CAR_Public/120706.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 6, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 133

                             Headlines

ACL I CORP: Awaits Dismissal of Suits Over Collision Incident
APOLLO GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Teamsters" Suit Pending
APOLLO GROUP: Gets Preliminary Approval of "Adoma" Suit Deal
APOLLO GROUP: Institutional Investors Securities Suit Dismissed
BEAM GLOBAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Skinny Girl Class Action

CHINA NATURAL: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
CLARCOR INC: Still Awaits Okay of Settlement in Price Fixing MDL
CREDIT SUISSE: Judge Certifies $642-Million MBS Class Action
ELLIE MAE: Accused of Violating Mo. Merchandising Practices Act
ENERGY TRANSFER: Discovery in Merger-Related Suits in Ongoing

ENERGY TRANSFER: Southern Union Awaits "Price" Suit Developments
EQUITRUST LIFE: Judge Denies Bid to Trim Consumer Class Action
EVERGREEN ULTRA: Court Nod Sought for Class Action Settlement
GANZ USA: Settles Antitrust Class Action Over Webkinz Toys
HOSPIRA INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Drug Shortage

HUMANA INC: 6th Cir. Revives Employment Discrimination Suit
INNOVAGE LLC: Recalls 300,000 Discovery Kids Animated Lamps
KOREAN BANKS: 40,000 People Join Collateral Security Fees Suit
LONE PINE: Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky Files Class Action
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan Suit in Missouri

MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Xbox Live Subscription
ORIENT PAPER: Reached $2-Million Settlement of "Henning" Suit
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Tariff Plan
PFIZER CANADA: Balks at Champix Class Action Certification
POLYMEDIX INC: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action

PULTE HOMES: Loses Bid to Overturn Class Action Certification
REVLON INC: Signs MOU to Settle Fidelity Claims for $22.5-Mil.
RITE AID: Settles Overtime Class Action for $20.9 Million
SHELL SA: Ordered to Set Up $382MM Workers' Compensation Fund
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Still Awaits Consolidated Suit Deal Approval

SUNOPTA INC: Recaptures $512,000 From "Vargas" Suit Settlement
TACO BELL: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Text Message Campaign
TOMPKINS FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Antilock Braking Systems Suits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Unintended Acceleration Suits

TOYOTA MOTOR: Hearing in Securities Class Suit Set for July 23
UNITED STATES: Summary Judgment Sought in Wiretap Class Action
US BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $55 Million
VIST FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle Two Merger-Related Suits
WAL-MART: Judge Seeks More Briefing in Gender Bias Class Action

WEBMD HEALTH: Faces "Feinstein" Shareholder Suit in New York
WHEELING ISLAND: Faces Class Action Over Players Club Fraud

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Approves C$58MM Loan to Help Reopen Mine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Finds High Levels of Fibro in Belfast College
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. High Court Reverses Finding for Evansville
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Bars Eaton From Presenting New Argument
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Rules for Colgate in Privilege Issue

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Suits v. Liberty Mutual to Proceed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Takes Grace Plan Appeal to 3rd Circuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock's Bid to Stay Grace Plan Order Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.D. Pa. Court Defers to Delaware District Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules for Worker in Suit v. Union Carbide

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Continues to Defend Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Defends R.I. Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Locker Has 38 Unresolved Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Still Defends 225 PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Ventures Has Insurance for Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Had 1,035 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Has $600,000 ARO at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Senator Wants Abatement Laws Toned Down
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GKN Aerospace, Lybrook Slapped with GBP15K Fine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watchdog Slams Exxon Valdez's Berthing Off Mumbai

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Asks Canada to Rescind Quebec Subsidy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Welcome Jeffrey Mine Reboot
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buckingham Palace Cleanup to Cost Millions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Subsidiary Files Sixth Amended Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ARD/Meso Lawsuits Expected to Rise in Jamaica

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malabar Land Users Questions Eviction Due to ACMs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EoM Can't Confirm Approval of Toxic-Clad Rooms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec's Decision Comes With Great Responsibility
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Niagara Gazette Reviews New York's Asbestos Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Volunteers of America House Abatement Underway

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pasco School District Abatement Underway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Review on LA's $48MM Verdict for Bobbie Izel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tinley Park "Environmental Nightmare" to Close
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fundraising "Walk" Garners $75,000 for Meso Cure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Decontamination On at Old Union Fork and Hoe Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Serena School District Cleanup "On The House"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Reset Maplehurst Hotel Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CAA Slams Insurance Companies Payout Strategy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Shows Factors Linked to Meso Survival
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Product Cuts Down Abatement Cost & Downtime

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Electrician in Hilton Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogenic Gaskets Found in Riverina Oil Plant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Bank Vault Cleaner Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Reaches Out to Dad's Peers at ICI Fibres


                          *********

ACL I CORP: Awaits Dismissal of Suits Over Collision Incident
-------------------------------------------------------------
ACL I Corporation is awaiting the dismissal of settled class
action lawsuits arising from a July 2008 collision incident
involving its subsidiaries, according to the Company's June 25,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

American Commercial Lines Inc. ("ACL") and American Commercial
Lines LLC ("ACL LLC"), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ACL,
have been named as defendants in the following putative class
action lawsuits, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (collectively the "Class Action
Lawsuits"): Austin Sicard et al on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin
Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American
Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship
Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4012, filed on July 24, 2008;
Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime
(America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing
Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-
Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4007, filed
on July 24, 2008; and Alvin McBride, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.;
Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd.; D.R.D. Towing Co. LLC; American
Commercial Lines Inc.; The New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship
Pilots Association, Case No. 09-cv-04494 B, filed on July 24,
2009.  The McBride v. Laurin Maritime, et al. action has been
dismissed with prejudice because it was not filed prior to the
deadline set by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana (the "Court").  The claims in the Class
Action Lawsuits stem from the incident on July 23, 2008, involving
one of ACL LLC's tank barges that was being towed by DRD Towing
Company L.L.C. ("DRD"), an independent towing contractor.  The
tank barge was involved in a collision with the motor vessel
Tintomara, operated by Laurin Maritime, at Mile Marker 97 of the
Mississippi River in the New Orleans area.  The tank barge was
carrying approximately 9,900 barrels of #6 oil, of which
approximately two-thirds was released.  The tank barge was damaged
in the collision and partially sunk.  There was no damage to the
towboat.  The Tintomara incurred minor damage.

The Class Action Lawsuits include various allegations of adverse
health and psychological damages, disruption of business
operations, destruction and loss of use of natural resources, and
seek unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages for
claims of negligence, trespass and nuisance.  The Class Action
Lawsuits were stayed pending the outcome of the two actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana seeking exoneration from, or limitation of, liability
related to the incident.  All claims in the class actions have
been settled with payment to be made from funds on deposit with
the Court in the IINA and IINA and Houston Casualty Company
interpleader.  IINA is DRD's primary insurer and IINA and Houston
Casualty Company are DRD's excess insurers.  The settlement has
final approval from the court.  Settlement funds were provided to
claimants' counsel and the Company expects final dismissal of all
lawsuits against all parties will be entered with prejudice once
all the releases are signed.

Claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ("OPA 90") were
dismissed without prejudice.  There is a separate administrative
process for making a claim under OPA 90 that must be followed
prior to litigation.  The Company is processing OPA 90 claims
properly presented, documented and recoverable.  The Company has
also received numerous claims for personal injury, property damage
and various economic damages loss related to the oil spill,
including notification by the National Pollution Funds Center of
claims it has received.  Additional lawsuits may be filed and
claims submitted, however OPA 90 has a three year prescriptive
period and any new claim filed after three years would be subject
to dismissal.  The Company is in early discussions with the
Natural Resource Damage Assessment Group, consisting of various
State and Federal agencies, regarding the scope of environmental
damage that may have been caused by the incident.  A lawsuit was
filed on July 22, 2009, in the Eastern District of Louisiana
entitled Lloyd Balliviero, d/b/a Buras Marina v. American
Commercial Lines LLC, Summit Environmental Services LLC, and Clean
Harbors Environmental Services, Inc, in Case No. 09-4464 seeking
payment for "rental cost" of its marina for cleanup operations.

ACL and ACL LLC have also been named as defendants in the
following interpleader action brought by DRD's primary insurer
IINA seeking court approval as to the disbursement of the funds:
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. DRD Towing
Company, LLC; DRD Towing Group, LLC; American Commercial Lines,
LLC; American Commercial Lines, Inc.; Waits Emmet & Popp, LLC,
Daigle, Fisse & Kessenich; Stephen Marshall Gabarick; Bernard
Attridge; Austin Sicard; Lamont L. Murphy, individually and on
behalf of Murphy Dredging; Deep Delta Distributors, Inc.; David
Cvitanovich; Kelly Clark; Timothy Clark, individually and on
behalf of Taylor Clark, Bradley Barrosse; Tricia Barrosse; Lynn M.
Alfonso, Sr.; George C. McGee; Sherral Irvin; Jefferson Magee; and
Acy J. Cooper, Jr., United States District Court, Eastern District
of Louisiana, Civil Action 08-4156, Section "I-5," filed on August
11, 2008.  DRD's excess insurers, IINA and Houston Casualty
Company intervened into this action and deposited $9 million into
the Court's registry.  ACL LLC has filed two actions in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability relating to
the incident as provided for in Rule F of the Supplemental Rules
for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims and in 46 U.S.C.
sections 30501, 30505 and 30511.  Tintomara interests and DRD also
filed limitation actions.  ACL made a claim for its damages
against Tintomara interests and DRD in their respective limitation
actions.  The Company has also filed a declaratory judgment action
against DRD seeking to have the contracts between them declared
"void ab initio."  This action has been consolidated with the
limitation actions and stayed pending the outcome of the
limitation actions.  A trial on the ACL, Tintomara interests and
DRD limitation actions has been concluded and the Company is
awaiting the judge's decision on liability of the parties and
apportionment of ACL and Tintomara's damages.

On August 22, 2011, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana captioned United States of
America v. American Commercial Lines LLC and D.R.D. Towing, LLC,
Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-2076.  The action seeks damages of
approximately $25 million, including certain repayment to the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund for sums it paid related to the cleanup
of the oil spill and to certain claimants for damages cognizable
under OPA 90, a civil penalty under the Clean Water Act in an
amount to be determined at trial as well as a claim for natural
resources damages.  On July 25, 2011, an action was filed in the
25th Judicial District for the Parish of Plaquemines State of
Louisiana captioned Chuc Nguyen, et al. v. American Commercial
Lines, Inc. and its Insurers, ABC Insurance Company and Indemnity
Insurance Company of North America, No. 58936.  The action filed
by numerous commercial fishermen seeks damages for real or
personal property, loss of subsistence use of natural resources
associated with loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity.
The Company participated in the U.S. Coast Guard investigation of
the matter and participated in the hearings which have concluded.
A finding has not yet been announced.

Although the Company has made demand on DRD (including its
insurers) and Tintomara interests for reimbursement of cleanup
costs, indemnification and other damages sustained by the Company,
there is no assurance that any other party that may be found
responsible for the accident will have the insurance or financial
resources available to provide such defense and indemnification.
The Company has various insurance policies covering pollution,
property, marine and general liability.  While the cost of cleanup
operations and other potential liabilities are significant, the
Company believes it has satisfactory insurance coverage and other
legal remedies to cover substantially all of the cost.


APOLLO GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Teamsters" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of Teamsters' class action lawsuit
remains pending, according to Apollo Group, Inc.'s June 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 31, 2012.

On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare
Funds filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased the Company's stock between
November 28, 2001, and October 18, 2006.  The complaint, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is entitled
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc.
et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by purportedly
making misrepresentations concerning the Company's stock option
granting policies and practices and related accounting.  The
defendants are Apollo Group, Inc., J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Daniel
E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda B. Gonzales,
Hedy F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson, Laura Palmer
Noone, John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter V. Sperling.
On September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension Trust Fund
for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff.  Lead plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on November 23, 2007, asserting the same
legal claims as the original complaint and adding claims for
violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and allegations of breach of fiduciary duties and civil
conspiracy.  On April 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint, which alleges similar claims for alleged
securities fraud against the same defendants.

On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in
the Company's favor.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of this ruling, and the Court denied this motion
on April 2, 2012.  On April 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, and their appeal remains pending before that Court.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
Company says the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point.  Based on information available at present, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action
and, accordingly, it has not accrued any liability associated with
this action.


APOLLO GROUP: Gets Preliminary Approval of "Adoma" Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. received preliminary approval of its settlement
of a class action lawsuit initiated by Diane Adoma, according to
the Company's June 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31,
2012.

On January 8, 2010, Diane Adoma filed an action in United States
District Court, Eastern District of California alleging wage and
hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law
for failure to pay overtime and other violations, entitled Adoma
et al. v. University of Phoenix, et al, Case Number 2:10-cv-04134-
JCJ.  On March 5, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, or
in the alternative to stay or transfer, the case based on the
previously filed Sabol and Juric actions.  On May 3, 2010, the
Court denied the motion to dismiss and/or transfer.  On April 12,
2010, plaintiff filed her motion for conditional collective action
certification.  The Court denied class certification under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and transferred these claims to the
District Court in Pennsylvania.  On
August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court in California granted
plaintiff's motion for class action certification of the
California claims.  On September 14, 2010, the Company filed a
petition for permission to appeal the class certification order
with the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on November 3, 2010.
There are approximately 1,500 current and former employees in the
class.

In August 2011, the parties agreed to settle the case for an
immaterial amount, which was accrued in the Company's financial
statements during fiscal year 2011.  The agreement, in which the
Company does not admit any liability, is subject to final approval
by the Court.  On June 18, 2012, the Court preliminarily approved
the settlement and granted the parties' motion to certify the
class of plaintiffs for settlement purposes.  The Company expects
a final approval hearing for the settlement will be held later
this year.


APOLLO GROUP: Institutional Investors Securities Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed a
consolidated class action lawsuit against Apollo Group, Inc.,
according to the Company's June 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 31, 2012.

On August 13, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Douglas
N. Gaer naming the Company, John G. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli,
Charles B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D'Amico, Brian L. Swartz and
Gregory J. Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business practices
and prospects for growth.  That complaint asserted a putative
class period stemming from December 7, 2009, to
August 3, 2010.  A substantially similar complaint was also filed
in the same Court by John T. Fitch on September 23, 2010, making
similar allegations against the same defendants for the same
purported class period.  Finally, on October 4, 2010, another
purported securities class action complaint was filed in the same
Court by Robert Roth against the same defendants as well as Brian
Mueller, Terri C. Bishop and Peter V. Sperling based upon the same
general set of allegations, but with a defined class period of
February 12, 2007, to August 3, 2010.  The complaints allege
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  On
October 15, 2010, three additional parties filed motions to
consolidate the related actions and be appointed the lead
plaintiff.

On November 23, 2010, the Fitch and Roth actions were consolidated
with Gaer and the Court appointed the "Apollo Institutional
Investors Group" consisting of the Oregon Public Employees
Retirement Fund, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, and Amalgamated
Bank as lead plaintiffs.  The case is now entitled, In re Apollo
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case Number CV-10-1735-
PHX-JAT. On February 18, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint naming Apollo, John G. Sperling, Peter V.
Sperling, Joseph L. D'Amico, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B.
Edelstein, Brian L. Swartz, Brian E. Mueller, Gregory J. Iverson,
and William J. Pepicello as defendants.  The consolidated
complaint asserts a putative class period of May 21, 2007, to
October 13, 2010.  On April 19, 2011, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss and oral argument on the motion was held before the
Court on October 17, 2011.  On October 27, 2011, the Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to
amend.  On December 6, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which alleges similar claims
against the same defendants.  On January 9, 2012, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

On June 22, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and entered a judgment in its favor.

The Company says it cannot at this time predict whether or not the
plaintiffs will appeal this dismissal.  Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of loss, if any, for this action and, accordingly, the
Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action.


BEAM GLOBAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Skinny Girl Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge denied a request from Beam Global Spirits & Wine Inc. and
Jim Beam Brands Co. to throw out a class action claim that its
Skinny Girl Margarita product, despite being sold and marketed as
"all natural," contains a chemical preservative and, therefore, is
deceiving consumers.

In the original complaint, the class maintains that through the
defendants misleading "extensive media campaign," the class was
informed that Skinny Girl Margarita was a "healthy alternative to
other commercial margarita products presently available" and was
"all natural."

The class, who are "generally health conscious and attempt to
purchase 'all natural' products when available," state they would
have not purchased Beam's Skinny Girl Margarita product if they
had known that the product contained sodium benzoate, a chemical
preservative and "potential carcinogen" when mixed with citric
acid.

Beam had sought the dismissal with prejudice based upon class
members' unjust enrichment claim in the second amended complaint.

"According to the Beam defendants, plaintiffs' cause of action for
unjust enrichment 'is precluded where, as here, plaintiffs claim
to have purchased the [Skinny Girl Margarita] product not from the
defendants but from a third-party retailer.'  Relying on New
Jersey law, the Beam defendants contend that on a claim for unjust
enrichment, plaintiffs are required to show that they conferred a
benefit upon the Beam defendants. Citing several cases from other
courts in this district, the Beam defendants argue that '[w]hen
purchasers . . . buy a product from a third-party retailer . . .
they have not conferred a benefit upon the manufacturer sufficient
to support a claim from unjust enrichment.'

The Beam defendants contend, therefore, that plaintiffs' claim for
unjust enrichment fails because plaintiffs admit in the second
amended complaint that they bought Skinny Girl Margarita from
various liquor stores in New Jersey and not directly from a
manufacturer like the Beam defendants."

District Judge Noel Hillman wrote, "This court is of the view that
it would be inequitable to suggest that the Beam defendants can
insulate themselves from liability on an unjust enrichment claim
simply by asserting that retail sales by liquor stores cut off any
relationship between the consumers and the manufacturer.  This is
particularly true in this case where plaintiffs cannot seek a
remedy directly from the liquor stores based on misrepresentations
allegedly made by the Beam defendants themselves as the to the
'all-natural' nature of Skinny Girl Margarita.  Accordingly, this
court finds that where a plaintiff alleges that a defendant
manufacturer has made false claims or misrepresentations directed
for the purpose of generating retail sales, and where those
retails sales could have the effect of increasing the amount of
wholesale sales to the manufacturer, it is plausible that a
plaintiff can show evidence of a sufficiently direct relationship
between the parties under New Jersey law."

"Accepting plaintiffs' allegations as true that they would not
have purchased Skinny Girl Margarita from the liquor store
retailers involved if not for the Beam defendants' alleged
misrepresentations and that the these purchases therefore resulted
in defendants receiving funds they would not have otherwise
received through the wholesale distribution of their products,"
Judge Hill noted, "plaintiffs' second amended complaint
sufficiently alleges a plausible claim for relief."

He concluded, for the reasons set forth, "the Beam defendants'
motion is denied."

The Skinny Girl franchise was purchased by the defendants from
entrepreneur/reality star Bethenny Frankel in 2011 for an
undisclosed amount.

A copy of the Opinion in Stewart, et al. v. Beam Global Spirits &
Wine, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-05149 (D. N.J.), is available
at http://is.gd/la9s6c

The Plaintiffs were represented by:

          Barbara Spillman Schweiger, Esq.
          David Benjamin Wolfe, Esq.
          Evan Andrew Showell, Esq.
          SKOLOFF & WOLFE, P.C.
          293 Eisenhower Parkway
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          E-mail: bschweiger@skoloffwolfe.com
                  dwolfe@skoloffwolfe.com
                  eshowell@skoloffwolfe.com

Defendants Beam Global Spirits & Wine, LLC and Jim Beam Brands Co.
were represented by:

          John B. Kearney, Esq.
          Michael Robert Carroll, Esq.
          BALLARD, SPAHR LLP
          210 Lake Drive East, Suite 200
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          E-mail: kearneyj@ballardspahr.com
                  carrollm@ballardspahr.com

Defendant Bethenny Frankel was represented by:

          David E. Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          P.O. Box 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          E-mail: sellingerd@gtlaw.com

          Laura D. Castner, Esq.
          KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT LLP
          808 Wilshire Boulevard
          3rd Floor
          Santa Monica, CA 90401

Defendants Skinny Girl Cocktails, LLC and SGC Global, LLC were
represented by:

          Aaron Van Nostrand, Esq.
          David E. Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          P.O. Box 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          E-mail: vannostranda@gtlaw.com


CHINA NATURAL: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
China Natural Gas, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in
Delaware, according to the Company's June 25, 2012, Form 10-Q/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On August 26, 2010, plaintiff Maxwell Vandevelde filed a putative
class action against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, captioned Vandevelde v. China
Natural Gas, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:10CV00728, United States
District Court for the District of Delaware), alleging that the
defendants violated U.S. federal securities laws.  On August 12,
2011, the Court entered an order appointing Robert Skeway, an
individual investor, as lead plaintiff and approving his selection
of lead counsel.  Lead plaintiff and Raimundo Jo-Fung, another
individual investor, who together seek to represent a class of all
purchasers and acquirers of the Company's common stock between
March 10, 2010, and September 21, 2011, filed an amended complaint
on October 11, 2011.  Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.  The amended complaint alleges the defendants
made false or misleading statements in the Company's Annual
Reports on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2009, and
December 31, 2010, and in various quarterly reports, by
purportedly failing to disclose a series of loans and related
party transactions.  The amended complaint also asserts claims
against certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors for violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary
damages.

On December 12, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and
the motion is now fully briefed.

The Company says it cannot provide at this time any assurance that
the outcome of this lawsuit will not be materially adverse to its
financial condition, consolidated results of operations, cash
flows or business prospects.


CLARCOR INC: Still Awaits Okay of Settlement in Price Fixing MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLARCOR Inc. is still awaiting approval of its settlement of a
multidistrict litigation involving a subsidiary, according to the
Company's June 22, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 2, 2012.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that virtually every major North American engine filter
manufacturer, including the Company's subsidiary, Baldwin Filters,
Inc. (the "Defendant Group" and "Baldwin," respectively), engaged
in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
customers for aftermarket filters.  The lawsuit is a purported
class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the
Defendant Group.  Parallel purported class actions, including on
behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, were filed by other
plaintiffs against the Defendant Group in a variety of
jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.  In addition, the
Attorneys General of the State of Florida and the County of
Suffolk, New York, filed complaints against the Defendant Group
based on these same allegations, and the Attorney General of the
State of Washington requested various documents, information and
cooperation, which the Company agreed to provide.  All of the U.S
cases, including the actions brought by and/or on behalf of
governmental entities, were consolidated into a single multi-
district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois (the
"Court").  The Company has consistently denied any wrongdoing
whatsoever and has vigorously defended the action.

On October 7, 2011, Baldwin entered into a settlement agreement
("Settlement Agreement") with the putative plaintiff classes
involved in the action, including the State of Florida.  Pursuant
to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Baldwin denied any
wrongdoing whatsoever but agreed to pay a total of $625,000, which
was fully reserved in fiscal year 2011, to a settlement fund to be
divided among the plaintiff classes in exchange for a full and
complete release of all claims with prejudice.

The Company entered into the Settlement Agreement to free itself
from the expense of ongoing litigation, which was anticipated to
be many times greater than the agreed settlement amount.  The
Company has paid the majority of the settlement amount into
escrow.  The Settlement Agreement will become effective after the
Court enters a final judgment order approving the Settlement
Agreement and dismissing the causes of action against Baldwin with
prejudice and without costs, and the time for appealing the order
expires.

The Company says it is unable to predict when these conditions
will be satisfied, but it is unaware of any objections or
obstacles, and believes that these conditions will be satisfied in
due course and in keeping with normal judicial time lines.


CREDIT SUISSE: Judge Certifies $642-Million MBS Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Max Stendahl, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on June 29 granted class certification to plaintiffs in a
suit alleging Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC duped investors
about the poor quality of loans behind a $642 million mortgage-
backed securities offering in 2006.

U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted a December 2010 bid
for class certification by lead plaintiff Vasili Tsereteli, whose
company, Vaszurele Ltd., allegedly lost more than half of its
$200,000 investment in the offering.


ELLIE MAE: Accused of Violating Mo. Merchandising Practices Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ellie Mae, Inc. disclosed in its June 25, 2012, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that it is
facing a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.

In May 2012, the Company says it learned that it was named as a
co-defendant in a purported class action matter filed in the
Missouri Circuit Court in St. Louis County, Missouri, in which the
plaintiffs allege that the Company, among other things, violated
Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act and engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law in connection with document
preparation services that it began offering following its
acquisition of certain assets from Online Documents, Inc. in
September 2008.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees, other costs and expenses and
pre-judgment interest.

Although the Company has not been served with the complaint and
has not assessed the potential impact of the asserted claims, the
Company believes that it has substantial and meritorious defenses
in this case and it intends to defend these claims vigorously.
However, neither the outcome of this litigation nor the amount and
range of potential damages can be assessed with certainty.  In
addition, the Company may be subject to similar claims and legal
proceedings in the future.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Discovery in Merger-Related Suits in Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery for the damages claim in consolidated class action
lawsuits against a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.,
is currently in its preliminary stages, according to the Company's
June 25, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On March 26, 2012, Southern Union Company, Energy Transfer Equity,
L.P. ("ETE"), and Sigma Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ETE (Merger Sub), completed their previously
announced merger transaction.  Pursuant to the Second Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 19, 2011,
as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated as of September 14,
2011 (as amended, the Merger Agreement), among Southern Union, ETE
and Merger Sub, Merger Sub was merged with and into Southern
Union, with Southern Union continuing as the surviving corporation
as an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE (the Merger).  The
Merger became effective on March 26, 2012, at 12:59 p.m., Eastern
Time (the Effective Time).

On June 21, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Jaroslawicz v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-
37091, was filed in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas.  The petition named as defendants the members of
the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and ETE.  The
plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Southern Union's stockholders or aided and abetted
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger.  The
petition alleged that the Merger involves an unfair price and an
inadequate sales process and that defendants entered into the
transaction to benefit themselves personally.  The petition sought
injunctive relief, including an injunction of the Merger,
attorneys' and other fees and costs, indemnification and other
relief.

Also on June 21, 2011, another putative class action lawsuit
captioned Magda v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-
37134, was filed in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas.  The petition named as defendants the members of
the Southern Union Board, Southern Union, and ETE.  The plaintiff
alleged that the Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the
Merger and that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted those
alleged breaches.  The petition alleged that the Merger involves
an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern
Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves
personally, and that defendants have failed to disclose all
material information related to the Merger to Southern Union
stockholders.  The petition sought injunctive relief, including an
injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other
fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On June 28, 2011, and August 19, 2011, amended petitions were
filed in the Magda and Jaroslawicz actions, respectively, naming
the same defendants and alleging that the Southern Union directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders
in connection with the Merger and that Southern Union and ETE
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
amended petitions allege that the Merger involves an unfair price
and an inadequate sales process, that Southern Union's directors
entered into the Merger to benefit themselves personally,
including through consulting and noncompete agreements, and that
defendants have failed to disclose all material information
related to the Merger to Southern Union stockholders.  The amended
petitions seek injunctive relief, including an injunction of the
Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, in
addition to other relief.  The two Texas cases have been
consolidated with the following style: In re:  Southern Union
Company; Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas.  On October 21, 2011, the court
denied ETE's October 13, 2011 motion to stay the Texas proceeding
in favor of cases pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On June 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, et al. v.
Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6615-CS, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  The complaint named as defendants the
members of the Southern Union Board, Southern Union and ETE.  The
plaintiffs alleged that the Southern Union directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders in
connection with the Merger and further claimed that ETE aided and
abetted those alleged breaches.  The complaint alleged that the
Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process,
that Southern Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit
themselves personally, including through consulting and noncompete
agreements, and that the directors should deem a competing
proposal made by The Williams Companies, Inc. (Williams) to be
superior.  The complaint sought compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, including an injunction of the Merger, and an award of
attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On June 29 and 30, 2011, putative class action lawsuits captioned
KBC Asset Management NV v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A.
No. 6622-CS, and LBBW Asset Management Investment GmbH v. Southern
Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6627-CS, respectively were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The complaints named as
defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, Southern
Union, ETE and Merger Sub.  The plaintiffs alleged that the
Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the Merger and
that ETE aided and abetted those alleged breaches.  The complaints
alleged that the Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate
sales process, that Southern Union's directors entered into the
Merger to benefit themselves personally, including through
consulting and noncompete agreements, and that the directors must
give full consideration to the Williams proposal.  The complaints
sought compensatory damages, injunctive relief, including an
injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other
fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On July 6, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Memo v.
Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6639-CS, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  The complaint named as defendants the
members of the Southern Union Board, Southern Union ETE and Merger
Sub.  The plaintiffs alleged that the Southern Union directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders
in connection with the amended Merger agreement and that Southern
Union, ETE and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged
breaches.  The complaint alleged that the Merger involves an
unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern
Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves
personally, and that the terms of the amended Merger agreement are
preclusive.  The complaint sought injunctive relief, including an
injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other
fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On August 25, 2011, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, KBC Asset
Management NV, and LBBW Asset Management Investment GmbH actions
pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming the same
defendants as the original complaints in those actions and
alleging that the Southern Union directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection
with the Merger, that ETE aided and abetted those alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty, and that the provisions in Section 5.4 of the
Second Amended Merger Agreement relating to Southern Union's
ability to accept a superior proposal is invalid under Delaware
law.  The amended complaint alleges that the Merger involves an
unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern
Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves
personally, including through consulting and noncompete
agreements, and that the defendants have failed to disclose all
material information related to the Merger to Southern Union
stockholders.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks injunctive relief,
including an injunction of the Merger and an award of attorneys'
and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

The four Delaware Court of Chancery cases have been consolidated
with the following style:  In re Southern Union Co. Shareholder
Litigation, C.A. No. 6615-CS, in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On November 9, 2011, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Texas
and Delaware actions stated that they did not intend to pursue
their efforts to enjoin the Merger.  Plaintiffs have indicated
that they intend to pursue a claim for damages.  A trial has not
yet been scheduled in any of these matters.  Discovery for the
damages claim is in its preliminary stages.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Southern Union Awaits "Price" Suit Developments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Union Company is awaiting results of its subsidiary's
request for Will Price, et al. to voluntarily dismiss their class
action lawsuit, according to Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.'s June
25, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On March 26, 2012, Southern Union Company, Energy Transfer Equity,
L.P. ("ETE"), and Sigma Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ETE (Merger Sub), completed their previously
announced merger transaction.  Pursuant to the Second Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 19, 2011,
as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated as of September 14,
2011 (as amended, the Merger Agreement), among Southern Union, ETE
and Merger Sub, Merger Sub was merged with and into Southern
Union, with Southern Union continuing as the surviving corporation
as an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE (the Merger).  The
Merger became effective on March 26, 2012, at 12:59 p.m., Eastern
Time (the Effective Time).

Will Price, an individual, filed actions in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas for damages against a number of
companies, including Southern Union Company's subsidiary,
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, alleging mis-measurement of
natural gas volumes and Btu content, resulting in lower royalties
to mineral interest owners.  On September 19, 2009, the Court
denied plaintiffs' request for class certification.  Plaintiffs
have filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on
March 31, 2010.  Panhandle believes that its measurement practices
conformed to the terms of its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
natural gas tariffs, which were filed with and approved by the
FERC.  As a result, the Southern Union believes that it has
meritorious defenses to the Will Price lawsuit (including FERC-
related affirmative defenses, such as the filed rate/tariff
doctrine, the primary/exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC, and the
defense that Panhandle complied with the terms of its tariffs).
In the event that Plaintiffs refuse Panhandle's pending request
for voluntary dismissal, Panhandle will continue to vigorously
defend the case.  Southern Union believes it has no liability
associated with this proceeding.


EQUITRUST LIFE: Judge Denies Bid to Trim Consumer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Winnick, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge
on July 2 rejected calls to trim a consumer class action accusing
EquiTrust Life Insurance Co. of falsely marketing deferred
annuities as having no sales fees, saying a breach of contract
cause of action could move forward with fraud and unfair
competition claims.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anthony Mohr overruled
EquiTrust's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims,
rejecting the insurer's argument that all of the purported
breaches were either expressly permitted or related to terms not
in the disputed contracts.


EVERGREEN ULTRA: Court Nod Sought for Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Five institutional investors, including two union benefit funds
from Philadelphia, the Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local 1
of PA/DE Health and Welfare Fund and the Bricklayers Local 54 of
Pennsylvania Supplemental Welfare Fund, on July 2 disclosed that
they have sought preliminary court approval of a $25 million
settlement of a class action alleging violations of securities
disclosure laws pertaining to investments in the now defunct
mutual fund known as the Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities Fund
("Ultra Short Fund").  The investors are represented by Stewart L.
Cohen of Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. (Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania).  Mr. Cohen was one of three lead attorneys
appointed by the presiding court to represent a national class of
investors and was lead trial counsel when the settlement was
forged.

The lead plaintiffs claimed that the defendants responsible for
the Ultra Short Fund marketed it as a safe, liquid, and stable
investment and lured investors by representing the mutual fund as
higher-yield alternative to a money-market fund.  Contrary to its
public filings and disclosures, including its registration
statements and prospectuses, the Ultra Short Fund actually
invested in illiquid, volatile and risky non-agency mortgage
backed securities ("MBS").  Even after the market for MBS began to
deteriorate, the Ultra Short Fund continued to invest in MBS and
concealed the portfolio's deteriorating value from the public by
artificially inflating the asset values of the individual
securities in its portfolio, causing its net asset value to be
overstated.  When the defendants' scheme collapsed and the true
risks of the Ultra Short Fund materialized in June 2008, the Ultra
Short Fund was forced to liquidate.  As a result, Fund investors
lost almost 25% of their investment.

The class action pending in the U.S. District Court of
Massachusetts sought damages on behalf of purchasers of shares in
the Ultra Short Fund between October 28, 2005, and June 18, 2008.
It named as defendants the entities and individuals responsible
for marketing the Ultra Short Opportunities Fund: the Evergreen
Fixed Income Trust, the Evergreen Investment Management Company,
Wachovia Corporation, and Evergreen Investment Services, Inc.,
along with former officers Dennis Farro, Kasey Phillips, and the
entire Board of Trustees.

In addition to Mr. Cohen, the class was represented by Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP (Boca Raton, Florida), and Evangelista &
Associates, LLC (Atlanta, Georgia).  The Defendants were
represented by Reed Smith LLP (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), and
Ropes & Gray LLP (Boston, Massachusetts).  The settlement was
negotiated as the parties were on the verge of beginning trial.

Mr. Cohen stated: "This settlement is a significant achievement
for investors in the Ultra Short Fund, as well as all investors in
mortgage-backed securities.  We are particularly pleased to be
able to recover on behalf of our institutional investor clients
who ultimately were cheated of millions of dollars as a result of
the blatant misrepresentations made by the defendants."

The settlement approval process requires a fairness hearing as
well as court approval.  The court is in the process of setting a
hearing date for the fairness hearing and the processes for
notifying the class and administering the settlement, in the event
the settlement is approved.


GANZ USA: Settles Antitrust Class Action Over Webkinz Toys
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a class that
accused Ganz USA of forcing retailers to buy at least $1,000 in
unrelated Ganz products in order to buy its popular Webkinz plush
toys has settled with the company for more than $2.5 million.

Class members claimed that Ganz illegally tied its Webkinz toys to
other "core-line" products, forcing them to buy those products
through Ganz instead of other producers.

Each Webkinz toy is linked to an interactive Web site, called
Webkinz World, that allows users to take care of a virtual pet by
earning points through online games.

Named plaintiff Nuts for Candy said in its 2008 complaint that
Ganz illegally forces retailers who want to sell Webkinz to buy at
least $1,000 of stuff from its "core line," which "consists of
Ganz products unrelated to Webkinz, including lip gloss, magnets,
and stuffed and rubber animals."

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in San Francisco said in 2010
that the plaintiffs needed to show how the allegedly tied products
reduced consumer choice.

"However, the complaint does not allege that consumers are unable
to purchase the competing manufacturers' products from other
retailers," Judge White wrote.

The judge also tossed an antitrust injury claim, saying the
alleged inability to stock store shelves with competing products
"does not amount to recognizable harm to competition."

The parties reached a proposed class action settlement, which
District Judge Richard Seeborg preliminarily approved in an order
last week.

The judge ordered a hearing in September to determine if the
settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.

The proposed class is comprised of those who bought "core line"
products as a condition to buying Webkinz toys between 2005 and
2008, and the settlement requires Ganz to pay $2,575,000 to the
members.

The amount distributed to each member will depend on the amount of
"core line" products each person bought.

Ganz has denied all the claims against it, and continues to deny
any legal liability to the settling class.

The parties posted a Web site with information about the rights of
potential class members and background on the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff was represented by:

          Steven K. Williams, Esq.
          Matthew K. Edling, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
          E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com
                  medling@cpmlegal.com

Ganz was represented by:

          James Serota, Esq.
          Scott Martin, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          E-mail: serotaj@gtlaw.com
                  martinsc@gtlaw.com

A copy of the Amended Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement and Issuance of Class Notice in In Re: Webkinz
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 08-md-01987 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/03/Webkinz%20Settlement.pdf


HOSPIRA INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Drug Shortage
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Overley, writing for Law360, reports that Hospira Inc. was
within its rights to halt production of an injectable vitamin
supplement, a federal judge said on July 2 in wiping out a
proposed class action brought by a Florida woman who says she's
going blind because the treatment isn't available.

Jennifer Lacognata sued the pharmaceutical company in April over
shortages of a vitamin A medicine known as Aquasol A, which
Hospira stopped producing in 2010.


HUMANA INC: 6th Cir. Revives Employment Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that the Sixth Circuit on
July 2 revived a former manager's proposed class action accusing
Humana Inc. of a pattern of employment discrimination against
African-American managers, finding the plaintiff had sufficiently
alleged her claims.

The three-judge panel ruled that a lower court in Kentucky had
improperly dismissed the suit filed by former Humana director
Kathryn Keys, finding she had adequately alleged both her
individual race discrimination claim and her class action claim
and that both should be defined further through the discovery
process.


INNOVAGE LLC: Recalls 300,000 Discovery Kids Animated Lamps
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Innovage LLC, of Foothill Ranch, California, announced a voluntary
recall of about 300,000 units of Discovery Kids(TM) Animated
Marine and Safari Lamps.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The placement of internal wires near the circuit board can cause
electrical short-circuiting and sparking, posing a fire and a burn
hazard to consumers.

Innovage has received 11 reports of short circuiting.  This
includes three reports of lamps catching fire, which led to
property damage.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Discovery Kids Animated Marine and Safari
Lamps that feature rotating films with marine or safari scenes.
The words "Discovery Kids" are printed on the front top-left
corner of the product.  The recalled products have both an 11-
digit batch number that begins with either 584894 or 10128 and a
model number of 1628626, 1642433, 1641522, 1641523, 1645729, or
1645853.  Batch numbers can be found imprinted in the plastic
underneath the lamps and on the bottom of the packaging.  Model
numbers can be found on stickers placed underneath the lamps and
on the bottom of the packaging near the barcode.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12215.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed
Bath & Beyond, Bonton, JCPenney, Kohls, Office Max, Toys "R" Us
stores nationwide as well as the online retailers Amazon, Ideeli,
JCPenney, Kohls, Macy's and Overstock from June 2010 through March
2012 for between $10 and $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the lamps and contact
Innovage for instructions on how to obtain a full refund.  For
additional information contact Innovage toll-free at (888) 232-
1535 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through
Friday, visit the firm's Web site at http://www.innovage.net/,
http://www.lamprecall.org/or e-mail info@lamprecall.org


KOREAN BANKS: 40,000 People Join Collateral Security Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ji Myung-kil, writing for Arirang News, reports that more than 40-
thousand people have come together for the nation's largest class-
action lawsuit, demanding repayment of their collateral security
set-up fees.

The fees are what borrowers pay to register a loan.

According to the Korea Consumer Agency on July 3, the class action
was filed against banks and life insurance companies to force them
to refund the fees the banks had imposed on collateral security
loans.

The damages for each individual involved in the suit amount to
more than 450 U.S. dollars, a total of 20-million dollars if the
case is won.

This makes it the largest class-action lawsuit against financial
institutions in Korea's history.

An official from the consumer agency said, "Since the banks are
not taking the appropriate measures, we are filing a class action
lawsuit, and consumers are very willing to participate in it."

Earlier this year, the KCA stood on the side of consumers
demanding that banks refund the collateral security set-up costs
and repay 50-percent of the stamp duties that had been imposed on
them.

The Korea Finance Consumer Federation estimates that the damages
to consumers have accrued to nearly 8-billion dollars over the
past decade.


LONE PINE: Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP on July 2 disclosed that that it
is representing a shareholder who filed a class action lawsuit
against Lone Pine Resources, Inc. alleging claims arising under
the Securities Act of 1933 that the Company, its directors and
underwriters issued false and misleading offering materials in
connection with Lone Pine's May 26, 2011 initial public offering
("IPO").  Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
failed to inform investors that prior to the IPO the Company was
experiencing significantly increased costs and disruption in oil
production volumes as a result of a pipe line rupture and a large
forest fire.

The lawsuit was originally filed in New York State court but was
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, where the case is currently
captioned Augenbaum v. Lone Pine Resources, Inc., et al., No. 12
Civ. 4839 (GBD).  The plaintiff intends to move the Court to
remand (i.e., send back) the case to state court.  In the event
the action is not remanded to state court, any person wishing to
serve as lead plaintiff must move the Court no later than 60 days
from the date of the notice published with respect to this
lawsuit.

ALTHOUGH OTHER LAW FIRMS HAVE PUBLISHED NOTICES REGARDING THIS
CASE, THE ONLY CASE WHICH HAS BEEN FILED IS THE ONE IN WHICH AF&T
REPRESENTS THE PLAINTIFF.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey S. Abraham or Philip T. Taylor at
(212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986, or via e-mail at
jabraham@aftlaw.com or ptaylor@aftlaw.com


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan Suit in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit captioned Jerry Jones v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc.,
et al., according to the Company's June 21, 2012, Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants
in and beneficiaries of MEMC's 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan")
between September 4, 2007, and December 26, 2008, inclusive.  The
complaint asserted claims against MEMC and certain of its
directors, employees and/or other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan.
The complaint alleges that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, generally asserting that the defendants failed to
make full disclosure to the Plan's participants of the risks of
investing in MEMC's stock and that the Company's stock should not
have been made available as an investment alternative in the Plan.
The complaint also alleges that MEMC failed to disclose certain
material facts regarding MEMC's operations and performance, which
had the effect of artificially inflating MEMC's stock price.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008, through the
present, inclusive.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including losses the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in MEMC's stock, equitable relief and
an award of attorney's fees.  No class has been certified and
discovery has not begun.  The Company and the named directors and
employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully
briefed by the parties as of
October 9, 2009.  The parties each subsequently filed notices of
supplemental authority and corresponding responses.  On March 17,
2010, the court denied the motion to dismiss.  The MEMC defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative,
certification for interlocutory appeal, which was fully briefed by
the parties as of June 16, 2010.  The parties each subsequently
filed notices of supplemental authority and corresponding
responses.  On October 18, 2010, the court granted the MEMC
defendants' motion for reconsideration, vacated its order denying
the MEMC defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it will
revisit the issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the
parties supplement their arguments relating thereto.  Both parties
filed briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010.
On June 28, 2011, plaintiff Jerry Jones filed a notice of
voluntary withdrawal from the action.  On June 29, 2011, the Court
entered an order withdrawing Jones as one of the plaintiffs in
this action.  The parties each have continued to file additional
notices of supplemental authority and responses thereto.

MEMC believes the class action is without merit, and it will
assert a vigorous defense.  Due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, the Company says it cannot predict the ultimate
outcome or resolution of the class action proceedings or estimate
the amounts of, or potential range of, loss with respect to these
proceedings.  An unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse
impact on the Company's business, results of operations and
financial condition.  The Company has indemnification agreements
with each of its present and former directors and officers, under
which it is generally required to indemnify each such director or
officer against expenses, including attorney's fees, judgments,
fines and settlements, arising from actions such as the class
action lawsuit.


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Xbox Live Subscription
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Microsoft breaches contract by barring customers from its
subscription Xbox Live service if they have their hardware
repaired by local tech people.

A copy of the Complaint in Talyancich v. Microsoft Corporation,
Case No. 12-cv-01128 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/03/MicrosoftCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Grant, Esq.
          SKELLENGER BENDER, P.S.
          1301 - Fifth Avenue, Suite 3401
          Seattle, WA 98101-2605
          Telephone: (206) 623-6501
          E-mail: jgrant@skellengerbender.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN &SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
          ABINGTON COLE
          320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1705
          Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
          Telephone: (918) 588-3400
          E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com


ORIENT PAPER: Reached $2-Million Settlement of "Henning" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orient Paper Inc. disclosed in its June 21, 2012, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it reached a
proposed $2 million settlement of the securities class action
lawsuit pending against it and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

                      Company's Statement

BAODING, China -- June 21, 2012 -- Orient Paper, Inc. (AMEX: ONP),
a leading manufacturer and distributor of diversified paper
products in northern China, announced that it reached a proposed
settlement of the securities class action lawsuit pending against
the Company and certain current and former officers and directors
of the Company ("Orient Paper defendants").

The securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Mark
Henning, et. al, v. Orient Paper, Inc. et al., Case no. CV-10-5887
RSWL (AJWx)) and alleges, among other things, that the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted to
state material facts that rendered its affirmative statements
misleading as they related to the Company's financial performance,
business prospects, and financial condition, and that the
defendants failed to prevent such statements from being issued or
corrected.  The terms of the proposed settlement call for
dismissal of all the Orient Paper defendants from the action in
exchange for a $2 million payment from the Company's insurer.

The proposed settlement remains subject to court approval and
class notice administration.  The parties expect to complete full
documentation of the settlement and file a motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement and approval of the class
notice no later than July 30, 2012.

                    About Orient Paper, Inc.

Orient Paper, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary, Shengde
Holdings, Inc., controls and operates Baoding Shengde Paper Co.,
Ltd., and Hebei Baoding Orient Paper Milling Co., Ltd.  Founded in
1996, HBOP is engaged in the production and distribution of
products such as corrugating medium paper, offset printing paper,
and other paper and packaging-related products in China.  The
Company uses recycled paper as its primary raw material.  Baoding
Shengde, founded in June 2009 located in Baoding, is engaged in
the production and distribution of digital photo paper.  As one of
the largest paper producers in Hebei Province, China, HBOP is
strategically located in Baoding, a city in close proximity to
Beijing where the majority of publishing houses are based.  Orient
Paper is led by an experienced management team committed to
diversifying the Company's product offering and delivering
tailored services to its customers.  For more information, please
visit http://www.orientpaperinc.com/.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Tariff Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. disclosed that it was served
with a lawsuit and a motion for the recognition of this lawsuit as
a class action, filed against Partner on July 1, 2012 in the Tel-
Aviv District Court.

The claim alleges that Partner charges subscribers that are
enrolled in a certain tariff plan for call minutes not in
accordance with the terms of the plan.

If the lawsuit is recognized as a class action the total amount
claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
approximately NIS 123 million.

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable, at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. is an Israeli mobile
communications operator.


PFIZER CANADA: Balks at Champix Class Action Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Cindy E. Harnett, writing for Times Colonist, reports that an
Ontario court's decision to certify a class-action suit against
Pfizer Canada related to smoking-cessation drug Champix, offered
free of charge by the B.C. government as part of its anti-smoking
program, is a disappointment, says the drug company.

Pfizer Canada released a statement on July 1 noting the
certification of the class-action merely enables the case to
proceed and that the merits of the claims have not been proven in
court.

"While the company is disappointed with portions of the ruling,
the court did make several rulings in favor of the company that
will narrow the scope of the common issues trial," the statement
says.

"There is no reliable scientific evidence that Champix causes the
serious neuropsychiatric injuries alleged in these cases."

Colwood's Patricia Clow launched a class-action lawsuit in B.C.
against Pfizer Canada two years ago.  Her daughter Heidi, 22,
committed suicide in October 2009, five months after first taking
Champix to help her quit smoking.

Ken Parker, 58, began similar legal action in Ontario.  He took
the drug in December 2007.  A month later, he suffered an
emotional breakdown and in February attempted suicide.  Brother
Ross Parker, in Mill Bay, blames the drug for ruining his
brother's life.

The legal proceedings involve people who took Champix and allege
that they developed psychological side-effects that might have
included attempted suicide.  It is alleged that Pfizer failed to
warn the public, patients and doctors about the risks of
neuropsychiatric adverse events, including suicide, associated
with Champix.

In his recent decision, Justice Paul Perell, of the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, certified the class-action on the basis
of failure to warn.

The court also granted a stay of all claims against Pfizer Inc.
for the common issues phase of the litigation, which narrows the
class definition and reduces the number of common issues.

Lawyers for the plaintiff are happy they will have their day in
court.

Lawyer Idan Erez, with McPhadden Samac Tuovi, in Toronto, said in
a statement, "we believe this is an excellent result because it
allows the case to go forward as a class action."

Through the B.C. government's smoking cessation program launched
in September 2011, PharmaCare now covers a single continuous
course of one of two prescribed smoking-cessation drugs --
varenicline (Champix) and bupropion (Zyban) -- or a free 12-week
supply of nicotinereplacement gum or patches.


POLYMEDIX INC: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights firm Robbins Umeda LLP disclosed that the firm
commenced a class action lawsuit on July 2, 2012, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf
of purchasers of PolyMedix, Inc. shares between March 7, 2011 and
May 10, 2012.  The action is against the Company and certain of
the Company's executive officers for violations of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934.

PolyMedix is a clinical stage biotechnology Company that develops
drugs for the treatment of serious acute care conditions.
Throughout the Class Period, the Company had two experimental
compounds in clinical trials, PMX-30063 and PMX-60056.  One of
these prospective drugs, PMX-60056, was a cardiovascular compound
that was intended to reverse the activity of common blood clotting
agents in order to avoid the risk of stroke.

The complaint alleges that beginning on March 7, 2011, the
Company, along with its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer, and Vice President of Cardiovascular Clinical
Development, issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements to investors about PMX-60056's commercial viability,
safety, and market potential that caused shares of PolyMedix to
trade at artificially high prices.  Specifically, it is alleged
that officials at PolyMedix failed to disclose to investors that:
(a) the Company's experimental compounds caused hypotension more
often and at lower doses than acknowledged; (b) varying doses of
the compound would not eliminate its adverse side effects on a
patient's blood pressure; and (c) as a result, the development of
the Company's drug pipeline and the business prospects of
PolyMedix were at significant risk.

On May 10, 2012, PolyMedix issued a press release disclosing to
investors for the time that the Company was halting patient
enrollment in clinical trials for PMX-60056 "due to observations
of reductions in blood pressure."  When the true state of PMX-
60056's clinical development and adverse side effects became
public, shares of PolyMedix's common stock declined a staggering
29%, closing on May 11, 2012 at just $0.36 per share.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired PolyMedix stock during the
Class Period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must act no
later than August 31, 2012.  To discuss your shareholder rights,
please contact attorney Gregory E. Del Gaizo at 800-350-6003, via
e-mail at info@robbinsumeda.com or via the shareholder information
form.

Robbins Umeda LLP -- http://www.robbinsumeda.com-- represents
individual and institutional shareholders in derivative, direct,
and class action lawsuits.


PULTE HOMES: Loses Bid to Overturn Class Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Goodman, writing for Law360, reports that Pulte Homes
Inc.'s bid to overturn a May 2011 order granting class
certification to a group of California homeowners over faulty
insulation failed on June 29 when U.S. District Judge A. Howard
Matz determined that U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Concepcion
and Dukes were irrelevant to the case.


REVLON INC: Signs MOU to Settle Fidelity Claims for $22.5-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc. entered into a binding Memorandum of Understanding
with Fidelity Management & Research Company and its investment
advisory affiliates to settle for $22.5 million potential claims
Fidelity could have as a potential member of certain classes that
plaintiffs seek to certify in pending class action lawsuits,
according to the Company's June 21, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Revlon, Inc. (the "Company") disclosed in its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2012, various
purported class actions filed in connection with the Company's
voluntary exchange offer consummated in October 2009 (the
"Exchange Offer").  The purported class actions are currently
pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County and the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and are brought
against the Company, the Company's then directors and MacAndrews &
Forbes Holdings Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants").

Although the Defendants continue to dispute the allegations in the
pending actions and believe them to be without merit, on
June 21, 2012, without admitting any liability, the Defendants
entered into a binding Memorandum of Understanding with Fidelity
Management & Research Company ("FMR Co.") and its investment
advisory affiliates, all of which are direct or indirect
subsidiaries of FMR LLC (collectively, "Fidelity"), which through
various funds and management agreements controlled the largest
block of shares to participate in the Exchange Offer, to settle
potential claims Fidelity could have as a potential member of the
classes that plaintiffs seek to certify in the pending actions.

Fidelity executed the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of
6,111,879 shares (the "Fidelity Controlled Shares") out of the
6,933,526 shares (the "Fidelity Shares") of the Company's Class A
Common Stock that Fidelity exchanged in the Exchange Offer, and
the Memorandum of Understanding permits the remaining 821,647
shares to participate in the settlement on or before a specified
date.  As part of the settlement, Fidelity has agreed, among other
things, to a cash payment of $19.9 million in exchange for opting
out with respect to the Fidelity Controlled Shares of any
purported class action related to the Exchange Offer and a release
of all related potential claims.  If any or all of the parties
controlling the accounts holding the remaining 821,647 Fidelity
Shares agree to participate in the settlement, Defendants will
make an additional payment to Fidelity pro rata with the payment
for the Fidelity Controlled Shares.  The terms of the settlement
thus call for a total payment to Fidelity of up to $22.5 million
(the "Final Fidelity Settlement Amount") by the Defendants, which
amount will be paid from insurance proceeds.  The Company has
recorded a charge and corresponding income from insurance proceeds
related to the Final Fidelity Settlement Amount resulting in no
impact to the Company's Statement of Income for the period.

The Defendants have also agreed with Fidelity that, in the event a
settlement is reached with the purported class plaintiffs, or an
award of damages is issued following a trial in any of the pending
actions, and that settlement amount or damage award exceeds the
Fidelity settlement on a per share basis, Fidelity would receive
additional consideration subject to certain parameters.  The
Company has recorded an additional charge of $6.7 million with
respect to the Company's estimated costs of resolving the pending
litigations with the purported class plaintiffs, including the
Company's estimate of any additional payment by it to Fidelity.

The Company says there can be no assurance as to the amount, if
any, of additional insurance proceeds that the Company may receive
in connection with its defense or resolution of the pending
actions.  In any event, at least $5 million of future payments by
the Defendants relating to these matters, including expenses, will
not be covered by insurance.

The Fidelity Settlement has no effect on the pending actions other
than to eliminate Fidelity from any future certified class.


RITE AID: Settles Overtime Class Action for $20.9 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
James Haggerty, writing for The Scranton Times Tribune, reports
that Rite Aid Corp. has agreed to pay up to $20.9 million in a
settlement of a federal class action case related to unpaid
overtime.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III recently approved the
settlement, which could affect 6,100 people in 31 states,
including Pennsylvania.

The federal case dates to December 2008 and was filed originally
in the Middle District of Pennsylvania by a Rite Aid assistant
store manager from Georgia who alleged she was denied overtime
payments she was entitled to under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"We are very pleased that this hard-fought case has been settled,"
said attorney Pete Winebrake, a Montgomery County lawyer who
represents the plaintiffs with attorney Seth Lesser of Westchester
County, N.Y.  "We hope it will be approved and we will be able to
get the money into the plaintiffs' hands without much delay."

Rite Aid, a drugstore chain that traces its origins to Scranton,
admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement and issued a statement
saying the settlement allows the company to avoid the distraction
of ongoing litigation.

"Rite Aid believes that its previous classification of assistant
managers and co-managers as exempt employees is fully compliant
with applicable state and federal law," the statement says.

The settlement occurs as Rite Aid continues to struggle
financially.  The company's debt exceeds $6.1 billion and it last
recorded an annual profit in 2006.  Rite Aid reported a 2011 loss
of $368 million on revenue of $26.1 billion.

"It's a very tough game to be in when you are loaded down with a
massive amount of debt," said Howard Davidowitz, a New York City
investment banker and retail consultant.  "They are in a constant
struggle.  They have limited ability to make investments."

The settlement brings together 13 cases from various federal court
districts in which Rite Aid assistant store managers and co-
managers alleged they put in more than 40 hours of work some
weeks, but were denied overtime because the company classified
them as supervisors.  The workers' duties did not include store or
department management, they alleged, and they did not have
authority to hire or fire or directly supervise other employees.

The estimated average pretax payment to claimants will be $2,000,
court papers show.  Judge Jones scheduled a hearing Oct. 24 in
Harrisburg to finalize the settlement.

Rite Aid, which is based in Camp Hill and operates 4,667 stores,
is battling to compete with larger rivals CVS Caremark and
Walgreen Co. CVS, which is based in Rhode Island, has 7,300 stores
and reported a 2011 operating profit of $6.3 billion on $107
billion in sales.  Walgreens, which is based near Chicago and has
8,210 locations, reported fiscal 2011 profit of $2.7 billion on
sales of $72.2 billion.

Rite Aid's debt ballooned after it spent $3.4 billion to acquire
more than 1,800 Eckerd and Brooks stores in June 2007.

"Rite Aid is up against two super-financed, giant companies that
are rolling along," Mr. Davidowitz said.  "They are a distant
third who is losing money and is loaded with debt."

Rite Aid operates 14 stores in Lackawanna County and seven in the
Wilkes-Barre area.  The company opened its first store in Scranton
in 1962 as Thrif D Discount Center.


SHELL SA: Ordered to Set Up $382MM Workers' Compensation Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Brooks, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Brazilian judge has ruled that the local subsidiaries of oil
company Shell and the world's largest chemical company, BASF, must
pay $382 million into a compensation fund to potentially cover
more than 1,000 workers who allege they were contaminated and
sickened at an agricultural chemical plant.

BASF SA said in a July 2 statement that it would appeal the ruling
by Judge Maria Ines Correa Targa.  Shell SA said it would abide by
the decision pending a higher court's ruling on the workers'
class-action lawsuit that is before a court in the national
capital, Brasilia.

Prosecutors said any money actually paid into the fund would be
frozen until the workers' damage suit is finalized -- but they
wanted it in the fund as a guarantee.

The companies were earlier ordered to make payments by two courts.
But the case revolving around a plant in the city of Paulinia, 75
miles (120 kilometers) northwest of Sao Paulo, was appealed to a
higher court.

Judge Targa wrote in her ruling on June 28 that Shell and BASF
engaged in "reprehensible conduct" seeking to "circumvent their
obligation."

The companies sharply disputed her characterization.

Shell said in a statement that it "does not agree with the . . .
sentence, whose content we believe lacks the necessary
impartiality and deep understanding of the subject."  BASF said it
remains confident in the eventual solution that higher courts will
find in the case.

The chemical plant operated from 1977 until it was closed in 2002.
Shell originally owned it, but sold the operation to American
Cyanamid in 1995.  Germany-based BASF bought American Cyanamid in
2000 and took over the chemicals plant at Paulinia.

In its 2011 annual report, BASF SE, the parent company of BASF SA,
acknowledged the site was "significantly contaminated by the
production of crop protection products."

BASF claims the site was contaminated before it bought plant.  The
company filed a lawsuit in Brazil last year asking a court to hold
Shell fully responsible for any damages.  BASF said it and Royal
Dutch Shell PLC are currently in talks about any payments.

Prosecutors have said that former workers at the plant and people
who live near it have shown many health problems, including
prostate cancer, problems with short-term memory and issues with
their thyroid gland.  At least 61 former workers at the plant have
died in recent years.  Others have seen various health issues
arise in children born since they worked at the site.

The class-action lawsuit before the court in Brasilia includes 782
former workers.

However, Judge Targa's separate ruling on the compensation fund
payment includes 1,142 people, reflecting outsourced workers who
are ill along with the children of former workers at the plant,
but whom prosecutors want added to the case.  It was not clear how
that would affect the overall class-action lawsuit.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Still Awaits Consolidated Suit Deal Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic
Automotive, Inc. and several of its dealership subsidiaries that
purport to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs
and make allegations that certain products sold in the finance and
insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner.  One of these private civil actions was filed on
November 15, 2004, in South Carolina state court, York County
Court of Common Pleas, against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and some of
Sonic's South Carolina subsidiaries.  The plaintiffs in that
lawsuit were Misty J. Owens, James B. Wright, Vincent J. Astey and
Joseph Lee Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class.  The group of
plaintiffs' attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the South
Carolina lawsuit also filed another private civil class action
lawsuit against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and certain of its
subsidiaries on February 14, 2005, in state court in North
Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court, which similarly sought
certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs and alleged
that certain products sold in the finance and insurance
departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal
manner.  The plaintiffs in this North Carolina lawsuit were Robert
Price, Carolyn Price, Marcus Cappelletti and Kelly Cappelletti, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of the purported class.  The South Carolina state court
action and the North Carolina state court action were subsequently
consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration
before the American Arbitration Association.  On November 12,
2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration filed a Motion for
Class Certification as a national class action including all of
the states in which Sonic operates dealerships except Florida.
Claimants are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of this class of customers.  The parties have briefed and
argued the issue of class certification.

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

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

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

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

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 25, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


SUNOPTA INC: Recaptures $512,000 From "Vargas" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunOpta Inc. reported in its June 25, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a $512,000 recapture
gain from its settlement of a class action lawsuit.

In September 2008, a single plaintiff and a former employee filed
a wage and hour dispute, against SunOpta Inc. and SunOpta Fruit
Group, Inc., as a class action alleging various violations of
California's labor laws (the "Vargas Class Action").  A tentative
settlement of all claims was reached at mediation on January 15,
2010, and the parties executed a settlement agreement resolving
all claims of the class.  On February 15, 2011, the terms of the
proposed settlement were preliminarily approved by the court.  As
a result of the tentative settlement, $1,200,000 was accrued for a
common fund to pay claims.  Claim Forms totaling $315,000 were
submitted against the common fund.  Disbursements of $688,000 were
made from the common fund to claimants to pay timely claims and to
plaintiff's counsel and others to pay statutory attorneys fees,
costs and administrative expenses.  Thereafter, $512,000 of the
original common fund was returned to the Company, resulting in a
recapture gain.


TACO BELL: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Text Message Campaign
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a class that
claimed Taco Bell sent unwanted promotional text messages failed
to persuade a federal judge that the company was directly
responsible for their annoyance.

Tracie Thomas sued Taco Bell in 2009 on behalf of a class that
received promotional texts from the Taco Bell Local Owners
Advertising Association in Chicago.

The Association, along with advertising agency ESW Partners,
approved a promotional sweepstakes campaign in 2005 that would
send "an outbound text message to 17,000 'Chicagoans' between the
ages of 18 and 34 years of age," the court's summary says.

After the promotion was approved, ESW contracted with ipsh!net
Inc. to procure a list of cell phone numbers.

Ms. Thomas claimed the texts, which encouraged customers to enter
a contest, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in her
complaint in California's Central District.

Ms. Thomas argued that Taco Bell was vicariously liable for the
texts even though the company did not directly send them, because
the restaurant benefited from the messages.

District Judge Cormac Carney disagreed in a 12-page order last
week.

"Mere approval and funds administration cannot be equated with
control over the manner and means by which the campaign was
designed and executed," the judge wrote.

"Ms. Thomas did not present any evidence to the Court that Taco
Bell directed or supervised the manner and means of the text
message campaign conducted by the Association and its two agents,
ESW and Ipsh.  She presented no evidence to the Court that Taco
Bell created or developed the text message.  Nor did she present
any evidence to the Court that Taco Bell played any role in the
decision to distribute the message by way of a blast text."

The judge continued: "All of this control over the manner and
means of the text message campaign was exercised by the
Association, ESW, and Ipsh, and Ms. Thomas has not presented any
evidence to the Court demonstrating that Taco Bell controlled the
actions of these entities with respect to the campaign.  Taco
Bell, simply put, had nothing to do with it." Judge Carney granted
Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment.

A copy of the Order Granting Defendant's Amended Motion for
Summary Judgment in Thomas v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 09-cv-
01097 (C.D. Calif.), is available at http://is.gd/Q3eCPq


TOMPKINS FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Tompkins Financial Corporation entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle two lawsuits arising from its proposed
merger with VIST Financial Corp., according to the Company's
June 22, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On January 25, 2012, Tompkins Financial Corporation ("Tompkins"),
TMP Mergeco, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned acquisition
subsidiary of Tompkins, and VIST Financial Corp. ("VIST") entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement")
pursuant to which VIST will be merged with and into Merger Sub
(the "Merger").  As a result of the Merger, the separate corporate
existence of VIST will cease and Merger Sub will continue as the
surviving corporation in the Merger.

On May 16, 2012, Tompkins and VIST filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus") in
connection with the proposed Merger.

Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, two complaints
(the "Lawsuits") were filed against VIST, Tompkins and Merger Sub,
one, a putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit
that also named certain members of the VIST board of directors as
defendants, filed in the Berks County, Pennsylvania, Court of
Common Pleas, and the other, a shareholder derivative action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  These complaints alleged generally that VIST's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties, that Tompkins
and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty,
that the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus contained deficiencies
in the disclosure of information relating to the Merger and, with
respect to the Lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania state court, that the
Merger represents a waste of corporate assets.

On June 18, 2012, Tompkins, Merger Sub, VIST and the plaintiffs in
the Lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding
settlement of the Lawsuits.  In connection with the settlement,
the parties agreed that VIST would make certain disclosures to its
shareholders relating to the proposed Merger, in addition to the
information contained in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplates that the parties
will seek to enter into and present to the state court a
stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including approval of the court.
In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such a stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.  If the court approves the settlement, the
settlement will resolve all of the claims that were or could have
been brought in the Lawsuits, including all claims relating to the
Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection
therewith.

Tompkins, Merger Sub and VIST have vigorously denied, and continue
to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or liability with respect to
all claims asserted in the Lawsuits, including (i) that they have
committed any violations of law, (ii) that they have acted
improperly in any way, (iii) that they have any liability or owe
any damages of any kind to any plaintiff in the Lawsuits, and (iv)
that any additional disclosures (including the additional
disclosures described herein) are required under any applicable
rule, regulation, statute, or law.  Rather, they are entering into
the contemplated settlement solely to because they consider it
desirable that the Lawsuits be settled and dismissed in order to,
among other things, (i) eliminate the burden, inconvenience,
expense, risk, and distraction of further litigation, (ii)
conclusively resolve all the claims that were or could have been
asserted against them in the Lawsuits, and (iii) permit the Merger
to proceed without risk of injunctive or other relief.  Nothing in
this document, the parties' memorandum of understanding or any
stipulation of settlement shall be deemed to be an admission of
liability or wrongdoing by any defendant in the Lawsuits nor shall
anything in this document, the parties' memorandum of
understanding or any stipulation of settlement be deemed an
admission of the materiality of any of the Company's additional
disclosures.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Antilock Braking Systems Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation continues to defend two consolidated
class action lawsuits alleging its hybrid vehicles contain defects
in the antilock braking systems, according to the Company's June
25, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

Beginning in February 2010, Toyota has been sued in approximately
20 putative class actions alleging defects in the antilock braking
systems in various hybrid vehicles that cause the vehicles to fail
to stop in a timely manner when driving in certain road
conditions.  The plaintiffs seek an order requiring Toyota to
repair the vehicles and claim that all owners and lessees of
vehicles, including those for which recalls have been implemented,
should be compensated for the defects related to the antilock
braking systems.  These cases have been consolidated into two
actions, one in federal court in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and one in state court in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Toyota believes that it has meritorious defenses to all of these
cases and claims, and will vigorously defend against them.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Unintended Acceleration Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation continues to defend numerous lawsuits
alleging its vehicles contain defects that lead to unintended
acceleration, according to the Company's June 25, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2012.

There are approximately 200 putative class actions that have been
filed since November 2009 alleging that certain Toyota, Lexus and
Scion vehicles contain defects that lead to unintended
acceleration.  Many of the putative class actions allege that
malfunctions involving the floor mats and accelerator pedals do
not cover the full scope of possible defects related to unintended
acceleration.  Rather, they allege that Electronic Throttle
Control System-intelligent ("ETCS-i") is the true cause and that
Toyota has failed to inform consumers despite its awareness of the
problem.  In general, these cases seek recovery for the alleged
diminution in value of the vehicles, injunctive and other relief.
In April 2010, the approximately 190 federal cases were
consolidated for pretrial proceedings into a single multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  In addition, of more than 300 individual
product liability personal injury cases relating to unintended
acceleration pending against Toyota, the federal cases have been
consolidated into the multi-district litigation.  This
consolidated federal action has included document production,
depositions and various motions.  The remaining individual product
liability personal injury cases relating to unintended
acceleration remain pending in various state courts in the United
States.  Additionally, there were approximately 10 putative class
actions in various state courts, including California.  All cases
except the California case have been consolidated into the multi-
district litigation.  The claims are similar to the class actions
in federal court.  One of the putative California class actions
was filed by the Orange County District Attorney and, among other
things, seeks statutory penalties alleging that Toyota sold and
marketed defective vehicles and that consumers have been harmed as
a result of diminution in value of their vehicles.

Toyota believes that it has meritorious defenses to all of these
cases and claims, and will vigorously defend against them.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Hearing in Securities Class Suit Set for July 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit is currently set for
July 23, 2012, Toyota Motor Corporation disclosed in its June 25,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

From February through March 2010, Toyota was sued in six putative
shareholder class actions on behalf of investors in Toyota
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") and common stock.  The cases
have been consolidated into a single action in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, and a lead
plaintiff has been appointed.  The consolidated complaint, filed
October 4, 2010, alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Japan's Financial Instruments and Exchange Act on the
basis that defendants made statements that were false or
misleading in that they failed to disclose problems with, or the
causes of, unintended acceleration in a number of vehicle models.
The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.  The judge
dismissed with prejudice the claims based on Japan's Financial
Instruments and Exchange Act.  The lead plaintiff has moved for
certification of a class of purchasers of Toyota's ADRs from April
7, 2008, through February 2, 2010.  A hearing on the motion is
currently set for July 23, 2012.

Toyota believes that it has meritorious defenses to all of these
cases and claims, and will vigorously defend against them.


UNITED STATES: Summary Judgment Sought in Wiretap Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that armed with
declarations from three former National Security Agency analysts,
a class of AT&T customers moved for partial summary judgment
against the federal government and its anti-terrorism wiretapping
program.

The three analysts are William E. Binney, Thomas A. Drake, and J.
Kirk Wiebe.  Lawyers for the class say they can confirm the
declaration of Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician who came
forward with evidence that it collaborated with the NSA to build a
secret room at its Folsom Street facility in San Francisco where
the government could intercept customers' communications.

In their motion filed on June 25, the class asked the court to
reject the government's claim that its warrantless, surreptitious
surveillance of American citizens is protected by the state
secrets privilege.

"The NSA warrantless surveillance programs have been the subject
of widespread reporting and debate for more than six years now.
They are just not a secret," said Lee Tien, an attorney with
Electronic Frontier Foundation in a statement.  "Yet the
government keeps making the same 'state secrets' claims again and
again.  It's time for Americans to have their day in court and for
a judge to rule on the legality of this massive surveillance."

Though the case was dismissed by former Chief U.S. District Judge
Vaughn Walker in 2010, it was recently revived by a three-judge
panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
finding lead plaintiff Carolyn Jewel and other class customers had
provided detailed accounts of their Internet communications and
phone calls being intercepted by the NSA.

In the June 25 motion, class lawyers said the state secrets
privilege is preempted by Section 1806(f) of the United States
government code, enacted in 1978 as part of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"Section 1806(f) leaves no room for the state secrets privilege to
operate," the class says. "Applying the state secrets privilege in
an electronic surveillance lawsuit would mean nullifying section
1806(f) and preventing courts from adjudicating the legality of
electronic surveillance, contrary to Congress' intent."

The class also countered the NSA's assertion that Section 1806(f)
only applies to its claims if it can prove Ms. Jewel is an
"aggrieved person" under FISA.  "This is not the law.  The
government makes up its position out of whole cloth.  Nothing in
FISA requires plaintiffs to prove at the outset that they are
aggrieved persons before their lawsuit, and discovery, can go
forward," the class says.  "In addition, plaintiffs have not
simply alleged generally that their communications and
communications records have been subjected to electronic
surveillance.  They have presented detailed and extensive
allegations of the manner in which the surveillance of their
communications and communications records has been conducted."

The motion is set to be heard in the Northern District on
November 2, 2012.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Rejecting the Government Defendants' State Secret Defense in
Jewel, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al., Case No. 08-cv-
04373 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/03/308-cv-04373.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cindy Cohn, Esq.
          Lee Tien, Esq.
          Kurt Opsahl, Esq.
          James S. Tyre, Esq.
          Mark Rumold, Esq.
          ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
          454 Shotwell Street
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Telephone: (415) 436-9333
          E-mail: cindy@eff.org
               - and -

          Richard R. Wiebe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. WIEBE
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: wiebe@pacbell.net

               - and -

          Rachael E. Meny, Esq.
          Paula L. Blizzard, Esq.
          Michael S. Kwun, Esq.
          Audrey Walton-Hadlock, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
          710 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-1704
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          E-mail: rmeny@kvn.com

               - and -

          Thomas E. Moore III, Esq.
          THE MOORE LAW GROUP
          228 Hamilton Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 798-5352
          E-mail: tmoore@moorelawteam.com

               - and -

          Aram Antaramian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ARAM ANTARAMIAN
          1714 Blake Street
          Berkeley, CA 94703
          Telephone: (510) 289-1626
          E-mail: aram@eff.org


US BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $55 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grossman Roth, P.A on July 2 disclosed that U.S. Bank has agreed
to pay $55 million to settle class action lawsuits that accused
the bank of improperly manipulating its customers' debit card
transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fee revenues.
The lawsuits, part of multidistrict litigation involving more than
30 different banks entitled In re Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation, are pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence
King in Miami.

The lawsuits claim that U.S. Bank's internal computer system
re-sequenced the actual order of its customers' debit card and ATM
transactions, by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount
rather than in the actual order in which they were initiated by
customers and authorized by the bank.  According to the lawsuits,
U.S. Bank's practice resulted in its customers being charged
substantially more in overdraft fees than if the debit card and
ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were
initiated and authorized.

"We are pleased to have achieved this result for U.S. Bank
customers who were adversely affected by this anti-consumer
practice," said Robert C. Gilbert, Plaintiffs' Coordinating
Counsel, who oversees and manages this multidistrict litigation
with Co-Lead Counsel Aaron S. Podhurst and Bruce S. Rogow.

Mr. Gilbert noted that the Supreme Court's 2011 decision in AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion created serious obstacles for U.S. Bank
customers pursuing these claims: "As a result of Concepcion, U.S.
Bank customers face the prospect of being forced to pursue their
claims through individual arbitrations, rather than through a
class action in a court of law.  Forcing U.S. Bank customers to
pursue these claims through individual arbitrations closes the
courthouse doors and effectively deprives them of a meaningful
opportunity to recoup the damages they've suffered as a result of
this anti-consumer practice."

He expects the settlement with U.S. Bank to be presented to the
Court for preliminary approval within ninety days.

U.S. Bank is not the first bank involved in this multidistrict
litigation to settle similar claims.  In addition to a $410
million settlement with Bank of America approved last year,
settlements with JPMorgan Chase Bank ($110 million), Citizens Bank
($137.5 million), TD Bank ($62 million) and PNC Bank ($90 million)
have been announced in recent months.

In addition to Messrs. Gilbert, Podhurst and Rogow, the principal
lawyers involved in the U.S. Bank case are Bonny Sweeney, Rachel
Jensen and Xan Bernay of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San
Diego, and Joseph Sauder, Matthew Schelkopf and Benjamin Johns of
Chimicles & Tikelis in Haverford, Pennsylvania.

Grossman Roth, P.A. was founded in Miami in 1988 and also
maintains offices in Ft. Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Sarasota and Key
West.  The firm concentrates its practice in the areas of class
actions and complex commercial litigation, catastrophic personal
injury, products liability, aviation, professional malpractice and
other cases involving significant economic or physical damages.


VIST FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle Two Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
VIST Financial Corp. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle two lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with Tompkins
Financial Corporation, according to the Company's
June 22, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On January 25, 2012, Tompkins Financial Corporation ("Tompkins"),
TMP Mergeco. Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned acquisition
subsidiary of Tompkins, and VIST Financial Corp. ("VIST") entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement")
pursuant to which VIST will be merged with and into Merger Sub
(the "Merger").  As a result of the Merger, the separate corporate
existence of VIST will cease and Merger Sub will continue as the
surviving corporation in the Merger.

On May 16, 2012, Tompkins and VIST filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus") in
connection with the proposed Merger.

Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, two complaints
(the "Lawsuits") were filed against VIST, Tompkins and Merger Sub,
one, a putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit
that also named certain members of the VIST board of directors as
defendants, filed in the Berks County, Pennsylvania, Court of
Common Pleas, and the other, a shareholder derivative action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  These complaints alleged generally that VIST's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties, that Tompkins
and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty,
that the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus contained deficiencies
in the disclosure of information relating to the Merger and, with
respect to the Lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania state court, that the
Merger represents a waste of corporate assets.

On June 18, 2012, Tompkins, Merger Sub, VIST and the plaintiffs in
the Lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding, regarding
settlement of the Lawsuits.  In connection with the settlement,
the parties agreed that VIST would make certain disclosures to its
shareholders relating to the proposed Merger, in addition to the
information contained in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplates that the parties
will seek to enter into and present to the state court a
stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including approval of the court.
In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such a stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.  If the court approves the settlement, the
settlement will resolve all of the claims that were or could have
been brought in the Lawsuits, including all claims relating to the
Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection
therewith.

Tompkins, Merger Sub and VIST have vigorously denied, and continue
to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or liability with respect to
all claims asserted in the Lawsuits, including (i) that they have
committed any violations of law, (ii) that they have acted
improperly in any way, (iii) that they have any liability or owe
any damages of any kind to any plaintiff in the Lawsuits, and (iv)
that any additional disclosures (including the additional
disclosures described herein) are required under any applicable
rule, regulation, statute, or law.  Rather, they are entering into
the contemplated settlement solely because they consider it
desirable that the Lawsuits be settled and dismissed in order to,
among other things, (i) eliminate the burden, inconvenience,
expense, risk, and distraction of further litigation, (ii)
conclusively resolve all the claims that were or could have been
asserted against them in the Lawsuits, and (iii) permit the Merger
to proceed without risk of injunctive or other relief.  Nothing in
this document, the parties' memorandum of understanding or any
stipulation of settlement shall be deemed to be an admission of
liability or wrongdoing by any defendant in the Lawsuits nor shall
anything in this document, the parties' memorandum of
understanding or any stipulation of settlement be deemed an
admission of the materiality of any of the Company's additional
disclosures.


WAL-MART: Judge Seeks More Briefing in Gender Bias Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Foster, writing for The Recorder, reports that Judge
Charles Breyer said on July 2 he needed to hear from the attorneys
in Dukes v. Wal-Mart at least one more time before he rules on the
proposed gender bias class action, possibly breathing new life
into a case he was expected to dismiss.

After the U.S. Supreme Court shot down the suit in its original,
massive form last June, lawyers refiled regional suits in several
jurisdictions across the country.  One of those, currently before
Judge Breyer in the pleadings phase in federal court in San
Francisco, alleges that 45,000 female Wal-Mart employees in and
around California were denied promotions on the basis of their
sex.

On July 2, Judge Breyer ordered the parties to draft 10-page
briefs on how the U.S. Supreme Court's recent grant of cert in
Comcast v. Behrand affects the Wal-Mart plaintiffs' claims.

In Comcast, an antitrust class action stemming from an alleged
cable TV monopoly, the Supreme Court will rule on whether a trial
court judge "may certify a class action without resolving whether
the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including
expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding
damages on a class-wide basis."

Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- a plaintiffs-side
employment attorney at Altshuler Berzon who is closely watching
Dukes but isn't involved, said that Judge Breyer's order indicates
that the judge knows a Supreme Court opinion in Comcast could
change an outcome in Dukes, and therefore is "trying to anticipate
that decision to a certain extent."

Plaintiffs' counsel Brad Seligman -- bseligman@impactfund.org --
of Berkeley's Impact Fund, said Judge Breyer "properly wants to
take into account whatever might be coming down the road" after
Comcast.

At a hearing in June on Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss the case,
Judge Breyer signaled that plaintiffs could again fall short of
showing that they have enough in common to sue the company as a
class.  Judge Breyer said the key hurdle for plaintiffs would be
to allege class standing that would survive when tested against
the language of the high court's decision.  "I'm seriously
concerned the plaintiff has not done so," Judge Breyer said at
that hearing.

Theodore Boutrous -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- a Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher partner who represents Wal-Mart, said Judge Breyer's
order ensures that he'll have "a full record before ruling on
these issues, and we are looking forward to filing our response."

The briefs are due July 23.


WEBMD HEALTH: Faces "Feinstein" Shareholder Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
WebMD Health Corp. is facing a shareholder class action lawsuit in
New York, according to the Company's June 22, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 20, 2012, a shareholder class action complaint (the
"Complaint"), entitled Feinstein v. WebMD Health Corp., et al.,
was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County.  The Complaint purports to allege claims against WebMD
Health Corp. ("WebMD") and its directors for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties in connection with the disclosures made regarding
Proposal 3 in WebMD's Proxy Statement for its July 24, 2012 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 18, 2012.  Proposal 3 seeks the approval of
WebMD stockholders for a proposed amendment to WebMD's Amended and
Restated 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "2005 LTIP") to
increase the number of shares of WebMD Common Stock available for
grant under the 2005 LTIP by 1,875,000 shares.  The Complaint
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified damages
and costs.  The Registrant believes that the Complaint is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted.


WHEELING ISLAND: Faces Class Action Over Players Club Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Paden City woman who says she
was ripped off under a frequent players program is suing Wheeling
Island Hotel Casino & Racetrack.

Alta Koerber won't discuss her case and referred questions on
July 2 to a lawyer who's on vacation.

But the class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Wheeling
says she gambled $40,000 through the Players Club.  She obtained
"Stealth" status and a card promising a 25 percent, semi-annual
cash-back bonus.

Ms. Koerber says the casino should have sent her a check for
$10,000.  Instead, she got one last summer for $143.

It was signed by Ted Dragisich Jr., whom she's also suing.

Ms. Koerber alleges breach of contract, fraud and violation of the
West Virginia Consumer Fraud and Protection Act, among other
things.

Neither Mr. Dragisich nor a casino spokeswoman immediately
commented.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Approves C$58MM Loan to Help Reopen Mine
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the Jeffrey Mine in Quebec's Eastern
Townships has received a C$58-million boost from the province to
help revive the asbestos industry, a move the Canadian Cancer
Society is urging the government to reconsider.

The asbestos mine in Quebec's Eastern Townships received the loan
from the provincial government after years of negotiation and
despite heavy opposition.

In a press release, Paul Lapierre, vice-president of public
affairs and cancer control for the Canadian Cancer Society,
writes:  "This decision means the Quebec government is in direct
conflict with global cancer control as all forms of asbestos cause
cancer.

"We believe these funds should instead be directed to projects to
help the affected communities diversify their economic base."

According to the society, about 107,000 people die annually from
disease related to occupational exposure to asbestos around the
world.

Bernard Coulombe, the president of the Jeffrey Asbestos Mine, and
Richmond member of the national assembly Yvon Vallieres held a
press conference on Friday, June 29, to announce the funding.

Francois Vaudreuil, the union president, says "workers of the mine
can rejoice.  It's the end of a decade-long fight."

The mine's management expects this funding will create between 400
and 500 direct full-time jobs for a period of 20 years in the town
of Asbestos, while 1,000 positions indirectly related to the mine
will also be created.

Vallieres said the mine will have to repay C$1.5 million along
with interest fees for a period of 15 years between 2015 to 2031.
The first C$7.5 million will go directly to a fund targeting
economic diversification for Quebec's Eastern Townships region.

"We all know that this is an important step for our community.  It
guarantees a future, stimulates the local and regional economy.
It also helps keep our youth with us," said Vallieres.

At the press conference, Vaudreuil praised the Quebec government
for its "responsible decision and courageous decision."

"The government took a courageous decision by supporting the
reopening of the Jeffrey Mine.  This government stood up against
people who used propaganda and who used public health to make
others believe that we should close the mine."

According to reports, paperwork for the loan was finalized in
early June and Coulombe was only waiting for the final
authorization to guarantee it.

Balcorp Ltd., the company looking to revive the asbestos industry
in Quebec, hopes to export its products to developing countries.
The company will be auditing buyers' factories in order to ensure
proper and safe usage of asbestos.  A deal has already been signed
with buyers in India.

The Quebec government supports the cause and promised a loan of
C$58 million if Balcorp invests C$25 million in the project.

The project is heavily opposed by a multitude of groups and
organizations, but Vaudreuil says safety is not an issue.

"We have found safe ways for workers to handle asbestos," he told
reporters.  "A lot of research has been done over the last 10
years."

                       Controversial project

Since Quebec's support was announced in April 2011, many groups
have tried to convince the government to retract its offer to
Balcorp.

In November 2011, families of workers who died from illnesses
linked to asbestos opposed the project, saying people in
developing countries would be exposed to a carcinogen exported
from Canada.

The Canadian Cancer Society claimed the funding from the Quebec
government would tarnish Canada's international reputation in the
public health sector.

Hundred of scientists from 28 countries urged Premier Jean Charest
to recognize the risks of exposure to asbestos and end the
product's export.

Etienne-Alexis Boucher, member of the national assembly for
Johnson, said Quebec should have heard the results of a
parliamentary commission on the issue before guaranteeing the
loan.

Quebec Solidaire MNA Amir Khadir proposed a bill to ban the export
of asbestos from Quebec.  The New Democratic Party had brought
forward a similar bill in Ottawa.

               One of Vallieres's last projects

Last week, Vallieres announced he would not be seeking re-election
after nearly 40 years in politics.  The man, who was plagued with
various health issues in the past, said he would be stepping away
from politics to enjoy more time with his family.

At the press conference on June 18, Vallieres said he hoped to tie
up a few projects before leaving his multiple political roles.
The Jeffrey mine was among the projects discussed.

Vallieres has been representing the provincial Liberal Party in
Richmond since 1981.  He also presided over the national assembly
between 2009 and 2011.

He currently holds the position of minister responsible for
Canadian intergovernmental affairs and the Canadian francophonie
along with the role of minister responsible for the reform of
democratic institutions and access to information.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Finds High Levels of Fibro in Belfast College
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Northern Ireland reports that damaged asbestos has been
found in buildings belonging to Bloomfield Collegiate in east
Belfast.

A private nursery had been using the rooms which were once part of
the grammar school's prep department.

The Health and Safety Executive started the investigation
following tests showing what are described as "elevated levels" of
asbestos in the air.

The Public Health Agency confirmed work carried out in 2001 on
cupboards in the building may have exposed the asbestos.

The prep school on the Upper Newtownards Road closed in June last
year.  The Astoria Kindergarten rented rooms while staff and some
senior pupils also continued to use that part of the building.
The building is separate from the main school.

According to a briefing to the Health Minister Edwin Poots and
seen by the BBC, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) conducted a
survey and found evidence of the presence of asbestos in the
fabric of the building and elevated levels in the air.

The Public Health Agency said there was no immediate risk to
public health as the building has been closed and it is providing
advice to teachers and parents.  The PHA is working with the HSE
after the discovery.

The presence of the asbestos was discovered in May.

The school has plans to renovate the building and in preparation
for this work a survey was carried out by a specialist company.
This firm advised the school that there was asbestos in some areas
of the building.

The school's headmaster Dr. Darrin Barr said steps were taken
straight away to ensure the safety of the nursery children.

"We took the decision to move the children out immediately, so the
children were not in the building after it was discovered," he
said.

He said after HSE tests found elevated levels of asbestos "we
completely sealed the building and it has not been used, in fact
people have not been in it since".

Dr. Barr said the school then commissioned two independent tests
over two weeks.

"The surveyors conducted 30 air tests in each of the seven rooms
and central hall and they could not find any measurable levels of
asbestos."

Dr. Anne Wilson of the PHA said.  "It's important to remember that
not everybody who is exposed to asbestos becomes unwell.

"As much as we can say is there's the possibility that the
children and the staff might have been exposed to these higher
levels.

"What we know about asbestos is that those who are exposed to it
for longer periods of time to higher levels are more at risk.

"So the studies mainly focus on people who worked with it."

Asbestos, a naturally occurring, affordable material with good
heat resistant properties, was widely used in industry and
construction for much of the 20th century.

It was only after decades of use in a wide variety of ways that
people noted the link between exposure to asbestos fibers and a
number of different lung diseases -- particularly the aggressive
chest cancer mesothelioma.

Asbestos fibers can lie dormant in people's lungs for anywhere
between 15 and 50 years after initial exposure.

It is only hazardous when it is in a loose form, damaged,
disturbed or worked on, as this releases the asbestos fibers into
the air.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. High Court Reverses Finding for Evansville
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Gill, on her own behalf and on behalf of the estate of Gale
Gill, claims that her husband's death was caused by Evansville
Sheet Metal Works, Inc.'s negligence in installing or removing
asbestos-containing materials.  The trial court ruled for the
defendant because the claim had not been brought within the time
Indiana law requires for a claim arising from the construction of
an "improvement to real property."  In a decision dated June 25,
2012, the Supreme Court of Indiana reversed the trial court
because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
the defendant's work constituted an "improvement to real
property," as that phrase is commonly understood.

The case is SHARON GILL, ON HER OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THE
ESTATE OF GALE GILL, Appellant, v. EVANSVILLE SHEET METAL WORKS,
INC., Appellee, No. 49S05-1111-CV-672 (Ind.).  A copy of the
June 25, 2012 Decision is available at http://is.gd/9xifuLfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Bars Eaton From Presenting New Argument
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Parkins, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware
refused to allow Eaton Cutler-Hammer to amend its brief in reply
to its motion for summary judgment to include a new argument.
Judge Parkins maintained that because the asbestos docket is
large, defendants are limited to the arguments they make in their
opening briefs for summary judgment and courts will not consider
argument raised for the first time in the reply brief.

The case is In re Asbestos Litigation Ernest Vala Limited to Eaton
Cutler-Hammer, C.A. No. 11C-04-203 ASB (Del. Super. Ct.).  A copy
of Judge Parkins' June 22, 2012 Decision is available for free at
http://is.gd/UGYM9Nfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Rules for Colgate in Privilege Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
confirmed, with modifications, the November 6, 2011 recommendation
of New York City Asbestos Litigation Special Master Pacheco, which
directed that Lawrence Bernard and Marilyn Bernard be permitted to
inquire into the substance of conversations between counsel for
Colgate-Palmolive Company and Dr. Richard Turse, a former Colgate
employee who has been identified as a fact witness in this case.

Judge Heitler concluded that attorney-client privilege did not
protect Colgate's communication with Dr. Turse.  Judge Heitler,
however, concluded that Colgate properly raised the work-product
privilege in this case noting that even though Dr. Turse's own
lawyer was present at his pre-deposition interview, it cannot
reasonably be inferred that Colgate's counsel's interactions with
Dr. Turse posed a danger of ultimate disclosure of its mental
impressions to the Plaintiffs' counsel or to anyone else who might
be considered Colgate's adversary.

The cases are LAWRENCE BERNARD and MARILYN BERNARD as Co-Executors
of the Estate of SHELLY BERNARD, Plaintiffs, v. BROOKFIELD
PROPERTIES CORP., et al., Defendants, and LORI KONOPKA-SAUER and
RICHARD KONOPKA, As Executor of the Estate of KAREN TEDRICK,
Plaintiff, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant, 107211/08,
190078/08, Mot. Seq. No. 033 (N.Y.).  A copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision and Order dated June 21, 2012, is available at
http://is.gd/t63WrLfrom Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Suits v. Liberty Mutual to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cathy Bissoon of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary judgment
filed by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and granted the motion
for partial summary judgment filed by plaintiffs Alcoa, Inc., and
St. Croix Alumina, LLC.

Alcoa et al. allege that Liberty Mutual breached its duties under
an insurance contract by failing to defend them in two lawsuits
that currently are pending in the Virgin Islands.  The Plaintiffs
also assert that Liberty Mutual's refusal to defend them
constitutes bad faith.  Liberty Mutual counters that the
allegations raised by the plaintiffs in the two suits trigger an
asbestos exclusion contained in the insurance policy, thus
abrogating any duty to defend or to indemnify, which otherwise
might have arisen under the contract.

In denying Liberty Mutual's motion, Judge Bissoon found that at
least one claim raised in each of the complaints potentially falls
within coverage of the applicable policy; and Liberty Mutual has a
duty to defend the Plaintiffs for those actions.

The case is ALCOA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 11-813 (W.D. Pa.).
A copy of Judge Bissoon's June 26, 2012, is available at
http://is.gd/LghxKcfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Takes Grace Plan Appeal to 3rd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, notified the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware that it will take an appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from
Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter's memorandum opinion and order entered
on June 11, 2012, overruling all objections and confirming W.R.
Grace & Co. and its debtor affiliates' Joint Plan of
Reorganization in its entirety.

As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter, on Jan. 30, 2012,
District Judge Buckwalter affirmed the Jan. 31, 2011 order
confirming the Joint Plan issued by Bankruptcy Judge Judith
Fitzgerald.  Numerous parties-in-interest filed motions to
reconsider, alter and clarify the Affirmation Order.  Various
appeals have also been filed.

Judge Buckwalter issued on June 11, 2012, an amended memorandum
opinion and order overruling all objections and confirming Grace's
Joint Plan of Reorganization in its entirety.

To address the request of the Plan Proponents to amend the
Memorandum Opinion, the joint motion of Sealed Air Corporation,
Cryovac, Inc., and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., to amend
and clarify the Memorandum Opinion and Order and the Libby
Claimants' response, Judge Buckwalter filed a consolidated order
granting the motions, and amended the Memorandum Opinion and
Order.  Appellant Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC's motion for
reargument, rehearing, and to alter or amend is also granted.

The Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order includes additional
language clarifying that all injunctions and releases in the Joint
Plan, and not merely the injunction under Section 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code are approved, issued and affirmed.

Upon consideration of Garlock's Motion, Judge Buckwalter changed
the Memorandum Opinion's section entitled "Garlock's Objections to
the Joint Plan" to reflect the District Court's consideration of
the arguments put forth by Garlock and Grace during an oral
argument on May 8, 2012, and in their briefing submitted to the
District Court.

A full-text copy of the Amended Memorandum Opinion is available
for free at:

  http://bankrupt.com/misc/Grace_AmendedOpinion_ConfOrder.pdf

                         About W.R. Grace

Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. (NYSE:GRA)
-- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts and silica
products, especially construction chemicals and building
materials, and container products globally.

The company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11
protection on April 2, 2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-01139).
David M. Bernick, P.C., Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, and Laura
Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP,
represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  The Debtors
hired Blackstone Group, L.P., for financial advice.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is the Debtors' accountant.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, and Duane Morris, LLP, represent
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  The Creditors
Committee tapped Capstone Corporate Recovery LLC for financial
advice.  David T. Austern, the legal representative of future
asbestos personal injury claimants, is represented by Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Phillips Goldman & Spence, PA.
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, and Marla
R. Eskin, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, represent the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants.  The Asbestos
Committee of Property Damage Claimants tapped Scott Baena, Esq.,
and Jay M. Sakalo, Esq., at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod,
LLP, to represent it.  Thomas Moers Mayer, Esq., at Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, represents the Official Committee of
Equity Security Holders.

W.R. Grace obtained confirmation of a plan co-proposed with the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the
Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, and the Asbestos
Future Claimants Representative.   The Chapter 11 plan is built
around an April 2008 settlement for all present and future
asbestos personal injury claims, and a subsequent settlement for
asbestos property damage claims.  Implementation of the Plan has
been held up by appeals in District Court from various parties,
including a group of prepetition bank lenders and the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

District Judge Ronald Buckwalter on Jan. 31, 2012, entered an
order affirming the bankruptcy court's confirmation of W.R. Grace
& Co. and its debtor affiliates' Plan of Reorganization.
Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald had approved the Plan on
Jan. 31, 2011.

On April 20, 2012, the company filed a motion with the
Bankruptcy Court to approve the definitive agreements among
itself, co-proponents of the Plan, BNSF railroad, several
insurance companies and the representatives of Libby asbestos
personal injury claimants, to settle objections to the Plan.
Pursuant to the agreements, the Libby claimants and BNSF would
forego any further appeals to the Plan.

Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes W.R. Grace
Bankruptcy News.  The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceeding
undertaken by W.R. Grace, W.R. Grace Co. - Conn. and their
affiliates.  (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock's Bid to Stay Grace Plan Order Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald Buckwalter of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware denied Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC's
motion to stay his amended memorandum opinion and order overruling
objections to the Chapter 11 plan of reorganization of W.R. Grace
& Co., et al., pending Garlock's appeal to the Court of Appeals.

In a memorandum dated June 27, 2012, Judge Buckwalter pointed out
that Garlock's failure to produce sufficient evidence on all four
factors used for ascertaining whether the imposition of a stay is
appropriate, coupled with its lack of acknowledgment of the
potential for entry of a supersedeas bond in a case of this
magnitude, counsels against a finding that a stay of the Court's
amended memorandum opinion is necessary under these circumstances

The case is In re: W.R. GRACE & CO., et. al., Debtors, Civil
Action Nos. 11-199, 11-200, 11-201, 11-202, 11-203, 11-207,
11-208, 09-644, 09-807 (Del.).  A copy of Judge Buckwalter's
June 27, 2012 Order is available at http://is.gd/CBNhu4from
Leagle.com.

                         About W.R. Grace

Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. (NYSE:GRA)
-- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts and silica
products, especially construction chemicals and building
materials, and container products globally.

The company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11
protection on April 2, 2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-01139).
David M. Bernick, P.C., Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, and Laura
Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP,
represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  The Debtors
hired Blackstone Group, L.P., for financial advice.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is the Debtors' accountant.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, and Duane Morris, LLP, represent
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  The Creditors
Committee tapped Capstone Corporate Recovery LLC for financial
advice.  David T. Austern, the legal representative of future
asbestos personal injury claimants, is represented by Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Phillips Goldman & Spence, PA.
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, and Marla
R. Eskin, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, represent the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants.  The Asbestos
Committee of Property Damage Claimants tapped Scott Baena, Esq.,
and Jay M. Sakalo, Esq., at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod,
LLP, to represent it.  Thomas Moers Mayer, Esq., at Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, represents the Official Committee of
Equity Security Holders.

W.R. Grace obtained confirmation of a plan co-proposed with the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the
Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, and the Asbestos
Future Claimants Representative.   The Chapter 11 plan is built
around an April 2008 settlement for all present and future
asbestos personal injury claims, and a subsequent settlement for
asbestos property damage claims.  Implementation of the Plan has
been held up by appeals in District Court from various parties,
including a group of prepetition bank lenders and the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

District Judge Ronald Buckwalter on Jan. 31, 2012, entered an
order affirming the bankruptcy court's confirmation of W.R. Grace
& Co. and its debtor affiliates' Plan of Reorganization.
Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald had approved the Plan on
Jan. 31, 2011.

On April 20, 2012, the company filed a motion with the
Bankruptcy Court to approve the definitive agreements among
itself, co-proponents of the Plan, BNSF railroad, several
insurance companies and the representatives of Libby asbestos
personal injury claimants, to settle objections to the Plan.
Pursuant to the agreements, the Libby claimants and BNSF would
forego any further appeals to the Plan.

Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes W.R. Grace
Bankruptcy News.  The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceeding
undertaken by W.R. Grace, W.R. Grace Co. - Conn. and their
affiliates.  (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.D. Pa. Court Defers to Delaware District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nora Barry Fischer in the Western District of
Pennsylvania declined to rule on three of the 12 separate appeals
initiated by Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, from Bankruptcy
Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald's Memorandum Opinion and Order issued
October 7, 2011, denying Garlock's motions to access records in
asbestos-related Chapter 11 bankruptcies of:

     -- Pittsburgh Corning; North American Refractories; and
        Mid-Valley Inc., which are pending before the Bankruptcy
        Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; and

     -- Owens Corning; Armstrong World Industries, et al.;
        W.R. Grace & Co.; USG Corp. et al.; United States Mineral
        Products Company; Kaiser Aluminum Corp.; ACandS Inc.;
        Combustion Engineering Inc.; Flintkote Company, which are
        pending before the Bankruptcy Court for the District of
        Delaware.

The consolidated opinion and order resolved motions filed by
Garlock in nine bankruptcy cases in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court
and three bankruptcies in the Western District of Pennsylvania
Bankruptcy Court.

This procedural nuance is possible because Judge Fitzgerald is
assigned to hear bankruptcy cases in both Bankruptcy Courts.
Garlock filed 12 separate appeals of Judge Fitzgerald's rulings,
including three appeals pending before the Western District of
Pennsylvania District Court and nine appeals in the Delaware
District Court.

Garlock admits that its appeals are identical in that they all
challenge the same rulings by the Bankruptcy Court and raise the
same arguments on appeal.  The substance of Garlock's briefing in
the two fora appears virtually indistinguishable, aside from
required changes to the case caption and parties in each case.
Garlock's appeals focus on its desire to access Fed.R.Bankr.P.
Rule 2019 statements filed by creditor committees and law firms in
the bankruptcy cases.  The parties with an actual interest in the
12 appeals include Garlock, law firms and creditor committees,
while the 12 debtors have more of a tangential interest in
avoiding Garlock's attempts to intervene in their respective
cases.

Judge Fischer said she will exercise discretion and stay the three
proceedings pending disposition of the appeals before the Delaware
District Court.

Judge Fischer cited, among others, the need to avoid duplicative
litigation.  Judge Fischer said the parties could have stipulated
to a transfer of the WDPA appeals to Delaware or alternatively,
reached a stipulation wherein the parties in the WDPA appeals
would agree to be bound by the decision from District Judge
Leonard P. Stark, who is assigned to the Delaware appeals.  Judge
Fischer also noted that, after the stay is lifted, Judge Stark's
decision will likely be very persuasive to the WDPA Court.
According to Judge Fischer, based on her review of the litigation,
it appears that any decision rendered at the District Court level,
whether it be issued by Judge Stark or Judge Fischer, will be
further appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.  As such, there is simply no benefit to having two
separate District Courts analyze this case simultaneously.

A copy of Judge Fischer's Memorandum Opinion dated June 21 is
available at http://is.gd/znOx6dfrom Leagle.com.

                         About W.R. Grace

Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. (NYSE:GRA)
-- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts and silica
products, especially construction chemicals and building
materials, and container products globally.

The company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11
protection on April 2, 2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-01139).
David M. Bernick, P.C., Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, and Laura
Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP,
represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  The Debtors
hired Blackstone Group, L.P., for financial advice.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is the Debtors' accountant.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, and Duane Morris, LLP, represent
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  The Creditors
Committee tapped Capstone Corporate Recovery LLC for financial
advice.  David T. Austern, the legal representative of future
asbestos personal injury claimants, is represented by Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Phillips Goldman & Spence, PA.
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, and Marla
R. Eskin, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, represent the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants.  The Asbestos
Committee of Property Damage Claimants tapped Scott Baena, Esq.,
and Jay M. Sakalo, Esq., at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod,
LLP, to represent it.  Thomas Moers Mayer, Esq., at Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, represents the Official Committee of
Equity Security Holders.

W.R. Grace obtained confirmation of a plan co-proposed with the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the
Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, and the Asbestos
Future Claimants Representative.   The Chapter 11 plan is built
around an April 2008 settlement for all present and future
asbestos personal injury claims, and a subsequent settlement for
asbestos property damage claims.  Implementation of the Plan has
been held up by appeals in District Court from various parties,
including a group of prepetition bank lenders and the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

District Judge Ronald Buckwalter on Jan. 31, 2012, entered an
order affirming the bankruptcy court's confirmation of W.R. Grace
& Co. and its debtor affiliates' Plan of Reorganization.
Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald had approved the Plan on
Jan. 31, 2011.

On April 20, 2012, the company filed a motion with the
Bankruptcy Court to approve the definitive agreements among
itself, co-proponents of the Plan, BNSF railroad, several
insurance companies and the representatives of Libby asbestos
personal injury claimants, to settle objections to the Plan.
Pursuant to the agreements, the Libby claimants and BNSF would
forego any further appeals to the Plan.

Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes W.R. Grace
Bankruptcy News.  The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceeding
undertaken by W.R. Grace, W.R. Grace Co. - Conn. and their
affiliates.  (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules for Worker in Suit v. Union Carbide
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation filed an interlocutory appeal
challenging the multi-district litigation pretrial court's order
denying its motion and renewed motion to dismiss the claims made
against it by Daisy E. Synatzke and Grace Annette Webb,
individually and as representatives and co-executrixes of the
estate of Joseph Emmite, Sr., Joseph Emmite, Jr., Dorothy A. Day,
Vera J. Gialmalva, and James R. Emmite for the wrongful death of
Joseph Emmite Sr.

Joseph Sr.'s death, the Emmites allege, was caused by his exposure
to asbestos when he worked for Union Carbide at its Texas
facility.  Union Carbide contends that the MDL pretrial court
erred in denying its motion and renewed motion to dismiss the
Emmites' asbestos-related injury claims on the grounds that the
Emmites, without a motion or a showing of good cause, did not
timely serve Union Carbide with a physician report, which is
required to bring such claims pursuant to Chapter 90 of the Texas
Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and none of the physician
reports that the Emmites served upon Union Carbide satisfy various
requirements of Chapter 90, including the requirement that such a
report "verify" that "pulmonary function testing" had been
performed on Joseph and the physician making the report had
interpreted the pulmonary function testing.  The Emmites contend
that the requirement of such a verification of pulmonary function
testing to pursue their asbestos-related injury claims under
Chapter 90, which became effective after Joseph had been exposed
to asbestos and died, violates the Texas Constitution's
prohibition against retroactive laws.

The Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston, pointed
out that Chapter 90, which sets forth new procedures and
requirements for claims revolving asbestos and silica-related
injuries became effective on September 1, 2005, eleven weeks after
Joseph's death.  Deciding en banc, the Appellate Court affirmed
the order of the MDL pretrial court by substantially concluding
that, based on the circumstances of the case, requiring a
pulmonary function test under Chapter 90 would have the opposite
effect of what the legislate actually intended, i.e. the
protection of "the right of people with impairing asbestos-
related" injuries "to pursue their claims for compensation in a
fair and efficient manner."

The case is UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. DAISY E.
SYNATZSKE AND GRACE ANNETTE WEBB, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
REPRESENTATIVES AND CO-EXECUTRIXES OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH EMMITE,
SR., JOSEPH EMMITE, JR., DOROTHY A. DAY, VERA J. GIALMALVA AND
JAMES R. EMMITE, Appellees, No. 01-09-01141-CV (Texas).  A copy of
the Opinion issued on June 28, 2012, is available for free at
http://is.gd/Ms1h4ofrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Continues to Defend Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial 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 that it continues to defend asbestos-
related exposure cases together with its subsidiary.

The Company states: "Its wholly-owned subsidiary, Premix-
Marbletite Manufacturing Co., is a defendant together with non-
affiliated parties in seventeen claims (nine of which include
Imperial as a defendant) which allege bodily injury due to
exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured in excess
of thirty (30) years ago.  During the first quarter of 2012 three
cases were dismissed, which did not result in any additional costs
to our insurance carriers or the Company.

"We believe that Premix and the Company have meritorious defenses
to the claims. We have identified at least ten (10) of our prior
insurance carriers including both primary and excess/umbrella
liability carriers that have provided liability coverage to us,
including potential coverage for alleged injuries relating to
asbestos exposure. Several of these insurance carriers have been
and continue to provide a defense to Premix and the Company under
a reservation of rights in all of the asbestos cases. Certain of
these underlying insurance carriers have denied coverage to Premix
and the Company on the basis that certain exclusions preclude
coverage and/or that their policies have been exhausted. In June
of 2009, one such carrier filed suit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court
against Premix and Imperial, wherein the carrier sought a
declaration from the Court that its insurance policies do not
provide coverage for the asbestos claims against Premix and
Imperial. We believed that we had meritorious defenses to these
claims, and filed a counterclaim against the carrier for breach of
contract. In December 2010, Premix, Imperial and this carrier
resolved their dispute, with the carrier paying a settlement of
$500,000 to Premix and Imperial.  As part of the settlement, there
is no longer coverage available under that disputed policy. During
the first quarter of 2011, we resolved a dispute with another
carrier regarding primary-layer insurance coverage, which resulted
in this carrier paying a settlement of $325,000 to Premix and
Imperial, which was recorded as income reflected as litigation
settlement during the first quarter of 2011 in the accompanying
condensed consolidated statement of operations.  As part of the
settlement, there is no longer coverage available under that
disputed policy.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, we believe, when
considering that Imperial and Premix have substantial
umbrella/excess coverage for these claims, that we have more than
adequate insurance coverage for these asbestos claims and such
policies are not subject to self-insured retention ("SIR")."

Imperial Industries, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co., is primarily involved in the
manufacture and sale of exterior and interior finishing wall
coatings and mortar products for the construction industry, as
well as the purchase and resale of building materials from other
manufacturers. Sales of the Company's and other products are made
to customers primarily in Florida and the Southeastern United
States through distributors and company-owned distribution
facilities. The Company has three other subsidiaries, Just-Rite
Supply, Inc., DFH, Inc., formerly known as Acrocrete, Inc., and
Triple I Leasing, Inc.  None of these subsidiaries have any
continuing operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Defends R.I. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Electronics Corporation in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2012, disclosed it continues to defend an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed in Rhode Island.

In December 2010, Audrey Edwards, Executrix of the Estate of Leon
Leroy Edwards, filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Providence
County, Rhode Island, against 3M Company and over 90 other
defendants, including the Company, alleging that the Company
processed, manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, distributed,
marketed or sold asbestos containing products that contributed to
the death of Leon Leroy Edwards. The Company received service of
process in April 2011. The Company has retained legal counsel and
has filed a response to the compliant. The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit. Accordingly, the Company does not
believe the lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position or results of operations.

Andrea Electronics Corporation designs, develops and manufactures
microphone technologies and products for enhancing speech-based
applications software and communications.  The Company's
technologies eliminate unwanted background noise to enable the
optimum performance of various speech-based and audio
applications. Andrea's products and technologies optimize the
performance of speech-based applications and audio applications in
markets, such as computer speech recognition applications;
computer voice-over the Internet protocol (VoIP) applications, and
cell phone accessories.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Locker Has 38 Unresolved Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
American Locker Group Incorporated 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 38 unresolved
asbestos-related cases as of March 8, 2012.

Beginning in September 1998, the Company has been named as an
additional defendant in approximately 191 cases pending in state
court in Massachusetts and 1 in the state of Washington. The
plaintiffs in each case assert that a division of the Company
manufactured and furnished components containing asbestos to a
shipyard during the period from 1948 to 1972 and that injury
resulted from exposure to such products. The assets of this
division were sold by the Company in 1973. During the process of
discovery in certain of these actions, documents from sources
outside the Company have been produced which indicate that the
Company appears to have been included in the chain of title for
certain wall panels which contained asbestos and which were
delivered to the Massachusetts shipyards. Defense of these cases
has been assumed by the Company's insurance carrier, subject to a
reservation of rights. Settlement agreements have been entered in
approximately 33 cases with funds authorized and provided by the
Company's insurance carrier. Further, over 120 cases have been
terminated as to the Company without liability to the Company
under Massachusetts procedural rules. Therefore, the balance of
unresolved cases against the Company as of March 8, 2012, the most
recent date information is available, is approximately 38 cases.

While the Company cannot estimate potential damages or predict
what the ultimate resolution of these asbestos cases may be
because the discovery proceedings on the cases are not complete,
based upon the Company's experience to date with similar cases, as
well as the assumption that insurance coverage will continue to be
provided with respect to these cases, at the present time, the
Company does not believe that the outcome of these cases will have
a significant adverse impact on the Company's operations or
financial condition.

American Locker Group Incorporated is a manufacturer of lockers,
locks and keys with a range of applications for use in numerous
industries.  The Company manufactures and services and lock system
with plastic orange cap.  Its products can be categorized as
either mailboxes or lockers.  Mailboxes are used for the delivery
of mail, packages and other parcels to multi-tenant facilities.
Lockers are used for applications other than mail delivery, and
most of its lockers are controlled checking lockers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Still Defends 225 PI Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012, continues to defend asbestos-related exposure
cases.

The Company states: "We were a co-defendant in approximately 225
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 760 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 25 plaintiffs,
that plead specified damages. In each of the seven cases, the
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a
variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three
cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the
amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0
million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the
amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has
alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive
damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate
causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three
separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of
action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the
remaining two cases, the plaintiffs have each alleged against each
named defendant compensatory and punitive damages, each in the
amount of $50.0 million, for four separate causes of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome
of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that
the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of
operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching
this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being
dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been
improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many
cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases,
the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or
that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from
alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims
against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages
alleged are not attributed to individual defendants.
Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of
the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential
exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to
the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., engages in industrial supply chain
logistics and diversified manufacturing businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Ventures Has Insurance for Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Ventures LLC in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012, disclosed it purchased an insurance policy
effective June 30, 2001, that is designed to provide broad
prospective commercial general liability, pollution legal
liability, and contractual indemnity coverage for the Company's
ongoing and historical operations. The policy has a twelve (12)
year term and limits of $50 million in the aggregate for defense
and indemnity, with no deductible or self-insured retention. The
policy is designed to provide coverage for future claims in excess
of the Company's existing and historic insurance policies;
however, to the extent that these other insurance policies are not
responsive to a claim, the policy will provide first dollar
coverage for a claim resulting from property damage, personal
injury, bodily injury, cleanup costs or violations of
environmental laws. The policy also provides for a broad defense
of claims that may be brought against the Company. The policy is
specifically intended to provide additional coverage for potential
liabilities arising from pollution conditions or known and/or
potential asbestos-related claims. The policy also provides
contractual indemnity coverage for scheduled indemnity obligations
of the Company arising from, e.g., prior corporate transactions
and real estate sales. The Company expects this policy will cover
substantially any and all environmental claims (up to the $50
million policy limit) relating to the historical operations of the
Company.

The aggregate cost for this policy was approximately $5.8 million,
of which, based upon discussions among the respective members of
the Boards of Directors, KSC Recovery paid $2 million and the
Company paid the balance of approximately $3.8 million. The
portion of the policy paid by KSC Recovery was expected to cover
known and/or potential asbestos claims; while the portion of the
policy paid by the Company was expected to cover future potential
claims arising from the Company's historical operations.

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

Recycled from the former Kaiser Steel, Kaiser Ventures LLC
oversees recycling and solid waste investments. The company's
holdings include an 83.1% stake in Mine Reclamation Corporation
(MRC) and a 50% stake in West Valley Materials Recovery Facility
and Transfer Station, which separates waste materials for
recycling or storage. Through MRC, the company has turned Kaiser
Steel's iron-ore mining pits into a rail-accessible solid waste
landfill at Eagle Mountain in the California desert; it has agreed
to sell the landfill to County District No. 2 of Los Angeles
County. However, lawsuits from local residents have blocked the
deal. Kaiser Ventures is owned mainly by former creditors of
Kaiser Steel.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Had 1,035 Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P. in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012, disclosed a subsidiary of BNS Holding, Inc., has
been named as a defendant in 1,035 and 1,020 alleged asbestos-
related toxic-tort claims as of March 31, 2012 and December 31,
2011, respectively. The claims were filed over a period beginning
1994 through March 31, 2012. In many cases these claims involved
more than 100 defendants. Of the claims filed, 873 and 694 were
dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and closed as of
March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Of the claims
settled, the average settlement was less than $3,000. There can be
no assurance that the number of future claims and the related
costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with
the experience to date of existing claims.

BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of $183,000,000, with $2,220,000 and $2,230,000 at
December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, in estimated remaining
self insurance retention (deductible). There is secondary evidence
of coverage from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that
the insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place.
Policies issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions
related to asbestos. Under certain circumstances, some of the
settled claims may be reopened. Also, there may be a significant
delay in receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a
dismissal or settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim.
BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for
toxic-tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims
have gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that
these defenses will prevail. In addition, there can be no
assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs
of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the
experience to date of existing claims; and, that BNS Sub will not
need to increase significantly its estimated liability for the
costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a
material effect on the consolidated financial statements.

Steel Partners Holdings L.P. is a global diversified holding
company that engages in multiple businesses through consolidated
subsidiaries, associated companies and other interests. The
Company seeks to work with its businesses to increase corporate
value over the long term for all stakeholders and shareholders by
implementing Steel Partners Operational Excellence programs, the
Steel Partners Purchasing Council, Steel Partners Corporate
Services, balance sheet improvements, capital allocation policies
and growth initiatives.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Has $600,000 ARO at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Office Properties Trust, 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 conditional asset
retirement obligations of $0.6 million at the end of March.

The Company states: "We record a liability for a conditional asset
retirement obligation, defined as a legal obligation to perform an
asset retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of
settlement is conditional on a future event that may or may not be
within a company's control, when the fair value of the obligation
can be reasonably estimated.  Depending on the age of the
construction, certain properties in our portfolio may contain non-
friable asbestos.  If these properties undergo major renovations
or are demolished, certain environmental regulations are in place,
which specify the manner in which the asbestos, if present, must
be handled and disposed. Based on our evaluation of the physical
condition and attributes of certain of our properties, we recorded
conditional asset retirement obligations related to asbestos
removal.  As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the
liability in our consolidated balance sheets for conditional asset
retirement obligations was $0.6 million for both periods.  The
accretion expense for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and
2011 was not significant."

Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc., formerly Arizona Land
Income Corporation, is a real estate investment trust (REIT). The
Company is focused on acquiring, owning and operating office
properties in Honolulu and the western United States, including
southern California and the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. The
Company owns whole interests in eight fee simple and leasehold
office properties (consisting of 11 office buildings) and owns
interests in seven joint ventures, (including managing ownership
interests in six of those seven) holding 16 office properties
(consisting of 34 office buildings).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Senator Wants Abatement Laws Toned Down
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Columbus Dispatch, Sen. Rob Portman late last
month urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to rethink a
regulation that demolitions of vacant properties be subject to an
EPA rule governing asbestos removal.

Portman, R-Ohio, said the regulation has effectively barred Ohio
land banks and others from demolishing vacant and foreclosed-upon
homes.  The state has some 100,000 vacant properties awaiting
demolition, and Ohio groups -- led by the Thriving Communities
Initiative in Cleveland -- argue that the EPA's reinterpretation
of federal regulations governing asbestos removal has gummed up
the process and made it costlier for cities and land banks to
demolish such properties.

In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Portman said that
the EPA has recently begun reinterpreting federal regulations to
require nearly all demolition to be subject to rules on asbestos
removal.  Starting July 1, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine is
scheduled to begin releasing $75 million to Ohio counties and land
banks for demolition purposes.  Portman said because of the new
rules, 25% to 40% fewer properties will be demolished with these
dollars.

"Given the staggering cost increases and the growing need for
demolitions, I urge you to work with the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency and local stakeholders to reassess this
regulation's impact on local land banks and the communities they
serve," he wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GKN Aerospace, Lybrook Slapped with GBP15K Fine
----------------------------------------------------------------
PP Construction Safety reports that GKN Aerospace Services Ltd and
Lybrook Constructors Ltd (DL Group t/a) have been prosecuted after
construction workers were exposed to asbestos at GKN premises in
Somerset.

DL Group was engaged in June 2010 to remove ceiling tiles from
within a treatment facilities room.  Magistrates heard that GKN
had undertaken a 'basic survey' prior to the refurbishment work
being carried out but ignored the survey.

GKN placed an order for the works with DL Group despite the
company not having the skills to carry out adequate assessments.
The firm did not hold a suitable license to work with or remove
asbestos.

The court was told that DL Group employees began the removal work
without the necessary demolition and refurbishment survey being
commissioned thereby putting workers at risk of being exposed to
asbestos.

GKN Aerospace Services Ltd of the Isle of Wight pleaded guilty to
breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act
1974 and was fined GBP8,000 and ordered to pay GBP5,885 in costs.

Lybrook Constructors Ltd, t/a DL Group, of Chippenham, admitted to
breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act
1974 and was fined GBP3,400 and ordered to pay GBP5,885 in costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Annette Walker said:

"Neither party made sufficient efforts to identify the asbestos
liabilities associated with the work prior to work commencing.
GKN's records identified the presence of asbestos insulating board
in the ceiling tiles of that room.  However, they relied upon the
observations of contractors without the necessary competencies
required to make the decision that asbestos was not present nor
did they convey their information to the contractors.

Lybrook Constructors were active in making the decision that the
ceiling tiles did not contain asbestos.  In fact, a number of
ceiling tiles were clearly marked with asbestos stickers and these
were ignored.

As a result, a number of individuals were unnecessarily exposed to
the risks associated with airborne asbestos fibers through failure
to adequately assess and manage the works.  Exposure to asbestos
can have fatal or serious long term health consequences and, as
such, every precaution must be taken to minimize any risks when
working on buildings."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watchdog Slams Exxon Valdez's Berthing Off Mumbai
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gopal Krishna of ToxicsWatch Alliance in New Delhi, India, reports
that contrary to the order dated May 3, 2012, Supreme Court
wherein had asked Union of India, Ministry of Shipping and
Ministry of Environment & Forests "to inform this Court as to the
steps being taken to prevent the ship berthing in any of the ports
in India, without following the conditions indicated in the Basel
Convention," if anchorage is allowed it will be in contempt of
court.

The legal meaning of berthing is anchoring.

The infamous oil tanker that spilled crude oil off the Alaskan
coast 23 years ago, anchored a little past 7 am on Saturday,
June 30, about six nautical miles off the Bhavnagar coast, Gujarat
state, India.

At page no. 17 and 18 of the attached application of the Hong Kong
based Best Oasis company, the letter of the Gujarat Pollution
Control Board (GPCB) addressed to the Port Officer, Gujarat
Maritime Board (GMB) reveals that there has not been compliance
with the court order seeking compliance with UN's Basel Convention
on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal
of which India is a party.

At page 18 of the application wherein GPCB's letter is annexed.
The letter specifically refers to 'agency's letter seeking
Anchoring permission' responding to the same, GPCB reproduced
Hon'ble Court's order of May 3, 2012 ad verbatim.  The relevant
part of attached 9 page order refers to the application filed by
Gopal Krishna of ToxicsWatch Alliance at page no. 8 and 9.  It
reads: "Mr. Sanjay Parikh also submitted that a separate
interlocutory application has been filed, which is yet to be
numbered, in which it has been indicated that a foreign ship,
which is alleged to be contaminated, has entered into Indian
Waters, though, it has not yet been allowed to berth in any of the
ports, without taking proper steps for decontamination in the port
of export.

A copy has been provided to Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Union of India and Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned
senior counsel, who submits that he is appearing on behalf of the
Ministry of Shipping, Government of India.  Both, Mr. Bhan and Mr.
Doabia, are requested to take instructions on the statements made
in the interlocutory application and to inform this Court as to
the steps being taken to prevent the ship berthing in any of the
ports in India, without following the conditions indicated in the
Basel Convention.  The respondents in the interlocutory
application will be entitled to file their respective counter
affidavits to the same, within six weeks.  Rejoinder thereto, if
any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.  Let this
interlocutory application, as well as the other connected
interlocutory applications, be listed on 13th August, 2012, also."

The agency which applied for the anchoring permission is named as
SHREEJI SHIPPING AGENCY.  It is not revealed as to what is the
relationship between this agency and Mumbai based Oswald Cardozo
of Hongkong based Best Oasis Company, a subsidiary of Gujarat
based Priya Blue Company.

The letter of GPCB dated May 8, 2012, reveals that the Office of
the Assistant Commissioner of Customs has also taken cognizance of
these violations.  It refers to starred questions raised in Rajya
Sabha about the vessel as well.  It is admitted that 'This office
has also referred the matter to seek legal opinion, accordingly it
would not be appropriate to grant any permission to the vessel "MV
Oriental N" having one of the old name "Exxon Valdez" till further
order is issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.'  The
question is what has changed since May 3, 2012, till date to
necessitate GPCB to revisit its denial of 'to grant any permission
to the vessel" in question.  The influence of invisible players
must be probed.

It is noteworthy that the end-of life vessel is a hazardous waste
as per the Convention.  The end-of-life US ships are laden with
asbestos, PCBs and heavy metals which are being dumped in India in
pursuance of USA's Ship Disposal Policy.  It is not for US
Maritime Administration (US MARAD) and US Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) to disclose the original inventory of hazardous and
radioactive materials on board its vessel, Exxon Valdez.  The
Central Pollution Control Board, Gujarat Pollution Control Board
(GPCB) and Gujarat Maritime Board is supposed to verify the
veracity of their inventory after that.  It is matter of court's
record that GPCB does not have the facility to test PCBs.  How can
they visually inspect PCBs? It has not been disclosed so far
whether it has the expertise to inspect lung cancer causing
asbestos on the ship.

The inspection of the ship by moving it in Indian waters in
Bhavnagar reportedly undertaken by the GPCB and GMB has been done
without court's order as per Prayer No. 1 of the application of
Mumbai based Oswald Cardozo on behalf of Hongkong based Best Oasis
Company seeking inspection and anchorage.  This is a manifest case
of contempt of court's order.  The application was filed on May 9,
2012.  Mr. Oswald Cardozo must be asked to reveal his relationship
with the company and the inventory of this hazardous ship.  Who is
hiding behind the corporate veil to escape decontamination cost?

Supreme Court's original judgment of October 14, 2003 and
September 6, 2007 reads: "13. A complete inventory of hazardous
waste on board of ship should be made mandatory for the ship
owner."  The core question is has the ship owner of the ship
disclosed the inventory of hazardous waste on board of ship.

GPCB appears to be misleading when it says that there no hazardous
materials like asbestos on board the ship.  The fact is that it is
only since January 1, 2011 that International Maritime
Organization (IMO) has imposed total ban on asbestos.  All ships
prior to this date are likely to have asbestos and thus the end-
of-life vessels like 1986 built Exxon Valdez (IMO No. 8414520)
remain a major concern.

Supreme Court Monitoring Committee (SCMC) on Hazardous Wastes has
rightly asked, "If India accepts the ship, then India will be seen
as abetting a violation of the Basel Convention . . .  Why should
we sacrifice our precious soil to bury some other country's
(hazardous) junk?"

Government of USA is repeatedly trying to evade its responsibility
regarding its end-of-life vessels.  That's why it did not ratify
Basel Convention.  USA's standards for handling asbestos are
amongst the highest in the world.  But instead of investing in
safe removal and disposal of the asbestos on Exxon Valdez, they
are trying to dupe the Indian Government, and dump their toxic
wastes onto the most vulnerable workforce in the world.  This is
absolutely reprehensible and unbecoming of a supposedly civilized
nation.

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) demands that the current and past
ownership documents of the vessel must be examined.
Industrialized countries should not be allowed to dump their junk
into the developing world for the sake of perverted economic
logic.

The eagerness to profit from one of the world's dirtiest
industries, the dismantling of toxic ships by migrant and casual
workers from Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar and Odisha at Alang
beach is fraught with disastrous environmental and occupational
health consequences.

The fact is that September 2007 order of the Supreme Court has
reproduced ad verbatim the court's landmark judgment of October
14, 2003.  The relevant part of the order in the WRIT PETITION NO.
657 OF 1995 case which needs to be read before arriving at the
legality or illegality of the anchorage of the toxic US vessel,
Exxon Valdez (now called Oriental MV).

The order reads: "4. Disposal of waste material, viz. Oil, cotton,
dead cargo of inorganic material like hydrated/solidified
elements, thermocol pieces, glass wool, rubber, broken tiles, etc.
should be done in a proper manner, utilizing technologies that
meet the criteria of an effective destruction efficiently of
99.9%, with no generation of persistent organic pollutants, and
complete containment of all gaseous, liquid and solid residues for
analysis and, if needed, reprocessing.  Such disposed of material
should be kept at a specified placed earmarked for this purpose.
Special care must be taken in the handling of asbestos wastes, and
total quantities of such waste should be made known to the
concerned authorities.  The Gujarat Pollution Control Board should
authorize appropriates final disposal of asbestos waste."

TWA demands that GPCB should disclose its disposal site for
asbestos waste of this ship.  TWA has sought compliance with the
above mentioned order besides the recommendations of the Hon'ble
court's Inter-Ministerial Committee on Shipbreaking.  On May 3,
2012, the court asked the Union Government to file an affidavit as
to whether the ship in question has complied with the Basel
Convention.  More than a month has passed but compliance affidavit
has not been filed.

In such a situation, there is a compelling logic for this dead
hazardous ship to be sent away from the Indian waters.  It is
trying to repeat the story of another dubious dead US ship
Platinum II (ex SS Independence, MV Oceanic) to set a bad a
precedent to ensure that it paves the way for hundreds of dead
toxic US ships to be dumped in Indian waters.

A section of media appears to be been misled into reporting that
the June 25, 2012 order of the court has cleared the end-of-life
vessel Exxon Valdez (currently named MV Oriental N).  The attached
order reveals that no relief has been given as per the prayers in
the application of Best Oasis company, subsidiary of Priya Blue
Company.  The application of the company is also attached.

According to IMO, "In March 1989, the Exxon Valdez, loaded with
1,264,155 barrels of crude oil, ran aground in the northeastern
portion of Prince William Sound, spilling about one-fifth of its
cargo.  It was the largest crude spill, to date, in US waters and
-- probably the one which gained the biggest media coverage to
date.  The U.S. public demanded action -- and duly got it.  The
United States introduced its Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90),
making it mandatory for all tankers calling at U.S. ports to have
double hulls."

From 1986 to 1990 it was owned by Exxon Shipping Company, a
division of Exxon Corporation.  In early 1993, it was transferred
to another subsidiary company, Sear River Maritime Inc.  Till 2005
it was under US flag.  From 2005 it was under the flag of Marshall
Islands.  It was owned by Hong Kong Bloom Shipping Ltd, a unit of
China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), owner of the second largest
shipping fleet in the world from August 2008 to 2011.  This
company renamed it as Oriental Nicety in 2011.

Notably both Exxon Corporation and COSCO are part of the United
Nations Global Compact that commits business enterprises to uphold
fundamental human rights, labour and environment protection laws.
This move by Exxon and COSCO to sell the former Exxon Valdez for
dismantling of the vessel on Alang beach exposes the hollowness of
the UN Compact.

In March 2012, this US Vessel was purchased by a US based company
Global Marketing Systems (GMS), one of the leading buyers of dead
ships with offices in Shanghai and UAE.  This company was indicted
by the USEPA in the Platinum II case.  The vessel was sold to a
ship breaker company in Singapore on March 27, 2012.  The name of
this ship breaker company has not been disclosed.

It is claimed that the ship is now owned by Hongkong based Best
Oasis company, a subsidiary of Priya Blue company.  This company
has renamed the vessel as MV Oriental N.  The veracity of such
ownership claims can only be done if the ownership documents are
submitted to the court.  The sale of this vessel to Best Oasis was
announced by Maryland GMS.

After being the flag of USA and Marshall Islands, it took under
Panama flag.  As per the last information, this vessel is under
Sierra Leone flag.  Best Oasis company was set up in Hong Kong in
2010 for the "sole purpose of cash buying of vessels for recycling
at Alang, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and China," as per company's
website.

In November of 2010 this vessel had collided with the Aali, a
Malta-flagged cargo ship, in the South China Sea.  This vessel was
towed to Longyan Port in the Chinese province of Shandong.

Earlier, it was planned that the vessel will be dismantled at
Dalian in China.  It has come to light that the vessel has
illegally moved to Bhavnagar, Gujarat as of July 1, 2012.  The
last known port of this vessel was Mumbai.  This end-of-life
vessel of Length x Breadth: 300 m X 50 m has a dead weight of
213,855 ton.  The next hearing of application seeking compliance
with Basel Convention and Supreme Court's order is scheduled for
July 9, 2012.

At present ship breaking activity is regulated by the directives
of the Supreme Court of India in their ruling in W.P. (Civil) No.
657 of 1995 vide Order dated October 14, 2003 and September 6,
2007.  As per the court order a Ship Breaking/Recycling Code
Should been formulated by the Inter Ministerial Committee on Ship
breaking constituted by the court under Union Ministry of Steel,
the Focal Point for shipbreaking activity taking into account the
directions contained in the Supreme Court Order, recommendations
of Technical Experts Committee and High Powered Committee but
several years have passed without compliance with the court order.

The non-cooperation of the Union Environment & Forests Ministry
with the SCMC is one of the key reasons for the sorry state of
affairs in the hazardous ship breaking industrial operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Asks Canada to Rescind Quebec Subsidy
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), representing
thousands of asbestos victims, physicians and scientists around
the world, urges the Canadian Parliament to oppose the Quebec
government's $58 million loan guarantee that would enable Jeffrey
Mine Inc. to open a new underground asbestos mine in Asbestos,
Quebec.  Although, the company's present open-pit mine has run out
of asbestos, with this government subsidy, the Jeffrey Mine will
be able to export 200,000 tons of asbestos -- a well-documented,
highly carcinogenic toxin -- annually to developing countries for
the next quarter of a century.

Asbestos is a known human carcinogen and there is no safe level of
exposure.  The World Health Organization estimates the mineral,
regardless of the type, causes 107,000 preventable deaths each
year around the world.  No reputable health agency has ever
identified a concentration of asbestos that will not negatively
affect health.  These agencies include the U.S. Surgeon General,
Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, World Health Organization, International Agency
for Research on Cancer, and International Programme for Chemical
Safety.

Over 55 countries have banned asbestos. Although asbestos has not
been mined in the United States since 2002, exposure continues as
we do not ban the import of the mineral.  The US Geological Survey
(USGS) reported, "the United States is dependent on imports to
meet manufacturing needs.  Asbestos consumption in the United
States was estimated to be 1,100 tons, based on asbestos imports
through July 2011.  Roofing products were estimated to account for
about 60% of U.S. consumption."

"ADAO is appalled at the recent development whereby the Quebec
Government has provided $58 million to jump-start the Canadian
Asbestos Industry," said Richard Lemen, PhD, MSPH, Assistant
Surgeon General, USPHS (Ret.) & Rear Admiral (Ret.) and ADAO
Science Advisory Board Co-Chair.  "After a century of knowledge
concerning the health effects of asbestos and its devastating
trail of disease and death around the world, such an initiative by
Canada is a giant misstep backwards.  By offering this subsidy,
Quebec is endangering thousands of lives, both in Canada and
worldwide."

In a news article Canadian Medical Association president Dr. John
Haggie of Gander is quoted as saying: "I can't really understand
the decision in terms of health.  Chrysotile, which is the
asbestos the Jeffrey Mine produces, is a killer.  The number of
people whose deaths are attributable to this -- and they are all
in Third World countries 'cause nobody here will use the stuff -
is the same as a jumbo jet of people crashing every day the year
around.  That's a huge number.  So from a health prospective, I
can't understand it."

"As a mesothelioma widow, I am appalled by the support the Quebec
Government has given this deadly material.  The Canadian
Government should rescind this loan guarantee and send a global
message that the distribution of asbestos, a known human
carcinogen in all forms, is unacceptable," said Linda Reinstein,
President/CEO and Co-Founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization.  "It is time the National Government of Canada takes
a leadership role in curtailing the worldwide pandemic of
asbestos-related disease and death by stopping the mining and
exportation of asbestos from its country."

        About Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) --
http://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org/-- was founded by
asbestos victims and their families in 2004.  ADAO seeks to give
asbestos victims and concerned citizens a united voice to raise
public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure.  ADAO is
an independent global organization dedicated to preventing
asbestos-related diseases through education, advocacy, and
community.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Welcome Jeffrey Mine Reboot
------------------------------------------------------
Laura Beeston of The Montreal Gazette reports that the grey,
gaping open pit of the Jeffrey Mine may have been especially
silent since its operations were suspended last November, but
[now] the townspeople of Asbestos are buzzing with anticipation
for a rebirth.

All of the locals interviewed are convinced that a C$58-million
provincial loan granted to Montreal-based Balcorp Ltd. to jump-
start the asbestos mining industry here is a very good thing for
the region, and welcomed the government's announcement on Friday,
June 29, to resume their enterprise.

Above all else, they argue the deal will bring economic growth and
new life to the community, despite opposition from both national
and international health organizations who question the ethics of
the industry.

"My first reaction was relief," said Caroline Payer, who moved to
Asbestos from Montreal in 2006.  "We've been waiting on this
decision for at least three years (and) weren't sure it would
happen, based on what was being said about (the Jeffrey Mine) in
the media.  But this really is good news."

Payer said the town of roughly 7,000 will directly feel the
influence of this loan.  "We have to be thankful," she said.
Local Liberal MNA Yvon Vallieres announced the investment will
create 425 direct jobs at the mine, and approximately 1,000
indirect jobs in other industries of the region.  That, Payer
said, "is a lot for us."

As her 3-year-old daughter, Laurelie, ran barefoot and her husband
pitched a play tent in the front yard, Payer described how the
loan might further improve what she called a "changing
neighborhood" for families like hers, as more people move into
town.

"It's really because of the high quality of life that young
families choose to stay here, come back, or move for the first
time," she said.  "But we need new faces and people.  Of course
(this loan) is going to have an impact in this way -- it's a
really important thing for young people coming up."

Donavan Arsenault, a 24-year-old construction worker who lives in
Asbestos with his girlfriend and two young children, agreed.  He
said he is planning on sending the Jeffrey Mine his CV as soon as
possible.

Commuting 45 minutes to and from the nearby town of Victoriaville
to get to his job sites each day, Arsenault said he is looking
forward to finding available work closer to home.  "If we didn't
have a mine, there wouldn't be a city -- there would be nothing,"
he said.  "This place is full of old retired folks who used to
work in Jeffrey, and all the young people have had to go elsewhere
to find a job.  So it will be great to get a new generation into
those mines."

Before it closed, Jeffrey Mine was the town's largest employer.
When it eventually ran into trouble, however, so did the
community.

According to census records, the city's population fell by nearly
half between 2001 and 2011 from a population of roughly 14,000 to
7,000 today.  Local residents attribute the dramatic dip to be a
consequence of the once-booming industry's decline, as the mine
closed once before in 2002 after falling asbestos prices forced
production to a halt.  Nearly 350 jobs were reportedly lost at the
time.  After the mines failed to secure a $5-million government
bailout in the following months, many people left town to search
for work elsewhere.

Besides employment opportunities, proponents argue the region will
also benefit from C$7.5 million slated to diversify the current
one-industry economy over the next 15 to 20 years.  This money
will be set aside from the C$1.5 million Balcorp Ltd. per year is
expected to pay back to the provincial government with interest
from 2015 to 2031.

But what that diversity might look like was anyone's guess.

"These (mining) jobs will keep the town alive, or else it's dead.
There is nothing else here," explained Marco Briere, who said he
couldn't imagine what other industries might thrive.  "No one
wants to open a store here, because we don't have any money.  This
is a town of borrowers."

Living in Asbestos all his life with seven brothers and sisters,
Briere explained his father worked in the mining industry for 35
years before dying of lung cancer -- but that hasn't dissuaded him
from applying to Jeffrey.  Briere said he recently sent in his CV
when he heard the Jeffrey Mine was back in business.

A carcinogenic material, exposure to asbestos fibers in
occupational work, especially in developing countries where
materials are shipped and refined without stringent safety
standards, contribute to upwards of 100,000 deaths worldwide each
year, according to the Canadian Cancer Society.  The link between
asbestos and a number of lung, chest, gastrointestinal and
colorectal cancers is just one of the reasons health care
professionals, environmental activists and scientists have
condemned the recent loan announcement in Quebec.

"(The health risks) really depend on the system and health of the
individual.  There are a lot of people who have worked in the
mines for years and have no problems," Briere said.  "I'm not a
doctor, but it's possible to die of cancer without smoking a
cigarette all your life.  And if cigarettes are also known to be
so dangerous, why don't we take them away? Or what about alcohol?
That kills our young people too, but there is just too much money
in all of these things to stop their production."

Briere acknowledged the international condemnation of asbestos
products and mining techniques, but argued that it is a necessary
material without another non-inflammable product available to
replace it.  Besides, he said, the mines have changed their
practices since his father's time to protect those handling the
noxious materials.

Maurice Gilbert, who worked around the mines for 19 years, also
didn't have a problem with the processes with which asbestos is
extracted.  "I'm not sure what happens when it leaves Quebec, but
here we don't get sick -- I've never sneezed in my life," he said,
laughing, while at a front-yard barbecue.  "There's no danger
here.  Out there might be another thing, but it's not our industry
or our problem.  There is no danger here."

At the same barbecue, his neighbor, Marc Lalonde, agreed.  "The
people who are against what we do now are perpetuating old
propaganda about an old product and the old way it used to be
mined," he explained, adding he'd like to see recent, impartial
studies done on the issue and a more balanced approach in the
media.  "I can't say what happens (outside of Quebec) once the
product leaves, because I don't know.  But the reason we mine it
is because there are people who require it to resist humidity,
fire, and a lot of things.  So if we've found a secure way to
extract and develop it, I don't see a problem.  If it wasn't done
here, it'd be done elsewhere."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buckingham Palace Cleanup to Cost Millions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martin Hickman of The Independent reports that the Queen is facing
a multi-million pound bill for removing potentially deadly
asbestos from Buckingham Palace.  Almost GBP1 million of public
money has already been spent stripping asbestos from electrical
cabling ducts under flooring in the south wing of the 19th-century
building, royal accounts revealed.

Further work to remove the building material from other parts of
the palace will take place over 20 years, with the total bill for
ensuring the Royals and courtiers avoid developing mesothelioma --
a malignant lung cancer caused by inhaling asbestos -- coming to
several millions of pounds.

A rolling program has begun to update electrical cabling at the
palace laid in the late-1940s.  Hidden within last year's accounts
was the warning that replacing existing heating and electrical
pipes at Buckingham Palace "with associated asbestos removal will
now take 15-20 years to complete".

The latest accounts -- which showed that taxpayer funding for the
Queen rose slightly by 0.6%, or GBP200,000, to GBP32.3 million in
the year to April -- revealed that tearing out asbestos from under
lino in the south wing cost GBP800,000.

The accounts noted: "The mechanical and electrical services at
Buckingham Palace were largely installed in 1949 and are in need
of replacement.  The mains are distributed around the palace from
central plant rooms in ducts that run under the basement floor of
three of the four wings.  This . . . comprises the removal of the
cover of each duct, clearance of asbestos contamination . . . "

A spokesman for the Royal Household said "extensive records" were
kept to ensure that maintenance workers were safe from asbestos
when carrying out repairs.

The Royal Family has a backlog of essential building work,
including repairs to crumbling roof masonry.  Last year GBP9.7m of
government grant-in-aid was pumped into renovating Buckingham
Palace, Windsor Castle, St James's Palace and other buildings, up
from GBP7.8m the previous year.

Public funding for royal travel rose by GBP100,000 to GBP6.1m,
which covered the chartering of planes and helicopters.  The
Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall's travel bill was the
highest, costing at least GBP810,000, followed by the Duke of York
on GBP378,249.

Despite the rise, the Queen's spending has dropped since 2009,
allowing Buckingham Palace to point to her frugalness.  The
savings have allowed the Queen to channel GBP3m into reserves --
which she will use to pay for her Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said: "When the
Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his plans for the public
expenditure to reduce by 25 per cent in real terms over a four-
year period, the Queen was very keen that the Royal Household
should play its part in reducing its expenditure accordingly."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Subsidiary Files Sixth Amended Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Kary of Bloomberg News reports Pfizer Inc.'s non-operating
Quigley Co. unit filed a new plan to exit bankruptcy that bars all
asbestos claims against the two companies, except some made
against Pfizer under Pennsylvania law.

Quigley, in bankruptcy since 2004, filed the sixth version of its
plan June 29.  The new plan addresses an April appeals court
ruling on how Pfizer can use Quigley's bankruptcy to protect
itself from asbestos claims.  The court found that law firm Peter
G. Angelos PC can sue Pfizer based on manufacturer liability under
Pennsylvania law.

The new plan's exception for claims under Pennsylvania law would
be "null and void" if the Second Circuit's decision is modified
upon rehearing or on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Quigley
said in the plan, filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan.
The company will seek plan approval from U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Stuart Bernstein at a hearing set for Aug. 15.

The plan builds on a fifth version, under which New York- based
Pfizer increased contributions to a proposed trust into which all
future asbestos lawsuits against the two companies would be
channeled.  Such "channeling injunctions" allow companies with
ongoing liabilities to exit bankruptcy.

"We are pleased that the Quigley bankruptcy proceeding is moving
forward," Pfizer spokesman Christopher Loder said in an e-mailed
statement.

Quigley, founded in 1916, made three products for the steel
industry from the 1940s to the 1970s that contained asbestos.
Pfizer bought Quigley in 1968.  The unit stopped most operations
in 1992 and filed for bankruptcy in 2004.

Pfizer, the world's largest drugmaker, has said it never made or
sold any Quigley products.  Some claimants haven't released Pfizer
from alleged "derivative liability," according to the company.

Under the sixth amended plan, Pfizer will contribute $260 million
in cash to a trust that will pay most future asbestos claims
brought against it and Quigley.  Pfizer will also forgive a
secured claim of $95 million against Quigley, a loan of $19
million to Quigley, and an unsecured claim of $33 million.  It
will also contribute insurance benefits that cover asbestos
personal injury claims.

Pfizer will also contribute a property leased to a distributor of
Anheuser-Busch in Orange County, California, to pay future
asbestos claims.  The property has an estimated value of $43.6
million and produced cash flow of $1.9 million in the first 12
months since Pfizer acquired it, according to court papers.
The April ruling from an appeals court had come after Pfizer had
appealed a ruling that found the bankruptcy didn't bar certain
lawsuits against the drug company.

Angelos began bringing lawsuits against Pfizer in 1999, saying
that because the drug company's logo appeared on Quigley products,
it should have liability for the asbestos-containing products.

During Quigley's bankruptcy, Bernstein has said that Pfizer
manipulated the bankruptcy process, and refused to allow Quigley
to exit Chapter 11 court protection under a deal with Pfizer.  The
company has also been at odds with a committee of creditors known
as the "Ad Hoc Committee of Tort Victims," which asked in October
2010 to have Quigley's bankruptcy dismissed so it could bring tort
claims, which are otherwise blocked by bankruptcy law.

The U.S. Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department, had asked the
bankruptcy court to end Quigley's Chapter 11, citing the fact that
creditors alleging asbestos-related health issues have been unable
to sue New York-based Pfizer during the case, and many of them
have died.

Asbestos claims against Quigley may total $4.45 billion during the
next 42 years, according to testimony cited by Bernstein in
September.  In November, Pfizer reported a $701 million third-
quarter charge for asbestos litigation related to Quigley.

The case is In re Quigley Co., 04-15739, U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Southern District of New York (Manhattan). The appeals case is 11-
2635, 11-2767, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
(Manhattan).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ARD/Meso Lawsuits Expected to Rise in Jamaica
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth for the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance reports that as
cases of asbestos-related diseases continue to rise in Jamaica,
experts in the field of asbestos management predict that -- before
long -- both government agencies and Jamaican companies will be
hit with related lawsuits, states an article in the Jamaica
Observer.

According to statistics from the Registrar General's Department,
20 Jamaicans died of asbestos-linked illnesses between the years
2006 and 2011.  Specifically, 12 of those individuals died after
being diagnosed with mesothelioma cancer and the other 8 developed
pneumoconiosis, which is also associated with inhaling asbestos
(and other) mineral fibers.

In Jamaica, the presence of asbestos in the workplace has recently
been the focus of concern throughout the country.  The article
sites a recent work stoppage in two fire stations where
firefighters complained that sections of their buildings contained
asbestos that was in a hazardous state.

Similarly, at the Carib Cement Company in the capital city of
Kingston, workers went on strike last month when they were
informed that several buildings in the complex were constructed
using asbestos materials.  The employees at Carib have asked that
the asbestos be removed from the structures and have indicated
that they are unhappy with what is being done to ensure their
safety, even though the company has scheduled a review of the
extent of the asbestos contamination and its subsequent removal.

The general secretary of the National Workers Union, Granville
Valentine, has spoken out publicly about the situation at Carib.
He insists that the asbestos be removed "in short order" and that
the results of air quality tests performed since the strike be
made public.  He believes company owners are making light of the
situation.

According to Professor Ishenkumba Kahwa, Dean of the Faculty of
Pure and Applied Science at the University of the West Indies,
Jamaicans are no longer content just sitting back and accepting
what appears to be negligence by employers who express little or
no concern about their health.  He believes that the age of
asbestos-related lawsuits is just around the corner in Jamaica and
also agrees that plans to remove asbestos from factories and other
locations throughout the country must commence before the material
begins to deteriorate, resulting in widespread asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malabar Land Users Questions Eviction Due to ACMs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leesa Smith of the Southern Courier reports that eight months
after being turfed off the Malabar headland, the land users are
questioning if they really needed to be evicted following claims
the asbestos risk on site was low.

All headland lessees, except for the NSW Rifle Association which
is currently fighting its case in court, had their leases
terminated on October 31 following the federal government's
release of an independent asbestos report.

But the community is up in arms because the findings of the
assessment made two years ago claims the risk on the ground was
not high.

"Based on the current air monitoring results, it is considered
that risk of exposure above national exposure standards is low, if
not negligible, if the ACM's (asbestos containing materials) are
left undisturbed," the report said.

One reader, Annie, said there was no more asbestos on the site
than in any suburban street in Sydney.

"This to me was a disgusting scare-mongering campaign to try to
enforce and justify the eviction of the headland users," she said.

Another reader said the users should be able to remain on the site
to "practice their sporting and leisure pursuits."

The federal government is yet to set a timeline for the
remediation process but the coalition says if the party wins next
year's federal election the site will be reopened within six
months.

Kingsford Smith Liberal candidate Michael Feneley said the
evictions were a belt and braces approach to public risk.

"You can't really draw a line between the recommendation of that
report and the decision to evict," he said.

$8 million in funding has been allocated over two years as part of
the 2012-13 federal budget to commence the remediation process.

The Commonwealth has undertaken emu picks of the affected areas
over the past two years including an inspection of the site and
collection of all visible asbestos

Due to the sandy nature of the surface soils, asbestos materials
will continue to rise to the surface until the site is fully
remediated.

The removal of all Category 2 (the eastern site) asbestos has been
completed and is scheduled for transfer to the NSW government
later this year.

Asbestos Diseases Research Institute director Nico van Zandwijk
said there needed to be more testing because when the assessment
was conducted the weather conditions were good and there were no
people horse riding.

"The conclusion is based on one air measurement but to have a
realistic scenario about potential risk, repeated measurements are
necessary to have a more complete picture," he said.

"You shouldn't make the impression that because one air
measurement didn't show too much that now the problem is more or
less contained -- the problem is not contained from my
perspective."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EoM Can't Confirm Approval of Toxic-Clad Rooms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry McBride of The Dominion Post reports that families in
Seatoun (in New Zealand) have been told temporary classrooms used
by pupils were clad in asbestos.

Seatoun school sent out a letter to parents alerting them asbestos
had been identified by the Education Ministry in the cladding of
two relocatable classrooms and a toilet block on the school
grounds.

The temporary classrooms were used while recent building work was
completed, but they have not been in use over the past month.

Seatoun School board chairwoman Sarah Bacon said they had been
assured by the ministry that there was no health risk from the
asbestos in the cladding, as it was sealed by paint.

"The main thing for us is the assurance that there is no health
risk . . .  The buildings are going to be relocated so I'm sure
that people aren't overly concerned as that assurance is
unequivocal."

Education Ministry policy manager Jerome Sheppard said the
classrooms, which will be relocated to Ngaio, contained low levels
of asbestos and should not cause any health problems.

"The ministry always works to ensure no student or member of staff
is exposed to unsafe asbestos and follows building guidelines
whenever handling the material."

Ministry guidelines required buildings with asbestos to be removed
if they had been disturbed, with financial assistance available
for schools affected.

While the ministry conducted a nationwide survey in the 1980s to
identify asbestos in school buildings, it was now up to schools to
check buildings for hazardous materials, Mr. Sheppard said.

"Schools are responsible for the health and safety of staff and
students in their care.  If a school discovers a potentially
hazardous substance they should contact the ministry."

Mr. Sheppard could not confirm how the asbestos-clad classrooms
were approved to be used by Seatoun School, but said school
project managers and construction companies should be experienced
with the process of identifying and managing hazardous substances
like asbestos.

"The health and safety of staff and students is of paramount
importance."

The ministry was not intending to contact any other schools in
Wellington regarding asbestos concerns in the near future.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec's Decision Comes With Great Responsibility
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Montreal Gazette relates that given the carcinogenic nature of
asbestos, the decision by the government of Quebec to issue a loan
to enable the reopening of an asbestos mine in the Eastern
Townships is troubling.

But now that the decision to support the reopening of the Jeffrey
Mine in the town of Asbestos has been made, the governments of
Quebec and Canada have a moral obligation to toughen export
controls to promote and assure safe handling of the material.

The health risks associated with asbestos are very clear, and
everything possible needs to be done to make sure that best
practices for handling the material, as outlined by the
International Labour Organization's Convention 162 on Safety in
the Use of Asbestos, are adopted in those countries where Quebec
exports asbestos -- primarily India, Thailand, Sri Lanka and South
Korea.

The timing of the announcement by the Quebec government was
telling.  Governments typically choose late Friday afternoons to
announce things that they are embarrassed about, on the assumption
that by then news operations will be gearing down for the weekend
and public attention otherwise occupied.

And so it was that news of the C$58 million provincial loan to the
operators of the Jeffrey Mine was announced at 4 p.m. on the eve
of the long Canada Day weekend.

The debate over the future of the Jeffrey Mine has not been the
first in this country to see economic and environmental interests
at odds with each other.  The announcement was enthusiastically
applauded by Asbestos residents, for whom asbestos mining
constitutes a lifeline for an otherwise dying town.  With the
decline of the asbestos industry, the town's population has shrunk
by half since 2001, from 14,000 to 7,000 by last year.  The
reopening of the mine is expected to generate 425 direct jobs and
about 1,000 indirect jobs in other industries in the immediate
region.

Elsewhere, however, the announcement was roundly condemned, and
understandably so, notably in medical and environmental circles.
Asbestos, while highly useful as a construction material for its
fireproof quality, is also deadly when its fibers are released
into the air and inhaled.  It has been irrefutably linked to a
variety of cancers.  And while its use is banned in 58 countries
worldwide, including those of the European Union and the U.S., it
is estimated by health authorities to kill some 100,000 people a
year worldwide.  On the other hand, many of these deaths are the
result of asbestos mining in the 1960s and 1970s, when controls
over the mining of the material and industrial applications were
either loose or non-existent.

Today, most of the Canadian production of asbestos is shipped to
India and other Asian countries for inclusion in cement products.
In a position paper on the asbestos industry issued in 2007, the
federal government said it is not aware of chrysotile asbestos --
the kind Canada exports -- being commonly used in developing
countries for applications that are banned in Canada.

Even so, it would be probably be best if the material was just
banned outright, given the risks.  Until then, importers should be
pressured to adopt regulations concerning asbestos use similar to
the ones under this country's Hazardous Products Act.  These
include banning the sale of loose asbestos and requiring that
construction materials incorporating asbestos be such that fibers
cannot become airborne during application, repair or disposal.
Until the day comes when the production and use of asbestos ends,
both the Quebec and Canadian governments need to take measures,
and be seen internationally to be taking measures, to help reduce
health risks associated with the product.

The end of asbestos mining would represent a clear threat to the
town of Asbestos, and so it's good to see that C$7.5 million in
loan money that the Jeffery Mine operator, Balcorp Ltd., will be
repaying to the government of Quebec is to be earmarked for
projects to diversify the local economy.  Ultimately, Asbestos is
going to have to learn to live without asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Niagara Gazette Reviews New York's Asbestos Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
Niagara Gazette relates that down the road in Lockport, Pat McFall
was about to serve seven months in jail for failing to maintain a
dry cleaning business he owns before his sentence was vacated.  To
some, he's completely to blame for this failure.  However, a
closer examination tells us that we need some changes to New York
state laws because they currently are designed to hinder the
public instead of assisting it.

The Willow Street building owned by McFall partially collapsed
last December.  McFall was prepared to clean up the debris, but he
was stopped by city inspectors because the rubble contained
asbestos.  New York state law requires certain criteria to be met
"to ensure the proper abatement of asbestos materials."

This is where the problem begins.

About 4% of the rubble at the Willow Street site is contaminated
with asbestos, all of it contained in window caulking and some of
the roof.  That's not much.  However, New York state law requires
asbestos remediation whenever contamination exceeds half of 1%.

Because of a little caulk, what should have cost McFall a couple
days of his own time clearing out the mess turned into a
government-mandated cleanup bill upwards of $50,000, which he
cannot afford.  He stopped paying taxes on the property, and now a
very nice neighborhood is marred by a blighted property.

Perhaps public safety is worth the $50,000. However, consider this
information from New York's Asbestos Control Board, which enforces
state labor law and, specifically, Industrial Code Rule 56.  That
code requires the following "to ensure the proper abatement of
asbestos materials:"

   -- Licensing of contractors;
   -- Certification of all persons working on asbestos projects;
   -- Filing of notifications for large projects; and
   -- Pre-demolition survey of buildings to identify any asbestos
      that may be present.

Note that none of these criteria deal with the public's safety.
They do, however, ensure that jobs are created for bureaucrats and
specialty contractors.  You know, the ones who contribute mightily
to political campaigns.

Control board members would likely claim that licensed contractors
will ensure proper cleanup.  But really, who's kidding whom here?
Besides, how much asbestos, an airborne contaminant, remains today
in that pile of rubble?

Of course, there are federal standards for asbestos cleanup, too,
and Industrial Code Rule 56 incorporates some of those federal
standards.

Consider Texas, where there certainly is not an absence of
asbestos regulation, but doesn't apply the nanny treatment of
extra rules and regulations like here in New York.  The owner of
89 Mill St. in Lockport -- who's receiving federal help to clean
up that site -- is from Texas.  He recently relocated a building
with multiple environmental issues there.

He reached out to one or more regulatory agencies for their
advisement on any pertinent issues and got the info he needed to
do the relocation successfully and legally.  More than that, he
received a letter from a Texas state agency thanking him for his
work to remove a decades-old eyesore -- along with an offer to let
them know if there's anything else they can do to help.

In Texas you get support and encouragement for redeveloping and
creating jobs, whereas in New York, you get shaken down by the
government, and the public suffers.

A better solution for cleaning up asbestos is needed in New York
state.  A good start would be for the law to work for the people
instead of against it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Volunteers of America House Abatement Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
WMFG.com reports that the first steps are being taken toward
tearing down an old, vacant house at 300 North Main Street in
Mansfield.

The sight of workers removing the siding Tuesday prompted a man to
call the WMFD newsroom and the Mansfield, Ontario, Richland County
Health Department to question whether the siding was being removed
safely, because it contains asbestos.

Health Department Sanitarian Andrea Barnes called the Ohio EPA's
Division of Air Pollution Control and was told the contractor is
licensed to handle asbestos and did provide the proper
notification of its work.

She also went to the work site and found the job being done
properly.

The house owned by the Volunteers of America, will eventually be
torn down, although the Mansfield Codes and Permits Office has not
yet issued a permit for demolition.

Before that happens, the asbestos-containing floor tiles must be
removed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pasco School District Abatement Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Shaub at kndo.com reports that the Pasco School District, in
Washington, says workers should have the roof replaced at Pasco
High School by the first day of school.

The job is more involved because workers first have to remove
asbestos materials from the beneath the roof, originally put on in
the 1950s.

Assistant Superintendent of Operations John Morgan says the
asbestos the workers are removing is the non-friable type, which
is relatively safe and easy to remove.

"This is the type that is encapsulated and doesn't create dust,"
Morgan says.

The workers are following what is called asbestos protocol.
Everyone on the job site must wear protective clothing and
respirators.

The area is also cordoned off while workers remove the asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Review on LA's $48MM Verdict for Bobbie Izel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Frank of PointofLAW.com reports that according to government
mortality tables, an 85-year-old male has a life expectancy of
another 5.65 years.  Unfortunately for Bobbie Izell, who worked in
construction in the 1960s and 1970s, he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma when he was 85, so his expectancy is a couple of
years shorter.  A year later, this month, a Los Angeles jury
decided that this entitled him to $30 million in "compensatory"
damages from ten defendants; coincidentally, the jury also found
that the five defendants who were bankrupt or had otherwise
settled were only 5% responsible collectively, while the deepest
pocket, Union Carbide, was 65% responsible.  Another $18 million
in punitive damages were awarded against Union Carbide, on the
theory that it should have unilaterally stopped selling asbestos
in 1967, but didn't do so until 1985.  Union Carbide denies
liability entirely; the press coverage doesn't give any evidence
on that one way or the other, or bother to explain the defendant's
likely legitimate grievance.  (Though precedent pretends
otherwise, a jury that awards an irrational amount of damages
almost certainly assigned irrational amounts of liability.)  But
the $30 million compensatory damages, nearly all of which is non-
economic damages, is obviously absurd.  What's the point of
constitutional limits on punitive damages if the jury can
effectively assess punishment twice under the guise of
compensatory damages? [Similar on POL in 2006; law.com/NLJ]

Note that we have apparently gotten to the point where a $48
million verdict is dog-bites-man, and not especially newsworthy;
this didn't make the Los Angeles Times or national news coverage
other than specialty legal papers; the only blogs to cover it are
the splogs that are advertising for asbestos attorneys.

The attorneys were from Baron & Budd; press coverage doesn't
indicate whether they'd be sharing what would be millions of
dollars of their fee with a "chicken catcher" lawyer who did
nothing but recruit the client and pass along the file.  Press
coverage also doesn't indicate whether Izell has made paid claims
with asbestos bankruptcy trusts inconsistent with the claims made
at trial, or whether the defendants were able to obtain discovery
from the trusts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tinley Park "Environmental Nightmare" to Close
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Frillman for Tinley Park Patch reports that Village Mayor
Ed Zabrocki weighed the positives and negatives to considering a
275-acre plot of land where the Tinley Park Mental Health Center
now sits.  He said developers' interest has declined and he called
it an "environmental nightmare."

Local officials said that the last client at the Tinley Park
Mental Health Center should be filing out the doors by July 1.

That means the once sought-after land will soon be up for grabs,
potentially finding its way in front of the village board for
local purchase.  But Tinley Park Mayor Ed Zabrocki noted during a
joint meeting of the Village Board and park district on Tuesday,
June 26, that developers may not want the land as much as they
previously did.

The facility had been under fire for several years before finally
getting its fate handed down when a Cook County judge recently
denied a motion that could have delayed its closure.

The 275-acre land will be offered to other state agencies for a
period of 60 days prior to coming before the village, which gets
the "first right of refusal," Zabrocki said.  He seemed split on
the matter Tuesday, though he noted it could have residential or
retail potential.

"Back in '04-'05, when this first came in line that this might be
up for sale, I probably got 70, 75 letters from different
developers all over the country," he said, noting that one came
from a four-year university.  "When it finally reached the point
over the last two years where it was going to close . . .  I got
zero letters."

He cited hefty Cook County taxes as one of the downsides to the
plot, noting that the facility is literally across the street from
less taxed Will County properties.  He also called the space and
its "asbestos-filled" buildings an "environmental nightmare."

"All are wrapped in asbestos," Zabrocki said. "(They) will have to
get (torn) down and I think all of us have had experience one time
or another to know what's involved in removing a building that's
filled with asbestos."

Village Board Trustee Greg Hannon, chairman of the Planning and
Zoning Committee, said that if the land does come before the
village board, ample research will be compiled so trustees can
make an informed decision.

"There's still a lengthy period to go through with the state
before it gets to us," Hannon said.

The center dates back to 1958, when it was built on 213 acres
adjacent to the 62-acre property that has since been vacated by
the Howe Development Center -- it closed up shop in 2009.

Operated by the Illinois Department of Human Services' Division of
Mental Health, it's one of nine state-run hospitals that provide
civil and forensic, court-remanded psychiatric care.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has been working steadily since September
2011 to close seven state facilities -- including the Tinley Park
Mental Health Center -- and lay off more than 1,900 state workers
as part of a plan to cut state spending.  He blamed the cuts on
state lawmakers who gave him a budget that was $2.2 billion less
than he requested.

"It's time for a rendezvous with reality" for legislators, he said
during a Chicago news conference last year.

The closings could save the state $313 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fundraising "Walk" Garners $75,000 for Meso Cure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merredin Wheatbelt Mercury reports that, on May 9, the Mercury
published a story called "Walk to find a cure for mesothelioma"
about a group of asbestos campaigners setting out on an epic
600-kilometre walk from Kalgoorlie-Boulder to Perth to raise money
medical research.

On its journey the group stopped in Merredin and Kellerberrin on
May 2 and at that time had raised just under $50,000.

From the walk they ended up raising $75,000.

The Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia (ADSA) co-founder Rose
Marie Vojakovic and Siri Siriwardene from law firm Slater & Gordon
presented the funds to Professor Anna Novak who heads-up research
into mesothelioma at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital.

Mrs. Vojakovic's husband Robert Vojakovic worked at Wittenoom and
the couple has spent the past 33 years campaigning to help the
victims of asbestos-related diseases.

"There is no cure for asbestos-related diseases; we want to help
change that," Mr. Vojakovic said.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive form of cancer that attacks the
lungs, heart and abdomen after exposure to asbestos fibers.

So far asbestos-related diseases have claimed the lives of more
than 2000 Wittenoom workers and their families.

While the Wittenoom asbestos mine has been closed for nearly five
decades, its deadly legacy continues to be felt by many Western
Australians.

Mr. Vojakovic said people were still being exposed to the deadly
fibers and needed to know the dangers of asbestos.

"Even though the Wittenoom mine closed at the end of 1966 we are
seeing more and more people being diagnosed with asbestos related
illnesses," he said.

"This insidious product made its way into the wider community
through its use in everyday products.

"It was used as insulation, carpet underlay, vehicle brake pads,
fire retardant, in kitchen appliances and building products.

"We are so proud that we raised $75,000 for the medical
researchers at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and hope it will help
them find a cure for this horrible disease."

Mr. Vojakovic said there were many organizations that helped make
the walk a success.

"We would like to thank law firm Slater & Gordon for their support
during this fundraising campaign and the four staff members who
completed the 600-kilometre journey with us," he said.

"Slater & Gordon in WA have been helping asbestos victims and
their families secure compensation for more than 25 years and
continue to be a good friend of the ADSA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Decontamination On at Old Union Fork and Hoe Site
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Sorrell-White of The Telegram reports that asbestos work
has begun on the former Union Fork and Hoe site, with demolition
now slated for sometime in late this month.

Stephen Litwhiler, Region 6 DEC citizen participation specialist,
said the asbestos removal will take a couple more weeks before it
is completed.  After that, the demolition will begin.

"Once the buildings are down and removed there will be a full
scale investigation of the extent of contamination and how the
site will be cleaned up," he said in an e-mail to The Telegram on
Tuesday, June 26.

Litwhiler said another DEC fact sheet would be issued once the
remedial investigation begins.

Information provided by the DEC regarding the Initial Remediation
Measure states that besides the asbestos abatement, asbestos air
monitoring and asbestos removal, the buildings will be "stripped
of all material besides wood, brick, block, steel and concrete."

Contaminated debris will be disposed of off-site, and some
uncontaminated materials, such as steel, brick, block and
concrete, will be recycled.

The site is listed as class 2 on the state registry of inactive
waste sites, which represents a significant threat to public
health or the environment and that action is required.

Clean-up activities will be performed by Ames True Temper with
oversight provided by the DEC.  The work is being done through the
State Superfund Program, which identifies and characterizes
suspected inactive hazardous waste disposal sites.

According to the DEC fact sheet, the site includes "several vacant
industrial buildings, which were part of the former hand tool
manufacturer.  The majority of the site is covered by former
parking areas and grass fields with some more densely vegetated
areas along the site boundaries."

A public water supply well field was impacted by the site and is
located adjacent to and northeast of the site.  In 1991, a
treatment system was placed on the municipal well.

Several environmental investigations have been conducted at the
site over the last 25 years.  Elevated levels of Volatile Organic
Compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, Polychlorinated
Biphenyls and metals have been documented historically in site
soils.  The fact sheet also states that "several removal actions
have been performed at the site to address impacts to site soils
over the last 15 years."

The site is currently inactive and is zoned for commercial and
industrial use.  The surrounding area has a mix of industrial,
commercial and residential zoned uses.

Village of Frankfort Mayor Frank Moracco said last month that some
new developers are interested in bringing their business to the
site, once it is fully remediated.

Documents related to this site can be found at the Frankfort
village office at 110 Railroad St.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Serena School District Cleanup "On The House"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Stroebel at mywebtimes.com reports that the Serena Community
Unit 2 School District board, in Illinois, is leaning away from
asking taxpayers to cover the cost of asbestos removal in tunnels
beneath the school.

The project originally was projected to cost $280,000.  The most
recent estimate came in at $140,000.

The main question board members examined on the issue Thursday,
June 28, was whether to fund the project from reserves or levy
money.

"I would like to abate the amount needed to give the local
taxpayers some property tax relief and not add to their burden,"
said board member Linda Robbins.  "It is scary to dip into our
reserves, but that's also why we have them: for situations like
this."

The board took a straw poll, which leaned in favor of abating
funds from the operation and maintenance fund.

No action was taken on the issue.  The asbestos removal will be
revisited at this month's meeting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Reset Maplehurst Hotel Demolition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ella Nilsen at the Union Leader reports that the planned
demolition of the Maplehurst Hotel on Thursday, June 28 was
stalled briefly due to findings of lead paint on the building's
walls.  The lead paint, coupled with asbestos, made the main
building too hazardous to demolish at once.

The demolition site will be the home of the new Bethlehem Public
Library, a 7,000-8,000 square foot facility.  The library's
projected completion date is December 2013.

The approximately 50 residents who turned out to watch the
demolition were told that the process would have to happen
gradually over the coming weeks to ensure a safe disposal of
hazardous building materials.  Residents were still able to watch
one smaller outbuildings be demolished.

"We've had to test each building," Bethlehem Fire Chief Jack
Anderson told the crowd.  "[A building] has to be a certain level
and it becomes hazardous waste if it exceeds levels."

Anderson added that crews would have to remove building clapboards
one by one and dispose of them in a special facility because of
the lead paint.  He stated that the soil around the site would
have to be tested and monitored for asbestos levels, after which
it could be loamed and seeded.

"Everything is so documented and so overseen, it's ridiculous,"
said Anderson, who told the crowd that safety precautions were
being taken very seriously.  He noted that there was a crew of
people monitoring the air quality for toxins, as well as two
environmental engineers, Christopher Melby and Steve Raymond, of
GZA Environmental, on site.

The Maplehurst was built in 1875 as a boarding house and converted
into a hotel in 1910-1911.  In 1974, it became the Chase Tennis
Camp, but has been abandoned since 1988.

In 2013, the site of the camp will become home to the new
Bethlehem Public Library.  The library's current space is one room
in the town building, a building that is shared with the Police
and Fire Departments.

"It's small," said Secretary of the Friends of the Bethlehem
Public Library Betty Grubbs.  "We really do need more space for
more people."

"It's going to bring a much-needed community space," said Director
of the Library Laura Clerkin, who noted that a community meeting
space would be part of the new library, available for any
organization in town to use.

According to Grubbs, the new library will be all on one level,
with a children's reading room, a computer room, and another
reading section that she said could be a "quiet place for senior
citizens" to read.

The new library will be a green building, and the Bethlehem
librarians and Friends of the Bethlehem Public Library noted that
they are currently looking for outside grants and donations to
fund the project.

"We're looking for someone now that knows their way around
grants," said Grubbs.

"We're just in the beginning," added Clerkin.  "It's important for
the community and town to keep costs in line."  Nevertheless, she
stated that they plan to make the building "as green as possible."

Clerkin, Grubbs and Marsha Palazzolo, the president of Friends of
the Bethlehem Public Library community group, noted that community
businesses have been supportive, planning ideas for fundraisers
and encouraging outside donations.

"We hope everybody can pitch in," said Palazzolo.  "We hope
everybody can do their share."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CAA Slams Insurance Companies Payout Strategy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Harrison of Herald Scotland reports that victims of asbestos-
related cancer have called on the Scottish Government to change
the law after new developments in their decades-long battle for
compensation that could leave hundreds of sufferers penniless.

Clydeside Action on Asbestos (CAA), which is fighting for payouts
for thousands of workers who contracted mesothelioma, has accused
insurance companies of using "underhand tactics" to have
compensation claims thrown out of court.

It claims insurers -- citing a previous civil case involving sex
abuse -- say that if victims do not take up their damages case for
the lesser condition of pleural plaques within three years of
diagnosis they no longer have the right to claim for other
developments in their condition, such as deadly mesothelioma.

This risks "time-barring" hundreds of cancer claims or forcing
people to settle for a fraction of what they should be due, the
campaign group said.

Asbestos-related cancer sufferers now face the choice of accepting
a payment of around GBP3000 or GBP4000 in compensation for
developing pleural plaques -- a symptomless thickening of the
lungs -- or ending up with nothing if they fight on.

Phyllis Craig, senior welfare officer at CAA, accused insurers of
being "heartless".  She said: "This callous attack on weak and
dying asbestos victims is just the latest in a long list of
underhand tactics employed by the insurers.

"The insurers claim to be concerned with getting compensation for
asbestos victims as quickly as possible, but these people are
dying as the insurance companies try to find new ways to limit
their exposure to paying out on asbestos cases."

Many Scots who contracted cancer after working with dangerous
asbestos fibers in the shipyards and other heavy industries have
been fighting for years to get compensation.

They believed they had finally won their battle in October last
year when Supreme Court judges in London upheld a Scottish
Government ruling that gave people with pleural plaques the right
to pursue compensation.

Chris Gordon, a partner at Thompsons Solicitors who has been
representing many of the Scottish compensation cases, said the
insurance companies' latest legal tactic represented a huge
turnaround after they had previously argued that pleural plaques
were not a factor in developing mesothelioma.

He said: "The insurers took that all the way to the Supreme Court
and they lost.  Having claimed pleural plaques were of no
consequence, they have done an about-turn and said that they are
of consequence, and that the time limits should start from the
diagnosis of them.

"They are inventing, with blue-sky thinking, defenses to rob
victims of asbestos with terminal conditions of the rightful
compensation they should get.  We are calling on the Scottish
Government to address this and make sure that the insurers do the
right thing."

The call for fresh action from the Scottish Government was
supported by Alan Kirk, consultant chest surgeon at the Golden
Jubilee Hospital in Clydebank,

He said: "Mesothelioma is a miserable disease with a poor life
expectancy and often a poor quality of life as well, and despite
the best of modern medicine we have been unable to fight it.

"It is only right, therefore, that society and law has already
awarded the fight to financial compensation to these cases.  It is
my personal view that the Scottish Government should act to
abolish this anomaly."

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "While it is the Scottish
Government's view that a claim for damages for mesothelioma should
not be rejected simply because the limitation period for a claim
for damages for pleural plaques has expired, application of the
law is a matter for the courts."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Shows Factors Linked to Meso Survival
------------------------------------------------------------
A new study confirms that mesothelioma survival is largely
dependent on three things: age at the time of diagnosis,
mesothelioma subtype, and location of the cancer.

The results of the large Netherlands-based population study were
published recently in the British Journal of Cancer.  A total of
1353 mesothelioma patients were followed between 2005 and 2008.
Half of the patients studied were 70 years old or older at the
time of diagnosis and the median time since they were first
exposed to asbestos was 49 years.

A year after diagnosis, 47% of patients were still living.  After
two years, 20% were still alive and after 3 years, only 15% were
still living.  When the cases were analyzed, several clear trends
emerged that confirm what past research has found.  First, younger
patients tend to fair better than older patients.  This may be due
in part to better overall health that makes it easier for younger
patients to tolerate treatments such as chemotherapy or surgery.
Second, patients who had the sarcomatoid subtype of mesothelioma
did not respond to treatment nearly as well as those with the
epithelioid or biphasic subtypes.  Multiple studies have confirmed
that patients with the epithelioid subtype, which is the most
common type of mesothelioma, tend to survive longer than patients
with either of the other two types.

Finally, patients whose mesothelioma was confined to the pleura,
the thin membrane that encases the lungs, lived longer and
responded better to treatment than did those who mesothelioma
occurred in or spread to other parts of the body.  Peritoneal
mesothelioma affects the cell membrane called the peritoneum that
surrounds the abdominal organs.  It is more likely to occur when
asbestos is ingested.  A third location for malignant mesothelioma
is the pericardium, the lining that surrounds the heart.

Treatment for all three types of mesothelioma is improving.
Because mesothelioma is resistant to conventional therapies, many
ongoing studies are focused on new approaches such as gene therapy
and immunotherapy.

Surviving Mesothelioma is the premier patient-focused website for
information about mesothelioma, asbestos, treatment news, and
clinical resources. For more information, please visit
http://www.survivingmesothelioma.com/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Product Cuts Down Abatement Cost & Downtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
EcoSmart Surface Technologies (EST) secured a contract on June 28
with VSGI LLC Building Solutions of Oakbrook Terrace, IL.  The
agreement with EcoSmart Surface Technologies, a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Renewable Corporation  opens the way for
installation on VSGI'S existing task order contracts and future
contracts with the VA.  VSGI is a verified service-disabled
Veteran-owned business, which provides sustainable construction
and management services to meet Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned
Small Business (SDVOSB) set-aside requirements within the agencies
of the Federal Government.

Brian Ireland, president of EcoSmart Surface Technologies stated,
"We are excited to work with VSGI and the Veteran's
Administration, it is rewarding to know that we can assist in
making the VA hospitals, specialty medical centers and clinics not
only visually pleasing but also safer for our Veterans and their
families."

The initial projects are planned to seal and encapsulate hazardous
materials such as asbestos haunting older government and private
buildings.  The process will save substantial construction cost
and downtime.  The EcoSmart Surface Technologies flooring system
will create a permanent monolithic chemical bond with the existing
surface.  Application also requires less energy consumption,
little waste and is safer and less disruptive than conventional
processes because the asbestos material does not need to be
removed.

"This is a tremendous opportunity for Renewable and should add
millions in revenues for the Company," states Manpreet Singh,
Chief Financial Officer of The Renewable Corporation.

            About EcoSmart Surface Technologies

EcoSmart Surface Technologies, a wholly owned subsidiary of The
Renewable Corporation Inc., has developed an exciting new
alternative in decorative floor surface coverings.  Innovative and
unique process (patents pending) achieve a highly desirable
appearance that's extremely durable, also provides superior
quality and performance, and offer a more environmentally friendly
choice than conventional flooring options.  EcoSmart Surface
technologies' products and processes can even seal and encapsulate
hazardous materials such as asbestos, and place it in a permanent
chemical bond.  Application also requires less energy consumption
and is safer than conventional processes. Interior and exterior
flooring, countertops and many other horizontal surfaces can all
be enhanced using these new methods.

              About The Renewable Corporation

The Renewable Corporation (TRC, trading symbol RNWB) was
established in 2004, adopted its present name in 2008, and is
based in Lake Park, Florida.  It develops and supplies products,
services, and technologies that use efficient, renewable
resources.  TRC knows there is significant interest in clean,
green, and lean methods that offer superlative quality at a cost
that is a reasonable alternative to traditional choices, and will
have a less hazardous impact on the environment and human health.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Electrician in Hilton Dies of Mesothelioma
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Richardson of the Burton Mail reports that an electrician
died from an asbestos related cancer, an inquest heard.

Cyril Ward worked for more than 30 years as an electrician and it
was during this time that he was exposed to the deadly dust.  The
76-year-old died on March 18 at his home in West Avenue, Hilton.

An inquest at Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard how
Mr. Ward died of malignant mesothelioma of the pleura -- an
asbestos-related cancer which affects the lining of the lungs.

Dr. Andrew Hitchcock, consultant pathologist at the Royal Derby
Hospital, said he thought there was a 'causal link' between Mr.
Ward's working history and cause of his death.

He said: "On the left side of the chest, there was a locally
advanced pleural malignancy which had encased the entire left
lung."  Mr. Ward became unwell in August 2010 and was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in January 2011.

He had started as an apprentice electrician in 1951 and worked at
the same company, which was not named in the inquest, until 1956.

During this time he worked in both domestic and commercial
premises, fixing fuse boxes to asbestos boarding and stripping
asbestos from the ceilings.

He then went in to the RAF for two years until 1958.  On
returning, he went back to work for the same company and again
attached boxes to asbestos boarding and handled asbestos sheets
around pipework.

From 1963 to 1964, Mr. Ward, although not employed by Celanese,
worked at the site in Spondon, Derby, and dealt with pipework
which was lagged with asbestos.  From 1964 to 1982, he worked as a
qualified electrician in old pubs as well as helping construct new
ones.

His work brought him into contact with old boiler houses which had
pipes lagged with asbestos.

From 1982 until he retired at the age of 75, Mr. Ward was self-
employed.

The inquest heard it was believed he was not exposed to asbestos
during this time.

Returning a verdict of death due to industrial disease, Derby and
South Derbyshire deputy coroner Louise Pinder said: "Mr. Ward was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2011.

"His condition deteriorated and he died on March 18, 2012.

"He worked as an electrician from 1951 until he retired in 2011."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogenic Gaskets Found in Riverina Oil Plant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Alder of OHS News reports that WorkCover NSW is
investigating a Riverina oilseed plant after asbestos was
discovered in gaskets.

Asbestos-lined material was found at the site after banned goods
were imported from India.  Up to 15 "exclusion zones" were
subsequently set up.

A France-based company supplied the gaskets.  Customs and Border
Protection has also launched an investigation.

"Customs and Border Protection is investigating the circumstances
of the importation," a spokesperson confirmed.

"We have also been consulting with [the company] and the relevant
state work cover authority about measures to prevent future
imports of this type of material."

It's the latest problem to confront the project, which has been
delayed by three years, blown out by about $20 million and had
problems with steel also imported from India.

A licensed asbestos removalist has been engaged to safely remove
the gaskets from the site and had found about 14.  Project manager
Dern Pease said all suppliers had signed declarations stating they
would not bring asbestos to the site.

Mr. Pease said the gaskets contained compressed asbestos fibers
and, removed safely, did not pose any threat to people on site.

"We've got to jump through hoops now because it's here," he said.

Workers at the plant have been warned about the gaskets and
notices have been pinned in a staff room, with pictures of the
type of fiber to watch out for.

"Avoid handling or damaging the material and do not cut or grind
it," one notice reads.

"Notify your supervisor of the location of the material so that it
can be removed from site."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Bank Vault Cleaner Dies of Mesothelioma
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Evans of the Weston, Worle & Somerset Mercury reports that
Joyce Stringer, aged 89, from Beach Road, Kewstoke, died Dec. 14
last year in Weston General Hospital.

A doctor's report read at Flax Bourton Coroners Court on June 20
described how she had worked at a bank in Weston in the 1960s and
1970s and had been exposed to large amounts of asbestos dust while
cleaning out the vaults.

In June last year Ms. Stringer was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a
disease often originating from asbestos exposure, which led to her
suffering breathing difficulties.

Assistant Deputy Coroner Dr. Peter Harrowing said he accepted that
the condition had caused her death and recorded a verdict of death
by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Reaches Out to Dad's Peers at ICI Fibres
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Doncaster Free Press reports that the daughter of a man who
died from an asbestos-related disease is calling for the help of
her dad's former colleagues.

Peter Hemsworth had worked for Doncaster-based ICI Fibres -- also
known as British Nylon Spinners -- from 1965 to 1972 where he
changed bobbins on the machines and later worked in power stations
across Yorkshire as a contractor.

He was an electrician's mate between 1971 until he retired in 1994
during which he worked in numerous power stations such as Thorpe
Marsh, Drax, Eggborough, Ferrybridge and Keadby.

Mr. Hemsworth, who lived with wife Mary in Thorne and had four
children, eight grandchildren and 14 great-grandchildren, died
aged 79 in February 2011 from asbestosis -- a serious lung disease
caused by asbestos.

His daughter Carol Bailey has called on asbestos claims experts
Thompsons Solicitors for advice.

The 55-year-old said: "My dad was a very proud man and didn't want
to burden the family with his illness.  It was only after his
death that we became aware of the full nature of his condition.

"We urge anyone who knew him at work to get in touch with
Thompsons Solicitors."

Helen Tomlin from Thompsons Solicitors added: "Mr. Hemsworth sadly
passed away without knowing that his exposure to asbestos during
his working life was affecting his health."

Anyone who worked with Mr. Hemsworth at ICI Fibres or Yorkshire
power stations at the same time should call Thompsons on 0113 205
6385 or e-mail helentomlin@thompsons.law.co.uk


                           *********

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  * * *