CAR_Public/120727.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 27, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 148

                             Headlines

ARCHIPELAGO LEARNING: Entered MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Foreclosures of Servicemembers' Homes
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: App. Court Upholds Securities Class Action
CANADA: B.C. Doctors' Class Action to Cost C$100MM
CANADA: Saskatchewan Sued Over Aboriginal Tobacco Tax Limits

CENTRAL BANCORP: Faces Merger-Related Suit in Massachusetts
COMVERGE INC: Suit Over Merger With Peak Holding Pending
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Royalty Payments Suit Remains Pending
DYNEGY INC: "Schwartz" Suit Plaintiffs Withdrew Complaint
HMS HOST: Faces Wage and Hour Class Action Suit in California

HOME DEPOT: Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
HUMAN GENOME: Sued in Del. Over "Coercive" Sale to GlaxoSmithKline
INDEPENDENT BANK: Central Stockholders File Class Action
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit

KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES: Recalls 5,600 Contours Tandem Strollers
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: $104MM Judgment Delivered to Sheriff's Office
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Fuel Tanks
MILO'S KITCHEN: Faces Class Action Over Dangerous Dog Treats
MOLYCORP INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Colorado

NEW ORIENTAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
OHIO: Settles Class Action v. Department of Commerce
ORGANIC LIAISON: Sued Over False Claims on Weight-Loss Product
PEG PEREGO: Recalls 223,000 Strollers Due to Entrapment Risk
PROSHARES TRUST: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in New York

PULTE HOMES: Homeowners Need to Get All Info in Stucco Suit
RESERVE BANK: Faces Class Action Over Abuse of Legal System
SAUK VILLAGE, IL: Attorney Mulls Class Action Over Tainted Water
SERVICE CORP: Loses Bid to Overturn Jewish Cemetery Class Action
TELOMERASE ACTIVATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Bogus Anti-Aging Drug

VISA INC: NACS Rejects Credit Card Fee Class Action Settlement
VISA INC: Target Opposes Credit Card Fee Antitrust Settlement

* Number of Class Action Settlements Drops in First Half of 2012

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.7BB Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had $63MM Asbestos Reserves at June 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $2.3BB Net Asbestos Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $143MM Asbestos Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Staggers Bldg Abatament May Take Longer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reports of Fibro Mishandling Unchecked by MPCA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nemeroff Law Owner Co-Chairs ALC in September
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goulds Pumps, 142 Others Face Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont Seeks Continuance of Retrial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Happy Valley Homes Cleared, Demolition Bid On

ASBESTOS UPDATE: News Report Pushes Cleanup of Rochester Warehouse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron and Budd Discusses $48MM Award in June
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eden School Officials State "No Airborne Fibro"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkCover NSW Completes Probe at Ambulance Post
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Partner Welcomes New Drug Morab 009

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPS to Do Cleanup Job for Land Reutilization Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SF Superior Court Effects New Procedural Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro Extends Abatement of Old Alpha Plant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D&DL Provides Important Info on Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Plan of Forrest City Fire Debris on Track

ASBESTOS UPDATE: D&DL Says Diagnosed ARD Victims Must Act ASAP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meadowbrook School Abatement Completes 1st Half
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chico High School Demolition Eyes 2013 Completion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Notorious Violator Pleads Guilty, Gets Probation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Widows Relate 2006 Victory Over ARD Payout

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rob Cagle Memorial Ride Rolls Out July 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Pays $500K, Settles Dispute With Homeowners
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Movement to Ban Asbestos Rising in Thailand
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro at Woodstock Town Hall Costs $13,779
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheffield Council Seeks to Re-Coup GBP87,000

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dislodges 150 Kanaleneiland Residents
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leamington Tenant "Livid" over Council's Neglect
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADF Pushes Woodsreef Asbestos Mine Rehabilitation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 150 Health Organizations Unite Against Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrew Weir Shipping, All Leisure Fined for Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Court Says Plaintiffs' Appeal Untimely
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Junks Exposure Suit v. Tishman Liquidating
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Allows Suit v. Lennox Industries to Proceed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Allows Exposure Suit v. Doody to Proceed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. Ct. Stays Discovery in Suit v. Travelers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. App. Court Upholds Decision in Suit v KCSR
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Affirms Order Dismissing Plummers' Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Four More Lawsuits Filed v. BNSF in Lancaster
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zoo Admits Ignorance, Fined GBP30,000 for Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Violations Halt Plan for Solar Panel Facility

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorneys Vary Outlook on Judge Harrison's Move
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYSC Verifies "Policy Language" and "Occurrence"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Actor McQueen's Wife to Speak Before Congress
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scranton School District Sued Over $32,600 Bill

                          *********

ARCHIPELAGO LEARNING: Entered MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archipelago Learning, Inc., in April, entered into a memorandum of
understanding, subject to court approval, aimed at resolving
lawsuits over its merger with Plato Learning, Inc., according to
the Company's May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

On March 3, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Plato Learning, Inc., and Project Cayman Merger
Corp., a wholly owned Subsidiary of Plato, providing for the
merger of Project Cayman Merger Corp. with and into the Company,
with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation.  Upon
the Merger becoming effective, the Company will become a wholly
owned subsidiary of Plato and each share of Archipelago common
stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective
time will be converted into the right to receive $11.10 in cash,
without interest, on the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth in the Merger Agreement.

Shortly after the announcement of the Merger, Stephen Bushansky v.
Archipelago Learning, Inc., et al., a putative stockholder class
action lawsuit for which no class has yet been certified, was
filed on March 7, 2012 in the County Court At Law No. 3 of Dallas
County, Texas against the Company ("Parent"), Merger Sub, and the
individual members of the Company's Board at the time of entry
into the Merger Agreement. The plaintiffs then filed an amended
petition and application for temporary injunctive relief on April
10, 2012. The Bushansky Suit alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
stockholder value in negotiating and approving the Merger
Agreement. Specifically, plaintiffs allege, among other things,
(i) breaches of fiduciary duties by members of the Board in
connection with the proposed Merger, (ii) a claim for aiding and
abetting the breach of fiduciary duty against all defendants,
(iii) that the proposed Merger is inadequate, unfair and
unreasonable, (iv) that the Merger Agreement unfairly deters
competitive offers, (v) improper conflicts of interest, (vi) that
the Board conducted an insufficient sales process, (vii) that the
Company failed to disclose all material information in its
preliminary proxy statement filed on March 27, 2012, and (viii)
that the Board agreed to lock-up the acquisition with preclusive
deal protection devices. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the
proposed Merger, to recover damages in the event that the proposed
Merger is consummated and to award the named plaintiff in such
suit its fees and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses. On April 10, 2012, the Company
received a demand letter from the plaintiffs in the Bushansky Suit
requesting certain modifications to the Merger Agreement and
supplemental disclosure in the proxy statement.

Another complaint, captioned Len Gostkowski v. Archipelago
Learning, Inc., et al., was filed on March 28, 2012, by individual
stockholders seeking class certification in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, against the Company, Parent, Merger Sub,
and the individual members of the Company's Board at the time of
entry into the Merger Agreement. The Gostkowski Suit alleges,
among other things, (i) breaches of fiduciary duties by members of
the Board in connection with the proposed Merger, (ii) a claim for
aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duties against Parent
and Merger Sub, (iii) prior improper related party transactions,
(iv) that the Merger Consideration is unfair and inadequate, (v)
improper conflicts of interest, (vi) that the Board conducted an
insufficient sales process, and (vii) that the Board agreed to
lock-up the acquisition with preclusive deal protection devices.
Like the Bushansky Suit, the plaintiffs in the Gostkowski Suit
sought to enjoin the proposed Merger, to recover damages in the
event that the proposed Merger is consummated and to award the
named plaintiff in such suit its fees and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. On April 10, 2012, the
Company received a demand letter from the plaintiffs in the
Gostkowski Suit requesting certain modifications to the Merger
Agreement and supplemental disclosure in the proxy statement.

The Company and the other defendants have not yet filed a response
to the complaints. The Company believes that these lawsuits are
without merit. However, in order to avoid the burden, expense,
risk, uncertainty, and distraction of continued litigation in
connection with these lawsuits, the Company has reached a
settlement in principle with the named plaintiffs, the principal
terms of which are set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding
entered into by all parties on April 26, 2012. The Memorandum of
Understanding remains subject to court approval. The Company has
recorded an immaterial accrual for the anticipated settlement
amount in the March 31, 2012 financial statements. Such settlement
required certain additional disclosures to be made in the proxy
statement, but did not require modification to the Merger
Agreement.

Archipelago Learning is a subscription-based, software-as-a-
service (SaaS) provider of supplemental education products used by
approximately 14 million students in nearly 38,700 schools
throughout the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
Archipelago provides standards-based instruction, practice,
assessment and productivity tools that improve the performance of
educators and students via web-based platforms.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Foreclosures of Servicemembers' Homes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of America forecloses on
homes of military personnel on active duty, in violation of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a class action claims in Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Murphy v. Bank of America, Case No. 12-
cv-02520 (N.D. Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/24/BofA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Romaine S. Scott, III, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT LAW, LLC
          Post Office Box 1248
          Fairhope, AL 36533
          Telephone: (251) 621-8088
          E-mail: rss@saslawllc.com

               - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Mark L. Rowe, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          3529 7th Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35222
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
                  mrowe@elglaw.com


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: App. Court Upholds Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that the U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld BankAtlantic Bancorp's
victory in a shareholder class action securities fraud lawsuit.

While the court did not rule on the accuracy of company statements
the plaintiffs had alleged were misleading, the court determined
that the evidence presented at trial was not strong enough to show
how much damage was caused to shareholders by those misstatements.

The legal win could set aside a potential liability as the company
prepares to sell its banking operations to BB&T Corp.  That deal
could close early next month, but it still needs regulatory
approval.

Yet, this does not end BankAtlantic Bancorp's legal problems with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Fort Lauderdale-based BankAtlantic Bancorp and Chairman and CEO
Alan B. Levan initially looked to be in trouble when a Miami jury
found in November 2010 that it made eight intentionally misleading
statements about the quality of its loan portfolio in 2007.  The
jury found that this caused damages of $2.41 a share.

Yet, U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro ruled in 2011 that the
jury's verdict should be disregarded, and BankAtlantic Bancorp and
Mr. Levan won the case.  One of the items the jury ruled on
appeared contradictory, because they ruled that Mr. Levan "acted
knowingly" in making a misleading statement, but he still "acted
in good faith."

Therefore, Judge Ungaro decided that this statement wasn't a
violation.

As for the other seven statements, Judge Ungaro ruled that the
plaintiffs did not meet their burden of establishing a precise
amount of damages to shareholders.

The appeals court agreed with Judge Ungaro that the evidence for
specific damages was not strong enough, but not how she came to
that decision.  The court said it was an error to consider the
jury's finding that Mr. Levan "acted in good faith" in throwing
out the first misleading statement.

"When a court considers a motion for judgment as a matter of law
-- even after the jury has rendered a verdict -- only the
sufficiency of the evidence matters," the appeals court ruled.
"The jury's findings are irrelevant."

Essentially, the appeals court said Judge Ungaro should have ruled
in favor of BankAtlantic Bancorp before the case went to the jury.

Eugene Stearns, Adam Schachter, Gordon Mead Jr. and Andrea Nathan
of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson in Miami
represented BankAtlantic Bancorp in the case.  The plaintiffs were
represented by Mark Arisohn of Labaton Sucharow, and several
attorneys with Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check LLP.

Mr. Arisohn could not be reached for comment on the ruling or
whether he would appeal.

During the trial, the plaintiffs presented testimony from expert
witness Candace Preston, claiming that the entire drop in
BankAtlantic Bancorp's stock price after it announced its third
quarter earnings in 2007 was the result of bad news about land
loans that the company should have revealed earlier.  Yet, the
appeals court found that Ms. Preston failed to separate the stock
decline from the allegedly misleading statements from the drop
that occurred because of the collapse of the Florida real estate
market.

"The plaintiff must also offer evidence sufficient to allow the
jury to separate portions of the price decline attributable to
causes unrelated to the fraud, leaving only the part of the price
decline attributable to the dissipation of the fraud-induced
inflation," the appeals court ruled.  "None of its evidence
excluded the possibility that class members' losses resulted not
from anything specific about BankAtlantic's commercial real estate
portfolio that Bancorp hid from the public, but from market forces
that it had warned of -- and that would likely have caused
significant losses for an investor in any bank with a significant
credit portfolio in commercial real estate in Florida in 2007."

That reasoning on damages gave BankAtlantic Bancorp and Mr. Levan
a victory in the shareholder class action, but it might be hard to
apply it to their case with the SEC.

In 2011, the company and Mr. Levan were hit with a lawsuit by the
SEC alleging securities fraud -- largely relying on the same
statements about loan quality from the class action -- and
accounting fraud, with allegations of not properly accounting for
loans held for sale.  The SEC has to prove that the misleading
statements were intentional and caused damages, but it does not
have to detail the exact amount of damages to win a judgment.
The accounting fraud allegations by the SEC were not included in
the shareholder class action case as they occurred outside the
class action period.


CANADA: B.C. Doctors' Class Action to Cost C$100MM
--------------------------------------------------
Pamela Fayerman, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that thousands
of doctors are expected to join a C$100-million class-action
lawsuit over claims they were stiffed for fees by the province
when they treated patients who were in arrears on Medical Services
Plan (MSP) health insurance premiums.

It's taken 14 years of legal wrangling, but in an oral decision
delivered late last week, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair
gave the green light for the class-action suit to proceed.

Dr. James Halvorson, the Cowichan District Hospital emergency room
doctor who became the prospective lead plaintiff in the case in
1998, said he's relieved justice may finally come.  Dr. Halvorson
launched the suit after he realized he was owed about C$108,000 in
fees and would probably never get them unless he took legal
action.

"I came to B.C. in 1988 after working in the Northwest
Territories, Alberta and Ontario, where I did not experience this
sort of thing," he said.

"I'm not the only one in this position.  We estimate that
somewhere between 7,000 and 8,000 doctors are in the same
position.  They submitted bills for services but the bills were
denied on the grounds that patients who hadn't paid their premiums
weren't covered."

The respondent in the case is the Medical Services Commission
(MSC) which oversees the Medical Services Plan (MSP) -- the
government branch that pays doctors.

The case will be restricted to patients treated between July 23,
1992 and April 30, 1996.

It is estimated there were somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000
uninsured patients treated during that period.  Typically,
patients going to hospital for treatment present their CareCard or
personal health number to admission staff and doctors submit
batches of claims to MSP after service is provided.  Patients were
deemed "MSP negative" and dropped from the plan, either because
they hadn't paid their premiums, had moved, or had not used any
health care for a year and had not had contact with MSC in the
past year.

Dr. Halvorson contends cancelling enrolment of B.C. residents who
didn't pay premiums was unlawful in a universal health care
system, while doctors have an ethical duty to provide care to
those who need it, even if they don't have insurance coverage.

Today, there are still some problems getting paid for treating
some patients, however nothing on the scale of what took place
during the period in dispute, he said.

Dr. Halvorson's lawyer, Arthur Grant, said he's developed plenty
more grey hairs since first taking the case on 14 years ago.

"We've been locked in a vicious cycle of case management and it's
been one of the biggest exercises in frustration in my life," he
said, noting that there have been anywhere from four to eight
lawyers stick handling the case for government at times.

While there may be many types of doctors who come forward as class
action claimants, Mr. Grant said he expects it is primarily
emergency doctors who have borne the brunt of bad debt.

Dr. Halvorson said the de-enrolling of patients in arrears
appeared to proliferate under former premier Mike Harcourt and
subsided under the administration of former premier Glen Clark.

Cindy MacDougall, a spokeswoman for the ministry of health, said
under the publicly funded health care system, "no one will ever be
denied essential medical care in emergency situations."

"The Critical Care Coverage program, which began in April 1989,
provides payment to physicians for providing critical services to
residents of British Columbia who are not enrolled with MSP.  The
program covers life-threatening or limb-threatening emergencies
only."

She said the case will focus on whether Medical Services
Commission had the legal authority to drop individuals from MSP
between 1992 and 1996.

"These proceedings will now go forward and it would be
inappropriate to comment further on this case at this time."

MSP premiums range from C$64 a month for an individual to C$128
for a family of three.  But government subsidies of between 20 and
100 per cent are available to individuals earning less than
C$30,000.

Nearly one million British Columbians received premium assistance
this year.  Of those, more than 800,000 paid no premiums.


CANADA: Saskatchewan Sued Over Aboriginal Tobacco Tax Limits
------------------------------------------------------------
Global Saskatoon reports that a lawsuit has been filed against the
Saskatchewan government over a policy that limits how much tax-
free tobacco aboriginals can purchase on reserves.

The proposed class action filed by the Merchant Law Group on
behalf of an aboriginal woman claims the decision to tax these
tobacco products is unconstitutional.

The Saskatchewan government policy that went into effect in
July 2010 limits on-reserve, tax-free tobacco purchases to one
carton per person each week.

The statement of claim calls on the government to pay unspecified
compensation and punitive damages to aboriginals affected by the
policy.

Prior to the policy change, Premier Brad Wall said the province
was concerned about high smoking rates among aboriginal people and
that a lack of tobacco taxes was part of the problem.

The class-action lawsuit has not yet been approved to go ahead and
contains allegations that have not been proven in court.


CENTRAL BANCORP: Faces Merger-Related Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Central Bancorp, Inc. is facing a merger-related class action
lawsuit in Massachusetts, according to the Company's July 23,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On July 20, 2012, Independent Bank Corp. ("Independent") and
Central Bancorp, Inc. ("Central") issued a joint press release
reporting that Independent and Central had become aware of the
filing of a complaint on July 17, 2012, in Superior Court in
Middlesex County, Massachusetts, against Central, each of the
directors of Central, and Independent, which purports to be a
class action filed on behalf of the holders of Central common
stock in connection with the previously announced proposed merger
of Central with and into Independent.

On July 20, 2012, Central issued a press release announcing that
its Board of Directors has declared a quarterly common stock cash
dividend of $0.05 per share payable on or about August 17, 2012,
to stockholders of record on August 3, 2012.

                  About Central Bancorp., Inc.

Central is the holding company for Central Bank, whose legal name
is Central Co-Operative Bank and which was founded in 1915 as a
Massachusetts chartered co-operative bank to provide savings
deposits and originate mortgage loans.  Central Bank is a full-
service community banking operation that provides a variety of
deposit and lending services -- including savings and checking
accounts for retail and business customers, mortgage loans for
constructing, purchasing and refinancing residential and
commercial properties, and loans for education, home improvement
and other purposes.  Central Bank operates nine full-service
offices in the Massachusetts communities of Somerville, Arlington,
Burlington, Chestnut Hill, Malden, Medford, Melrose, and Woburn
(two branches).

                  About Independent Bank Corp.

Independent, which has Rockland Trust Company as its wholly-owned
commercial bank subsidiary, has approximately $5.0 billion in
assets.  Rockland Trust offers a wide range of commercial banking
products and services, retail banking products and services,
business and consumer loans, insurance products and services, and
investment management services.  To find out why Rockland Trust is
the bank "Where Each Relationship Matters(R)", visit
http://www.RocklandTrust.com/.


COMVERGE INC: Suit Over Merger With Peak Holding Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Comverge, Inc., continues to defend itself from putative class
action lawsuits challenging its merger with Peak Holding Corp.,
and Peak Merger Corp., according to the Company's May 10, 2012
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

On March 26, 2012, the Company, Peak Holding Corp., a Delaware
corporation ("Parent") and Peak Merger Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Purchaser"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement").
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and upon the terms and subject
to the conditions thereof, Purchaser has agreed to commence a cash
tender offer to acquire all of the shares of the Company's common
stock (the "Offer") for a purchase price of $1.75 per share, net
to the holders thereof, in cash (the "Offer Price"), without
interest, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger
Agreement.

On March 29, 2012, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Stourbridge Investments
LLC v. Dreyer, et al., Case No. 12A-02787-8, in the Superior Court
of Gwinnett County, Georgia, naming as defendants the Company, the
Company's directors, Purchaser and Parent. On April 2, 2012, the
plaintiff in the Stourbridge Investments action filed a motion for
expedited discovery and proceedings and a motion for preliminary
injunction with the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia. On
April 3, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Cunningham v. Comverge, Inc., et al., Case No. 12A-02929-2, was
filed in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, naming as
defendants the Company, the Company's directors, Purchaser, Parent
and H.I.G.

On March 29, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Schultz v. Young, et al., Case No. 7368, was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, naming as defendants the Company, the Company's
directors, Purchaser, Parent, and H.I.G. On March 30, 2012, a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Somlinga v. Dreyer, et
al., Case No. 7371, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
naming as defendants the Company, the Company's directors,
Purchaser, and H.I.G. On April 2, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit, captioned Cohen v. Young, et al., Case No. 7386, was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, naming as defendants the
Company, the Company's directors, Purchaser, Parent and H.I.G. On
April 4, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Kanakamedala v. Young, et al., Case No. 7399, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, naming as defendants the Company, the
Company's directors, Parent and Purchaser. Also on April 4, 2012,
a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Walker v. Comverge,
Inc., et al., Case No. 7398, was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, naming as defendants the Company, the Company's
directors, Parent, Purchaser, and H.I.G. Plaintiffs in the
Somlinga, Cohen, and Cunningham actions also filed requests for
the production of documents. On April 6, 2012, the Delaware Court
of Chancery consolidated the individual cases pending in Delaware
under the caption In re Comverge, Inc. Shareholders Litigation,
Case No. 7368-VCP and designated the complaint in the Somlinga
action as the operative complaint (the "Consolidated Action").

On April 11, 2012, the defendants in the Consolidated Action filed
a Motion to Proceed in One Jurisdiction and Dismiss or Stay
Litigation in Other Jurisdiction with the Court of Chancery and
with the Superior Court of Gwinnett County in the Stourbridge and
Cunningham cases described above asking the two courts to confer
and rule that the litigation should proceed in either the Delaware
or Georgia courts and that proceedings in the other jurisdiction
should be stayed or dismissed. On April 13, 2012, the Court of
Chancery issued a letter ruling granting the defendants' motion
and indicating that the courts had conferred and concluded that
the Consolidated Action would proceed in Delaware and that the
Stourbridge and Cunningham cases would either be stayed or
dismissed.

On April 18, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed
a Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC"). The CAC alleges, among
other things, that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Offer and the Merger by
failing to take steps to maximize the value of the Company to its
public stockholders and are attempting to deprive stockholders of
the true value of their investment in the Company. The CAC also
alleges Purchaser and H.I.G. Capital, LLC have aided and abetted
the Individual Defendants' breach of their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by, among other things, causing Grace Bay
to purchase the Convertible Senior Debt in violation of the
Confidentiality Agreement and asserting rights thereunder. The CAC
also alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by the Company on April
12, 2012 fails to disclose material facts necessary for
stockholders to make an informed decision with regard to the
Offer. The CAC seeks, among other things, a declaration that the
action brought by the complaint is properly maintainable as a
class action and that the plaintiff be certified as a class
representative, an order enjoining the Merger Agreement and
proposed Merger, an order requiring the Company to enforce the
Confidentiality Agreement, an order requiring the disclosure of
additional information to stockholders and an extension of the
Offer, an accounting to plaintiff of damages, an award to the
plaintiff of costs, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees and such other relief as the court deems proper. Purchaser,
Parent, H.I.G. Capital, LLC and the Company believe that the CAC
is without merit and intend to defend the case vigorously. The
foregoing summary of the CAC does not purport to be complete and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to the CAC.

Also on April 18, 2012, Cunningham filed a complaint in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Cunningham Delaware
Complaint") reasserting the same claims and requesting the same
relief as in his complaint filed in Georgia in addition to claims
that the defendants had failed to disclose material facts
necessary for stockholders to make an informed decision with
regard to the Offer. The foregoing summary of the Cunningham
Delaware Complaint does not purport to be complete and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to the Cunningham Delaware
Complaint. The Cunningham Delaware Complaint was consolidated with
the CAC on May 2, 2012.

On April 19, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed
a motion to expedite proceedings in anticipation of a motion for a
preliminary injunction and hearing thereon. On April 27, 2012, the
Court of Chancery granted plaintiffs' motion to expedite.
Following limited discovery and a hearing on May 7, 2012, the
Court of Chancery denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction on May 8, 2012.

At this time, the Company's management cannot estimate with
reasonable certainty the ultimate disposition of any of the
unresolved lawsuits and, while the Company does not believe it
will sustain material liability in relation to any of the two
active disputes described above, there can be no assurance that
the Company will not sustain material liability as a result of, or
related to, these lawsuits.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Royalty Payments Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit against Constellation Energy
Partners LLC relating to underpaid royalty remains pending,
according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2012.

On October 28, 2011, Jerry and Betty Wattenbarger and Patricia
Webb, individually and as class representatives on behalf of
similarly situated persons, filed a Class Action petition in the
District Court of Nowata County, Oklahoma against the Company, CEP
Mid-Continent, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company, and Newfield
Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc., alleging Plaintiffs own oil, gas
and mineral interests in lands and wells located in Nowata County,
Oklahoma, subject to oil and gas leases owned and operated by
Defendants and that Defendants have underpaid royalties due and
owing on the true value received or that should have been received
by Defendants for production from Plaintiffs' mineral interests.
Plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, breach of implied
covenant to market; breach of express and implied lease
obligations; violation of statutory law; breach of duty of good
faith and fair dealing and of the duty to act as a reasonably
prudent operator; breach of fiduciary duty; constructive fraud and
failure to disclose facts surrounding deductions made from royalty
payments. Plaintiffs seek certification of a statewide class of
plaintiffs, specify that the class claims against the Company and
its subsidiary relate to the proper payment for production
occurring on or after February 1, 2007, and currently limit damage
claims against all Defendants to no more than $75,000 with respect
to each Plaintiff and no more than $5 million in the aggregate for
the Plaintiffs and the individual putative class members, in each
case exclusive of interest and costs, but inclusive of any
attorneys' fees. On December 1, 2011, the case was removed by
Defendants to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, and on December 28, 2011, Defendants filed
their answer to Plaintiff's petition.

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


DYNEGY INC: "Schwartz" Suit Plaintiffs Withdrew Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a putative bondholder class action lawsuit against
Dynegy Inc. captioned Shirlee Schwartz v. Dynegy Inc., et al,
voluntarily withdrew their complaint, according to the Company's
May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

On September 21, 2011, an ad-hoc group of bondholders (the "Avenue
Plaintiffs") of Dynegy Holdings, LLC, filed a complaint in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, captioned Avenue
Investments, L.P. et al v. Dynegy Inc., Dynegy Holdings, LLC,
Dynegy Gas Investments, LLC, Clint C. Freeland, Kevin T. Howell
and Robert C. Flexon (Index No. 652599/11) ("Avenue Investments
Matter").  The Avenue Plaintiffs challenged the transfer of 100%
of the outstanding membership interests of Coal Holdco by DGIN to
Dynegy (the "Coal Holdco Transfer").  On September 27, 2011, U.S.
Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as
successor lease indenture trustee (the "Lease Trustee") under the
Indenture of Trust, Mortgage, Assignment of Leases and Rents and
Security Agreement related to Roseton Units 1 and 2, dated as of
May 8, 2001, and the Indenture of Trust, Mortgage, Assignment of
Leases and Rents and Security Agreement related to Danskammer
Units 3 and 4, dated as of May 8, 2001 (collectively, the "Lease
Indentures"), filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, captioned The Successor Lease Indenture Trustee et al
v. Dynegy Inc., Dynegy Holdings, LLC, Dynegy Gas Investments, LLC,
E. Hunter Harrison, Thomas W. Elward, Michael J. Embler, Robert C.
Flexon, Vincent J. Intrieri, Samuel Merksamer, Felix Pardo, Clint
C. Freeland, Kevin T. Howell, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3,
Etc. (Index No. 652642/2011) (the "Lease Trustee Litigation").
The Lease Trustee Litigation similarly challenges the Coal Holdco
Transfer.  Plaintiffs in both actions allege, among other claims,
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of
prohibitions on fraudulent transfers in connection with the Coal
Holdco Transfer and also seek to have the Coal Holdco Transfer set
aside, and request unspecified damages as well as attorneys' fees.
The Company filed motions to dismiss the actions on October 31,
2011.  On November 7, 2011, Dynegy, DH and certain holders of DH's
unsecured senior notes and debentures who consented to the
consensual restructuring of DH's more than $40 billion debts
agreed to enter into a stipulation that suspends the claims in the
Avenue Investments Matter. On April 2, 2012, a new but similar
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of bondholders was filed
in the Southern District of New York captioned Shirlee Schwartz v.
Dynegy Inc., et al, however, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
case shortly after filing.


HMS HOST: Faces Wage and Hour Class Action Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Ramirez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") v. HMS Host
USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation ; Host International, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; Ted Loftis, an individual; and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1-12-CV-229002 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Santa Clara Cty., July 24, 2012) is brought on behalf of a
proposed class, which consists of all non-exempt or hourly paid
employees, excluding supervisors, who worked for the Defendants at
their San Jose, California airport location within four years
prior to the filing of the complaint until the date of
certification.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' employees were not paid
for all hours worked because all hours worked were not recorded.
He contends that the Defendants knew or should have known that he
and class members were entitled to receive certain wages for
overtime compensation and that they were not receiving certain
wages for overtime compensation.

Mr. Ramirez is a resident of San Benito County, California.  He
was employed as a non-exempt, hourly paid chef from August 2009 to
August 2011 at the Defendant's San Jose, California airport
location.

HMS Host and Host International are Delaware corporations doing
business in California.  Ted Loftis is a resident of the state of
California and was the General Manager for HMS Host and Host
International at the San Jose airport location while Plaintiff was
employed there.  The Plaintiff is currently unaware of the true
names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miriam L. Schimmel, Esq.
          Cory G. Lee, Esq.
          Katherine Den Bleyker, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          Facsimile: (310) 861-9051
          E-mail: Mschimmel@InitiativeLegal.com
                  CoryLee@InitiativeLegal.com
                  KDenBleyker@InitiativeLegal.com


HOME DEPOT: Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Reader reports that a class action suit filed in San
Diego last week against Home Depot alleges that employees were
forced to work while off the clock and denied overtime wages, with
the total amount lost by plaintiffs exceeding $5 million.  The
company is also accused of denying workers appropriate rest and
meal breaks as required by law.

"Defendant has a corporate policy and/or practice of erasing
and/or reducing the amount of overtime wages paid to hourly non-
exempt employees," the complaint states.  "Defendant employed
various means in order to facilitate the non-payment of overtime
wages including, among other things, having managers submit forms
to human resources to reduce that Plaintiffs and class members
were paid for."

The complaint further alleges that workers who were required to
remain on site after clocking out to discuss work-related matters,
or those who had finished their closing-time shifts but were not
allowed to leave until their managers had finished work, were not
paid for this time.

Due to some of these incidents, some workers claim to have
effectively been paid less than minimum wage for the total number
of hours they worked.

The plaintiffs seek restoration of any unpaid wages, including
overtime pay where appropriate, plus penalties of up to $4,000 per
employee from Home Depot.


HUMAN GENOME: Sued in Del. Over "Coercive" Sale to GlaxoSmithKline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders in a federal
class action said they want the $3.6 billion "coercive" sale of
Human Genome Sciences to GlaxoSmithKline enjoined until they have
time to read the lengthy offering statements.

A copy of the Complaint in David, et al. v. Human Genome Sciences,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-00965 (D. Del.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/24/GenomeSci.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          P.O. Box 1680, Wilmington DE 19899-1680
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
          Steven Harte, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
                  mark@blockesq.com
                  steven@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
          Ofer Ganot, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          600 3rd Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  jscowart@pomlaw.com
                  gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                  sjadams@pomlaw.com
                  oganot@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC
          60 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484


INDEPENDENT BANK: Central Stockholders File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Banker & Tradesman reports that Independent Bank Corp. and Central
Bancorp Inc. have acknowledged that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of Central stockholders.

Independent, parent of the Rockland Trust Co., plans to acquire
Central for about $55 million, or about $32 per share.

The lawsuit was filed at Middlesex Superior Court on July 17, the
court confirmed.

The $5 billion Independent last week reported a 20 percent decline
in its second quarter profit, including a large loan charge-off
and nearly $700,000 in expenses related to the Central
acquisition.


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intralinks Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action complaint pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to the Company's May
10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On December 5, 2011, the Company became aware of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its
current and former executive officers.  The complaint (the
"Wallace Complaint") alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements or omissions in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory damages for the purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from February 17, 2011
through November 10, 2011 (the "Allegation Period").  On December
27, 2011, a second purported class action complaint (the "Thaler
Complaint"), which makes substantially the same claims as, and is
related to, the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the SDNY against
the Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers seeking similar unspecified compensatory damages for the
Allegation Period.  On April 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the
actions and appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff, and also appointed lead counsel in the
consolidated action.

On April 11, 2012, the Court approved the parties' stipulation
requiring the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint by
June 4, 2012, and requiring the defendants to move, answer or
otherwise respond to the amended complaint by July 20, 2012.  If
the defendants move to dismiss the action, it will be fully
briefed by September 28, 2012.

On May 1, 2012, the Company became aware of a purported class
action complaint (the "Iron Workers Complaint" or "Iron Workers
Action") filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in
New York County against the Company, certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters
for the Company's April 6, 2011 public offering of common stock
(the "Offering").  The Iron Workers Complaint alleges, among other
things, that the registration statement for the Offering contained
false and misleading statements about the Company's business,
operations and management in violation of the Securities Act of
1933.  The Iron Workers Complaint makes substantially the same
allegations as, and is related to, the Wallace Complaint, except
that the purported class is limited to those who purchased
securities in the Offering.  On May 9, 2012, the Company removed
the Iron Workers Action to the SDNY and requested that it be
assigned to the same judge as in the Consolidated Class Action.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend these lawsuits vigorously.

Based in New York, IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.intralinks.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for securely
managing content, exchanging critical business information, and
enabling inter-enterprise collaboration worldwide.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Perlmutter v.
Intuitive Surgical Inc., et al., appealed the dismissal of their
case, according to the Company's July 23, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed
against the Company and seven of the Company's current and former
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 1,
2008, and January 7, 2009.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly
false and misleading statements and omitting certain material
facts in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  On February 15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of
St. Louis was appointed Lead Plaintiff in the case pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  An amended
complaint was filed on April 15, 2011, making allegations
substantially similar to the allegations described above.  On May
23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On August 10, 2011, that motion was granted and the
action was dismissed; the plaintiffs were given 30 days to file an
amended complaint.  On September 12, 2011, plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint.  The allegations contained therein are
substantially similar to the allegations in the prior complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

A hearing occurred on February 16, 2012, and on May 22, 2012, the
Company's motion was granted.  The complaint was dismissed with
prejudice, and a final judgment was entered in the Company's favor
on June 1, 2012.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on June 20,
2012.


KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES: Recalls 5,600 Contours Tandem Strollers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kolcraft Enterprises Inc., of Chicago, Illinois, announced a
voluntary recall of about 5,600 Contours Options LT Tandem
Strollers.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The front wheel assembly can break, posing a fall hazard to the
child in the stroller.  In addition, for strollers manufactured in
January and February 2012, the nuts that hold the stroller's
basket support screws in place can detach.  Detached nuts can pose
a choking hazard to young children.

Kolcraft has received six reports of front caster wheels breaking
and two reports of the basket's support screws and nuts detaching.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves all Contours Options LT tandem strollers with
model number ZT012.  The model number and date of manufacture are
printed on a label found on the rear leg of the stroller.  The
dual-seat strollers have one mesh basket beneath both seats and
were sold in two color schemes; black with red canopies and
accents, and gray with yellow canopies and accents.  "Options LT"
is printed on a bar along the side of the stroller.  Picture of
the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12233.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Burlington Coat Factory and juvenile product specialty stores
nationwide and online at Amazon.com, Target.com and other online
retailers between February 2012 and July 2012 for about $250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
the company to receive free replacement wheels.  Consumers with
strollers manufactured in January and February 2012 will also
receive replacement nuts for the basket support screws.  For
additional information, contact Kolcraft toll-free at (800) 453-
7673 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:45 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.kolcraft.com/


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: $104MM Judgment Delivered to Sheriff's Office
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Griggs, writing for The Advocate, reports that after seven
years, dozens of legal maneuvers and rulings by both the Supreme
Courts of Louisiana and the United States, the plaintiffs in a
class-action lawsuit against Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance
Corp. have the $104 million judgment.

On July 20, the state 1st Circuit Court of Appeal denied Citizens'
request to prevent its bank, Regions Bank, from handing over the
money to the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office.  On July 23, the
state Supreme Court denied Citizens' request to overturn the
appellate court decision.

On July 23, Regions delivered the money to the Sheriff's Office.

Attorneys for the 18,573 Citizens policyholders say a court-
approved distribution plan should be in place by mid-September and
the checks distributed within three to six months.

Citizens policyholders sued in 2005 claiming the state-backed
property insurer of last resort took too long to begin adjusting
claims after hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  In 2009, a Jefferson
Parish state district court ruled that Citizens had to pay the
maximum penalty, $5,000, to each of the policyholders affected.

"It's actually not over, just this phase of it," plaintiff
Attorney Fred Herman said on July 23.  "We have many more
thousands of claims in the pipeline."

Altogether as many as 40,000 Citizens policyholders had their 2005
hurricane claims mishandled and a substantial number of them could
qualify for the penalty, Mr. Herman said.

The second phase of the class action may have even more people in
it than the first, he said.

Earlier estimates of the second set of class-action plaintiffs put
the maximum number at around 7,500 people.

The plaintiff attorneys expect to file the second round of claims
by September.

Mr. Herman said he does not expect the next round of litigation to
last as long as the first since a legal framework has been
established.

However, Mr. Herman said he does expect Citizens to continue the
legal battle using whatever "ill-fated" legal strategies the
insurer can come up with.

Citizens Chief Executive Officer Richard Robertson said the
insurer has not decided how it will handle the second portion of
the class-action lawsuit.

Having paid out the $104 million judgment, Mr. Robertson said
Citizens still has enough money on hand to pay its claims for now
without levying an assessment against property insurance
companies, and their policyholders.

The situation could change if the state gets hit by a hurricane
and the hurricane is large, he said.

Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon has said Citizens won't have to
levy an additional assessment as long any storms do less damage
than Hurricane Rita.


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Fuel Tanks
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that a class of consumers alleges
Mercedes-Benz USA failed to repair E-Class gas tanks and related
components that have caused fuel to leak or vapors to spread
inside the cars' cabins.  Citing a 2008 Mercedes E55 AMG recall
that allegedly failed to repair faulty components, the suit
expands the defect allegations to include the E350, E500, E550 and
E63 AMG models.


MILO'S KITCHEN: Faces Class Action Over Dangerous Dog Treats
------------------------------------------------------------
Erin McAuley at Courthouse News Service reports that Del Monte
subsidiary Milo's Kitchen sells Chicken Jerky Dog Treats made in
China that kill dogs and make them sick, a sad dog-owner claims in
a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Lisa Mazur says her healthy 7-year-old dog, Riley
Rae, suffered kidney failure and had to be euthanized after being
given the treats from time to time for about one month.

She says the only change in Riley Rae's diet that month was the
addition of Milo's treats, which says "were unsafe, defective,
dangerous, culpably misrepresented as safe and healthy, and did
not conform to applicable implied and express warranties."
Another dog owner sued Milo's in late June in Los Angeles,
claiming that her dog came "close to death" from kidney failure
because of the bad dog biscuits.

Del Monte is one of the nation's largest producers and
distributors of pet products and foods, netting $3.7 billion in
fiscal 2012, according to the complaint and to Del Monte's web
page.

Ms. Mazur says the label of the dog treats at issue states that
they are made in China.

She claims that while there is a reference a U.S. FDA cautionary
warning on the "frequently asked questions" portion of Milo's
Kitchen's Web site, the warning is "downplayed" and "a purchaser
will not see it unless the access the Web site and click through
the questions."

The Web site still states that "Chicken Jerky is made with the
quality and care your dog deserves.  There are no artificial
chicken flavors or filler ingredients.  Just meaty, delicious
whole fillets of 100% real jerky," Ms. Mazur says in the
complaint.

Ms. Mazur claims that despite the FDA warnings, the defendants
have not recalled their dangerous products, nor put warnings on
the packages.

"No reasonable person would feed dog treats to their dogs knowing
that there was a substantial risk of death or illness from doing
so," the complaint states.  "Plaintiff, and other consumers, did
not learn of the FDA warning, until their dogs had consumed the
treats and either became sick or passed away.

"Defendants intentionally concealed known facts concerning the
safety of their dog treats in order to increase or maintain
sales."

She seeks punitive damages for the class, for common law fraud,
unjust enrichment, negligence, product liability, unfair trade,
breach of warranty, failure to warn, and defective manufacture or
design.

Her lead counsel is Clayton Morrow with Morrow & Artim.

A copy of the Complaint in Mazur v. Milo's Kitchen, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-01011 (W.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/24/DogTreats.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
          MORROW & ARTIM, PC
          304 Ross Street
          7th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 209-0656
          E-mail: clay@PaCreditCardLaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
          Thomas E. Soule, Esq.
          Catherine A. Ceko, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


MOLYCORP INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2012, a purported class action lawsuit captioned,
Angelo Albano, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Molycorp, Inc., et al., was filed against MolyCorp,
Inc. and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado.  This federal court action
alleges, among other things, that the Company and those officers
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act in connection with
statements relating to its third quarter fiscal 2011 financial
results and fourth quarter 2011 production guidance that the
Company had filed with or furnished to the SEC, or otherwise made
available to the public.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
damages and other relief.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and that it
has valid defenses to such allegations. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.  The Company is unable to provide
meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these
claims may impact its future consolidated financial position or
results of operations.

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

Molycorp, Inc. -- http://www.molycorp.com-- a development stage
company, engages in the production and sale of rare earth oxides
in the western hemisphere.  Its rare earth products include
oxides, metals, alloys, and magnets for various inputs in existing
and emerging applications comprising clean energy technologies,
multiple high-tech uses, defense applications, and water treatment
technology.  The company primarily owns and operates the Molycorp
Mountain Pass facility, an open-pit mine containing rare earth
deposits outside of China located in San Bernardino County,
California.  It also intends to produce and sell rare earth oxides
and rare metals in Europe; and rare earth alloys in the United
States.  Molycorp, Inc. is headquartered in Greenwood Village,
Colorado.


NEW ORIENTAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that New Oriental Education &
Technology Group propped up its share price with false and
misleading statements, and the price fell by 34% on July 12 when
the truth came out, shareholders say in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Wong v. New Oriental Education &
Technology Group Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-06316 (C.D. Calif.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/24/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  csadler@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847


OHIO: Settles Class Action v. Department of Commerce
----------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio approved the
following announcement by Susman Heffner & Hurst LLP, Donaldson &
Guin LLC and Thompson Hine LLP of a proposed settlement of a class
action lawsuit filed against the Ohio Department of Commerce's
Division of Unclaimed Funds.

Plaintiff's counsel in the lawsuit entitled Sogg v. Goodman
announce the proposed settlement of this class action with the
Ohio Department of Commerce.  Plaintiff alleged in the lawsuit
that since at least August 3, 2000, the Ohio Department of
Commerce's Division of Unclaimed Funds should have paid, but did
not pay, interest to claimants who recovered unclaimed funds.  The
lawsuit has been pending in the Common Pleas Court of Franklin
County, or in the Appellate Courts of Ohio since 2004.  The case
was vigorously litigated over the past eight years, resulting in
multiple decisions from the Common Pleas Court on class
certification, liability, and damages, two appearances before the
Tenth District Court of Appeals (in 2007 and 2010), and a merits
decision from the Ohio Supreme Court in 2009.  The parties have
also conducted in-depth discovery, including depositions of state
personnel and written discovery.  In all, Plaintiff's counsel have
devoted more than 6,000 hours of professional time to the case.
The Division asserts it has additional defenses and grounds for a
third appeal.  The parties have agreed to settle all remaining
issues.

Neither the Division nor the Defendant admit or deny liability
under the settlement, which is expected to be finalized later this
year.  Persons who obtained unclaimed funds from the Division on
or after August 3, 2000, may be entitled under the settlement to a
payment based on the amount of interest earned while their funds
were held by the State of Ohio.  The total amount available for
distribution is $15 million, less deductions for Court-ordered
attorney's fees and expenses.

Judge Richard A. Frye of the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin
County, Ohio, will hold a hearing on September 5, 2012, at 10:00
a.m. to determine whether to approve the requested attorney's fees
of 33 1/3% of the $15 million or some lesser amount.  The Court
will hold a separate Fairness Hearing on September 6, 2012, at
1:30 p.m. to determine whether to approve the entire settlement.
You have the right to object and be heard in connection with both
hearings and to retain your own attorney, at your expense, if you
choose. You are not required to either appear or object.

Objections must be in writing and must specify (1) the name of the
original property owner; (2) the names of the person(s) who
claimed the funds ("claimant"); (3) the claimant's address at the
time of claim payment and the current address, if different; (4)
the dollar amount the claimant was paid; and (5) the exact date or
approximate date the claimant recovered the unclaimed funds. In
addition, objectors should provide (6) the unclaimed funds claim
number and (7) any property identification numbers, if known.

Objections to the requested attorney's fees are due by August 21,
2012.  Objections to the settlement are due by August 27, 2012.
If you fail to file and serve your written objections by the
deadlines above, you will be deemed to have waived any objection.
All objections must be "e-Filed" with the Clerk through its e-
Filing system, which is accessed at
http://www.franklincountyohio.gov/clerk/e-File.cfmand served on
counsel for the parties by first-class mail or electronically.

The Court is located at 345 South High St., Columbus, Ohio 43215.
For additional details and for information about whether this
settlement affects you and what your rights are if it does visit
http://www.strategicclaims.net/soggor call the Settlement
Administrator, Strategic Claims Services, at 866-936-1101(toll
free).


ORGANIC LIAISON: Sued Over False Claims on Weight-Loss Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that Kirstie Alley
plugs bogus Organic Liaison weight-loss supplements with false
claims that they helped her lose 100 lbs., but the products "are
nothing more than run-of-the-mill fiber and calcium supplements,"
a class action claims in Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Marina Abramyan sued Organic Liaison LLC, Organic
Liaison Management and Kirstie Alley, claiming they use deceptive
before-and-after pictures of the former "Cheers" star to push
their ineffective drugs.

"Ms. Alley's weight loss is not due to the Organic Liaison
Program, but rather, is the result of an above average exercise
regimen and extremely low calorie diet, including her time on the
television program 'Dancing with the Stars' ('DWTS'), where she
spent five to seven hours a day exercising as part of the
competition," the complaint states.

Ms. Abramyan claims the ads call the supplements "USDA approved,"
though they are "neither certified as an effective weight-loss aid
by the USDA nor anything more than standard dietary supplements
incapable of causing weight loss."

She claims the USDA certified the product only as organic, and
that the defendants cannot cite any evidence from scientifically
sound clinical trials for their claim that the product is "proven"
to cause weight loss.

Ms. Abramyan says she informed the company in December 2011 that
its ads violated FTC guidelines, but the company denied it, in a
February 2012 response.

Ms. Abramyan claims that Ms. Alley is both a spokeswoman for the
company and an owner/board member of Organic Liaison LLC and
Organic Liaison Management.

The weight-loss product market came to $34 billion in 2000,
according to the complaint, and continues to grow as obesity rates
climb, but the FTC has found weight-loss ads prone to "rampant"
deception.

"In peddling the Organic Liaison Program, Ms. Alley attributes her
weight loss to the program, but in reality, Ms. Alley's weight
loss is due to nothing more than the tried and true concept of
diet and exercise," the complaint states.  "It is commonly known,
and indeed a scientific fact, that if you are increasing exercise
while decreasing caloric intake, you will lose weight.  There is
no magic pill or supplement that causes weight loss."

Ms. Abramyan says she bought the products but "did not lose any
weight or experience any of the advertised benefits of the
program."

She seeks class certification and damages for false advertising on
behalf of consumers who have bought into the program since July
2008.

Her lead counsel is Gillian Wade with Milstein Adelman, of Santa
Monica.


PEG PEREGO: Recalls 223,000 Strollers Due to Entrapment Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation
with Peg Perego USA Inc., of Fort Wayne, Indiana, is announcing a
voluntary recall of about 223,000 strollers due to risks of
entrapment and strangulation.

A 6-month-old baby boy from Tarzana, California, died of
strangulation after his head was trapped between the seat and the
tray of his Peg Perego stroller in 2004.  Another baby, a 7-month-
old girl from New York, was nearly strangled when her head became
trapped between the seat and the tray of her stroller in 2006.

Entrapment and strangulation can occur, especially to infants
younger than 12 months of age, when a child is not harnessed.  An
infant can pass through the opening between the stroller tray and
seat bottom, but his/her head and neck can become entrapped by the
tray.  Infants who become entrapped at the neck are at risk of
strangulation.

The recall involves two different older versions of the Peg Perego
strollers, Venezia and Pliko-P3, manufactured between January 2004
and September 2007, in a variety of colors.  They were
manufactured prior to the existence of the January 2008 voluntary
industry standard which addresses the height of the opening
between the stroller's tray and the seat bottom.  The voluntary
standard requires larger stroller openings that prevent infant
entrapment and strangulation hazards.

Only strollers that have a child tray with one cup holder are part
of this recall.  Strollers with a bumper bar in front of the child
or a tray with two cup holders are not included in this recall.

The following Venezia and Pliko-P3 stroller model numbers that
begin with the following numbers are included in this recall.  The
model number is printed on a white label on the back of the Pliko
P-3's stroller seat and on the Venezia stroller's footboard.

            Pliko-P3 Stroller            Venezia Stroller
              Model Numbers                Model Numbers
     -------------------------------     ----------------
     IPFR28US34xxxxxxxx   IPPF28NA32        IPVA13MU09
     IPFT28NA63           IPPF28NA57        IPVA13MU10
     IPFT28NA64           IPPF28NA65        IPVA13US09
     IPP328MU10           IPPF28NA66        IPVA13US10
     IPP328MU09           IPPF28NA67        IPVA13US32
     IPP328US09           IPPF28NA68        IPVA13US34
     IPP328US10           IPPO28US32        IPVC13NA32
     IPP329US10           IPPO28US34        IPVC13NA34
     IPPA28US32           IPPO28US62
     IPPA28US33           IPPO28US69
     IPPA28US34           IPPO28US70
     IPPD28NA34           IPPO28US71

"Peg Perego" and "Venezia" or "Pliko-P3" are printed on the side
of the strollers.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12232.html

The strollers were sold at various retailers nationwide, including
Babies R Us and Buy Buy Baby from January 2004 through September
2010 for between $270 and $330 for the Pliko P-3 stroller and
between $350 and $450 for the Venezia stroller.  They were
manufactured in Italy.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers and
contact the firm for a free repair kit.  Do not return the
stroller to the retailers as they will not be able to provide the
repair kit.  For additional information, call Peg Perego at (888)
734-6020 anytime or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.PegPeregoUSA.com/

CPSC and Peg Perego warn consumers that these strollers may be
available on the secondhand market, in thrift stores or at yard
sales.  Consumers should not buy or sell these recalled strollers
until the repair kit is installed.


PROSHARES TRUST: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proshares Trust II (the "Trust") and certain principals of
ProShare Capital Management LLC (the "Sponsor") are defendants
(along with several other parties) in a consolidated class action
lawsuit styled In re ProShares Trust Securities Litigation, Civ.
No. 09-cv-6935, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 by including untrue statements of material fact and omitting
material facts in the Registration Statement for one or more
ProShares ETFs and allegedly failing to adequately disclose the
Funds' investment objectives and risks. The six Funds of the Trust
named in the complaint are ProShares Ultra Silver, ProShares
UltraShort Gold, ProShares Ultra Gold, ProShares UltraShort DJ-UBS
Crude Oil, ProShares Ultra DJ-UBS Crude Oil and ProShares
UltraShort Silver.

The Trust believes the complaint is without merit and that the
anticipated outcome will not adversely impact the operation of the
Trust or any of its Funds. Accordingly, no loss contingency has
been recorded in the balance sheet and the amount of loss, if any,
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

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


PULTE HOMES: Homeowners Need to Get All Info in Stucco Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Island Packet reports that several hundred people turning out
to get information about a class-action lawsuit filed over stucco
on Sun City Hilton Head homes shows that a judge was right to
allow the meeting to go ahead.

Defendants in the lawsuit that alleges faulty stucco work on
thousands of Sun City homes had asked Judge J. Michael Baxley to
stop the meeting.  They argued the attorneys for those suing
developer Pulte Homes, South Carolina State Plastering and others
had a conflict of interest because they stood to gain financially
from more homeowners joining the lawsuit.

But homeowners should know their options and what they stand to
gain or lose from joining the class action.  That requires hearing
from all sides.

For their part, attorneys for the plaintiffs complain owners are
being required to sign a form saying they will opt out of any
class lawsuits in order to get repairs.  They also want the judge
to stop repairs for defective stucco on homes that could become
part of the class action lawsuit, claiming the repairs amount to
covering up evidence.

But that raises the question of what the main goal is here: Is it
to see that needed repairs are made to homes or is to punish the
contractor and the developer? Perhaps, it's both.

For the homeowners' sake, let's hope the goal is to prompt repairs
on homes that need it and with little or no cost to the
homeowners.

Builders already enjoy legislative protections when it comes to
lawsuits.  They include the "Right to Cure Act," which aims to
encourage settling disputes over construction outside the
courtroom.

The law requires a homeowner to give 90 days notice of the intent
to file a lawsuit over construction and lays out a timeline for a
contractor or subcontractor to assess the situation and offer a
solution.  If the dispute can't be settled, the homeowner can
proceed with a lawsuit "or other remedy provided by contract or by
law."

This particular case has been slow in coming to resolution.  The
original lawsuit was filed five years ago.  In October 2010, the
state Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision denying the
plaintiffs the ability to seek class action status.

The Supreme Court found that lawmakers could have prohibited
class-action lawsuits under the Right to Cure law, as they have in
other areas, but they didn't.  Class-action lawsuits also support
the public policy goal of saving "the resources of both the courts
and the parties by permitting an issue potentially affecting every
class member to be litigated in an economical fashion."

In January, Judge Baxley granted the lawsuit class action status,
but the defendants are appealing that.

If the class certification is upheld, owners will be notified
whether they are included, attorneys told homeowners at the recent
meeting.  They will have the choice to opt out; if not, they are
included in the class action lawsuit.

This is a complicated legal process with a lot of moving parts and
legal deadlines.  All the more reason for Sun City homeowners,
some facing potentially expensive repairs to their homes, to get
as much information as they can.


RESERVE BANK: Faces Class Action Over Abuse of Legal System
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to Legalbrief Today, a class action by more than 115,000
individuals has been launched against South Africa's major banks
and the Reserve Bank in the South Gauteng High Court over their
alleged 'fraudulent abuse of the legal system', says a Sake24
report.

The individuals are litigating under the banner of The New
Economic Rights Alliance (NewERA).  According to NewERA, summonses
have been served on Absa, FirstRand, Nedbank, Standard Bank and
the Reserve Bank.  In the particulars of claims, the individuals
ask for a declaratory order prohibiting the commercial banks from
proceeding with claims against the public.  At issue is whether
the banks have locus standi in the cases they bring against
individuals as they have already onsold the debt to investors.
This means that the claims the banks institute against the public
are unlawful as the particular loan debts are no longer the
property of the bank, but assets of the investors who have bought
them, NewERA argues.  As banks do not declare, when instituting
such claims, that a particular loan debt has in fact been sold to
investors, it amounts to a fraudulent abuse of the legal system.
The banks have yet to respond to the summonses.


SAUK VILLAGE, IL: Attorney Mulls Class Action Over Tainted Water
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Tejeda, writing for nwitimes.com, reports that a Joliet
attorney said on July 23 he is seeking Sauk Village residents to
join a class action lawsuit contending the exposure of local
residents to water tainted with vinyl chloride amounts to civil
battery and trespass.

Attorney Stephen Saporta said he was motivated to file a lawsuit
by the way in which village officials informed the community about
the problem.

The lawsuit was filed on July 20 in Cook County Circuit Court
against Sauk Village municipal government.  It contends the
village "committed a civil battery to the extent plaintiffs
experienced an unwarranted touching of their persons by ingesting
and otherwise coming into contact with said contaminated water."

It also states having contaminated water enter a person's property
"amounted to a taking of the property" and is in violation of the
Illinois Constitution and U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Saporta said he thinks conflicting messages are being given
out as to how safe the water is to use in any form.

"People are justifiably confused by all of this, and I'm trying to
get them some answers," he said.

The lawsuit, seeking damages of at least $50,000, points out
residents are learning of problems with the local water supply at
a time when temperatures are reaching nearly 100 degrees.

The lawsuit is the second to be filed against the village in the
days since the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency said vinyl
chloride levels had become so high in all three of the village's
wells used for water that local officials were required to alert
residents and take action.  One well was shut down in 2009, but
officials had thought the water in the two remaining wells was
acceptable.

Last week, village resident Derrick Holt said in his lawsuit filed
in Cook County court he is dealing with cancer, and said the
village's failure to provide a suitable fresh water supply amounts
to negligence.

Mr. Saporta said that lawsuit will remain separate from his.

"Someone with specific health circumstances ought to be dealt with
separately," he said.  "Although we are sympathetic to him."

Federal EPA officials have a standard of 2 parts per billion that
requires local officials to reduce contamination.  Illinois EPA
requires notification of the public if a lower level of 1 part per
billion is reached.  Recent tests of the Sauk Village wells found
levels of 1.68 parts per billion.

The village this weekend distributed bottled water to local
residents, spending $37,000 to purchase the bottled water,
although the Ultra Foods and Food-4-Less grocery chains also made
donations of bottled water to the village.

Village Trustee Derrick Burgess said he was "embarrassed" by the
sight of water being distributed in his hometown.

"This should not have happened the way it did," Mr. Burgess said,
explaining village officials have known for some time there was
potential for problems with the water.

"We should have dealt with this problem a long time ago.  Now,
we're going to have to deal with it."

Neither Mr. Burgess nor Village Trustee David Hanks would comment
on the lawsuits, although neither was surprised to learn of their
existence.

"I expect there are going to be a lot of lawsuits," Mr. Burgess
said.


SERVICE CORP: Loses Bid to Overturn Jewish Cemetery Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily News reports that the state Supreme Court upheld on July 23
a lower-court judge's decision giving class-action status to a
lawsuit alleging mass desecration of grave sites at a Jewish
cemetery in Mission Hills, clearing the way for families to
collectively seek hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The lawsuit, filed in September 2009, alleges that cemetery
services provider, Service Corporation International, and its
employees purposely desecrated hundreds of Jewish graves and
improperly disposed of human remains and bones in mass graves
located in areas of Eden Memorial Park.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs have estimated damages at more than
$500 million.  Trial is scheduled Oct. 15.

In its decision, the state's highest court denied SCI's attempt to
have Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anthony Mohr's class-
certification order overturned, meaning thousands of Jewish
families could obtain redress against SCI for its alleged fraud
and deceit, according to the plaintiffs' attorneys.

"We are pleased with the court's decision and look forward to
trying this case to a jury," said lead plaintiffs' attorney
Michael Avenatti.  "The verdict in this case may rightly cause the
bankruptcy of SCI and completely wipe out all equity in the
company."

A lawyer for SCI could not be immediately reached.

The lawsuit alleges that groundskeepers were repeatedly instructed
by cemetery management to secretly break concrete vaults with a
backhoe and remove, dump and/or discard the human remains --
including human skulls -- to make room for new burials, all in the
interest of increased profits.

According to the complaint, SCI took steps to conceal their
fraudulent actions by threatening employees and witnesses with
retaliation and the loss of their jobs.


TELOMERASE ACTIVATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Bogus Anti-Aging Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Telomerase Activation
Sciences, Dr. Joseph Raffaelo and Noel Thomas Patton push a bogus,
anti-aging drug they call TA-65, a class action claims in New York
County Supreme Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Egan, et al. v. Telomerase Activation
Sciences, Inc., et al., Index No. 652533/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y.
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/24/Bogus.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
          Shelley A. Leonard, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          BLAU, BROWN & LEONARD, LLC
          224 West 30th Street, Suite 1205
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 725-7272


VISA INC: NACS Rejects Credit Card Fee Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supermarket News reports that the National Association of
Convenience stores has rejected the proposed $7.25 billion
settlement of a civil class-action antitrust lawsuit against
credit-card issuers saying it does not go far enough in addressing
retailer concerns.

NACS is the first of the class-action plaintiffs to reject
settlement of the suit, which was filed in 2005 against Visa,
MasterCard and several card-issuing banks, alleging that they
conspired to fix the interchange fees they levy on credit-card
transactions.

"The settlement does not address the transparency we have been
fighting for more than a decade," Jeff Lenard, vice president of
industry advocacy for NACS, told SN.  If all the plaintiffs that
are part of the class reject the settlement, it would go to trial
as scheduled in September, he explained.

However, one of the individual plaintiffs in the suit that was not
part of the class, Cincinnati-based Kroger Co., said the company
felt it could benefit as a result of provisions in the agreement
allowing retailers to incentivize more efficient methods of
payment, helping to lower its overall costs.

"We think the settlement represents the best opportunity to
resolve the litigation and to begin exercising a new ability to
reduce costs for our customers," Keith Daley, a Kroger spokesman,
told SN.  "It's a good settlement, if not a perfect settlement."

He described the ability to discount for certain payment methods
as "a hugely powerful new tool at a merchant's disposal.  For
example, retailers can now consider discounting for customers who
use debit cards.  So through discounted pricing on certain
electronic payments, we can begin to move consumers toward more
efficient and lower-cost products," Mr. Daley said.  "That
represents the first leverage point we have with the big credit
card companies ever.  That's a fundamental shift to have a tool
like that at our disposal."

In addition to a $6.05 billion payout to retailers and an
estimated $1.2 billion the form of reduced interchange fees, the
card companies also agreed to new rules that allow retailers to
show consumers the costs of using certain cards -- but only under
certain conditions that make the settlement "virtually unworkable
for merchants," NACS said.

National Grocers Association and Food Marketing Institute, both
based in Arlington, Va., said they were reviewing the settlement.


VISA INC: Target Opposes Credit Card Fee Antitrust Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Bjorhus, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Target
Corp. is opposing a proposed $7.25 billion antitrust settlement
over credit-card fees with Visa and MasterCard, arguing that the
deal "is bad for both retailers and consumers."

The Minneapolis-based retailer is believed to be the largest
company to publicly oppose the settlement, adding heft to merchant
blowback since the deal was announced July 13.  The proposed
accord calls for Visa, MasterCard and 13 big banks to pay $7.25
billion to settle accusations that they have been colluding,
fixing ever-higher credit-card swipe fees that have been gouging
merchants.

Target suggested in a statement it issued on July 20 that the deal
doesn't do enough to fix the system.  "Target has no interest in
surcharging guests who use credit and debit cards in order to
allow Visa and MasterCard to continue charging unfair fees," the
company said.

The retail giant said it is exploring its options "while working
toward a solution that represents true reform."

The company said on July 23 that it isn't ready to discuss its
plans.  A company spokeswoman said it issued the statement in
response to queries from reporters, and that it is still
evaluating the proposal.

"As you probably know, interchange fees are one of Target's
largest expenses, and the proposed settlement could have a
significant impact on Target's business," Target spokeswoman Jenna
Reck said via e-mail.

If it's approved in court, the settlement would end a seven-year
legal battle and could be the largest antitrust class-action
settlement in U.S. history.

Target is not one of the 19 retailers named as class plaintiffs in
the main lawsuit representing about 7 million retailers around the
country.  But as one of the country's largest retailers, the
company's opinion will likely carry weight in court if it files
paperwork opposing the settlement.

Both the National Association of Convenience Stores and the
National Retail Federation swiftly denounced the swipe-fee
settlement when it was first announced July 13 for not going far
enough to reform the credit-card-processing system.

At 100-plus pages, the settlement, filed in federal court in
Brooklyn, is tough going.

"Most folks are just beginning to grapple with its complexity,"
said Mallory Duncan, general counsel for National Retail
Federation.

In addition to paying for past actions, the settlement calls for
reforms of Visa and MasterCard rules and requires the card
companies to negotiate with merchant-organized buying groups.
Visa and MasterCard get a release from similar litigation in the
future.

The settlement does not explicitly reduce long-term the fees
merchants pay to process credit card transactions -- generally 1
to 3 percent of a customer's purchase.

The card companies and some state laws have long prohibited
merchants from trying to pass on fees to customers via surcharges.
The settlement gives them the right to impose a surcharge, subject
to a cap, but the language is complex.

The National Retail Federation said the settlement creates so many
hurdles to a surcharge that as a practical matter most retailers
won't do it.

Mr. Duncan said his group has heard from many members and reaction
has been "predominantly negative."  He called Target's statement
"a pretty strong indication that this proposed agreement is not
ready for prime time."

"It does virtually nothing to rein in out-of-control swipe fees,"
he said.

K. Craig Wildfang, the Minneapolis lawyer representing the class
plaintiffs in the settlement, said Target's opposition surprised
him, and that he hopes Target doesn't oppose in court the
preliminary approval of the deal.

"Most of the blowback thus far has not been from actual merchants.
It's from Washington-based retail trade executives," Mr. Wildfang
said.

Mr. Wildfang said none of the parties opposing the settlement has
offered a better alternative.  The litigation has dragged out for
seven years already, he said.  "What is Plan B?" he asked.  "A lot
of the critics are jumping the gun and don't really understand the
settlement."

"Hopefully, they'll take a step back," he said.  "I think the
vast, vast majority of merchants in the class are going to decide
there are benefits to them."

At the same time the main settlement was reached, about 19
lawsuits filed against Visa and MasterCard by individual
retailers, including Eden Prairie-based Supervalu Inc., alleging
collusion on other matters were resolved.


* Number of Class Action Settlements Drops in First Half of 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------
Securities class actions filed in US Federal court continue to be
filed at their historical pace in the first half of 2012, but the
number of settlements has dropped sharply, according to NERA
Economic Consulting's new report, Recent Trends in Securities
Class Action Litigation: 2012 Mid-Year Review.

Through the first half of the year, 116 class actions have been
filed; the projected 2012 total of 232 class action filings is in
line with the 224 filed in 2011 and the average of 217 class
actions filed annually between 1996 and 2011.

While filings of class actions have maintained their historical
levels, their composition has changed significantly.  In 2011,
NERA observed a wave of filings against Chinese domiciled
companies.  In the first half of 2012, cases involving Chinese
companies have decreased considerably, with only 10 cases being
filed, less than half the 2011 filing rate.  Merger objection
cases continue to be a major portion of total filings, as they
have since 2010.

               Number of Settlements Dropping,
              but Average Settlement Is Rising

Settlements of class actions in 2012 will be at their lowest level
since 1999 if the current pace is maintained.  Only 49 cases have
settled in 2012 through June; the projected full-year total of 98
is down sharply from 128 in 2010 and 123 settlements in 2011.

Meanwhile, the average value of a securities class action
settlement in the first half of 2012 was $71 million, up from the
average value of $31 million last year.  However, the 2012 average
was heavily influenced by the $1.01 billion settlement in In Re
American International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, the
fourth tranche of which obtained final approval earlier this year.
Excluding the latter, the average settlement amount in the first
half of 2012 was $41 million, still a substantial increase from
last year's $31 million.  The median settlement amount in the
first six months of 2012 was $7.9 million, approximately the same
as in 2011 and consistent with pre-credit crisis levels.

New Area of Analysis: Motions

This version of Trends includes a new area of analysis covering
motions and their resolutions for class actions filed and settled
in 2000 or later.  The authors found that motions to dismiss had
been filed in nearly 90% of the cases that settled, and motions
for class certification had been filed in 42% of the cases that
settled.

Additional Trends

-- Class actions alleging violations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11,
and/or Section 12 have been filed in 83 cases in the first half of
2012.  If filings continue at this pace, 166 class actions in
these categories will have been filed -- more than any of the last
three years, but still below the 2008 peak.

-- The number of cases filed against all foreign-domiciled
companies is decreasing, due to the decrease in filings against
Chinese companies.  With this decline, the rate of securities
class actions filings against foreign companies listed in the US
has now reverted to a level only slightly above the rate for US
companies.

-- Filings remain concentrated in the Second and Ninth Circuits,
but the balance between them is shifting.  In the first half of
2012, Second Circuit filings were made at a higher pace than in
any recent year except 2008, while filings in the Ninth Circuit
decreased substantially.

-- The share of filings against companies in the financial sector
continued to decline from its peak in 2008 and 2009; only 11% of
the filings so far in 2012 have involved issuers in the financial
sector.

-- The average "time to file," the time from the end of the
alleged class period to the date of filing of the first complaint,
has been steadily decreasing since 2009.  In the first half of
2012, the time to file a complaint was 107 days, on average,
compared to 224 days in 2009 and 152 days in 2011.

       NERA Securities Class Action Trends Report Series

NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for
more than 15 years. Two reports are published per year: a mid-year
study and an annual review at year's end.  This mid-year study was
authored by NERA Senior Consultant Dr. Renzo Comolli, Vice
President Dr. Ronald Miller, Senior Vice President Dr. John
Montgomery, and Senior Consultant Svetlana Starykh and includes
data on filings, dismissals, and settlements through June 30,
2012.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.7BB Liabilities at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. reported asbestos-related liabilities
of $1,761 million and insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities of $743 million at June 30, 2012, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies,
Honeywell is a defendant in personal injury actions related to
asbestos. We did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did we make or
sell insulation products or other construction materials that have
been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease
in the vast majority of claimants.

"Honeywell's predecessors owned North American Refractories
Company (NARCO) from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory
products (bricks and cement used in high temperature
applications). We sold the NARCO business in 1986 and agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined
in the sale agreement). NARCO retained all liability for all other
claims. NARCO and/or Honeywell are defendants in asbestos personal
injury cases asserting claims based upon alleged exposure to NARCO
asbestos-containing products. Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing
refractory products in an occupational setting. These claims, and
the filing of subsequent claims, have been stayed continuously
since January 4, 2002, the date on which NARCO sought bankruptcy
protection.

"Honeywell's Bendix friction materials (Bendix) business
manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile
asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from
either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who
performed brake replacements.

"On January 4, 2002, NARCO filed a petition for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In connection with
the filing of NARCO's petition in 2002, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an injunction
staying the prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos claims against
the Company, which stay has continuously remained in place. In
November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed NARCO's Third
Amended Plan of Reorganization (NARCO Plan of Reorganization). All
challenges to the NARCO Plan of Reorganization were fully resolved
in the third quarter of 2010. The NARCO Plan of Reorganization
cannot become effective, however, until the Plan of Reorganization
of certain NARCO affiliates, which is pending in Bankruptcy Court,
is confirmed and then affirmed by the District Court. It is not
possible to predict the timing or outcome of the Bankruptcy and
District Court proceedings in the affiliates' case. We expect that
the stay enjoining litigation against NARCO and Honeywell will
remain in effect until the effective date of the NARCO Plan of
Reorganization.

"In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, we agreed to
certain obligations which will be triggered upon the effective
date of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization. Honeywell will provide
NARCO with $20 million in financing and simultaneously forgive
such indebtedness. We will also pay $40 million to NARCO's former
parent company and $16 million to certain asbestos claimants whose
claims were resolved during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy
proceedings. These amounts have been classified as Accrued
Liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of
June 30, 2012.

"When the NARCO Plan of Reorganization becomes effective, in
connection with its implementation, a federally authorized 524(g)
trust -- NARCO Trust -- will be established for the evaluation and
resolution of all existing and future NARCO asbestos claims. When
the NARCO Trust is established, both Honeywell and NARCO will be
entitled to a permanent channeling injunction barring all present
and future individual actions in state or federal courts and
requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO
products to be made against the Trust. The NARCO Trust will review
submitted claims and determine award amounts in accordance with
established Trust Distribution Procedures approved by the
Bankruptcy Court which set forth all criteria claimants must meet
to qualify for compensation including, among other things,
exposure and medical criteria that determine the award amount.

"Once the NARCO Trust is established and operational, Honeywell
will be obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to the
trust which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution
Procedures, subject to annual caps up to $150 million in any year,
provided, however, that the first $100 million of claims processed
through the NARCO Trust -- Initial Claims Amount -- will not count
against the first year annual cap and any unused portion of the
Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until
fully utilized.

"Once the NARCO Trust is established and operational, Honeywell
will also be responsible for the following funding obligations
which are not subject to the annual cap: a) previously approved
payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements
reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings,
which provide that a portion of these settlements is to be paid by
the NARCO Trust, which amounts are estimated at $130 million and
are expected to be paid during the first year of trust operations
and, b) payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement
agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy
proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the
NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the
settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures criteria,
which amounts are estimated at $150 million and are expected to be
paid during the first two years of trust operations.

"[The range of estimated liability for future claims is $743
million to $961 million.]

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability
for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage
which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity
and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market. At June
30, 2012, a significant portion of this coverage is with insurance
companies with whom we have agreements to pay full policy limits.
We conduct analyses to determine the amount of insurance that we
estimate is probable of recovery in relation to payment of current
and estimated future claims. While the substantial majority of our
insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers
are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of
probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings with our insurers, our knowledge of any
pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers and various
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs.

"In 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company filed a
declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court of New York,
County of New York against Honeywell and other insurance carriers
that provide coverage for NARCO asbestos claims, seeking a
declaration regarding coverage obligations for NARCO asbestos
claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers
and the other insurance carriers. The other insurance carriers
asserted cross claims against Honeywell seeking declarations
regarding their coverage obligations for NARCO asbestos claims
under high excess insurance coverage issued by them. Since then,
the Company has entered into settlement agreements resolving all
NARCO-related asbestos coverage issues with certain of these
insurance carriers, including Travelers. Approximately $48 million
of remaining unsettled coverage is included in our NARCO-related
insurance receivable at June 30, 2012. Honeywell believes it is
entitled to the coverage at issue and expects to prevail in this
matter. In 2007, Honeywell prevailed on a critical choice of law
issue concerning the appropriate method of allocating NARCO-
related asbestos liabilities to triggered policies. The plaintiffs
appealed and the trial court's ruling was upheld by the
intermediate appellate court in 2009. Plaintiffs' further appeal
to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York,
was denied in October 2009. A related New Jersey action brought by
Honeywell has been dismissed, but all coverage claims against
plaintiffs have been preserved in the New York action. Based upon
(i) our understanding of relevant facts and applicable law, (ii)
the terms of insurance policies at issue, (iii) our experience on
matters of this nature, and (iv) the advice of counsel, we believe
that the amount due from the remaining insurance carriers is
probable of recovery."

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace
products and services, control, sensing and security technologies
for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive
products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials,
process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy
efficient products and solutions for homes, business and
transportation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had $63MM Asbestos Reserves at June 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation, at June 29, 2012, had total asbestos reserves of
$63 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 29, 2012.

The Company states: "Occupational claims arise from allegations of
exposures to certain materials in the workplace, such as solvents,
soaps, chemicals (collectively referred to as "irritants") and
diesel fuels (like exhaust fumes) or allegations of chronic
physical injuries resulting from work conditions, such as
repetitive stress injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing
loss. The Company is also party to a number of asbestos claims by
current or former employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the
workplace.

"An analysis of occupational claims is performed quarterly by an
independent third-party actuarial firm and reviewed by management.
Management performs a quarterly review of asserted asbestos
claims, and an analysis is performed annually by an independent
third-party specialist and reviewed by management. The objective
of the occupational and asbestos claims analyses performed by the
third-party actuarial firm and specialist (the "third-party
specialists") is to determine the number of incurred but not
reported ("IBNR") claims. The third party specialists analyze
CSXT's historical claim filings, settlement amounts, and dismissal
rates to determine future anticipated claim filing rates and
average settlement values for occupational and asbestos claims
reserves. The potentially exposed population is estimated by using
CSX's employment records and industry data. From this analysis,
the third-party specialists provide an estimate of the IBNR claims
liability."

CSX Corporation (CSX), together with its subsidiaries, is a
transportation supplier. The Company provides rail-based
transportation services, including traditional rail service and
the transport of intermodal containers and trailers. CSX's
operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), provides
link to the transportation supply chain through its approximately
21,000 route mile rail network, which serves centers in 23 states
east of the Mississippi River, the District of Columbia and the
Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $2.3BB Net Asbestos Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos paid losses in the
first six months of 2012 were $114 million, compared with $110
million in the same period of 2011.  Net asbestos reserves were
$2.33 billion at June 30, 2012, compared with $2.44 billion at
June 30, 2011, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "In the ordinary course of its insurance
business, the Company receives claims for insurance arising under
policies issued by the Company asserting alleged injuries and
damages from asbestos- and environmental-related exposures that
are the subject of related coverage litigation, including, among
others, the litigation.  The Company is defending asbestos- and
environmental-related litigation vigorously and believes that it
has meritorious defenses; however, the outcomes of these disputes
are uncertain.  In this regard, the Company employs dedicated
specialists and aggressive resolution strategies to manage
asbestos and environmental loss exposure, including settling
litigation under appropriate circumstances.

                Asbestos Direct Action Litigation

"In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) and other insurers (not
including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court in
West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed in West
Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs allege that
the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in
violation of state statutes by inappropriately handling and
settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to reopen large
numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for
damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers.
Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of
asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state
courts.  These suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory
and Hawaii Actions.

"In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in
these suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims.

"The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the
bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation
issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the
Statutory Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law
Claims and an additional set of cases filed in various state
courts in Texas and Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from
filing any further lawsuits against TPC based on similar
allegations. Notwithstanding the injunction, additional common law
claims were filed against TPC.

"In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.  This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC.  This settlement requires a payment
of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant
contingencies.  Among the contingencies for each of these
settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy court clarifying
that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related
claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by the
bankruptcy court ("the 1986 Orders").

"On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC ("the Clarifying
Order"). The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct
action claims that may be filed in the future.

"On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all future
direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy
court before proceeding in state or federal court.

"Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.  On February 29, 2008, TPC and certain other
parties to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or
rehearing en banc, requesting reinstatement of the district
court's judgment, which were denied.  TPC and certain other
parties filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
decision, and on December 12, 2008, the Petitions were granted.

"On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,
reversing the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008 decision,
finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are final and
generally bar the Statutory and Hawaii actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims against TPC.  Further, the Supreme Court
ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the
Clarifying Order.  However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled
on certain additional issues, principally related to procedural
matters and the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties,
the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for
further proceedings on those specific issues.  On October 21,
2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying Order
requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of the
order approving the settlement, and that request was granted.

"On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC. On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit,
requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion, which was
denied on May 25, 2010.  On August 18, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking
review of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion, and a
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking an order from the Supreme
Court requiring the Second Circuit to comply with the Supreme
Court's June 18, 2009 ruling in TPC's favor. The Supreme Court
denied the Petitions on November 29, 2010.

"The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy
court on September 2, 2010 and September 3, 2010, respectively,
arguing that all conditions precedent to the settlements have been
met and seeking to require TPC to pay the settlement amounts.  On
September 30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs'
Motions to Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to
the settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution
claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second
Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion.  On December 16, 2010, the
bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that
TPC was required to fund the settlements.  On January 20, 2011,
the bankruptcy court entered judgment in accordance with its
December 16, 2010 ruling and ordered TPC to pay the settlement
amounts plus prejudgment interest. On January 21, 2011, TPC filed
an appeal with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York from the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 judgment.
On January 24, 2011, certain of the plaintiffs in the Common Law
Claims actions appealed that portion of the bankruptcy court's
January 20, 2011 judgment that denied their request for an order
of contempt and for sanctions.  On March 1, 2012, the district
court ruled in TPC's favor and reversed the bankruptcy court,
finding that the conditions to the settlements had not been met,
and that TPC is not obligated to pay the settlement amounts. The
district court also upheld the bankruptcy court's order denying
the plaintiffs' motion for an order of contempt and for sanctions.
The district court further ruled that, since TPC is not obligated
to go forward with the settlements, it was unnecessary to address
the issue of pre-judgment interest.  The plaintiffs appealed the
district court's March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals, and those appeals are pending.

"SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court
rulings or the settlements described above, is a party to pending
direct action cases in Texas state court asserting common law
claims.  All such cases that are still pending and in which SPC
has been served are currently on the inactive docket in Texas
state court.  If any of those cases becomes active, SPC intends to
litigate those cases vigorously.  SPC was previously a defendant
in similar direct actions in Ohio state court. Those actions have
all been dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and
appellate courts.  From time to time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries
have been named in individual direct actions in other
jurisdictions."

The Travelers Companies, Inc., is a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range of
commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products
and services to businesses, Government units, associations and
individuals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $143MM Asbestos Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation is a defendant in a number of lawsuits
in which current and former employees and other parties allege
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We assess our potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future
defense and processing costs.

"Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to
present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of
future payments. Approximately 22% of the recorded liability
related to asserted claims and approximately 78% related to
unasserted claims at June 30, 2012.

"Our asbestos-related liability activity was:

                                                 Millions,
                                           for the Six Months
                                             Ended June 30,
                                           2012          2011
                                           ----          ----
Beginning balance                          $147          $162
Accruals                                      -             -
Payments                                     (4)           (5)
Ending balance at June 30                  $143          $157
Current portion, ending balance at June 30   $9           $11

"We have insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to
resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have recognized an asset
for estimated insurance recoveries at June 30, 2012, and December
31, 2011.

"We believe that our estimates of liability for asbestos-related
claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and probable. The
amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related
insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts. However,
future events, such as the number of new claims filed each year,
average settlement costs, and insurance coverage issues, could
cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to be higher or
lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may vary in the
future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of asbestos
litigation materially change; federal and state laws governing
asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability or amount
of compensation of claimants; and there are material changes with
respect to payments made to claimants by other defendants."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Staggers Bldg Abatament May Take Longer
--------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Rippin, Monongalia and Preston County Reporter, relates that
asbestos removal at the Harley O. Staggers Federal Building in
Morgantown may take longer than expected.

The Reclaim company is more than halfway done with the removal
process but facility manager Robert Doyle said it will likely take
it longer than the August 9 deadline.

In the meantime, workers have removed graffiti from the sides of
the building that are visible to public streets.

Graffiti removal on the back of the building will take place when
the asbestos is cleared.

Doyle said he plans to meet with Reclaim and the construction
consultant around July 24 to check in on where the project stands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reports of Fibro Mishandling Unchecked by MPCA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trish Van Pilsum at Fox9.com reports that for years a building in
Litchfield on Highway 12 housed a Mexican restaurant until owner
Denny Rutledge decided to renovate the building for new tenants
last fall, tearing out floor tiles that were potentially full of
asbestos.

Rutledge says he left the details of the redesign to his partner
and project manager, Steve Knisely.  One of those details was to
figure out what to do with old floor tiles that were ripped up
during demolition.

Concerned citizens, who were pretty sure the tiles were made of
asbestos, took pictures of the broken floor tiles sitting in a
trailer outside the restaurant in September of 2011.  The images
show that the tiles were broken into pieces and were not covered
from the outside air; however, the problem with asbestos is that
when it's broken and crumbling, the carcinogen gets into the air.

In fact, asbestos is supposed to be buried in a qualified landfill
so its fibers don't get inhaled.  When being moved out of any
construction project, it's supposed to be wet down and wrapped in
plastic.

Knowing that, the citizens called the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, but they say nothing happened -- at least not until the
FOX 9 Investigators got involved and asked the state and county
for all phone records, e-mails, notes and reports related to the
old Mexican restaurant through the state's public records law.

Those records show that no one from the MPCA checked on the
possible asbestos until it was too late.  That means the state may
have missed two chances to catch the likely toxic tile before it
got buried in a landfill and test it themselves.

Records show that the MPCA worker who took the first call about
the floor tiles didn't pass it along to regional investigator Paul
Kimman, who covers the southwest part of the state, until Sept.
21, 2011 -- two days later.  By then, the tile -- which had been
sitting, unwrapped, in a Dumpster -- was gone.  It had been taken
to the Meeker County Landfill, which is not licensed to handle
hazardous waste like asbestos.

Receipts show the tile went to the Meeker County landfill, along
with other demolition debris, on the same day the call reporting
the concerns was made.  But even if the investigator had missed
the tiles that day at the construction site, he might have had
seen them anyway because Kimman was at the landfill for a routine
inspection the day after the tiles were dumped there.

Jeff Connell, from the MPCA, said he finds the two-day lapse
extremely disappointing.  The concerned citizens didn't just take
photos; they also took samples and had them tested.  The results
came back positive for asbestos, they say.

The state has those results, but because state workers didn't get
out in time to take sample themselves, state workers can't prove
they came from the restaurant and can't use the tests as evidence.

Since the tiles could not be documented in the dump and tested to
confirm the presence of asbestos, that means no one could be fined
in this case.  Instead, warning letters were sent to Knisely and
to the Meeker County landfill, where two workers were put through
asbestos training.

The new restaurant is finished and is asbestos free, but Rutledge
said he doesn't recall being told about the possible asbestos in
the floor tiles.

Buried is where this entire story might have stayed.  Right along
with that possibly toxic tile had the concerned citizens not done
something else.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nemeroff Law Owner Co-Chairs ALC in September
--------------------------------------------------------------
A leading representative for mesothelioma victims, Rick Nemeroff,
owner of Nemeroff Law Firm, was selected as co-chair and moderator
for the Asbestos Litigation Conference: A National Overview and
Outlook in September.  The event is an opportunity for bipartisan
opinion leaders in the asbestos field to discuss trends in
litigation and determine how they will impact future cases.

The event, hosted by Perrin Conferences, brings asbestos
insurance, legal, corporate and scientific leaders together to
review the direction and climate of asbestos litigation.  Topics
for discussion include recent verdicts, decisions and events, as
well as strategies in cases involving industrial hygiene and
asbestos medicine.

"We're enthusiastic and proud to have Rick Nemeroff chair our
National Asbestos Conference, because in the intensely competitive
and dynamic world of high stakes litigation, Rick's results have
set him apart as an innovator, leader and winner," said Lynnsey
Perrin, founder of Perrin Conferences.

Practicing since 1993, Nemeroff has established himself as a
leading trial lawyer, combining compassion with aggressive
litigation skills to fight for individuals and families who have
been harmed by indifferent corporations. He is a sought-after
speaker and presenter for all aspects of asbestos litigation.

"I'm honored to co-chair this year's conference," said Nemeroff.
"It's a great opportunity for us, as representatives of victims
and their families, to come together and discuss what the industry
is doing and what we can do to get the best possible outcomes for
our clients."

Established in 2009, the Asbestos Litigation Conference seeks to
present a comprehensive perspective, by including judicial, in-
house counsel, insurance industry members and traditional asbestos
litigators as panelists and presenters.  The 2012 Asbestos
Litigation Conference will be held September 10-12 at the Fairmont
Hotel in San Francisco.

                   About Nemeroff Law Firm

With offices in Dallas, Houston, New Orleans and Pittsburgh, the
Nemeroff Law Firm is a nationally recognized trial firm dedicated
to helping individuals and families who suffer from asbestos
related mesothelioma, harmful pharmaceuticals, and catastrophic
personal injuries or death as a result of the wrongful or
negligent conduct of others.  Led by attorney Rick Nemeroff, the
firm serves clients throughout the United States and Mexico,
combining compassion and caring with aggressive litigation skills
to deliver life-changing results.  For more information, contact
the Nemeroff Law Firm at 866-435-1831 or go to
http://www.nemerofflaw.com/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goulds Pumps, 142 Others Face Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that a Weirton
couple is suing 143 companies they claimed caused a lung injury
due to asbestos exposure.

Alexander M. Colangelo was diagnosed with asbestosis and colon
cancer due to asbestos exposure during his employment career,
according to a complaint filed July 5 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Colangelo and his wife, Lisa Colangelo, claim he was exposed to
asbestos and inhaled asbestos dust, which caused his lung injury.

The defendants conspired to suppress knowledge of the dangers of
asbestos and had full knowledge of the toxic and dangerous
characteristics of the asbestos products, according to the suit.

The Colangelos claims the defendants caused Alexander Colangelo to
endure great pain and suffering and mental anguish.

The defendants kept the Colangelos and others ignorant of the
dangers of asbestos and "aided efforts to sell products containing
asbestos," according to the suit.

The Colangelos are seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved.  They are being represented by David P. Chervenick,
Bruce E. Mattock, Lee W. Davis and Scott S. Segal.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The companies named as defendants in the suit are 20th Century
Glove Corporation of Texas; Air & Liquid Systems Corporation; Ajax
Magnethermic Corporation; Alliance Machine Company; Allied Glove
Corporation; American Optical Corporation; Armstrong
International, Inc.; Armstrong Pumps, Inc.; Atlas Industries,
Inc.; Aurora Pump Company; Beazer East, Inc.; Bechtel Corporation;
Borg-Warner Corporation; Cameron International Corporation;
Cashco, Inc.; Catalytic Construction Company; Certainteed
Corporation; Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.; Columbia Paint Corp.; Columbus
McKinnon Corporation; Cooper Industries, Inc.; Copes-Vulcan, Inc.;
Crane Company, Inc.; Dana Corporation; Dezurik, Inc.; Dravo
Corporation; Eaton Corporation; Eichleay Corporation; F.B. Wright
Company; the Fairbanks Company; Fairmont Supply Company; Flowserve
U.S., Inc.; Flowserve U.S., Inc. f/k/a Flowserve FSD Corporation
f/k/a Durametallic Corp.; Flowserve U.S., Inc. f/k/a Flowserve FSD
Corporation, as Successor to Durco International and the Duriron
Company; Flowserve U.S., Inc. f/k/a Flowserve FSD Corporation, as
Successor to Edward Valves, Inc. and Edward Vogt Valve Company;
Flowserve U.S., Inc. f/k/a Flowserve FSD Corporation, as Successor
to Valtek International; Flsmidth Inc.; Flsmidth Dorr-Oliver
Eimco, Inc.; Flsmidth Salt Lake City, Inc.; Fluor Constructors
International a/k/a Fluor Corporation; Fluor Constructors
International, Inc.; Fluor Corporation; Fluor Enterprises, Inc.;
Ford Motor Company; Foseco, Inc.; Foster Wheeler, LLC; the Gage
Company; Gardner Denver, Inc.; General Electric Company; General
Refractories Company; Genuine Parts Company; George V. Hamilton,
Inc.; the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company; Goulds Pumps, Inc.;
Greene Tweed & Co.; Grinnell LLC; Hedman Mines, Ltd.; Hinchliffe &
Keener, Inc.; Honeywell International, Inc.; Howden North America,
Inc.; I.U. North America, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.; Industrial
Holdings Corporation; Industrial Rubber Products; Ingersoll-Rand
Company; Insul Company, Inc.; ITT Corporation; J.H. France
Refractories Company; Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.; John Crane,
Inc.; Joy Technologies, Inc.; Katy Industries, Inc.; M.S. Jacobs &
Associates, Inc.; Magnetek, Inc.; Mallinckrodt LLC; McCann Shields
Paint Company; McCarls, Inc.; McJunkin Redman Corporation;
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Minnotte Contracting
Corporation; Mobil Corporation; Morgan Engineering Systems, Inc.;
Moyno, Inc.; Mueller Steam Specialty; Nagle Pumps, Inc.; Nibco,
Inc.; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Oglebay Norton Company;
Owens-Illinois, Inc.; P&H Mining Equipment, Inc.; Parker-Hannifin
Corp.; Parker-Hannifin Corporation; Peerless Industries, Inc.;
Plotkin Brothers Supply, LLP; Pneumo Abex Corporation; Power
Piping Company; Premier Refractories, Inc.; Reading Crane; Riley
Power, Inc.; Robinson Fans, Inc.; Rockwell Automation, Inc.; Rust
Constructors, Inc.; Rust Engineering & Construction, Inc.; Safety
First Industries, Inc.; the Sager Corporation; Saint-Gobain
Abrasives, Inc.; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.; Seco/Warwick
Corporation; Spirax Sarco, Inc.; SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc.;
SPX Corporation; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC; Sullair
Corporation; Sunbeam Products, Inc.; Sundyne Corporation; SVI
Corporation; Taco, Inc.; Tasco Insulation, Inc.; Trane U.S., Inc.;
Trans-Pumps, Inc.; Trans-Pumps, Inc. of Pittsburgh; U.B. West
Virginia, Inc.; UEFC, Inc.; UFIN, Inc.; Unifrax Corporation;
United Rolls, Inc.; United States Steel Corporation; Universal
Refractories Corporation; Viacom Inc.; Viking Pump, Inc.; Vimasco
Corporation; Warren Pumps, Inc.; Washington Group International;
Watson McDaniel Company; Weil-McLain Company; Westinghouse
Airbrake and/or Wabco; Whiting Corporation; Willard Hacerman; the
William Powell Company; WT/HRC Corporation; Yarway Corporation;
and Zurn Industries, LLC.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 12-C-1251.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont Seeks Continuance of Retrial
----------------------------------------------------
Still waiting on the ruling of a higher court, DuPont De Nemours
has filed a motion for continuance for the retrial of an asbestos
lawsuit, David Yates of the Southeast Texas Record reports.

Since 2007, the Southeast Texas Record has reported on the
asbestos litigation filed by plaintiff Caryl Richardson on behalf
of her deceased father and refinery worker, Willis Whisnant, Jr.

DuPont won a jury verdict in early 2008.  However, Judge Donald
Floyd, 172nd District Court, tossed out the jury's decision and
granted plaintiff's attorney Glen Morgan's motion for a new trial
without any explanation for the ruling.

Last September, Judge Floyd, at the request of DuPont, granted a
motion for continuance, placing the case on his September 2012
docket, court records show.

Court records show DuPont filed another unopposed motion for
continuance on July 5, asking Judge Floyd to continue the case
once again because the Supreme Court is considering a critical
issue related to his order in granting a new trial.

A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Aug. 16.

Following two appeals and numerous hearings, in July 2009 the
Texas Supreme Court ordered Judge Floyd to disclose his reasons
for granting the new trial, court records show.

The judge has yet to give his reasons.

DuPont's motion states that the Supreme Court's ruling in the case
In re United Scaffolding will have relevance to the order in its
case.

The state's high court heard oral arguments on the United
Scaffolding case on Oct. 6.

                      Case background

Court records show that Whisnant, a former subcontractor for
DuPont, was in his late 70s when he died from mesothelioma.

Judge Floyd signed a final judgment on April 17, 2008.

Following the no negligence verdict, plaintiff's attorney John
Morgan, of the Beaumont law firm Reaud, Morgan & Quinn, filed a
motion for a new trial, arguing the evidence did not support the
jury's verdict.

He also accused the Southeast Texas Record of jury tampering and
of being agents of DuPont, court papers say.

Floyd granted the motion in a May 28, 2008, order, but offered no
explanation for his decision.

DuPont is represented in part by MehaffyWeber attorney Sandra
Clark -- SandraClark@mehaffyweber.com.

Case No. E159-183Q.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Happy Valley Homes Cleared, Demolition Bid On
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Brust of the Parkersburg News and Sentinel reports that the
green light to demolish was given Thursday, July 19, after the
Wood County Commission learned no asbestos was found in the three
Happy Valley homes in the latest phase of the federal flood
mitigation program.

Accredited Environmental Technologies of Media, Pa., did the
asbestos inspection at a cost of $1,225.

"No asbestos was found and we want to now advertise for
demolition," Fred Rader, with the Mid-Ohio Valley Regional Council
told commissioners.  The regional council administers the project
locally.

Closings on the three properties in the latest phase of the flood
project have been completed.  Properties were purchased for
$80,000, $160,000 and $47,000.

The commissioners gave the go ahead for the regional council to
advertise for bids for demolition of the structures.  A contract
could be awarded in mid-September and demolition take about 30
days, Meeks said.

"We've done four phases of this program in the past and I think
they found asbestos two out of the four times," Meeks said.

The county was earlier awarded $344,050 through the Federal
Emergency Management Agency Hazard Mitigation Program Grant.
Through this phase of the program, three additional homes in Happy
Valley were purchased to be demolished. The most recent project
must be completed by Dec. 31, 2014.

The program enables counties to buy out property owners who reside
in areas that repeatedly flood.  The homes are demolished and no
one is permitted to build on the land again as the program's aim
is to save on federal flood claims and related expenses.

Also Thursday, the commission signed a resolution to proceed with
more of the federal mitigation funding when it becomes available.

"If we have your blanket authorization to file whenever the funds
become available, that's the easiest way to handle it," Rader
said.  "We currently have a list of houses where the homeowners
have expressed an interest in participating in the program.  We
have 11 homeowners on file in the Happy Valley area; two in the
Seven Acres Road area (located off Nicolette Road) and one on
Point Drive (across the Little Kanawha from Happy Valley."  All
three of the current properties on the list are in the area of the
Little Kanawha River.

"We do have a database of those interested in participating in
future phases of this program, and anyone else who is interested
in being considered, can call the regional council.  Any place in
the county is eligible as long as the applicant has had a number
of past flood damage claims," Rader said.

A market appraisal is done on the properties in the program.
Participation is voluntary.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: News Report Pushes Cleanup of Rochester Warehouse
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Carroll at 13WHAM News relates that in June 13WHAM News
reported how a federal investigation into the illegal removal of
asbestos led to a man's valuable possessions being trapped inside
a vacant warehouse.

Tom Waydelis, who recently retired, was looking forward to using
his boat and motorcycle throughout this warm summer.  But last
fall he decided to store both of those possessions at 920 Exchange
Street.  In December federal authorities sealed off the building,
arrested the owner's son, and charged him with illegal removal of
asbestos.

With the hazardous material known to be inside Waydelis was stuck
on the wrong side of a locked fence and a building sealed off by
the EPA.  When 13WHAM News told Waydelis' story in June they also
learned that the building had become exposed and was easily
accessible to anyone who wished to get inside.

Waydelis expressed concern for his possessions and for the
public's safety.  A month after authorities became aware of this
situation through a 13WHAM News Your Stories report the asbestos
abatement is finally underway at that building.

"I mean every time I go out by the lake and it's like I can't get
out there (and) my motorcycle, the beautiful days to go riding,
I'm retired and that's all my toys I want to be able to use them
and I can't," Waydelis said.  "Yes, your report did help get it
moving, again it just brought to the public what was happening
over here and I think that's really pushed things to start
happening."

U.S. Attorney William Hochul's Office is prosecuting the asbestos
case and was quick to respond to 13WHAM News' inquiries about the
building's condition in June.  He issued this statement Thursday,
July 19:

"We are pleased that this structure is now being safely
remediated," said U.S. Attorney Hochul.  "Our obligation is to
prosecute any potential violators of the law.  As for this
property, we want to make sure that any concerns that could pose a
risk to the public are addressed properly and safely."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron and Budd Discusses $48MM Award in June
-------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2012, the family of a mesothelioma patient was awarded
$48 million by a Los Angeles Superior Court jury after finding Dow
subsidiary Union Carbide Corp., Riverside Cement, CalPortland and
others responsible.  This mesothelioma verdict is the largest in
the nation in 2012 (Bobbie Izell, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp.,
et al., Los Angeles County, Case No. 4674).

Baron and Budd mesothelioma attorneys John Langdoc --
jlangdoc@baronbudd.com -- and Christine Tamer --
ctamer@baronbudd.com -- represented the patient during trial.

"The asbestos companies abjectly refused to admit that their
products are causing cancer," said mesothelioma attorney John
Langdoc.  "But documents used in this case said not only that
their products caused cancer -- but that they also spent millions
hiding that fact."

Union Carbide presented several paid expert witnesses during a
six-week trial who argued that its asbestos -- trade named
"Calidria asbestos" -- didn't cause cancer.  But confidential
internal documents disclosed that Union Carbide staff physicians
criticized the marketing and sales groups for telling customers
its asbestos did not cause cancer.

Two other defendants in the case, Riverside Cement and
CalPortland, also employed the use of expert witnesses to attest
that the amount of asbestos released from their products was
inconsequential.  Quadrillions of fibers of asbestos, however,
were scientifically revealed to be in bags of their construction
products.

The jury ascribed $18 million in punitive damages to Dow
Chemical's subsidiary Union Carbide for its corporate cover-up of
asbestos dangers, even though all defendants were found at fault.

"The jury awarded punitive damages against Union Carbide of $1
million for each year that it continued to supply asbestos after a
1967 internal memo where the company admitted that asbestos caused
cancers," said mesothelioma attorney Langdoc.

For over 30 years, Baron and Budd has been a leader in meaningful
mesothelioma litigation.  The firm was originally established to
protect the rights of asbestos cancer patients.  Baron and Budd
was also one of the first law firms to fight the asbestos
companies and continues to fight today.  The firm has a long
history of substantial mesothelioma verdicts, including a $11
million verdict in Dallas, TX, $17 million in Philadelphia, $20
million in San Francisco, $55 million verdict in El Paso and many
others throughout the nation.

To learn more about the mesothelioma attorneys at Baron and Budd,
call 1.866.855.1229 or visit the firm's dedicated mesothelioma Web
site Mesothelioma News.

                  About Baron & Budd, P.C.

The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. has been
"Protecting What's Right" for asbestos sufferers and their
families for nearly 40 years.  As one of the first law firms to
successfully litigate an asbestos lawsuit, Baron & Budd continues
to actively represent veterans, industry workers and others who
are suffering as a result of exposure to asbestos.  Contact Baron
and Budd at 1.866.855.1229 for additional information on
mesothelioma treatments, mesothelioma cancer doctors and treatment
centers and mesothelioma attorneys.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eden School Officials State "No Airborne Fibro"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bolichowski of The St. Catharines Standard reports that
asbestos is being expelled from Eden Secondary School this summer.

With new lights and a new ceiling being installed in the school,
asbestos will be removed at the same time, said District School
Board of Niagara spokeswoman Kim Yielding.

But she said there's no danger.  There is no pure asbestos in the
school; what exists is contained within other material, and is not
airborne.

"I think parents would be happy to know that the work remediation
is being taken very seriously," she said.

Eden, she said, is one of 10 schools being worked on this summer.

"We're confident there's nothing in the air."

Yielding said the asbestos being removed is contained in several
ceiling and floor tiles and parts of the change-room storage area.

She said its presence isn't a surprise.  The board keeps careful
tabs on all parts of its schools that contain the material, which
is associated with illnesses like mesothelioma if lose fibers are
inhaled over a long time.

"There are no concerns about the asbestos in the building because
it's encapsulated," Yielding said, so the asbestos will not break
apart into fibers.

It's health issues stemming from breathing in the fibers that
makes the material harmful.

Asbestos was widely used in buildings as insulation until the
1970s because of its affordability, its ability to contain sound
and its resistance to heat and fire.

It mostly stopped being used, though, when its health risks became
fully known.  Even then, it still saw some use in the 1980s.

Eden school dates to 1960 and was added on to in 1969, 1993 and
2002.

Yielding said the board saves its asbestos removal projects for
summer when no teachers or students are around.  She said the
board tests the air before and after removing the material.

She said it hires contractors specially trained to work with the
material and takes precautions like triple-bagging the asbestos.

The board, she said, reviews its asbestos list annually, allowing
it to proactively take asbestos out of schools while other work
goes on.

"We're confident that there's nothing in the air," she said.

Work on Eden school is set to wrap up next month.

Information on any ongoing asbestos removal at Niagara Catholic
District School Board sites wasn't available Thursday, July 19.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkCover NSW Completes Probe at Ambulance Post
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary-Louise Vince of ABC News reports that WorkCover New South
Wales has completed its investigation into the discovery of
asbestos at a Central Coast ambulance station, which forced its
immediate closure last month.

The Authority issued a prohibition notice on Toukley ambulance
station, north of Wyong in early June, blocking all access to the
site after asbestos was found during the start of renovations.

The ABC has been told paramedics were present in the room when
contractors drilled into an asbestos-affected area.

A WorkCover spokesman says the station has since been tested and
declared safe.

The Ambulance Service says officers were deployed to nearby
stations during the incident and are expected to return to Toukley
station later this month when renovations are complete.

It is unclear whether the contractors were made aware of the
station's history with asbestos.

It was closed for several months due to a contamination scare in
2006.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Partner Welcomes New Drug Morab 009
------------------------------------------------------------------
New York asbestos exposure attorney Joseph W. Belluck, on July 19,
hailed reports of small progress in the effort to develop a new
type of medication that could potentially benefit victims of
mesothelioma, a deadly cancer caused by exposure to asbestos
fibers.

"Mesothelioma is such a serious disease, and the prognosis for so
many victims is so dire, that it is welcome news whenever we hear
about new developments in cancer treatments that could in the
future help mesothelioma patients live longer and better," said
Belluck, a partner in Belluck & Fox, LLP, a New York law firm that
has developed a national reputation for representing victims of
asbestos exposure.

Belluck was referring to news delivered in a recent Mesothelioma
Applied Research Foundation teleconference regarding promising
developments in the study of drugs designed to target -- and kill
-- mesothelioma tumors.  One of the lead researchers, Dr. Raffit
Hassan of the National Cancer Institute, discussed his team's
trial of a new line of drugs that uses the protein mesothelin to
target mesothelioma.

Mesothelin is found throughout the body.  Tumors such as those
associated with mesothelioma secrete large amounts of the protein.
This makes it an ideal way to target the tumors.

The experimental drug, known as Morab 009, is designed to use
mesothelin to seek out and bind to cancer cells, and then inject
an immunotoxin into the tumor to kill it, according to Dr. Hassan.

While Dr. Hassan said that the clinical trials could eventually
result in a new drug to treat both pleural and peritoneal
mesothelioma, he stressed that further studies are required to
show that the medication is effective and produces better results
than chemotherapy alone.  He said the next step will likely be a
randomized clinical study.

The first two phases of the drug's clinical testing have been
completed.  The results were scheduled to be presented at an
oncology conference this summer, according to the Meso Foundation.
The drug remains in the trial stage and has not received approval
from the U.S.  Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Hassan, who has been researching mesothelin-based drugs for 15
years, did not provide details about the outcome of the clinical
trials during the teleconference, but he did say that there were
some "exciting results."   He also said that patients appear to
tolerate the medication well and that side effects are not severe.

Belluck, the New York mesothelioma lawyer, said he is hopeful that
the experimental drug could one day help cancer patients like the
clients he represents in personal injury lawsuits stemming from
their exposure to cancer-causing asbestos.

"We must support the efforts of the National Cancer Institute and
other organizations that are working hard to develop new
innovations in the treatment of mesothelioma," Belluck said.  "In
my legal practice, I have seen time and again how the rare but
devastating disease of mesothelioma can destroy a person's life.
Victims deserve the best medical treatment science can provide."

                   About Belluck & Fox, LLP

Belluck & Fox, LLP, is a nationally recognized law firm that
represents individuals with asbestos and mesothelioma claims, as
well as victims of crime, motorcycle crashes, lead paint and other
serious injuries.  The firm provides personalized and professional
representation and has won more than $500 million in compensation
for clients and their families.

Partner Joseph W. Belluck is AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and is
listed in Best Lawyers in America, New York Magazine's "Best
Lawyers in the New York Area" and in Super Lawyers.  Mr. Belluck
has won numerous cases involving injuries from asbestos, defective
medical products, tobacco and lead paint.

Partner Jordan Fox is a well-known asbestos and mesothelioma
attorney who has been named to the Best Lawyers in America, New
York Magazine's "Best Lawyers in the New York Area" and to Super
Lawyers.  On two separate occasions his verdicts were featured as
the National Law Journal's Largest Verdict of the Year.

Belluck & Fox, LLP, is featured on the list of America's best law
firms, which was published jointly by U.S. News & World Report and
Best Lawyers magazine.  The listing showcases 8,782 different law
firms ranked in one or more of 81 major practice areas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPS to Do Cleanup Job for Land Reutilization Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Skolnick at Vindy.com relates that the city would receive
$1 million of Mahoning County's $1,531,680 allocation from an
attorney-general program for housing demolition, under the county
Land Reutilization Corp.'s proposal.

Also, the city plans to spend at least $1 million of its own money
for demolition work, said Mayor Charles Sammarone.

The land reutilization proposal is expected to be approved about
Aug. 1 by the attorney general's office, county Treasurer Daniel
Yemma, the corporation's chairman, wrote in a letter to Rebecca
Gerson, the city's first assistant law director.

"My goal is to tear down as many vacant homes as possible,"
Sammarone said.  "I would have taken $20 million.  If you've got
$20 million in unused money, send it here, and we'll spend it."

In anticipation of the demolition work, the city's board of
control agreed Thursday, July 19, to hire Environmental Protection
Systems (EPS) of Girard to remove asbestos from about 300 to 350
vacant residential homes as part of the state demolition program.
Because the houses have yet to undergo inspections for asbestos,
the city's contract with the Girard company for about $550,000
could fluctuate, but the amount is a good estimate, said Charles
Shasho, deputy of public works.

Also, city officials say a lot more than 300 to 350 houses will
come down as the money from the program doesn't have to be
completely spent until Dec. 31, 2013.

Sammarone previously had said he wanted 500 vacant residential
structures down by the end of 2013, but that was when he was
expecting the county to give $500,000 to the city.  He declined to
estimate how many houses will come down with the additional money.

With one company handling the asbestos removal, the process will
be better coordinated and move quicker, Sammarone said.

The city last month hired CT Consultants of Youngstown to do
asbestos testing and construction inspections as well as serve as
the city's administrator of residential demolitions for $1,050 a
structure.  City officials gave the same explanation about using
one company for this work as it did for asbestos removal.

There are about 2,000 to 4,500 dilapidated residential structures
that need to be demolished in Youngstown, based on various
estimates.

The attorney general's office set aside $75 million for
demolitions from the state's $335 million share of a $25 billion
national mortgage settlement with the country's five largest
mortgage companies over foreclosure abuse, fraud and improper
practices.

The money is divided among the state's 88 counties based on the
percentage of foreclosures filed in each county between 2008 and
2011.

To make it easier for counties to get money through the program,
no matching money is needed for the first $500,000 allocated to
each county.

In Mahoning County, which received $1,531,680, Youngstown received
$159,820 from the $500,000 pool of money without a need for a
match.  The remainder of the money for Youngstown, $840,180,
requires a dollar-for-dollar match.  The city will use at least $1
million of general fund money for this program, Sammarone said.

Some communities -- Beaver Township, Beloit, Campbell, Coitsville
and Springfield Township -- will not pay any of their own money
for demolition, but are being funded through this program, based
on need and an inability to provide money.

On the flip side, Boardman is receiving $100,000 from the dollar-
to-dollar match fund and none from the $500,000 no-match pot of
money.

Boardman Trustee Chairman Brad Calhoun said he assumed most of the
unmatched dollars would go to communities that couldn't provide
their own money for demolition.

"I'm thankful that a great majority of homes in Boardman that need
to be taken care of, can be."

The township plans to take down 26 houses with the money.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SF Superior Court Effects New Procedural Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Low at Sedgwick LLP writes that effective July 2, 2012,
asbestos cases in the San Francisco Superior Court are being
governed by a new set of procedural rules.  Following a decline in
asbestos filings and severe budget shortfalls, the court issued
the 16-page case management order to streamline the decades-old
series of "general orders."  The new order makes only modest
changes, but these changes affect a significant number of pending
and future matters, as San Francisco carries the largest asbestos
litigation caseload of any of California's 58 Superior Courts.

The new order governs all cases pending or filed on or after
July 2, 2012 -- but not any case with a trial date on or before
Sept. 30, 2012.  Noteworthy changes are as follows:

-- Complex Designation and Fee:  Asbestos cases are deemed complex
under Standard 3.10 of the Standards of Judicial Administration
and the California Rules of Court, Rule 3.403(b).  The "complex"
designation is not an advent of the new order -- but it coincides
with a near doubled increase in filing fees.  The initial
appearance fee in an asbestos case now costs $435 in addition to a
complex designation fee of $1,000 for each defendant, up to
$18,000 total for a case.

-- Prerequisites for Trial Setting:  Under the rescinded general
orders, the court clerk set a status and scheduling conference at
the filing of the complaint.  The conference was set approximately
11 months after the date of the complaint and anticipated that
trial would be set in approximately six to nine months thereafter.
The new order retains this timeline but adds prerequisites for
trial setting -- including that no trial date shall be set until
the deposition of the plaintiff has been completed unless good
cause is shown.  This new rule may expedite discovery in order to
ensure a timely trial setting or, at least, prevent trial from
being set prematurely.

-- Optional Case Management Conferences:  Prior to the new order,
an asbestos litigant's only formal access to the court was costly
motion practice, rare status and scheduling conferences, and the
assignment of trial.  The new order allows the parties to request
a case management conference to resolve an issue relating to the
trial setting conference or trial date.  This new rule may reduce
the expense otherwise expended to have an issue heard before the
court.

-- Discovery to Plaintiffs:  Pursuant to the rescinded general
orders, plaintiffs were obligated to respond to two sets of
"standard interrogatories" in each case and set forth basic
biographical information, specific claims of asbestos exposure,
and the types/amount of damages claimed.  Until both sets of
responses were served, all special discovery per the Code of Civil
Procedure was stayed.  The new order eliminates the discovery stay
and second set of standard interrogatories (which was a more
detailed -- but largely duplicative -- recitation of plaintiffs'
exposure claims).

-- Discovery to Defendants:  Under the rescinded general orders,
defendants were required to prepare and annually update one set of
standard interrogatories applicable to all asbestos cases.  The
standard interrogatories called for basic information about each
defendant-entity.  At their option, plaintiffs could also require
that each defendant answer an abbreviated set of case specific
standard interrogatories.  The new order retains only the option
of case specific standard interrogatories.

The court also retained several important rules from the general
orders, including: the provision for electronic filing; the
appointment of Berry and Berry as "designated defense counsel"
(now annually renewing); plaintiffs' obligation to provide basic
case information upon filing by way of a "preliminary fact sheet";
and the presumptive 20-hour time limit for the plaintiff's
deposition in a preference case, among others.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro Extends Abatement of Old Alpha Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benita Heath for the Ironton Tribune reports that finding
additional asbestos has delayed the start of demolition work on
the former Alpha Portland Cement Co. plant.

Work started in mid-May on asbestos abatement with actual
demolition scheduled to start in mid-June.

Originally crews believed they had removed all asbestos and were
getting ready to start tearing down the concrete structures on the
site.  However, before that work began more asbestos was found.

At its regular Thursday meeting the county commissioners disbursed
$169,106 from the Clean Ohio funds earmarked for the project.

"That is a good thing to make sure asbestos is not spread around,"
Commission president Les Boggs said.

A year ago in June Lawrence County was among 17 statewide
recipients of Clean Ohio Revitalization Grants, receiving $794,565
for cleaning up the former cement plant site.

When the land is remediated, Marietta Industrial Enterprise, a
material handling company, has plans to put in a satellite
distribution warehouse.  The 30,000-square-foot warehouse to be
built there is expected to bring 10 to 15 jobs to the county.

The site, off Hog Run Road in Upper Township ,has long been
considered to be a blighted area by county officials.  The plant
dates back to the early 1800s when it opened as the Ironton Cement
Co.  In 1920 Alpha Portland purchased that plant, closing it in
1970 for financial reasons.  There were 175 working at the plant
at that time.

Right now the acreage is owned by the Ice Creek Land Co.

"Within the next 30 days we should see some demolition," Boggs
said.  "It has been a long process, dealing with the EPA.  We will
be glad to see this eyesore torn down."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D&DL Provides Important Info on Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Danziger & De Llano law firm has updated their Web site at
http://www.mesotheliomalawyer.ccwith essential information about
what is mesothelioma and what difference can a mesothelioma lawyer
make for victims diagnosed with this deadly disease.  Namely, they
point out the important facts of filing a mesothelioma claim and
reveal the strategies their attorneys use in fighting against the
companies responsible for manufacturing, selling and using
asbestos.

The experienced mesothelioma lawyers at Danziger & De Llano
believe every victim of asbestos exposure has the right to know
about the dangers of exposure to asbestos-containing products.
Consequently, they work tirelessly to protect the rights of those
who have developed asbestos-related diseases in or outside the
courtroom.  With many years of experience in protecting the rights
of families throughout the United States, lawyers at Danziger & De
Llano are supporting victims overcome such difficult times by
helping cover medical costs and loss of income.

Some mesothelioma patients are aware they were exposed to
asbestos, but many of them do not know when, how or for how long
they were exposed to this dangerous carcinogen.  Unfortunately,
the market was literally flooded by products containing asbestos-
from cigarette filters to roof materials or hair dryers, and
prolonged exposure has led to the development of deadly diseases
such as mesothelioma.  While some victims were exposed to asbestos
at home, others had to work with asbestos when handling pipes,
boilers or insulation products.

Generally, the value of a case depends on how many asbestos
products was the victim exposed to, how many defendants are still
economically active, age and income earning capacity.  The state
where the victim has lived and worked during asbestos exposure
will directly influence the speed with which the case is resolved
and the victim receives compensation.

There are different types of asbestos injury cases that victims
are informed about at http://www.mesotheliomalawyer.cc  First of
all, most lawsuits take place between individuals who were
directly exposure to asbestos or related products and the
manufacturers of these carcinogens.  However, other people who may
have indirectly been exposed to asbestos are entitled to file
lawsuits and protect their rights.  Cases of secondary asbestos
exposure are also common among claimants who haven't come in
contact directly with asbestos, but were still exposed.

Filing a claim is made easy at Danziger & De Llano.  Please visit
http://www.mesotheliomalawyer.ccto receive a free case
consultation today.

                     About Danziger & De Llano

Danziger & De Llano has a solid reputation for aggressive
representation of mesothelioma victims who are looking to receive
compensation for their losses.  They provide free case
consultations and knowledgeable assistance for victims of asbestos
exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Plan of Forrest City Fire Debris on Track
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Owens of Forrest City Times-Herald reports that debris
removal from the site of the Front Street fire will require
companies specializing in asbestos removal after trace amounts of
the chemical were found in samples tested from one of the
buildings.

Forrest City Code Enforcement officer Connie Muqtasid said samples
were recently taken from the property owned by Dr. Xavier Haymer.
Haymer owned three of the buildings, located at 101 through 105
Front Street, that were destroyed during the fire on Sunday,
May 27.

"Dr. Haymer allowed the city to take the samples from his
property.  The building at the intersection of North Washington
and Front Street was asbestos free, but trace amounts were found
in the debris from the other two buildings," said Muqtasid.

Muqtasid said she is in the process of contacting Haymer with the
results and sending a letter that will spell out what must be done
to remove the debris.

"I have contacted ADEQ (Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality) and they have said that all of the debris will have to be
removed by asbestos specialists," she said.

Testing has also been done on property at 117 S. Washington, the
former offices of Sharpe, Beavers, Cline and Wright, but Muqtasid
said she was not aware of the test results.

The third property owner, NewG Holdings, LLC, which is based in
West Memphis, and owned buildings at 509 and 511 Front Street, has
also been contacted and opted to have his property independently
tested, according to Muqtasid.

"We have a process outlined in the city codes which sets the
deadlines for everything and we're going to follow that process.
Hopefully, we won't have too many issues to deal with down there,"
said Muqtasid.

All five buildings were destroyed by a fire that lasted for
several days.  State fire investigators were not able to determine
what caused the fire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D&DL Says Diagnosed ARD Victims Must Act ASAP
--------------------------------------------------------------
Time is of the essence for patients diagnosed with mesothelioma.
Not only do victims of asbestos exposure have to deal with the
drama and implications of this deadly cancer, but they also have
to prepare a strong case before statute of limitations ends, if
they are interested in receiving compensation for medical bills
and fighting against the companies that caused them and their
families so much harm.

The statute of limitations differs from state to state but it
limits the period during which an individual diagnosed with
mesothelioma can file a claim.  While there is a chance for an
experienced mesothelioma lawyer to go to court with a particular
case even after the statute of limitations has passed, victims are
more likely to succeed in their quest if they act immediately
after receiving the diagnosis.

"We realize that, in many cases, looking for an attorney may not
be the first thing mesothelioma victims think of after receiving
such frightening diagnosis.  However, it is their goal to receive
compensation for medical bills and loss of income, as to be able
to continue providing for their families.  This is why we urge all
victims of asbestos exposure to fill out the online form and
receive a free case consultation as soon as possible.  With such
terrible disease, every second counts," says one of the
experienced mesothelioma attorneys at Danziger & De Llano.

Aside from considering the statute of limitations as an important
factor in speeding up the process of filing the claim, financial
pressure is also of great importance.  What a mesothelioma
diagnosis usually brings is loss of income, greater expenses,
stress and the inability to cover for medical bills not covered by
insurance.  Resorting to a lawyer and preparing a strong case is
an easy way to obtain financial relief from this great pressure.

Having years of experience in filing mesothelioma claims and
dealing with asbestos victims, the experienced mesothelioma
attorneys at Danziger & De Llano can also provide essential
information and resources about treatment options and competent
doctors for this disease.  The sooner these aspects are covered,
the more chances will victims have to lead normal lives and
continue to support their families.

Money should not be an issue when going through such tremendous
moments.  At Danziger & De Llano, victims are entitled to receive
free case consultations upon filling out the online form available
at http://www.mesotheliomaattorneys.net

                 About Danziger & De Llano

Danziger & De Llano law firm is committed to represent individuals
who have been diagnosed with deadly mesothelioma after being
exposed to asbestos and related products.  Their team has
dedicated their time and expertise to ensure that asbestos
exposure victims receive the compensation they deserve.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meadowbrook School Abatement Completes 1st Half
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth McNamara of the East Greewich Patch reports that
construction at Meadowbrook Farms School is on time and asbestos
abatement -- the most important part of the summertime work -- is
more than 50% done, School Committee members learned Tuesday,
July 17.

Sean Sullivan, of the project management company Strategic
Building Solutions, updated the panel during its regular meeting
Tuesday evening at Cole Middle School.

Meadowbrook Farms is undergoing a renovation to solve decades-old
moisture problems at the building.  Work began this summer after
protracted discussions over what do to and if it should be done at
all, the cost, and, finally, when and how to actually complete the
work.

"The teachers have done an amazing job packing up all their
stuff," Sullivan said.  Things were ready for construction to
begin the day after school was let out for the summer.  Phase one
of the asbestos abatement was completed last week, he said.  That
phase included the kitchen, cafeteria, administration, front
entry, administration offices and kindergarten rooms.

"They are completing phase two by Thursday, July 19, with three
four five guys working late every night," he said.

An asbestos hygienist has been on site before, during and after
each phase of the removal process.  Before works begins, the
hygienist checks to make sure the rooms are sealed appropriately.

"The hygienist comes in before any of the abatement work happens
and checks the plastic layering of the walls," Sullivan told the
committee.  From outside the school, it looks almost like
someone's blown up a balloon on the inside, with the sides of the
balloon pressing up against the windows and walls.

Sullivan said asbestos abatement work would be completed well
before the beginning of school.

The other major work taking place at Meadowbrook is the new roof.

"The roof has been a major focus of work," Sullivan said.  The gym
and cafeteria roof is largely completed and the lower roof is
about 25% done.

"It's progressing well," he said.

School Committeeman David Green, who is head of the School
Building Committee, said construction updates are posted each
Wednesday on the Meadowbrook Farms Web site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chico High School Demolition Eyes 2013 Completion
------------------------------------------------------------------
ChicoER.com reports that the demolition of Chico High School's
Lincoln Hall has began to make room for much larger building due
to be completed in 2013.

A large excavator claw began tearing the 60-year-old building
apart 9 a.m. Tuesday, July 17, after it was cleared of asbestos
during an earlier abatement project, said Mike Weissenborn, the
director of facilities of Chico Unified School District.

The old 10,884-square-foot cafeteria built in 1952 will be
replaced by a 18,426-square-foot cafeteria and gymnasium with the
capacity to seat 300 spectators, Weissenborn said.

The building will be divided into two different sides, with half
dedicated to the gym and half dedicated to the cafeteria

The project, which costs about $11 million, is being funded by
money from Measure A, a bond proposal approved by voters in 1998
to build a new high school, Weissenborn said.

When declining enrollment made it clear that another high school
was not needed, the Chico Unified School District school board
directed the bond funding to improvements on the Chico and
Pleasant Valley high school campuses, Weissenborn said.

The project is expected to be completed sometime during the 2013
fall semester.

In the meantime, students will eat food prepared at Chico Junior
High School from food trailers dispersed throughout campus.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Notorious Violator Pleads Guilty, Gets Probation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Manganis of The Salem News reports that a second person has
pleaded guilty to improperly removing and storing asbestos from
several North Shore schools, a library, a fire station, a women's
shelter and other buildings.

But Julie Rosati, 52, of Wakefield, will serve no jail time for
her crimes, despite a request by prosecutors that she spend at
least a year behind bars.

Instead, Rosati will spend three years on probation, and is barred
from performing any asbestos removal work during that time.

Her business partner and boyfriend, David Harder, 48, was
sentenced on Tuesday, July 17 to 30 days in jail and three years
of probation, with the same condition.

The sentences were offered by Salem Superior Court Judge John Lu
during plea negotiations earlier this year.

On July 20, though Lu was not in court, Judge David Lowy agreed to
go along with the sentence his colleague had proposed, though the
judge did pause the proceedings to ask for and then read a copy of
the Attorney General's sentencing memorandum.

"The crimes in this case . . . are very serious cases in which Ms.
Rosati, for her own reasons, was willing to jeopardize people's
health," said Lowy.

Rosati and Harder operated a business they called AEI
Environmental LLC out of her former Lynnfield home.  (The company
bore a similar name to a nationally known environmental consulting
firm, but the two businesses are not connected.)

Prosecutor Andrew Rainer told Lowy that the company was never
registered with the state to perform such work.

Despite that, the company was hired for numerous asbestos removal
projects, including two public schools, the public library and a
fire station in the city of Lynn.

The company was also hired to perform asbestos removal at the
former Mayflower Motel in Beverly, which was being demolished; and
the Village School and the Tedesco Country Club in Marblehead.

Rosati and Harder never reported the projects to the Department of
Environmental Protection, as required under state regulations
intended to allow for inspections to ensure that the work is being
done properly.

In at least three instances, Rainer said, it was not.  Fragments
of asbestos were found at both the Lynn Woods School and the Lynn
Public Library during tests months after the work had been done,
and witnesses described bags of asbestos being tossed out upper-
floor windows of a women's shelter in Lynn.

The pair also left 380 bags of asbestos in two lockers at Simply
Self-Storage, a business on Route 1 in Lynnfield.

Rainer said Rosati also "tricked" the owners of two legitimate
asbestos removal firms into filing paperwork with the state taking
responsibility for the asbestos removal work that AEI was actually
doing.

Rainer noted in his sentencing memorandum that both Rosati and
Harder had years of experience and training in asbestos removal.

Despite that, they never registered their new company, as
required, and then proceeded to engage in improper removal of
asbestos at locations that the prosecutor noted were "sensitive,"
including three schools, a library and a shelter housing women and
children.

Rosati and Harder also admitted to failing to pay unemployment
insurance premiums, and Rainer, in his sentencing memorandum, said
they lied to employees about things like deductions for child
support and taxes.

One employee discovered that Harder had not been sending in the
court-ordered child support payments that were supposed to be
coming out of his paycheck for months.

Rosati's lawyer, Michael Hickey, blamed financial woes for
Rosati's actions, and said since the indictments, she has been
left "deeply in debt" and struggling to pay for the basic
necessities of life.

Rosati, Hickey said, has lost her home and the career she trained
for.

According to court documents, however, Rosati and Harder were both
working at another asbestos removal business, called Clean Air
Associates, as recently as last December, something Rainer called
"perhaps most troubling."

Prosecutors have charged Rosati with working as an asbestos
removal designer on at least two projects, one in Worcester and
one in East Boston, last year despite having no license for that
work.

Harder, meanwhile, was stopped on Route 495 on Dec. 5 in a truck
with an expired registration.  At the time, Harder's driver's
license was also expired.  The truck was loaded with approximately
20 large black trash bags full of asbestos that were not labeled
or tied down.  The material came from a project in Worcester.

Inspectors later determined that the work in the basement, being
supervised by Harder, was not being done properly, because there
were remnants of asbestos left at the scene.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Widows Relate 2006 Victory Over ARD Payout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Cooke at stuff.co.nz reports that a 2006 High Court
victory for asbestos victims and their families has paved the way
for hundreds of others to receive compensation of $100,000 or
more.

It was a battle no one wanted to fight, but those who were dying
from asbestos-related illnesses, and the widows who were left with
nothing, were determined to secure lump-sum payments when they
fought ACC in 2006.

It wouldn't bring their husbands back, or keep them alive, but the
money was a small comfort when faced with a disease that usually
doesn't present itself until 20 to 60 years after exposure, and
can kill within months.

Three widows who took the High Court case not only secured the
payments for themselves and 30 others at the time of the decision,
but 537 people have since been paid more than $100,000 in lump-sum
payments for "whole person impairment", and close to $100 million
has been paid in asbestos-related claims.

Nothing will replace the hole left in Dawn Lehmann's life after
her husband Ross was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died less
than a year later.

But the 84-year-old Aucklander takes comfort in knowing the fight
was worth it.  "Thankfully for me and for the other people that
followed it was successful. But it doesn't make up for it."

Her son John says they should never have had to fight in the first
place.

Like so many others, Ross Lehmann had no idea the asbestos he had
worked with would come back to haunt him in retirement.

The engineer died in 2003 after securing $100,000 from ACC for a
work-related disease, but ACC appealed, and won.

After spending thousands in court, Dawn Lehmann risked having to
return the money she used to help her travel to hospital to be
with Ross before his death.

But the 2006 case, which was taken up by other asbestos widows,
secured the payments, and hundreds of claims started pouring in.

"I felt I was fighting over bones, but it was a principle, because
we knew there were many others from his generation who were
exposed to this stuff," John Lehmann said.

One of those was Peter Kohing, a former Wellington primary school
principal who died in 2010 of mesothelioma.  It was while working
as a teacher that he was twice exposed to asbestos.  He was one of
those to benefit from the lump-sums Lehmann and widows Dorris
Priddle, Lyn Soeters and Juanita Angell were all determined to
secure.

"These people were put at risk, and it was a known risk, because
it was concealed from the public," John Lehmann said.  "It was a
form of industrial genocide."

Warnings about the dangers of asbestos began appearing in New
Zealand in the 1930s.

"The fibers produce a deadly pulmonary disease," a 1938 health
report said.

"The dust can be expected to cause a certain amount of lung damage
unless proper precautions are taken," said another, in 1951.

But asbestos continued to be used, and working men would breathe
in the fibers, unaware of the danger.  Their families would also
be exposed when the men went home.

Even now, New Zealanders are still being exposed, as old homes are
demolished.

The World Health Organization has recognized asbestos is one of
the most important carcinogens, and that about 100,000 people from
83 countries have died from mesothelioma since 1994.

As well as mesothelioma, which usually claims lives within two
years, asbestos exposure can lead to asbestosis and lung
abnormalities.

In New Zealand, 1080 mesothelioma cases have been documented since
1954, and more than 17,000 people have registered with the
Department of Labour as having possibly being exposed to asbestos.

Those diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness are usually
elderly, European men.  Carpenters, plumbers and electricians make
up 67 per cent of all cases presented since 1992.  But thousands
of others, whose lung cancer has been put down to smoking, might
also have suffered, the department has said in the past.

The misdiagnosed are not the only ones missing out, says
Wellington lawyer John Miller, who fought and won the 2006 case.

People whose cancer gradually progresses need to be constantly
assessed or they won't receive compensation, while families told a
deceased loved one had an asbestos-related disease only after it
showed up in autopsy results, are not entitled to anything, he
says.

And then there are those like Deidre van Gurven, who's husband Tom
died of mesothelioma in 1998.  The lump-sum payments only apply to
those diagnosed after April, 2002.

"It's cruel.  Nobody should die from an asbestos-related disease
ever, because it's just greed that caused it," the Masterton
resident says.  Van Gurven set up a Web site after her husband's
death and often hears stories from around the world about
asbestos.

A lump sum would have meant she and Tom could have spent their
last weeks together at a beach near the sea, rather than with him
in hospital and her stressing about paying for the petrol to visit
him.

She doesn't want to see others in a similar situation and says
anyone who thinks they might have been exposed must get checked,
rechecked, then checked again.

More than 17,000 people registered as having possibly being
exposed to asbestos.

At least 1,000 New Zealand and 100,000 worldwide mesothelioma
deaths.

More than $100 million in asbestos-related claims paid out by ACC
since 2006 Carpenters, builders and electricians among those most
likely to have been exposed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rob Cagle Memorial Ride Rolls Out July 28
----------------------------------------------------------
Valari Hyatt of the Pekin Daily Times relates that Rob Cagle was
diagnosed with mesothelioma at age 40 in October of 2005.  At the
time of his cancer diagnosis he was given eight months to live.
Doctors were wrong -- he died on Sept. 11, 2011, at the age of 46.

"He died at home in my arms," said his wife, Jill Cagle, who is
planning a memorial ride to raise awareness and ban asbestos in
his honor.  "He was my soul mate -- a very dedicated and loving
husband, friend, father, son, brother, and most recently, a
grandfather.  He absolutely loved to fish, ride his Harley and
play golf . . . he was a people person and never met a stranger."

Jill Cagle said her husband never gave up through the six years of
mesothelioma and chemo treatments.  "Rob was an advocate for
fighting this disease and the total ban of asbestos.  This disease
took his life, but it never, ever took his spirit and passion for
living.  He never gave up.  I believe he would want to say to
those battling this nasty disease: 'Don't give up! Live every day!
Love with your whole heart! Keep fighting for a ban and a cure!'"

Rob Cagle's death could have been avoided had asbestos been banned
in his lifetime, according to Jill.  "Fifty-five countries have
banned asbestos.  Sadly, the United States is not one of them.  It
is not banned in the United States.  It is not mined here.  It is
not exported here but we import it, mostly from Canada."

Actually, asbestos was banned in the United States for about a
year but, according to Jill Cagle, "another president overturned
it.  It's really sad, because the only cause for this type of
cancer is asbestos.  This is the only cancer that can be
eliminated completely if it was banned and not used.  But asbestos
is cheap and a good insulator so people use it.  But just think,
we could ban it and wipe out this particular cancer forever."

Most likely, Rob Cagle's contact with asbestos came while he was
serving in the Navy on a ship.  After his diagnosis, he researched
his options and eventually became part of a clinical trial in New
York at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital.  He made many trips to
Miracle House in New York, where he found the latest treatments.
Jill Cagle praises "Corporate Angels for letting us hitch rides on
their jets for free, and Lifeline Pilots who donated their time to
fly us . . . also friends who donated frequent miles, which helped
us tremendously."

One thing they learned from it all, she said, is that "there are
people who will help.  You don't have to give up and die.  If you
get a diagnosis, be aggressive in your treatment.  Don't just
stand around and say 'OK.'  Ask questions.  Get a second opinion.
Do your homework."

"This memorial ride can't just be for Rob," Jill contends.  "It's
about awareness.  People need to be aware and be smart.  If you
get a diagnosis, get a second opinion.  Rob was given eight
months, but he lived six years.  He didn't give up.  He rode his
bike and then a trike when he was too weak for the bike.  But, oh,
how he lived."

Rob Cagle supported events much like this one.  In fact, the night
before he went into hospice care, he donated his services at the
Ben Dale benefit.  He was a true advocate, flying to Washington,
D.C., where he attended an International Symposium on Malignant
Mesothelioma in 2010.  And he was a member of the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization (ADAO).  He always assisted at any event
where he was needed, and was on a Relay for Life team before he
was diagnosed himself.

Hoping to raise awareness about asbestos, Jill Cagle is planning a
memorial ride in honor of her late husband.  The ride, entitled
"Ridin the wind with Rob, It's All Good," is slated for Saturday,
July 28.

Sign-in is from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Pekin Avanti's Dome.
Cost is $10 per person and includes dinner.  A prayer and blessing
for the bike riders will take place at 11:30 a.m.  Bikes, trikes,
cars and all types of transportation are welcome.  The last
vehicle must be in by 6 p.m. at Goodfellas in Pekin.

"This is for the whole family," Jill Cagle said.  "Bring the kids
for games, prizes and spaghetti dinner at Goodfellas."  Dinner is
from 4 to 7 p.m.  Tickets cost $6 for adults and $3 for children
ages 4 to 12 years.  Tickets for children aged 3 and under are
free.  There will be a bake sale, raffles and surprise items.

All proceeds go to The Robbie Cagle College Scholarship Fund,
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, and the Mesothelioma
Research Foundation.

For more information visit the Mesothelioma Applied Research
Foundation at curemeso.org; the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization at www.adao.us and Ban Asbestos at www.banasbestos.us


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Pays $500K, Settles Dispute With Homeowners
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) against the
United States has been settled with the government's payment of
almost $500,000 to cover the cost of investigation and remediation
of asbestos-containing material discovered in the soil near the
association's former amphitheater and sledding hill.

The July 2010 lawsuit filed by SROA alleged that asbestos
contamination existed on six acres of a 22-acre parcel that, in
the 1940s, was part of Camp Abbot, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
training camp.  According to SROA, beginning in 1944, the United
States demolished most of the Camp Abbot buildings; many had floor
tiles, siding, insulation and other construction materials that
contained asbestos.  These materials were abandoned on site when
the United States left the property.  The community of Sunriver
was developed on the former Camp Abbot grounds beginning in 1968.

SROA first discovered the asbestos debris in 2002 and worked with
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to
investigate the extent of contamination and develop a remedy to
prevent any contact with the contaminated soil.  In 2010, SROA's
members approved construction of the Sunriver Homeowners Aquatic &
Recreation Center (SHARC) on the 22-acre site.  The center
functions as a cap over the contaminated soil.  SHARC opened
earlier this summer to great success.  Had it not been
constructed, SROA would have been required to spend an estimated
$3.2 million to remove all of the asbestos-contaminated soil.

The Portland, Oregon-based environmental consulting firm Ash Creek
Associates oversaw most of the investigation and remediation of
the site.  DEQ approved the remedy prior to construction of SHARC
and is currently preparing to issue a conditional "No Further
Action" determination for the site, indicating that all
unacceptable risks to human health and the environment have been
resolved and no further investigation or remediation is necessary
other than ongoing inspection and maintenance of the cap.

Attorneys David Blount -- dblount@landye-bennett.com -- and
Jennifer Gates -- jgates@landye-bennett.com -- at Landye Bennett
Blumstein LLP in Portland represented SROA in the lawsuit against
the United States.  According to Gates, "While it appeared from
the beginning that the United States might be the source of the
asbestos, with assistance from a military architectural historian,
archaeologist and aerial photo expert, we were able to convince
the United States that it bore most, if not all responsibility."

SHARC received an Oregon Brownfields Award earlier this year.  The
awards recognize individuals and groups who worked together to
transform contaminated sites into productive uses.

According to DEQ, a brownfield is "a real property where expansion
or redevelopment is complicated by actual or perceived
environmental contamination."  Hugh Palcic, SROA's assistant
general manager also won the 2012 Oregon Brownfields Unsung Hero
Award for his work guiding the project from investigation to
completion.

"We are pleased this dispute has been resolved fairly and that the
United States accepted responsibility," said SROA General Manager
Bill Peck.  "Our homeowners were able to recoup almost all of the
costs of dealing with the asbestos contamination.  Sunriver
developed a beautiful new recreation facility, the environmental
hazards of the site were remediated, and the cleanup cost was
reduced by more than $2.5 million."

SROA is a not-for-profit corporation that provides quasi-
governmental services for its nearly 4,000 members and maintains
Sunriver's 65 miles of roads, 33 miles of pathways, two aquatic
facilities, three parks, 26 tennis courts and 1,000 acres of
common area. The community is located 15 miles south of Bend in
Central Oregon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Movement to Ban Asbestos Rising in Thailand
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News Montreal reports that an anti-asbestos advocate warns
that one of the countries that consumes the most asbestos in the
world is seeing a growing resistance to the use of the mineral and
that it could mean big problems for the Jeffrey Mine.

In June, the Quebec government pledged $58 million to help reopen
the mine, in Quebec's Eastern Townships region, making it the only
remaining asbestos mine in the country.

Kathleen Ruff, senior advisor on human rights to the Rideau
Institute, said the health community in Thailand is pushing for an
end to use of asbestos.

"One of the reasons is that studies that were done show appalling
conditions for the use of asbestos," she said.

The World Health Organization has said asbestos is responsible for
100,000 deaths each year.

Still, Quebec and Ottawa both stand by the industry.

Federal Trade Minister Ed Fast was at a meeting in Montreal
Monday, July 23, talking about fostering more trade with India,
another major consumer of asbestos.

"We believe in the safe and controlled use of chrysotile.  Which
when used properly is safe to use," said Fast.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro at Woodstock Town Hall Costs $13,779
----------------------------------------------------------------
William J. Kemble of the Daily Freeman reports that Woodstock Town
Board on Friday, July 20, agreed to pay $13,779 in costs needed
for additional asbestos abatement involved with the Town Hall
renovation project.

The amount was discussed at a Town Board meeting during which
officials were told that tests found the presence of 20 to 25%
more asbestos than indicated when the project was bid earlier this
year.

"They (Nurzia Construction) based their bid on a report by Alpine
Environmental Services that was done in 2007," town Supervisor
Jeremy Wilber said.  "After they made their bid and it was
accepted we found that because there were more sensitive detecting
devices and because we had expanded the area, that we needed
another survey.  Alpine came back and they found more asbestos."

Residents in December 2007 gave 226-168 approval to bond $1.45
million of an estimated $1.6 million for court and dispatch
renovation as well as a geothermal system for heating and cooling.
However, costs for the project came in $600,000 over estimates
when bids were opened and it took another four years for the work
to be scaled back enough for five construction contracts to come
in at $1.08 million.

The additional money needed for asbestos removal comes only two
weeks after board members approved spending $1,500 for Novus
Engineering to provide drawings detailing pollution prevention
measures during drilling used to install geothermal wells for the
Town Hall heating and cooling system.

Wilber said the initial costs for asbestos removal had been
estimated at $46,000.  The additional cost will be $11,894 for the
removal and $1,885 for a air monitoring, developing a removal
plan, and post-removal inspections.

"Ninety-nine percent of the . . . friable asbestos is in the
coated hot air ducts," Wilber said.

"We knew all along there was asbestos in there," he said.
"Obviously we didn't know there was as much as there is and this
is just part of the gig.  In almost every single old building
you're going to find asbestos in it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheffield Council Seeks to Re-Coup GBP87,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Star reports that more than GBP700,000 has been paid out in
compensation to former Sheffield Council employees exposed to
asbestos in the past two years.

The deadly substance was the cause of the highest number of cases
settled in employers' liability claims against the authority
between 2010 and April this year.

The majority of the exposure is reported to have taken place in
the 1950s, 60s and 70s, when asbestos was still widely used in the
UK.

But the most recent incident of a council employee working with it
was in 1991.

Of the seven cases settled during the two-years, the highest
amount paid to one individual was GBP235,470.

Sheffield Council said although it settled, it was not responsible
for all the exposure and would try to re-coup some of the money
from some employers.

Laraine Manley, executive director of resources for Sheffield
Council, said: "The majority of claims payments for asbestos-
related illness relate to periods of exposure which took place in
the 1950s and 1960s.

"Much more is known now about the risks posed by asbestos than was
known then and the health and safety management of asbestos has
improved significantly.  "The council takes its legal
responsibilities for the health and safety of employees,
contractors and the public very seriously and has management
arrangements in place to identify, reduce and control risks.

"We involve our workforce and trade union safety representatives
closely."

The council is trying to recover GBP87,000 of the asbestos
compensation from other companies.  It holds insurance reserves
for future compensation payments so that these liabilities do not
directly affect its annual budget."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dislodges 150 Kanaleneiland Residents
------------------------------------------------------------
DutchNews.nl reports that high concentrations of asbestos have
been found in and around an apartment block in Utrecht's district
of Kanaleneiland, the city's deputy mayor said on Monday, July 23.

While samples taken at two locations showed negligible levels of
asbestos, tests run in a third showed high levels of the dangerous
fibers, deputy mayor Gilbert Isabella told a news conference on
Monday.

Some 150 people were ordered to leave their homes after asbestos
was found in two apartments in a block of flats on the Stanleylaan
at the weekend.

The spray-on asbestos was discovered during renovation work on the
properties, which are owned by housing corporation Mitros.

Spray-on asbestos, used as insulation and fire-proofing, was
banned in the Netherlands in 1977 and is considered one of the
most dangerous forms of asbestos.  The affected property was built
between 1960 and 1965.

ANP reports that the asbestos was discovered on Thursday, July 19,
but the decision to evacuate the 48 flats was not taken until
Sunday, July 22.

A number of people were allowed to return later in the day but
some were put up in a hotel for the night.  Although they were
allowed home to pick up essential items, dozens of families will
have to remain in hotels for another five nights at least.

Locals have complained about being given no or inadequate
information about the health risk and being caught by surprise
when the area was sealed off.

However, the risk of such short term exposure is very limited,
asbestos expert Ben Rozema told the news conference.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leamington Tenant "Livid" over Council's Neglect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Leamington Courier reports that a South Leamington man fears
he and his family may have received a "death sentence" after
asbestos was found in their flat -- and then not removed for a
further two years.

David Haycock, 39, of Christine Ledger Square, is seeking
reassurance that his family -- and other residents in the ten-
storey block -- have not been exposed to the deadly fibers.

Warwick District Council says asbestos was found in the block in
2010, but the risk was assessed as 'medium'.

It has, however, decided recently to remove it and put Mr.
Haycock's family up in a hotel.

Mr. Haycock overheard workmen discussing the asbestos when the
kitchen and bathroom in his council flat were refitted in 2010.
When he saw a van belonging to contractors removing asbestos from
another flat some weeks ago he became concerned about the material
in his own home.

Warwick District Council has now put Mr. Haycock up in a hotel
while the asbestos is removed, but he did not hide his fury at
officials and councilors.

He said: "I'm absolutely livid.  I just want to get out of here
because if we've been breathing asbestos we've been given a death
sentence."

Mr. Haycock, 39, a senior care officer at The Lawns care home in
Whitnash, has lived in the block off Brunswick Street since 2004.

The asbestos has been sawn in the past and Mr. Haycock believes
the council should have removed the potentially deadly material
sooner.  He has made a Freedom of Information request to see the
authority's records.

Decaying asbestos can cause fatal lung cancer, and he is worried
he, his partner and their three-year-old son Tiger Taylor may have
breathed it in.

And with five flats on each of its ten floors, Mr. Haycock hopes
others in Christine Ledger Square have not been affected.

He added: "It's a case of hoping and praying the ventilation
system has adequate filtering.  You never know unless you get some
sort of asbestos cancer in the future.  My concern that if it was
done in this flat, has it been done in all of them."

A district council spokesman said the authority is conducting
routine works and inspections to the service ducts in the main
shafts at Christine Ledger Square flats, adding: "Asbestos is an
extremely common material used in the construction of buildings
from the 1940s to the 1970s.  In good condition, it presents no
safety or health risks and it is the council's duty to ensure the
location and condition of any asbestos is recorded.

"Where asbestos is found to be in a condition which is
deteriorating or presents a potential risk, then removal would be
undertaken in a managed and safe way.  This is the case with a
small number of flats within the main block at Christine Ledger
Square.

"Under our new policy we are now removing asbestos and reducing
its risk before the property becomes empty, which was the course
of action we have undertaken in the property concerned.

"We have also completed an air test, which found no asbestos
fibers."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADF Pushes Woodsreef Asbestos Mine Rehabilitation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press relates that it has been abandoned
for more than three decades, but the dust is yet to settle at the
Woodsreef asbestos mine in northwest NSW.

The open-cut asbestos mine near Barraba, population 1100, has sat
empty since white asbestos mining and processing at the site
stopped in 1983.

Now state government agencies and the Asbestos Diseases Foundation
of Australia are preparing to meet townspeople to discuss address
safety concerns.

Rehabilitation of the site and a proposed road closure are set to
be on the agenda at Thursday, July 26 meeting.

Closing Crow Mountain Road, which runs through the site, was a key
recommendation in a damning NSW Ombudsman's reported handed down
in 2010.

Barraba Community Development Committee spokesman Danny Ballard
said he was wary of the road in dusty weather.

"If it was a hot summer, dry and windy, I would not drive along
there with the windows down," he told AAP.

Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia president Barry Robson
says the proposed road closure isn't enough, and the government
should stump up the estimated $80 million-plus needed to remediate
the whole site.

The derelict mine covers about 400 hectares and its open pits are
large enough to be seen via satellite.

The Woodsreef Taskforce -- a coalition of government agencies
charged with making the site safe -- says the mine houses 75
million tons of waste rock and a 25-million-ton asbestos tailings
dump.

Comment has been sought from the Department of Primary Industries,
which is charged with rehabilitating the site.

The NSW Dust Diseases Board reported in 2011 that at least seven
former Woodsreef Mine workers have been diagnosed with diseases
including mesothelioma and other forms of lung cancer.

Some locals didn't want the road closed and were angry they were
being asked to do so after decades of use.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 150 Health Organizations Unite Against Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a call for the global ban on all forms of
asbestos was made July 24 by more than 150 international
organizations.

The statement, released Tuesday, July 17, calling for the ban on
the mining, use and export of all form of asbestos has already
been approved by over 150 public health organizations and
scientists from at least 20 countries.

The statement was released on the heels of last month's
announcement by the Quebec government saying it would lend $58
million to help re-start the former Johns-Manville mine in Quebec,
keeping the production and export of asbestos going for another 20
years.

"Continued use of asbestos will lead to a public health disaster
of asbestos-related illness and premature death for decades to
come, repeating the epidemic we are witnessing today in
industrialized countries that used asbestos in the past," said Dr.
Stanley Weiss, chair of the Joint Policy Committee of the
Societies of Epidemiology, which released the statement.

The group includes a number of Canadian, U.S. and international
epidemiology organizations, working together for the first time to
fight the distribution of asbestos.

"The body of evidence is now so overwhelming and it was time to
step up and come together as a group," Professor Colin Soskolne,
past-president of the Canadian Society of Epidemiology and
Biostatistics, told CBC News.

While activists argue asbestos is linked to cancer, industry
proponents have insisted it can be used safely if handled
properly.

"The vast majority of people who are not in the pocket of industry
. . . we all agree that the time has come to expose the
controversy as a non-controversy," Soskolne said.  "There is no
doubt about the harmful effects of asbestos, and there is not
enough doubt to undermine the need for policy change."

Those opposed to asbestos are urging major producers -- including
Brazil, Kazakhstan, Russia and Canada -- to put an end to mining
and exports and help communities make the transition to a
different industry.

"Promoting deceit is immoral and we need to take a higher ground
than the one we are taking . . . and help the people in those
mining communities to retool and develop different industries," he
said.

In the 1960s and '70s a number of asbestos miners began showing
signs of respiratory diseases and as a direct result Canada began
to rid homes, schools and offices of the hazardous material
applied as insulation.  However, Canada still mines and exports
white asbestos -- which is a form the Canadian government says is
safe to use.

"There is a profound double standard that can't be defended on any
moral basis," Soskolne said.  "Giving this substance to developing
countries is utterly immoral."

The epidemiologists say they hope their efforts highlight the
seriousness of the health hazards.

"There is no controversy, we know it causes disease and death,"
Weiss told CBC News.  "We are still dealing with the devastating
impact of past use and we want to stop a continuing epidemic."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrew Weir Shipping, All Leisure Fined for Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Scotland reports that a ship management firm and a tour
operator have been fined after workers were exposed to asbestos
fibers during refurbishment work on board a luxury cruise ship
operating in Scotland.

Andrew Weir Shipping and All Leisure Holidays were prosecuted
after work was carried out on the Hebridean Princess.

Two men were hired to remove panels and fixings in a ship lounge
without an asbestos survey being carried out.

The firms pleaded guilty to regulation breaches at Teesside
Magistrates Court.

The court was told the Hebridean Princess, whose routes include
the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland, was bought in April 2009
by All Leisure Holidays.  The tour operator took on Edinburgh-
based Andrew Weir Shipping to manage the vessel.

In December of that year, two laborers were instructed by Andrew
Weir Shipping to begin removing the ceiling and wall panels in the
Tiree Lounge while the ship was docked in Middlesbrough.

On the second day, they were told by the shipyard to stop work
over concerns there was asbestos behind the ceiling panels.

Tests confirmed asbestos fibers were present.

The Health and Safety Executive found that Andrew Weir Shipping
held an asbestos survey from 2008 which identified asbestos behind
some ceiling panels in another part of the ship.

The court heard this should have alerted them to the potential for
asbestos to be present elsewhere.

All Leisure Holidays Ltd was given a copy of the 2008 survey when
they purchased the ship but failed to identify that it was
incomplete and was insufficient to allow the work to be carried
out.

Andrew Weir Shipping, of Atholl Crescent, Edinburgh, was fined a
total of GBP12,000 and ordered to pay GBP5,829 costs after
pleading guilty to breaching the Control of Asbestos Regulations
2006.

All Leisure Holidays Ltd, of Burgess Hill, West Sussex, also
pleaded guilty and was fined a total of GBP6,000 and ordered to
pay GBP5,640 costs.

After the case, HSE Inspector Victoria Wise, said: "All Leisure
Holidays Ltd and Andrew Weir Shipping Ltd both failed to ensure
that a suitable and sufficient assessment was made of the risk
created by the presence of asbestos and therefore did not take the
steps required in order to comply with the regulations.

"As a result the two men inadvertently disturbed the asbestos and
spread the fibers.  In doing so they were potentially exposed to a
substance that is known to cause diseases such as lung cancer and
mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Court Says Plaintiffs' Appeal Untimely
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek of Legal Newsline reports that the Delaware
Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by the family of an employee
who sued a company over the man's alleged asbestos exposure.

In its ruling Thursday, July 19, the Court dismissed plaintiffs
Elizabeth, Edmond, John and James Plummer's appeal as untimely.

The Plummers had appealed from a New Castle County Superior Court
order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant R.T.
Vanderbilt Co. Inc.

Edward Plummer, deceased, was an employee at the Avisun/Amoco
Plant.

The Plummers sued Vanderbilt and 36 other defendants, alleging
that Edward had been exposed to asbestos-containing products
during the course of his employment.

Vanderbilt moved to dismiss the Plummers' appeal, arguing that the
superior court's June 28, 2011, dismissal order was the final
order in the matter.

The company contended that the family's notice of appeal, filed
Sept. 6, 2011, was therefore untimely.

Vanderbilt argued in the alternative that if the June 28 order is
not the final order, the appeal is interlocutory and any appeal
must await entry of a final order.

In response, the Plummers argued that a special master's Aug. 9,
2011 order dismissing nine defendants -- and not the June 28 order
-- constituted the final order.

The state's high court, in its 10-page ruling, sided with the
company.

It concluded that the June 28 order was the only final order in
the case and that no court error contributed to the Plummers'
delayed filing of their appeal.

"The June 28 order is clear on its face that it is a final order,"
Justice Henry duPont Ridgely wrote for the Court.

On top of which, the Court noted that a May 17 letter preceding
the dismissal also "clearly notified" the plaintiffs' counsel that
the case would be dismissed the following month if no further
action was taken.

"If there was any ambiguity as to the May 17 letter or the June 28
order, plaintiffs' counsel could have requested clarification from
the Superior Court.  Plaintiffs' counsel did not do so," Ridgely
wrote.

The Court said the June 28 order was the only final order from
which the Plummers could have appealed in the case.

It also noted that the plaintiffs did not show that their failure
to file a timely appeal was attributable to court personnel.

"The Plummers argue that nine defendants moving for dismissal
evidenced confusion among the parties as to the effect of the June
28 order.  But the Superior Court followed its established
procedure in asbestos cases by issuing the May 17 letter followed
by the June 28 order," Ridgely explained.

"By the time the special master acted on Aug. 9, the Plummers'
30-day window to file an appeal had closed.  Thus, even if the
Plummers could show error attributable to court personnel in
connection with the Aug. 9 order, that error is irrelevant.

"It is the appeal of the final order entered on June 28 that
matters, and that appeal is out of time."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Junks Exposure Suit v. Tishman Liquidating
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action captioned RONALD
SZAMATULSKI, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN ART CLAY COMPANY, INC., et
al., Defendants, 190079/11, Motion Seq. No. 012(N.Y.), Judge
Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Tishman
Liquidating Corporation, Inc., dismissing the complaint and all
cross-claims asserted against it.

Judge Heitler concluded that Tishman Liquidating has demonstrated
from Mr. Szamatulski's deposition testimony that he did not
identify Tishman Liquidating as Tower East's general contractor.

Mr. Szamatulski worked as a pipe fitter for H. Sands Company at
the Tower East worksite in New York and alleged that he was
exposed to asbestos primarily from the work of pipe covers who
used asbestos in his presence while cutting pipe insulation in the
Tower East boiler room.

A copy of Judge Heitler's July 16, 2012 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/h4O0BOfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Allows Suit v. Lennox Industries to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury action titled EDWARD
SADOWSKI and ALBERTA SADOWSKI, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants, No. 190215/11, Motion Seq. 4 (N.Y.),
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied defendant Lennox Industries Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint and all cross-claims
against it  The Court held that Lennox has not shown that it could
not have manufactured the heating equipment to which Mr. Sadowski
claims to have been exposed.  A copy of Judge Heitler's July 17,
2012 Decision is available at http://is.gd/B51H14from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Allows Exposure Suit v. Doody to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury action captioned NICHOLAS
LOVAGLIO and DOROTHY LOVAGLIO, Plaintiffs, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO.,
et al., Defendants, No. 190210/09, Mot. Seq. No. 003 (N.Y.), Judge
Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied
defendant John J. Doody & Son, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it
after concluding that there is a triable issue of fact concerning
Mr. Lovaglio's allegation that Doody supplied asbestos-containing
products similar to those he used to renovate their family home.
A copy of Judge Heitler's July 12, 2012 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/MyUnOZfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. Ct. Stays Discovery in Suit v. Travelers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna F. Martinez of the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, in a July 18, 2012 ruling,
granted defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company's motion
for protective order staying discovery until the court rules on a
pending motion to dismiss an insurance liability action titled TT
CORPORATION AND GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. TRAVELERS
CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE AETNA CASUALTY,
AND SURETY COMPANY), Defendant, Case No. 3:12CV38(RNC)(Conn.).

The plaintiffs bought excess insurance policies from the defendant
for "per occurrence and aggregate" coverage.  The policies, called
Excess Overlayer Indemnity policies, were issued over several
decades.  Beginning in 2000, the plaintiffs notified the defendant
of a number of asbestos bodily injury claims.  The plaintiffs
believe that they have coverage under the "XN" policies when all
their claims -- combined -- reach the "aggregate" limits of their
underlying insurance.  The defendant disagrees that coverage under
the XN policies is available when the combined claims exhaust the
underlying aggregate limits.  The defendants contend that each of
the asbestos injury claims is a separate "occurrence" and
plaintiffs only have coverage when they incur damages for a single
"occurrence" in excess of the underlying per occurrence limits.

Judge Martinez concluded that the particular circumstances and
posture of the case weigh in favor of granting a stay of discovery
pending the resolution of defendant's abstention motion.  The
discovery, according to Judge Martinez, will be time-consuming,
burdensome and expensive.  The defendant's motion is potentially
dispositive and appears to have substantial grounds.

A copy of Judge Martinez's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/AgWnnrfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. App. Court Upholds Decision in Suit v KCSR
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellee, Ronald K. Oney, Individually and as Representative of
the Estate of Daniel D. Oney, brought a claim under the Federal
Employers' Liability Act against The Kansas City Southern Railway
Company.  On March 14, 2011, Mr. Oney filed his original petition,
alleging that from 1971 until 1994, Daniel D. Oney was employed by
KCSR, a railroad engaged in interstate commerce.  During this
employment, the decedent "was exposed to harmful and/or hazardous
substances, including known human carcinogens, such as asbestos,
silica, and diesel exhaust."  As a result of this exposure, the
decedent was diagnosed with lung cancer in April 2010 and died
approximately one month later.  The appellee asserted a claim
under FELA because of KCSR's involvement in interstate railroad
commerce.

KCSR filed a motion to dismiss based on the appellee's failure to
serve medical reports under Chapter 90 of the Texas Civil Practice
and Remedies Code.  The multidistrict litigation court handling
pretrial issues in the case denied KCSR's motion, determining the
appellee is not required to comply with Chapter 90 report
requirements.  In a single issue, KCSR contends the trial court
erred by denying the motion to dismiss.

The Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District, Houston, affirmed the
trial court's interlocutory order.  The Court of Appeals ruled
that the applicable Chapter 90 report requirements and dismissal
provision impose an unnecessary burden on the appellee's rights of
recovery under, and interfere with the remedial purposes of,
Federal Employers Liability Act.  The Court of Appeals clarified
that nothing in its holding relieves the appellee from the burden
of presenting reliable, admissible evidence supporting his FELA
claim in future proceedings.

The case is THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant,
v. RONALD K. ONEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF DANIEL D. ONEY, Appellee, No. 14-11-00815-CV (Tex. App.
Ct.).  A copy of the Opinion dated July 19, 2012 is available at
http://is.gd/ltbqEdfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Affirms Order Dismissing Plummers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Plummer, deceased, was an employee at the Avisun/Amoco
Plant.  Elizabeth, Edmond, John and James Plummer brought suit
against R.T. Vanderbilt Co. Inc. and 36 other defendants alleging
that the decedent had been exposed to asbestos-containing products
during the course of his employment.  Vanderbilt's motion for
summary judgment was granted by the trial court.  The Plummers
appealed from that order.  Vanderbilt moved to dismiss the appeal
as untimely.

The Supreme Court of Delaware agreed with Vanderbilt and dismissed
the Plummers' appeal as untimely.  The Supreme Court pointed out
that the final order which the Plummbers appealed from was entered
on June 28, 2011 and their appeal was filed on September 6, 2011.
The Supreme Court further pointed out that Supreme Court Rules
provide that a civil appeal must be filed within 30 days of the
entry of the judgment from which the appeal is taken.

The case is ELIZABETH PLUMMER, Individually and as Executrix of
the Estate of EDMOND PLUMMER, SR. deceased and EDMOND PLUMMER,
JR., JOHN PLUMMER, and JAMES PLUMMER as Surviving Children of
EDMOND PLUMMER, SR., deceased, Plaintiffs Below-Appellants, v.
R.T. VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC., Defendant Below-Appellee, No. 482,
2011 (Del.).  A copy of the Supreme Court's Decision dated
July 19, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/RxKcKmfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Four More Lawsuits Filed v. BNSF in Lancaster
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Piersol of the Lincoln Journal Star reports that a Houston
attorney is representing three more former employees of BNSF
Railway and the widow of a fourth in lawsuits alleging they
suffered damages -- and in one case, death -- from exposure to
asbestos because of the railroad's negligence in and around its
Lincoln operations.

Bernard Richter of Lincoln died in November 2010 of colon cancer
caused by exposure to asbestos on the job as a car-man, according
to a Lancaster County District Court lawsuit filed on behalf of
his widow, Virginia.

Three other former BNSF car-men represented in a separate suit are
Philip Custard of Omaha, who started working for the railroad in
1950, Donal Hansen of Lincoln, who started in 1952, and Steve
Hegener, also of Lincoln, who started in 1969.

Also filed in Lancaster County District Court, that suit says the
plaintiffs suffered from lung disease caused by exposure to
asbestos, "which cannot be effectively cured by conservative
medical procedures or medications."

John D. Roven, the Houston attorney, also represents two other
former BNSF employees, William Schleicher of Lincoln and Frank Cox
of Eagle Lake, who filed suit in May accusing the railroad of
negligence and failing to provide them a safe place to work, as
required by federal law.

There will be more asbestos lawsuits to come, according to Roven,
who said his firm has litigated asbestos cases for retirees on
both sides of the Santa Fe/Burlington Northern merger for 20
years.

"Obviously, the sad legacy of asbestos is not over," Roven said.
"We still get many cases of retirees who unfortunately have been
impacted.  Because of the latency of asbestos, lung disease often
doesn't strike until 30 or 35 years after exposure.  "It's not
unusual people in their 70s are manifesting this, it is the nature
of these disease.  The pattern is very typical. ... It's nothing
that's unique to Lincoln."

All of the retirees were car-men.  They worked on passenger and
freight cars in the Lincoln shops and in Omaha, Roven said.

BNSF spokeswoman Suann Lundsberg, responding to the latest
filings, said in an email: "The claims filed are from former
employees, most of who have not been employed by BNSF in many
years.  BNSF is currently reviewing the case and will respond
through the legal process."

In a court response filed last month to the Schleicher and Cox
suit, BNSF denied responsibility, said the state of science was
such that it could not have known about the dangers of asbestos at
the time the negligence allegedly occurred and also said: "alleged
injuries or damages, if any, were proximately caused, in whole or
in part, by the carelessness, recklessness or negligence of
plaintiffs who failed to exercise reasonable care for their own
health and safety."

The railroad also referred responsibility for the employees'
welfare to the federal Railroad Retirement Board and said any
benefits the employees received from the board should offset any
judgment against the railroad.  BNSF also suggested the damages,
if any, "were caused or contributed to by other factors, including
but not limited to tobacco smoking."

BNSF has about 4,500 employees in Nebraska, more than 1,700 in the
Lincoln area, more than 1,400 in Alliance, and about 100 in Omaha.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zoo Admits Ignorance, Fined GBP30,000 for Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Essex reports that a zoo has been fined GBP30,000 for a
string of health and safety offences involving asbestos.

Charges against Colchester Zoo were brought by Colchester Borough
Council following a routine health and safety check in June 2010.

An inspector found asbestos boards taken from a hay barn and
dumped in a skip, Chelmsford Crown Court heard.

The zoo admitted 12 health and safety breaches including failing
to adequately protect staff.

It was fined GBP30,000 for the asbestos offences and GBP5,000 for
a separate breach that involved staff not being properly trained
to use a fork-lift truck.

The court heard that when questioned by the council, the zoo's
director Anthony Tropeano said the safety breaches were an honest
mistake.

He said the errors were made in ignorance rather than in an
attempt to cut corners.

The zoo said: "Colchester Zoo deeply regrets that on this one
occasion, as a result of an administrative oversight, proper
procedures were not followed."

The council said: "We hope this sentence sends out a clear message
that the council is committed to identifying and prosecuting
businesses not operating to health and safety guidelines."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Violations Halt Plan for Solar Panel Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Condon of The New Jersey Hills Newspaper's Roxbury Register
reports that a Superior Court judge sitting in Morristown has
informed Richard Bernardi, president of Strategic Environmental
Partners, that she wants to see a game plan now for the capping of
the former Fenimore landfill on Mooney Mountain.

The request came in Superior Court July 11 after what Department
of Environmental Protection spokesperson Robert Considine said was
another violation by Bernardi.

And on Friday afternoon, July 13, Township Manager Christopher
Raths said the township would support the DEP's effort to seek an
injunction to stop operations at the site.

Bernardi's firm has DEP approvals and permits to properly cap and
fill the former landfill.  Once capped, with construction debris
and other approved materials, and capped, Bernardi's plans are to
construct a solar panel farm at the site.

Considine however, said the DEP has gone to court in an effort to
revoke those previous approvals for a number of violations.  The
latest, he said, was the discovery of asbestos, a cancer-causing
material that was extensively used in past decades as an
insulation material, being dumped at the site.

"Following a random inspection on July 3 by the DEP and the State
Department of Labor, some asbestos was detected at the landfill,"
Considine said on July 12.  "Seven samples were taken at the site,
and three of them  were positive from asbestos," he said.

At least one of those asbestos samples, he said, was delivered on
a truck.

As a result, Considine said that Superior Court Judge Deanne
Wilson has told Bernardi that she wants to see a workable game
plan by Monday, July 16.

The DEP's position, Considine said, is that this is just another
in a long line of several violations.  "Bernardi is, and has been
in violation of the consent order and closure plan that was
approved by the DEP.  It is the DEP's position that we are seeking
an immediate stop to the daily truck deliveries due to these
asbestos violations," he said.

Bernardi, who was already in Superior Court with the DEP over
other violations, said the violations were minor in nature.

"The DEP has been at the site often over the past weeks trying
very hard to find a violation.  They found a small quantity of
broken tiles with asbestos that came from a NJDEP licensed
recycling center for which the DEP is responsible for testing
requirements," Bernardi said in a statement.

"So it appears they want to shut us down for a breach in their own
testing procedures.  We have since barred the NJDEP Licensed
Recycling Center from the site."

"We are happy to comply with the judge's order for information,
and we will do so promptly.  We are confident an independent fact
finder will see this story much differently than the way DEP is
telling it."

"This is just another problem with this whole project," Considine
said.

Township Manager Raths said on July 13 that the township was made
aware of the asbestos issue during the court proceeding.

"The Township Attorney and staff have been authorized to take any
and all action necessary to support the DEP's effort to secure an
injunction to stop the operations on this site," Raths said.

While the court proceedings have been ongoing for the past several
months, however, dozens and dozens of dump trucks per day have
been visiting the site, traversing residential roadways and
generally wreaking havoc.  In June, one of the dump trucks took a
non-approved route to the site, and wound up flipping over in the
roadway.  It took Roxbury crews hours to clean up the mess.

Considine said that although the DEP had requested in court that
the consent order be completely revoked, Judge Wilson delayed that
action.

"We (the DEP) have been seeking a termination of the consent
agreement since early in the spring.  We have advised Bernardi
that it is our intent to revoke the plan.  He appealed, the matter
is in court, and so materials are still being delivered to the
landfill," Considine said.

Meanwhile, he said, inspections continue.

"We are still inspecting the materials at the landfill.  The
asbestos that was found was not thermal insulation, so there was
no airborne asbestos.  There is no immediate health threat, but we
are continuing with a thorough investigation," Considine said.

"The judge has asked to see a plan for going forward.  She want to
see no more problems there," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorneys Vary Outlook on Judge Harrison's Move
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis of The Madison / St. Clair Record reports that
it's been about three months since Madison County Associate Judge
Clarence Harrison eliminated the court's 2013 advance setting of
asbestos trial weeks, but some members of the local legal
community said they are already seeing the effects of the judge's
decision.

Those effects, however, vary depending on the source.

Harrison, for instance, said the court is now scheduling dockets
more consistent in size; a change he hopes will make things "work
more smoothly."  And while some attorneys contend the judge's
order actually opened the door to an increase in the number of
asbestos filings, others believe it's still too early to tell what
the ramifications will be, if any.

In late March, Harrison entered an order terminating the advanced
trial setting practice, saying that "the Court finds no continuing
need for the pre-assignment of trial settings."

His decision came shortly after he heard arguments from defense
and plaintiffs' attorneys over an order Circuit Judge Barbara
Crowder entered in December that set nearly 500 trial slots.

Harrison replaced Crowder as head of the asbestos docket late last
year.  Crowder was reassigned after accepting $30,000 in campaign
contributions from the area's three largest asbestos firms.
Crowder, who later returned the donations, gave those three firms
about 82% of the trial slots for next year.

Attorney Robert Shultz, who recently left Heyl Royster in
Edwardsville for a job at State Farm in Bloomington, filed an 18-
page brief opposing Crowder's order, explaining that the trial
reservation system was no longer being used for its original
purpose of resolving a backlog of local asbestos lawsuits.

Raymond Fournie -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com -- a partner at
Armstrong Teasdale in St. Louis, was one of a few defense lawyers
who signed on to Shultz's brief.  Despite his support for the
change, Fournie said he remains concerned about how Harrison's
decision will play out and if it will cause complications for
defense attorneys and higher costs for their clients.

"I think Judge Harrison is doing his best to accommodate all
sides," Fournie said.  "But I think that it's going to be more
complicated for the defense simply by the fact there isn't going
to be just one plaintiffs firm per docket."

Instead of preparing for the two or three cases marked as
priorities by one plaintiffs' firm as done in the past, Fournie
said defense attorneys will probably have to prepare for the top
two or three cases of several plaintiffs' firms next year as a
result of Harrison's order.  This, he said, will likely result in
"more work and more expense."

Fournie said not having specific firms assigned to certain dockets
anymore could open up the process to more firms, including those
located outside Madison County.

"The number of plaintiffs' firms and the filings by each may, and
probably will, increase," he said.  "Before you had three firms
with 82% of the docket settings and there was only a limited
number put on the docket by each firm.  Accommodating two or three
or four firms per docket has the tendency to increase the number
of cases that may be on those dockets.  By result of the order,
the dockets have opened up and that allows plaintiffs' firms to
file more cases."

But, Fournie cautioned that "it's still a little too early to tell
the ramifications, if any" of Harrison's elimination of the
advanced trial setting in Madison County.

"We will have a better idea in 2013 because that's when it will be
implemented and we'll be able to see how much extra activity we
will have to participate in and how much additional preparation
will be needed," he said.

Barry Julian, a plaintiffs' attorney with Gori Julian & Associates
in Edwardsville, said while he liked "things the way they were,"
he has yet to see any results of Harrison's order.  He also said
there is no connection between the number of filings and the
advanced trial setting.

Julian's firm was one of the three firms that previously received
advanced trial settings.  The other two firms were the Simmons Law
Firm in Alton and Goldenberg Heller Antognoli & Rowland in
Edwardsville.  A message left for the vice president of
communications at Simmons and emails to two attorneys at
Goldenberg were not immediately returned.

Jeffrey Hebrank -- jsh@heplerbroom.com -- a defense attorney at
HeplerBroom, said in an email that his firm did not support
changing the docketing system.

He said the advanced trial setting practice was originally created
to control the number of cases set for trial and the number of
trial weeks, as well as to limit the number of plaintiffs' firms
with cases set for trial, in an attempt "to efficiently manage
cases that had been filed and we expected to be filed."

Hebrank said his firm did not believe the elimination of the
advanced trial setting would curtail new asbestos suit filings,
which he said was the purported goal of the recent change.

"We thought it was misguided to suggest that the judges, including
Judge Harrison, can control filings by revising the docket system.
Local Madison County judges don't control the number or kinds of
cases filed," he said.

"Defendants that cannot be sued in Madison County are regularly
dismissed.  Trial courts are bound to follow the law of the
appellate courts.  Cases are filed here because Illinois law
permits them to be filed here."

The elimination of the reservation system, Hebrank said, has "led
to a predictable unpredictability that actually has caused the
system to be more costly to defendants from a time and money
standpoint.

"HeplerBroom's experience is that since the change, the docket is
not only less manageable, but that case filings are increasing,
not decreasing," he said, adding that his firm expects more than
1,300 new asbestos filings by the end of this year.

And based on records provided by the Madison County Circuit
Clerk's Office, it looks like Hebrank could be right when it comes
to the number of asbestos filings this year.

From January 1 to June 30, about 654 asbestos cases were filed in
Madison County, the clerk's office reported.  That's about a dozen
more cases filed during a six month period this year than the
total number of cases filed in 2008, which was 639.

Records from the clerk's office, which did not include a monthly
breakdown of filings, show that 814 asbestos cases were filed in
2009, followed by 752 in 2010 and 953 last year.  With about six
months left in 2012, it appears Madison County could be on track
to see more filings this year than it did in 2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYSC Verifies "Policy Language" and "Occurrence"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
K&L Gates LLP relates in an article available at JDSupra.com that
five years ago, the New York Court of Appeals held in Appalachian
Insurance Company v. General Electric Company, 8 N.Y.3d 162, 831
N.Y.S.2d 742 (2007) ("Appalachian"), that asbestos claims against
a policyholder constituted thousands of separate occurrences under
New York's unfortunate-events test.  The court recognized that
different results might ensue in cases where the policy language
supersedes the unfortunate-events test and provides for the
grouping of multiple claims into a single occurrence.  A recent
decision by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First
Department, ruled that New York law does not automatically equate
every asbestos claim with a separate occurrence, but instead
requires a fact sensitive inquiry that encompasses both the policy
language and the underlying facts to determine how many
occurrences such claims constitute.

Specifically, in Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v. Corning Inc., No. 04398,
slip op. (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't, June 7, 2012) ("Corning") the
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
affirmed the denial of insurers' motions seeking summary judgment
that each asbestos claim for which their insured sought coverage
was a separate occurrence.  The Corning court recognized that New
York law, under Appalachian, required it to examine the policy
language closely to determine how it defined "occurrence" and
whether it permitted the grouping of multiple claims into one
occurrence.  The policy language at issue in Corning provided that
"For purposes of determining the limit of the company's liability,
all bodily injury and property damage arising out of continuous or
repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions
shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence."  Id. at 52.
Appalachian had identified this particular language as expressing
the intent to permit the grouping of claims -- in contrast to the
language in the policies actually before it -- and the Corning
court agreed that the definition allowed certain claims to be
combined for the purposes of counting occurrences.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Actor McQueen's Wife to Speak Before Congress
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Roberts of The Examiner reports that Barbara Minty McQueen,
on behalf of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO),
was to address the House of Representatives in Washington D.C.
this month to discuss how asbestos took the life of her famous
husband, actor Steve McQueen, and why the U.S. should ban the
import of this dangerous material.

McQueen, along with several noted physicians and experts, were to
make their Capitol Hill appearance on July 24th, followed by a
July 25 briefing at the National Press Club.  McQueen was to
discuss her husband's December 1979 diagnosis, how the medical
establishment at that time had written him off, and the physical
and emotional pain he endured as a result of trying to find a cure
in Mexico.

McQueen, who resides in Idaho, is an author/photographer and a
former model.  She recently published Steve McQueen: The Last Mile
. . . revisited, which details her life with her husband, the late
silver screen icon, Steve McQueen -- including his battle with
mesothelioma.  The coffee table book also includes candid shots
from 1977 to 1980.  McQueen has hosted several art exhibits of her
work with shows in London, Tokyo, Hamburg, San Francisco,
Nashville, Phoenix and Idaho.

Known as cinema's 'King of Cool,' McQueen was a proud veteran of
the U.S. Marine Corps from 1947 to 1950.  He believed he
contracted mesothelioma as a result of removing asbestos-filled
insulation from the massive pipes in a ship's hold while working
in the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard.  It is also possible the actor
was exposed to significant amounts of asbestos on New York and
Hollywood soundstages or in protective racing suits and helmets.

The life and career of Steve McQueen is a classic example of the
American dream made real: a small town boy from a broken home
triumphing over adversity to become one of the famous and most
sought-after superstars in the world.  McQueen lived every day as
if it were his last and, by doing so, he lived an extraordinary
life -- both on screen and off.  Sadly, his life was cut short by
mesothelioma at age 50.

"Mesothelioma is a horrible disease.  It robbed me of my life and
future with Steve and took away an icon beloved by millions around
the world," said Barbara McQueen.  "For whatever reason, most
people think that asbestos is banned in America.  By coming to
Washington D.C., I want to bring awareness that asbestos is still
legal in the U.S. and continues to kill.  It can kill a movie
star, a musician or a construction worker.  It takes no
prisoners."

Earlier this year the late actor's gallant fight against
mesothelioma was also recognized with the Warren Zevon "Keep Me in
Your Heart" Memorial Tribute Award, presented by recording artist
Jordan Zevon, son of the late Warren Zevon and ADAO national
spokesman, on March 31, 2012 in Los Angeles.

"Not only was Steve McQueen an American legend who lost his battle
against mesothelioma, but he had a passion for fearlessly taking a
stance," said ADAO CEO and co-founder, Linda Reinstein.  "McQueen
was once quoted as saying, 'When I believe in something, I fight
like hell for it,' and ADAO is proud to honor his courage by
adding this cause to his many effects."

Since McQueen's 1980 death, many other celebrities and well-known
personalities have succumbed to mesothelioma, a rare form of
cancer that is diagnosed in an estimated 3,000 Americans each
year.

They include musician Warren Zevon, football player and
broadcaster Merlin Olsen, actor Paul Gleason, musical artist and
manager Malcom McLaren, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt the youngest man to
serve as Chief Officer of Naval Operations, and Hamilton Jordan,
the former White House Chief of Staff under President Jimmy
Carter.

The ADAO was founded by asbestos victims and their families in
2004.  The organization seeks to give asbestos victims and
concerned citizens a united voice to raise public awareness about
the dangers of asbestos exposure. ADAO is an independent global
organization dedicated to preventing asbestos-related diseases
through education, advocacy, and community.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scranton School District Sued Over $32,600 Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Times-Tribune reports that a Berks County environmental
remediation company is suing the Scranton School District for not
paying for asbestos cleanup work done at Charles Sumner Elementary
School two years ago, according to the suit filed in Lackawanna
County Court on July 11.

Reading-based Crest Environmental Services claims it was never
paid $32,600 for the remediation work at the North Sumner Avenue
school in 2010, the suit stated.

The school district has "refused" to pay, and the company did "all
the work required" under the contract, the suit stated.

The company is demanding the court order a judgment in its favor.


                           *********

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  * * *