CAR_Public/120713.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 13, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 138

                             Headlines

ADAMIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Expects "Leahy" Suit Resolved by Year End
ANGELICA TEXTILE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
AUSTRALIA: West Australia Gov't. Won't Join Mining Tax Suit
AUSTRALIA: Unit Owners Prepare to File Class Action vs. Gov't.
BIG LOTS: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Files Class Action

CALUMET, IL: Accused of Retaliating Against Outspoken Employees
COMMERCIAL METALS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeal From Customer Suit Dismissal Pending
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeals From Dismissal of ARS Suits Pending
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Bid to Dismiss "Ambac" Suit Appeal Pending

DEL MONTE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Franklin" Class Suit
DEL MONTE: Faces Suit in California Over Milo's Kitchen Product
DEL MONTE: Final Hearing on FLSA-Violation Suit Deal on Sept. 27
DEL MONTE: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Consumer Suit on August 28
FAMILY DOLLAR: Defends Wage and Hour Suits in Various States

FAMILY DOLLAR: Response Brief in "Scott" Suit Due August 13
FINISAR CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Remains Pending
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Judge Grants Class-Action Certification
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Gas Mileage Claims
ILLINOIS: Parents Sue Over Changes in In-Home Childcare

INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY: Settles Unsolicited Text Ad Class Action
LINKEDIN CORP: Fails to Protect Users' Information, Suit Says
MCMILLAN'S HOME CARE: Settles Overtime Class Action for $1.1MM
MONSANTO CO: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss "Rochester" Suit
MONSANTO CO: Written Submission Due This Month in "Bibb" Suit

OFFICE DEPOT: Judge Certifies Employee Overtime Class Action
OFFICEMAX INC: Faces Class Action Over Ink Cartridge Refills
OPTI INC: Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in February
PENNSYLVANIA: AdultBasic Suit v. Corbett May Proceed
RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery in Onko-Sure Suit Ongoing

RESEARCH IN MOTION: May Face Suit Over BlackBerry 10 Delay
ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls 22,149 SkilSaw Miter Saws Due to Cut Risk
SKY-MOBI LTD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Vandevelde" Suit
STORM FINANCIAL: Investors Had Until July 12 to Join Class Action
TORCHMARK CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Fitzhugh" Suit Pending

TORCHMARK CORP: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss "Kennedy" Suit
TORCHMARK CORP: Has Yet to File Settlement Resolving "Smith" Suit
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL: Inmates to Sue Over Inhuman Jail Condition
VITACOST.COM INC: Gets Favorable Judgment in "Miyahira" Suit

* Banks Adjust Overdraft Fee Policies Following Class Actions
* MALTA: Newly-Enacted Law Allows Consumers to File Class Action

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Defends Asbestos Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Continues to Defend PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Had 76 Pending PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has More Than 1,000 Asbestos Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in NGA Holdco's Hotel Unit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J.C. Penney Has Potential Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Remains a Defendant in PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar International Remains Subject to Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thermon Group Still Defending 2 Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Had 134 Pending Cases at April 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Remains Subject to Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del Monte's ARO Reached $7.2MM at April 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 144 Pending Cases at May 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defending Suits & Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thai Traders Needs Time Before Full Fibro Ban

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Launched for Glasgow School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Actress-Advocate to Carry On Fight Against Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,037 Japanese to Receive ARD Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly Tippers Cause Week-Long Dispute in Ruislip
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocates Hold Special Memorial in Saltram

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Connecticut School Cleanup to Complete by Sept
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PA Supreme Court Rule Signifies "Dose-Response"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Clears Abatement Procedures at Dunwoody High
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Sufferer Pleads to Former Peers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pioneer Activist Against Mesothelioma Dies

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mayor Tells True Nature of Asbestos Town
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson College Slapped With $250,000 Fine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Surge of ARD Payouts in WA Still to Peak in 2020
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unnamed Hygienist Reports Hazmats at NSW Property
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-NSW Health Supplier Exposes Hospital Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Survivors Remember Beloveds Taken by Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement to Begin for Downtown Corning Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Balloons Fly on "Action Mesothelioma Day"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Death of Four Bradford Men Ruled as Work Related
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lifeguards Ditch Patrol Tower At Alexandra Hl

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Says Meso Is COD But Can't Prove Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Signorelli Foundation Raises $1MM for Meso Cure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fountain Pavilion Repair Needs $28,000 to Proceed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AVA Head Urges Councils to Lower Abatement Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MD Raises Abatement Violation Fine to $25,000

ASBESTOS UPDATE: SF Superior Court Enacts "Case Management Order"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adam Mack Bungles at Deadline, Pleads for Time
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2005 Report Says Fibro Present in Algo Rubble
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adams County Finance Panel OKs $2,500 Survey Cost
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MassAG Issues Consent Decree v. Emerson and SCCI

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Premier Jean Charest Denies Electioneering
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Overturns $3-Mil. Judgment v. Ford
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Asbestos Exposure Suit Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies Port Authority's Bid to Dismiss
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Suit v. BSIS & L&S

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Claims v. CR Meyer et al. Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Ct. Remands Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction


                          *********

ADAMIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Expects "Leahy" Suit Resolved by Year End
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adamis Pharmaceuticals Corporation said in its June 29, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended March 31, 2012, that it believes the appeal in the
class action lawsuit filed by Curtis Leahy, et al., will be
resolved in late 2012 or early 2013.

In May 2010, Curtis Leahy, et. al. v. Dennis J. Carlo, et al. was
filed in San Diego Superior Court.  The plaintiffs -- Antaeus
Capital Partners, Curtis Leahy, and David Amron -- are Adamis
shareholders, and they sought to represent a putative class of
shareholders.  The defendants named in the Complaint are Adamis,
Dennis Carlo, David Marguglio, Robert Hopkins, and Richard Aloi,
who are (or, in the case of Mr. Aloi, were) officers and/or
directors of Adamis.  Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of
Section 25401, 25501, and 25504 of the California Corporations
Code, and claims for common law fraud and negligent
misrepresentation based on the allegations that defendants
misrepresented and omitted material information in private
placement memoranda distributed by Adamis in 2006 and 2008
regarding, among other things, Adamis' license rights with respect
to certain patented anti-viral technology; this claim appears to
be based in part on the allegations of the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit captioned Cosmo Bioscience, Inc. et. al. v. Adamis
Pharmaceuticals Corp. and Maurizio Zanetti.

On May 27, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
seeking to certify a putative class of shareholders who purchased
stock pursuant to either or both of Adamis' 2006 and 2008 private
placement memoranda.  On June 28, 2011, the court issued an order
denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the
grounds that (1) plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show
that there are common issues of fact to certify the class and (2)
the individual plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives.
Plaintiffs have appealed the court's order denying class
certification, and Adamis believes the appeal will be resolved in
late 2012 or early 2013.

Adamis continues to believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are
without merit, intends to defend against plaintiffs' claims
vigorously and may assert any available counterclaims.


ANGELICA TEXTILE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Solorio, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Angelica Textile Services, Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
Case No. 5:12-cv-03569 (N.D. Calif., July 9, 2012) arises out of
the alleged failure of Angelica Textile to compensate non-exempt
employees in accordance with state and federal law.

The Plaintiff asserts a claim for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He seeks all damages,
restitution, civil penalties and statutory penalties to which he
and similarly situated employees of the Defendants are entitled
under the FLSA and state law.

Mr. Solorio worked for Angelica Textile as a non-exempt employee
in Gilroy, California from December 22, 2010, to December 22,
2011.  He contends that Angelica Textile followed a practice of
rounding time downwards, which resulted in his not getting paid
wages for all hours worked.

Angelica Textile is a California corporation and the Plaintiff's
former employer.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names,
capacities, relationships and extent of participation in the
alleged conduct of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          KARASIK LAW FIRM
          11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 1275
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-6800
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
          E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Venura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


AUSTRALIA: West Australia Gov't. Won't Join Mining Tax Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that the West Australian
government's involvement in Fortescue's High Court challenge to
the mining tax has been widely misunderstood, Premier Colin
Barnett says.

Some media reports suggested the state government was joining the
challenge in the manner of a class action.

However, it would merely intervene in the case to say the tax was
unconstitutional because natural resources belonged to the state
and not the commonwealth, Mr. Barnett said.

"The reporting of this has been quite misunderstood," he told
reporters on July 9.

"We would not join the challenge as a party but would intervene,
in other words appear, as a state government before the High Court
to present the state government's point of view.

"My understanding is the Queensland government is doing exactly
the same."

Mr. Barnett said he had not and would not discuss the matter with
the Queensland government but the states' legal representatives
would work together.

"I'm sure a state solicitor from Western Australia and from
Queensland . . . will work together to make sure that they protect
the constitutional right of the states to own the natural
resource, but that is very different to actually joining in the
challenge itself," he said.

"Clearly, this is a tax that is flawed economically, it is flawed
in terms of the spirit of the constitution."

Mr. Barnett said he imagined the case was some six months away.

"Whether it will be ruled out on legal grounds by the High Court,
I could not predict that," he said.


AUSTRALIA: Unit Owners Prepare to File Class Action vs. Gov't.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Rasini, writing for Gold Coast, reports that a class-action
challenge to body corporate law, placed on hold before the state
election, appears set to proceed after the Government failed to
initiate change.

Gold Coast lawyer Anthony Delaney said on July 8 the LNP
Government had earlier signaled a law change but, with nothing yet
forthcoming, class-action members were keen to go ahead.

The challenge related to the Body Corporate and Community
Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010, which allows
a unit owner to lodge a motion with the body corporate committee
calling for a reversion to developer-set charges.

The provision has allowed judges' changes to developer-set charges
be overturned, leading to sometimes huge rises in body corporate
fees for some properties, causing hardship for owners.

The Act also effectively makes rejection of the motion an offence
and denies other owners the right to oppose the move.

Its introduction polarized group-title communities, with those to
benefit seeing it as a good thing and those to lose from it
opposed.

The Act does not provide right of appeal against any reversion and
many in the legal community see it as denying people natural
justice.

Mr. Delaney, of Anthony Delaney Lawyers, said many owners had
received correspondence from Premier Campbell Newman and Attorney-
General Jarrod Bleijie "stating that they are working very closely
with stakeholders and unit owners to fix the problem".

"However, after more than 100 days in government, nothing has
happened," he said.

"More and more complexes are reverting back to developer-set
levels, despite a court determining them to be unjust and
iniquitous," he said.

"Members are now demanding the class action be launched."


BIG LOTS: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 9 announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Big Lots,
Inc. common stock during the period between February 2, 2012 and
April 23, 2012.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 9, 2012.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/biglots/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Big Lots and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Big Lots, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, operates as a
broadline closeout retailer in the United States and Canada.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Big Lots stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $46.81 per share on March 27, 2012.

On April 23, 2012, after the market closed, Big Lots issued a
press release announcing updates to its first quarter 2012 retail
sales guidance.  The Company forecast a decline in first-quarter
same-store sales, slightly negative in comparison to its prior
guidance, which estimated a comparable stores sales increase of 2%
to 4%.  In particular, the Company's consumables business declined
significantly.  On this news, Big Lots stock collapsed $11 per
share to close at $34.71 per share on April 24, 2012, a one-day
decline of 24% on volume of 13.2 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) Big Lots' consumables line
(consisting of household, beauty and health items), which
represented a third of Big Lots' business, was deteriorating; and
(b) the Company's electronic products business was being adversely
affected as shoppers were increasingly looking at online deals for
these big ticket products, which adversely affected the Company's
margins and prospects.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Big Lots common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.


CALUMET, IL: Accused of Retaliating Against Outspoken Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hope Allen and all similarly situated employees of the City of
Calumet City v. The City of Calumet City, Illinois, a unit of
local Government, and Michelle Qualkinbush, in her individual
capacity, George Vallis, in his individual capacity, Nick
Manousopoulos, in his individual capacity, and Roger Munda, in his
individual capacity, Brian Wilson, in his individual capacity,
Edward Gonzalez, in his individual capacity, Case No. 2012-L-
007663 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 9, 2012) seeks redress for
alleged actions taken against the Plaintiff by the Defendants
related to her exercise of her rights to speech and association.

The Defendants intentionally subjected her to unequal and
discriminatory treatment by retaliating against her for speaking
publicly about public corruption and incompetence, Ms. Allen
alleges.  She asserts that the City have taken similar actions
against its employees, who have opposed the elected
administration, and have terminated, suspended, demoted, refused
to promote and harassed those individuals.

Ms. Allen is a former employee of the City and a resident of Cook
County, Illinois.

Calumet City is a municipal corporation incorporated under the
laws of Illinois.  The City has been continuously engaged in an
industry affecting commerce.  Ms. Qualkinbush served in the
elected position of City mayor.  Mr. Vallis is the Director of
Personnel and Purchasing for the City, and is a resident of Cook
County.  Mr. Gonzalez was the Alderman of the 1st Ward of the
City.  Mr. Wilson was the Alderman of the 4th Ward of the City.
Mr. Munda was the Alderman of the 5th Ward of the City.  Mr.
Manousopoulos was the Alderman of the 6th Ward of the City.
Messrs. Vallis, Gonzalez, Wilson, Munda and Manousopoulos are
final policy makers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luke A. Casson, Esq.
          ANDREOU & CASSON, LTD.
          661 West Lake Street, Suite 2N
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 935-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 935-2001


COMMERCIAL METALS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
On September 18, 2008, Commercial Metals Company was served with a
class action antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton,
Pennsylvania, against nine steel manufacturing companies,
including Commercial Metals Company.  The lawsuit, filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold
in the United States by artificially restricting the supply of
such steel products.  The lawsuit, which purports to be brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of steel products
directly from the defendants between January 1, 2005, and
September 2008, seeks treble damages and costs, including
reasonable attorney fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.
Document discovery has taken place but motions for class
certification are not yet pending nor have any depositions been
taken.  The Company believes the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.

Since the filing of the direct purchaser lawsuit, a case has been
filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of a class of indirect purchasers in approximately 28
states naming the same defendants and containing allegations
substantially identical to those of the Standard Iron Works
complaint. That case has in effect been stayed. Another indirect
purchaser action was filed in Tennessee state court, again naming
the same defendants but contending that the conspiracy continued
through 2010. The case has been removed to federal court and
plaintiffs have moved to remand. The motion to remand has not yet
been decided and no motion practice or discovery has taken place.
The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and plans
to defend them vigorously. Due to the uncertainty and the
available information at this time, the Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of loss relating to these cases.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 29, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 31, 2012.

Commercial Metals Company -- http://www.cmc.com/-- engages in
recycling, manufacturing, fabricating, and distributing steel and
metal products, and related materials and services in the United
States and internationally.  The company was founded in 1915 and
is headquartered in Irving, Texas.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeal From Customer Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a research-related customer class
action lawsuit remains pending, according to Commodity Advisors
Fund L.P.'s June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

In March 2004, an alleged research-related customer class action
alleging various state law claims arising out of the issuance of
allegedly misleading research analyst reports concerning numerous
issuers was filed against certain Citigroup affiliates in Illinois
state court.  On October 13, 2011, the court entered an order
dismissing with prejudice all class-action claims asserted in the
action on the ground that the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998 precludes those claims.  The court granted
leave for the alleged representative plaintiff to file an amended
complaint asserting only his individual claims within 21 days.  An
amended complaint was not filed within the 21-day period.  The
alleged representative plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal from
the court's October 13, 2011 order.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeals From Dismissal of ARS Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from dismissal of two class action lawsuits filed against
auction-rate securities issuers and investors, including Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P.'s commodity broker and its parent, remain
pending, according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND v. CITIGROUP INC., ET
AL. and RUSSELL MAYFIELD, ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., are
lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of ARS issuers and investors, respectively,
against Citigroup, CGM and various other financial institutions.
In these actions, plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act arising out of defendants' alleged conspiracy to
artificially restrain trade in the ARS market.  On January 15,
2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in these
actions.  On January 26, 2010, both actions were dismissed.  The
actions are now pending on appeal.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Bid to Dismiss "Ambac" Suit Appeal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss an appeal from the approval of a settlement
with respect to Ambac Financial Group, Inc.'s securities
litigation remains pending, according to Commodity Advisors Fund
L.P.'s June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Certain Citigroup affiliates have been named as defendants arising
out of their activities as underwriters of securities in actions
brought by investors in securities of issuers adversely affected
by the credit crisis, including AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
Ambac and Lehman, among others.  These matters are in various
stages of litigation.  As a general matter, issuers indemnify
underwriters in connection with such claims.  In certain of these
matters, however, Citigroup affiliates are not being indemnified
or may in the future cease to be indemnified because of the
financial condition of the issuer.

On September 28, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York approved a stipulation of settlement
with the underwriter defendants in IN RE AMBAC FINANCIAL GROUP,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION and judgment was entered.  A member of
the settlement class has appealed the judgment to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On December 22,
2011, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the appeal.

DEL MONTE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Franklin" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Elisa J. Franklin,
according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
April 29, 2012.

On March 8, 2011, Del Monte Foods Company ("DMFC") was acquired by
an investor group led by funds affiliated with Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co. L.P. ("KKR"), Vestar Capital Partners ("Vestar") and
Centerview Capital, L.P. ("Centerview," and together with KKR and
Vestar, the "Sponsors").  Under the terms of the merger agreement,
DMFC's stockholders received $19.00 per share in cash.  The
acquisition (also referred to as the "Merger") was effected by the
merger of Blue Merger Sub Inc. ("Blue Sub") with and into DMFC,
with DMFC being the surviving corporation.  As a result of the
Merger, DMFC became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Blue Acquisition
Group, Inc. ("Parent").  DMFC stockholders approved the
transaction on March 7, 2011.  DMFC's common stock ceased trading
on the New York Stock Exchange before the opening of the market on
March 9, 2011.

Del Monte Corporation ("DMC" and, together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, "Del Monte" or the "Company") was a direct, wholly-
owned subsidiary of DMFC.  On April 26, 2011, DMFC merged with and
into DMC, with DMC being the surviving corporation.  As a result
of this merger, DMC became a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent.

The case captioned Franklin v. Del Monte Foods Co., et al., was
filed by Elisa J. Franklin on behalf of herself and a putative
class of shareholders against the Directors, DMFC and the Sponsor
Defendants on December 10, 2010, in Superior Court in San
Francisco, California.  The plaintiff in the Franklin case
asserted claims against the Directors that were similar to the
claims in the Delaware Shareholder Case, alleging that they
breached their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by, among
other acts, agreeing to sell DMFC at an inadequate price, running
an ineffective sale process that relied on conflicted financial
advisors, agreeing to preclusive deal protection measures, and
pursuing the transaction for their own financial ends.  The
plaintiff in the Franklin case also asserted claims against the
Sponsor Defendants and DMFC for aiding and abetting these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Franklin case sought injunctive
relief, rescission of the Merger Agreement, compensatory damages,
and attorneys' fees.  On February 28, 2011, the Court in the
Franklin case granted the motion of DMFC and the Directors to stay
the proceeding pending resolution of a class action lawsuit known
as the Delaware Shareholder Case, which has been settled.  The
Settlement extinguished all claims of the settlement class arising
out of or relating to the Merger.

On May 16, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.


DEL MONTE: Faces Suit in California Over Milo's Kitchen Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit in
California over its Milo's Kitchen Chicken Jerky Treats product,
according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
April 29, 2012.

On June 22, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging false
advertising under California's consumer protection laws,
negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability. Specifically,
the complaint alleges that the Company engaged in false
advertising by representing that Milo's Kitchen Chicken Jerky
Treats ("Chicken Jerky Treats") are healthy, wholesome, and safe
for consumption by dogs, and alleges that plaintiff's pet became
ill after consuming Chicken Jerky Treats.  The allegations apply
to all other putative class members similarly situated.  The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
damages, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.  The Company denies these allegations
and intends to vigorously defend itself.  The Company cannot at
this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the
potential liability.


DEL MONTE: Final Hearing on FLSA-Violation Suit Deal on Sept. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing on Del Monte Corporation's $0.2 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act is scheduled for September 27, 2012,
according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
April 29, 2012.

On September 30, 2010, a putative class action complaint was
served against the Company, to be filed in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, alleging wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  The complaint was served on behalf of
five named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated at a
manufacturing facility in Minnesota.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that the Company violated the FLSA and state wage and hour
laws by failing to compensate plaintiffs and other similarly
situated workers unpaid overtime.  The plaintiffs are seeking
compensatory and statutory damages.  Additionally, the plaintiffs
sought class certification.  On November 5, 2010, in connection
with the Company's removal of this case to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, the complaint was filed along with
the Company's answer.  The Company also filed a motion for partial
dismissal on November 5, 2010.  The parties jointly stipulated
that the causes of action in plaintiff's complaint for unjust
enrichment and quantum meruit would be dismissed without prejudice
and further stipulated that the cause of action under the
Minnesota minimum wage law would be dismissed without prejudice.
The court signed an order dismissing those claims on December 28,
2010.

The Company and the plaintiffs jointly stipulated to a conditional
certification of the class on April 28, 2011.  The plaintiffs sent
out notices to the potential class on April 28, 2011.  The notice
period is now closed, and 53 plaintiffs have opted in to the
lawsuit.  On November 14, 2011, the Company and the plaintiffs
agreed to a proposed settlement of the lawsuit in the amount of
approximately $0.2 million.  Plaintiffs submitted the proposed
settlement to the Court on February 15, 2012, and received
preliminary approval from the court on March 13, 2012.  The
notices to class members were sent out on April 19, 2012.  The
final hearing before the court is scheduled for September 27,
2012.

As of April 29, 2012, the Company says it has accrued this $0.2
million in accounts payable and accrued expenses.  Given the
inherent uncertainty associated with legal matters, the actual
cost of resolving this putative class action may be substantially
higher or lower than the estimated accrual.


DEL MONTE: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Consumer Suit on August 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on Del Monte Corporation's motion to dismiss a consumer
class action lawsuit is scheduled for August 28, 2012, according
to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 29,
2012.

On April 5, 2012, a complaint was filed against the Company in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging false and misleading advertising under California's
consumer protection laws.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that the Company engaged in false and misleading advertising in
its antioxidant claims for tomato products, by implying that Del
Monte Fruit Naturals fruit products are all natural, and by
implying that products bearing a "made with Fresh Cut" label are
fresh.  The complaint seeks certification as a class action and
damages in excess of $5.0 million.  The Company denies these
allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.

On June 15, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint.  A hearing on this motion is scheduled for
August 28, 2012.

The Company says it cannot at this time reasonably estimate a
range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Defends Wage and Hour Suits in Various States
------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. is defending class action lawsuits
alleging violations of wage and hour laws pending in several
states, according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 26, 2012.

Since 2004, certain individuals who held the position of Store
Manager for the Company have filed lawsuits alleging that the
Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and/or
similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who
are not entitled to overtime compensation.  Some of the cases also
seek to proceed as collective actions under the FLSA or as class
actions under state laws.  Plaintiffs seek recovery of overtime
pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.  The
Company currently has 17 class and/or collective actions pending
against it.

                    Multi-District Litigation

Many of the cases asserting claims under the FLSA were
consolidated in a Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") proceeding
pending in the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
Division (the "N.C. Federal Court").  There are presently ten
cases in the MDL proceeding in which plaintiffs are asserting
class and/or collective action status.  In April 2012, the Joint
Panel for the MDL transferred two more cases to the MDL, Phillips
v. Family Dollar Stores of South Carolina, Inc. and Samuels, et
al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Florida, Inc.  In total, following
certain dismissals and summary dispositions, 53 individually named
plaintiffs currently have cases pending in the MDL proceeding.

In two of the cases, Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward
v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., the N.C. Federal Court determined
that the plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore,
that neither nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the
FLSA was appropriate.  The N.C. Federal Court also granted summary
judgment against Irene Grace on the merits of her
misclassification claim under the FLSA.  The plaintiffs appealed
certain rulings of the N.C. Federal Court to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the "Fourth Circuit").
On March 22, 2011, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the N.C. Federal
Court's decision finding that Ms. Grace was exempt from overtime
compensation under the FLSA.  The Fourth Circuit did not address
the class certification finding the issue was moot given that the
claims had been dismissed on the merits.

In addition to the Grace decision, the N. C. Federal Court has
ruled in favor of the Company and granted summary judgment to 16
other plaintiffs, finding that the plaintiffs were properly
classified as exempt from overtime.  Of these plaintiffs, 13 have
appealed and their appeals are currently pending before the Fourth
Circuit.  Presently, all matters within the MDL are stayed through
July 2012.

All putative class action cases based solely on state law have
been dismissed from the MDL and were remanded to the appropriate
state court jurisdiction.

                     State Law Class Actions

In addition to the cases pending in the MDL proceeding, the
Company is a defendant in seven class action lawsuits in seven
states alleging that Store Managers should be non-exempt employees
under various state laws.  The plaintiffs in these cases also seek
recovery of overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
court costs.  The states and cases are:

   * Colorado -- Julie Farley v. Family Dollar Stores of
     Colorado, Inc., was filed on February 7, 2012, in the United
     States District Court for the District of Colorado seeking
     unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Colorado
     Store Managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly
     classified as exempt from overtime pay under Colorado law.
     On June 4, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
     certain of plaintiff's state law claims.  That motion is
     currently pending before the court.

   * Connecticut -- Cook, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
     Connecticut, Inc., was filed on October 5, 2011, in the
     Superior Court of the State of Connecticut seeking unpaid
     overtime pay for a class of current and former Connecticut
     Store Managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly
     classified as exempt from overtime under Connecticut law.

   * Kentucky -- Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., was filed on
     February 17, 2010, in Circuit Court in Jefferson County,
     Kentucky, seeking unpaid overtime, compensation for unpaid
     breaks and for seventh day work under Kentucky law for a
     class of current and former Kentucky Store Managers.  The
     Company removed this matter to the United States District
     Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  The parties
     have concluded discovery.  On March 15, 2012, the Company
     filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the
     plaintiffs are properly classified as exempt from overtime.
     That motion is currently pending before the court.

   * Missouri -- Twila Walters et. al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
     Missouri, Inc., was originally filed on January 26, 2010,
     seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former
     Missouri Store Managers who presently reside in Missouri and
     whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt
     from overtime under Missouri law.  This matter is pending in
     the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (the "Circuit
     Court").  On May 10, 2011, the Circuit Court certified the
     class under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law and common law.
     The Company sought appeal of the class certification
     decision with the Missouri Court of Appeals and the Missouri
     Supreme Court, but both courts declined to hear the appeal.
     The parties are engaged in merits discovery and the trial is
     scheduled for February 25, 2013.

   * New Jersey -- Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed
     in the United States District Court for the District of New
     Jersey on March 3, 2011, seeking unpaid overtime pay for a
     class of current and former New Jersey Store Managers whom
     plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
     overtime pay under New Jersey law.  The parties are now
     engaged in class discovery.

   * New York -- Youngblood, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
     New York, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States
     District Court for the Southern District of New York on
     April 2, 2009.  Rancharan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was
     filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens
     County, on March 4, 2009, was removed to the United States
     District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
     May 6, 2009, and was transferred to the Southern District of
     New York where the case has been consolidated with
     Youngblood.  Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a
     class of current and former New York Store Managers whom
     plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
     overtime pay under New York law.  On October 4, 2011, the
     New York District Court certified the class.  The parties
     have scheduled mediation in August 2012.

   * Pennsylvania -- Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., which
     was formerly pending in the N.C. Federal Court, was remanded
     back to the United States District Court for the Eastern
     District of Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012.  In Itterly,
     plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of
     current and former Pennsylvania Store Managers whom
     plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
     overtime pay under Pennsylvania law.  Discovery closed in
     June 2012.

In general, the Company continues to believe that its Store
Managers relevant to this litigation are "exempt" employees under
the FLSA and have been and are being properly compensated under
both federal and state laws.  The Company further believes that
these actions are not appropriate for collective or class action
treatment.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims in
these actions.  No assurances can be given that the Company will
be successful in the defense of these actions, on the merits or
otherwise.  The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of loss that may result from these actions.

If at some point in the future the Company determines that a
reclassification of some or all of its Store Managers as non-
exempt employees under the FLSA is required, such action could
have a material effect on the Company's financial position,
liquidity or results of operation.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
may result from these actions.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Response Brief in "Scott" Suit Due August 13
-----------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.'s response brief in connection with an
appeal in the class action lawsuit pending in North Carolina is
due on August 13, 2012, according to the Company's June 29, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 26, 2012.

On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama, captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female Store Managers.  This case was
pled as a putative class action or collective action under
applicable statutes on behalf of all current and former female
Store Managers.  The plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay,
compensatory and punitive damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and
equitable relief.  The case was transferred to the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division (the "N.C. Federal
Court").  Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in Scott.

On January 13, 2012, the N.C. Federal Court ruled in the Company's
favor, striking the plaintiffs' class claims and denying
plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint.  On
January 26, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a petition to appeal this
decision to the Fourth Circuit under Rule 23(f), which the Fourth
Circuit granted on May 8, 2012.  The plaintiffs' appellate brief
was due on July 9, 2012, and the Company's response brief is due
on August 13, 2012.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to predict
whether the Fourth Circuit will affirm the N.C. Federal Court's
decision striking the class allegations.  However, the claims of
the 48 named plaintiffs remain under the Equal Pay Act and Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act.  Although the Company intends to
vigorously defend the action, no assurances can be given that the
Company will be successful in the defense on the merits or
otherwise.  For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate
any potential loss or range of loss.  The Company has tendered the
matter to its Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI")
carrier for coverage under its EPLI policy.  At this time, the
Company expects that the EPLI carrier will participate in any
potential resolution of some or all of the plaintiffs' claims.


FINISAR CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation's motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit remains pending, according to the Company's
June 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2012.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons
who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010, through March
8, 2011.  The named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of
the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.
To date, no specific amount of damages has been alleged.  The
cases have been consolidated, lead plaintiffs have been appointed
and a consolidated complaint has been filed.  The Company has
filed a motion to dismiss the case and this motion is pending.


GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Judge Grants Class-Action Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
DeAnn Komanecky, writing for Savannahnow.com, reports that a
Superior Court judge has granted class-action certification for an
Effingham County lawsuit against Georgia-Pacific.  Chief Judge
William E. Woodrum Jr. recently made the ruling after a hearing in
April.

Kirbi and Aaron Ratner and David and Kathy McDonald, who live near
the Fort Howard Road Plant, originally filed the suit against
Georgia-Pacific's Savannah River Mill Plant in 2010.

The suit alleges that hydrogen sulfide coming from the plant's
waste treatment area has caused loss of property values and
physical damage to homes.

Property owners in the section proposed by the plaintiffs includes
an area west of Fort Howard Road, south of the railroad line and
east of Rincon-Stillwell Road.

Ben Perkins, a Savannah attorney representing the plaintiffs, said
Judge Woodrum made the sensible decision.

"Had GP prevailed on the argument that the claims should be raised
in as many as 116 separate lawsuits, the only beneficiaries would
have been the lawyers hired to work on those separate cases," Mr.
Perkins said.  "Fortunately, Judge Woodrum recognizes that the
property rights of individual landowners in Effingham County are
entitled to protection."

The lawsuit alleges that sludge dumped in disposal cells at the
plant releases hydrogen sulfide, a gas that causes egg-like smells
and is corrosive to metal.

The GP disposal area is on about 170 acres.  The site currently
has one closed sludge cell, two active cells and three cells that
are in process of being closed, Carrie Thompson, spokesman for GP
previously said.  The waste comes from the remnants of GP's
manufacturing process that chiefly uses recycled paper and
cardboard.

John C. Bell, an Augusta attorney who also represents the
plaintiffs, told Judge Woodrum at the April hearing that 20 to 30
people have had their air conditioning systems go out because of
the corrosive gas.

Georgia-Pacific paid to replace some of those air conditioning
systems, Bell said.

Since April, Mr. Perkins said three more air conditioner units
have also failed.

Paying for replacement units, however, could stop with the recent
court decision.

Ms. Thompson said GP had just received the ruling and is in an
evaluation process.

"We are unsure how the court's decision of last week will impact
the ongoing claims process," GP spokesman Carrie Thompson said.

Ms. Thompson also said GP has been aware of odor issues and its
work toward abatement continues.  Closing the three landfill
sludge cells that are most responsible for the odor issues is
ongoing, Ms. Thompson said.  The cells will be capped and have a
gas collection system.

A June progress report by GP states that all bid packages for the
cell closing work have been awarded and equipment and all
materials for the closure cover system have been delivered.  The
gas collection system installation has also begun, according to
GP.


"We have been an important part of the community for more than 25
years and we will continue to work hard to be a good neighbor,"
Ms. Thompson said.

Judge Woodrum's order will require the plaintiff's attorneys, who
also include Savannah attorney Tim Roberts, to notify property
owners located in the defined area of their right to participate
in the lawsuit.

Ms. Thompson said GP is considering its options.

"We are also evaluating an appeal of the ruling," Ms. Thompson
said.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Gas Mileage Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Mark Glover, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reports that a class-
action lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court contends that
Hyundai Motor America misled consumers about the gas mileage of
its 2011 and 2012 Elantra.

Filed just before the July Fourth holiday, the lawsuit is the
latest in a rash of legal challenges to automakers over their
fuel-efficiency claims.

Santa Monica-based advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and a
Washington, D.C., law firm filed the lawsuit on behalf of a
Sacramento man.  They seek unspecified damages for California
residents who purchased or leased 2011 and 2012 Elantras.

Specifically, the suit alleges that Hyundai marketed the four-
door, five-passenger Elantra sedan as "The 40 Mile Per Gallon
Elantra," without government-required disclosures that the 40 mpg
estimate was for highway driving only.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's fuel mileage estimate
for the three trim levels of a 2012 Hyundai Elantra with a 1.8-
liter, four-cylinder engine in city driving is 29 mpg.

The suit alleges that Hyundai's "illegal" advertisements caused
"tens of thousands of California drivers" to purchase or lease
2011 and 2012 Elantras and incur higher-than-expected fuel costs.

"I feel like Hyundai took advantage of me," said Sacramento's
Louis Bird, whose name appears as the primary plaintiff in the
suit.  "Hyundai's advertisements about the 40 mpg gas mileage of
the Elantra instantly caught my attention.

"I bought the car thinking I would be seeing major savings at the
pump and getting over 500 miles per tank, but Hyundai fooled me. .
. . I have not saved any money on gas and have been driving the
Elantra for well over a year now.  It is frustrating and
disappointing."

"Car companies are required to disclose certain information when
mileage estimates are provided in their advertisements, and
Hyundai ignored the rules," said William Anderson, an attorney for
the law firm of Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP in the nation's
capital.

A statement released by Hyundai Motor America, based in Costa
Mesa, said the company "believes the case has no merit as claims
virtually identical to those of the plaintiffs have consistently
been rejected by both state and federal courts in California, most
recently in March 2012."

In February, a Los Angeles small-claims court commissioner awarded
the owner of a 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid nearly $10,000 in a case
where the woman claimed that model fell well short of a 50 mpg
standard touted by the automaker.  That conviction was later
overturned in Los Angeles Superior Court.


ILLINOIS: Parents Sue Over Changes in In-Home Childcare
-------------------------------------------------------
Deborah L. Shelton, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
group of parents filed a class action lawsuit on July 9 to try to
stop the state from changing the way it qualifies medically
fragile and technology dependent children for a program that pays
for their in-home nursing care.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of 1,050
children, the parents say that the state Department of Healthcare
and Family Services is planning to implement changes in September
that would force technology dependent children out of their homes
and into institutional care.

One of the parents, Corey Peterson, has a five-year-old daughter,
Sydney, with a medical condition that requires her to be on a
ventilator 24 hours a day.  "We're worried right now because
there's no way we're going to have her live in the hospital,"
Corey Peterson said.

She said the family would not be eligible for the program under
new income requirements and could not afford to pay for skilled
nursing care in their home, which they estimated could cost as
much as $200,000 a year.

Mike Claffey, a spokesman for the Department of Healthcare and
Family Services, said the agency had no comment on the lawsuit.
But he said officials already had been working on a plan to raise
additional revenue for the program.

State officials have said that while families need to pick up a
bigger share of the costs, only a small faction -- about five
percent -- would no longer qualify for the in-home care because of
the new income requirements.

Officials have said program restructuring was needed to help close
the state's budget holes and reflects their desire to create "a
single, seamless system of care and oversight."


INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY: Settles Unsolicited Text Ad Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edelson McGuire, LLC on July 10 issued a statement regarding the
International Academy of Design and Technology class action.

A settlement has recently been reached in a class action lawsuit
relating to the alleged transmission of unsolicited text message
advertisements to consumers nationwide by the International
Academy of Design and Technology ("IADT").  IADT is a Career
Education Corporation ("CEC") institution.  The lawsuit alleges
that these text messages were sent to consumers' cell phones
without their consent, which would violate the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  While CEC denies that the text
messages violated any laws, the company is settling the matter to
prevent prolonged and costly litigation.

According to the lawsuit, a third-party marketing firm allegedly
sent out text messages regarding IADT.

Edelson McGuire in Chicago -- a firm that regularly handles
consumer technology class actions -- filed this action and was
appointed by the Court to serve as attorneys for the class.  "This
settlement is an excellent result for the class members who
received the text message and for cell phone users throughout the
nation," commented Ryan D. Andrews, a lead attorney for the
plaintiffs.

On June 26, 2012, a Federal Court in Chicago granted preliminary
approval to the settlement, which establishes a fund of nearly $20
million from which payments of up to $200 may be made to each cell
phone user who received the text message advertisements and who
files an approved claim for payment.

In addition to Andrews, Edelson McGuire's Jay Edelson and Myles
McGuire are also representing the class.  Those who received the
text message advertisements are encouraged to visit
http://www.CareerTextSettlement.netto learn more details about
the settlement, including how to apply for a settlement payment.
Class members may also call the Settlement Administrator at 1-800-
905-7056 or Edelson McGuire, LLC at 1-866-354-3015 for more
information.


LINKEDIN CORP: Fails to Protect Users' Information, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Veith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LinkedIn Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
5:12-cv-03557 (N.D. Calif., July 6, 2012) arises from the
Company's failure to protect the electronically stored information
of its users.

LinkedIn did not adequately protect its users' e-mail addresses,
login information, passwords, and other personal information, and
thus, subjected its users to a substantial data breach, Mr. Veith
alleges.  He contends that because LinkedIn did not take
sufficient measures to protect and encrypt the passwords and
information of its users, hackers were able to decode the
passwords of many LinkedIn subscribers.

Mr. Veith is a resident of the state of Illinois and has
registered with LinkedIn.com and provided LinkedIn with sensitive
personal information.

LinkedIn Corporation is incorporated in Delaware and has its
principal place of business in Mountain View, California.
LinkedIn owns and operates a professional networking site --
LinkedIn.com -- and has millions of registrants worldwide.  In
2012, LinkedIn's database was hacked, and as a result, third
parties accessed the personal information of many LinkedIn users.
In addition, the personal information was posted publicly on the
Internet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          Azita Moradmad, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com
                  amoradmand@parisihavens.com


MCMILLAN'S HOME CARE: Settles Overtime Class Action for $1.1MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Massey, writing for Crain's New York Business, reports that
as many as 1,500 home health aides will share in a nearly $1.1
million settlement of a class-action suit that alleged their New
York City-based employer failed to pay them overtime, despite work
weeks that frequently extended to 60 hours.

The lawsuit is the first against a New York home care firm to
successfully reach a class-wide settlement over violations of
state wage and hour laws.

The deal, approved by state Supreme Court Judge Paul Wooten, was
announced on July 9 by attorneys for the workers.  Current and
former employees of McMillan's Home Care Agency will each get a
share of the settlement based on overtime hours that were not paid
at the time-and-a-half rate required by state law.  The settlement
also prohibits McMillan's from retaliating against employees who
complain about wages and hours and requires the company to appoint
an administrator to handle complaints about wages or reimbursement
of expenses.

Harlem resident Josefina Toledo Montero, the lead plaintiff,
settled the lawsuit on behalf of herself and all home care workers
employed by McMillan's from April 2004 through December 2011.  The
settlement notice went out to 1,550 current and former employees.

"I worked for McMillan's for about five years, but they never paid
me overtime like they should have, even though they knew that I
had children to take care of," said Venecia Gomez, a Bronx
resident who worked at the agency until the fall of 2010.  "When I
think about all those hours of work, I feel a lot better knowing
that McMillan's is going to pay overtime now."

The agency's president, Yvonne McMillan, did not respond to a
request for comment.  In 2010, when the suit was filed, she did
not deny the charges in an interview with Crain's New York
Business, saying that employees no longer worked more than 40
hours a week.  "We just haven't paid overtime," she said at the
time.  "The business did not afford us [the ability] to.  It's no
mystery in this industry."

Richard Reibstein, a lawyer for McMillan's, did not return a call
seeking comment.  In the settlement, McMillan's did not admit to
any wrongdoing.

Home health aide work is one of the fastest-growing occupations
across the state, with the number of jobs expected to jump 37% to
178,190 by 2018, according to the state Department of Labor.  But
it is anything but lucrative: The median salary is just under
$21,000, according to the agency.

Moreover, nearly 83% of home health aides surveyed in a recent
study by the National Employment Law Project reported overtime
violations, and 84% said they worked "off the clock," without
receiving proper pay.


MONSANTO CO: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss "Rochester" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in Missouri,
according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 31, 2012.

On July 29, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit, styled
Rochester Laborers Pension Fund v. Monsanto Co., et al., was filed
against the Company and three of its past and present executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.  The lawsuit alleged that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements
between January 7, 2009, and May 27, 2010, regarding the Company's
earnings guidance for fiscal 2009 and 2010 and the anticipated
future performance of the Company's ROUNDUP business.  On November
1, 2010, the Court appointed the Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System as lead plaintiff in the action.  On January 31, 2011, lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company and four
of its past and present executive officers in the same action.
The amended complaint alleged that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements during
the same time period, regarding the Company's earnings guidance
for fiscal 2009 and 2010 as well as the anticipated future
performance of the Company's ROUNDUP business and its Seeds and
Genomics business.  Lead plaintiff claimed that these statements
artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock and that
purchasers of its stock during the relevant period were damaged
when the stock price later declined.  Lead plaintiff sought the
award of unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the alleged
class, counsel fees and costs.

On April 1, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.  On June 14, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its opposition to
the motion, and defendants' reply thereto was filed on
August 12, 2011.  On December 12, 2011, lead plaintiff moved to
supplement the record on the motion to dismiss with facts
concerning the SEC investigation of the Company's financial
reporting associated with customer incentive programs for
glyphosate products and the Company's restatement of its financial
results for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and certain quarters of
fiscal year 2011.

On January 5, 2012, the Court denied lead plaintiff's motion to
supplement the record.  On January 20, 2012, lead plaintiff sought
leave to amend its complaint, which the Court granted on January
31, 2012.  The second amended complaint repeats the allegations
and claims in the amended complaint regarding the Company's
earnings guidance for fiscal 2009 and 2010 and its statements
relating to the anticipated future performance of its ROUNDUP
business and Seeds and Genomics business.  The second amended
complaint adds allegations and claims related to the November 2011
restatement of the Company's financial results for fiscal 2009 and
2010 and its purported failure to disclose the adoption of
customer incentive programs to drive ROUNDUP sales in the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2009.  On February 29, 2012, defendants moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.  Lead plaintiff filed its
opposition to the motion on April 6, 2012, and defendants filed a
reply on April 27, 2012.

The Company believes it has meritorious legal positions and will
continue to represent its interests vigorously in this matter.


MONSANTO CO: Written Submission Due This Month in "Bibb" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Further written submission is due this month in connection with
Monsanto Company's settlement of a class action lawsuit captioned
Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., according to the Company's
June 29, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2012.

On December 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the
Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto, its
former parent, Pharmacia Corporation, and seven other defendants.
Monsanto is named as the successor in interest to the liabilities
of Pharmacia.  The alleged class consists of all current and
former residents, workers, and students who, between 1949 and the
present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in
counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia.  The complaint alleges
that the source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro,
formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a
joint venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo
Nobel).  Solutia Inc. is a former subsidiary of Pharmacia.  Akzo
Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but Solutia
was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding.  The
lawsuit seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real
estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels,
funds to test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring
costs.  The complaint also seeks an injunction against further
contamination and punitive damages.  Monsanto has agreed to
indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group,
but on May 27, 2011, the judge dismissed both Akzo Nobel and
Flexsys from the case.

The class action certification hearing was held on October 29,
2007.  On January 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order
certifying the Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al.,
because Bibb replaced Allen as class representative) case as a
class action for property damage and for medical monitoring.  On
November 2, 2011, the court, in response to defense motions,
entered an order decertifying the property class.  After the trial
for the Bibb medical monitoring class action began on January 3,
2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle as to both the
medical monitoring and the property class claims.  The proposed
settlement provides for a 30 year medical monitoring program
consisting of a primary fund of up to $21 million and an
additional fund of up to $63 million over the life of the program,
and a three year property remediation plan with funding up to $9
million.  On February 24, 2012, the court preliminarily approved
the parties' proposed settlement.  A fairness hearing was held on
June 18, 2012, with further written submission due in July 2012,
after which the judge will issue a ruling regarding final approval
of the class settlement.


OFFICE DEPOT: Judge Certifies Employee Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge on July 6 certified a class action against Office Depot Inc.
that accuses the company of miscalculating and withholding
overtime pay from employees who received bonuses under an
incentive program known as "Bravo Awards."

In certifying the class and denying Office Depot's motion for
summary judgment, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston rejected
the retail giant's argument that each of its stores administered
the Bravo Award program differently, making the rewards
discretionary and the class lacking in commonality.


OFFICEMAX INC: Faces Class Action Over Ink Cartridge Refills
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that OfficeMax sells
customers ink cartridge printer refills that are only half full of
ink, a class action claims in St. Clair County Court.

Richard Schaefer claims that he and class member "each paid $10 to
have defendants 'refill' their printer ink cartridge at an
OfficeMax 'refill' station and were damaged when in fact only half
of the ink cartridge was refilled by the defendants."

The complaint continues: "This practice of only half-refilling
printer ink cartridges is carried out through a uniform scheme and
common course of conduct by defendants throughout Illinois.
Defendants have fraudulently and unjustly charged plaintiff and
the class $10.00 for half refills. Defendants should have either
refilled the ink cartridges in full or charged $5.00 for the half
refills. . ..

"No reasonable customer would expect 'refill' to mean 'half fill.'

"OfficeMax failed to disclose its common practice of half
refilling printer ink cartridges with the intent that plaintiff
and members of the proposed class would rely on this omission in
paying for printer ink cartridge refills instead of purchasing a
new printer ink cartridge."

Mr. Schaefer seeks class damages for consumer fraud, deceptive
trade and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Schaefer v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et
al., Case No. 12L334 (Ill. Cir. Ct., St. Clair Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/10/OfficeMax.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1340
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500

               - and -

          Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500

               - and -

          Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq.
          BECKER, PAULSON, HOERNER & THOMPSON, P.C.
          5111 West Main Street
          Belleville, IL 62226
          Telephone: (618) 235-0020


OPTI INC: Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in February
------------------------------------------------------------
OPTi Inc. disclosed in its June 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
March 31, 2012, that the shareholder class action lawsuit filed
against it in California was voluntarily dismissed in February.

On February 9, 2012, a shareholder class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Plan of Liquidation and violated
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-
9 in allegedly issuing a consent solicitation statement with the
intention of obtaining shareholder approval.  The complaint also
alleged that the Company aided and abetted in the director's
breach of fiduciary duties.  The Company and directors believe
that this action was without merit.

The complaint was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
February 24, 2012.


PENNSYLVANIA: AdultBasic Suit v. Corbett May Proceed
----------------------------------------------------
Zack Needles, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
two days after issuing its opinion in the first case, a split
Commonwealth Court ruled that a second class-action suit over the
redirection of tobacco settlement funds away from the defunct
adultBasic health insurance program may proceed against Gov. Tom
Corbett, Budget Secretary Charles Zogby and the state Treasury
Department.

In a 34-page opinion in Sears v. Corbett issued June 27, a 5-2
majority decided to sustain in part and overrule in part
preliminary objections filed by Mr. Corbett, Mr. Zogby and the
state Legislature, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with their
claim seeking to have the state Treasury Department return to
allocating tobacco settlement money to adultBasic.

AdultBasic was a popular, low-cost health insurance program for
working poor who were ineligible for other government plans such
as Medicaid and Medicare.  But the state let the program expire in
2011, claiming a lack of funds.

The court also allowed claims seeking declaratory and mandamus
relief to go forward.

On June 29, the court issued a nearly identical ruling in a second
class action, Weisblatt v. Corbett, though that suit does not name
the Legislature as a defendant.

"Because the reasoning of Sears v. Corbett applies equally in this
case, we incorporate that opinion by reference and reach the same
conclusions in this case," Judge Patricia A. McCullough wrote for
the majority.

Judge McCullough was joined by then-President Judge Bonnie
Brigance Leadbetter and current President Judge Dan Pellegrini, as
well as by Judges Mary Hannah Leavitt and P. Kevin Brobson in both
cases.

Judge Robert Simpson, joined by Judge Bernard L. McGinley, filed a
dissenting opinion in each case, saying he would have dismissed
the suit in its entirety with prejudice.

In Sears, the plaintiffs filed suit after adultBasic, which was
partly funded by the proceeds of a 1998 settlement between several
tobacco companies and Pennsylvania, ceased operations last year
after new legislation -- Act 46 of 2010 and Act 26 of 2011 --
redirected money away from the program and into the state's
general fund, according to court papers.

Judge McCullough said the underlying facts and procedural history
in Weisblatt closely resembled those in Sears.

The plaintiffs in both cases argue that the new legislation
violated both the Tobacco Settlement Act and the Pennsylvania
Constitution, and are seeking an order directing all future
tobacco settlement funds to be deposited in accordance with the
settlement act, and all redirected funds to be repaid to the
Tobacco Settlement Fund.

The plaintiffs are also seeking to have the adultBasic program
reinstated retroactively to March 1, 2011, and are asking for an
injunction requiring the Treasury to keep in its accounts any
tobacco settlement money until the case is closed, according to
court papers.

The majority sustained the defendants' preliminary objections with
regard to the plaintiffs' claims involving money that was
redirected from the Health Endowment Account for Long-Term Hope,
which was created by Tobacco Settlement Act, and which was
designated to receive a portion of the settlement funds -- a
portion separate from the money that was to be directed to
adultBasic.

Judge McCullough said the law gives the governor discretion to use
money from the health account "to meet the extraordinary or
emergency health care needs of the citizens of this commonwealth,"
but does not require such use.

But Judge McCullough disagreed with the defendants' assertion that
the redirection of the funds met that standard.  "Indeed, if these
monies had not been redirected, it appears that there would have
been sufficient funding for adultBasic in 2011," she wrote.
Judge Simpson disagreed.

"By whatever name, they seek return of funds from the
commonwealth's General Fund back to an account where it will be
available for the adultBasic program," he said.  "The plain
language of [the law] does not enable them to do so."

The defendants also argued that a class action is neither fair nor
efficient in this case since a win for any individual member of
the class would amount to a win for all members.

Judge McCullough agreed with the plaintiffs that this challenge
was premature because a court cannot make a class-action
determination until the close of pleadings.

Counsel for the plaintiffs, David H. Weinstein of Weinstein
Kitchenoff & Asher in Philadelphia, said he and his clients are
"thrilled that the Commonwealth Court has allowed us to continue
pursuing re-establishing the funding for 41,000 working but poor
Pennsylvanians who are provided minimum health coverage under the
Tobacco Settlement Fund."


RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery in Onko-Sure Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the shareholder class action lawsuit
relating to Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation' Onko-Sure(R) test
kit, according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

On March 11, 2011, a putative shareholder class action was filed
against the Company and two of its officers alleging that they
violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the
relationship between the Company and third parties involved in the
Company's clinical studies of the Onko-Sure(R) test kit.  The
trial court granted in part, and denied in part, the defendants'
motions to dismiss the complaint, and the case is now proceeding
to discovery.  The Company and defendant officers vehemently deny
the allegations in the complaint and are vigorously defending the
action.  Due to the uncertain nature of litigation and the early
stage of the lawsuit, the Company says it cannot calculate the
potential damages -- nor does the complaint seek any specific
monetary amount of damages.

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

Headquartered in Tustin, California, Radient Pharmaceuticals
Corporation -- http://www.Radient-Pharma.com/-- is engaged in the
research, development, manufacturing, sale and marketing of its
ONKO-SURE(TM) a proprietary IVD Cancer Test in the United States,
Canada, China, Chile, Europe, India, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and
other markets throughout the world.


RESEARCH IN MOTION: May Face Suit Over BlackBerry 10 Delay
----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Austen, writing for The New York Times, reports that several
securities law experts and some investors say the delay in the
BlackBerry 10, and overly optimistic remarks by Research In Motion
chief executive Thorsten Heins since he took over the top job in
January, may also make RIM the target of shareholder lawsuits.

"They're going to get sued and they should get sued because I
think a closer look at the record is likely to unearth knowing and
willful misrepresentation," said Jean-Louis Gassee, the former
president of Apple's products division and the founder of the
software maker Be, who is now a venture capitalist and blogger in
Palo Alto, Calif.  "When the C.E.O. says there's nothing wrong
with the company as it is, it's not cautious, it doesn't make
sense."

After disappointing shareholders in June, Mr. Heins gave a radio
interview, wrote opinion pieces for two Canadian newspapers and
took online questions from visitors to The Globe and Mail's Web
site.  As part of a public relations offensive, speaking with the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, he forecast a sunny future for
Research in Motion by saying, "There's nothing wrong with the
company as it exists right now" and denying that RIM was, as some
investors believe, in a death spiral.

In a statement, RIM rejected any suggestion that the company had
misled investors.  "RIM is well aware of its disclosure
obligations under applicable securities laws and is committed to
providing a high level of transparency, as evidenced by RIM's
decision to issue an interim business update on May 29, 2012, to
alert shareholders that it expected to report an operating loss,"
the company said.

While securities laws vary in Canada, where RIM is based, and the
United States, where its stock is also traded, companies are
generally required to report promptly any developments that may
significantly alter their financial state.  The BlackBerry 10
delay is unquestionably such a change, Canadian and American law
experts said.

Any shareholder class action would also have to show that
Mr. Heins or others within RIM knew that a delay was likely or a
strong possibility when he was publicly boasting about the
product's progress and promising on-time delivery.

The legal experts said repeated statements earlier this year by
Mr. Heins and other senior RIM executives -- that the BlackBerry
10 line of phones would arrive in stores as planned by the end of
this year -- could support this claim.

For example, on May 1, at a conference for app developers in
Orlando, Fla., Mr. Heins unveiled an incomplete prototype
BlackBerry 10 phone and, along with other RIM employees,
demonstrated features of its operating system.

During the presentation, Mr. Heins repeatedly and enthusiastically
told the audience that the new product would be out by the end of
this year.

"Every day I get questions about the progress on BlackBerry 10,"
he said.  "I appreciate all of the interest on our next-generation
platform and I promise, I promise to you that the whole company is
laser-focused on delivering on time and exceeding your
expectation."

He added at another point, "We're making good progress, and I'm
committed to sharing the progress with everyone right up until the
launch later this year."

Similar sentiments were offered at other developer sessions by
other RIM executives over the following weeks.

Exactly what changed between the beginning of May and the end of
June is unclear.  Nor is it apparent when Mr. Heins decided that
the delay would be necessary.

During a conference call to discuss the earnings, Mr. Heins said
the volume of software that must be handled to integrate all of
BlackBerry 10's components "has proved to be more time-consuming
than anticipated."

Even without the delay, many financial analysts were concerned
that the BlackBerry 10 was already too late to market.  The delay
means that it will be facing off against new and improved phones
and operating systems from Apple, Microsoft and Google.

"There's a high risk of litigation here," said James D. Cox, a law
professor at Duke.  "The outcome of the litigation would be hard
to predict."

Richard McLaren, a law professor at the University of Western
Ontario, said that in Canada companies are required to immediately
disclose major changes in their operations.

"When you've used language like 'laser focused on coming in on
time,' you've really raised expectations," he said.

Professor Cox said RIM might be able to avoid shareholder
litigation for another reason: the company is in bad shape.  Many
lawyers, he said, may be unwilling to embark upon such a case
because there is no guarantee that RIM would be around when it was
resolved.

Also, untangling share price drops caused by the delay in the
BlackBerry 10 from the company's other problems would be
difficult, he said.

Anita Anand, a law professor at the University of Toronto who
specializes in investor issues, said that it might be unnecessary
to challenge RIM's disclosure through the courts.

"If there's a punishment to be had here, it's already in the
making," she said.  "The market speaks before any adjudication
body."

The new phones, which RIM hopes will again make BlackBerrys
desirable, were supposed to be on the market by the beginning of
this year at the latest.  But the company's former co-chief
executives put off that release because, they said, the company
needed to perfect the new, more advanced electronics used in the
new models.

That delay is already part of one class action against the
company. In securities filings, RIM has said that lawsuit is
without merit.

Unlike Samsung, Nokia and other competitors that use smartphone
operating systems from Google and Microsoft, RIM began creating
its own about two years ago. But Mr. Gassee said the effort was
already too late.

To jump-start the process, RIM bought QNX Software Systems, which
is based here and which has long provided operating systems used
in everything from automobiles to nuclear power stations.  But
Mr. Gassee said that the actual operating system, which
essentially parcels out computing tasks and allocates the
computer's resources, was the smallest part of developing
BlackBerry 10.

The heavy lifting, he said, came from creating the complex
software that enables apps to use the operating system and the
phone's hardware features.  He estimated that Apple had spent
about four years developing iOS, the operating system for the
iPhone, before bringing it to market.

Mr. Heins's public relations campaign last week to talk up the
company's fortunes was widely seen as being, at best, overly
optimistic, but unlikely to create legal headaches for RIM,
experts said.

In its statement, RIM said Mr. Heins was trying to outline the
changes he had made over the last six months to turn RIM around.

"His optimism stems from the fact that, unlike many commentators
or analysts, he has actually seen the progress being made on
BlackBerry 10 and is confident in its ability to play a
significant role in the future of mobile computing," the company
said.

Jill E. Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law
School, said the remarks were not surprising, comparing them to
the talk of a used-car salesman.

"Everybody expects the chief executive to put an optimistic spin
on the company," she said.  "To be fair, we all know that RIM is a
struggling company."


ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls 22,149 SkilSaw Miter Saws Due to Cut Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Robert Bosch Tool Corporation of Mount Prospect, Illinois,
announced a voluntary recall of about 22,149 units of SkilSaw(R)
10-inch compound miter saw.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The lower guard can break and contact the blade during use, posing
a laceration hazard to users.

The firm has received no reports of incidents or injuries.

The recalled product is the SkilSaw(R) 10-inch compound miter saw,
with model number 3316 and date codes 111, 112, 201, 202, 203 or
204.  The model number and date code are on the lower right side
of the name plate located on the motor housing.  The SkilSaw logo
appears at the top of the upper blade guard and on the dust
collection bag.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12218.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Lowe's Home Centers nationwide and OC Tanner from January 2012 to
April 2012.

Consumers should immediately stop using the miter saw and contact
Robert Bosch Tool Corporation for a free lower guard replacement
kit.  For additional information, contact the firm toll-free at
(888) 727-6109 between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.skiltools.com/


SKY-MOBI LTD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Vandevelde" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sky-mobi Limited is awaiting a court decision on a motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit involving its chief
financial officer, according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended March 31, 2012.

Carl Yeung, the Company's chief financial officer, served as an
independent director and the chairman of the audit committee of
China Natural Gas, Inc., or CHNG, a Delaware corporation whose
shares of common stock were listed on the NASDAQ Global Market
from 2008 to November 2010.  CHNG and certain of its officers and
directors, including Mr. Yeung, have been named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  The action, captioned Vandevelde v. China
Natural Gas, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-00728, was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware on
August 26, 2010.  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 persons who purchased
CHNG 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
CHNG'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 CHNG's current and former officers and
directors for violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, including Mr. Yeung.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified monetary damages.  Mr. Yeung could potentially be held
individually liable for civil damages in these actions.

On December 12, 2011, CHNG filed a motion to dismiss and the
motion is now fully briefed.  Mr. Yeung has not been served with a
copy of the summons and complaint.


STORM FINANCIAL: Investors Had Until July 12 to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rae Wilson, writing for Fraser Coast Chronicle, reports that the
deadline to get involved in the class action against the banks
involved with Storm Financial was July 12.

But the Storm Investors Consumer Action Group is sure it could
convince Sydney-based law firm Levitt Robinson, which is running
the class action, to extend the deadline if investors make
themselves known to the group urgently.

The group -- formed in 2009 after a large number of investors lost
their life savings -- wants to catch any investors who have fallen
through the net before time runs out.

Group chairman Mark Weir said he was concerned, despite the
group's best efforts, there were many investors who had not come
forward to join the effort to restore their lost assets.

"Regrettably, we did not have the benefit of a database to assist
our initial efforts to organize the investors group," he said.

"Although we succeeded in identifying the majority through these
sources, we believe there remain many, who for one reason or
another, possibly through a misplaced feeling of embarrassment or
simply not having the emotional energy to do what is necessary,
have not come forward."

Co-chairman Noel O'Brien said there might be people who had
concluded that they did not have the financial resources necessary
to fund themselves into a legal stoush with the banking industry.

But Mr. Weir said the larger the class action group, the less
legal fees individual clients would pay.

"For those investors who fear that they cannot afford to engage a
lawyer, they need to be aware that one of the benefits of a class
action is that the costs are shared by the group," he said.

"We also understand (Stewart) Levitt is exploring an innovative
funding facility for those who have limited liquidity, to enable
them to participate in this effort to recover their lost assets."

The SICAG chairmen said the resolution scheme established between
law firm Slater and Gordon and the Commonwealth Bank was all but
completed and the opportunity for Storm investors to obtain relief
from that action had now passed.

But many disillusioned investors deserted the resolution scheme
and chose to roll the dice with litigation through a class action
with Levitt Robinson.

Preliminary directions hearings have been playing out in the
Federal Court since early 2011 to the plea the Storm investment
model -- involving the Commonwealth, Bank of Queensland and
Macquarie banks -- was illegal because it represented a managed
investment scheme that should have been registered with the
Australian Securities and Investment Commission.

The trial is set to begin in Brisbane on September 10.

Mr. Weir said ASIC had made an enormous effort to leave no stone
unturned in gathering evidence.

"We believe (this) will give their case every chance of success,"
he said.

"It is also apparent that a healthy alliance has been established
between the Levitt legal team and ASIC.

"It is not unreasonable to conclude this will translate into some
reciprocal benefit for investors in so much as a successful
determination from the courts on behalf of one party, will have
some flow on to the other."

Mr. Levitt has also foreshadowed a similar action against Westpac
which Mr. Weir said had claimed an internal investigation showed
its exposure to the Storm events was "different" to the other
banks.


TORCHMARK CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Fitzhugh" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 15, 2011, purported class action litigation was filed
against Torchmark Corporation and its subsidiary, American Income
Life Insurance Company, in the District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio (Fitzhugh v. American Income Life Insurance
Company and Torchmark Corporation, Case No. 1:11-cv-00533).  The
plaintiff, a formerly independently contracted American Income
agent, alleges that American Income intentionally misclassified
its agents as independent contractors rather than as employees in
order to escape minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, as well as to avoid payroll taxes, workers
compensation premiums and other benefits required to be provided
by employers.  Monetary damages in the amount of unpaid
compensation plus liquidated damages and/or prejudgment interest
as well as injunctive and/or declaratory relief is sought by the
plaintiff on behalf of the purported class.  On November 3, 2011,
the Court granted American Income's motion to compel arbitration
and dismissed the case.  Plaintiffs have appealed this decision.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 29, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, markets
primarily individual life and supplemental health insurance and
annuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S.  The
company operates in two segments: insurance, which includes the
insurance product lines of life, health and annuities, and
investments, which supports the product lines.


TORCHMARK CORP: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss "Kennedy" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its
subsidiary's motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit
pending in Arkansas, according to the Company's June 29, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Torchmark subsidiary, United American Insurance Company, was named
as defendant in purported class action litigation filed on May 31,
2011, in Cross County Arkansas Circuit Court (Kennedy v. United
American Insurance Company (Case # CV-2011-84-5).  In the
litigation, filed on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of
owners of certain limited hospital and surgical expense benefit
policies from United American, the plaintiff alleged that United
American breached the policy by failing and/or refusing to pay
benefits for the total number of days an insured is confined to a
hospital and by limiting payment to the number of days for which
there are incurred hospital room charges rather than also
including benefits for services and supplies.  Claims for unjust
enrichment, breach of contract, bad faith refusal to pay first
party benefits, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing, bad faith, and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act were initially asserted.  The plaintiff sought
declaratory relief, restitution and/or monetary damages, punitive
damages, costs and attorneys fees.  In September 2011, the
plaintiff dismissed all causes of action, except for the breach of
contract claim.

On November 14, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint based
upon the same facts asserting only breach of contract claims on
behalf of a purported nationwide restitution/monetary relief class
or, in the first alternative, a purported multiple-state
restitution/monetary relief class or, in the second alternative, a
purported Arkansas statewide restitution/monetary relief class.
Restitution and/or monetary relief for United American's alleged
breaches of contract, costs, attorney's fees and expenses, expert
fees, prejudgment interest and other relief are sought on behalf
of the plaintiff and members of the class.

On December 7, 2011, United American filed a Motion to Dismiss the
plaintiff's amended complaint and on January 11, 2012, plaintiff
filed a response thereto.  Discovery has commenced and is ongoing.

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

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, markets
primarily individual life and supplemental health insurance and
annuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S.  The
company operates in two segments: insurance, which includes the
insurance product lines of life, health and annuities, and
investments, which supports the product lines.


TORCHMARK CORP: Has Yet to File Settlement Resolving "Smith" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation has yet to file the settlement agreement
resolving the class action lawsuit captioned Smith and Ivie v.
Collingsworth, et al., according to the Company's June 29, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's subsidiary, United American Insurance Company, was
named as a defendant in purported class action litigation
originally filed on September 16, 2004, in the Circuit Court of
Saline County, Arkansas, on behalf of the Arkansas purchasers of
association group health insurance policies or certificates issued
by United American through Heartland Alliance of America
Association and Farm & Ranch Healthcare, Inc. (Smith and Ivie v.
Collingsworth, et al., CV2004-742-2).  The plaintiffs asserted
claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, common law
liability for non-disclosure, breach of fiduciary duties, civil
conspiracy, unjust enrichment, violation of the Arkansas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, and violation of Arkansas law and the rules
and regulations of the Arkansas Insurance Department.
Declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as well as actual
and punitive damages were sought by the plaintiffs.  On
September 7, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
assert a nation-wide class, defined as all United American
insureds who simultaneously purchased both an individual Hospital
and Surgical Expense health insurance policy (Form HSXC) and an
individual supplemental term life insurance policy (Form RT85)
from Farm & Ranch through Heartland.  Defendants removed this
litigation to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas (No. 4:05-cv-1382) but that Court remanded
the litigation back to the state court on plaintiffs' motion.

On July 22, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
asserting a class defined as "all persons who, between January
1998 and the present, were residents of Arkansas, California,
Georgia, Louisiana or Texas, and purchased through Farm & Ranch:
(1) a health insurance policy issued by United American known as
Flexguard Plan, CS-1 Common Sense Plan, GSP Good Sense Plan, SHXC
Surgical & Hospital Expense Policy, HSXC 7500 Hospital/Surgical
Plan, MMXC Hospital/Surgical Plan, SMXC Surgical/Medical Expense
Plan and/or SSXC Surgical Safeguard Expense Plan, and (ii) a
membership in Heartland."  Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of
contract, violation of Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and/or applicable consumer protection laws in other states, unjust
enrichment, and common law fraud. Plaintiffs seek actual,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, equitable and
declaratory relief.  On
September 8, 2009, the Saline County Circuit Court granted the
plaintiff's motion certifying the class.  On October 7, 2009,
United American filed its notice of appeal of the class
certification and subsequently filed its appellate brief on
April 8, 2010.  On December 2, 2010, the Arkansas Supreme Court
affirmed the lower court's decision to certify the class.

On January 6, 2012, the parties agreed in principal to settle the
case.  On January 11, 2012, the Court ordered the continuation of
the trial, previously set to commence on January 17, 2012, pending
notice to the class and the Court's consideration of the agreed-
upon settlement.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, markets
primarily individual life and supplemental health insurance and
annuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S.  The
company operates in two segments: insurance, which includes the
insurance product lines of life, health and annuities, and
investments, which supports the product lines.


VIENNA CORRECTIONAL: Inmates to Sue Over Inhuman Jail Condition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Crowley, writing for News 3, reports that accusations of
inhumane conditions at a southern Illinois prison may spark a
class action lawsuit.

Three inmates at Vienna Correctional Center filed suit last month.
In the lawsuit, they claim they're dealing with rat and bug
infestations on top of severe overcrowding.  Attorneys who took on
the case hope to turn the lawsuit into a class action on behalf of
all Vienna inmates.

"We're trying to get conditions so they're livable.  There's guys
who've had to have surgery because roaches have crawled in their
ear while they're sleeping," said Brian Nelson, an advocate for
prisoners' rights.

Moldy food, mice and rat infested mess halls, and mildew in
ventilation ducts are just a few of the accusations Vienna prison
inmates are making.

"Even the inmates have said 'I feel bad for anyone who has to work
here because the conditions are so terrible,'" said attorney
Nicole Schult.

But are the inmates' accounts truly accurate? News 3's cameras
were not allowed inside the prison, so News 3 asked the union
representing employees of the prison.

"I can tell you that some of what they are alleging is certainly
true.  That the prison is operating well over its rated capacity,
I can say it's true," said AFSCME spokesperson Eddie Caumiant.

Mr. Caumiant said the overcrowding could certainly impact the
quality of health care and dietary services. While he hasn't seen
it first hand, he said the claims shouldn't be ignored.

"In this case, I think when an inmate anywhere in the overcrowded
system that is the Department of Corrections in Illinois says that
they're being treated inhumanely, you know, we need to take a look
at that," he said.

An Illinois Department of Corrections spokesperson told News 3 the
department does not comment on pending litigation, but did go on
to say, "The health, safety, and security of inmates and staff is
always the department's top priority."

Attorneys said their top priority is fixing the problem.

"This is America.  This is the greatest country there is.  It's
not about coddling these guys.  It's the minimum standard of
decency is what we're looking for.  That's what they're looking
for," said Mr. Nelson.

Attorneys said the prisoners are not seeking money in the lawsuit,
just improvements in prisons conditions.  They're working to get
the lawsuit class action certified.


VITACOST.COM INC: Gets Favorable Judgment in "Miyahira" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida entered a final judgment in favor of Vitacost.com, Inc. in
the punitive class action complaint captioned Miyahira v.
Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart
Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran
Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR, according to
the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                        Company Statement

Vitacost.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: VITC), a leading online retailer of
health and wellness products, announced that on June 25, 2012, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
has entered a final judgment in favor of Vitacost.com, Inc. in the
punitive class action complaint captioned Miyahira v.
Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart
Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran
Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR. Plaintiffs have
30 days to file an appeal.

"We are very pleased with the court's decision," stated Jeffrey
Horowitz, Vitacost.com's Chief Executive Officer.  "The class
action lawsuit was first announced in May 2010 and we are glad to
now be putting this behind us as we continue to focus on executing
on our sales growth initiatives and managing the business for
long-term profitable growth."

                    About Vitacost.com, Inc.

Vitacost.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: VITC) is a leading online retailer of
health and wellness products, including dietary supplements such
as vitamins, minerals, herbs and other botanicals, amino acids and
metabolites, as well as cosmetics, organic body and personal care
products, pet products, sports nutrition and health foods.
Vitacost.com, Inc. sells these products directly to consumers
through its Web site, http://www.vitacost.com/. Vitacost.com,
Inc. strives to offer its customers the broadest selection of
healthy living products, while providing superior customer service
and timely and accurate delivery.


* Banks Adjust Overdraft Fee Policies Following Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maryalene LaPonsie, writing for Money-Rates.com, reports that a
recent decision by Chase to discontinue fees for small overdrafts
may signal big banks are having a change of heart about their fee
policies.

The decision comes on the heels of a class-action lawsuit against
multiple banks regarding how those institutions process
transactions.  In addition, a government agency is continuing its
investigation into overdraft fees.

                 Overdraft Fees Under Microscope

The case against bank overdraft fees has been steadily growing
during the past several years.  In 2009, consumers filed a class
action lawsuit in Florida against 38 banks.  At issue was how the
banks processed transactions at the end of the day.  The lawsuit
alleged banks reordered transactions and processed the largest
debits first in order to maximize overdraft fees.

According to news reports, 14 banks agreed to multi-million dollar
settlements in the case including the following institutions.

Bank of America: $410 million
Citizens Bank: $137 million
Chase: $110 million
PNC: $90 million
TD Bank: $62 million
US Bancorp: $55 million

In addition to the lawsuit, the federal Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau announced in February that is was launching its
own investigation into overdraft practices and policies.  Again,
one of the core concerns was the reordering of transactions to
process the largest debits first instead of applying them in
chronological order.

               Banks Respond by Adjusting Policies

As part of its settlement, Chase agreed not to charge overdraft
fees for small transactions of less than $5 beginning on July 22,
2012.  The bank will also now process most transactions in
chronological order.

While Chase is the largest bank to waive some overdraft fees, it
is not the first.  SunTrust also waives fees when the overdraft is
less than $5.

Other banks are taking a different approach to their overdraft
fees.  Huntington, a regional bank operating in six Midwest
states, rolled out what it calls "asterisk-free checking."  Under
its checking policy, customers who overdraft their account can
waive any fees by making a deposit the next day to bring their
balance positive.

As government regulations have limited bank profits from merchant
swipe fees, overdraft fees appear to have become more important to
financial institutions' bottom lines.  According to independent
financial research firm Moebs Services, American consumers paid an
estimated $29.5 billion in overdraft fees in 2011.  A recent
report from the Pew Charitable Trusts found the median bank fee is
$35.

While banks may be profiting from overdraft fees, the recent legal
and government action indicates there may be limits to how deep
financial institutions can dip into their customers' pockets.  The
new Chase policy could mark the beginning of a trend as banks seek
to walk the fine line between pleasing customers and regulators
while also satisfying their shareholders.


* MALTA: Newly-Enacted Law Allows Consumers to File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Times of Malta reports that a newly-enacted law has cleared the
way for consumers to file collective proceedings in court.

Consumer Affairs Minister Jason Azzopardi, who piloted the Bill
through Parliament said the new law comes into effect on August 1.
Collective actions can be filed for alleged breach of competition
laws, consumer laws and product safety.

Representatives of enterprises too can file cases together on
matters such as unfair competition.

The law also opens the way for consumer associations to take
action in court on behalf of their members.

Sylvanne Aquilina, director-general in the Competition Office,
said that two forms of collective action may be launched -- a
class action on behalf of a number of persons in a group and a
"representative action"  where a representative body files an
action as representative of consumers.

Litigants could seek compensation, demand action to stop abuse and
seek rectification.

A media campaign is to be held to inform consumers and businesses
about the new law.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Defends Asbestos Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012,
disclosed the company is involved in various legal proceedings
that relate to asbestos and other environmental matters. In the
opinion of management, based on current information, the amount of
ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these proceedings is
not expected to have a material adverse effect on the company's
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The
company is proactive in establishing policies and operating
procedures for safeguarding the environment against any hazardous
materials aboard its vessels and at shore-based locations.
Whenever possible, hazardous materials are maintained or
transferred in confined areas in an attempt to ensure containment,
if accidents were to occur. In addition, the company has
established operating policies that are intended to increase
awareness of actions that may harm the environment.

Tidewater Inc. provides offshore service vessels and marine
support services to the global offshore energy industry through
the operation of a diversified fleet of marine service vessels.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Continues to Defend PI Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2012, disclosed that like many industrial manufacturers,
the Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation.  In
continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-
related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the
incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal
rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the
plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the
number of cases pending against it, the status and results of
broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such
activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has
estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable
asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly
uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the
difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous
variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company
will continue to study the variables in light of additional
information in order to identify trends that may become evident
and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is
probable and estimable.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $7,000,000 and $18,000,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years from
March 31, 2012.  The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
$12,000,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2012. The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be
influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of approximately $1,500,000 over the next 12
months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over
many years, management believes that the potential additional
costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial
condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of
any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a
future period.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer
and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and
other material handling products serving a wide variety of
commercial and industrial end-user markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Had 76 Pending PI Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corp. in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 1, 2012, relates that there were approximately 76 lawsuits
pending against the Company alleging personal injury as the result
of exposure to particulates, including asbestos, integrated into
its premises or processes or into certain historical products.

The Company states: "It is frequently not possible at the outset
of a case to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will
pursue a claim against the Company.  Typically, that can only be
determined through discovery after a case has been filed.  Thus,
in a case involving multiple plaintiffs, unless otherwise
expressed in the pleadings, the Company accounts for the lawsuit
as one claim against it.

                                              Fiscal
                                          2012      2011
                                          --------------
New Claims Filed                            20        33
Claims Disposed Of                          22        19
Dollars Paid in Settlement (in millions)  $2.6        $-

"The Company considers that all such claims are tort claims while
noting that some claims, such as those filed in West Virginia,
were historically common law "employer liability" cases and are
now based on a statutory definition of requisite intent.

"The particulates in question are no longer incorporated into our
products, and we have implemented safety protocols to reduce
exposure to remaining particulates in the workplace. Based on the
information available to us, we believe, based on our review of
the facts and law, that the potential exposure from the resolution
of any or all of these matters will not have a material adverse
effect on our consolidated financial position, results of
operations, cash flows or business."

Precision Castparts Corp. is a worldwide manufacturer of complex
metal components and products, provides high-quality investment
castings, forgings and fasteners/fastener systems for critical
aerospace and industrial gas turbine applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has More Than 1,000 Asbestos Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 27,
2012, disclosed that it and its subsidiaries are involved in
various unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course
of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including over 1,000 asbestos and silica-related
cases), employment, and commercial matters.  "Although the outcome
of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty and favorable
or unfavorable resolutions may affect the results of operations on
a quarter-to-quarter basis, we believe that the outcome of such
legal and other matters will not have a materially adverse effect
on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or
liquidity."

Joy Global Inc. manufactures and markets original equipment and
aftermarket parts and services for both underground and surface
mining and certain industrial applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in NGA Holdco's Hotel Unit
----------------------------------------------------------
NGA Holdco, LLC, in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2011, disclosed that asbestos has been determined to be present in
the sheetrock of approximately 216 of the Eldorado-Reno's older
hotel rooms. Removal of the asbestos will be required only in the
event of the demolition of the affected rooms or if the asbestos
is otherwise disturbed. Resorts' management currently has no plans
to renovate or demolish the affected rooms in a manner that would
require removal of the asbestos at this time.

The possibility exists that additional contamination, as yet
unknown, may exist at the Eldorado-Reno or Silver Legacy. In all
cases, however, Eldorado believes that any such contamination
would have arisen from activities of prior owners or occupants, or
from offsite sources and not as a result of any of Resorts' or
Silver Legacy's actions or operations. Eldorado does not believe
that its expenditures for environmental investigations or
remediation will have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition or results of operations.

NGA HoldCo, LLC, was formed for the primary purpose of holding
equity, directly or indirectly through its subsidiaries, in one or
more entities related to the gaming industry. NGA has two wholly-
owned subsidiaries, NGA Blocker, LLC, and AcquisitionCo, LLC.  The
Company has had no revenue generating business since inception.
Its current business plan consists primarily of its holding,
through AcquisitionCo, of a 17.0359% equity interest in Eldorado
Holdco LLC and a 40% equity interest in Mesquite Gaming LLC.
Eldorado owns indirectly through wholly-owned subsidiaries the
Eldorado Hotel & Casino ("Eldorado-Reno"), the Eldorado Resort
Casino Shreveport ("Eldorado-Shreveport"), and approximately 21%
of Tamarack Crossing, LLC ("Tamarack"), which owns and operates
Tamarack Junction Casino & Restaurant, a small casino located in
Reno. An approximately 96% owned subsidiary of Eldorado owns
approximately 50% of a joint venture that owns and operates the
Silver Legacy Resort Casino ("Silver Legacy"), which is seamlessly
connected to the Eldorado-Reno. Mesquite is engaged in the casino
resort industry in Mesquite, Nevada through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries that own and operate the CasaBlanca Resort/Golf/Spa,
the Virgin River Hotel/Casino/Bingo, two championship golf
courses, a full-service spa, a bowling center, a gun club,
restaurants, and banquet and conference facilities. Mesquite also
owns the Oasis Resort & Casino located in Mesquite, Nevada, which
is currently closed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J.C. Penney Has Potential Asbestos Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc., in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 28, 2012, disclosed potential liabilities related to
asbestos removal.

The Company states: "As of April 28, 2012, we estimated our total
potential environmental liabilities to range from $19 million to
$27 million and recorded our best estimate of $20 million in other
liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of that date.
This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily related to
underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental conditions
involving our former drugstore locations and asbestos removal in
connection with approved plans to renovate or dispose of our
facilities. We continue to assess required remediation and the
adequacy of environmental reserves as new information becomes
available and known conditions are further delineated. If we were
to incur losses at the upper end of the estimated range, we do not
believe that such losses would have a material effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity."

J. C. Penney Company, Inc., through its subsidiary, J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc., operates department stores in the United States
and Puerto Rico. The company sells family apparel and footwear,
accessories, fine and fashion jewelry, beauty products, and home
furnishings. It also provides various services, such as styling
salon, optical, portrait photography, and custom decorating.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Remains a Defendant in PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2012, disclosed the Company has been named as a defendant in
certain lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos contained in products made by the Company. The Company is
a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits
and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The
claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the
Company as defendant, which either were dismissed when it was
shown that the Company had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for amounts below the
expected defense costs. The outcome of these lawsuits cannot be
determined at this time.

Graham Corporation designs, manufactures and sells custom-built
vacuum and heat transfer equipment to customers worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar International Remains Subject to Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2012, said it remains subject to asbestos-
related claims.

The Company states: "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related
claims in recent years. In general, these claims relate to
illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from
component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases
relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In
these claims, we are not the sole defendant, and the claims name
as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide
variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have
strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to
defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages
paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is
possible that the number of these claims will continue to grow,
and that the costs for resolving asbestos related claims could
become significant in the future."

Navistar International Corporation is a holding company whose
principal operating subsidiaries are Navistar, Inc., and Navistar
Financial Corporation.  They operate in four principal industry
segments: Truck, Engine, Parts, and Financial Services, which
consists of NFC and its foreign finance operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thermon Group Still Defending 2 Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thermon Group Holdings, Inc., and Thermon Holding Corp. in their
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012, disclosed they have two
pending asbestos-related lawsuits.

The Company states: "Since 1999, we have been named as one of many
defendants in 16 personal injury suits alleging exposure to
asbestos from our products. None of the cases alleges premises
liability. Two cases are currently pending. Insurers are defending
us in one of the two lawsuits, and we expect that an insurer will
defend us in the remaining matter. Of the concluded suits, there
were seven cost of defense settlements and the remainder were
dismissed without payment. There are no claims unrelated to
asbestos exposure for which coverage has been sought under the
policies that are providing coverage."

Thermon Group Holdings, Inc., and Thermon Holding Corp. are one of
the largest providers of highly engineered thermal solutions for
process industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Had 134 Pending Cases at April 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Met-Pro Corporation in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2012, disclosed it had 134 pending asbestos-related
cases.

Beginning in 2002, the Company began to be named in asbestos-
related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial
companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid
handling industries. In management's opinion, the complaints
typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that
the Company, along with the numerous other defendants, sold
unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other
related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss
to the plaintiffs.  Counsel has advised that more recent cases
typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.  The Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses to the cases which have
been filed and that none of its products were a cause of any
injury or loss to any of the plaintiffs.  The Company's insurers
have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are
vigorously defending these cases.  The Company has been dismissed
from or settled a large number of these cases.  The sum total of
all payments through April 30, 2012 to settle cases involving
asbestos-related claims was $675,000, all of which has been paid
by the Company's insurers including legal expenses, except for
corporate counsel expenses, with an average cost per settled
claim, excluding legal fees, of approximately $25,000.

Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 134 cases pending
against the Company as of April 30, 2012 (with Connecticut, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with approximately 130 cases that were pending
as of March 22, 2012.  Subsequent to January 31, 2012, twelve new
cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was
dismissed from thirteen cases and settled zero cases.  Most of the
pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of
discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to,
or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its
insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending
against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a
continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement
amounts; however, the Company has no control over the number and
nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial
health of its insurers or their position as to coverage.  The
Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases
will have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of
operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Met-Pro Corporation manufactures and sells product recovery and
pollution control equipment for purification of air and liquids,
fluid handling equipment for corrosive, abrasive and high
temperature liquids, and filtration and purification products. The
Company markets and sells its products through its own personnel,
distributors, representatives and agents. The Company's products
are sold worldwide primarily in industrial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Remains Subject to Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 4,
2012, disclosed that the company is subject to litigation and
administrative and judicial proceedings with respect to claims
involving asbestos and the discharge of hazardous substances into
the environment. Some of these claims assert damages and liability
for personal injury, remedial investigations or clean up and other
costs and damages.

The Toro Company designs, manufactures, and markets professional
turf maintenance equipment and services, turf irrigation systems,
agricultural micro-irrigation systems, landscaping equipment and
lighting, and residential yard and snow removal products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del Monte's ARO Reached $7.2MM at April 29
-----------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 29, 2012, disclosed it had asset retirement obligations of
$7.2 million.

Asset retirement obligations generally apply to legal obligations
associated with the retirement of a tangible long-lived asset that
result from the acquisition, construction or development and the
normal operation of a long-lived asset. The Company assesses asset
retirement obligations on a periodic basis. If a reasonable
estimate of fair value can be made, the fair value of a liability
for an asset retirement obligation is recognized in the period in
which it is incurred or a change in estimate occurs. Associated
asset retirement costs are capitalized as part of the book value
of the long-lived asset. Over time the liability increases
reflecting the accretion of the obligation from its present value
to the amount the Company will pay to extinguish the liability and
the capitalized asset retirement costs are depreciated over the
useful lives of the related assets.

As of April 29, 2012 and May 1, 2011, the asset retirement
obligation totaled $7.2 million and $7.4 million, respectively. In
addition, certain of the Company's production facilities may
contain asbestos that would have to be removed if such facilities
were to be demolished or undergo a major renovation and certain of
the Company's production facilities utilize wastewater ponds that
would require closure activities should the ponds' use be
discontinued. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the fair
value of the liability for asbestos removal or wastewater pond
closure at its production facilities, and because the timing of
the settlement of any such liability is not currently
determinable, has not recorded an asset retirement obligation for
these matters.

Del Monte Corporation is one of the country's largest producers,
distributors and marketers of premium quality, branded pet
products and food products for the U.S. retail market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 144 Pending Cases at May 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2012,
disclosed the Company has been, and continues to be, named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to
exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in
manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in
Texas and Pennsylvania. There were 144 asbestos cases pending as
of May 31, 2012.

The Company's historical product liability costs associated with
its asbestos litigation cases for the first half of fiscal 2012:

   Claims filed as of November 30, 2011               146
   Claims filed                                         9
   Claims tendered                                      1
   Claims dismissed                                    10
                                                    -----
   Claims pending as of May 31, 2012                  144

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the first
half of fiscal 2012 were $0.2 million.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted
claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been
accrued.

In 2011, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary Aerojet received a
letter demand from AMEC, plc, the successor entity to the 1981
purchaser of the business assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc. a former
Aerojet subsidiary, for Aerojet to assume the defense of twenty-
one asbestos cases pending in Louisiana and reimbursement of over
$1.0 million in past legal fees and expenses.  AMEC is asserting
that Aerojet retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard &
Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser thereof. Aerojet
has requested information from AMEC pertaining to the basis of the
demand and discussions are ongoing. Accordingly, no estimate of
liability has been accrued for this matter as of May 31, 2012.

GenCorp Inc. is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense products
and systems with a real estate segment that includes activities
related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of its
excess real estate assets. The Company develops and manufactures
propulsion systems for defense and space applications, and
armaments for precision tactical and long range weapon systems
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defending Suits & Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 2, 2012, disclosed it continues to defend asbestos-related
lawsuits.

The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 25 years ago. The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and
seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In
many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered
were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are
typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment.
If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable
injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case
is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness
of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation continues to be paid by third parties,
including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976
agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party.
Historically, this third party routinely defended all cases
tendered to it and paid settlement amounts resulting from those
cases. In the 1990s, the third party sporadically reserved its
rights, but continued to defend and settle all asbestos-related
claims tendered to it by us. In 2002, the third party rejected the
tender of certain cases and indicated it would seek contributions
for past defense costs, settlements and judgments. However, this
third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a
reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party. During the fourth quarter of 2007, we and a group
of other defendants, including the third party obligated to
indemnify us against certain asbestos-related claims, entered into
negotiations with certain law firms to settle a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits and claims.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities (including defense costs).
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and, in some cases, settlements
and judgments, in asbestos-related lawsuits. Under these
agreements, we are required in some cases to fund a share of
settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the
responsible insurer is insolvent. In addition, to delineate our
rights under certain insurance policies, in October 2009, we
commenced a declaratory judgment action against one of our
insurers in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota. Additional insurers have been brought into the action
to address issues related to the scope of their coverage.

"During the fourth quarter of 2007, we and a group of other
defendants entered into negotiations with certain law firms to
settle a number of asbestos-related lawsuits and claims over a
period of years. In total, we had expected to contribute up to
$4,114,000, based on a present value calculation, towards the
settlement amounts to be paid to the claimants in exchange for
full releases of claims. Of this amount, our insurers had
committed to pay $2,043,000 based on the probable liability of
$4,114,000. Our contributions toward settlements from the time of
the agreement through the end of fiscal year 2011 were $2,224,000
with insurers paying $1,243,000 of that amount. Based on this
experience we reduced our reserves in the fourth quarter of 2011
to an undiscounted amount of $250,000 with insurers expected to
pay $159,000. There were no contributions or insurance payments
during the first six months of 2012, therefore our reserves for
this agreement and our insurance receivable remained unchanged
from year-end. These amounts represent our best estimate for the
settlement amounts yet to be paid related to this agreement. Our
reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis.

"In addition to the group settlement, a summary of the number of
and settlement amounts for asbestos-related lawsuits and claims
is:

                                       26 Weeks Ended
                                        June 2, 2012
                                       --------------
     Lawsuits and claims settled                    8
     Settlement amounts                      $490,000
     Insurance payments received
       or expected to be received            $350,000

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff.

"To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our
probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries. As of June 2, 2012, our probable liabilities
and insurance recoveries related to asbestos claims, excluding
those related to the group settlement, were $612,000 and $522,000,
respectively. These amounts relate to four pending cases and six
settled cases for which final insurance payouts have not yet been
made. We have concluded that it is not possible to reasonably
estimate the cost of disposing of other asbestos-related claims
(including claims that might be filed in the future) due to our
inability to project future events. Future variables include the
number of claims filed or dismissed, proof of exposure to our
products, seriousness of the alleged injury, the number and
solvency of other defendants in each case, the jurisdiction in
which the case is brought, the cost of disposing of such claims,
the uncertainty of asbestos litigation, insurance coverage and
indemnification agreement issues, and the continuing solvency of
certain insurance companies.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

H.B. Fuller Company is a global formulator, manufacturer and
marketer of adhesives, sealants, paints and other specialty
chemical products. Sales operations span 40 countries in North
America, Europe, Latin America, the Asia Pacific region, India,
the Middle East and Africa. Industrial adhesives represent its
core product offering.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thai Traders Needs Time Before Full Fibro Ban
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bangkok Post reports manufacturers should be given an average
of 3-5 years to adapt before the complete ban of asbestos imports,
says a new study by Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University.

Results of the study were presented on May 6 to some 200
participants involved in industry during a second public hearing
before being submitted to the Industry Ministry in September.

The university was hired by the ministry to formulate a plan to
minimize the effects following a cabinet resolution last year to
ban imports, use and sales of asbestos.

The World Health Organization recommends all asbestos use be
stopped worldwide.

Five products using asbestos included in the study were rubber
tiles, flat sheet, roof tiles, high-pressure water pipes, and
automobile brakes and clutches.

Project manager Jakkris Sivadechathep said the study concluded
alternative substances are not equal in terms of price and
quality, placing a higher cost burden on consumers.

These products are exported to Asean countries and China, and an
immediate ban will result in the loss of 2,000 jobs.

Dr. Jakkris said the most appropriate solution is an incremental
ban that provides manufacturers time to conduct their own research
and development.

He proposed phasing out asbestos in rubber tiles and flat sheet in
three years and in the other products in five years.

Uran Kleosakul, the managing director of Oran Vanich Co, the
producer of Globe-brand roof tiles, said more detailed studies
should be conducted.

The Asean market still needs these products, and a sudden ban on
using asbestos would see 2 million people paying more each year,
he said.

Mr. Uran insisted there is no definitive evidence of any Thais
having been harmed by the use of asbestos and said switching to
alternative substances will cost 10 billion baht.

Payungsak Chartsutthipol, chairman of the Federation of Thai
Industries, said five years ago the FTI's roof industry club
decided to stop using asbestos within five years, meaning the
deadline is 2012.

There is no reason to delay the deadline further, as the whole
world has stopped using it, with only a few producers left that
are holding out, he said.

Siam Cement Group stopped using asbestos in 2007, followed by
Mahaphant last year, but Oran Vanich and Diamond Roof Tiles still
use it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Launched for Glasgow School
----------------------------------------------------
BBC News Glasgow & West Scotland reports that a clean-up operation
has been launched after asbestos fibers were found in the
guttering of houses near a derelict school destroyed by fire.

The former St. Mark's Primary School, in Muiryfauld Drive,
Shettleston, is being demolished following the deliberate blaze on
22 May.  Glasgow City Council has engaged contractors to handle
the clean up.

Drew Smith, Labour MSP for Glasgow, said the situation had "caused
considerable fear and alarm".

"We need to ensure a thorough clean-up and full information for
worried residents," he said.

"I have asked the city council to confirm that everything that can
be done is being done.

"Local people must be satisfied that there are no outstanding
safety issues."

St Mark's Primary was closed in late 2010 and lay derelict until
it was set alight by vandals in May.  At the height of the blaze,
nearby houses were evacuated as a precaution while more than 30
firefighters brought the blaze under control.  The remains of the
building were later deemed unsafe and it was ordered to be
demolished.  Asbestos fibers were later identified in the
surrounding area.

Meanwhile, Thomsons Solicitors, which has represented many victims
of asbestos-related illness, has set up a dedicated service to
help worried residents.

The firm's Chris Gordon said: "Breathing in just a small amount of
asbestos dust can put your health at serious risk.

"It's a silent killer -- it can be in your system for many years
before symptoms show.

"We're committed to the local community and we're on-hand to
provide assistance to anyone concerned with these recent
developments."

The council has confirmed that work is being carried out.  A
spokesman said: "We expect the work to clean gutters, which is
currently ongoing, to be complete sometime next week.

"We have apologized to residents for the disruption, which is the
result of a fire which was started deliberately."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Actress-Advocate to Carry On Fight Against Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy Kirkup for Sun News Network Canada relates that a Canadian
actress is convinced her mother is "turning over in her grave" now
that the Quebec provincial government has promised to spend $58
million to help reopen an asbestos mine -- a move it believes
could revive the collapsed and controversial industry.

"She would be horrified," said Heidi Von Palleske, who's acted in
films like Red, Dead Ringers and Take The Lead.

Palleske -- a self-described "asbestos orphan" and the co-founder
of Canadian Voices of Asbestos Victims -- says she watched both
her mother and father die from ghastly illnesses related to
chrysotile asbestos exposure.

In 1977, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the
global authority on carcinogenic substances, identified chrysotile
asbestos as a known human carcinogen.  Exposure to the material
causes lung cancer and other diseases, including asbestosis and
mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that is almost exclusively
linked to asbestos exposure.

Palleske's father worked in a mine and she says her mother became
very sick because she inhaled asbestos fibers off her dad's
clothes.

"After my mom died, I turned the grief into rage.  A very, very
directed rage.  It allowed me to fight, for her and for other
victims," Palleske said.  "It is a shame that the fight has to
continue."

Canada's last asbestos mine in Quebec shut down in November due to
financial and environmental constraints, putting an end to the
130-year-old industry, but Quebec's hefty loan guarantee could
lead to its revival.

The Jeffery Mine located in Asbestos, QC, closed two years ago but
Montreal asbestos trader Baljit Chadha, president of Balcorp Ltd.,
is moving to restart operations.

Industry Minister Christian Paradis, who hails from the Asbestos
region, doesn't take issue with the loan despite calls for
reconsideration from groups including the Canadian Cancer Society.

"The safe use policy is there in place and we believe it can be
used safely," said Paradis.  "Let's see how this will be
implemented in practice."

Paradis says the company will have to sign agreements with
customers to ensure asbestos is handled properly.

All federal parties, with the exception of the Tories, support an
outright ban on exporting or mining chrysotile asbestos.  The
mineral has already been banned in 50 countries including European
nations.

Canada has been one of the world's biggest exporters of asbestos
even though it's no longer used here due to health concerns
including cancer links.

More than 107,000 people die each year from asbestos-related lung
cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis resulting from occupational
exposure, according to the World Health Organization.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,037 Japanese to Receive ARD Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jiji Press at The Daily Yomiuri Online reports that a total of
1,037 people were recognized as eligible for worker compensation
due to asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma in fiscal
2011 ended in March, the health ministry said Wednesday, July 4.

The number grew by 43 from a year before and is expected to remain
high in the near future, as asbestos-related diseases have long
incubation periods.

By prefecture, the highest number of recognized victims was in
Tokyo with 133, followed by 92 in Osaka, 89 each in Kanagawa and
Hyogo and 60 in Hiroshima, according to the Health, Labor and
Welfare Ministry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly Tippers Cause Week-Long Dispute in Ruislip
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Gray of the Uxbridge Gazette reports that worried parents
waited a week for the removal of potentially harmful waste dumped
near their homes.

Building material believed to contain asbestos was fly-tipped on a
track leading to garages belonging to people in West End Road,
Ruislip, on June 27.

A builder who lives in the street spotted the evidence of the
potentially toxic material -- after passing cars had already begun
to disturb the waste.

Nervous parents, fearing health effects, refused to let their
children play in the area.

When material containing asbestos is broken up, the fibers can be
inhaled, potentially causing fatal lung disease.

Hillingdon Council officers inspected the waste and ruled it had
to be cleared.  Then a dispute broke out between the council and
residents over whose responsibility that was.

Officers said the affected garage owners had to clear the fly
tipping because the road was private.  The neighbors claimed this
was not the case and refused.

The stand-off lasted until July 3, when the council told the
Gazette its waste team would get rid of the material.

Carina Beagley was one of two homeowners who were told they must
clear up the waste.

"With something as hazardous as this, you would think they would
do something about it quick," she said.  "We shouldn't have to
move it.

"It's a publicly accessible road which cars drive through and
children often play out there.  I'm so furious."

As the Gazette went to press, it appeared her concerns had been
heeded, and the waste had been removed by the council.

Nigel Dicker, the council's deputy director of public safety and
environment, said: "Following a request from a concerned resident,
officers inspected the fly tip.

"After consideration, it was decided that, given the circumstances
for this particular case, the best approach would be to have the
waste removed and disposed of by the council's waste service.

"Hillingdon Council takes the crime of fly-tipping very seriously
and will pursue those responsible when there is sufficient
evidence to identify them."

Mrs. Beagley, who saw a white van driving off after the waste was
dumped, did not hold out much hope of the fly-tippers being
caught, but was happy with the result.

"I'm so pleased that they have got rid of it," he said.  "This is
the first time in eight years something has been fly-tipped at
this end of the road.

"You'd think because it doesn't happen often, and because kids
play there all the time, they would have got rid of it straight
away."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocates Hold Special Memorial in Saltram
-----------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Devon reports that a special memorial has taken place in
Plymouth for people affected by mesothelioma -- a form of cancer
usually caused by exposure to asbestos.

Patients, relatives and friends laid flowers at a tree specially
planted in the grounds of Saltram House.

The event has been organized by the South West Mesothelioma Group,
based at the Macmillan Mustard Tree Cancer Support Centre at
Derriford Hospital.

About 2,000 people a year are diagnosed with mesothelioma in the
UK.

The disease, which can take decades to develop, affects the thin
lining of the chest and abdomen.

Exposure to asbestos dust and fibers is believed to be responsible
for most mesothelioma cases.

Kate Lansdell, a mesothelioma/lung cancer nurse specialist at
Derriford Hospital said the event was arranged for Action
Mesothelioma Day.

"The theme for this year's Action Mesothelioma Day is a call for a
worldwide ban on asbestos use," she said.

"The South West Mesothelioma Group, which covers Devon and
Cornwall, is also keen to use this day to raise awareness of the
risks from asbestos that is still present in homes and in the
workplace.

"Millions of homes were built when asbestos was regularly used in
a wide variety of ways and as long as these buildings are
inhabited asbestos can still pose a potential risk if disturbed."

Ms. Lansdell said anyone who has been or is affected by
mesothelioma can bring a single-stemmed flower to place at the
memorial tree at Saltram.

It is the second year the flower-laying ceremony has taken place
at Saltram.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Connecticut School Cleanup to Complete by Sept
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Mosher of the Norwich Bulletin reports that asbestos
abatement work at Ledyard High School in Connecticut began late
last month, and no students or anyone younger than 18 is allowed
in the building during the work, the school department said on its
website.

Teachers and parents who need to access the main office, guidance
office, special education office or the assistant principal's
office should enter through the cafeteria door nearest the
receiving area and should call (860) 464-9600 to be let in.

Parking will not be permitted and/or restricted in the upper
parking lot.  The work is expected to be completed before the
start of the new school year in September.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PA Supreme Court Rule Signifies "Dose-Response"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Gorodetski for Point of Law reports that last month the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court raised the bar for proving causation in
asbestos cases.  Previously, plaintiff attorneys could argue that
any exposure to a product that contained asbestos was sufficient
to establish substantial causation for asbestos-related diseases.

The defendants in Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC et al., 2012 Pa. LEXIS
1208, filed a motion challenging this so-called "any exposure"
theory.  "Any exposure" causation is problematic because it seems
to fly in the face of the general scientific consensus that
asbestos-related diseases are "dose responsive" - meaning there is
a relationship between the amount of a person's exposure to
asbestos and the amount of the disease that person is likely to
have.

If asbestos-related diseases are dose-responsive, then this would
suggest that small levels of asbestos exposure may not cause
asbestos-related diseases.  The plaintiff's expert in Betz tried
to claim both that asbestos-related diseases were dose responsive
and that "any exposure" to asbestos was enough to establish
substantial causation.  The court rejected this argument:

    In this regard, Dr. Maddox's any-exposure opinion is in
irreconcilable conflict with itself.  Simply put, one cannot
simultaneously maintain that a single fiber among millions is
substantially causative, while also conceding that a disease is
dose responsive.

Given this recent ruling, it will be interesting to see how
asbestos cases that rely on dubious causation arguments fare in
the state of Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Clears Abatement Procedures at Dunwoody High
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dunwoody Patch reports that resident complaints about possible
unsafe asbestos removal at Dunwoody High School have been checked
out by the Environmental Protection Agency, which says
construction at the school is safe.

Some residents had complained about an unsecured dumpster in the
school's parking lot that was being used for construction debris
by a crew at the school that is doing summer work.

After an inquiry from the Dunwoody High School Council, a local
group, the EPA made a surprise inspection of Dunwoody High School
to "investigate the contractor's procedure for asbestos removal
after concerns were raised by local residents," said Donna Cannady
Nall, chair of the Dunwoody High School Council for the upcoming
school year.

DHS's new principal, Noel Maloof was there to meet with
inspectors, Nall said.  The inspectors found that the contractors
had been following proper procedures for removing the carcinogen
and that levels of asbestos were measurably lower than the
recommended standards for safe removal.  No particulates of
asbestos were found in air sampling.

EPA inspectors approved continuing the work at the high school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Sufferer Pleads to Former Peers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob SetChell of Cambs Times 24 reports that a grandmother is
searching for answers after she was diagnosed with the same
asbestos-related cancer which killed her husband.

Joy Reuben, 77, from Wisbech, believes she may have come into
contact with the deadly asbestos dust while she was working for
Metal Box Ltd, between 1971 and 1993.

The mum-of-one was a product line supervisor at the Wisbech
factory -- and now she is appealing to former colleagues who may
know about her exposure to asbestos.

She was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2011, seven years
after her husband, Henry, died from the same disease.  He had been
exposed to asbestos while working at English Brothers, Wisbech.

Mrs. Reuben said: "It was so hard for the family to see Henry
suffer and when he passed away we found it very hard to come to
terms with.

"I had so many questions about why it had happened.  I knew he had
been exposed to asbestos dust at work because I used to cough from
the dust when I washed his clothes.

"It just feels so unlucky that I too have now been diagnosed with
the same horrendous disease and my family now have to watch me
suffer.

"We were never warned about the dangers of asbestos and never
provided with any protective clothing so I had no idea being
exposed to it back then would ruin two lives."

David Cass -- david.cass@irwinmitchell.com -- an asbestos-related
disease expert at industrial illness specialists Irwin Mitchell,
is representing Mrs. Reuben.

He said: "This is a tragic case with Mrs. Reuben's husband dying
of the same horrendous disease and it highlights how employers'
negligence regarding asbestos can be devastating for families.

"Mrs. Reuben had just got her life back on track following the
loss of her husband which she found very hard to come to terms
with, when she became ill herself and was diagnosed with the same
disease.

"Understandably their children want answers about why they will
lose another parent as a result of something that happened at work
many years ago and why their children will not have grandparents
to play with.

"I am appealing to anyone that used to work at Metal Box Factory
LTD between 1971 and 1993 to get in touch as they may be able to
provide answers to the questions held by a devastated family."

Mrs. Reuben added: "The disease leaves me very poorly and with
very little energy to spend time with my family.  I used to love
looking after my two grandsons for my daughter Lynda but I'm no
longer able to do that and she had to help me.

"The disease is robbing me of my independence."

Anyone who is able to help should call David Cass on 0114 274 4559
or email david.cass@irwinmitchell.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pioneer Activist Against Mesothelioma Dies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sokolove Law, LLC, is saddened to learn about the passing of Larry
Davis, a pioneer, friend and fellow activist in the fight against
Mesothelioma.  The members of the Sokolove Law team have known
Larry and his family for many years as an original and long-time
supporter of Miles for Meso, the annual road race that promotes
awareness about the dangers of asbestos while also raising money
for the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation.

Since Larry's mesothelioma diagnosis, he has become a national
advocate for the banning of asbestos as well as a supporter of
numerous mesothelioma foundations.  During the 2012 Miles for Meso
Race in South Florida, Larry told us that he felt the events were
important because of their ability to spread awareness to people
who otherwise would likely know little to nothing about asbestos
and mesothelioma.

"So few people have an awareness that asbestos is a very dangerous
carcinogenic," he said.  "We bring awareness to that fact."

Since launching in 2009, there have been various Miles for Meso
events around the country, resulting in hundreds of thousands of
dollars raised to fund mesothelioma research.

"Our heartfelt condolences go out to Larry's family.  He was a
great man who brought the Mesothelioma Community together around
the country year in and year out in order to raise awareness of
asbestos health dangers," said Jim Sokolove Founder of Sokolove
Law.  "We will honor Larry's memory and tremendous community
efforts by remaining committed to supporting the cause for which
he was so passionate about."

Like many other mesothelioma victims, Larry's was diagnosed with
the disease and was told he had six months to live.  He was
offered chemotherapy and radiation as part of the traditional
approach to mesothelioma treatment.

However, Larry, ever the fighter, went another route, working with
doctors that offered a more holistic approach to his treatment.
Larry, an avid marathoner, continued to run and maintain a
positive attitude, drinking healthy organic vitamin blends to aid
in his treatment.  Later, he underwent a progressive tumor removal
surgery and had several follow-ups.

Despite his battle with this disease, Larry continued his
awareness efforts and was recognized last year at the
International Symposium on Malignant Mesothelioma, where he
received the Volunteer of the Year Award.

"Sokolove Law is fortunate to have known Larry and we thank his
daughter Courtney and the rest of the Davis family for sharing his
story and impacting countless other lives around the country,"
said Ricky LeBlanc, Managing Attorney, Asbestos, Sokolove Law, who
runs in the Florida Miles for Meso event every year.  "He will be
sorely missed."

                        About Sokolove Law

Sokolove Law, LLC is a national leader of legal services that
helps people obtain access to the civil justice system.  With over
30 years of service, Sokolove Law has helped thousands of injured
parties obtain the compensation they deserve from their legal
claims such as mesothelioma, cerebral palsy, nursing home abuse,
dangerous drugs, disability insurance denial, and medical
malpractice cases.  "We are advocates for our clients and are here
to serve them first."  For more information, please call 800-568-
1798.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mayor Tells True Nature of Asbestos Town
----------------------------------------------------------
Late in June, Quebec's Liberal government announced a $58-million
loan to the Jeffrey Mine to convert the open pit to an underground
operation that is expected to yield chrysotile asbestos for
another 25 years beginning next June.  Last week, Hugues Grimard,
Mayor of Asbestos, Quebec, spoke to The National Post's Graeme
Hamilton to set the record straight on the true nature of his
town.  An edited transcript:

Q: Why was last week [of June's] announcement a moment of pride
for you and your region?

A: In the past, our region was focused on mining, but in the last
15 years, the mine has operated only sporadically.  Still,
everyone believes in the Jeffrey mine project. Everyone is behind
it. Everyone has hoped for it.  At the same time we are
relaunching the entire region.

Q: What is the current situation? Why is there a need to relaunch?

A: The Jeffrey Mine project represents 500 jobs.  For us it was
essential to maintain the mine here.  It gives us 20 years to
diversify the economy.  We want to develop the agri-food sector,
and we have already started with three plants.  There is Viandes
Laroche [a meat processing plant], Fromagerie Oiseau-Bleu that
will open in July.  It's a new producer of fine cheeses.  The
other is Produits de nos bois, which produces fiddleheads.
Starting in 2015, Jeffrey Mines must contribute to a
diversification fund, paying $1.5-million a year for five years to
the community to speed up our development, so if Jeffery Mine is
no longer operating in 25 years, other resources will be in place
and we will not be a one-industry town.

Q: Last Friday [June 29] must have been a joyful day for the
people of your town.  But when you watch the news, day after day
it's presented as a dark day for Quebec and there is a lot of
criticism of the Liberal government.  How do you deal with that
reaction?

A: I don't even pay any attention because I expected that kind of
reaction.  We have to stop being against everything in Quebec.
That is not the way to advance the economic development of our
regions.  We will create no wealth, and one day we will want
services but not want any development.  That doesn't work.  Zero
risk does not exist anywhere.  There is a risk in everything.  We
have to look at pros and cons of every situation, minimize the
risks, and make the right decision.  We need brave people to make
the right decisions.

Q: Was there not a time when the town was considering changing its
name?

A: The previous town council looked into the possibility, but very
quickly they decided against it.  I am totally against the name
change.  For me it is a source of pride what has happened in
Asbestos; it is our history.  So to change the name would be to
renounce our own identity.  The town of Asbestos is going to
develop a communications strategy to make known its true identity.
We will make known across Quebec what the town of Asbestos is all
about.  Pride in our past is very important.

Q: What would you tell people outside who might have a prejudice
against your town, say a businessman looking to set up somewhere
or a retiree looking for somewhere peaceful to move?

A: Many people who are natives of Asbestos come back when they
retire for the quality of life.  We have high-quality facilities,
we have all the services expected of a central town.  We have a
24-hour emergency room, we have a long-term care centre.  We are
no sicker here than elsewhere in Quebec.  The average age confirms
that.  I am a native of Asbestos, I have lived all my life here
and when I was young, from 8 to 12 years old, we played right next
to the mine tailing piles, and I'm no sicker than anyone else.
I'm in perfect health.  The legendary Connie Dion is over 80 years
old [Wikipedia gives his age as 93], he's in perfect health and
plays golf every day.  He was a goalie for the Detroit Red Wings
and came back to live in our town.

Q: Would you want your children to work in the mine?

A: I have a daughter who is 20 months old.  She will decide on her
own what kind of a career she wants.  But if there were a risk for
the health of my daughter or of the population, under no
circumstances would I have ever supported the Jeffrey mine
project.  I'm not stupid.  Our duty is the health and welfare of
our population.  I guarantee that as far as risks to the health of
the overall population and the children, there is no problem.

Q: Some people say it is immoral to export a product that we do
not even want to use here in Canada.

A: One of the conditions government gave to owners of mine is that
there will be environmental audits paid for by Jeffrey Mine, done
by independent firms, to verify how the product is used in
countries where it is exported.  There are ways to export and to
use it safely.

Q: What would you say to a family driving through Quebec this
summer, wondering if it's worth a detour to see Asbestos?

A: Yes.  You will see the beautiful countryside in the region of
l'Estrie, one of the prettiest regions in the province.  There are
magnificent tourist attractions.  We are creating a new regional
park at Mount Ham.  We have the biggest open pit mine in the world
at the Jeffrey Mine, with a lookout point.  We have one of the
most beautiful golf courses in Quebec.  There is the Asbestos
musical camp, which is a renowned site for learning music.  There
are beautiful bicycle paths.  There is plenty to see, and it is
not expensive to come meet us.  The people are so friendly that it
is really a pleasure for tourists, and people here are always
happy to see them.  The Jeffrey mine project is just one project.
There are many other things here.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson College Slapped With $250,000 Fine
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ira Kantor of the Boston Herald reports that Suffolk Construction
Company Inc. and Emerson College will each pay $250,000 in civil
penalties to resolve alleged violations of the Bay State's air
pollution prevention statute and asbestos regulations that took
place during a 2007-2008 renovation of the college's Colonial
Building, Attorney General Martha Coakley said on July 6.

Emerson bought the 13-story Colonial Building at 100 Boylston St.
in Boston in 2006 and used it for student rehearsal space and
leased offices.  In 2007, Emerson hired Suffolk to renovate the
building into a student dorm for nearly $42 million.

The construction firm then hired an engineering firm to determine
whether the building contained asbestos.  That company, in turn,
retained an asbestos consultant to do the work, Coakley said.

The consultant claimed it could not gain access to all areas of
the building for testing, recommending that further destructive
asbestos testing be done as soon as access could be obtained.  A
complaint asserts both Suffolk and Emerson received this report,
but failed to conduct further testing before demolition and
renovation activities started at the building.

Coakley said the parties agreed to settle the case, and the
defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection first
inspected the site after most of the demolition and removal had
been completed.  Emerson is also required to prepare and put into
effect an operations and maintenance plan for the building that is
designed to avoid future releases of asbestos to the environment
if the building is renovated or repaired.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Surge of ARD Payouts in WA Still to Peak in 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy O'Leary for The West Australian reports West Australia's
oldest university has been forced to pay compensation to five
employees who contracted deadly asbestos-related disease, as
experts brace for a surge in claims from trades people and home
renovators.

Since 1998, the University of WA has settled five claims from
workers who developed mesothelioma, including one last year
involving a technician who has since died.

Several claims were linked to the physics and chemistry buildings,
which one source told The Weekend West were full of asbestos in
the 1970s because of the amount of insulation and padding for
equipment such as Bunsen burners.

UWA said most of the employees had previous exposure to asbestos
but the details of the settlements remained confidential.

As recently as four years ago, asbestos was still a worry for UWA,
despite the old chemistry building being demolished in 2006.

A WorkSafe prohibition notice was issued in November 2007 after
inspectors found employees and others could be exposed to
crumbling asbestos fibers because of renovation work on the first
floor of the physics building's north wing.

In a recent statement, UWA said it had used a licensed asbestos
contractor to remove all asbestos products from the area before
the renovations resumed.

"The university acknowledges the presence of asbestos-containing
materials in some of its older buildings constructed prior to
1980," a spokeswoman said.  She said UWA had an asbestos-materials
register that was independently reviewed every five years.

The Asbestos Diseases Society and lawyers Slater and Gordon said
that while new compensation claims related to Wittenoom had
levelled off, more trades people (the so-called second wave) and
home renovators (the third wave) were coming through their doors.

ADS president Robert Vojakovic said because of the long latency
time between short-term or low-level exposure and people becoming
sick, many cases were only just emerging.

Experts say the peak of the second wave is not expected until 2020
and it is unclear when and at what level the third wave will hit.

Lawyer Tricia Wong from Slater and Gordon said she had handled
several claims for UWA workers, including a technician, an
electrician and an employee who helped fit out offices and lecture
theatres.

"We've also had some recent settlements against hospitals and
other tertiary institutions," she said.

"We're getting a lot of new inquiries and the main change in the
landscape is that we're seeing fewer of the Wittenoom workers
because the mine shut down in 1966 and fewer James Hardie factory
workers with the factory closing down in the 1980s.

"The numbers are certainly still coming through and we're seeing
lots of home renovators and also trades people such as
electricians who had to drill into asbestos cement walls, plumbers
and carpenters."

Cancer Council Australia's occupational and environmental cancer
risk chairman Terry Slevin said there was still a pressing need
for better education about asbestos risk for workers and do-it-
yourself homemakers.

"The council feels strongly that it needs to be actively involved
in this area because we still have a long way to go in the DIY
market," he said.

"But there also needs to be substantial improvements in training
for trades people like electricians, plumbers and construction
workers who commonly come across asbestos but don't know how to
deal with it, particularly the new generation coming through."
Mr. Vojakovic said payouts in Australia could blow out after
landmark cases in the US, including a Californian man recently
awarded $48 million, including $18 million in punitive damages,
after a jury found his employer knew asbestos caused cancer at the
time he was exposed to it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unnamed Hygienist Reports Hazmats at NSW Property
------------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie O'Brien of The Sydney Morning Herald reports it should
have been a harmless "treasure hunt" for the children playing
together on a sunny winter's morning in the grounds of the former
Callan Park Mental Hospital in Rozelle.

But their games led them to a section of the public park where
stacks of asbestos tiles had been dumped in open bags.  The Sun-
Herald noticed the asbestos before the children had, and was able
to warn them off.

The asbestos tiles, which appear to have come from inside the
asbestos-riddled nearby buildings, are just a small part of the
asbestos problems that plague the site.

The former hospital was one of the sites that a former NSW health
contractor, Phil Clare, warned NSW Health had numerous health and
safety issues in 2008.  Some of the problems have been fixed,
including the retrieval of patient medical files found dumped in
outside bins.

The property, owned by NSW Health, is managed by the Sydney
Harbour Foreshore Authority.  After being alerted to the asbestos
tiles in May, the authority immediately removed the bags and
confirmed they contained asbestos.  However, a spokeswoman said
there was no health risk.  "Air monitoring was undertaken in the
area where the bags were found and there were no airborne fibers
detected," she said.

She said that the authority carried out a hazardous materials
survey of the site's buildings last year, which led to a number of
buildings being boarded up and locked.  Warning signs were also
erected.  The spokeswoman said that WorkCover had inspected the
site and was satisfied with the measures.

However, an inspection of the buildings by an independent
occupational hygienist in June led to the discovery of asbestos
fibers flaking off roofs that have lost their gutters and asbestos
lagging falling from pipes in buildings that have not been sealed
off from the public.

The occupational hygienist, who did not want to be named because
he undertakes government work, warned that while the fibers were
wet during the winter period and posed little risk, all that was
needed was some "hot dry winds to make them airborne" and lead to
a potential health risk.

He also said the condition of some of the buildings did not comply
with asbestos management requirements.  He said he was
particularly concerned by the lack of restriction to one building
(B507), where a partial ceiling collapse has exposed asbestos pipe
lagging in the ceiling void.

"Some of this material had broken off and fallen to the floor,
where it could easily be disturbed or picked up by anyone curious
enough to enter this section," said the occupational hygienist.
"As a first step this section of the building should be sealed off
from possible public access without delay."

Laboratory tests on the fibers taken from around that building
confirmed that they were chrysotile asbestos, which is now banned
from use in Australia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-NSW Health Supplier Exposes Hospital Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie O'Brien of The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the
dangerous disposal of hazardous substances including liquid
uranium and contaminated objects, the dumping of the confidential
records of patients and the mishandling of asbestos have exposed a
culture of mismanagement in Sydney hospitals.

A former NSW health contractor turned whistleblower is alleging
that a lack of proper procedures and controls has led to breaches
of state regulations at Royal North Shore Hospital, and serious
compliance issues in several other hospitals.

Phil Clare, whose company In The Shed Asset Management was
contracted with local health area services to manage surplus
assets, said he has tried for years to expose the practices in
some hospitals.

He filed a complaint with the NSW Ombudsman's office earlier this
year about the mishandling of asbestos at Royal North Shore and
now demolished buildings at Manly Hospital.

He claims that alerting the authorities to the information, as
well as details of corrupt asset stripping of Health Department
property, led to all his contracts with the department being
cancelled.  He is in dispute with NSW Health about the payment of
outstanding bills.

"The management issues I uncovered are pandemic and they are
continuing today," Mr. Clare said.

"I saw numerous cases of improperly managed assets, equipment,
records and asbestos as well as the theft of public property and
corrupt conduct, but I eventually ran up against politics and
favoritism."

Mr. Clare has alleged that during his five-year contract between
2006 and October 2010, his workers discovered a raft of problems,
including: Radioactive materials and liquid uranium that had been
abandoned in a former research laboratory.  Mr. Clare said two
workers were told by senior hospital staff to wash it down the
sink; Private patient records dumped in non-secure areas of Royal
North Shore Hospital; Hazardous chemicals, human tissue samples
and contaminated sharps scattered around; Piles of asbestos next
to a rusted air-conditioning unit on the 12th floor at Royal North
Shore Hospital; and asbestos contamination problems at the former
Callan Park mental hospital in Rozelle.

NSW Health has rebutted Mr. Clare's claims as old and
unsubstantiated.  A spokesman for Royal North Shore Hospital,
where many of the incidents are alleged to have occurred, said Mr.
Clare never reported the allegations.

However, The Sun-Herald has obtained a dossier of photographs and
reports Mr. Clare said he provided to health officials documenting
the incidents as each hospital project was undertaken.

The Sun-Herald has also obtained an internal review dated 2008,
prepared for the former Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health
Service (now Northern Sydney Local Health District), which takes
in Royal North Shore Hospital, advising there were serious
problems with the storage of patient medical records, constituting
a breach of state record laws.

The document, Archiving -- Preliminary Report, warned that "in
some departments patient records are held in insecure storage" and
"certain areas where records are stored on hospital or health
centre sites are unsuitable for the purpose -- the ramifications
of this could be serious."

It also advised that there is "no standard records management
process across the area" and "archiving methods and procedures...
do not meet state records legislation requirements."

A spokeswoman for Royal North Shore Hospital said that Health
Information Services, a department within Northern Sydney Local
Health District, kept records centrally and complied with the act.
She also said it had begun implementing an electronic medical
record system.

The allegations of mismanagement follow warnings by the NSW
Auditor-General, Peter Achterstraat, that asset and contract
management in NSW Health needed to be vastly improved.

Mr. Achterstraat, who conducted a review released in December,
criticised NSW Health's lack of central systems to keep track of
contract work and revealed that there was no long-term asset
management plan in place for medical equipment.

Mr. Clare has compiled a series of reports that outline the
problems he found when he first took on the contract to manage
surplus assets for NSW Health's area health services in 2006.

In an initial pilot program, Mr. Clare's company identified
millions of dollars of surplus assets and equipment across seven
hospital or health area sites.  A brief document prepared in
response by the NSW Health procurement department, and obtained by
The Sun-Herald, approved Mr. Clare's plan, which advised NSW
Health could save up to $30 million.

The document also warned it was "imperative that the pilot proceed
to the final asset redeployment/realization stage to prove the
concept...as well as avoid embarrassment should the extent of the
problem be exposed."

In one of its first reports to officials about its work, Mr.
Clare's company warned about "significant asset management issues"
and critical issues involving dangerous and inefficient storage
practices of hazardous substances, missing equipment, regulatory
and occupational health and safety non-compliance.

In later reports, Mr. Clare warned about the discovery of asbestos
fibers in 2008 next to a rusted air-conditioning unit on the 12th
floor of Royal North Shore Hospital.

A hospital spokesman said that as the air-conditioning unit had
been "completely contained and not accessible by staff or
patients, there was no risk of contamination" and WorkCover was
not notified.

The general secretary of the NSW Nurses Association, Brett Holmes,
said he was very concerned about any incident where people might
have been exposed to asbestos.

"Any suggestion that this has been happening needs to be fully
investigated," Mr. Holmes said.  "We would be calling for
WorkCover or the Dust Diseases Tribunal to make sure if there has
been a problem in the past, it has been fixed and equally that
there is a notification system."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Survivors Remember Beloveds Taken by Mesothelioma
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Leicester Mercury reports that victims of asbestos cancer were
remembered at a special service at Leicester Cathedral on July 6.

The service was held as part of the national Action Mesothelioma
Day to raise awareness of the cancer and the dangers of exposure
to asbestos.

Among those at the service was Pamela Howkins, whose husband, Jim,
died from mesothelioma in January 2011.

Mrs. Howkins, from Wigston, said: "I lost the best thing in my
life -- Jim -- and if I can help save just one more life, by
helping raise awareness of this disease, I feel I will have made a
difference."

Mr. Howkins, who had been a joiner in the prison service, was 70
when he died.  He had been diagnosed with mesothelioma five months
earlier.

Mrs. Howkins said: "We had just had a party in July to celebrate
our 70th birthdays when Jim developed a slight cough.

"A few days later he really wasn't well and went to the doctor who
thought he had a bit of fluid on his lungs."

At the beginning of August, following an examination by experts at
Leicester's Glenfield Hospital, the family heard the devastating
diagnosis that Mr. Howkins had mesothelioma.

"I have never been so gob-smacked," said Mrs Howkins.  "I'd never
even heard the word mesothelioma.  And it was downhill from there.

"By November, Jim could hardly walk, but he was determined we
should take our two youngest grand-daughters, who were three and
four, to Disneyland Paris, and we managed it, even though he was
in a wheelchair.

"Jim died in January last year.  We were very close, we had known
each other for 50 years and were married for 47 of them."

Mrs. Howkins attended last year's mesothelioma service at
Leicester Cathedral and a similar event in Derby.

She said: "I hope that by raising awareness about the dangers of
exposure to asbestos we can help save lives."

More than 140 people were remembered at the service.

Lynda Thornton, from Countesthorpe, has been organizing Action
Mesothelioma Day since 2006.  Her husband, Roger, died on July 3,
2004.

She said: "It's an important day and, in Roger's memory, it is
important to raise awareness about mesothelioma."

Speakers at the service, led by the Rev Maggie Sharpe, included
the Lord Mayor of Leicester, Councilor Abdul Osman, Professor Dean
Fennell, from the University of Leicester, Joanne Gordon, from the
Derbyshire Asbestos Support Team and Liz Darlison, from
Mesothelioma UK.

People at the event were invited to write messages which were then
hung on "reflection trees" in the cathedral.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement to Begin for Downtown Corning Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffery Smith of The Corning Leader reports that the long-awaited
construction of a downtown Corning transportation center off of
Denison Parkway is finally nearing.

Gorick Construction Inc., of Binghamton, is expected to begin
removing asbestos on July 11 from five vacant buildings near the
city parking lot behind Aniello's Pizzeria.  Once the asbestos is
removed, Gorick crews will raze the former EverGreen Express,
Fran's Bridal Shop, Nail Tech and two other buildings.  The
company will receive $244,000 for the work.

"The removal of the asbestos is expected to take about a week to
complete," said Steve Dennis, city director of planning and
economic development.  "So the demolition will likely begin around
July 18."

Dennis said ground will be broken on the 2,800-square-foot
transportation center once the buildings are razed.

The project is targeted for completion by the end of the year.

The center -- a small, one-story building -- will house a ticket
office, bathrooms, storage space and a small rest area.  Eighty
percent of the $7.6 million project will be covered by the federal
government.  The state and city will split the rest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Balloons Fly on "Action Mesothelioma Day"
----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Layton for This Is Wiltshire News reports that balloons were
released into the sky on July 6 at an event to remember the
thousands of victims of the Swindon Disease.

A number of activities in Bristol, attended by people from Swindon
and across the south west, were held for Action Mesothelioma Day.

Bristol and Beyond Asbestos Family Support brought together
families affected by asbestos-related illnesses for the occasion.

In Swindon, Brigitte Chandler -- brigitte.chandler@clmlaw.co.uk --
of law firm Charles, Lucas And Marshall, spoke of the need to
raise awareness, "It's important to mark this day because people
in Swindon are consistently developing problems as a result of
exposure they may have forgotten about," she said.

"It's important to be vigilant and to remind people that great
care needs to be taken if they do come across asbestos.

"It will be many more years before we do see an end to the cases
we have now because of the long length of time it takes for people
to become ill.

"We will be dealing with this for some time to come."

Pat Lewis, of the Swindon and South West Asbestos Group, lost her
husband Ray to an asbestos-related illness in August 2007.

She said: "A day like this is not easy as it brings it all back to
you.

"A lot of people don't want to talk about it as they find it too
painful.

"We are basically a social group which welcomes people in and
supports them, whether they be widows or people with asbestos-
related diseases.

"The legal process can also be a very hard, and long drawn-out
process.

"But we provide a setting for people to talk to other people who
may be going through the same things."

Action Mesothelioma Day is a national event aimed at promoting
awareness of the ongoing dangers of asbestos.

Mesothelioma is referred to as the Swindon Disease because of the
high numbers of former railway works employees who have contracted
an asbestos-related disease from working with the material.

The balloon release was organized by Bristol And Beyond Asbestos,
which can be contacted on 0117 394 5009.

The Swindon-based group can be contacted on telephone number 01793
532995.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Death of Four Bradford Men Ruled as Work Related
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathie Griffiths of The Bradford Telegraph and Argus reports that
poignant inquests on four Bradford men who all had asbestos-
related lung cancer were heard in the city on July 6, on what was
Action Mesothelioma Day.

In all of the four cases, verdicts of death from industrial
disease were recorded.  More than 107,000 people worldwide die
each year from mesothelioma after being exposed to deadly asbestos
in their working lives.

The inquests heard how Michael Bannister, who was 72 and lived in
Hastings Street, Marshfields, worked as a weaver in a textile
mill.  Meanwhile, Barry Thomas, 70, of Anvil Court, Manningham, an
electrician by trade, had spent the traditional Bowling Tide
holidays in the city, when employees were away, stripping lagging
from the empty mills.

He also worked for the council for a time cutting asbestos
sheeting from council houses and had worked in Cape Town in South
Africa stripping down a mill there.

Desmond Brady of Bank Crest Rise, Nab Wood, was 81 when he died
from broncho-pneumonia brought on by his malignant mesothelioma
from inhaling asbestos fibers while working as an engineer
travelling abroad with former Cleckheaton firm BBA, making clutch
facings, brake linings and other industrial-use linings.

In a written statement Dennis Baldwin, now 79 and a colleague of
Mr. Brady's, told how the pair of them went to Argentina, South
Africa and Turkey to meet potential customers, visiting production
areas which were "less than ideal" and some that had no means of
extraction at all for the asbestos dust, unlike their company's
premises at home.

Assistant deputy Bradford coroner Professor Paul Marks said: "I'm
entirely satisfied that he was exposed to asbestos fibers.  There
are no competing reasons why he should have developed this cancer
therefore the only logical verdict is that Mr. Brady died from an
industrial disease."

Prof Marks also recorded that 63-year-old Allan Nanson of
Parkhouse Grove, Low Moor, died from the work-related disease.

Mr. Nanson, whose wife and step-daughter were in court, had worked
as a plumber from leaving school.

After getting an apprenticeship he spent 17 years with FL
Sanderson & Sons, in White Abbey Road, dealing with industrial
plumbing and pipe fitting, where he was significantly exposed to
asbestos.  Prof Marks said: "As was common in those days no one
told him it was dangerous, he was not given any apparatus or
breathing masks."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lifeguards Ditch Patrol Tower At Alexandra Hl
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Bruinsma of the Sunshine Coast Daily reports that an
asbestos scare has forced lifeguards to abandon their patrol tower
at Alexandra Headland and operate from the balcony of the adjacent
surf club.

Suspect material from the ceiling of the tower has been sent for
tests but results are not expected for several more days.

Chief lifeguard Scott Braby confirmed that beautification works on
the Alexandra Headland foreshore had caused ground movement which
resulted in cracking in the ceiling of the 30-year-old tower.

That sparked asbestos concerns and closure of the tower.

"What the indication to us is they're just going to do some tests.
It could contain some asbestos but generally it's just a
precautionary measure at this stage," Mr. Braby said.

Lifeguards monitoring swimmers are working from the surf club
balcony, with only slightly obscured views of the water.

Mr. Braby said they had compensated by providing extra manpower
and assets on the beach.

"Operationally it doesn't affect the lifeguards.  There's plenty
of back-up with the ATV and the 4WD and so on," he said.

Deputy Mayor Chris Thompson, who is also the local councilor and a
former lifeguard, said he wouldn't be shocked if the tower did
contain asbestos, given its age.

But he played down the health risk to lifeguards who had used it
over the years.

"It wouldn't surprise me because of the age of the building but
asbestos removal is nothing new for council," Cr Thompson said.

"We engage contractors to remove it from time to time when we deal
with historic buildings.

"Asbestos is fine unless it's broken up.  It's only when it's
broken and the fibers are released that it becomes a hazard.

"We have systems in place to deal with this stuff, it'll be done
by our health and safety group.

"We'll have to wait and see if it is asbestos and then we'll take
it from there."

He said he had visited the beach and saw lifeguards stationed on
the sand as well as the surf club balcony.

The ongoing foreshore works included $100,000 for a new lifeguard
tower, which would be placed further south, near the main beach
access, to provide a "much better vantage point of the entire
beach".

"We're looking to push on with that as a matter of some urgency
now," Cr Thompson said.

The old tower will be demolished.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Says Meso Is COD But Can't Prove Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hemel Gazette reports that a woman died of a type of cancer
caused by asbestos exposure, a inquest heard, in a tragic reminder
of how the toxic material is still causing pain to families years
after it was banned.

Irene Dowling, of The Mallards, Hemel Hempstead, died on May 22
this year after developing mesothelioma, caused by exposure to
asbestos.

The 64-year-old, born in Birmingham, was a supply teacher for a
number of years and moved to Hemel Hempstead in 1975, before
working at Watford Borough Council in the housing department, and
at Luton Borough Council.

Speaking at the inquest on Wednesday, June 28, coroner for Herts
Edward Thomas said: "It's likely if there was exposure, that this
was around 20 years ago.

"She seemed to be a very capable lady and a good manager, who was
very well liked and respected."

A test in April 2010 confirmed the presence of mesothelioma.

While there was no specific evidence to suggest where Irene could
have been exposed to asbestos, she still received some
compensation from a government scheme.

Irene's partner Graham Blair said: "I think these sorts of cases
seem to be where people have worked in the same sorts of places
for many years."

Mr. Thomas gave a narrative verdict, stating that Irene: "Died of
mesothelioma, but that there was no definitive evidence of
exposure to asbestos during the course of her employment.  I'm not
ruling it out, but I can't prove it."

Irene spent time at the Hospice of St Francis, and then a care
home, before returning home.

She passed away from bronchopneumonia, brought on by the cancer,
surrounded by her three sons and her partner Graham at 6 a.m. on
May 22.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Signorelli Foundation Raises $1MM for Meso Cure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs Media reports that Doltone House
re-signs with the Bulldogs.

The Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs sponsorship portfolio continues
to strengthen with long serving sleeve sponsor Doltone House on
July 9 announcing their re-signing as part of the clubs five re-
signings in five days.

The move further solidifies the relationship between the Bulldogs
and Doltone House, who have been a part of the Bulldogs family of
corporate partners since January 2010.

"Today is a very proud day for the Bulldogs, said Bulldogs CEO
Todd Greenberg, "It is very satisfying when long standing partners
like Doltone House see value in associating their business with
the club.

"The decision to re-sign highlights the belief Doltone House have
for the Bulldogs and the positive culture we are working hard to
create both on and off the field.

"The Bulldogs are a family club and we are delighted to have Anna
and her family back on board," said Greenberg.

Director of Doltone House and Bulldogs Women in League Ambassador,
Anna Cesarano explained her family and the businesses' endearing
connection with the club.

"The whole sponsorship came about from our youth, and coming along
to Belmore to watch the Bulldogs, said Director of Doltone House,
Anna Cesarano.

"When our father passed away we signed up, originally as a tribute
to him, but now we've developed some great relationships, and it
has been a great awareness exercise for our business and our
branding."

Operating a significant portfolio of waterfront entertainment and
catering venues including Jones Bay Wharf and Darling Island
Wharf, the family owned and operated company identifies the
Bulldogs strong family connection as one of the key assets which
made the club an attractive partner.

"The Bulldogs are a family club, Doltone House is a family
business, said Managing Director, Paul Signorelli.  "We support
all of their work in the community alongside their achievements on
the field".

Highlighting their own work and commitment to the community,
Doltone House will be using this (July 13) Friday night's game as
an opportunity to raise awareness for the Biaggio Signorelli
Foundation by once again handing over their sleeve asset on the
Bulldogs playing jersey to the Biaggio Signorelli Foundation.

The Foundation, which is committed to raising awareness and
finding a cure for asbestos-related cancer Mesothelioma, was
established by the Signorelli family as a tribute to their father
and founder of Doltone House Group, Biaggio Signorelli, who passed
away from Mesothelioma in May 2008.

"The foundation is honoring our late father, who was the founder
of Doltone House, explained Anna Cesarano.

"The foundation was created by his children to create awareness
about asbestos cancer.  All of us have grown up around asbestos,
whether it has been do-it-yourself renovations or being around
fibro garages that we all played around in, and as we all know,
it's a killer."

The focus of the Biaggio Signorelli Foundation is on identifying
the disease in its early stages.

"We have now been able to raise over $1 million, in just under
four years, Anna stated.  "We're looking at early detection, as
the cancer can often take upwards of 30 years to develop."

Friday night's jerseys will be auctioned off following the match
via Grays Online, with all funds being donated to the ongoing
fight against Asbestos-related cancers.  More information to come
shortly.

Doltone House's re-signing with the Bulldogs is part of this
week's five signings in five days.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 10 marks the announcement of the first
player re-signing as part of our Final 5 Membership Drive.

You too can join the Bulldogs family mid-season as a Final 5
Member for the rest of the 2012 season!

With the choice of CAT 1 or GA, you can save up to 55% on walk up
ticket prices, as well as being able to access the Final 5
blockbuster matches and much more.

The Final 5 package gives you all the benefits of being a Member
in 2012, including the right to purchase Grand Final tickets when
they go on sale to Members on July 24.

To sign up as a Final 5 Member visit
http://www.bulldogs.com.au/final5or call our friendly staff on
02 9789-8000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fountain Pavilion Repair Needs $28,000 to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon S. Shafer of The Courier-Journal reports that the effort
to renovate the iconic teepee-shaped Hogan's Fountain pavilion in
Cherokee Park has been set back by the discovery of asbestos in
asphalt roof shingles that will require an estimated additional
$28,000 to abate.

That's on top of about $45,000 that grass-roots supporters of the
"teepee" had cobbled together, a sum that contractors initially
said should be sufficient to renovate the popular structure
completed in 1964.

Louisville Metro Parks had been on the verge last spring of
bidding out the structure's renovation when contractors discovered
asbestos in the original asphalt roof shingles.

"The project's status is now on hold.  If (the supporters) can
raise the money, the project can go forward," said Metro Parks
spokeswoman Julie Kredens.

Tammy Madigan, co-chairwoman of the ad hoc group called Save the
Hogan's Fountain Pavilion, said that supporters have begun what
may be an arduous task of trying to raise the extra $28,000.  She
said the supporters intend to go back to some original donors, to
talk to several neighborhood associations and to apply for private
grants.  They also have scheduled a benefit fundraising concert at
Stevie Ray's Blues Bar on Aug. 5, Madigan said.

Madigan acknowledged that the need to raise more money will delay
the pavilion's renovation for at least a few months.  But she
expressed confidence in eventually raising it.  She noted,
however, that it took the ad hoc group 1 years to round up the
first $45,000.

Of that, $10,000 came from a Reader's Digest contest award;
$10,000 from Louisville Metro Councilwoman Tina Ward-Pugh, D-9th
District; and $3,800 from Councilman Tom Owen, D-8th.  The
pavilion was originally in Ward-Pugh's district but now is located
in Owen's because of redistricting following the 2010 census.

The sons of E.J. Schickli, the Louisville architect whose firm
designed the pavilion, have agreed to match dollar for dollar an
additional $5,000.

Madigan said the Hogan's Fountain structure sustained roof damage
in the 1974 tornado that ravaged Cherokee Park.  As a cost-saving
measure, Metro Parks officials at the time decided to put wooden
shingles over the original asphalt shingles, without removing
them.  "That was probably not a great decision," Madigan said,
adding that "it is complicating our work" to repair the roof.

Madigan said the local contracting firm of National Environmental
Contracting recently provided the cost estimate to parks officials
on abating the asbestos problem.  She said parks officials have
agreed to give the supporters an unspecified amount of time to try
to raise the money.

Kredens said a metro government specialist tested the shingles and
confirmed that they contained asbestos.

"It is very important to save this unique piece of Louisville
history," Madigan said.  "If we lose it, it will affect the
landscape of our community."

A 2010 master plan for the area of Cherokee Park in and around
Hogan's Fountain recommended razing the teepee and replacing the
pavilion with a more contemporary, smaller shelter.  The
consultants who did the master plan contended that the teepee was
out of character with Frederick Law Olmsted's vision for Cherokee
Park a century ago.

Owen said that he initially backed the master plan recommendation.
The single pavilion, he said he initially thought, creates traffic
and parking problems and concentrates too many users in one spot.
But he said that in recent months he has come to support the
pavilion's restoration.

Owen, a local historian, said, "Clearly, it is a site that stirs
fond memories of picnics, marriages and outings of all kinds.  For
that reason, it ought to be saved."

Owen said he is willing to contribute at least another $1,000 from
his council discretionary funds to the project.

The pavilion may be one of the most recognizable structures in
Louisville and is a popular gathering space for Metro Parks
outings.  Metro Parks officials reported that income from pavilion
rentals for the fiscal year that ended last summer totaled about
$18,000.

Preservation Kentucky recently designated the pavilion as one of
the state's most endangered historic places.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AVA Head Urges Councils to Lower Abatement Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Gage of ABC News reports that The Asbestos Victims
Association says urgent action is needed to stop people illegally
dumping asbestos.

It says large amounts of asbestos are being left on roadsides or
in parks, some amounts more than a trailer load.

Association president Terry Miller has blamed high removal costs
and a limited number of dumps willing to take asbestos for the
problem.

He urged councils to make asbestos removal a cheaper process.

"Certainly something needs to be done about it and I'd like to see
the LGA (Local Government Association), like all the councils, get
together and make it easier for the home owner to dispose of small
amounts of asbestos," he said.

"After it's dumped obviously someone's got to go and clean it up
so there's another risk involved there as well."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MD Raises Abatement Violation Fine to $25,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Surviving Mesothelioma and Cancer Monthly reports that the state
of Maryland is cracking down on asbestos removal companies that
put their workers and the public at risk for mesothelioma by
cutting corners.  State lawmakers have raised the fine from $5,000
to $25,000 for companies that do not follow government guidelines
for safe handling of asbestos.

Asbestos is a toxic mineral that has been used in decades in
insulation and thousands of other products.  By the time its link
to mesothelioma was discovered, it was already too late for many
workers and consumers who had inadvertently inhaled or ingested
asbestos fibers and triggered the physiological changes that would
lead to mesothelioma or other asbestos related diseases.

Even second-hand exposure, such as coming into contact with
asbestos-covered clothing, can raise the risk of malignant
mesothelioma.  For this reason, the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have
established strict guidelines for companies hired to rid old
buildings of asbestos.  Among other things, the rules call for
protective clothing and respirators for workers and specific low-
dust methods for removing and disposing of the asbestos to protect
the public.

But according to a recent report from Laborers' Health and Safety
Fund of North America (LHSFNA), too many asbestos contractors in
Maryland have taken risky shortcuts on asbestos abatement jobs,
undercutting the bids of law-abiding companies.  The result is an
increased risk for mesothelioma, lung cancer, and a host of other
medical problems not only among the abatement workers themselves,
but also among people who live or work in or near these buildings.

The new Maryland law will take affect October 1st.  Fines
collected under the law will be deposited into a newly-established
Asbestos Worker Protection Fund, which pays for asbestos outreach
and stricter reinforcement of asbestos-related environmental laws.
LHSFNA Director of Occupational Safety and Health, Scott,
Schneider, says he hopes the new law signals the beginning of a
trend and will spark similar laws in other states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SF Superior Court Enacts "Case Management Order"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Schweizer, partner and leading mesothelioma attorney at
Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason (CPSM), is satisfied with the
new court order regarding the management of asbestos cases in San
Francisco that went into effect July 2.  Schweizer is just one of
several Bay Area asbestos attorneys who participated on a
committee made up of members of both sides of the asbestos bar and
the San Francisco Superior Court bench who have been reviewing and
revising the procedural rules that govern the management of
asbestos cases in San Francisco.

The former Asbestos General Orders, Schweizer says, were under
review for several months, with a deadline for final revision to
be completed by July 1st, which was successfully met.

Schweizer says, "This was truly a collaborative effort.  Members
of both the plaintiffs' bar and defense bar put in many hours to
come up with draft proposals for the Case Management Order that
would be acceptable to the parties and the Court.  The asbestos
judge, Judge Teri Jackson, and Asbestos Settlement Coordinator,
Pang Ly, also worked tirelessly to get the Case Management Order
finalized before the deadline date of July 1."  The new case
management order replaces the prior general orders while retaining
some of the procedural features that make asbestos litigation more
efficient, less costly and promotes early resolution.

Schweizer says the committee was created after the San Francisco
Superior Court indicated it wanted to do away with the General
Orders, saying they were outdated and had lost their relevancy.
Members on both sides of the asbestos bar objected to throwing the
General Orders out entirely, so Judge Jackson agreed to the
formation of a committee to work with the Court to revise the
General Order system.

Of significance to plaintiffs diagnosed with mesothelioma and
other asbestos-related terminal illnesses was the decision to
maintain a presumptive limit on the deposition times for dying
plaintiffs.  According to the Center for Disease Control,
approximately 3000 people in the United States are diagnosed with
mesothelioma every year.  The median survival from time of
diagnosis is quite short, sometimes only months.  Mesothelioma is
a rare and aggressive cancer caused by prior exposure to asbestos.

Jack Clapper, founding attorney of CPSM, says "Veterans and other
occupational groups are particularly at risk due to the nature of
their work and the proliferation of asbestos containing products-
both in years past and now.  There are many in-place asbestos
products that continue to pose a health risk."

In regards to the Case Management Order (case number CGC-84-
828684) newly enacted by the San Francisco County Superior Court,
Schweizer concludes, "While neither the defense bar nor
plaintiffs' bar got everything they were pushing for, I think the
new Order will prove to be satisfactory to all concerned."

The complete Case Management Order can be viewed at
http://is.gd/54hTSw

           About Clapper, Patti Schweizer & Mason

CPSM is a mesothelioma law firm based in California that has
represented thousands of clients from all over the United States
in asbestos lawsuits and bankruptcy claims.  Unlike many other law
firms, CPSM solely focuses on asbestos litigation, with a long
record of winning millions of dollars in awards for their clients.
CPSM fights for the rights of the working men and women who have
been injured by the negligence of large asbestos corporations and
manufacturers.  If you or a loved one has been diagnosed, contact
CPSM today to speak directly with an asbestos attorney who will
fight for your rights until justice is served.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adam Mack Bungles at Deadline, Pleads for Time
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hongoltz-Hetling for the Morning Sentinel reports that Adam
Mack of Wilton Recycling has failed to meet the Monday, July 9
deadline to submit a remediation plan for asbestos at a Depot
Street demolition site, according to state officials.

The Environmental Protection Agency will pursue a court order to
access the property if necessary, said Samantha Depoy-Warren,
spokeswoman for the Department of Environmental Protection.

While Mack hasn't met the deadline, he is communicating with the
department and has indicated he needs a little more time to submit
the plan, Depoy-Warren said.

The missed deadline comes after a year of delays in ridding the
former Forster Mill of asbestos, a mineral with long, fibrous
crystals that causes lung cancer and other serious health
concerns.

The site has been called one of the worst in the state by
enforcement agents.

Depoy-Warren said that she was heartened when Mack made the site
more secure last week as part of a timetable established by the
department.

"We hope this new delay is not indicative of a return to the
stagnation that we'd seen at that site throughout much of the past
year and that remediation work and ultimately redevelopment will
continue moving forward," Depoy-Warren said.

The enforcement agencies had ordered Mack to submit a remediation
plan by Monday that includes the name of a contractor to perform
the removal work.

But as of the evening of July 9, the department had not received
anything.

Mack had said on July 6 that he had not been made aware of the
Monday deadline, but Depoy-Warren said that he had received a
detailed letter outlining the expected schedule.

On July 10, Depoy-Warren reported that the department was in touch
with Mack, and that he is seeking cost estimates from contractors
who can do the work.

"We've told them they need to get us a timeline of those meetings
no later than July 11," Depoy-Warren said.

Abatement Professionals did some cleanup work at the site at the
site last year, but the work stalled when funds ran out, said
owner Bob Rickett.  The company has a lien on the property and is
owed $75,000 for the previous work.

Rickett is in talks with Mack to complete the work, he said, in an
agreement that would include payment for last year's work.

"If anybody else goes in there to do the work, I'll sue for a
court order to stop them," he said.  "If they go in there and
dismantle the building, that's my collateral on what I'm owed."

Rickett said that he felt a plan to restart and fund the project
would be in place by the end of the week.

Depoy-Warren also said that Mack has received a form that would
grant the EPA access to the site.

If Mack fails to sign and return the form within three days, she
said, the EPA will pursue a court order for access, which would
allow it to perform the work if needed.

"We're doing everything we can to keep them on track," she said.

Mack's Wilton Recycling owns the Depot Street property; the
demolition work was done by Ryan Blyther, a 35-year-old
Scarborough man who is in jail for stealing $50,000 from American
Legion Post 56 in York in an unrelated building project.

Both men face significant fines from the DEP and EPA, while
Blyther faces additional fines of $154,200 from the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration for workplace safety violations.

WIlliam Coffin, the federal labor agency's area director in Maine,
said that the fines have not been paid, and have been sent to the
national office for collection.

Mack did not return a phone call and e-mail.

According to a prior report by Matt Hongoltz-Hetling of the
Morning Sentinel, the demolition site, formerly Forster Mill, has
been the focus of DEP enforcement efforts since last July, when
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration first documented
high levels of the harmful, cancer-causing material.

Ryan Blyther, 35, of Scarborough, doing business as Downeast
Construction, was the general contractor who was primarily
responsible for the demolition project.  He voluntarily pulled his
workers from the site in July, but he faces fines from OSHA for
citations of workplace safety violations.  In May, he was
sentenced to six months in jail for stealing $50,000 from the
American Legion in an unrelated building project.

Mack, of Wilton Recycling, met with town officials, the DEP and
the Environmental Protection Agency in late June to discuss the
matter.

Based on the meeting, Mack was given a timetable that established
firm, immediate deadlines for initial steps, according to Depoy-
Warren.

On July 3, Mack began working actively on the site.

"We just spent $4,000 to board up some windows and do some of the
other work that we agreed to," said Mack on July 6.  "We're
working to come up with a plan.  Our company does plan to go
forward and take care of the cleanup."

The checklist of items that was due to be completed by July 4
consisted of items designed to protect the public by removing
access to the site.  Windows and doors were boarded up, a debris
pile and a Dumpster were covered with secured tarps, a fence was
secured, and a path was blocked.

"Those were completed.  The site is secured.  They did everything
they were supposed to," Depoy-Warren said on July 6.  "One of our
asbestos guys suited up and entered the building, and he did
confirm it."

Given the amount of time that has passed, Depoy-Warren said, the
news was welcome, and long overdue.

"This is the first action that happened at the site for almost a
year, so it's a very good sign," she said.  "Obviously the
department is really happy that progress has been made.  This is a
historic building in the town and one that the town would like to
see remediated."

By July 9, Mack was required to come up with a written remediation
plan to clean up the asbestos itself.  The plan must include the
name of an abatement contractor, and work must begin by July 16,
Depoy-Warren said.

The remediation efforts should proceed relatively quickly after
that, she said, estimating that the site would be completely safe
"in a matter of months."

Mack said that he had not been presented with a firm timetable of
deadlines for the future work.

If the work does not proceed satisfactorily, Depoy-Warren said,
the EPA is ready to come in and perform the work itself, at Mack's
expense.

"The bottom line is that one way or another -- whether it is by
the responsible party rightfully stepping up or by government
action -- this site will be cleaned up to ensure adequate
protections," Depoy-Warren said.

Both Wilton Recycling and Downeast Construction may be fined for
violations stemming from the activity on the site.

"Consent agreements outlining sizable financial penalties, as well
as required remediation, were hand-delivered to Adam Mack and sent
by certified mail to Ryan Blyther," said Depoy-Warren, who noted
that Blyther's notice was unlikely to reach him, because he is
incarcerated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2005 Report Says Fibro Present in Algo Rubble
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Tryon and Rebecca Lindell of Global News report that
asbestos-laced materials used in the construction of the Algo
Centre Mall in Elliot Lake, Ontario could have been dispersed
through the air after a parking deck crashed through the building
and killed two women on June 23.

A 2005 report obtained by Global News details an environmental
assessment done six years before.  It showed that asbestos-
containing materials were found in parging cement and ceiling
tiles of the mall.  Parging cement is typically used to waterproof
outer walls.

The consultants also suspected the roof drain lines and vinyl
floor tiles contained asbestos.  The exact locations of the
dangerous materials were not identified in the report.

The 2005 report was done by Trow Associates Inc. in Sudbury, Ont.
for Sobey's, a tenant of the mall.  It was given to the grocer and
to NorDev, a branch of Elliot Lake Retirement Living, the former
mall owner.

Trow advises the asbestos materials "do not pose a risk" as long
as they are in use and in good condition.

But their report suggests the risk level from asbestos increased
when the parking deck fell on June 23 and rescuers moved in with
heavy equipment to demolish the rubble in order to free people
trapped below.

"Once asbestos-containing materials are disturbed, asbestos fibers
may be airborne and pose health concerns," the report read.

David Jenkins was in the mall when the parking deck collapsed.  As
he struggled to escape, Jenkins said he breathed in plumes of dust
that left a gritty taste on his tongue.

"I was very scared, I felt like a shortness of breath and just
very heavy, my lungs were heavy.  I did breathe in a lot of dust,"
he said.

Jenkins said he went to the hospital immediately, got a chest X-
ray and was put on a puffer.  He's now worried about what the
long-term effects could be.

"After that incidence happened I started to cough and my cough was
really phlegm, phlegmy and gritty.  It was really thick and it's
wasn't that thick before," he said.

While Jenkins was inside the building, others gathered around the
wreckage to watch the rescue efforts.  By the time rescue workers
brought in a crane to move debris, most of the town was within 30
meters of the site.

"I'm not aware of the (asbestos) and I'm not sure if any of the
rescuers would have been aware of that either," said Elliot Lake
mayor Rick Hamilton.

He added if he had known, perhaps different precautions could have
been taken when the crane came in.

Trow's report doesn't specify exactly where and how much asbestos
is in the mall.

"They're risking their lives potentially already as it is, then to
put this airborne hazard in front of them, it's something that
really (rescuers) should have been presented with this
information," said Paul Correia, a third-party asbestos expert at
Assurance Environmental.

Global News asked Correia to look at the reports and review video
of the rescue efforts to help assess the risk of asbestos.

"I understand the number one priority is trying to get in there
and save people and doing what they could.  In those situations we
forgo safety and just get in there, but as an afterthought, I'd be
slightly concerned (about asbestos)," he said.

Asbestos, a strong and fibrous material, was a common building
material during the era the mall was constructed and was widely
used in insulations, fire-proofing material, cement, floor and
ceiling tiles.

But in the early 1980s, health reports began to link the
inhalation of asbestos to serious conditions including lung
cancer, a scarring of the lungs called asbestosis and a rare chest
cancer called mesothelioma.

Correia said anyone working at the site should be outfitted with a
proper respirator to defend against any possible asbestos.

Footage of the demolition shows some members of Toronto's Heavy
Urban Search and Rescue team wearing purple masks associated with
asbestos protection.  Others working the site are shown wearing
thin, white dust masks.

The rescue team has not yet responded to Global News' questions
about what types of safety equipment they were wearing or whether
they knew the building contained asbestos.

The rescuers weren't the only ones close to the site of the
collapse.  For hours, the friends, family and neighbors of victims
waited at the mall, hoping to see their loved ones emerge alive.

While rescue workers likely exposed to the most risk, onlookers
could have also been in danger, according to asbestos expert Dr.
Jean Zigby.

"The good news is that a very short-term exposure is much less
harmful than the chronic exposures that are more often associated
with chronic disease," said the president of the Canadian
Association of Physicians.

"However, because even short-term exposure to a high concentration
of asbestos can lead to disease it is still very, very unfortunate
if there were individuals who were uninformed and exposed to
asbestos dust being released secondary to the demolition."  As the
town's attention turns to the cleanup efforts, the mayor said he
would ensure people know the risks.

"I'll make sure that anybody who has access to that property who
is exposed to that is made aware of it," Hamilton said.

The consultants who wrote the report in 2005 recommended any
demolition work for the purpose of renovation should be done in
accordance with regulations and guidelines.

Ontario law requires a warning to be issued to anyone working with
asbestos-laden materials.  It also requires protective measures
like isolation, signage, protective equipment and decontamination
facilities depending on level of risk.

Corriea said the clean-up efforts should be contained in a big
enclosure, crews should wear respirators and the waste should be
taken to a separate landfill.

"Without proper precautions in place, you're going to contaminate
the rest of the area for sure," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adams County Finance Panel OKs $2,500 Survey Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hopf of the Quincy Herald-Whig reports that the Adams County
Finance Committee found out on July 9 that the former Adams County
Youth Home must have asbestos removed from it if it is to be
demolished.

The committee approved spending up to $2,500 to have Poepping,
Stone, Bach and Associates survey the building.  Money for the
survey will come from the county general fund's contingency line
item.

In 2007, the county awarded a contract of $32,500 to have asbestos
removed from most of the building, which was required if the youth
home were to be renovated for another use.

County Engineer Jim Frankenhoff told the committee that the
building at 201 N. 54th is in bad condition.

"The membrane roofing system on the north wing has blown off,"
Frankenhoff said.  "There is enough moisture in the basement lower
level that you have a significant mold and mildew issue going on
in there."

He said the building is in need of major rehabilitation or
demolition.

"This is essentially for them to do destructive testing -- going
after asbestos that may be in pipe runs, maybe in areas they
didn't want to destroy pending reoccupation," Frankenhoff said.

Removal of the asbestos would have to be approved separately.
Poepping, Stone, Bach and Associates told the county in 2007 that
it would likely cost between $20,000 and $25,000.

The old youth home has been used for storage since the Adams
County Juvenile Detention Center opened in 2000 at 200 N. 52nd.

In other business, the committee heard that bid packets for the
county's medical insurance program were sent to five companies,
with bids due Aug. 3.

Chairman John Johnson, R-4, also told the committee about changes
in state reimbursements.  It will no longer receive any money from
the state's estate tax.

Johnson said the estate tax was previously paid at the county
level and the county sent it to the Illinois Department of
Revenue, which provided the county with 6 percent for processing.
The county has received about $660,000 from estate tax
reimbursements over the last 10 years.

The state is also diverting a portion of the personal property
replacement tax to reimburse counties for costs associated with
state's attorney, public defender and supervisor of assessment
operations, instead of coming from the state's general budget.

Last year, the state diverted about $15 million for regional
office of education salaries.  Now just under $40 million is being
diverted away from local governments.

"That's really one of those good news, bad news kind of things,
because in the past few years since the state has had the money
crunch, we have waited and waited for some of these reimbursements
to come through," Johnson said.  "I'm assuming that this would
speed up that reimbursement process or at least make it more
regular.  There's no way to really calculate how much these
diversions would cost Adams County."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MassAG Issues Consent Decree v. Emerson and SCCI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cohen of Legal Newsline reports that Massachusetts Attorney
General Martha Coakley announced a consent judgment on Friday,
July 6, against Suffolk Construction Company Inc. and Emerson
College resolving allegations of violations of the state's air
pollution and asbestos regulations.

Under the terms of the judgment, Suffolk and Emerson will each pay
$250,000 in civil penalties to the state.

Coakley filed the lawsuit along with the consent judgment on
Friday, alleging that Suffolk and Emerson violated the state's air
pollution prevention statute and asbestos regulations during the
2007-08 renovation of Emerson's Colonial Building.

Emerson purchased the 13-story Colonial Building in Boston in 2006
and used it for leased offices and student rehearsal space.  In
2007, Emerson hired Suffolk to renovate the building and convert
it into a student dormitory for approximately $42 million.
Suffolk hired an engineering firm to determine if the building
contained asbestos.  The firm retained an asbestos consultant to
perform the inspection.

The consultant was allegedly unable to gain access to all parts of
the building for testing and recommended further destructive
testing for asbestos when full access could be obtained.  Suffolk
and Emerson allegedly received the report but failed to conduct
further testing prior to demolition and renovation of the
building.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection first
inspected the building site after most of the demolition and
removal was complete, because proper and timely demolition and
asbestos notices were allegedly not provided to the department.
MassDEP found materials that contained asbestos throughout the
building.  A brand of lightweight wall block installation called
Mac-ite, which contained asbestos and was heavily damaged through
the renovation process, was discovered.  The Mac-ite was allegedly
missed during the first asbestos assessment and was not identified
as a material that contained asbestos.

Because the demolition allegedly did not have proper asbestos
containment measures put in place, the contaminated demolition
materials removed from the building may have exposed the public.
The potentially contaminated demolition materials should have been
sent to a licensed asbestos landfill, but 80 percent of the
material may have been sent to recycling facilities and exposed
workers in the process.

MassDEP required a halt on demolition and renovation activities at
the building until a proper survey could be conducted and an
asbestos decontamination plan could be approved.  The abatement of
asbestos was then conducted to the satisfaction of MassDEP to
protect the health of the public.

Under the terms of the judgment, Emerson must prepare and put into
effect a maintenance and operations plan for the building to avoid
future releases of asbestos if the building is renovated or
repaired.

Suffolk and Emerson denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to the
settlement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Premier Jean Charest Denies Electioneering
------------------------------------------------------------------
The StarPhoenix reports that according to Quebec Premier Jean
Charest, his government's decision to breathe life into Canada's
all-but-dead and internationally discredited asbestos industry has
nothing to do with electioneering.

The decision to toss a $58-million lifeline to the shuttered
Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos, Que., he said, is simply to demonstrate
"a position that reflects our beliefs about the safe use of
asbestos."

However, not so safe that asbestos will be used in Quebec, or the
rest of Canada.  Governments and organizations have been spending
millions and sending out armies of workers clad in hazmat gear to
remove asbestos from anywhere it might come into contact with
Canadians.

As was the case when Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged
Ottawa's support for Canada's asbestos industry at the start of
last-year's federal election campaign, Mr. Charest's confidence in
the safety of a material deemed by the World Health Organization
to be one of the world's "most serious occupational carcinogens"
is limited to its use in a handful of developing nations that have
weak regulatory regimes.

The value to Quebec and Canada to supporting this industry will be
some 425 jobs.  The worldwide cost of supporting this industry
over the years is estimated at about 107,000 persons who will die
yearly from asbestos-related diseases such as lung cancer.  By all
accounts it is a painful and wretched death.

Mr. Harper said his government would never stand in the way of an
industry engaged in a legal trade.  It remains legal to sell
asbestos without the right-to-know and prior-informed-consent
regimes required by the Rotterdam Convention because, since 2006,
Canada has consistently blocked the product from being listed.

In spite of Mr. Charest insistence that politics has nothing to do
with his support of the asbestos industry, politics has been the
only reason it has survived for decades.  Although government
support is widely unpopular throughout most of Canada, the mines
exist in a part of Quebec considered important to the federal
Conservatives and provincial Liberals.

It is a region they neglect at their political peril.  This
typically wouldn't be enough to save an industry that is
considered vital.  For example, although the tobacco industry was
considered too important to ignore until nearly the end of the
last century, the pressure from outside the small regions of
Quebec and Ontario where tobacco was farmed became so opposed to
subsidies that governments found ways to wean farmers off growing
tobacco.

Pressure is also the reason that provincial and federal
governments are expected to soon announce Canada's first national
air-pollution strategy, meant to harmonize standards, reduce
pollution and protect public health across the nation.

But asbestos isn't used in Canada and it's difficult to sell in
the U.S. because of lawsuits.  The product is banned in about 50
other nations.  Until Canadians can agree to punish governments
that continue to connect Canada's good name to the product, Mr.
Charest may be right -- supporting it isn't electioneering so much
as protecting narrow political interests over the good of his
province and the nation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Overturns $3-Mil. Judgment v. Ford
-------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 2010, a jury returned a verdict awarding Bernard
Dixon, et al., $15 million in compensatory damages, which the
court reduced to $6 million in accordance with the non-economic
damages cap of Maryland Code (2006), Sec. 11-108 of the Courts and
Judicial Proceedings Article.  Ford Motor Company, one of the
defendants, subsequently filed post-trial motions requesting a new
trial and revisions or judgments notwithstanding the verdict on
both its own cross-claims and appellants' direct claims.  The
court denied Ford's motions for new trial and JNOV, but ruled that
the jury's verdict was inconsistent and revised the judgments
against Ford and Georgia-Pacific Corporation, another defendant,
to adjust for the latter's contribution as a joint tortfeasor.
The court entered its revised judgment in favor of appellants in
the collective amount of $3 million, from which both appellants
and Ford filed timely appeals.

In an opinion dated June 29, 2012, the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland, ruled that the trial court erred when it denied Ford's
motion to exclude appellants' expert epidemiological opinion on
"substantial contributing factor causation" where the expert's
testimony did not quantify the probability of causation.  The
Court held that lack of epidemiological data does not give an
expert license to state his or her belief that exposure and risk
-- however low they may be -- are "substantial."  While the
expert's testimony was not objectionable merely because it
embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."

Having erroneously gained the court's imprimatur of expert
testimony, the expert's unhelpful opinion was prejudicial to Ford
and demands a new trial, either without her opinion on
substantiality or else with some quantitative testimony that will
help the jury fulfill its charge, the Court concluded.

The case is BERNARD DIXON, ETC., ET AL., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
No. 536, September Term, 2011 (Md. App. Ct.).  A copy of the
June 29, 2012 Decision is available at http://is.gd/PPwErrfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Asbestos Exposure Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Tierney, an inmate, filed a civil rights complaint and
an amended in forma pauperis application.  Among other things, he
asserts that he is suffering from respiratory distress due to
exposure to friable asbestos at the jail.  The U.S. District Court
for the District of Hawaii denied Mr. Tierney's forma pauperis
application and dismissed his action holding, among other things,
that he does not explain how the defendants are liable for his
alleged exposure to asbestos.

The case is MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Plaintiff, v. NEIL ABERCROMBIE, et
al., Defendants, Civil No. 12-00293 LEK/KSC (D. Hawaii).  A copy
of the June 29, 2012 Decision is available at http://is.gd/sF6GBd
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies Port Authority's Bid to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio and Alicia Perez filed a complaint against several
defendants alleging that each defendant was the cause of Mr.
Perez's asbestos-related personal injuries.  The complaint related
that Mr. Perez contracted mesothelioma due to his work at the
World Trade Center in the early 1970s.  The Port of Authority of
New York and New Jersey, one of the named defendants, seeks
dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

In a July 3, 2012, decision and order, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler
of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion to
dismiss holding that the Port Authority has not effectively
overcome Mr. Perez's alleged exposure to asbestos at the World
Trade Center.  In this regard, and despite banning the
fireproofing spray that had been widely used on both towers in or
about April of 1970, it is undisputed that the Port Authority
specifically authorized the use of a known asbestos-containing
hardcoat product in the mechanical rooms and elevator shafts
through at least 1972, the Court noted.  Insofar as Mr. Perez's
deposition testimony suggests that he worked in those areas and
was exposed to dust therefrom, there remains a bona fide dispute
with respect to his asbestos exposure, the Court concluded.

The case is ANTONIO PEREZ and ALICIA PEREZ, Plaintiffs, v. THE
PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY., et al., Defendants,
190460/11, Motion Seq. Nos. 001, 002 (N.Y.).  A copy of Judge
Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/4huSJPfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Suit v. BSIS & L&S
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Loren Risse worked in construction as a carpenter at various
locations in the Milwaukee area for approximately forty years,
beginning in the early 1950s.  Insulation contractors installing
asbestos insulation and fiberglass insulation were present at many
of Mr. Risse's job sites at the same time as Mr. Risse.  In July
2006, Mr. Risse was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an asbestos-
related cancer.  Mr. Risse and his wife, Rita, brought a products
liability action against multiple defendants, including Building
Service Industrial Supply Company and L&S Insulation Company.

Mrs. Risse appeals from an order of the trial court granting BSIS'
motion for summary judgment.  Mrs. Risse also appeals from an
order of the circuit court granting L&S' motion in limine and sua
sponte granting summary judgment in favor of L&S and dismissing
the complaint against L&S.

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, affirmed the lower
court's decisions holding that there is neither witness nor
document, which create a factual basis for the inference that
BSIS-supplied asbestos was ever at the same job site at the same
time as Mr. Risse.  Also, the Court pointed out that the contract
books from L&S do not identify which products (asbestos-containing
or non-asbestos-containing) L&S used at any of Mr. Risse's job
sites.

The case is Rita Risse individually and as Special Administrator
of the Estate of Loren Risse, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Building
Services Industrial Supply, Inc. and L & S Insulation Company,
Inc., Defendants-Respondents, No. 2011AP1415 (Wis. App. Ct.).  A
copy of the July 3, 2012 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/LBaG06from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Claims v. CR Meyer et al. Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
June Calewarts appeals summary judgments dismissing her claims for
damages arising from her husband's death due to asbestos exposure
at work against CR Meyer and Sons Company; International Paper
Company and Thilmany, LLC; and Colonial Heights Packaging, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, Inc.  The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin,
District III, agreed with Calewarts that there are disputed issues
of material fact that preclude summary judgment, except as to
Philip Morris USA.  Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment
as to Philip Morris USA and reversed and remand for further
proceedings as to the remaining defendants.

The case is June Calewarts, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Robert J. Calewarts,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CR Meyer and Sons Company, International
Paper Company, Thilmany, LLC, Colonial Heights Packaging, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, Inc., Defendants-Respondents, No. 2011AP1414
(Wis. App. Ct.).  A copy of the July 3, 2012 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/4mCrnUfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Ct. Remands Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corley E. and Ellen Thompson filed a complaint in the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, on May 18, 2012, alleging
multiple theories of negligence, strict liability, breach of
warranty, and related claims resulting in asbestos-related
injuries to Mr. Thompson.  Patricia D. and Kenneth P. Little filed
a complaint in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia,
on May 11, 2012, alleging similar theories of recovery for
asbestos-related injuries suffered by Ms. Little.  Plaintiffs
named approximately 150 corporate defendants in their respective
complaints.  One defendant, Carrier Corporation, removed both
cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, Charleston Division, on the basis of diversity of
citizenship.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand.

In a July 5, 2012 memorandum opinion and order, District Judge
Thomas E. Johnston granted the motion to remand pointing out that
although Plaintiffs are citizens of Florida and Carrier
Corporation has its principal place of business in Connecticut,
they agree that at least five defendants are corporations with
principal places of business in West Virginia.  Thus, the forum
defendant rule precludes removal to federal court for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

The case is CORLEY E. THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants; and PATRICIA D. LITTLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action Nos. 2:12-cv-01798, 2:12-cv-01800 (W.Va. Cir. Ct.).  A copy
of Judge Johnston's Decision is available at http://is.gd/kaBIe3
from Leagle.com.


                           *********

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  * * *