policies and
rules regarding the placement and treatment of mentally ill
prisoners.  The lawsuit also seeks to define a minimum level of
care and medical treatment for those in custody that is sufficient
to satisfy the prohibitions of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution against cruel and unusual punishment.

The penitentiary in Florence, referred to as ADX, was built to
house the most dangerous prisoners in the system and is considered
to be the most secure prison in the country.  Staff there refer to
ADX as the "Alcatraz of the Rockies."  Prisoners spend up to 24
hours per day in single cells, and their communications and
contact with other inmates and staff are severely restricted.

The complaint alleges that despite the BOP's own written policies
excluding the mentally ill from ADX because of its severe
conditions, the BOP frequently assigns prisoners with mental
illness there because of a deficient evaluation and screening
process.  Then, according to the complaint, mentally ill prisoners
housed at ADX are denied constitutionally adequate treatment and
services.

The consequences of BOP's deliberate indifference to the proper
diagnosis and treatment of prisoners with serious mental illness
are shocking.  According to the complaint, "Some prisoners
mutilate their own bodies with razors, shards of glass, sharpened
chicken bones, writing utensils and whatever other objects they
can obtain.  Others swallow razor blades, nail clippers, broken
glass and other dangerous objects. Many engage in fits of
screaming and ranting for hours on end. Others carry on delusional
conversations with the voices they hear in their heads, oblivious
to reality and the danger that such behavior might pose to
themselves and to anyone who interacts with them.  Still others
spread feces and other waste throughout their cells, throw it at
the correctional staff and otherwise create health hazards at ADX.
Suicide attempts are common; many have been successful."  In fact,
a wrongful death lawsuit was filed last month in federal court in
Colorado. That lawsuit, styled Vega v. Davis, charges that a
prisoner at ADX suffering from mental illness committed suicide
while he was there because he was not properly treated.

Ed Aro, a partner in the Denver office of Arnold & Porter and the
lead attorney in the case, calls ADX "a national disgrace."  He
adds, "No one disputes that certain prisoners require a closely
controlled prison environment.  But for people with mental
illness, confinement with little or no mental health care in the
isolated and brutal conditions at ADX is torment.  It's wrong and
it's unconstitutional."

The Complaint alleges that because of their untreated or poorly
treated mental illness, many prisoners at ADX act out, resulting
in disruption, compromised security and a risk of harm to
themselves, ADX staff and other prisoners.  And, as Aro points
out, "Not everyone at ADX will die in prison.  A quarter of our
mentally ill clients there will be released into the community in
the next five years, and almost 60% will be released in the next
20 years.  Unless the BOP reforms the mental health system at ADX,
it will be very, very difficult for mentally ill prisoners held
there to return to society safely and successfully."

The DC Prisoners' Project of the Washington Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights and Urban Affairs is co-counsel with Arnold & Porter.
Its director, Philip Fornaci, said, "Americans would not allow
sick or wounded animals to be treated as these prisoners are
treated.  They should not sanction the inhumane treatment of U.S.
citizens, whatever crimes they committed in the past.  We will not
stop until this situation has changed."

Arnold & Porter LLP, with offices in nine cities, including
Denver, Colorado, has a long-standing commitment to important pro
bono matters, including those involving the rights of prisoners.

The DC Prisoners' Project of the Washington Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights and Urban Affairs --
http://www.washlaw.org/projects/dc-prisoners-rights-- advocates
for the humane treatment and dignity of the nearly 8,000 DC
prisoners currently held in dozens of BOP facilities across the
country.  In collaboration with private law firms and individual
pro bono attorneys, the Project has achieved significant changes
in access to health care for DC prisoners in jails and prisons
across the country, including insuring access to constitutionally-
adequate levels of medical and mental health care in both local
jails and distant BOP facilities.

Additional information about the Bacote and Vega lawsuits is
available at http://www.supermaxlawsuit.com

Contacts:

Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs

        Public Relations Counsel/Arnold & Porter
        Alan Dee, 941-953-3835
        adee@agdcomm.com

        or

        Arnold & Porter, Denver Office
        Ed Aro, 303-861-2380
        Partner
        ed.aro@aporter.com

        or

DC Prisoners' Project Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights and Urban Affairs

        Phil Fornaci, 202-319-1000
        Director
        Philip_Fornaci@washlaw.org


TECO PEOPLES: Class Action Over 2010 Gas Explosion Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aisling Swift, writing for Naples Daily News, reports that a
class-action lawsuit against TECO Peoples Gas System survived a
hurdle on June 18 when a judge denied a request to dismiss the
complaint filed by eight restaurants in Collier and Lee counties
that lost service after a 2010 gas explosion.

Lee Circuit Judge Sherra Winesett denied Peoples Gas' motion to
dismiss breach of contract claims, rejecting arguments that it
"tries to provide gas, but doesn't guarantee continued service."

The 2010 lawsuit stems from a Nov. 11, 2010, gas explosion that
occurred when a Posen Construction employee hit an 8-inch natural
gas line during the widening of Colonial Boulevard in Fort Myers.
The outage affected roughly 6,000 residential and 1,200 commercial
customers in Lee and Collier counties, forcing businesses to shut
down or operate with limited services, which they say cost them
thousands of dollars.

Peoples Gas also sued Posen in federal court, alleging it
destroyed gas line location markers and continued digging.  The
federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined Posen
$70,000, the maximum, for failing to call or take other
precautions before digging.

Naples attorneys Michael McDonnell and Gary Green represent
Lucarelli Pizza & Deli of North Naples, The Inn on Fifth, McCabe's
Irish Pub, The Spa on Fifth, Jaegerhaus restaurant, all in Naples,
and three Big Al's City Grills in Lee and Collier counties.  They
accuse Posen of negligence, but the June 18 hearing only involved
Peoples Gas' motion to dismiss the suit.  The restaurants already
dropped a negligence claim.

Monday's hearing boiled down to the utility's contract, which
states "People's Gas System will endeavor to provide gas service
on a continuous basis, but does not guarantee to do so."

Attorney Stephen Cohen of Tampa argued a breach of contract claim
alleges failure to fulfill a promise and "endeavor" means to try
or attempt.

"So our obligation is to try, but we don't guarantee the result,"
Mr. Cohen argued, contending there was no proof it didn't make a
good-faith effort.  ". . . They didn't say we didn't try.  They
say we messed up.  They can't say we didn't endeavor."

But Mr. Green argued Peoples Gas knew it dug a shallow line, that
markers were missing and others were destroyed yet digging
continued.  Mr. Green brought five dictionaries and an appellate
ruling to argue that "endeavor" also involves the quality of the
effort.

"Peoples Gas is saying 'All we have to do is try,'" Mr. Green
said.  ". . . Their guarantee does not eliminate their obligation
to continue to endeavor to provide continuous gas service.  We say
when you put in a line at the wrong depth, allow digging without
markers and you don't replace markers, that's not trying."

It's uncertain how many plaintiffs there will be until the judge
certifies it as a class-action lawsuit.


THOMAS LIGHTING: Recalls 83,750 Ceiling Mounted Light Fixtures
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Thomas Lighting, of Elgin, Illinois; part of Philips Consumer
Luminaires Corporation, of Elgin, Illinois, announced a voluntary
recall of about 83,750 units of Thomas Lighting ceiling flush
mount light fixtures.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The fixture's socket wire insulation can degrade, leading to
charged wires becoming exposed, causing electricity to pass to the
metal canopy of the fixture.  This poses a fire and electric shock
hazard to consumers.

Thomas Lighting has received 11 reports of defective fixtures
which resulted in the home's Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter (AFCI)
tripping.  No injuries have been reported to the firm.

This recall involves 28 different models of ceiling flush-mounted
light fixtures manufactured between June 1, 2010, through November
25, 2010, with a diameter ranging from 7.5" to 13".  All affected
fixtures have a round base or canopy affixed to the ceiling and a
dome- or cylindrical-shaped cover.  The recalled fixtures have a
variety of finishes including metal and/or clear or frosted glass
and contain one, two or three light bulbs.  Canopies are a range
of colors including white, bronze, brass (gold) and nickel.  Most
models have a nib in the center of the dome cover in the same
color as the canopy.  Although the manufacturer's name, the
fixture model number and production date can be found on a printed
label on the ceiling-side of the fixture's metal canopy, consumers
are advised not to remove the metal canopy from the ceiling in
order to access this label.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12197.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
electrical distributors and lighting wholesalers nationwide from
July 2010 through July 2011 for between $19 and $50 as Thomas
Lighting products.

Consumers should immediately stop using the light fixture, avoid
direct contact with the fixture and contact Thomas Lighting to
arrange for a free in-home repair of the fixtures by a qualified
electrician.  For additional information, contact Thomas Lighting
at (800) 764-0756 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.thomaslighting.com/


TOYOTA MOTOR: Removes "Martinez" Suit to Calif. District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yanira Martinez, and Jose Guevara individually, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. PAG-Daly City, a
California limited liability company dba City Toyota; Toyota Motor
Credit Corporation, a California corporation, and Does 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. CIV 513807 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo
Cty., May 14, 2012) accuses the Defendants of negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act, and other
laws.

The Plaintiffs contend that City Toyota, as seller, failed to
provide them with a Spanish translation of their entire agreement
to purchase a vehicle (Toyota Highlander) including the Notice of
Release of Liability, the disclosure that the Vehicle was a prior
rental vehicle, the certified pre-owned warranty information, and
the additional service contract.  They add that, among other
things, the Seller failed to insert in the contract information
regarding the parties' agreed upon trade in deal.

The Plaintiffs are residents of the County of San Francisco,
California.

The Seller buys, repairs and re-sells used vehicles to the general
public, and, takes vehicles in trade.  Toyota Motor, a California
corporation, is a financial institution engaged in the business of
holding conditional sale contracts and collecting payments made by
consumers pursuant to such contracts.  The Plaintiffs are ignorant
of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

Toyota Motor removed the lawsuit on June 15, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San Mateo, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
federal question jurisdiction exists for the Plaintiffs' claims
necessarily depend on resolution of questions of federal law.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-03104 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael R. Wendlberger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL R. WENDLBERGER
          1670 S. Amphlett Blvd., Ste. 214
          San Mateo, CA 94402
          Telephone: (650) 378-2404
          Facsimile: (650) 378-2405
          E-mail: mike@mrwesq.com

               - and -

          Louis A. Liberty, Esq.
          LOUIS A. LIBERTY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          370 Bridge Parkway
          Redwood City, CA 94063
          Telephone: (650) 341-0300
          Facsimile: (650) 341-0302
          E-mail: info@carlawyer.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anna S. McLean, Esq.
          Lai L. Yip, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
          E-mail: amclean@sheppardmullin.com
                  lyip@sheppardmullin.com


UNITED STATES: Gov't. Has Immunity From Guatemala Syphilis Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States has immunity from a class action related to the government-
sponsored infection of hundreds of Guatemalans with syphilis, a
federal judge ruled, calling the study "a deeply troubling chapter
in our nation's history."

During the 40 years that the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory
within the U.S. Public Health Service conducted limited
experiments on black men already infected with syphilis in
Tuskegee, Ala., it also secretly infected other human subjects.
The agency set its sights on Guatemala after unsuccessfully trying
to infect prisoners at a Terre Haute, Ind., federal penitentiary
with gonorrhea, according to the March 2011 complaint.

A Presidential Commission of the Study of Bioethical Issues,
convened by President Barack Obama in 2010, confirmed these
claims.

"From 1946 to 1953, officials from the United States Public Health
Service and the Pan American Sanitary Bureau conducted medical
studies in Guatemala that 'involved deliberate infection of people
with sexually transmitted diseases ("STDs") without their
consent,'" the complaint states, quoting the commission's report.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said the facts troubled him but
that he had no choice but to dismiss the claims.

"As the plaintiffs assert, and the defendants acknowledge, the
Guatemala Study is a deeply troubling chapter in our nation's
history," Judge Walton wrote.  "Yet . . . this court is powerless
to provide any redress to the plaintiffs.  Their pleas are more
appropriately directed to the political branches of our
government, who, if they choose, have the ability to grant some
modicum of relief to those affected by the Guatemala Study."

The surviving victims of the study and the heirs of the dead filed
the complaint against several U.S. officials including U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius,
Surgeon General Regina Benjamin and Mirta Roses Periago, director
of the Pan-American Health Organization, formally the Pan-American
Sanitary Bureau.

"While implicitly acknowledging that none of the nine defendants
had any involvement in the Guatemala Study, which ended in the
1950s, the plaintiffs maintain that the defendants 'are liable
under the principles of successor liability for the acts of their
predecessor office-holders,'" according to the court.

The start of the Guatemala study in 1946 belied growing contempt
over similar experiments conducted in Nazi concentration camps
around that time.

Scientists allegedly orchestrated the experiments to study
penicillin treatments, while hoping to discover another cure.

Among hundreds of Guatemalan test subjects were 438 orphaned
children, the class claimed.

Though statutory and sovereign immunity prevents the court from
granting relief, Judge Walton urged the government to make things
right for the victims of the study.

"It appears that those remedial efforts may be forthcoming, based
on the United States' representation to the court that it 'is
committed to taking appropriate steps to address' the 'terrible
wrong[s]' that occurred in Guatemala," Judge Walton wrote.  "This
lawsuit, however, is simply not the appropriate vehicle for
remedying those wrongs."

The Guatemala experimentation was brought to light by Professor
Susan Reverby, a medical historian with Wellesley College.
President Barack Obama and two Cabinet secretaries apologized to
the Guatemalan government and people in October 2010.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Garcia, et al. v. Sebelius,
Case No. 11-cv-00527 (D.D.C.), is available at:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/19/guatemalan%20syphilis.pdf


WELLPOINT INC: Former Anthem Members Part of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Shaina Cavazos, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that about
250,000 Ohio residents could be on the receiving end of a $90
million settlement of a class action lawsuit involving Anthem
Insurance Cos.

Daniel Cescato and Kevin Heekin of Cincinnati sued in 2005 on
behalf of 740,000 former members of Anthem who claimed they were
shortchanged when Anthem changed from a mutual company to a stock
company in 2001.

WellPoint Inc., Anthem's parent company, agreed to settle on
June 15.  The case was supposed to go to trial in federal court on
June 18.

Anthem representatives did not return calls on June 18 seeking
comment.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt must approve the settlement
before the plaintiffs see any money, said attorney Eric Zagrans --
eric@zagrans.com -- of Elyria, whose firm is headquartered in
Cleveland.

Mr. Zagrans said the former Anthem members did not receive the
fair value of their investments in the company when it became a
stock company.

"The court ruled that their claims of breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence against Anthem were worthy of a jury's consideration,"
Mr. Zagrans said in a statement.

The lawsuit covered residents from Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and
Connecticut.  Co-counsel Kathleen DeLaney said the settlement is
one of the largest ever reported in Indiana.

The case was originally filed in federal district court in
Cleveland, Mr. Zagrans said in an e-mail.  It was transferred to
federal court in Indiana, where WellPoint is headquartered.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Flips Damages Award vs. R.J. Reynolds
------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, on
June 13, 2012, reversed and remanded for a new trial a lower
court's decision granting damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company in a personal injury lawsuit.

R.J. Reynolds challenges the final judgment awarding Peter Mack,
Jr., as personal representative of the estate of his father Peter
Mack Sr., $510,000 in damages following a jury verdict in Mr. Mack
Jr.'s favor.  RJ Reynolds contends that the trial court erred in
excluding its alternative causation evidence, in allowing Mr. Mack
to show the jury a "day in the life" video of his father, and in
allowing Mr. Mack to use the findings as set forth in Engle v.
Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006), to establish
elements of his claims.  The Appellate Court found no abuse of
discretion as to the admission of the video and no error with
respect to the use of the Engle findings; however, the Appellate
Court, agreed with RJ Reynolds that the trial court erred in
excluding its alternative causation evidence on the basis that its
expert could not testify as to causation within a reasonable
degree of medical probability.

In June 2008, the decedent and his wife brought suit against RJ
Reynolds, seeking damages for the decedent's laryngeal cancer and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, both of which were
allegedly caused by the decedent's long history of smoking
cigarettes manufactured by RJ Reynolds.

The case R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant, v. PETER MACK,
JR., as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER MACK, SR.,
Appellee, Case No. 1D11-2448 (Fla.).  A copy of the Appellate
Court's June 13, 2012 Decision is available at http://is.gd/OFf9zb
from Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Fraud Suit v. Lawyers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Illinois
Central Railroad on its claims of fraud and breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing against Appellant-Defendants William
Guy and Thomas W. Brock.  Guy and Brock's misrepresentations
induced Illinois Central to settle asbestos exposure claims of two
former Illinois Central employees whom Guy and Brock represented
in a state-court lawsuit.  On appeal, Guy and Brock contend that
the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and alternatively that the
case called for so-called Burford abstention under Burford v. Sun
Oil Co.  They also contend that the trial evidence established
their statute-of-limitations and waiver defenses as a matter of
law.

In a June 13, 2012 decision, the United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit, affirmed the district court's judgment holding that
Guy and Brock misconceive the legal authorities relevant to their
jurisdiction, abstention, and waiver arguments.  Regarding the
statute of limitations issue, the Appellate Court concluded that a
reasonable jury could have found for Illinois Central.

The case is ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee
v. WILLIAM GUY; THOMAS W. BROCK, Defendants-Appellants, No.
10-61006, Consolidated with No. 11-60122 (5th Cir.).  A copy of
the Fifth Circuit's June 13, 2012 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/IIfpcdfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules for Perini in Casey Exposure Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four,
in a June 13, 2012 decision, affirmed a trial court's decision
granting summary judgment to respondent Perini Corporation,
resulting in the dismissal of an asbestos action filed against it
by appellant Patricia Casey and her late husband John Casey.  On
appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred by failing
to find that Perini did not meet its initial burden of production
of evidence in support of its summary judgment motion, by
improperly excluding from evidence their expert witness
declaration, and by disregarding their evidence that Perini
exposed Casey to asbestos.

In affirming the lower court's decision, the Appellate Court
concluded that missing from the "circumstantial evidence" claimed
by the Appellant is any connection between Perini's activities and
Casey's exposure to asbestos.

The case is PATRICIA CASEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PERINI
CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, No. A131881 (Calif. App.
Ct.).  A copy of the Appellate Court's June 13, 2012 Decision is
available at http://is.gd/li3Wyafrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms WCB's Judgment v. Employer
------------------------------------------------------------
In 1994, Kenneth Kirisits applied for workers' compensation
disability benefits following his retirement.  A claim for
occupational disease due to exposure to asbestos was established,
with a disability date of 1993, based upon a diagnosis of pleural
asbestosis resulting from his exposure to asbestos fibers during
the course of his employment.  No compensable lost time was found
and reimbursement relief was set pursuant to Workers' Compensation
Law Sec. 15 (8) (ee).  Decedent died in 2008 and claimant,
decedent's widow, filed a claim for workers' compensation death
benefits alleging that decedent died of mesothelioma due to long-
term occupational exposure to asbestos.  The employer and its
workers' compensation carrier sought to shift liability for that
claim to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases pursuant to Workers'
Compensation Law Sec. 25-a, claiming that more than seven years
had elapsed since the establishment of the underlying disability
claim.  Ultimately, the Workers' Compensation Board, reversing the
decision of the Workers' Compensation Law Judge, discharged the
Special Fund from liability upon a finding that Workers'
Compensation Law Sec. 25-a is inapplicable because the death
benefit claim is based on a new occupational disease that is
separate and distinct from the workers' compensation disability
claim.  The employer now appeals.

In a June 14, 2012 decision, the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York, Third Department, affirmed the decision of the
Workers' Compensation Board holding that there is nothing in the
medical records in the case to indicate a causal connection
between the pleural disease and the diagnosis of mesothelioma in
order trigger the seven-year time period set forth in Workers'
Compensation Law Sec. 25-a so as to shift liability to the Special
Fund.

The case is FAITH KIRISITS, Respondent, v. DUREZ
PLASTICS/OCCIDENTAL ET AL., Appellants, AND SPECIAL FUND FOR
REOPENED CASES, Respondent, WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD,
Respondent, 513984 (N.Y.).  A copy of the June 14, 2012 Decision
is available at http://is.gd/bALqt0from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Junks Deposition Notices to Doucet Defendants
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sunsoon Doucet alleges that her late husband, Richard
Doucet, developed lung cancer as a result of his exposure to
asbestos-containing products sold, supplied, manufactured, and
distributed by the defendants.  Mr. Doucet passed away during the
pendency of the litigation, prior to being deposed.  Plaintiff
asserts that Mr. Doucet "was exposed to defendants' asbestos
products throughout his lifetime."  Currently before the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are
various motions related to 12 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices
served by Plaintiff on February 23, 2012.  The deposition notices
were addressed to different Defendants, and all 12 scheduled
depositions to occur on the same date at the same time at the law
firm of Plaintiffs Counsel.  The 12 notices were identical, all
seeking testimony from the person most knowledgeable to testify on
the defendant's behalf.

In a June 13, 2012 decision, Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
denied most of the deposition notices except for the notice for
Elliott Company because it has acknowledged that there has been
product identification.

For all other named defendants, the magistrate judge said
discovery has closed and there is no evidence that the decedent
worked on or around any asbestos-containing product of these
Defendants.  Plaintiff is not entitled to testimony of a corporate
representative without some evidence to connect a particular
product/products of Defendants to Mr. Doucet's alleged asbestos
exposure, he added.  Noticing a 30(b)(6) deposition to obtain
testimony from a defendant identifying all products it supplied,
sold or distributed to various worksites where the decedent was
present over an approximate 35 year period is not proper, he
concluded.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No.
IV). SUNSOON DOUCET, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD, et al.,
Consolidated Under MDL Docket No. 875, E.D. PA Civil Action No.
11-cv-67223, Transfer Court No. CA-C 11-05845 (E.D. Pa.).  Copies
of Magistrate Judge Angell's June 13, 2012 Memorandum and Order
are available at http://is.gd/5BShspand http://is.gd/No4k4kfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couscouris Asbestos Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 22, 2011, Dimitris and Magdalena Couscouris filed an
action in state court against nine defendants seeking damages
resulting from Mr. Couscouris's mesothelioma, which they allege
was caused by his exposure to asbestos.  The Complaint asserts
three claims under state law: (1) negligence, (2) strict
liability, and (3) loss of consortium.  Defendants moved the
action to the federal court.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand.

In a June 14, 2012 decision, Judge George H. King of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
granted the motion to remand after concluding that it has no
subject matter jurisdiction over the case under Sec. 1332 of Title
28 of the U.S. Code.

The case is Dimitris O. Cousouris, et al., v. Hatch Grinding
Wheels, Inc., et al., No. CV 12-4464-GHK (AGRx)(Calif.).  A copy
of Judge King's June 14 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/zDbk8Jfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Asbestos Reserves Reached $499.9MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012, disclosed that its gross reserves for asbestos and
environmental impairment exposure reached $499.9 million.

The Company states: "On November 20, 2011, we entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the "Merger Agreement," with our
wholly-owned subsidiary, Shoreline Merger Sub, LLC (subsequently
converted into a corporation), or "Merger Sub," and Transatlantic
Holdings, Inc., or "Old Transatlantic." On March 6, 2012, or the
"Acquisition Date," Old Transatlantic was merged with (the
"merger") and into Merger Sub, which was renamed Transatlantic
Holdings, Inc., or "Transatlantic," and became our wholly-owned
subsidiary.

"Loss and loss adjustment expense (LAE) include amounts for risks
relating to asbestos-related illnesses and environmental
impairment. As of March 31, 2012, such gross and net reserves were
$499.9 million and $388.9 million, respectively, of which $486.3
million and $375.3 million, respectively, related to
Transatlantic.  The reserves carried for such claims, including
the IBNR portion, are based upon known facts and current law at
the respective balance sheet dates. However, significant
uncertainty exists in determining the amount of ultimate liability
for asbestos-related and environmental impairment losses,
particularly for those occurring in 1985 and prior, which
represents the majority of Transatlantic's asbestos-related
illness and environmental impairment reserves. This uncertainty is
due to inconsistent court resolutions and judicial interpretations
with respect to underlying policy intent and coverage and
uncertainties as to the allocation of responsibility for resultant
damages, among other reasons. Further, possible changes in
statutes, laws, regulations, theories of liability and other
factors that could have a material effect on these liabilities
and, accordingly, future earnings."

Alleghany Corporation is engaged in the property and casualty
reinsurance and insurance business. Reinsurance business is
conducted through certain subsidiaries of Alleghany's wholly-owned
subsidiary Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., which was acquired on
March 6, 2012. Insurance business is conducted through certain
subsidiaries of Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Had $157.3MM Insurance at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012, disclosed it had $157.3 million insurance for
asbestos-related claims.

The Company states: "The historical business operations of Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC ("GST LLC") and The Anchor Packing
Company ("Anchor") have resulted in a substantial volume of
asbestos litigation in which plaintiffs have alleged personal
injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers. Those
subsidiaries manufactured and/or sold industrial sealing products,
predominately gaskets and packing, that contained encapsulated
asbestos fibers. Anchor is an inactive and insolvent indirect
subsidiary of Coltec Industries Inc ("Coltec"). The Company's
subsidiaries' exposure to asbestos litigation and their
relationships with insurance carriers have been managed through
another Coltec subsidiary, Garrison Litigation Management Group,
Ltd. ("Garrison"). GST LLC, Anchor and Garrison are collectively
referred to as "GST."

"On June 5, 2010, GST commenced an asbestos claims resolution
process under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

"As a result of the initiation of the Chapter 11 proceedings, the
resolution of asbestos claims is subject to the jurisdiction of
the Bankruptcy Court. The filing of the Chapter 11 cases
automatically stayed the prosecution of pending asbestos bodily
injury and wrongful death lawsuits, and initiation of new such
lawsuits, against GST. Further, the Bankruptcy Court issued an
order enjoining plaintiffs from bringing or further prosecuting
asbestos products liability actions against affiliates of GST,
including EnPro, Coltec and all their subsidiaries, during the
pendency of the Chapter 11 proceedings, subject to further order.
GST LLC and Anchor were among a large number of defendants in
actions filed in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers. Among the many
products at issue in these actions are industrial sealing
products, including gaskets and packing. The damages claimed
varied from action to action.

"During the pendency of the Chapter 11 proceedings, certain
actions proposed to be taken by GST not in the ordinary course of
business will be subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court. As a
result, during the pendency of these proceedings, we will not have
exclusive control over these companies. Accordingly, under GAAP,
our investment in GST was deconsolidated from our financial
results beginning on the Petition Date. Our recorded asbestos
liability as of the Petition Date was $472.1 million.

"Of the more than 90,000 open cases at the Petition Date, we are
aware of approximately 4,900 that involve claimants alleging
mesothelioma. A large majority of the amount of settlement
payments made by GST LLC in recent years have been paid in
connection with mesothelioma claims.

"The asbestos in products formerly sold by GST LLC and Anchor was
encapsulated, which means the asbestos fibers incorporated into
the products during the manufacturing process were sealed in
binders.  The products were also nonfriable, which means they
could not be crumbled by hand pressure.  The U.S. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, which began generally requiring
warnings on asbestos-containing products in 1972, has never
required that a warning be placed on products such as GST LLC's
gaskets.  Even though no warning label was required, GST LLC
included one on all of its asbestos-containing products beginning
in 1978.  Further, gaskets such as those previously manufactured
and sold by GST LLC are one of the few asbestos-containing
products still permitted to be manufactured under regulations of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Nevertheless, GST LLC
discontinued all manufacture and distribution of asbestos-
containing products in the U.S. during 2000 and worldwide in mid-
2001.

"GST LLC won reversals of adverse verdicts in one of two recent
appellate decisions. In September 2011, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned a $500,000 verdict
against GST LLC that was handed down in 2009 by a Kentucky federal
court jury.  The federal appellate court found that GST LLC's
motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted
because the evidence was not sufficient to support a determination
of liability.  The Sixth Circuit's chief judge wrote that, "On the
basis of this record, saying that exposure to Garlock gaskets was
a substantial cause of [claimant's] mesothelioma would be akin to
saying that one who pours a bucket of water into the ocean has
substantially contributed to the ocean's volume."  In May 2011, a
three-judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld GST
LLC's $700,000 share of a jury verdict, which included punitive
damages, in a lung cancer case against GST LLC in Kentucky state
court.  GST LLC has appealed that decision further.  At March 31,
2012, three additional GST LLC appeals are pending from adverse
decisions totaling $2.4 million.

"At March 31, 2012, we had $157.3 million of insurance coverage we
believe is available to cover current and future asbestos claims
against GST LLC and certain expense payments. GST has collected
insurance payments totaling $37.3 million since the Petition
Date."

EnPro Industries, Inc., is a leader in the design, development,
manufacturing and marketing of proprietary engineered industrial
products that primarily include sealing products, self-
lubricating, non-rolling bearing products, precision engineered
components and lubrication systems for reciprocating compressors,
and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel
reciprocating engines, including parts and services for engines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Paid $3MM to Settle Claims in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012, the Company paid $3 million to settle outstanding
claims in the first quarter.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is one of many defendants in a
substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States
by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a
U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in
1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this
U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into
Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and
Wyoming enacted legislation that limits asbestos-related
liabilities under state law of companies such as Crown Cork that
allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors
by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with
asbestos.  The legislation, which applies to future and, with the
exception of Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming,
pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the fair
market value of the predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for
inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-
related claims than the total value of its predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has integrated the legislation
into its claims defense strategy.  The Company cautions, however,
that the legislation may be challenged and there can be no
assurance regarding the ultimate effect of the legislation on
Crown Cork.

In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related
liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork.  The Texas Supreme Court held
that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June of
2003.  The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme
Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas
legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against
Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its
accrual, continues to assign no value to claims filed after
June 11, 2003.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld. Adverse rulings in cases challenging the constitutionality
of the Pennsylvania statute could have a material impact on the
Company.

During the three months ended March 31, 2012, the Company paid $3
million to settle outstanding claims.

As of March 31, 2012, the Company's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $246 million,
including $192 million for unasserted claims. The Company's
accrual includes estimated probable costs for claims through the
year 2021. The Company's accrual excludes potential costs for
claims beyond 2021 because the Company believes that the key
assumptions underlying its accrual are subject to greater
uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.

Crown Holdings, Inc., is engaged in the design, manufacture and
sale of packaging products for consumer goods. Its primary
products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage,
household and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures
and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Had $803MM Reserves at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2012, that it has recorded reserves, including
reserves related to the asbestos-related injuries and damages
claims, of $803 million.

Duke Energy Carolinas LLC has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages
for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or
use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to
1985.  As of March 31, 2012, there were 175 asserted claims for
non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $46
million, and 47 asserted claims for malignant cases with the
cumulative relief sought of up to $17 million. Based on Duke
Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate
resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the
amount claimed.

Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke
Energy Carolinas in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets totaled $789 million and $801 million as of March 31, 2012
and December 31, 2011, respectively, and are classified in Other
within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within
Current Liabilities.

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover
certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages
above an aggregate self insured retention of $476 million.

Duke Energy Ohio Inc. has been named as a defendant or
co-defendant in lawsuits related to asbestos at its electric
generating stations.  The impact on Duke Energy Ohio's
consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial
position of these cases to date has not been material.

Duke Energy has recorded reserves, including reserves related to
the asbestos-related injuries and damages claims, of $803 million
and $810 million as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011,
respectively, for these proceedings and exposures (the total of
which is primarily related to Duke Energy Carolinas).  These
reserves represent management's best estimate of probable loss as
defined in the accounting guidance for contingencies.  Duke Energy
has insurance coverage for certain of these losses incurred.  As
of both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, Duke Energy
recognized $813 million of probable insurance recoveries related
to these losses (the total of which is related to Duke Energy
Carolinas).

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina. Duke Energy operates in the United
States (U.S.) primarily through its direct and indirect wholly
owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy
Carolinas), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio), which
includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy Kentucky), and
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana), as well as in
Latin America through International Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Centerpoint Energy Still Faces Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, and Centerpoint Energy
Resources Corp. in each of their Form 10-Q filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012, disclose that they continue to defend asbestos-
related claims.

Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy contain or have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials.  CenterPoint Energy or its subsidiaries, including
CenterPoint Houston and CERC, have been named, along with numerous
others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a number of
individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos.  Some of
the claimants have worked at locations owned by CenterPoint Energy
or CenterPoint Houston or CERC, but most existing claims relate to
facilities previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's other
subsidiaries or CenterPoint Houston or CERC's subsidiaries, but
currently owned by NRG Texas LP.  CenterPoint Energy anticipates
that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the
future.  In 2004 and early 2005, CenterPoint Energy sold its
generating business, to which most of these claims relate, to a
company which is now an affiliate of NRG. Under the terms of the
arrangements regarding separation of the generating business from
CenterPoint Energy and its sale of that business, ultimate
financial responsibility for uninsured losses from claims relating
to the generating business has been assumed by the NRG affiliate,
but CenterPoint Energy has agreed to continue to defend such
claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
CenterPoint Energy, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such
defense by the NRG affiliate.  Although their ultimate outcome
cannot be predicted at this time, CenterPoint Houston or
CenterPoint Energy or CERC, as appropriate, intends to continue
vigorously contesting claims that are not considered to have merit
and CenterPoint Houston and CERC do not expect, based on its
experience to date, these matters, either individually or in the
aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, engages in the electric
transmission and distribution business in the Texas Gulf Coast
area that includes the city of Houston.  CenterPoint Energy
Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.) owns and operates natural gas
distribution systems (Gas Operations).  Subsidiaries of CERC Corp.
own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and
provide various ancillary services.  A wholly owned subsidiary of
CERC Corp. offers variable and fixed-price physical natural gas
supplies primarily to commercial and industrial customers and
electric and gas utilities.  CenterPoint Houston and CERC are
indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
(CenterPoint Energy), a public utility holding company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi & NL Involved in Asbestos-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc., and its subsidiary NL Industries, Inc., continue to
be involved in various asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company states: "We are involved in certain legal proceedings
with a number of our former insurance carriers regarding the
nature and extent of the carriers' obligations to us under
insurance policies with respect to certain lead pigment and
asbestos lawsuits. The issue of whether insurance coverage for
defense costs or indemnity or both will be found to exist for our
lead pigment and asbestos litigation depends upon a variety of
factors and we cannot assure you that such insurance coverage will
be available.

"We have agreements with three former insurance carriers pursuant
to which the carriers reimburse us for a portion of our future
lead pigment litigation defense costs, and one such carrier
reimburses us for a portion of our future asbestos litigation
defense costs. We are not able to determine how much we will
ultimately recover from these carriers for defense costs incurred
by us because of certain issues that arise regarding which defense
costs qualify for reimbursement. While we continue to seek
additional insurance recoveries, we do not know if we will be
successful in obtaining reimbursement for either defense costs or
indemnity. Accordingly, we recognize insurance recoveries in
income only when the receipt of the recovery is probable and we
are able to reasonably estimate the amount of the recovery.

"NL Industries, Inc., (one of the Company's subsidiaries) has been
named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions,
alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure
primarily to products manufactured by our former operations
containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, some
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various
facilities previously owned and/or operated by NL. There are 1,125
of these types of cases pending, involving a total of
approximately 2,050 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of
approximately 8,075 plaintiffs have been administratively
dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio, Indiana and
Texas state courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-
opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for
asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this
litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability
to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, we have not
been adjudicated liable in any of these matters."

Valhi, Inc., is a holding company. It operates in three segments:
Chemicals, Component Products and Waste Management.  Valhi, Inc.,
is majority owned by Contran Corporation and its subsidiaries,
which own approximately 95% of Valhi's outstanding common stock at
March 31, 2012. Substantially all of Contran's outstanding voting
stock is held by trusts established for the benefit of certain
children and grandchildren of Harold C. Simmons (for which Mr.
Simmons is the sole trustee) or is held directly by Mr. Simmons or
other persons or entities related to Mr. Simmons. Consequently,
Mr. Simmons may be deemed to control Contran and Valhi.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Still Faces Asbestos-Related Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MYR Group Inc. in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012, disclosed it remains subject to asbestos-related claims.

The Company states: "[It] is routinely subject to other civil
claims, litigation and arbitration, and regulatory investigations
arising in the ordinary course of our present business as well as
in respect of our divested businesses. Some of these include
claims related to our current services and operations, and
asbestos-related claims concerning historic operations of a
predecessor affiliate. The Company believes that it has strong
defenses to these claims as well as adequate insurance coverage in
the event any asbestos-related claim is not resolved in our favor.
These claims have not had a material impact on the Company to date
and the Company believes that the likelihood that a future
material adverse outcome will result from these claims is remote.
However, if facts and circumstances change in the future, the
Company cannot be certain that an adverse outcome of one or more
of these claims would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows."

MYR Group Inc. is a holding company of specialty electrical
construction service providers and is comprised of six operating
subsidiaries: The L. E. Myers Co., a Delaware corporation; Hawkeye
Construction, Inc., an Oregon corporation; Harlan Electric
Company, a Michigan corporation; Sturgeon Electric Company, Inc.,
a Michigan corporation; MYR Transmission Services, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; and Great Southwestern Construction, Inc., a
Colorado corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany International Defending 4,440 Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in
various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that
they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products that it previously manufactured.

The Company states: "We produced asbestos-containing paper machine
clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from
1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics
generally had a useful life of three to twelve months.

The Company was defending 4,440 claims as of April 25, 2012,
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.

"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.

"Exposure and disease information sufficiently meaningful to
estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is
typically not available until late in the discovery process, and
often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand
has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a
meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible
loss with respect to pending or future claims.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer,
Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements
under a standard reservation of rights. As of April 25, 2012, we
had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 36,320 claims.
The total cost of resolving all claims was $8,628,500. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The Company
has approximately $130 million in confirmed insurance coverage
that should be available with respect to current and future
asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that we
should be able to access.

"Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), a subsidiary of
Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a
separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany
is named as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,874
claims as of April 25, 2012.

"We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner Systems
Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney
Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the
assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's
wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had sold, among
other things, dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its
parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer
fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset purchase, none
of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon did not
manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it does not
believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise
responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products
manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the
claims that have been asserted against it. As of April 25, 2012,
Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 9,725
claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance carriers
initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and
defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the
standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs
had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's
insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and
defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard
reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity
and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these
proceedings.

"In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a
direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount
Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from
Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by
asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount
Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any
liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for
products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the
Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification
obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims.
On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a
number of actions."

Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material
processing company. The Company's business is a producer of
custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and
paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to
manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to
heavyweight containerboard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Continues to Defend Asbestos Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation, Union Electric Company or Ameren Missouri,
Ameren Illinois Company, Ameren Energy Generating Company or Genco
disclose in their Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012,
that they continue to defend asbestos-related litigation.

The Company states: "Ameren, Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois and
Electric Energy, Inc. ("EEI"), an 80%-owned subsidiary of Genco,
have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of
lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury
from asbestos exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court
of Madison County, Illinois. The total number of defendants named
in each case varies, with as many as 272 parties named in some
pending cases and as few as two in others. In the cases pending as
of March 31, 2012, the average number of parties was 82.

"The claims filed against Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois allege injury from asbestos exposure during the
plaintiffs' activities at our present or former electric
generating plants. Certain former Ameren Illinois energy centers
are now owned by either Genco or AERG. As a part of the transfer
of energy center ownership in 2000 and 2003, Ameren Illinois
contractually agreed to indemnify Genco and AERG, respectively,
for liabilities associated with asbestos-related claims arising
from activities prior to each transfer. Each lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages that, if awarded at trial, typically would be
shared among the various defendants.

"Pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Ameren
Companies as of March 31, 2012:

     Ameren                   4
     Ameren Missouri         59
     Ameren Illinois         81
     Genco                   (b)
     Total(a)               101

     (a) Total does not equal the sum of the subsidiary unit
         lawsuits because some of the lawsuits name multiple
         Ameren entities as defendants.

     (b) As of March 31, 2012, six asbestos-related lawsuits were
         pending against EEI. The general liability insurance
         maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to
         liabilities arising from asbestos-related claims.

"At March 31, 2012, Ameren, Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois and
Genco had liabilities of $19 million, $7 million, $12 million, and
$- million, respectively, recorded to represent their estimate of
their obligations related to asbestos claims.

Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of
asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following
terms: 90% of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included
in base electric rates are to be recovered from a trust fund that
was established when Ameren acquired IP. At March 31, 2012, the
trust fund balance was $23 million, including accumulated
interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base
rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference to
the trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed
cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered
through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider.
Following the Ameren Illinois Merger, this rider is applicable
only for claims that occurred within IP's historical service
territory. Similarly, the rider will permit recovery only from
customers within IP's historical service territory."

Ameren Corporation, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a
public utility holding company under PUHCA 2005, administered by
FERC. Ameren's primary assets are the common stock of its
subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal From PI Settlement Plan Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air 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 appeals from an order confirming
the settlement of asbestos-related claims against it remain
pending with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company states: "On November 27, 2002, we reached an agreement
in principle with the Committees appointed to represent asbestos
claimants in the bankruptcy case of W. R. Grace & Co., known as
Grace, to resolve all current and future asbestos-related claims
made against the Company and our affiliates in connection with the
Cryovac transaction (as memorialized by the parties in the
Settlement agreement and as approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the
"Settlement agreement"). The Settlement agreement will also
resolve the fraudulent transfer claims and successor liability
claims, as well as indemnification claims by Fresenius Medical
Care Holdings, Inc. and affiliated companies, in connection with
the Cryovac transaction. On December 3, 2002, our Board of
Directors approved the agreement in principle. We received notice
that both of the Committees had approved the agreement in
principle as of December 5, 2002. The parties subsequently signed
the definitive Settlement agreement as of November 10, 2003
consistent with the terms of the agreement in principle.

"We recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $850 million as a
result of the Settlement agreement on our condensed consolidated
statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2002.

"On June 27, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving
the Settlement agreement.

"Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants (the "ACC") and
the Asbestos PI Future Claimants' Representative (the "FCR") filed
their proposed plan of reorganization (the "Claimants' Plan") with
the Bankruptcy Court in November 2007. On April 7, 2008, Grace
issued a press release announcing that Grace, the ACC, the FCR,
and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders (the "Equity
Committee") had reached an agreement in principle to settle all
present and future asbestos-related personal injury claims against
Grace (the "PI Settlement") and disclosed a term sheet outlining
certain terms of the PI Settlement and for a contemplated plan of
reorganization that would incorporate the PI Settlement (as filed
and amended from time to time, the "PI Settlement Plan").

"On January 30, 2012, the District Court issued a memorandum
opinion (the "District Court Opinion") and confirmation order (the
"District Court Confirmation Order") overruling all objections to
the PI Settlement Plan and confirming the PI Settlement Plan in
its entirety (including the issuance of the injunction under
Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code).

"On February 2, 2012, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC filed a
motion (the "Garlock Reargument Motion") with the District Court
requesting that the District Court grant reargument, rehearing, or
otherwise amend the District Court Opinion and the District Court
Confirmation Order insofar as they overrule Garlock's objections
to the PI Settlement Plan. On February 13, 2012, the Company,
Cryovac, and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. filed a joint
motion (the "Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion") with the District
Court. The Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion does not seek to disturb
confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan but requests that the
District Court amend and clarify certain matters in the District
Court Opinion and the District Court Confirmation Order. Also on
February 13, 2012, Grace and the other proponents of the PI
Settlement Plan filed a motion (the "Plan Proponents' Motion")
with the District Court requesting certain of the same amendments
and clarifications sought by the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion. On
February 27, 2012, certain asbestos claimants known as the "Libby
Claimants" filed a response to the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion and
the Plan Proponents' Motion (the "Libby Response"). The Libby
Response does not oppose the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion or the
Plan Proponents' Motion but indicates, among other things, that:
(a) the Libby Claimants have reached a settlement in principle of
their objections to the PI Settlement Plan but that this
settlement has not become effective and (b) the Libby Claimants
reserve their rights with respect to the PI Settlement Plan
pending the effectiveness of the Libby Claimants' settlement. On
April 20, 2012, as part of a more global settlement, Grace filed a
motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking, among other things,
approval of a settlement with the Libby Claimants and BNSF. If
approved by the court and implemented, this settlement should,
among other things, result in the Libby Claimants and BNSF
withdrawing their opposition to the PI Settlement Plan. On
February 27, 2012, the District Court entered an order providing
that parties would have 30 days to file a notice of appeal of the
District Court Opinion and the District Court Confirmation Order
computed from the last date of the District Court's entry of an
order regarding any and/or all of the Garlock Reargument Motion,
the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion, and the Plan Proponents' Motion.
Also, on February 27, 2012, Garlock filed a motion (the "Garlock
Stay Motion") requesting that the District Court stay the District
Court Opinion and the District Court Confirmation Order until the
later of 14 days after the disposition of the Garlock Reargument
Motion or disposition of any timely appeal by Garlock of the
District Court Opinion and the District Court Confirmation Order.
By order dated April 10, 2012, the District Court (y) denied the
Garlock Stay Motion without prejudice based upon Grace's statement
that it would not seek to consummate the PI Settlement Plan while
the Garlock Reargument Motion was pending and (z) ordered Grace
and Garlock to appear before the District Court to address all
issues relating to the Garlock Reargument Motion. The District
Court held a hearing on May 8, 2012 to consider the Garlock
Reargument Motion. The District Court has not ruled on the Garlock
Reargument Motion, the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion, or the Plan
Proponents' Motion. The District Court has not scheduled a hearing
with respect to the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion or the Plan
Proponents' Motion and the Company does not know whether or when
such a hearing may be scheduled, whether the District Court may
instead rule on the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion or the Plan
Proponents' Motion without a hearing, or how or when the District
Court may rule with respect to such motions or the Garlock
Reargument Motion.

"Parties have also appealed the District Court Opinion and the
District Court Confirmation Order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit Court of
Appeals"). By orders dated February 23, 2012, the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals stayed appeals of the District Court Opinion and
the District Court Confirmation Order pending disposition of
motions filed in the District Court with respect to the District
Court Opinion and the District Court Confirmation Order. Although
we are optimistic that, if it were to become effective, the PI
Settlement Plan would implement the terms of the Settlement
agreement, we can give no assurance that this will be the case
notwithstanding the confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan by the
Bankruptcy Court and the District Court. The terms of the PI
Settlement Plan remain subject to amendment. Moreover, the PI
Settlement Plan is subject to the satisfaction of a number of
conditions which are more fully set forth in the PI Settlement
Plan and include, without limitation, the availability of exit
financing and the approval of the PI Settlement Plan becoming
final and no longer subject to appeal. Parties have appealed the
District Court Confirmation Order to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals or otherwise challenged the District Court Opinion and the
District Court Confirmation Order. Matters relating to the PI
Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and District Court Opinions, and
the Bankruptcy and District Court Confirmation Orders may be
subject to further appeal, challenge, and proceedings before the
District Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, or other
courts. Parties may designate various issues to be considered in
challenging the PI Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and District
Court Opinions, or the Bankruptcy and District Court Confirmation
Orders, including, without limitation, issues relating to releases
and injunctions contained in the PI Settlement Plan.
While the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court have confirmed
the PI Settlement Plan, we do not know whether or when the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals will affirm the District Court
Confirmation Order or the District Court Opinion, whether or when
the Bankruptcy and District Court Opinions or the Bankruptcy and
District Court Confirmation Orders will become final and no longer
subject to appeal, or whether or when a final plan of
reorganization (whether the PI Settlement Plan or another plan of
reorganization) will become effective. Assuming that a final plan
of reorganization (whether the PI Settlement Plan or another plan
of reorganization) is confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and the
District Court, and does become effective, we do not know whether
the final plan of reorganization will be consistent with the terms
of the Settlement agreement or if the other conditions to our
obligation to pay the Settlement agreement amount will be met. If
these conditions are not satisfied or not waived by us, we will
not be obligated to pay the amount contemplated by the Settlement
agreement. However, if we do not pay the Settlement agreement
amount, we will not be released from the various asbestos related,
fraudulent transfer, successor liability, and indemnification
claims made against us and all of these claims would remain
pending and would have to be resolved through other means, such as
through agreement on alternative settlement terms or trials. In
that case, we could face liabilities that are significantly
different from our obligations under the Settlement agreement. We
cannot estimate at this time what those differences or their
magnitude may be. In the event these liabilities are materially
larger than the current existing obligations, they could have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition
and results of operations. We will continue to review the Grace
bankruptcy proceedings (including appeals and other proceedings
relating to the PI Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and District
Court Opinions, and the Bankruptcy and District Court Confirmation
Orders), as well as any amendments or changes to the PI Settlement
Plan or to Bankruptcy and District Court Opinions and Confirmation
Orders, to verify compliance with the Settlement agreement."

A copy of the Company's SEC filing is available at:

                        http://is.gd/2U4yiT

Sealed Air Corporation is a global leader in food safety and
security, facility hygiene and product protection. It serves an
array of end markets including food and beverage processing, food
service, retail, health care and industrial, commercial and
consumer applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $2MM Asbestos-Related Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., had reserves of $2.0
million in the first quarter relating to unfavorable development
in the asbestos and environmental lines, 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: "We have discontinued underwriting certain
lines of business, including certain workers compensation and non
proportional property catastrophe programs. Also included in the
Run-off Lines segment are liabilities associated with other
liability policies written in the 1970s and into the 1980s, and
include asbestos and environmental liabilities as well as medical
malpractice liabilities. As we no longer actively underwrite
business within these programs, all current activity is related to
the management of claims and other administrative functions.

"Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the three months ended
March 31, 2012 included $2.0 million of net unfavorable loss
reserve development on prior accident years due to strengthening
the reserve for unallocated loss adjustment expenses. Losses and
loss adjustment expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2011
included $2.5 million of net unfavorable loss reserve development
on prior accident years due to $2.0 million of unfavorable
development in the asbestos and environmental lines due to the
settlement of a disputed reisurance recoverable balance, $0.6
million of unfavorable development related to risk management run-
off reserves partially offset by $0.1 million of favorable
development on legacy PXRE claims."

Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. (Argo Group) is an
international underwriter of specialty insurance and reinsurance
products in the property and casualty market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Theft Added to List of DEP Charges v. Site Owner
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David F. Robinson of the Morning Sentinel reports that the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection is moving forward with
fines and other steps it hopes will pressure two private companies
to finish removing asbestos from a demolition site on Depot
Street.

Because the site's cleanup already has been delayed for nearly a
year, however, the state agency also is preparing to take over the
asbestos removal if the companies' owners fail to act in the near
future, according to Samantha Depoy-Warren, spokeswoman for the
agency.

Meanwhile, a long list of violations and other problems tied to
the demolition site still hinder these ongoing attempts by the
state agency to reach an agreement with the owners, she said.

One of the principal owners, Ryan Byther, was convicted recently
on a theft charge involving his work on an unrelated building
project, Depoy-Warren said.  His conviction and subsequent jail
sentence has made resolving the asbestos removal in Wilton even
harder, she said.

Byther, 36, of Scarborough, was sentenced late last month to six
months in jail for stealing $50,000 from American Legion Post 56
in York in connection with his work as a general contractor hired
by the group, according to the state Attorney General's Office.

Byther is the general contractor who remains primarily responsible
for the Wilton demolition project, which already has been cited
for many violations by state and federal agencies, Depoy-Warren
said.  He was working on the demolition project under the company
name Downeast Construction, which is among several company names
Byther associates himself with on various projects, she said.

Before the recent conviction of Byther, the DEP started working
with the Attorney General's Office to seek a consent agreement for
the asbestos removal project.  That process would consist of
Byther and the owner of the other responsible company, Wilton
Recycling LLC, settling their previous fines tied to the
demolition project and voluntarily cleaning up the contaminated
site.

Wilton Recycling LLC owns the demolition site and Downeast
Construction purchased the salvage rights, which are tied to
selling materials from the demolition project.

Depoy-Warren noted that the consent agreement is the final step
before the agency takes over the asbestos removal and brings the
owners to court to recover the cost.  She added that the agency
spent about 12 months trying to avoid litigation, because it can
complicate the cleanup process further.

Byther has not returned requests for comment from the Morning
Sentinel over the past 12 months.  Michael Whipple, the Portland
attorney who represented him during the recent trial York County
Superior Court, said that Byther will begin serving his jail
sentence in late June.

The attorney said that he represented Byther only in the York
County case.  Whipple declined to comment on the Wilton site, and
Byther didn't respond to attempts to contact him.

Byther and the principal owner of Wilton Recycling LLC, Adam Mack,
previously cooperated with the DEP's initial efforts to remove the
harmful, cancer-causing building material found at the complex of
vacant manufacturing buildings on Depot Street.

A state-licensed cleanup last fall removed hazardous materials
from piles of debris scattered among the partially demolished
buildings.  Depoy-Warren said the DEP didn't take over the project
earlier because the remaining asbestos was secured inside the
buildings and the site was fenced off.

The initial cleanup stalled in August.  Mack has told the DEP he
is seeking additional financing to resume the cleanup, Depoy-
Warren said.  Mack, a former Republican state representative for
Standish, has not returned requests for comment in recent months.

Both Downeast Construction and Wilton Recycling LLC face fines
after the DEP accused them of breaking asbestos removal laws tied
to the initial demolition work at the Wilton site.

The companies are accused of breaking Maine laws, with the alleged
violations happening before a federal agency reported July 19 that
construction workers and emergency responders may have been
exposed to dangerously high levels of asbestos at the site.

Byther voluntarily pulled his workers from the demolition site
after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration reported
finding high levels of asbestos.

OSHA also continues to seek payment of $154,200 in fines for
numerous workplace safety violations cited against Downeast
Construction, according to William Coffin, the federal labor
agency's area director in Maine.

Coffin declined to comment on how Byther's recent conviction
affects payment of fines owed to OSHA, saying the agency has
achieved its primary goal of ensuring people were no longer
working in unsafe conditions at the Wilton site.

Work at the site, which formerly housed Forster Mill, has been
stalled since last fall.  In March, Wilton residents also voted to
keep the town from taking ownership of the contaminated parcel,
which owed about $4,000 in unpaid property taxes and interest.

Bob Rickett, whose asbestos removal company handled the initial
cleanup, said this week he is pursuing a lawsuit against Byther
and Mack.  He said they still owe $75,000 to his Abatement
Professionals company for the initial removal.

Depoy-Warren said this week that the DEP will work in the coming
weeks to reach a deal with Mack and Byther.  She would not give a
timetable for when the agency would intervene at the site, saying
the consent agreement process should be finished "within the next
few weeks," regardless of Byther's recent conviction.

According to an attorney general's news release about the
unrelated theft conviction, Byther told American Legion officials
he was an experienced professional fundraiser who could manage
their $2 million fundraising campaign for a building project in
early 2008.

During the trial, state prosecutors showed that Byther had no such
experience and never had been licensed as a professional
fundraiser in Maine, the release states.

Byther never raised any funds for the group.  He instead spent a
$50,000 retainer they paid him on his other business pursuits and
expenses, including the Prost Tap House and Club Onyx, a bar and
nightclub that he opened in June 2008 in Portland's Old Port
district, and that failed several months later, the release
states.

He was sentenced to five years of incarceration with all but six
months suspended, the release states, adding he faces a three-year
probation period and was ordered to pay $50,000 in restitution,
along with other conditions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lethal Fibro Still Present in Northampton Library
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Shortell of The Express-Times reports that the Northampton
County Courthouse's law library is once again sealed off after
employees found dust containing asbestos on Wednesday, June 6.

The room was open on June 4 and 5, after being closed since last
year due to asbestos concerns.  The county spent more than
$140,000 for Prism, an environmental remediation company, to clean
the hazardous materials from the library and for SSM Group, the
county's asbestos consultant, to supervise the work over several
weeks.  Tom Harp, director of administration, said the library
only needed to be refurbished before it was operational.

However, County Executive John Stoffa said on June 8 that workers
found a thin, two-foot-long strip of white dust on a shelf after
the items on top of it were removed.  Tests of the material found
it was 15 percent asbestos, Stoffa said.  The library is now
closed off again and will remain closed until Prism and SSM Group
can again wipe down the library.

Stoffa said he was confident the two companies will remove the
remaining asbestos from the room.  He also said no one was placed
at risk when the library was open on the first two days of
criminal week, two of the busiest days of the month in the
courthouse.

Northampton County Controller Stephen Barron and a group of
employees contacted the Environmental Protection Agency last year,
saying the county was not taking air quality concerns at the
courthouse seriously.  The EPA launched an investigation, but the
federal agency has not released any findings or updates since last
year.  An EPA spokeswoman said earlier this week the lead
investigator died in the last month after a prolonged illness.

Ted Harris, a county maintenance mechanic who has lobbied county
council to take stronger action, said the county denied an
employee safety board he serves on permission to be involved in
the cleanup of the law library.  The group was involved in the
removal of asbestos from the basement of Gracedale, where there
have not been complaints.

"We were not involved in these final meetings or final scope of
work.  Perhaps some of this could have been avoided," Harris said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW to Spend AU$60MM on Police Stations Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heath Aston of The Sunday Morning Herald reports that the NSW
government will reinforce the frontline of police by recruiting
220 new officers and will spend AU$60 million to remove asbestos
from stations across the state.

The promise to increase the police force headcount to more than
16,300, with a total of 400 new police over four years, was to be
delivered on Tuesday's (June 12) budget, The Sun-Herald
understands.

On top of the AU$60 million for removing hazardous material in
stations, AU$34 million will be pledged for new stations and
upgraded facilities and AU$18 million for fire stations.

Government sources said money on police stations would go to
Moree, Parkes, Tweed Heads, Walgett, Coffs Harbour and Riverstone.

The 220 police officers, slated for local area commands across the
state over the next year, are on top of the 150 officers who
joined in 2011-12.

The Coalition came to government promising 550 new police, five
new police stations and 25 mobile command vehicles by June 2014.
So far, no new stations have been delivered, a backlog of
hazardous material needing remediation taking precedence.

Along with health, the police portfolio under Mike Gallacher is
likely to be spared the cuts to hit other departments.  But it is
feared the mooted 10,000 public service job cuts will keep police
behind the desk dealing with paperwork for longer.

The budget will contain AU$14 million to "better rehabilitate
injured officers" after the government controversially slashed the
generous police death and disability scheme, which cut the cost to
government from AU$760 million a year to about AU$70 million.

Other spending will include AU$115 million over four years for the
new police transport command and AU$14 million for equipment and
fleet upgrades.

The Labor opposition has accused the O'Farrell government of
bleeding western Sydney police stations to add numbers in
overstretched regional areas.  When it left office, Labor claimed
to have added 1500 police in five years.

There has also been repeated calls for the release of the full
Parsons review, which reportedly warned the Police Commissioner,
Andrew Scipione, the force has "too many officers and not enough
troops" and has "lost its concept of community service delivery".

The Treasurer Mike Baird's second budget is expected to reveal an
overall deficit for 2012-13 of AU$826 million amid crumbling
federal payments of GST.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Feud Host's Death Linked to Fibro Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sokolove Law relates that only weeks after the potentially
asbestos-related cancer death of disco icon Donna Summer, famed
television personality Richard Dawson has passed away from another
form or cancer that has also been linked to asbestos exposure.

The 79-year-old Dawson passed away from esophageal cancer that
which his family said he had only been diagnosed with three weeks
earlier.  The Institute of Medicine has found evidence that
suggests asbestos exposure can cause cancers of the pharynx,
larynx, esophagus, and other organs as well.

While initial reports of Dawson's death do not mention if asbestos
exposure could have played a role in his death, it is well known
that inhalable asbestos was a danger on the sets of many films and
television shows in the 1970s and 1980.  Football star and actor
Merlin Olsen sued NBC and Universal prior to his death from
mesothelioma in 2010 with claims that he was exposed to while
working on shows such as Little House on the Prairie and Father
Murphy.

Dawson was born in Britain and rose to fame in the U.S. during the
1960's with his role of Peter Newkirk in Hogan's Heroes.  Years
after the show went off-air in 1971 he reached new levels of
notoriety as the host of Family Feud from 1976 to 1985.  Aside
from his quick wit and coining of the catchphrase "Survey says..."
Dawson was perhaps best known for regularly kissing any female
show contestants for good luck.

In fact, one former Family Feud contestant, Gretchen Johnson,
became his wife in 1991, USA Today reported.

While asbestos exposure is generally known as the only cause of
mesothelioma, it isn't as commonly recognized as the cause of
other types of cancer.  If you or a loved one has been exposed to
asbestos and now suffer from an asbestos-related disease such as
mesothelioma, there may be legal options available to you.  Call
Sokolove Law today, at 800-581-6358 to learn more about what is
required to pursue a mesothelioma lawsuit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Firm Indicted Over Unlawful Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Coppock, staff writer at PhillyBurbs.com, reports that a
state grand jury has indicted two men and the demolition company
they operated on a dozen charges related to the removal of
asbestos from the former Zurbrugg Memorial Hospital.

Frank J. Rizzo, 53; Michael Kouvaras, 59; and Deuteron Capital
LLC, which was doing business as South Street Fill-it Recycling of
Riverside, N.J., removed asbestos from the site in an unlawful
manner, without a license, and employed workers who were not
trained or equipped to properly do the job, according to New
Jersey Attorney General Jeffrey S. Chiesa.

A resident of Maplewood, Essex County, Kouvaras is the owner of
South Street Fill-it Recycling.  Rizzo, of Parlin, Middlesex
County, was the project manager.

Filed and announced Wednesday, June 20, the four-count indictment
includes second-degree charges of conspiracy, unlawfully causing
the release of a toxic pollutant, and abandonment of toxic
pollutants, and a third-degree charge of violation of the Asbestos
Control and Licensing Act, for all three defendants.  The
violation stems from the allegation that the men and their company
knowingly had asbestos removal work performed without a license
from the state.

The second-degree crimes carry sentences of five to 10 years in
state prison and a fine of up to $150,000.  The third-degree
offense carries a sentence of three to five years in prison and a
fine of up to $25,000.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Sumners Jr. ordered the case to be
tried in Burlington County.

The state alleges that between August 2010 and March 2011, the
company used untrained day laborers to remove asbestos from the
hospital buildings in connection with the demolition of the
structures and to salvage copper and steel.  The work allegedly
was done without the required license from the New Jersey
Department of Labor and allegedly caused the release of asbestos
dust and debris.

The Franklin Street site is bordered by Clay and Fillmore streets,
as well as by homes that line Kossuth Street. Backyards are in
close proximity to where the demolition work was being conducted
and where piles of rubble remain.  Neighbors have said they long
suspected the presence of asbestos, and expressed concerns for
months before a state investigation was started.

In September, several neighbors approached the Township Committee
to address dust created by the demolition process that they said
was prevalent in the air and was coating their yards. South Street
representatives, who could not be reached for comment about the
criminal charges, said at the time that they were controlling
airborne dust by wetting it down.

On Tuesday, June 19, Kossuth Street resident Rebecca Eiler
recalled watching a man bury "something" on the Zurburgg site,
close to its border shared with her backyard. Her initial reaction
to the criminal charges was not surprise, but happiness.

"You think people are trained to do their jobs and do them
properly," she said.  "I'm happy something is being done. It's
almost as if justice is being served."

An engineering report on the hospital buildings, compiled prior to
the demolition, identified "extensive asbestos throughout the
structures," according to the state. The men knew asbestos was
present throughout the hospital and were aware of the dangers
involved with removing it, Chiesa said.

"We allege that they put their monetary self-interest ahead of the
health and safety of their workers and the surrounding community,"
he said in a statement. "They are charged with serious crimes."

Rizzo solicited the property owner, developer Teicher Organization
of New Brunswick, in early 2010 in a bid for a contract to
demolish the hospital and other campus buildings, state officials
said. Under its contract, South Street was to retain all the
proceeds from the recycling of metal, while arranging and paying
for the demolition, which included asbestos abatement and
disposal.

South Street initially retained a properly licensed asbestos
abatement contractor, according to the state, but paid only a
fraction of the 10% deposit required by the contractor to begin
the work.  The licensed contractor removed a small amount of
asbestos during the one day it worked at the Zurbrugg site.  The
state alleges that South Street later used day laborers, including
inmates from a work-release halfway house, Clinton House in
Trenton, to remove asbestos from some sections of the hospital.
Federal and state laws intended to prevent the release of toxic
asbestos dust and debris were not followed, the state said. In one
instance, workers stripped insulation containing asbestos from
pipes and a boiler in an effort to salvage copper pipes, wire and
other metals.

The state also alleges that workers did not wear protective
equipment. Insufficient paper masks often were removed because of
breathing difficulties. Workers put materials containing asbestos
into black plastic bags, some of which were placed in a container
provided by a waste transportation company.

Disposal manifests indicate some bags were removed by a licensed
hauler and disposed of at a lawful facility, according to the
state.

The investigation by the state Division of Criminal Justice's
Environmental Crimes Unit and the Department of Corrections'
Special Investigations Division began in early 2011, after the DOC
received a tip that inmates were being used to remove asbestos at
the site. The state's Department of Environmental Protection,
Department of Health and Senior Services, and Department of Labor
and Workforce Development assisted with the case.

Search warrants were executed March 28, 2011, at the Zurbrugg site
and South Street offices on Lafayette Street. Detectives found
materials containing asbestos on the floor of the boiler room off
Fillmore Street, 200 plastic bags of materials in a waste
container, and two bags buried in the ground that contained
asbestos tiles.

The Attorney General's Office confirmed a finding of asbestos on
the site in April 2011.  Several residents in the neighborhood
said they weren't surprised by the discovery.  At the time, DEP
personnel wearing hazmat suits were seen working at the site, and
signs were posted around its perimeter to warn people about the
asbestos hazard.

The charges announced Wednesday stem from the state's
investigation.

"Through our Environmental Crimes Unit, we have made prosecuting
polluters a high priority," said Stephen J. Taylor, director of
the Division of Criminal Justice. "The laws and regulations
governing the handling and disposal of hazardous materials, such
as asbestos, are there to protect all of us. We will come down
hard on violators who put workers and the public at risk."

The site is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 2, according to state and township
officials. Peter Aseltine, spokesman for the Attorney General's
Office, said the federal agency is still in the process of
evaluating the site, but has it earmarked for removing hazardous
materials.

In the past, Eiler said she would not allow her young daughter to
play in their yard because of potential effects from asbestos.
Although she is still concerned about future health issues that
might affect her family members, they are using the yard again.
She said the investigation, and efforts by the state and federal
environmental agencies to contain the remaining materials, have
alleviated some of her fears.

"I'm glad that they're going to do something, but I wish they
would just buy us all out of our houses," she Eiler. "There are so
many residents affected by it."

According to Ms. Coppock, messages left for Kouvaras and Rizzo's
attorney were not immediately returned. Other representatives for
South Street Fill-it Recycling could not be reached for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Closes Iqaluit Public Health Building
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports Iqaluit's public health building will be shut
down for renovations after an inspection found mould and asbestos.

Both pose a health risk for staff and patients.  Staff and
services will be moved to another location.

The building is home to Iqaluit's tuberculosis and maternal health
programs.

The problems were found after an inspection of the leaking
building.

The Government of Nunavut, in Canada, leases the building from
Coman Arctic for more than C$200,000 a year.

According to government documents, the building has been leased
until April 2014.

For now, the building remains open to the public.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Traces Found in Arkansas Neighborhood
------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth, writing for the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance, reports
that the presence of asbestos in a North Little Rock (Arkansas)
neighborhood has residents on edge, worried about the fact that
their families may have been exposed to the toxic mineral.

According to a story aired on KTHV-TV News, neighbors in an area
known as Dixie are on alert now that the Environmental Protection
Agency has found traces of asbestos in their community as well as
at nearby Conley Park and the former North Little Rock Salvage
Site.  The latter was once the location of a vermiculite
processing facility.  The vermiculite processed at the plant was
tainted with asbestos, originating at the infamous W.R. Grace and
Co. mine in Libby, Montana.  In the town of Libby, more than 400
people have already died of asbestos-related diseases such as
mesothelioma.  Thousands more are sick.

The EPA has been conducting testing in the area for nearly a year
and has determined that there is indeed asbestos present, but has
told residents that the health risk to them is "minimal."
Nevertheless, residents say they are hard-pressed to believe the
EPA, given the circumstances in Libby. Furthermore, most have been
spooked by the presence of men in hazmat suits digging through the
soil in various parts of the Dixie neighborhood and surrounding
areas. What they fear most, say some residents, is what the EPA
will find in their own front yards, and they don't think the
agency has been truthful when dealing with residents' questions.

"To me, it's a cover up. It was a lot of questions but no answers.
They could end up stricken with some sort of cancer and not even
know why," says Brigette Williams, who noted that she grew up in
the Little Rock, Arkansas Dixie neighborhood watching various
related diseases kill her acquaintances one by one.

"They was healthy people and then all of a sudden they was
stricken with cancer and then by the time they got treated, it was
too late and they ended up passing away," said Williams.

Althea Foster, a spokesperson for the EPA, says that they did
indeed find some asbestos in samples taken from the southern part
of the community, but noted that they are "actionable" and that
they plan to remove the contaminated soil. Williams and her
neighbors think it's too little, too late.

"They said it was asbestos and they claim it wasn't hazardous and
that they dug up everything that they was suppose to dug up and
they replaced it and this, this, and that but I just feel like,
you know, there's more to it than that," Williams said.

Figures show that Williams may be right. The Arkansas Health
Department has noted that over the past 10 years, some 3 percent
of Dixie residents have been diagnosed with lung cancer. However,
the department says that those numbers don't prove that asbestos
is the culprit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Readies for Bankruptcy Exit
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hall, writing for The Mesothelioma Center, reports W.R.
Grace's bankruptcy status may finally come to an end in the coming
days, according to recent reports.

After being in bankruptcy for 11 years, the company with ties to
America's most widespread asbestos contamination could potentially
exit this legal protection soon.

On January 30, Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington confirmed the
company's reorganization plan.  Under bankruptcy law, potential
appeals regarding the judge's confirmation order can be made
during a pre-determined 30-day window.

The window opened on June 11.

This means that appellants have until July 11 to file any
considerations, at which point W.R. Grace will have an additional
30 days to respond. Then the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals will
make its decision.

The company may actually be able to exit bankruptcy even before
all they are all settled, depending on the details of the appeals.
But first, the courts must receive all appeals.

During its tumultuous history, bankruptcy has protected W.R. Grace
from more than 100,000 personal injury claims, mostly centered on
asbestos-related concerns. Unfortunately, bankruptcy did not
product the countless victims affected by the company's products
and actions.

                   One Company, So Much Damage

Even though the company no long manufactures asbestos products,
its past can't escape it.  W.R. Grace owned a vermiculite mine in
Libby, Montana, between 1963 and 1990 and shipped the mineral all
over the country and throughout the world. The problem was that
much of the vermiculite was tainted with asbestos, a toxic and
naturally forming mineral.

When asbestos fibers are inhaled, they cause multiple respiratory
diseases like mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis, pleural
plaques and other conditions.

The fibers become airborne when the mineral is disturbed, through
activities such as mining, construction and others. In some cases,
these diseases don't develop until 50 years after initial
exposure.

Hundreds of the company's miners subsequently developed asbestos-
related diseases, along with hundreds of local residents.
Some estimates credit W.R. Grace for causing hundreds of deaths
and over two thousands cases of diseases.

Furthermore, through the company's mining activities, dozens of
asbestos-containing products were manufactured. These products
include High Temperature Insulating Cement, Monokote Cement,
Monokote Fireproofing, Zono-Coustic, Zonolite Acoustical
Plastic/Plaster, Zonolite Cement and many more.

The company's Zonolite Insulation product, which is believed to
contain asbestos, may potentially be in the homes of millions of
Americans.

Today, the hazards of asbestos are well-known and the material is
use in limited quantities with strict safety regulations. W.R.
Grace now focuses on the development of chemical products and is a
publicly-traded company with thousands of employees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BHP Facing Millions in Damages in Aussie Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Berkovic, writing for The Australian, reports that BHP
Billiton could face claims for millions of dollars in punitive
damages after a South Australian court ruled that it exposed its
workers to asbestos dust when it knew of the dire potential health
consequences of doing so.

Former Whyalla shipyard worker William Parker, 86, won a landmark
victory against the resources giant when the Full Court of South
Australia's Supreme Court for the first time upheld an award of
exemplary damages against a company under the state's Dust
Diseases Act.

Mr. Parker, who has asbestosis, was awarded AU$20,000 above his
claim for compensation against the company because he was able to
prove BHP knew he was at risk of exposure to asbestos dust when he
worked at its Whyalla shipyard in the 1970s, and at the time the
company was aware this could result in a dust disease. "Mr.
Parker's asbestosis cannot be said to be the result of a casual
act of negligence, or an isolated breach of duty," said the
majority judgment, handed down on Monday, June 18.

"Instead it can be said to have resulted from the systemic failure
by BHP to make its workplace safe. As we indicated earlier, by
1971 it was known that some exposure to asbestos could result in
conditions which were incurable, irreversible and possibly fatal."

Mr. Parker told The Australian on June 19 he was thrilled with the
court result and confident the case would help other victims.

"The victory is more important than the money," he said.

"I'm satisfied to know the court has come down in favour of me."

He said at the moment his condition was classified as benign, but
he lived with the constant fear that it would become malignant.

"Every day, you get a bit of pain or a bit of chestiness and you
think, 'Hello, is this mesothelioma coming on?'" he said.

Turner Freeman associate Annie Hoffman, who acted for Mr. Parker,
said the decision was important in its interpretation of the Dust
Diseases Act and would have implications for other asbestos
victims.

She said 100 other claims by asbestos victims were still before
the South Australian courts.

                    Victims Group Lauds Ruling

Nicola Gage, writing for ABC News, reports that the Asbestos
Victims Association says more people will be able to claim damages
for asbestos exposure after a former worker at the Whyalla
shipyards won a case against BHP Billiton.

Terry Miller of the victims' support group said it was an
important legal win for victims.

"Not every claim will be able to be made for exemplary damages but
it certainly opens the way now and it makes it, because of the
Supreme Court decision, it makes it more easy (sic) to claim for
that as well," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HK Agency Continues Monitoring on Borrett Road
---------------------------------------------------------------
7thspace.com posted a reprint of a question by the Hon Mrs. Regina
Ip Lau Suk-yee and written reply by Hong Kong's Secretary for the
Environment, Mr. Edward Yau, in the Legislative Council meeting on
June 20:

Question:

It has been recently reported in the press that it is suspected
that the demolition works of the former civil servant quarters on
Borrett Road in Mid-levels west did not comply with the
regulations, causing carcinogenic asbestos materials to spread to
the residential buildings, schools and kindergartens within 100
meters of the quarters, and jeopardizing public health. It has
also been reported that it is suspected that the incident is
attributable to a registered asbestos consultant (asbestos
consultant) having mistakenly reported the quarters as asbestos-
free.  According to some medical reports, asbestos is a kind of
fibre not detectable by naked eyes and can stay in air for a long
time and, if inhaled, it will reside in human bodies for years and
increase the risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma.  Other research
studies have also indicated that exposure to asbestos will
increase the risk of quite a number of cancer diseases (including
gastrointestinal cancer, colorectal cancer and cancers of the
throat, kidney, esophagus and gallbladder), and the symptoms of
asbestos-related diseases may not appear until about 10 to 40
years after the first exposure to asbestos. In this connection,
will the Government inform this Council:

     (a) given that in connection with asbestos abatement works, a
Member of this Council has asked the authorities whether they will
publish a list of the target buildings (the buildings) confirmed
to contain asbestos materials, and the authorities have replied
that they "have to observe the feelings of the owners and
occupants of the buildings concerned, and do not wish to create a
wrong impression to the public that all these buildings are
dangerous" and refused to publish the list concerned, and focusing
on the aforesaid incident of misreporting by the asbestos
consultant, whether the authorities will reconsider publishing the
list concerned to enable workers and members of the public to
understand the situation and take precautions accordingly before
carrying out maintenance works to the buildings;

     (b) of the existing licensing and examination system for
asbestos consultants; the mechanism put in place by the
authorities, apart from relying on supervision by asbestos
consultants, to ensure that the buildings are demolished in a safe
manner; and how waste materials containing asbestos are disposed
of properly;

     (c) given that the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees
General Union has pointed out that among the nearly 1,000
construction workers who underwent subsidized physical check-ups
last year, 13% have suspected lung problems, of the total numbers
of confirmed cases of asbestosis and mesothelioma in Hong Kong in
the past five years, together with the respective numbers of such
cases involving construction workers; of the specific details of
the support offered by the Development Bureau, Labour Department
and Environmental Protection Department (EPD) to the workers
concerned; given that the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases
may not appear until about 10 to 40 years after the first exposure
to asbestos, of the policies, in addition to the Pneumoconiosis
Compensation Fund, the authorities have in place to help the
workers who have no way to claim compensation;

     (d) given that it was reported in March this year that of the
1 100 "asbestos old buildings" in Hong Kong, over 200 are located
in To Kwa Wan district with a total of around 50 canopies with
asbestos, how the authorities follow up cases of owners not
agreeing to demolish such asbestos canopies; how they can
effectively safeguard the health of the residents in the district;
given that it has also been reported that some owners have yet to
demolish the asbestos canopies after a long time because they
cannot afford the huge costs involved, whether the authorities
will set up a department dedicated to handling such matters, and
subsidise the demolition works to be commissioned by owners; and

     (e) given that at present any person who fails to appoint a
registered asbestos contractor to carry out asbestos abatement
works is liable to a fine of $200,000 and to imprisonment for six
months if convicted, yet it was reported in 2009 that each year,
there were about 100 cases in which the persons prosecuted by EPD
were convicted and only fines of $2,000 to $6,000 were imposed on
them, and the lack of deterrent effect of the relevant penalties
may become an incentive for owners to commission low-cost asbestos
abatement works which do not comply with the regulations, of the
number of prosecutions instituted by the authorities for illegal
demolition of buildings containing asbestos materials in the past
five years; what other measures are implemented by the authorities
at present which are targeted at such illegal activities; whether
the authorities have any plan to increase the penalties and step
up inspection efforts?

Reply:

President,

All works involving asbestos containing material are regulated by
the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 311) (hereinafter
referred to as APCO), and the Environmental Protection Department
(EPD) is responsible for enforcement of the ordinance.  Premises
owners are required to engage registered asbestos consultants to
carry out investigation on any intended works that may involve
asbestos containing material and submit asbestos abatement plans
for vetting and approval by EPD.  The Buildings Department (BD)
also sets relevant requirements for registered contractors,
authorized persons and registered structural engineers in its
Practice Notes.  All persons engaged in the repair, maintenance
and demolition works of buildings shall comply with the
requirements of the relevant legislation and practice notes when
carrying out works involving asbestos containing material.

When inspecting the demolition works of the former quarters for
civil servants on Borrett Road in early February this year, EPD
suspected that some pipes and cable trunking contained asbestos
material.  Upon confirmation after sampling and testing, EPD
immediately ordered the persons concerned to stop the demolition
works at the above site.  EPD requested the owner of the above
site to carry out an investigation on asbestos again and submit an
asbestos abatement plan for its approval.  The registered asbestos
contractor could only carry out asbestos abatement works after
EPD's approval of the abatement plan, and the building demolition
works could only be carried out after complete removal of the
asbestos containing material.  EPD then approved the asbestos
abatement plan in respect of the above site, and the asbestos
abatement works commenced.  It is expected that all asbestos
abatement works will be completed this summer.  While asbestos
abatement works were in progress, all air monitoring results
obtained in the vicinity of the site and at the sensitive
locations nearby met the requirements, indicating that the
surrounding environment had not been polluted by asbestos.  EPD
now continues to investigate the suspected breach at the above
site and will consider taking further enforcement action.

My reply to the five parts of the question is as follows:

     (a) Currently, most of the works involving asbestos are
related to the clearance of unauthorized building works (UBW) or
addition of building structure, maintenance or demolition of old
buildings.  Asbestos containing material commonly found in old
buildings, such as corrugated asbestos cement sheets, if in good
condition, will not release asbestos fibres and thus pose no
health risks to the residents or the public.  The presence of
asbestos containing material can only be ascertained after
sampling and testing, and some such material may be concealed
inside building services installations and are not easily
accessible during normal use.  Its presence can only be
ascertained after comprehensive assessment by a registered
asbestos consultant.  As such, the Government does not have a list
of buildings in Hong Kong with asbestos containing material.

When BD mounts large-scale clearance operations against UBW, EPD
will monitor and follow up on the presence of asbestos containing
material in the UBW.  BD will co-operate with EPD in its
enforcement action regarding the clearance of UBW.  During
inspection, if BD suspects that there is asbestos containing
material in an UBW, it will enclose a pamphlet on asbestos control
published by EPD with its advisory letter and relevant order to
help the landlord or occupier of the premises understand whether
there is asbestos containing material in the UBW to be cleared,
the measures to be taken and the proper way to handle asbestos
containing waste.

     (b) One of the functions of the Asbestos Administration
Committee (AAC), set up under section 52 of the APCO, is to assist
with processing applications for inclusion in the registers of
asbestos professionals.  For registration as an asbestos
consultant, a person must have completed a recognized asbestos
management training course and have no fewer than 12 months'
recognized work experience in asbestos abatement works and
management.  He must also have a university degree in science or
engineering or equivalent qualifications.  Applications will be
considered by the AAC.  The detailed requirements for registration
as an asbestos consultant are available on the EPD's website.

As pointed out in part (a) of the reply, under the existing
mechanism, when mounting large-scale clearance operations against
UBW or upon receipt of an application for building demolition, BD
will notify EPD to follow up accordingly.  BD has also included in
its Code of Practice for Demolition of Buildings and Technical
Guidelines on Minor Works Control System the requirements for
proper handling of asbestos containing material.  In addition,
disposal of asbestos waste shall comply with the requirements
under the Waste Disposal Ordinance.  They include proper
packaging, labeling and storage as chemical waste, prior
notification to EPD before disposal, and the engagement of
licensed waste collectors to deliver the waste to landfills for
final disposal.

     (c) Asbestosis and mesothelioma are compensable diseases
under the Pneumoconiosis and Mesothelioma (Compensation)
Ordinance.  The Employees' Compensation Division of the Labour
Department assists with the referral of workers to the
Pneumoconiosis Medical Board (PMB) for medical examination.
Despite the fairly long incubation period of asbestosis and
mesothelioma, a worker who has been diagnosed by PMB as suffering
from asbestosis and/or mesothelioma and has been resident in Hong
Kong for five years or more is entitled to the payment of
compensation by the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund Board (PCFB),
regardless of when the symptoms are detected.  Patients with fewer
than five years' residence in Hong Kong will only be eligible if
the diseases are contracted in Hong Kong.  Compensation payable
under the Ordinance includes compensation for incapacity;
compensation for any pain, suffering and loss of amenities;
compensation for constant attention, medical expenses, expenses
for medical appliances; and, compensation for death and funeral
expenses.

Apart from payment of compensation, PCFB also finances
rehabilitation programs for patients.  Through hospitals under the
Hospital Authority and non-government organizations, PCFB arranges
professional medical staff and social workers to provide
rehabilitation services for patients.  They include home visits,
vaccination, counseling services, health talks, teaching of caring
skills, physical training, and social rehabilitation activities.

In addition, PCFB actively organizes various publicity, education
and promotional activities to increase the knowledge of
construction workers, contractors and the general public of the
diseases and their prevention and cure.  The aim is to enhance
their awareness of prevention so that effective protective
measures can be adopted to prevent or reduce the risk of the
diseases.  These activities include talks, training sessions,
exhibitions, dissemination of leaflets, display of posters and
media advertising.

Between 2007 and 2011, 63 cases of asbestosis and mesothelioma
were confirmed by PMB and compensation was granted.  Among these
cases, 36 patients (i.e. 57%) had been engaged in the construction
industry.

     (d) Regarding unauthorized canopies, under the existing
enforcement policy against UBW, BD will issue removal orders in
respect of unauthorized canopies (including those with asbestos
containing material), requiring their removal by the owners
concerned.  If removal has not been carried out when a removal
order expires, BD will arrange for government contractors and,
where necessary, registered asbestos contractors, to remove the
unauthorized canopies and recover the costs involved in full from
the owners afterwards.

Starting from April 1, 2011, the Hong Kong Housing Society and
Urban Renewal Authority have integrated and optimized a number of
assistance schemes.  The "Integrated Building Maintenance
Assistance Scheme" (IBMAS) has been launched to provide owners in
need with one-stop financial assistance and technical support.
Apart from the IBMAS, eligible elderly owners can also apply for
assistance under the "Building Maintenance Grant Scheme for
Elderly Owners".  Owners may also apply for assistance under the
"Comprehensive Building Safety Improvement Loan Scheme"
administered by BD.  Owners who need to carry out removal works
can obtain assistance through the above schemes.

     (e) In the five years from 2007 to 2011, EPD conducted a
total of 4,024 site inspections targeting asbestos abatement works
to ensure that the abatement procedures and installations would
fully comply with the requirements under the APCO.  Over the past
five years, EPD instituted action against breaches of the
statutory requirements.

Under sections 73 and 77 of the APCO, if a person carries out
asbestos abatement work without prior written notice to EPD or
without engaging a registered asbestos contractor, he may be
liable to a maximum fine of $200,000 and to imprisonment for six
months.  Over the past five years, the maximum and average fines
for the convictions were $20,000 and $3,500 respectively.  We
believe the current regulatory regime and penalties have real
deterrent effect on owners and people engaged in illegal asbestos
abatement works.

EPD will continue to step up enforcement action against all non-
compliant asbestos works through site inspections and prosecution
of offenders.  It would also step up public education with a view
to raising public awareness of the risks posed by improper
handling of asbestos.  A concise pamphlet on the requirements for
the clearance of UBW containing asbestos has been published and
widely distributed to owners of premises, authorized persons,
contractors and other parties concerned.  The pamphlet has been
uploaded onto the EPD's website for public inspection.  Members of
the public may also call the EPD Hotline on 2838 3111 to lodge
complaints against any potential non-compliant asbestos removal
works.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Slows Demolition of Hancher Auditorium
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports removal of asbestos is expected to
slow the demolition of the University of Iowa's Hancher
Auditorium, which was destroyed by flooding in 2008, officials
said.

The auditorium is slated to be razed beginning this fall, but
crews must first gut the 30-year-old fine arts building. The
presence of asbestos will slow the process.  A timetable calls for
the project contract to be awarded in September and the demolition
of the Hancher, Voxman and Clapp complex to be completed by August
2012.

"My understanding is there's quite a bit of asbestos in that
building, and I assume it's going to take some time to do that,"
said Tom Wuehr, environmental specialist with the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources, which regulates asbestos abatement.

Asbestos, which causes lung cancer and other illnesses, was used
in construction materials such as piping, insulation and sound-
proof barriers in the period when Hancher was built, Wuehr said.

The auditorium opened in 1972.

University spokesman Tom Moore said asbestos removal is a standard
part of the process and its removal has been taken into account in
the plans.

Wuehr said that asbestos removal is labor intensive and could take
weeks or months for a building Hancher's size, depending on the
number of workers.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has awarded the university
$6.7 million to go toward tearing down the Art Building East and
the Hancher, Voxman and Clapp complex. The overall cost of
demolishing the buildings is estimated at $7.5 million.

The auditorium will be rebuilt uphill and just north of the old
building. It's slated to open in December 2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peritoneal Mesothelioma Common Outside Workplace
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for The Mesothelioma Center, reports that
according to a recent study done at the Wake Forest University
School of Medicine, peritoneal mesothelioma accounted for 9.4% of
all mesothelioma cases involving occupational exposure, but five
times more -- 47% -- of cases stemming from outside the workplace.

Pleural mesothelioma, which involves the thin membrane surrounding
the lungs, is the most common form of the cancer and involves an
estimated 75% of all diagnosed mesothelioma cases.

Peritoneal mesothelioma, the second-most common form of the
disease, involves the lining of the abdomen.

The majority of all mesothelioma cases are traced to occupational
exposure.  It is commonly linked to military service, the
construction and shipbuilding industries,  and factories and
automobile repair shops.

The non-occupational exposure typically involves family members of
a person who inadvertently brings the asbestos fibers home on his
clothes, or from just living in an older dwelling where asbestos
is throughout the home.

The Wake Forest study involved 384 mesothelioma patients.  Data
was obtained from questionnaires and medical records.  Graduate
student Jennifer Faig conducted the study with assistance from
Edward Levine, M.D., and Jill Ohar, M.D.

The subjects came from mesothelioma patients at Wake Forest
Baptist Medical Center, from last year's Mesothelioma Applied
Research Foundation conference and from patients undergoing legal
proceedings with various law firms.

The findings were submitted as part of an abstract for the 2012
International Mesothelioma Interest Group Conference scheduled
September 11-14 in Boston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5% of Cancer Deaths in Britain Work-Related
------------------------------------------------------------
HealthCanal.com reports around 8,000 cancer deaths in Britain each
year are linked to occupations -- especially those where asbestos,
diesel engine fumes or shift work is involved -- a new study
shows.  This equates to around 5% of all cancer deaths in Britain.

The study, funded by the Health and Safety Executive and published
in the British Journal of Cancer, also found that just under half
of these deaths were among male construction workers who are most
likely to come into contact with asbestos as well as other
important carcinogens such as silica and diesel engine exhaust.

Researchers used a list of work-related cancer causing substances
identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer to
calculate the impact of work on cancer cases and deaths. And they
found that around 13,600 new cancer cases are caused by risk
factors related to work each year.

After asbestos, the main work-related risk factors were night
shift-work -- linked to around 1,960 female breast cancer cases,
mineral oil from metal and printing industries -- linked to around
1730 cases of bladder, lung and non-melanoma skin cancers, sun
exposure -- linked to around 1540 skin cancer cases, silica
exposure -- linked to 910 cancer cases and diesel engine exhaust
-- linked to 800 cases.

And researchers warned that these estimates of cancer cases and
deaths linked to occupation are likely to be conservative and
could be even higher as new work-related risk factors are
identified or the understanding of potential risk factors becomes
more definite.

In addition there are now more cases of cancer than there were
back in 2004.

Lead author Dr. Lesley Rushton, an occupational epidemiologist
based at Imperial College London, said: "This study gives us a
clear insight into how the jobs people do affect their risk of
cancer.

"We hope these findings will help develop ways of reducing health
risks caused by exposure to carcinogens in the workplace.

"The cancer with the greatest number of cases and deaths linked to
work is lung -- a disease which is hard to detect early and has
poor survival.  Over 30 occupational exposures have been
identified by IARC as definite or probable lung cancer causing
substances.

"One of the best ways we can beat the disease is by preventing it
in the first place. Smoking has the single biggest impact on lung
cancer risk, but work-place risks are also having a significant
effect."

Asbestos remains the most important occupational risk factor. Even
though it is no longer used in construction, maintenance on old
buildings can still be a risk for workers today. And the number of
asbestos-related cancers will continue to rise as they can take a
long time to develop.

Researchers said that some of the risk factors had an effect on
cancer beyond the workplace -- for example, asbestos can be found
in some households and diesel engine exhaust contributes to air
pollution.

Sara Hiom, director of information at Cancer Research UK, said:
"It's very worrying to see so many people developing and dying
from occupation-related cancers. A large proportion of the deaths
are a result of exposure to asbestos in past decades and improved
safety measures should mean that in the next generation or so we
will see this number tail off dramatically.

"The Health and Safety Executive has commissioned a review of the
evidence on shift work and cancer -- at the moment it's still only
classified as a probable cause of cancer. Once the review is
complete in 2015, we will have a more definite understanding of
the role it may play in influencing cancer risk.

"At this point, we expect the government and employers to take
fast and appropriate action to minimize the risks faced by workers
and Cancer Research UK will be watching this closely.

"Not smoking is the single most important thing that can reduce
the likelihood of developing cancer -- to put this in perspective,
there are around 43,000 cancer deaths due to smoking in the UK
each year. Maintaining a healthy weight, cutting back on alcohol
and taking plenty of exercise can also have a big impact on
reducing the risk of cancer."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Get Favorable Ruling in Delaware Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that in a
series of recent rulings, a Delaware superior court mostly found
in favor of a group of companies all at the center of asbestos
litigation.

Judge John A. Parkins Jr., of the New Castle County Superior
Court, in Delaware, issued five separate decisions from May 31 to
June 1.

Parkins, who authored all five rulings, granted summary judgment
to defendants Crane Co., Weil McLain, Jerguson Gage & Valve Co.
and Superior-Lidgerwood-Mundy Corp., the successor-in-interest to
M.T. Davidson Co.

In the first case, plaintiff Thomas Milstead worked in the U.S.
Navy as a machinist from 1965 to 1969. He alleged asbestos
exposure stemming from M.T. Davidson's pumps.

The defendant, Superior-Lidgerwood-Mundy, moved for summary
judgment on product nexus grounds and asserted it did not owe a
duty to the plaintiff for asbestos-containing replacement parts
added to its products after sale.

Parkins, in a nine-page memorandum opinion, granted Superior-
Lidgerwood-Mundy's motion for summary judgment.

The judge, in his May 31 ruling, found Milstead did not make a
prima facie case for product nexus with original asbestos-
containing parts manufactured by the defendant. Also, under
Maryland law, a manufacturer does not owe a duty to warn for
asbestos-containing replacement parts, he wrote.

In the second case, Milstead alleged asbestos exposure stemming
from Crane's valves.

Crane, in response, moved for summary judgment on conspiracy,
punitive damage and product nexus grounds. It also asserted it did
not owe a duty to Milstead for asbestos-containing replacement
parts added to its products after sale.

In a seven-page memorandum opinion, also dated May 31, Parkins
granted Crane's summary judgment as to the replacement parts.
Again, the judge noted, under Maryland law a manufacturer does not
owe a duty to warn for asbestos-containing replacement parts.

However, Parkins denied the company's motion as to the original
asbestos-containing parts it manufactured and to its motion on
punitive damages.

In the third case, a different plaintiff, Robert McGhee, alleged
asbestos exposure from Weil McLain's boilers, among other
products.

In response, Weil McLain moved for summary judgment as to product
nexus, replacement parts and punitive damages.

Parkins, in a four-page order filed May 31, granted the company's
motion after finding that McGhee did not make a prima facie case
for product nexus with its original asbestos-containing parts or
replacement parts.

In the fourth case before the superior court, Milstead again
alleged asbestos exposure -- this time from boiler gage glasses
manufactured by Jerguson Gage & Valve Co.

The company, in turn, moved for summary judgment on product nexus
grounds, also asserting it did not owe a duty to the plaintiff for
asbestos-containing replacement parts added to its products after
sale.

Parkins, in a five-page memorandum opinion, granted Jerguson's
motion.

In his June 1 ruling, the judge said Milstead failed to make a
prima facie case for product nexus with original asbestos-
containing parts manufactured by the company, and noted again that
under Maryland law a manufacturer does not owe a duty to warn for
asbestos-containing replacement parts.

In the final case, plaintiff Kenneth Carlton, like Milstead,
served in the U.S. Navy. He worked at the Schenley Distillery as a
boiler tender.

Carlton alleged asbestos exposure from Crane's valves, pumps and
steam traps.

Crane, in response, moved for summary judgment for product nexus,
replacement parts and punitive damages.

Parkins, in a 10-page memorandum opinion, granted the company's
motion as to product nexus with the original asbestos-containing
parts.

However, in his June 1 ruling, he denied in part and granted in
part its motion as to the replacement parts not supplied by the
company, and denied its motion as to the punitive damages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Work Closes Joe Evins Federal Building
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Munger, writing for Knoxville News Sentinel, reports that
the U.S. Department of Energy said it hopes to have all its Oak
Ridge, Tennessee employees back to work by the end of this week --
using temporary office space -- while multiple agencies develop a
plan to address asbestos concerns in the Joe L. Evins Federal
Building, which was shut down last Thursday, June 14.

DOE spokesman Mike Koentop said about 90 DOE employees had set up
offices in the Building 2714-G not far from the Federal Building,
and others were working out of the basement of the Federal
Building, which reportedly had been declared safe for use based on
preliminary sampling.

All told, about 350 people normally work in the Federal Building,
and Koentop said DOE is looking at other federal sites, including
the Office of Scientific and Technical Information and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, to house other workers on a temporary basis.

"We don't have any plan on leasing any commercial space right now,
but it depends on how long this event (goes on)," he said. An all-
hands meeting was held Monday morning to discuss the situation
with employees.

Officials from the General Services Administration, which owns the
building, met Monday afternoon with representatives from DOE,
which occupies, operates and maintains the four-story structure,
and the U.S. Public Health Service.

They reportedly discussed some of the sampling results taken in
recent days to determine the extent of asbestos contamination in
the building's heating and air-conditioning systems and other
related issues.

Johnathan Sitzlar of GSA said the Public Health Service was asked
to assist in interpreting the sampling data and making short-term
and long-term recommendations for ensuring the safety of Oak Ridge
employees.

Sitzlar did not release any details of the sampling data and said
he was not qualified to comment on whether the asbestos levels
found in the Federal Building would have posed a health concern to
employees working there.

"That would simply be an opinion at this point," he said.

The GSA official said the agencies hope to have a long-term plan
in place for addressing the issues by the end of the week.  The
workers without office space are on paid administrative leave and
have been told to be ready to come back to work on short notice.

Both DOE and GSA said it's too early to speculate on how long the
Federal Building will be shut down. Besides DOE and some of its
contractors, the building also has offices for the Oak Ridge staff
of U.S. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe on Contaminated N.Y. Warehouse Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to a news article posted at Mesothelioma & Asbestos
Awareness Center, Tom Waydelis has been looking forward to the
summer, a great time to enjoy his two favorite modes of
transportation -- his boat and his motorcycle.  But, this year,
the Greece, NY resident may not be seeing either because they're
inside a warehouse that's part of a federal investigation
concerning illegal asbestos removal.

According to a story aired on WHAM-TV, Waydelis decided last
October that he needed more room at his home, so he chose to store
his boat and motorcycle at an old warehouse in nearby Rochester,
New York.  He was assured that his property would be safe there.
However, the warehouse became the focus of a federal investigation
in December, and Anastasios Kolokouris, the son of one of the
building's owners, was promptly charged with illegal asbestos
abatement at the site.  Apparently, the huge quantity of asbestos
that was inside the building was removed by unlicensed,
inexperienced amateurs, who most likely suffered asbestos exposure
during the process.

Shortly thereafter, the local branch of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency sealed up the building for public safety
purposes.  Waydelis hasn't seen his property since.  In addition,
when he contacted authorities about his desire to retrieve his
boat and motorcycle, Waydelis and his daughter -- who had
accompanied him to the warehouse on occasion -- were added to the
list of "victims" that may have been exposed to asbestos, because
they were inside the building in October when the illegal asbestos
abatement was taking place.  Airborne asbestos can be inhaled and
cause the development of mesothelioma cancer.

Waydelis continued to press local authorities about his desire to
retrieve his property.

"I'm sorry, we can't do it it's not our responsibility," they told
him.  "EPA says it's a hazardous waste site (and) if I entered it
to try to get my stuff out I could be arrested and I don't want
that to happen."

More disturbing is the fact that Waydelis recently saw the loading
dock wide open and the caution tape removed, which means his
property is in jeopardy and could potentially be stolen or damaged
by individuals trespassing at the site.  But, as long as he can't
get into the building in a legal manner, he can't determine what's
been going on inside.

"I understand the asbestos concern and everything but sometimes
they have to look at the situation and I don't think that they're
looking at this situation," Waydelis said.  "I should be out on my
boat or riding my motorcycle and I can't because of this."

Local police tell Waydelis their hands are tied as well and
pointed out that it's now the responsibility of the owner to
complete the abatement properly and reopen the building when all
asbestos materials are removed.  They're hoping that a call to the
U.S. Attorney's office in Rochester will yield some results for
Waydelis, who hopes he can salvage some of his summer and enjoy
some time on the water and open road.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal to Cost Texas School District $1 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a news article posted at Mesothelioma & Asbestos
Awareness Center, as schools throughout the country age, the need
to address the issue of asbestos removal comes to the forefront of
school budgets.  In Abilene, Texas, the local school district
believes they'll need to spend in excess of a million dollars to
take care of the asbestos problem on four school campuses.

According to a story aired on KTXS News, the district is
contemplating the use of a million dollar bond as well as money
from the sale of district property to assure that no teacher,
staff member, or student in their district is ever exposed to
dangerous asbestos. While district officials profess to having the
material under control, the fact remains that Abilene and Cooper
High Schools as well as Madison and Mann Middle Schools are filled
with construction products that contain the mineral, including
insulation and other items. Luckily, most of it is hidden under
layers of paint and other materials, keeping it intact. But that
might not always be the case.

"We track it, we know where it is and every year we go on we have
less and less of it in the district to track," said Joe Humphrey,
who coordinates construction projects for Abilene Independent
School District. Nonetheless, the cost of asbestos abatement
continues to be staggering as it can be a long and tedious
process, carried out only by licensed professionals who are
experienced in properly handling asbestos.

Many school buildings in the U.S. built between the 1920s and 1980
contain asbestos materials. As they age, the material becomes
friable and asbestos exposure is more likely. According to federal
EPA laws, schools must have an asbestos management plan in place
and custodial staff must be trained in handling asbestos-related
emergencies as they arise.  Airborne asbestos can be inhaled and
eventually cause mesothelioma cancer or other similar lung
diseases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 107 Deaths in Swindon and Wiltshire in 3 Years
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Layton, writing for Swindon Advertiser, reports dozens of men
and women are dying every year from 'Swindon Disease' as the
deadly legacy of workplace exposure to asbestos continues to takes
its toll.

The most recent figures show 107 people have died from industrial-
related illnesses in Swindon and Wiltshire in the past three years
alone.

The region is part of a wider time bomb which, under the worst-
case scenario, could claim 2,100 lives nationally at its peak in
2016.

The building material was so prevalent at Swindon's railway works
and other factories that mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer,
and other related illnesses were nicknamed after the town.

Former employees have described how fibres of the chemical used to
blow around like "snow" at the works, which closed in March 1986.
Many remained healthy into retirement only to be struck down a
couple of years after diagnosis.

Years of legal battles culminated in a landmark decision in March
which gave victims and their families a chance to win compensation
from firms that exposed them to the substance.

The Supreme Court ruled insurance liability was triggered from the
time an employee came into contact with the substance, rather than
the point at which symptoms appeared.

The decision will pave the way for hundreds of new claims, judging
by figures obtained from the Wiltshire coroner's office under the
Freedom of Information Act.

Last year 26 men and four women died from industrial diseases,
compared with 37 men and eight women in 2010 and 28 men and four
women in 2009.

Rachael Wilson, of Bristol and Beyond Asbestos, is helping to deal
with an aftermath that goes much further than Swindon and the
railway works "The people affected include engineers, carpenters
and workers in other trades, but there are also other people who
haven't necessarily been directly exposed," she said.

"They include people who have lived near factories, or wives who
have washed their husbands' overalls.

"We have also had teachers who have been exposed at schools where
asbestos has been present in cupboards used to store equipment."

The support group, which has grown to 40 members since launching a
year ago, will remember victims next month by releasing balloons
at Bristol Harbourside.

Virginia Chalmers, head of industrial disease at Lyons Davidson,
only has to look out of her office window in the city to see why
the chemical is continuing to claim lives. "The number of deaths
has still not peaked, unfortunately, and it is increasing despite
the fact asbestos has not been used for decades," she said.

"The disease takes between 15 and 60 years to develop and many of
the people becoming ill now were exposed in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

"More than two million buildings in this country still have
asbestos in them.

"I looked out of my office window recently and saw workmen
scraping moss off the roof. They were also scraping off asbestos
fibres and discharging them into the atmosphere. When I told them
what was happening, they said the guy who asked them to do the job
told them not to worry."

The majority of cases stem from employees breathing in fibres in
industrial workplaces, but there are other sources of contact
adding to the figures.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Basilica of Bom Jesus to Get Eco-Friendly Roof
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article at The Times of India reports that the
Basilica of Bom Jesus, one of Goa's most revered churches, will
soon have an eco-friendly roof, thanks to the Archaeological
Survey of India which wanted visitors to the over 400-year-old
building to have a "healthy" experience.

The massive asbestos roof on the imposing laterite stone building
will be replaced by an eco-friendly galvanized sheet.

The decision was taken on the recommendations of the ASI to ensure
that tourists were not exposed to the risk of cancer due to
exposure to asbestos, Savio Barretto of the Basilica of Bom Jesus
said.

"Last year, the ASI had done the roof work and replaced a lot of
older sheets with new asbestos sheets. But in a recent meeting,
officials informed us that people were protesting against the move
and demanding that modern galvanized sheets be put up on the
Basilica roof. We agreed," Barretto said.

"We were informed that asbestos is not eco-friendly and according
to studies it could cause diseases like cancer," he said.

Built in 1604 and located a short distance from the capital
Panaji, the Basilica of Bom Jesus attracts thousands of tourists
and devotees every year.

Until recently, the roof of the church was covered by clay
Mangalore tiles.

A few decades ago, heavy maintenance costs forced the authorities
to switch from tiles and rafters to asbestos to cover the 300-
square meter wide roof of the church.

The Basilica contains mortal remains of the Spanish saint St.
Francis Xavier who brought Christianity to the region. The
Navarra-born saint is now the patron saint of Goa.

The Basilica is also recognised as a UNESCO (United Nations
Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation) world heritage
site.

"We agreed to the idea of galvanized sheets because all such
heritage buildings in the world have discarded asbestos as a
building material. I believe that the modern material would be of
great help as it is eco-friendly too," Barretto said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Australian Parliament Chamber
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verity Edwards, writing for The Australian, reports that the South
Australian House of Assembly chamber could be closed for several
months to determine whether asbestos has been disturbed and is
widespread in its ceiling, potentially costing hundreds of
thousands of dollars to clean up.

Speaker Lyn Breuer on June 17 said workers contracted to re-paint
the chamber's ceiling found an awning on Friday that showed traces
of asbestos in its paint, and then found further fibres in dust
disturbed in the space.

The ceiling space is connected to the chamber's airconditioning
system, and has led to concerns the fibres could be in abundance
or were potentially widespread throughout the grand 1880s
building.

"It's been quite devastating for people involved in it, the fact
that it's there, the fact that we haven't known about it and we'll
have to do something about it," Ms. Breuer said.

"It's such a beautiful chamber and (the asbestos has) possibly
been there for 100 years, but further testing needs to be done."

Ms. Breuer said the testing would check for other dusts and
bacteria, including lead dust, and would begin with the House of
Assembly ceilings before other areas in the parliament building
were checked.

The asbestos investigation and potential removal throughout the
building could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, she
said.

Estimates hearings are due to begin on Wednesday and Ms. Breuer
said the House of Assembly hearings could move to the Legislative
Council chambers this week. The Legislative Council initially will
move to hold hearings in committee rooms.

There are only five parliamentary sitting days leading up to the
mid-winter break, and the House of Assembly is due to rise on
July 19.

Ms. Breuer said she was hopeful the clerks of both houses would be
able to rearrange schedules or find alternative rooms within the
building, given South Australia's Old Parliament House is being
renovated and is unavailable.

"We need to see if it is possible for us to share with the
Legislative Council, share mornings or afternoons, or even sit
alternate weeks," she said.  "They're saying possibly a minimum of
six weeks before they have finished it, but it could be a
considerable time."

Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond was optimistic sitting days could
be moved to accommodate both houses.  "Personally I wouldn't like
to see them reduce the number of sitting days," Ms. Redmond said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xenia Receives $2.7MM Grant to Fix Legacy Center
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Robinson, staff writer at Dayton (Ohio) Daily News, reports
the former site of the Ohio Veterans Children's Home has received
a boost from the state that developers say will aid its evolution
into a "ministry mall."

The City of Xenia recently was awarded a $2.7 million grant from
the Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund to further revamp what is now
the sprawling 253-acre Legacy Center campus.  Partly as a result,
a $6 million nursing facility and a Christian radio network will
be added to the campus, developers said.

"This property belongs to God," said Claude "Bud" E. Schindler
Jr., president emeritus of Dayton Christian School System. "He is
doing his work."

The partly state-funded $5.3 million revitalization project calls
for demolition work and/or removal of asbestos and other
contamination from 10 buildings, including the former orphanage's
power plant and several now-rundown red brick dormitories
constructed in the 1950s.

Legacy Ministries International, the parent organization of the
Dayton Christian School System, and Athletes in Action, a
Christian organization on college campuses and with
representatives on professional sports teams, will pay the
matching portion of the Clean Ohio grant.

LMI bought the site in 1999. Athletes in Action purchased 160
acres of the site from LMI in 2010 to expand its athletic fields,
retreat and conference center.

As part of the revitalization project, work to some of the utility
tunnels will be done.  The tunnels were built in part to herd
cattle to a now-demolished on-site slaughter house.  About 25 of
the former home's buildings will remain when the work is
completed.

The former site of the hospital will be the new location of
Traditions, a plan to add 10 new homes to the 62 single-floor
patio homes already in the Legacy Village retirement community.
Strong Towers Christian Media, now located in Springfield and
Miamisburg, plans a $500,000 relocation to an existing 8,700-
square-foot building after asbestos work is complete.

Richard Anglin, Dayton Christian School System's director of
business services, said radio towers for WFCJ and WEEC will stay
at their current locations.

Jerry Dendinger, Athletes in Action vice president and chief
operating officer, said the Legacy Center site has great
significance for Xenia historically and now economically.

The site first was established in 1870 as the Ohio Soldiers' and
Sailors' Orphans Home.

"This is part of the fabric of life here," Dendinger said. "As we
continue to grow and expand, it will continue to generate revenue
for the community."

Athletes in Action and LMI say they jointly have invested $20
million in the once-dilapidated campus.

Schindler recalled rodent issues and leaking ceilings when the
Legacy Center was first developed.

About 10 Christian organizations, including Xenia Christian School
-- a member of the Dayton Christian School System, Heart to
Honduras, Somewhere Forever Ministries and Joni and Friends --
Wheels for the World are now on the campus.

Steve Brodsky, Xenia's development director, hopes the development
will spur growth.

"Having that cleaned up (further) is going to make our gateway
more attractive and make the city more attractive," he said.
"There are almost 250 people who work on campus. As we add more
employees, that is going to be a benefit to the city." They have
been gradually growing."

LMI employs 59 people on the campus and plans to hire eight more
as the result of the redevelopment work, according to the Clean
Ohio Fund application. Athletes in Action has 172 employees and
plans to hire 20 more.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheffield Firm Fined for Putting Workers at Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Star (U.K.) reports an asbestos removal firm from Sheffield
has been fined for putting its workers at risk of exposure.

The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted AG&M, Stocks Hill,
Ecclesfield, for failing to properly maintain a decontamination
unit and respiratory masks.  It also failed to have a trained
supervisor on site at a building in Warwickshire where it was
working.

Nuneaton Magistrates' Court heard an HSE inspector visited the
site and found the unit, which was essential to allow workers to
clean themselves after removing asbestos from the building, was
substandard. The shower could not be used as the water hose was
frozen.

Daily inspection records of the unit had not been completed so the
company had also failed to identify a damaged vent, a broken door
hinge and the shower compartment door not closing properly.

The court heard that two men, who were removing ceiling tiles
containing asbestos from the building when the inspector visited,
would not have realized there was no water supply until they were
in the shower compartment.

AG&M was fined GBP10,000 and ordered to pay GBP5,349 costs.

Jo Anderson, HSE principal inspector, said: "People who work with
asbestos must be able to clean themselves properly to prevent
exposure to such a potentially dangerous substance."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Rules Cited for Drop in Philly Court Filings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer Chris Mondics reports that
Philadelphia is no longer quite the draw it was only a few months
ago for out-of-town lawyers filing asbestos and pharmaceutical
lawsuits.

Court administrators say that filings have dropped precipitously
since the enactment of rules aimed at reducing the growing case
backlog.  In particular, the rules target filings by out-of-state
lawyers alleging harm from prescription medications and asbestos.

Through the end of this year, court officials project about 1,068
filings involving asbestos and pharmaceutical claims, a 60%
decline from 2011.  Last year, out-of-state plaintiffs accounted
for 83% of the asbestos and pharmaceutical lawsuits handled by the
court's Complex Litigation Center.

"There are many other fine courts in this country," said John
Herron, administrative judge for the trial division of
Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, suggesting that out-of-state
lawyers go elsewhere.

In recent years, the Philadelphia court system has been a
lightning rod for criticism by corporate defense lawyers and
business groups, who argue that it is tilted toward plaintiffs.
And the courts here do have a reputation for larger jury awards
than in some other jurisdictions.  Plaintiffs' attorneys typically
prefer to file in the city rather than in the suburbs for that
reason.  They also argue that their cases move along more quickly
in Philadelphia.

Herron, asserting that the evidence of a tilt one way or another
was unclear, said his objective was not to weigh in on that
dispute, but rather to address a growing backlog of cases in the
Complex Litigation Center that threatened the ability of litigants
to resolve disputes in a timely manner.

"Based on five months' experience, we see a substantial reduction
in the out-of-state filings, and we are very pleased with the
projected numbers," he said.

The Complex Litigation Center was formed in the early 1990s to
cope with the explosive growth of asbestos cases, which, because
of the highly technical nature of the evidence and often uncertain
legal precepts, began to require ever greater amounts of time from
trial judges and court administrators. The center later came to
handle thousands of lawsuits against pharmaceutical makers by
people claiming they were harmed by prescription drugs, among
other complex matters.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Employees Sue BNSF for Lung Diseases
--------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Campbell, writing for the Star-Telegram, reports that
five former BNSF Railway employees have sued the company, saying
they have lung diseases caused by exposure to asbestos and other
hazardous materials.

Donald Polson, Harvey Bass, Robert Brabbin, Joe Gilliam and
William King -- who live in Fort Worth, Arlington and Cleburne --
accuse BNSF managers of being aware that prolonged exposure to
asbestos could cause illness but did not warn employees of the
dangers.

Some of the plaintiffs worked for the railroad for more than 30
years; Polson worked there 44 years, until 2001, according to the
lawsuit filed in state District Court in Tarrant County.

"I think it's crazy that the railroads knew about the hazards back
in the 1930s and continued to use asbestos products until the
1980s," said Kirk Sammons, a Houston attorney who is representing
the former railroad workers.

BNSF Railway spokesman Joe Faust said in a statement e-mailed to
the Star-Telegram: "These claims filed are from former employees,
most of whom have not been employed by BNSF in many years. BNSF is
currently reviewing the case and will respond through the legal
process."

Asbestos was used to insulate steam and diesel locomotives,
boxcars, cabooses and pipes. It was also used in brakes and floor
tiles of passenger cars. When workers removed the asbestos, it got
onto their clothes and into the air.

The plaintiffs said they worked in and around engines, boilers,
railroad tracks and other areas where they were exposed to
asbestos and other substances without protection.

The suit states that because of exposure to dust, fumes and
vapors, the men contracted lung diseases that diminished their
quality of life and reduced their life expectancy.

They have been diagnosed with asbestosis and silicosis, Sammons
said.

"At all times relevant, the plaintiffs were unaware of the
dangerous propensities of the harmful/hazardous materials with
which they were required to work with and around," the lawsuit
states. They were not aware of the hazards associated with
exposure to asbestos and other substances until less than three
years before filing the suit, it states.

The railroad is also accused of violating the Federal Employment
Liability Act and the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act.

Even though the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
banned asbestos in construction in the 1970s, railroads continued
using it although the companies were aware of the health risks,
the lawsuit says.

Several similar suits have been filed against BNSF, including one
filed in March in New Mexico by four members of the Navajo Nation
who also say they developed occupational lung disease after being
exposed to asbestos under harsh working conditions.

And on July 23, the case of Winter v.. BNSF Railway is scheduled
to go to trial a second time in Cleburne. A mistrial was declared
in November after a court clerk mistakenly took documents into the
jury room that were not discussed during the trial and that jurors
were not supposed to see, Sammons said.

Billy Winter died of lung cancer in January 2010 at age 58,
shortly after he sued the railroad.  He was a Cleburne High School
rodeo star before working for the railroad from 1970 to 1987.
Winter was a boilermaker and was responsible for pulling old pipes
from locomotives that were stripped down at the Santa Fe Railway's
Cleburne machine shop.  He was exposed to a significant amount of
asbestos, Sammons said.  He was laid off in 1987 when the machine
shops were closed.  He did not develop lung cancer for 30 years,
Sammons said.

Winter's physician said the cancer was caused by exposure to
asbestos, the lawyer said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dover Property Owners Fined for Improper Removal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurenne Ramsdell, writing for Foster's Daily Democrat, reports
that local property owners in Dover will be forced to pay the
state $110,000 for the improper demolition of a building on Stark
Avenue that contained large amounts of asbestos.

The state argued that a set of local property owners and their
representatives violated the state's Asbestos Management and
Control Act statute by improperly removing hazardous material
known as asbestos while demolishing a facility formerly located at
125 Stark Avenue.

Back in 2008, M&E Jespersen Realty of Stratham purchased a
property at 125 Stark Avenue along with Holgate Limited
Partnership of Dover.  The property contained a 5,316-square-foot
single-story commercial building that the new property owners
decided to demolish.  In order to do so, however, the owners were
required to obtain all necessary permits before demolition could
begin.

According to court documents, HTE Northeast, Inc., was hired to
conduct an environmental site assessment of the property, sampling
the flooring and roofing materials of the building to determine if
the building contained asbestos.

Record indicates that HTE found the building contained at least
7,720 square feet of materials containing asbestos. HTE reportedly
recommended to Jespersen that all asbestos material be removed by
a licensed contractor before the building being demolished -- a
procedure court documents estimated to cost around $32,320.

Reportedly, Holgate told Jespersen the property was free of
asbestos.  Court records also indicate that Harrington Irrevocable
Trust, a partner of Holgate based in Dover, and William F. Hopkins
Jr. of Dover, a representative of Holgate and Harrington, were
also apprised of the asbestos situation.

In early October 2009 Jespersen began demolishing the property
with the help of Michael J. Davis of Somersworth, although neither
were licensed nor certified in asbestos removal.

Court documents indicate no written notice of demolition, which is
required by law, was sent to the Department of Environmental
Services before the demolition of the building.

"The failure to provide this notice to the Department precluded
the Department from evaluating the impacts of the demolition of
the Building before demolition occurring," reads the court docket.

Not long after demolition began, the state was notified demolition
was occurring on Stark Avenue without proper notice.

Those affiliated with the demolition of the building reportedly
told a representative of the state who visited the site that all
rules and laws were being followed, and that all hazardous
materials had been removed.

Aside from improperly addressing asbestos while demolishing the
building, the state claimed materials from the structure were
improperly disposed of as they contained asbestos and were placed
in dumpsters that were not properly lined.

According to state law, asbestos waste must be disposed of at
certified disposal sites, as it contains materials that are
hazardous to health.

Court documents report debris from the Stark Avenue demolition was
disposed of at Turnkey Landfill in Rochester, ERRCO in Epping, and
Aggregate Recycling Corp. in Eliot, Maine.

"Davis did not notify the receiving landfill or landfills prior to
disposing of asbestos waste," reads the docket.

For all of the above reasons, the state deemed the demolition of
the structure at 125 Stark Ave. as unlawful and the actions of
those responsible for the demolition as negligent. The state filed
a complaint with the courts in February 2011.

Just a few weeks ago, the state Department of Environmental
Services, along with Jespersen, Holgate and Hopkins, entered into
a consent decree.

The responsible parties have agreed to pay the state a civil
penalty in the total of $110,000, with $25,000 of that amount
suspended if none of the parties violate terms of the consent
decree or any provisions of the Asbestos Control Act for two
years.

Jespersen is responsible for $35,000 of the total amount, while
Holgate, Harrington Trust and Hopkins will be responsible for
$50,000 of the penalties specified in the consent decree.

Davis was not included in the consent decree, as the state will be
seeking final judgment against him separately.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Michigan City Receives $200,000 Cleanup Grant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randi M. Shaffer, writing for The Morning Sun, reports that the
City of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, was awarded a $200,000 brownfields
cleanup grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to help
with asbestos removal from the Mt. Pleasant Center.

Ryan Londrigan, a project manager with AKT Peerless, worked with
the city to acquire the grant money.

"The clean up is to assist the city with the redevelopment (and)
reposition of the property," he said. "The property that the city
owns consists of approximately 20 structures that were build
between the 1920's and 1960's, which was the hay day for asbestos
installations in the buildings."

The Mt. Pleasant Center closed in 2009, though many of the
buildings have been in disrepair and closed or vacant for years
prior due to the lead and asbestos contamination. The city-owned
portion center spans 300 acres and contains 21 buildings spanning
more than 300,000 square feet of space. The center also contains a
road network, power plant and tunnels. City Finance Director Nancy
Ridley said the lead and asbestos abatement is the start to the
redevelopment of the property into something that can be used to
generate a tax base and jobs.

Ridley said the city does not yet know what the property will be
used for, but is looking at market data as to what the property
could house.  Residents will be asked for project input later in
the project, and then the city commission will make the final
decision on what to do with the property.

"We've known this was a long term project that would take a lot of
different financing sources, so this is a great first step,"
Ridley said. There hasn't been a final estimate of how much the
full Mt. Pleasant Center project will cost, but Ridley said the
original estimates for the abatement and demolition were in the
multi-million dollar range, and any bit of grant money helps.
Londrigan said the EPA grant is just a fraction of the cost.

"We'll target it toward the areas of highest need, or any
structures that are slated for immediate . . . removal based on
the ongoing study in trying to reposition the property," he said.

Londrigan said the city started the grant application process in
November. The grant money included $69.3 million distributed to
245 communities and tribes across the country. Of the 48
applications submitted in Michigan, only seven were awarded,
Londrigan said, making the grant very competitive nationwide.
There are no immediate plans to use the grant money, and the funds
won't be available until close to the fall season, Londrigan said.
The grant money lasts up to three years.

"There's not an immediate rush and . . . the city wants to use
(the money) as wisely as possible," Londrigan said.

Londrigan said AKT Peerless worked with the city to develop the
grant application, filling out information regarding the history
of the property, general concept for the project and detailed the
city's plans for redeveloping the property.  "The federal
government certainly recognized based on the grant application
that the City of Mt. Pleasant has a commitment to this property,"
Londrigan said.  "This grant is definitely seed money to help
further that process."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Mesothelioma Victims Urged to Explore Options
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New York mesothelioma lawyer Joseph W. Belluck said June 16 that
9/11 workers with mesothelioma should step forward to explore
their eligibility for compensation in light of a federal ruling
that greatly expands the scope of a $4.3 billion fund established
to compensate and treat people exposed to toxic smoke, dust and
fumes following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Mesothelioma is among 50 different types of cancer added to the
list of sicknesses covered by the fund under a U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) decision released June 8. Belluck
praised the decision.

"Mesothelioma, which is caused by inhaling asbestos, certainly
belongs on a list of diseases covered by exposure to the smoke and
dust generated by the destruction of the World Trade Center," said
Belluck, a founding partner of the Belluck & Fox, LLP, law firm.
Belluck said that his law firm currently is assisting a victim of
mesothelioma who worked cleaning up the World Trade Center.

"Asbestos was present in parts of the 1970s-era construction of
the World Trade Center, and it was among the many toxic elements
vaporized after the 9/11 attacks," Belluck continued. "Anyone who
came in contact with the wreckage and who now has symptoms of
mesothelioma -- or a diagnosis -- should come forward to seek the
compensation they are due."

The DHHS decision will allow volunteers, residents, schoolchildren
and passers-by to apply for compensation and treatment for cancers
developed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, The New York Times
said in a recent article.

In addition to mesothelioma, the new ruling includes lung, breast,
colon, trachea, esophageal, kidney, bladder, skin, thyroid, blood
and ovarian cancers. Prior to the new decision, the ailments
approved for compensation were mainly respiratory and digestive
ones.

Mesothelioma is a cancer of the lining of the chest and abdomen
caused by inhaling or swallowing asbestos, a naturally occurring
heat- and fire-resistant fibrous mineral. Asbestos was used in a
variety of industrial machinery and equipment, and in consumer
products.

The disease is eventually fatal, but aggressive therapy may
prolong the lives of patients who are diagnosed early, Belluck
said.

People with covered cancers that lived, worked or attended school
in Lower Manhattan between Sept. 11, 2001, and May 30, 2002, would
be able to apply for compensation for their economic losses, pain
and suffering, The Times said. The amount of compensation will
depend on the severity of the illness and duration of exposure.
Survivors of patients who have died may also apply for benefits.

"Compensation through the 9/11 fund is not automatic," Belluck
said. "Mesothelioma sufferers and others will find that they need
to gather a variety of documents and other information to prove
their eligibility."

The Belluck & Fox law firm is dedicated to helping mesothelioma
victims obtain compensation as they fight their disease. The firm
has won several multi-million dollar verdicts in personal injury
and wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of mesothelioma sufferers,
including 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) in August 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.

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.

The firm's New York City office is located at 546 Fifth Ave., 4th
Floor, New York, NY, 10036 (local phone number (212) 681-1575).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Building Owner Fined for Putting Men at Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article at thisissouthdevon.co.uk reports that a
Teignmouth building firm owner has been fined for exposing workmen
to asbestos dust working on pub refurbishment.

Christopher Reed, of Higher Holcombe Road, was fined GBP2,500
after he asked workers to remove asbestos without adequate
protection.

The incident happened at the Three Crowns pub in Chagford in
January 2010, when the refurbishment was being carried out for St.
Austell Brewery by Cowley's Building and Maintenance Ltd., of
which Reed is director.

The prosecution was brought by the Health and Safety Executive and
was heard at Exeter Magistrates' Court.

JPs were told the work took place without a suitable asbestos
survey report which should have been provided by St. Austell
Breweries.

The workmen, all employees of Cowley's, began removing an internal
wall when they uncovered asbestos insulation boards inside.

Reed, who was in charge of the site, arranged for a sample of the
board to be tested by an asbestos specialists but also asked the
workers to pick-up the debris from the boards.

During the demolition of the wall and the clean-up, there was
further disturbance and exposure of asbestos on the site. Reed
pleaded guilty to breaching a regulation of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2006.

Cowley's Building and Maintenance Ltd of Queen Street, Colyton,
pleaded guilty to two breaches of the same regulations and was
fined a total of GBP12,500 and GBP6,295 costs.

St. Austell Brewery Company Ltd. of Trevarthian Road, St. Austell,
pleaded guilty to a breach under the same regulations 2006 and was
fined GBP5,000 and was ordered to pay GBP6,295 in costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition at Connecticut School Moving Slowly
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marteka, writing for The Hartford (Connecticut) Courant,
reports that demolition of an abandoned wing of the former Academy
School was slated to begin this week.

Town Manager Richard J. Johnson said Friday, June 15, that
asbestos removal has taken longer than expected, but that more
demolition equipment will be brought to the site Monday, June 19.
Razing of the brick structure should begin Tuesday. The wing of
the school is directly behind town hall.

"There was a significant amount of asbestos that had to be
removed," Johnson said. "Work will be more evident over the next
couple of weeks."

Johnson also said work is being done on the end of the wing of the
school to the south of the portion that is being demolished. That
section is home to the parks and recreation offices, and needs to
be sealed and roof work completed before demolition could begin.

"We wanted to make sure the building properly transitioned,"
Johnson said.

Small parts of the building built in the 1930s have been removed,
including stone tablets with the former sixth-grade school's name
on it and decorative stone from outside door frames. Those items
will be preserved and used in a future display about the
building's history.

After the $250,000 demolition, the site will be seeded with grass
until its future use is determined. The town has been trying to
determine the best use of the wing since the 1980s. Recently the
town council had been eyeing the site for a new board of education
administrative office complex, but backed away from that idea in
favor of other priorities, such as phase two of Riverfront Park.

Last year, the town determined that the building wing had
deteriorated renovation too costly.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Kills Two Ex-York Carriageworks Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Bell, writing for The Press (U.K.), reports that inquests
have heard how York's asbestos time bomb has claimed the lives of
another two former York Carriageworks employees.

York residents Peter Barnett and Raymond Kelly both contracted the
asbestos-related disease malignant mesothelioma after being
repeatedly exposed to the substance at the factory.

The York inquests were told that former British Rail manager Mr.
Barnett, who died aged 70 on December 2 last year, worked at the
former Holgate Road site in the 1960s.

After suffering problems with his breathing in later life he went
on to have an aortic valve replacement.

However, he was admitted to York Hospital on November 30 last year
when he collapsed with worsening respiratory failure.

Mr. Barnett, of Foxwood, received palliative care at the hospital
until his death. A post-mortem examination found asbestos bodies
on his lungs that were indicative of significant asbestos
exposure.

A colleague had told solicitors Irwin Mitchell that Mr. Barnett
was one of many employees who would help spray asbestos on
carriages and recalled many occasions when they drilled or scraped
off the dust from machines and floors.

At no time were any workers advised to wear a mask or given
protective clothing.

Mr. Kelly died at home in Acomb in December last year, aged 69,
after receiving palliative care.

He had been diagnosed with mesothelioma, the form of cancer most
frequently caused by exposure to asbestos, in November 2010 after
doctors investigated worsening chest pains and breathing problems.
Scans revealed asbestos bodies on his lungs.

Mr. Kelly had worked at the carriageworks in the 1970s.

Before he died, he told solicitors Irwin Mitchell how he had
worked in a dusty environment in different parts of the factory
with no protective clothing or face mask.

He also said in a statement that he was exposed to asbestos dust,
which he recalled as a "a fine blue, grey haze", on an "almost
daily basis".

York Coroner Donald Coverdale recorded verdicts that each man died
of the industrial disease malignant mesothelioma.

More than 140 former York carriageworks employees and their
relatives have now been killed by asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diesel Exhaust Poses Cancer Risk, WHO Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to an article by Huw Evans posted at HybridCars.com, the
World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on
Cancer recently concluded, after eight days of deliberating, that
diesel exhaust ranks as a Class 1 carcinogen.  In other words it's
been lumped in the same category as the likes of asbestos and
mustard gas and considered a significant cancer risk.

The IARC arrived at that conclusion by using data from studies of
workers that operated in close proximity to diesel exhaust,
particularly a larger cohort study released back in March, that
highlighted the prolonged exposure of diesel exhaust to 12,315
miners working in the U.S.

However, critics of the findings quite rightly point out that much
of the data used was out of date and not reflective of the general
population.  The National Cancer Institute in the U.S., said
research from "heavy exposure" to diesel exhaust in confined areas
such as underground mining "cannot estimate with certainty the
risks from diesel exposure for very low levels of pollution in the
general environment."

Additionally, Allen Schaeffer, executive director for the Diesel
Technology Forum, says the WHO studies were based on diesel-
powered equipment manufactured before the EPA began aggressively
mandating reductions in diesel exhaust emissions in 2002.

"In the U.S., emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks and buses
have been reduced by 99 percent for nitrogen oxides and 98 percent
for particulate emissions," he said. In the U.S., the EPA
indicates that diesel accounts for less than 6 percent of all
particulate matter in the air."  Even the EPA itself officially
claims a 90 percent reduction in diesel exhaust emissions over the
last decade, not only from cars, buses and trucks but also from
other motorized vehicles such as ships and locomotives.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abandoned Demolition Dump in NZ Prompts Query
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Van Beynen, writing for Fairfax NZ News, reports that an
abandoned demolition dump possibly riddled with asbestos has
raised questions over whether authorities are on top of disposal
issues in Christchurch.

The dump, said to contain up to 30,000 tonnes of rubble, is in a
huge KiwiRail warehouse in Cass St., Sydenham.  It was run by
Skelly Holdings, whose director, Englishman Chris Skelly, left the
country in late April to avoid being deported.

The company then went into liquidation, owing about $2 million,
leaving KiwiRail to organise the disposal of the rubble at a cost
of between $3 million and $5 million.

KiwiRail property manager Neil Buchanan was asked by The Press
whether the taxpayer-owned company had tested the material and
what the results were.

He said: "We suspect that some of the material inside the shed may
include asbestos. This is based on uninformed opinion.

"We will be in a better position to confirm the presence of
asbestos when we start to sort the material once we decide on a
disposal method.

"Because the presence of asbestos has not been confirmed, we have
not informed any authority.  We are still seeking information
about other disposal options for consideration."

Industry sources say the pile almost certainly contains asbestos
because the site was uncontrolled.

The contractors had every motivation to get rid of material they
might struggle to get into other landfills, they said.

Asbestos-contaminated material must be dumped at a special site at
the Kate Valley landfill in North Canterbury and costs about three
times as much to dump as ordinary demolition rubble.

Spotters at the Burwood Resource Recovery Park, operated by
Transpacific Waste Management, check truckloads before and after
dumping.

The company also regularly tests samples from the pile and from
the approach road.

However, none of the authorities appears to have tested the Skelly
dump, despite warnings, or assessed the health hazard.

A Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera) spokeswoman said
demolition contractors were responsible for scoping buildings for
asbestos.

If a hazard was detected, contractors were obliged to notify
Environment Canterbury (ECan) or Cera, and Cera monitored the
disposal process.

Cera was not aware of ECan raising any issues about the Skelly
site apart from dust, and Cera did not test dumping sites, of
which there were 47 around the city.

A spokeswoman said ECan had not tested the site and referred The
Press to the Labour Department and Cera.

It was not part of ECan's function to test dumping sites, she
said.

The Labour Department said contractors had to notify it of the
presence of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron and Budd Cited for Top 2 Verdicts in 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal publication Texas Lawyer is recognizing the mesothelioma law
firm of Baron and Budd for achieving the top two product liability
verdicts in Texas in 2011, both for mesothelioma lawsuits.

Mesothelioma attorney John Langdoc headed trial efforts in both
lawsuits, which were reached on behalf of mesothelioma patients
and their families. The list is compiled by VerdictSearch, an
independent entity owned by American Lawyer Media (ALM), and
published by local legal newspaper Texas Lawyer. The full list
appears in a recent supplement of Texas Lawyer.

"We work tirelessly on every one of our mesothelioma lawsuits,"
said John Langdoc, mesothelioma lawyer at Baron and Budd.  "It is
really great to see that the hard work for some of these great
families resulted in the top Texas defective product verdicts in
2011."

A jury awarded the Henderson family $9 million in Henderson v. Dow
Chemical, which was selected as the top Texas product liability
verdict in 2011. The mesothelioma lawsuit was filed on behalf of
the late Mr. Henderson, his wife and two daughters. Mesothelioma
lawyers John Langdoc and Alana Kalantzakis of Baron and Budd
represented the family throughout the mesothelioma lawsuit.

An $8.4 million mesothelioma verdict in Gensler v. Hercules, Inc.
was selected as the second highest 2011 product liability verdict
in Texas. This mesothelioma lawsuit was brought on behalf of the
Mr. Gensler, deceased, and his widow. This verdict is thought to
be the first asbestos related verdict reached against the company
Hercules for exposure to asbestos at a Dow Chemical plant.

Mesothelioma lawyers John Langdoc and Alana Kalantzakis
represented the Genslers throughout the mesothelioma lawsuit.

Baron and Budd was one of the first asbestos law firms to
successfully handle a mesothelioma lawsuit in and continues to
fight for mesothelioma and asbestos victims today.  Throughout the
firm's nearly 40 year history, Baron and Budd has achieved more
than 100 verdicts for asbestos patients and numerous settlements.
The firm has achieved one of the highest verdicts of its kind in
Texas: $55 million for an El Paso mesothelioma patient and his
family after being exposed to asbestos as a construction worker.

Names of cases referenced:

Tanya Elaine Henderson, Magdalena Adrienna Abutahoun individually
and as Trustee of the Estate of Robert Henderson and Za'Quia
Zanice Henderson v. The Dow Chemical Company No. 10-07003, Dallas
County District Court, 160th, TX.

John Edwards Gensler and Martha Ann Gensler personally and as
representative of the Estate of John Edwards Gensler, deceased v.
Hercules Inc. individually and as successor in interest to
Hercules Powder Company, successor in interest to Haveg
Industries, Inc., successor by merger to Haveg Corporation and the
"Haveg" asbestos liabilities and "Haveg" product line, No. DC10-
08454-D, Civil District Court of Dallas County, 68th, TX.

                     About Baron & Budd, P.C.

The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. has a
more than 30-year history of "Protecting What's Right" for
asbestos sufferers and their families. As one of the first law
firms to successfully litigate an asbestos lawsuit, Baron & Budd
continues to actively represent veterans, industry workers and
others who are suffering as a result of exposure to asbestos.
Baron & Budd achieved the largest mesothelioma verdict ever in the
state of Texas, a $55 million verdict for an asbestos sufferer and
his family in El Paso, Texas.  Contact Baron and Budd at
1.866.855.1229 for additional information on mesothelioma
treatments, mesothelioma cancer doctors and treatment centers and
mesothelioma attorneys.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auto Mall Owner Pushes for Safe Chemicals Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lee, chairman of Lee Auto Malls, writing for the Columns &
Analysis section of the Sun Journal, says:

Cars are safer and better now than at any other time in history.
I am not just talking about anti-lock brakes or air bags; I am
talking about the chemicals and substances that go in and come out
of the cars.

Decades ago, brake pads were made with asbestos.  Asbestos worked
really well, but it could lead to cancer, so manufacturers
replaced that product with a comparable, non-toxic one.

Cars used to run on leaded gasoline.  Lead fumes could result in
death, so manufacturers added catalytic converters; cars became
cleaner than ever and unleaded fuel now works great.

All of this change and innovation was driven by health concerns,
and has resulted in cars that are safer on the road and on the
environment.  As the owner of a car business, that makes me feel
better about the products I am selling.

But the owners of many other businesses don't know what chemicals
are used in their products.  Lately even some kids' toys are
turning out to have unsafe chemicals linked to various cancers,
learning disabilities and developmental disorders.

Much to the dismay of small businesses, the chemical safety system
we all rely on is broken.

Congress passed the current chemical safety system, the Toxic
Substances Control Act, in 1976.  Unfortunately, this well-
intended 36-year-old law has failed to protect Americans from
exposure to toxic chemicals in many everyday products.  Since the
passage of TSCA, only 200 of the 82,000 chemicals used in commerce
have been tested for health and safety; only five have ever been
restricted or banned.

Given this abysmal record, how can business owners be sure they
are selling safe products?

Maine has taken this national problem into its own hands.  In
2007, the Maine Legislature passed the Kid Safe Product Act - a
brilliantly simple and common-sense approach to phasing out the
use of dangerous chemicals from the production of products that
children are in contact with every day.

Maine picked up where the federal government failed.

However, the overarching problem of chemicals in manufacturing
can't be solved one chemical at a time or one state at a time.
The federal government needs to overhaul its system.

The good news is, there is legislation already under way that can
make this vision a reality.

The Safe Chemicals Act is currently being considered in the
Senate.  It builds on Maine's straightforward approach and picks
up where TSCA has failed.  It is exactly the type of practical
solution that concerned citizens and business-owners around the
country are waiting for.

It is time for Congress to follow Maine's lead and pass the Safe
Chemicals Act.  Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins have both
expressed their concerns about the existing chemical safety
system.  Now they have an opportunity to stand up for Maine's
small businesses and the families who are concerned about the
products small businesses sell.

I encourage our senators to help pass this through the Congress.

The history of the automobile industry demonstrates America's
ability to produce good-quality, safe products.  Let's apply that
ability and innovative thinking to all products sold in our
country.


                           *********

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  * * *