CAR_Public/120803.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 3, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 153

                             Headlines

AFFINION GROUP: Appeal From Calif. Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Dismissal Bid Ruling in N.Y. Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Suit Due Aug. 17
AFFINION GROUP: Unit Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Faces Class Action Suit in Calif.

ALCOA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA-Violation Suit
APPLE INC: Jobs Biographer Refuses to Hand Over Source Material
BURCH FARMS: Recalls Athena Cantaloupes Sold at Hannaford
CARTER'S INC: Got Final OK of Securities Suit Settlement in June
CLIF BAR: Recalls 6-Pack Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF(R) Bars

CMS ENERGY: Appeals in Gas Index Price Cases Remain Pending
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: In Discussions to Settle New York Class Suit
COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Unit Signs Formal "Wolfgeher" Suit Accord
COSTAR GROUP: Anticipates Paying LoopNet Suit Settlement by Dec.
CREDO PETROLEUM: Being Sold to Forestar for Too Little

ENSCO PLC: Remaining Suits Over Pride Acquisition Dismissed
FANNIE MAE: Dougherty County May Join Transfer Fee Class Action
FULL TILT: Poker Players Seek Payment of Damages in Class Suit
G4 MEDIA: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
GARDEN FRESH: Recalls Packages of Products Containing Onions

GREEN DOT: Faces Securities Class Action in California
GREEN TOYS: Recalls 52,500 Toy Cars Due To Choking Hazard
HIGHER ONE: Sued Over Deceptive Student Financial Aid Bank Fees
HINDS COUNTY, MI: Watson Firm Confirms Filing of Overtime Suit
HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls Salad Under Trader Joe's Brand

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 200,000 SUVs Under Settlement Deal
INTERNAP NETWORK: Two Claims in "Anastasio" Suit Remain Pending
JON DAVLER: Faces Class Action Over "Vaginal Inspection"
KEN'S FOODS: Recalls Dressings and Sauces Containing Onions
LIBERTY MOUNTAIN: Recalls 400 VAUDE Kenta Child Carriers

LINN ENERGY: Briefing in Suit Over Royalty Payments Deferred
MICRONETICS INC: Agrees to Settle Mecury Merger Litigation
NETFLIX INC: Agrees to Change Data Retention Practices
NW MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over Labor Abuses
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss "Hines" Suit

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Facebook Beacon-Related Suit Appeal Pending
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: "Adult Entertainers" File Class Action
PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Responds to "Higgins" Suit Discovery Requests
PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Custom Made Sub Sandwiches with Onions
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Sales Rep Suit

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Celera Still Pending
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: NJLAD Violations Suit Still Pending in N.J.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: NID-Related Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
RADIOSHACK CORP: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Class Action
SMITH MICRO: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action

SPARTAN STORES: Recalls Deli and Produce Products With Onions
STOP & SHOP: Recalls Calico Bean Salad Sold at Salad Bars
TOWN SPORTS: Pre-Trial Conference in "Labbe" Suit on August 17
TOWN SPORTS: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Cruz" Suits
ULSTER BANK: Consumers' Association Launches Class Action

* Russian Justice Ministry Publishes Draft Law on Class Actions

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Affirms Judgment on Worker's Claim v. Exxon
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rain Bird's Dismissal Bid Denied for Lack of Info
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taco Inc. Fails in Bid to Dismiss Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still Defends 2,567 Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 25 Pending Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairfax Financial Unit Reinsured Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 402 Pending Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Continues to Defend 42 Filter Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Recorded $5MM Expense in 2nd Qtr.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Had $904.8MM Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Suit vs. Aqua-Chem Set for September
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 Active Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Plc Continues to Defend Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Still Defending Suits & Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 16,000 Pending Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Drilling Mud Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMCOR Group Got Gaskets That May Have Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Units' Ultimate Liability Still Unknown
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 57,559 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Had $19.6MM Liability for Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Companies Still Defends Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates Up to $18MM Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,400 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynolds American Units Still Party to "Parsons"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Corp. Still Defending Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement of Wilton Mill Site Begins
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bechtel Workers Speak Out on Asbestos Issues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Firm Wins $2.86 Million Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lake Zurich Dist. Argues Alleged IDPH Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Priestly, I&I on Four Seasons Hotel Project

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Attorney Indicts Old Chrysler Plant Supplier
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Texas U's Elliott Hall Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Sets Up GBP300MM to Help 3,000 ARC Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Welcomes The Safer Chemicals Act of 2012
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace & Co. Net Income Drops 8.6%

ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Settles Sunriver Owners Lawsuit, Pays $500,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup of Old River Center Site Initiated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oran Vanich to Fight Thailand's Anti-Fibro Move
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Violator Gets 10 Years Plus $62,000 Fine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barraba Residents Demand To Be In "The Loop"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Lawyers Ask For Review on Added Proposals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asphalt Plant Near Grimesdale Worries Residents
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ombudsman Sees Holes In Police Property Managing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Low Airborne Fibro Saturations Found in WA Mines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Sues Schlumberger Ltd. et al for $525,000

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumped Fibro in Darwin Awaits Government Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albemarle County to Abate its Six Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Reinsurance Coverage of US Liabilities Viewed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at LNG Construction Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Cites Contractor For Exposing Worker to Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RIL Product Eyes To Entirely Replace Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: KASCON LLC Gets Rome Schools Abatement Contract
ASBESTOS UPDATE: India's Ban Asbestos Network Member TWA Steps Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insulator's Union Vows to Fight ARD, Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stover Theatre Abatement Eyes Aug. 8 Completion

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Modernizing Chemical Regulations Passed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Taps Superfund to Clean Up Union Steel Plant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Abatement Costs "Killing" Ohio Land Banks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ETU Wants Answers on Bechtel Asbestos Issues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jeffrey Mine Proponents Unhindered By Critics

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Proprietor, Contractor Fined for Negligence

                          *********

AFFINION GROUP: Appeal From Calif. Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 25, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against a
subsidiary of Affinion Group Holdings, Inc., Webloyalty Holdings,
Inc., and one of its clients in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California alleging, among other
things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, fraud,
civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act violations, false advertising and
California Consumer Business Practice violations.  This lawsuit
relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after
October 1, 2008.  On February 17, 2011, Webloyalty filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in this lawsuit.  On April 12,
2011, the Court granted Webloyalty's motion and dismissed all
claims against the defendants.  On May 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a
notice appealing the dismissal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Plaintiff filed his opening
appeals brief with the Ninth Circuit on October 17, 2011, and
defendants filed their respective answering briefs on
December 23, 2011.  Plaintiff filed its reply brief on
January 23, 2012.  No date for oral argument on plaintiff's appeal
has been set.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Dismissal Bid Ruling in N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
objection to a motion filed by a plaintiff in a New York class
action lawsuit, to dismiss it from the case without prejudice,
according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On November 10, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company, its subsidiary Trilegiant Corporation, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A. in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of several
putative nationwide classes that largely overlap with one another.
The claims asserted are in connection with the sale by Trilegiant
of its membership programs, including claims under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, and New York's General Business Law.  On April 6, 2011, the
Company and Trilegiant filed a motion to compel individual (non-
class) arbitration of the plaintiff's claims.  The Company's co-
defendant, 1-800-Flowers.com, joined in the motion to compel
arbitration, and co-defendant Chase Bank filed a motion to stay
the case against it pending arbitration, or alternatively to
dismiss.  The Company does not know when the court will issue a
ruling on these motions.  On December 23, 2011, the plaintiff
sought to dismiss the Company, Trilegiant, and 1-800-Flowers
without prejudice.

On January 4, 2012, the Company and Trilegiant objected to that
dismissal (and 1-800-Flowers joined in that objection), seeking
among other things dismissal with prejudice.  Plaintiff responded
to that objection on January 13, 2012, and the Company does not
know when the court will enter a decision.  Also, on January 13,
2012, the plaintiff sought to dismiss Chase without prejudice.  On
January 17, 2012, Chase filed an objection to the plaintiff's
dismissal request.  That issue is currently being considered by
the court.  The Company does not know when the court will rule on
that issue.


AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Suit Due Aug. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action lawsuit in Connecticut
have until August 17, 2012, to file their consolidated amended
complaint, according to Affinion Group Holdings, Inc.'s July 26,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and its subsidiary, Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant"),
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  The complaint asserts various causes of action on
behalf of a putative nationwide class and a California-only
subclass in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its
membership programs, including claims under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for
unjust enrichment.  On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this
lawsuit.  On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's
motion.  On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a
notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their
motion to compel arbitration.  The Company does not know when the
appeal will be decided.  While that issue is on appeal, the matter
has proceeded in the district court.  There has been written
discovery and depositions.

Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012.  However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The first
of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the Company,
Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital
One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Apollo
Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United Online,
Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,
Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp., People
Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Raukuten USA,
Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc.  The second of
those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same
defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert
similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit
in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership
programs.

On April 26, the court consolidated these three cases.  The court
also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012.  At that
status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a
consolidated amended complaint that will combine the claims in the
three previously separate lawsuits.  The court also struck the
class certification briefing schedule that had been set
previously.  The Plaintiffs have until August 17, 2012, to file
the consolidated amended complaint, and the Defendants will have
60 days to respond to the complaint.


AFFINION GROUP: Unit Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit , which is
substantially similar to the one filed in California, was filed
against a subsidiary of Affinion Group Holdings, Inc., Webloyalty
Holdings, Inc., one of its former clients and one of the credit
card associations in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations
of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act violations.  This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged
conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008.  On December 23,
2010, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which had
since been amended in its entirety.  The court has not yet
scheduled a hearing or ruled on Webloyalty's motion.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Faces Class Action Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a class
action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's July 26,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California against the
Company's subsidiary Webloyalty Holdings, Inc., which is factually
similar to the actions filed in California and Connecticut.  The
action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business
practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et
seq. and in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act.  Both claims are based on allegations that in connection with
enrollment and billing of the plaintiff, Webloyalty charged
plaintiff's credit or debit card using information obtained
through a data pass process and without obtaining directly from
plaintiff his full account number, name, address, and contact
information, as purportedly required under Restore Online
Shoppers' Confidence Act.  Webloyalty's answer or other response
to the complaint was due on July 27, 2012.


ALCOA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA-Violation Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Curtis v. Alcoa
Inc. appealed an order dismissing their lawsuit in its entirety,
according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No.
3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by
requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health
insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for
certain medical procedures and prescription drugs.  Plaintiffs
alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated
their rights to vested health care benefits.  Plaintiffs
additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.  Plaintiffs sought injunctive
and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys'
fees.  Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a
class action.  During the fourth quarter of 2007, following
briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial,
certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs'
breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury
demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a
trial date of September 17, 2008.  In August 2008, the court set a
new trial date of March 24, 2009 and, subsequently, the trial date
was moved to September 22, 2009.  In June 2009, the court
indicated that it would not use an advisory jury at trial.  Trial
in the matter was held over eight days commencing September 22,
2009, and ending on October 1, 2009, in federal court in
Knoxville, TN, before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District
Court Judge.  At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-
hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the
same.  Post trial briefing was submitted on December 4, 2009.

On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons
stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  On March
23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or
amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other things,
a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject
to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to
2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are
subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs
must pay.  Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.  Alcoa filed its opposition
to both motions on April 11, 2011.  On
June 11, 2012, the court issued its memorandum and order denying
plaintiffs' motion for clarification and/or amendment to the
original judgment order.

On July 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's March 9, 2011 judgment.  On July 12, 2012, the court
stayed Alcoa's motion for assessment of costs pending resolution
of plaintiffs' appeal.


APPLE INC: Jobs Biographer Refuses to Hand Over Source Material
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for paidContent, reports that class
action lawyers want Steve Jobs' biographer to hand over his source
material to help them prove that Apple and publishers fixed e-book
prices.  But a judge has agreed that the author can refuse under a
law that protects journalists and their sources.

A federal judge ruled earlier this month that the laws of reporter
privilege mean that Walter Isaacson, the author of a popular Steve
Jobs biography, doesn't have to hand over his notes as evidence in
a class action suit over alleged e-book price-fixing.

The ruling came after plaintiffs issued a subpoena in May that
required Mr. Isaacson to hand over his source materials.  Their
lawyers claim his notes and interview recordings with Mr. Jobs
will help establish that the late Apple founder brokered a
conspiracy with publishers.  In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs have
already jumped on passages in Mr. Isaacon's biography (such as
Mr. Jobs saying consumers would "pay [] a little more") to support
their case.

Mr. Isaacson, a prominent historian and journalist, is willing to
authenticate passages in the book.  But he invoked the reporter's
privilege and refused to hand over his source material or even a
list of Jobs-related documents and recordings.  His lawyers then
asked U.S. District Judge Denise Cote to quash the subpoena.

On July 20, Judge Cote agreed that Mr. Isaacson did not have to
comply with the subpoena.  She added, though, that the lawyers
could try again if they can pass a legal test that allows the
disclosure of journalists' non-confidential material in some
circumstances.

Mr. Isaacson's attorney, Elizabeth McNamara, said in a phone
interview that the class-action lawyers faced a high bar to show
the "notes are highly relevant and necessary to the case."  She
added that none of Mr. Isaacson's taped recordings with Mr. Jobs
discuss e-book pricing.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Steven Berman has argued that the reporter's
privilege shouldn't apply because Mr. Jobs didn't ask Mr. Isaacson
for confidentiality.  He also claims that they can get Mr. Jobs'
information on e-books from other sources.

The dispute comes at a time when the reporter's privilege has been
in the spotlight for the federal government's effort to knock it
down in military cases.  A Virginia appeals court, for instance,
is preparing to rule on whether the Justice Department can compel
a Wall Street Journal reporter to testify in a case against a
former CIA officer.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees New York
courts, has affirmed the reporter's privilege numerous times.  It
recently warned:

"wholesale exposure of press files . . . would burden the press
with heavy costs of subpoena compliance, and could otherwise
impair its ability to perform its duties . . . [it] would risk the
symbolic harm of making journalists appear to be an investigative
arm of the judicial system, the government, or private parties."

The ruling was first reported by Publishers Weekly.


BURCH FARMS: Recalls Athena Cantaloupes Sold at Hannaford
---------------------------------------------------------
Burch Farms of North Carolina announced a recall of Athena
cantaloupes because the product may contain listeria
monocytogenes.  No illnesses have been associated with this
recall, according to Burch Farms.

Hannaford is advising customers because its stores had carried
Burch Farms Athena cantaloupes.  The product has been removed.
Athena cantaloupes, a variety grown in the Southeastern United
States, are a whole cantaloupe produce item.  If stickered, the
label on the item will reference Burch Farm and read: "Cantaloupe
PLU 4319."

Customers should not consume these cantaloupes.  Return the item
to stores or dispose of the item and return the sticker for a full
refund.  Listeria has the potential to cause serious illness.

No other products are affected by this recall.

Hannaford Supermarkets, based in Scarborough, Maine, operates 181
stores and employs more than 26,000 associates in Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont.  For
additional information, visit http://www.hannaford.com/


CARTER'S INC: Got Final OK of Securities Suit Settlement in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carter's, Inc. received final approval of its settlement of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit in June 2012,
according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

A shareholder class action lawsuit asserting claims under the 1934
Securities Exchange Act was filed on September 19, 2008, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(the "Plymouth Action").  A separate shareholder class action
lawsuit asserting additional claims under the 1934 Securities
Exchange Act was filed on November 17, 2009, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the "Mylroie
Action").  The Court consolidated the Plymouth Action and the
Mylroie Action on November 24, 2009 (the "Consolidated Action").
On December 21, 2011, the Company reached an agreement to settle
the Consolidated Action for an amount which has been paid by the
Company's insurance providers.  The settlement agreement included
no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or by any
other defendants and provided for a full and complete release of
all related claims that were or could have been brought against
the Company, its subsidiaries, and any and all current and former
directors, officers, and employees of the Company and its
subsidiaries.

On June 1, 2012, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing all claims
against the Company with prejudice.

The Company says it is subject to various other claims and pending
or threatened lawsuits in the normal course of its business.  The
Company is not currently party to any other legal proceedings that
it believes would have a material adverse effect on its financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


CLIF BAR: Recalls 6-Pack Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF(R) Bars
------------------------------------------------------------
Clif Bar & Company is initiating a voluntary recall of a small
amount of 6-packs of Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF(R) Bars that were
distributed to limited Target and Walmart stores.  These 6-packs
may contain Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF Bars that are mislabeled
with White Chocolate Macadamia CLIF(R) Bar wrappers with a "Best
By" date of 16MAY13G1 and do not list coconut in the ingredient
statement.  Clif is taking this precautionary safety step for
people who are allergic to coconut.

A small quantity of Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF Bars were
inadvertently placed in White Chocolate Macadamia CLIF Bar
wrappers and these mislabeled bars were placed inside correctly
labeled Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF Bar 6-pack boxes.  The White
Chocolate Macadamia wrappers contain advisory allergen labeling
which states that the product may contain traces of other tree
nuts.

Only the product meeting both the following criteria is affected:

   * 6-packs of Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF Bars with "Best By"
     date 16MAY13G1
     UPC: 7-22252-66030-5

   * Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF Bars mislabeled in White
     Chocolate Macadamia CLIF Bar individual wrappers found in
     the above Coconut Chocolate Chip CLIF Bar 6-pack box with
     the same "Best By" date 16MAY13G1

NO other CLIF Bar products, pack sizes, flavors or "Best By" date
codes are affected.

The Company is strongly advising consumers who have coconut
allergies not to consume these mislabeled bars and discard them to
avoid the possibility of an allergic reaction.  People with an
allergy to coconut run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction.  No allergic reactions have been reported to
date.

Consumers with questions or who would like replacement coupons may
contact 1-888-851-8456, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Pacific Daylight
Time, Monday-Friday.  Details can also be found at
http://www.clifbar.com/coconut/

Clif Bar & Company cares deeply about the health and safety of
consumers.  The Company apologizes for this inadvertent labeling
error.


CMS ENERGY: Appeals in Gas Index Price Cases Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation remain
pending, according to CMS Energy Corporation's July 26, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company
(now known as CMS Energy Resource Management Company), CMS Field
Services Inc., Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company,
are named as defendants in various lawsuits arising as a result of
alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications
that report trade information.  Allegations include manipulation
of The New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") natural gas futures
and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade,
and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

   * In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were
     named as defendants in a putative class action filed in
     Kansas state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et
     al.  The complaint alleges that during the putative class
     period, January 1, 2000, through October 31, 2002, the
     defendants engaged in a scheme to violate the Kansas
     Restraint of Trade Act.  The plaintiffs are seeking
     statutory full consideration damages consisting of the full
     consideration paid by plaintiffs for natural gas allegedly
     purchased from defendants.

   * In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional
     Medical Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed in
     Missouri state court alleging violations of Missouri
     antitrust laws.  Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Field
     Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the
     Missouri antitrust law in connection with their natural gas
     reporting activities.

   * Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition
     Co. v. Oneok, Inc., et al., a class action complaint brought
     on behalf of retail direct purchasers of natural gas in
     Colorado, was filed in Colorado state court in 2006.
     Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and
     CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the Colorado Antitrust
     Act of 1992 in connection with their natural gas reporting
     activities.  Plaintiffs are seeking full refund damages.

   * A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL
     Energy Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state
     court on behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that
     purchased natural gas between January 1, 2000, and
     October 31, 2002.  The defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS
     ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are alleged to have violated
     Wisconsin's antitrust statute.

     The plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus
     exemplary damages and attorneys' fees.  After dismissal on
     jurisdictional grounds in 2009, plaintiffs filed a new
     complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
     District of Michigan.  In 2010, the MDL judge issued an
     opinion and order granting the CMS Energy defendants' motion
     to dismiss the Michigan complaint on statute-of-limitations
     grounds and all CMS Energy defendants have been dismissed
     from the Arandell (Michigan) action.

   * Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v.
     CMS ERM, et al., was filed in 2009 in circuit court in Wood
     County, Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas
     Company, and others.  The plaintiff is seeking full
     consideration damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and
     attorneys' fees.

   * In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, in its capacity as
     Trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in
     Kansas state court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field
     Services, and others.  The complaint alleges various claims
     under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act.  The plaintiff is
     seeking statutory full consideration damages for its
     purchases of natural gas in 2000 and 2001.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to the MDL.  CMS Energy was dismissed from the Learjet, Heartland,
and J.P. Morgan cases in 2009, but other CMS Energy defendants
remained parties.  All CMS Energy defendants were dismissed from
the Breckenridge case in 2009.  In 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera
Gas Company were dismissed from the Newpage case and the Arandell
(Wisconsin) case was reinstated against CMS ERM.  In July 2011,
all claims against remaining CMS Energy defendants in the MDL
cases were dismissed based on FERC preemption.  Plaintiffs have
filed appeals in all of the cases.  The issues on appeal are
whether the district court erred in dismissing the cases based on
FERC preemption and denying the plaintiffs' motions for leave to
amend their complaints to add a federal Sherman Act antitrust
claim.  The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy
as a defendant in these cases, but other CMS Energy entities
remain as defendants.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions.  Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would
be based on widely varying models previously untested in this
context.  If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases
could have a material adverse impact on CMS Energy's liquidity,
financial condition, and results of operations.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: In Discussions to Settle New York Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company is currently in discussions via non-
binding mediation to determine whether a consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in New York can be settled, according to the
Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain
aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the Plan) do not comply
with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against
the Plan and the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  Specifically, Proesel, et al.
v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et
al. alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions, age
discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of benefits to
Plan participants.  Two other putative class actions filed earlier
in 2007, Abelman, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees'
Retirement Income Plan, et al., in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-
Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both
alleging improper calculation of lump sum distributions and, in
the case of Abelman, claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, were transferred to the Southern District of New
York and consolidated with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-
Palmolive ERISA Litigation.

The complaint in the consolidated action alleges improper
calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to satisfy
minimum accrual requirements, but does not include a claim for age
discrimination.  The relief sought includes recalculation of
benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment interest,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  This action has not been
certified as a class action as yet.  The parties are in
discussions via non-binding mediation to determine whether the
action can be settled.  The Company and the Plan intend to contest
this action vigorously should the parties be unable to reach a
settlement.


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Unit Signs Formal "Wolfgeher" Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, Inc. disclosed in its July 26, 2012, Form 8-
K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that
its subsidiary signed the formal Settlement Agreement and Release
related to the class action lawsuit captioned Wolfgeher v.
Commerce Bank.

On July 26, 2012, Commerce Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company, signed the formal Settlement Agreement and Release
related to the class action lawsuit captioned Wolfgeher v.
Commerce Bank, which was settled in December 2011, and which
alleged unfair assessment and collection of overdraft fees based
upon a high-to-low posting order utilized on debit card
transactions.  Commerce Bank, while admitting no wrongdoing,
agreed to the settlement in order to resolve the litigation and
avoid further expense.  In accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and Release (which remains subject to final
court approval), Commerce Bank agrees to post debit card
transactions in chronological order, beginning no later than April
2013.  As a result of this change in the posting order of debit
card transactions, Commerce Bank currently estimates that
overdraft income will be reduced on an annual basis by $6 to $8
million.


COSTAR GROUP: Anticipates Paying LoopNet Suit Settlement by Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CoStar Group, Inc. disclosed in its July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it anticipates payment will be
made under the settlement of a consolidated merger-related class
action lawsuit by December 31, 2012, upon the court's final
approval of the settlement.

In May 2011, LoopNet Inc., the Board of Directors of LoopNet ("the
LoopNet Board") and/or the Company were named as defendants in
three purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged LoopNet
stockholders challenging LoopNet's proposed merger with the
Company.  The stockholder actions alleged, among other things,
that (i) each member of the LoopNet Board breached his fiduciary
duties to LoopNet and its stockholders in authorizing the sale of
LoopNet to the Company, (ii) the merger does not maximize value to
LoopNet stockholders, (iii) LoopNet and the Company have made
incomplete or materially misleading disclosures about the proposed
transaction and (iv) LoopNet and the Company aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of
the LoopNet Board.  The stockholder actions sought class action
certification and equitable relief, including an injunction
against consummation of the merger.  The parties have stipulated
to the consolidation of the actions, and to permit the filing of a
consolidated complaint.

In June 2011, counsel for the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of
this litigation, which could result in a loss to the Company of
approximately $200,000.  The Company anticipates that the payment
will be made by December 31, 2012, upon the court's final approval
of the settlement.

CoStar Group, Inc. -- http://www.costar.com/-- provides
information/marketing services to the commercial real estate
industry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.
The Company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland.


CREDO PETROLEUM: Being Sold to Forestar for Too Little
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Credo Petroleum
are selling the company too cheaply through an unfair process to
Forestar Group, for $14.50 a share or $146 million, shareholders
say in Denver County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Gavrilas v. Huffman, et al., Case No.
45601011 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Denver Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/31/ShareDeriv.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles W. Lilley, Esq.
          Karen Cody-Hopkins, Esq.
          CHARLES LILLEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1600 Stout Street, 11th Floor
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 293-9800
          E-mail: clilley@lilleylaw.com
                  karen@codyhopkinslaw.com


ENSCO PLC: Remaining Suits Over Pride Acquisition Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc said in its July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012, that the remaining cases filed in connection with its
acquisition of Pride International, Inc. were dismissed.

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

In April 2010, two purported shareholders of Pride filed separate
derivative actions against all of Pride's then-current directors
and against Pride, as nominal defendant.  The lawsuits, filed in
state court in Texas, were consolidated and alleged that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in regards
to certain matters involving Pride's previously disclosed
investigation under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA").
Among other remedies, the lawsuit sought damages in an unspecified
amount and equitable relief against the individual defendants,
along with an award of attorney fees and other costs and expenses
to the plaintiff.  After the conclusion of Pride's investigation,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended petition in January
2011, raising allegations substantially similar to those made in
the prior lawsuits.

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

In 2011, the Company entered into a stipulation of settlement with
the plaintiffs in the Delaware cases, under which Pride or its
successor agreed not to oppose any application by attorneys for
the class for fees and expenses not exceeding $1.1 million.  In
2012, the remaining cases were dismissed.

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


FANNIE MAE: Dougherty County May Join Transfer Fee Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Knight, writing for Fox31 news, reports that attorney, and
former Dougherty County DA, Ken Hodges spoke to the county
commission on July 30 about participating in the filing of a class
action lawsuit against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Hodges says the Federal National Mortgage Association and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation have not been paying
transfer fees in transactions with certain counties -- Dougherty
being one of them.  He wants the county's permission to represent
at the hearing in Michigan this coming September.

"This is a tough time for counties, we're all in a recession, we
need to find money and we certainly don't need people that are
owing taxes to not be paying them," says Mr. Hodges.

County Attorney Spencer Lee says he will look into the matter more
before giving Mr. Hodges an answer.


FULL TILT: Poker Players Seek Payment of Damages in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Full Tilt Poker
companies took more than $443.8 million from players' accounts
from April 2007 to April 2011, a class action claims in St. Clair
County Court.

Lead plaintiff Judy Fahrner claims the defendants required
Illinois residents who wanted to play to maintain player accounts
with Full Tilt.  Players deposited money in their player accounts
through a variety of methods, including credit and debit card
transactions and wire transfers.

"The deposited funds were fraudulently commingled with Full Tilt's
operational funds and dispersed to individual defendants," the
complaint states.  "Upon information and belief, Full Tilt's Board
of Directors distributed approximately $443,860,529.89 to
themselves and other owners between April, 2007 and April, 2011."

The U.S. Department of Justice shut down Full Tilt on April 15,
2011 and filed criminal charges, including wire fraud, bank fraud,
and money laundering.  In doing so, the DOJ seized and has sought
the forfeiture of Full Tilt's assets, but has not sought the
forfeiture of player's money, according to the complaint.

Ms. Fahrner seeks class damages for all Illinois residents who
lost money in Full Tilt's illegal gambling operation.

Named as defendants are Full Tilt Poker Ltd., Tiltware LLC,
Vantage Ltd., Filco Ltd., Kolyma Corp., A.V.V., Pocket Kings Ltd.,
Pocket Kings Consulting Ltd., Ranston Ltd., Mail Media Ltd. and 16
people.

A copy of the Complaint in Fahrner v. Bitar, et al., Case No.
12L354 (Ill. Cir. Ct., St. Clair Cty.), is available at;

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/31/FullTilt.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyds M. Cueto, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LLOYD M. CUETO
          7110 West Main Street
          Belleville, IL 62223
          Telephone: (618) 277-1554


G4 MEDIA: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that G4 Media and NBC Universal
Media stiffed "segment, line and field producers" on the TV
program "Attack of the Show" for overtime, a class action claims
in Los Angeles Superior Court.


GARDEN FRESH: Recalls Packages of Products Containing Onions
------------------------------------------------------------
   * Possible Health Risk Due To Gills Onions Expanded Recall
     Cited

Garden Fresh Foods, Inc. is initiating a voluntary recall of
various ready-to-eat salads, slaw, salsa, bean and dip products
sold under various brands and code dates.  The products may
contain onions from Gills Onions, which may be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes-fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Products are sold in various size containers (8oz to 8 pound
packages).  The product were distributed in the following states:
WI, MN, IA, IL, OH, IN, TX, FL, MA, MO, MI, PA, AZ, CA, and
distributed to retail stores and food services.

Consumers who have purchased any of the suspect products are urged
to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Currently there has been no illness reported related to this
recall.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-645-3367
Monday through Friday between the hours 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.


GREEN DOT: Faces Securities Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a class action, the
plaintiffs, purchasers of securities in Green Dot, claim the low-
cost banking platform made misleading and false statements that
hid adverse information about its operations and prospects.

The case is Bryan Zee v. Green Dot Corporation; Steven Streit;
John Keatley filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.


GREEN TOYS: Recalls 52,500 Toy Cars Due To Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Green Toys Inc., of Mill Valley, California,
announced a voluntary recall of about 50,000 Green Toys(TM) Mini
Vehicles in the United States of America and 2,500 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The wheels and hubcaps on the toy cars can detach, posing a
choking hazard to young children.

Green Toys has received 10 reports of wheels and hubcaps detaching
or loosening from the vehicles.  There have been no reports of
injuries.

This recall involves Green Toys(TM) Mini Vehicles.  All cars are
made of plastic and available in yellow, green, red, white and
blue.  Model names and numbers for the seven recalled vehicles or
sets are listed in the table below.  For Mini Vehicle (MVHA -
1014) and Fastback (MVFA-1022) sets, the model numbers can be
found on the bottom of the toys' packaging.  For all other cars, a
label with the model number can be found on the bottom of the car
itself.

          Model Number        Product
          ------------        -------
            MVHA-1014         Mini Vehicle Set
            MAMW-1015         Mini Ambulance
            MVSA-1016         Mini Vehicle Assortment
            MFBR-1018         Mini Red Fastback
            MPCB-1020         Mini Police Car
            MTXY-1021         Mini Taxi
            MVFA-1022         Mini Fastback Set

The recalled Mini Vehicles were manufactured from March 2012
through June 2012.  The manufacturing date is represented by a
circle with an arrow in the middle that can be found imprinted on
the underside of the front of the car.  To the left and right of
the arrow are numbers that represent the year, and the arrow
itself points to the number that represents the month.  Cars with
an "I" etched into the underside of the car next to the date stamp
are not part of the recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12238.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold to mass merchandisers, grocery stores and
independent toy and specialty stores nationwide and by online
retailers from April 2012 to June 2012.  The cars cost about $5
each or $18 for the set.

Consumers should take the product away from children immediately
and contact Green Toys Inc. to receive a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Green Toys toll-free at (888) 973-
3421 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.greentoys.com/recall/


HIGHER ONE: Sued Over Deceptive Student Financial Aid Bank Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart at Courthouse News Service reports that college
students sued Higher One Holdings and Bancorp Bank in a federal
class action, claiming they automatically create bank accounts for
students' financial aid and then charge them "numerous
unconscionable and unusual bank fees."

Seven named plaintiffs claim New Haven-based Higher One has such
arrangements with hundreds of colleges and universities around the
country.  Essentially, Higher One acts as a middleman between a
college business office and a student's financial aid account,
according to the complaint.

Named as defendants are Higher One Holdings Inc., The Bancorp
Bank, the Urban Trust Bank, and Wright Express Financial Services
Corp.

"Financial-aid refunds -- the money left over after the school
deducts its tuition and fees, which students are to use for things
like books and living expenses -- are automatically deposited into
a Higher One bank account linked to a Higher One debit card," the
complaint states.

The students say the financial aid is put into such accounts by
default, and Higher One makes it difficult to opt out.

The company "uses three tactics to make sure that students do not
opt out of this default: first, it bombards students with
unsolicited and deceptive marketing materials second, it
intentionally delays access to financial aid funds for students
who choose to use other banking providers; third, it conceals the
true costs of the Higher One accounts," according to the
complaint.

Students who need their financial aid money immediately are unable
to opt out, the class claims.

"Because, almost by definition, financial aid recipients are
dependent on their financial aid money to survive, Higher One
coerces students to remain in the default option and use Higher
One accounts in order to have immediate access to their funds,"
the complaint states.

Higher One, the brainchild of Yale undergraduates, makes sure that
students don't opt out of the accounts it creates for them, the
class claims.

"Higher One has stated that approximately 80 percent of students
remain in the 'default' option.  Higher One then proceeds to
assess and collect deceptive, unusual, unconscionable, and in many
cases unavoidable bank fees on these 'captive' banking accounts,"
according to the complaint.

The students charged these fees are often "students who can afford
them the least," the class claims.  "Many students pay Higher
One's unconscionable bank fees with borrowed money, often at 7
percent interest or higher.  Other students receiving grant aid
are low-income with a high level of need."

The class seeks more than $5 million in damages, and restitution
of all PIN-based transaction fees and non-Higher One ATM fees.
They also want Higher One to admit it engaged in deceptive
practices.

The class claims defendants Bancorp Bank, Urban Trust Bank, and
Wright Express Financial Services partner with Higher One to
provide the checking services.

A copy of the Complaint in Price, et al. v. Higher One Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01093 (D. Conn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/31/HigherOne.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Esq.
          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  klesser@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
          2000 L Street NW, Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  jkaliel@tzlegal.com


HINDS COUNTY, MI: Watson Firm Confirms Filing of Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Louis H. Watson, Jr., P.A. confirms that a
overtime class action lawsuit has been filed against the Hinds
County, Mississippi Sheriff's Department.  The lawsuit that was
filed on July 27, 2012, alleges that non-supervisory employees of
the sheriff's department were not properly paid all of the
overtime wages they were owed.  Specifically, the lawsuit alleges
the sheriff's department (1) paid compensatory time on an hour for
hour basis instead of the required hour and a half of compensatory
time for each hour of overtime worked, (2) did not properly pay
employees overtime wages for all the compensatory time they earned
upon separation from employment, (3) did not have a limit of 480
hours of compensatory time that could be earned, and (4) did not
accurately keep records regarding compensatory time.

The case is currently pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi.  The case is Derius
Harris, et al v. Hinds County Sheriff's Department, Civil Action
No. 3:12-CV-542-CWR-LRA


HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls Salad Under Trader Joe's Brand
----------------------------------------------------------
Huxtable's Kitchen is initiating a voluntary recall of Trader
Joe's Roasted Butternut Squash, Red Quinoa and Wheatberry Salad
because the onions used as an ingredient have the potential to be
contaminated by Listeria monocytogenes.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea.  Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Trader Joe's Roasted Butternut Squash, Red Quinoa & Wheatberry
Salad with "use by date" of 7/28/2012 and 7/30/2012 comes in a 9.5
oz clear plastic container.  The "use by date" is marked on a
sticker on the front of the package.  The recalled product was
distributed from 7/23/12 to 7/26/12 to Trader Joe's stores in
Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington.
No other Trader Joe's stores are affected by this recall.

The onions are a product of Gill Onions, Oxnard, California, which
initiated a recall of the onions on July 18, 2012, and were
supplied to Huxtable's Kitchen, Inc.  Immediately following
notification from Huxtable's Kitchen, Inc., Trader Joe's removed
affected product from store shelves and destroyed them.

No illnesses have been linked to this recall.  Anyone who has the
recalled product in their possession should not consume it and
should destroy or discard it.  Consumers with questions may
contact Huxtable's Kitchen: at 323-923-2885, M-F, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00
p.m./ Pacific Daylight Time.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 200,000 SUVs Under Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Megan Stride, writing for Law360, reports that Hyundai Motor Co.
is recalling nearly 200,000 model year 2007 through 2009 Santa Fe
SUVs in connection with an anticipated settlement of a putative
class action, as well as some model year 2012 to 2013 Sonata cars
in a separate voluntary action, both over potential air bag
problems, according to documents available through regulators on
July 30.

The automaker is recalling 199,118 Santa Fe vehicles made from
April 19, 2006, through July 7, 2008, because the occupant
classification system may need to be recalibrated.


INTERNAP NETWORK: Two Claims in "Anastasio" Suit Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On November 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against Internap Network Services Corporation
and its former chief executive officer in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, captioned
Catherine Anastasio and Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network
Services Corp. and James P. DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-
3462-JOF.  The complaint alleges that the Company and the
individual defendant violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and that the individual
defendant also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as a
"control person" of Internap.  Plaintiffs purport to bring these
claims on behalf of a class of the Company's investors who
purchased its common stock between March 28, 2007, and March 18,
2008.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted
material information regarding (a) integration of VitalStream,
which the Company acquired in 2007, (b) customer issues and
related credits due to services outages and (c) the Company's
previously reported 2007 revenue that it subsequently reduced in
2008 as announced on March 18, 2008.  Plaintiffs assert that the
Company and the individual defendant made these misstatements and
omissions to maintain its share price.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and other relief.

On August 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint").  The Amended
Complaint added a claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act based on alleged misrepresentations in the Company's
proxy statement in connection with its acquisition of VitalStream.
The Amended Complaint also added the Company's former chief
financial officer as a defendant and lengthened the putative class
period.

On September 11, 2009, the Company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss.  On November 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint.  On December 7, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint to add allegations regarding, inter alia, an
alleged failure to conduct due diligence in connection with the
VitalStream acquisition and additional statements from purported
confidential witnesses.

On September 15, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and denied the individual defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.  With respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Court held that the Amended
Complaint failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, but allowed plaintiffs'
one final opportunity to amend the complaint.  On October 26,
2010, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint.
On December 10, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this
complaint.  On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in large part
the motion to dismiss.  The two remaining claims involve certain
alleged misstatements concerning the progress of the integration
of VitalStream and the stability of the Company's content delivery
network ("CDN") platform.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Internap Network Services
Corporation -- http://www.internap.com-- provides information
technology (IT) infrastructure services. The Company operates
through two segments, Data Center Services and Internet Protocol
(IP) Services.


JON DAVLER: Faces Class Action Over "Vaginal Inspection"
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action in Los Angeles
Superior Court claims that Christina Yang, and co-defendant Jon
Davler Inc., subjected workers to "vaginal inspection" to see "who
was on their period" after someone left a used sanitary napkin in
a restroom.

  
KEN'S FOODS: Recalls Dressings and Sauces Containing Onions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ken's Foods, Inc. issues voluntary recall of a limited number of
branded food service dressings and sauces containing onions
because of possible health risk due to Gills Onions recall.

The Company is the manufacturer of Golden Corral Tartar Sauce,
Dickey's BBQ Bean Sauce, Lee's Cole Slaw Dressing, Fatz Tartar
Sauce, Ken's Tartar Sauce.  These items contain onions from Gills
Onions, which may have been contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and still births among pregnant
women.

This recall comes as a result of a July 25, 2012 recall issued by
Gills Onions, of Oxnard, California, a supplier to Fresh Point,
Atlanta.  Fresh Point further processes the onions for Ken's
Foods, Inc.

The products included in this recall are listed below.  No other
Ken's products are affected by this recall.  As of this date,
there have been no illnesses reported relating to this recall.

   KE0666-Ken's Tartar Sauce      4/1-gallon containers
                                  MFG: 09/07/12

   KE0666A5-Ken's Tartar Sauce    100/1.5 oz cups
                                  EXP: 01/13/13

   DI2063-Dickey's BBQ Bean       10/48 oz pouches
                                  USE BY: 11/03/13

   GD2517-Golden Corral Tartar    4/1-gallon containers
                                  MFG:  17/07/12

   FQ2103-Lee's Cole Slaw         14/40 oz pouches
                                  MFG:  23/07/12

   FD0666-Fatz Tartar Sauce       4/1-gallon containers
                                  MFG:  23/07/12

On Friday, July 27, 2012, Ken's Foods, Inc. notified all
distribution centers, private label customers and brokers to
request immediate withdrawal of the potentially affected items
listed above.  The items were distributed to the states of AL, FL,
GA, IL, KY, MS, NC, NE, NM, NV, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX and WI.

If there are any questions pertaining to this notice, please call
Ken's Foods, Inc., Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern Standard Time, at 1-508-229-1100, ask for extension 4727
or 1190.


LIBERTY MOUNTAIN: Recalls 400 VAUDE Kenta Child Carriers
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Liberty Mountain, of Salt Lake City,
Utah, and manufacturer, VAUDE Sport GmbH & Company KG, of Germany,
announced a voluntary recall of about 300 Kenta and Kenta Plus
child carriers in the United States of America and 100 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The side strap's seam can unravel and cause the strap to separate,
posing a fall hazard to the child in the carrier.

VAUDE has received two reports of the side strap separating.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves backpack-style child carriers sold under the
Kenta and Kenta Plus model name.  "VAUDE" is printed on the back
and between the shoulder straps of the carrier.  "Kenta" or "Kenta
Plus" is printed on the lower back or hip belt of the carrier.
The carriers were sold in black, red and brown and were designed
for children up to 31 pounds.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12237.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold at
outdoor camping and climbing stores nationwide from January 2010
through May 2012 for about $150 for the Kenta and $170 for the
Kenta Plus models.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled child
carriers and return the product to an authorized VAUDE dealer for
a replacement.  Consumers can contact Liberty Mountain to locate
an authorized VAUDE dealer.  For additional information, contact
Liberty Mountain at (800) 366-2666 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Mountain Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web sites
at http://www.vaude.com/or http://www.libertymountain.com/


LINN ENERGY: Briefing in Suit Over Royalty Payments Deferred
------------------------------------------------------------
The briefing and hearing on class certification in a statewide
class action royalty payment dispute have been deferred, Linn
Energy, LLC disclosed in its July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits,
including claims from royalty owners related to disputed royalty
payments and royalty valuations.  The Company has established
reserves that management currently believes are adequate to
provide for potential liabilities based upon its evaluation of
these matters.  For a certain statewide class action royalty
payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been established, the
Company has denied that it has any liability on the claims and has
raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted by the court, will
result in no loss to the Company.  Discovery related to class
certification has concluded.  Briefing and the hearing on class
certification have been deferred by court order pending the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals' resolution of interlocutory appeals of
two unrelated class certification orders.

As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or
range of possible loss, if any.  In addition, the Company is
involved in various other disputes arising in the ordinary course
of business.  The Company is not currently a party to any
litigation or pending claims that it believes would have a
material adverse effect on its overall business, financial
position, results of operations or liquidity; however, cash flow
could be significantly impacted in the reporting periods in which
such matters are resolved.


MICRONETICS INC: Agrees to Settle Mecury Merger Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Micronetics, Inc. on July 30 disclosed that it has signed a
memorandum of understanding to settle the previously disclosed
class action lawsuit captioned In re Micronetics, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, C.A. No. 7626-VCP pending in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and the lawsuit in the New Hampshire Superior Court
entitled Constantinescu v. Micronetics, et al., No. 226-2012-CV-
490 and the newly-filed action in the United States District Court
for the District of New Hampshire entitled Joshi v. Micronetics,
Inc., et al., No. 1:12-CV-00285 (collectively, the "Merger
Litigation").  The Merger Litigation relates to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of June 8, 2012, by and among Mercury
Computer Systems, Inc., a new Mercury subsidiary, and Micronetics.

Micronetics agreed to the settlement solely to avoid the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing.  The settlement provides,
among other things, that the parties will seek to enter into a
stipulation of settlement which provides for the conditional
certification of the Merger Litigation as a non opt-out class
action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23 on behalf of a class
consisting of all record and beneficial owners of Micronetics
common stock during the period beginning on June 10, 2012, through
the date of the consummation of the proposed merger, including any
and all of their respective successors in interest, predecessors,
representatives, and the release of all asserted claims.  The
asserted claims will not be released until such stipulation of
settlement is approved by the court.  There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the court will approve such settlement even if
the parties were to enter into such stipulation.  The settlement
will not affect the merger consideration to be received by
Micronetics stockholders or the timing of the special meeting of
Micronetics stockholders scheduled for August 8, 2012.

Micronetics -- http://www.micronetics.com-- manufactures
microwave and radio frequency (RF) components and integrated
subassemblies used in a variety of defense, aerospace and
commercial applications.  Micronetics also manufactures and
designs test equipment and components that test the strength,
durability and integrity of communication signals in communication
equipment.  Micronetics serves a diverse customer base, including
BAE Systems, Boeing, Cobham, EADS, General Dynamics, ITT Exelis,
L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon,
Rockwell, Tecom Industries, Teradyne, and Thales


NETFLIX INC: Agrees to Change Data Retention Practices
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lewis, writing for The Toronto Star, reports that Netflix
Inc. has agreed to change its data retention practices so rental
histories of customers who haven't subscribed to the service for
at least a year will no longer be identifiable. Netflix notified
customers of the policy shift in an e-mail on July 30.

The change is part of a proposed settlement to a privacy lawsuit
filed against Netflix last year by Virginians Jeff Milans, Peter
Comstock and four other plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was granted status as a class action to represent tens
of millions of Netflix costumers and led to a mediated settlement
announced in February.

The suit alleges that the video streaming service retained
customers' movie and TV show rental data longer than permitted
under the U.S. Video Privacy Protection Act and disclosed
information on viewing histories to unnamed third parties.

Netflix has not admitted wrongdoing, but did agree as part of the
settlement to "de-couple" information about rentals from basic
identification profiles of former customers within the prescribed
timeframe.

The company also agreed to pay $9 million (U.S.), with proceeds
earmarked for privacy advocacy groups and to settle lawyers' fees.

Members of the class, including Canadians who signed on when the
service was launched in September 2010, will receive no payment or
any other consideration.

"Named plaintiffs" are to each receive an award of $5,000.

"That doesn't seem fair at all," said a blogger on
videoprivacyclass.com.  "I'd rather be a named plaintiff or see no
one be a named plaintiff."

The case alleges that "Netflix's ongoing maintenance of 'digital
dossiers' on its subscribers -- after canceling their
subscriptions and beyond the point where Netflix still needs the
information -- constitutes a failure to 'destroy as soon as
practicable,' in violation of the VPPA."

Netflix declined comment, but has confirmed the settlement in
regulatory filings that described the penalty as "immaterial" to
its financial performance.

The company said it will pay $6.75 million to non-profit privacy
organizations, while $2.25 million will go to the lawyers who
filed the case.  Money will also be used to educate consumers and
regulators on privacy protection.

The settlement was granted preliminary approval in early July by a
district judge who said the accord "compares favorably" to recent
settlements of other consumer privacy cases, including with Google
Inc. and Facebook Inc.

The suit alleges that Netflix used and disclosed data for
marketing and advertising without consent.

The complaint says most Netflix users would feel "extremely
uncomfortable" that the Los Gatos, California-based company could
keep their viewing histories and credit card data for so long.

A hearing to consider any objections to the settlement and whether
it should be approved by the court is set for December 5 in San
Jose.

Those who do not respond to Netflix's e-mail will be deemed to
have agreed to the change and will surrender the legal right to
take further action against Netflix for breach of data privacy
under the class action.

Customers who want to retain the right to sue Netflix over the
claims must exclude themselves by writing the Netflix Privacy
Settlement Administrator by Nov. 14.

They can pursue claims separate from the class action but they
will have to do so at their own expense.  Netflix customers can
also file written objections to the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, and San Jose Division.

Netflix shares plunged 25 per cent last week after the company
reported better-than-expected earnings but issued a weak outlook
for the rest of the year.

The company lost more than 800,000 customers in one quarter of
2011 after it hiked prices and said it would split streaming and
DVD rental into separate businesses.


NW MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over Labor Abuses
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
100 or more workers accuse NW Management and Realty Services and
Farmland Management Services of labor abuses, including hiring a
supervisor who threatened workers with gunshots.

A copy of the Complaint in Saucedo, et al. v. NW Management and
Realty Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-00478 (E.D. Wash.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/31/ApplePickers.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lori Jordan Isley, Esq.
     COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
     Yakima, WA 98901
     Telephone: (509) 575-5593, x 217
     E-mail: lori.isley@columbialegal.org


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss "Hines" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit initiated by Cynthia
Hines, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

On March 10, 2009, the Company was sued in a class action filed in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.
Cynthia Hines, the nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for breach
of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud laws.
The Plaintiff alleges the Company failed to properly disclose its
returns policy to her and that it improperly imposed a
"restocking" charge on her return of a vacuum cleaner.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that its
agreement with its customers requires all such actions to be
arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Alternatively, the Company
asked that the case be transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Utah, so that arbitration may be
compelled in that district. On September 8, 2009, the motion to
dismiss or transfer was denied, the court stating that the
Company's browsewrap agreement was insufficient under New York law
to establish an agreement with the customer to arbitrate disputes
in Utah.  On October 8, 2009, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal
of the court's ruling.  The appeal was denied.

On December 31, 2010, Ms. Hines filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint eliminated common law fraud claims and breach of
contract claims and added claims for breach of Utah's consumer
protection statute and various other state consumer protection
statutes.  The amended complaint also asks for an injunction.  The
lawsuit is in final discovery stages.  The Company filed motions
to dismiss and to decertify the class.  The court has not ruled on
these motions.

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

The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have
been asserted against the Company is described in the lawsuit.
However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this action.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Facebook Beacon-Related Suit Appeal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On August 12, 2008, Overstock.com, Inc. along with seven other
defendants, were sued in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen other
individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a
class action lawsuit, alleging violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video
Privacy Protection Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and Computer Crime Law.  The complaint relates to the
Company's use of a product known as Facebook Beacon, created and
provided to the Company by Facebook, Inc.  Facebook Beacon
provided the means for Facebook users to share purchasing data
among their Facebook friends.  The parties extended by agreement
the time for defendants' answer, including the Company's answer,
and thereafter, the Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated
settlement to the court for approval, which would resolve the case
without requirement of financial contribution from the Company.
On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the
court accepted the proposed settlement.  Various parties objecting
to the settlement have appealed and their appeal is now pending.
The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have
been asserted against the Company is described in the lawsuit.
However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


PIERCE COUNTY, WA: "Adult Entertainers" File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that more than
100 "adult entertainers" filed a class action against Pierce
County, to keep their Adult Entertainer License Applications from
being released to an inmate who requested the documents, which
contain extensive personal information.

Jane Doe sued the county and its Auditor's Office on her own
behalf and for 107 other women, and also sued the inmate who
requested her application through a public records request.

Pierce County requires all adult performers, including strippers
and topless dancers, to complete a license application containing
their home address, telephone number, age, date of birth, height,
race, eye color, hair color, complexion, criminal history, place
of birth, location of tattoos, performer name and location of
work. The application is considered a public document and subject
to public disclosure laws.

The prisoner, Robert Hill, previously requested photographs for
all people who applied for an adult entertainer license and asked
for the lead Jane Doe plaintiff's full application, according to
the complaint.

"Mr. Hill did not know petitioner's identity, but made a Public
Records Request based on her photograph alone," the complaint
states.

"Petitioner immediately contacted the Auditor's Office to object
to Mr. Hill's Public Records Request and sought additional
information.  Petitioner later learned that prior to requesting
information about her, Mr. Hill made a Public Records Request for
all photographs for all individuals that applied for Adult
Entertainment Licenses in Pierce County.  The Auditor's Office
provided Mr. Hill with 108 photographs," according to the
complaint.

Ms. Doe says that if the auditor releases the applications,
"personal and private information will be disclosed that
substantially and irreparably damages petitioners in violation of
their privacy rights."

She adds: "Jane Doe has a fear that if her personal and private
information is disclosed to Mr. Hill, her right to privacy will be
violated and Mr. Hill will use that information for an improper
purpose that is not related to a legitimate public concern."

The class wanted Pierce County enjoined from disclosing their
personal information, and Mr. Hill enjoined from making any more
requests for this information.

A copy of the Complaint in Doe v. County of Pierce, et al., Case
No. 12-2-10650-4 (Wash. Super. Ct., Pierce Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/31/Privacy.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean V. Small, Esq.
          LASHER HOLZAPFEL, SPERRY & EBBERSON, P.L.L.C.
          601 Union St., Suite 2600
          Seattle, WA 98101-4000
          Telephone: (206) 654-5613
          E-mail: small@lasher.com


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Responds to "Higgins" Suit Discovery Requests
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. said in its July 26, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it is currently responding
to discovery requests from John Higgins, et al.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, a customer of Pinnacle
National's filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled John
Higgins, et al. v. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., d/b/a
Pinnacle National Bank) in Davidson County, Tennessee Circuit
Court against Pinnacle National and Pinnacle Financial, on his own
behalf, as well as on behalf of a purported class of Pinnacle
National's customers within the State of Tennessee alleging that
Pinnacle National's method of ordering debit card transactions had
caused customers of Pinnacle National to incur higher overdraft
charges than had a different method been used.  In support of his
claims, the plaintiff asserts theories of breach of contract,
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment of unconscionability.  The plaintiff is seeking, among
other remedies, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, pre-
judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees.  Pinnacle Financial
and Pinnacle National are vigorously contesting this matter.  On
January 17, 2012, Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle National filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The motion to dismiss was denied
on April 13, 2012, and Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle National
filed an answer on May 30, 2012.  Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle
National are currently responding to discovery requests from the
plaintiff.

The Company says that based on its current knowledge, it currently
does not believe that any liability arising from this legal matter
will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition, operating results or cash flows.

Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. -- http://www.mypinnacle.com/--
operates as the bank holding company for Pinnacle National Bank
that provides various commercial banking services to individuals,
small-to medium-sized businesses, and professional entities
primarily in Tennessee.  The company was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Custom Made Sub Sandwiches with Onions
------------------------------------------------------------
Publix Super Markets is issuing a voluntary recall for custom sub
sandwiches that contain onions because they may be adulterated
with Listeria monocytogenes.  Publix received notification from
their supplier, who receives sliced onions from Gills Onions LLC.
This recall involves any custom made sub sandwich with onions sold
from the Publix Deli department between July 7, 2012, through
July 26, 2012, in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina.
Publix stores in Florida are not involved with this recall.

Consumption of products containing Listeria monocytogenes can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infection in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with the
sliced onions.

"As part of our commitment to food safety, potentially impacted
product has been removed from all store shelves," said Maria
Brous, Publix media and community relations director.  "Consumers
who have purchased the products in question may return the product
to their local store for a full refund.  Publix customers with
additional questions may call our Customer Care Center at 1-800-
242-1227 or by visiting the Company's Web site at
http://www.publix.com/. Customers can also contact the US Food
and Drug Administration at 1-888-SAFEFOOD (1-888-723-3366)."

Publix is privately owned and operated by its 152,500 employees,
with 2011 sales of $27.0 billion.  Currently Publix has 1,055
stores in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee.
The company has been named one of FORTUNE's "100 Best Companies to
Work For in America" for 15 consecutive years.  In addition,
Publix's dedication to superior quality and customer service is
recognized as tops in the grocery business, most recently by an
American Customer Satisfaction Index survey.  For more
information, visit the Company's Web site, http://www.publix.com/


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Sales Rep Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is awaiting court decisions on its
motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought by female sales
representatives, and to compel arbitration, according to the
Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In January 2012, a putative class action entitled Beery v. Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and a
subsidiary, on behalf of all female sales representatives employed
by the defendants from February 17, 2010, to the present.  The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants discriminate against
these female sales representatives on account of their gender, in
violation of the federal civil rights and equal pay acts, and
seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages.
The Company has filed motions to dismiss the complaint, to strike
the class allegations and to compel arbitration with the named
plaintiffs.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Celera Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp.
Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated's subsidiary, Celera Corporation, and
certain of its directors and current and former officers.  An
amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that from April
2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding Celera's business and financial
results with an intent to defraud investors.  The complaint was
further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding a financial
restatement.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of
an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's stock during the period
in which the alleged misrepresentations were made.  The Company's
motion to dismiss is pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: NJLAD Violations Suit Still Pending in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated continues to defend a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In November 2010, a putative class action entitled Seibert v.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. was filed against the
Company and certain former officers of the Company in New Jersey
state court, on behalf of the Company's sales people nationwide
who were over forty years old and who either resigned or were
terminated after being placed on a performance improvement plan.
The complaint alleges that the defendants' conduct violates the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), and seeks, among
other things, unspecified damages.  The defendants removed the
complaint to the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").  The Company filed a motion seeking to limit the
application of the NJLAD to only those members of the purported
class who worked in New Jersey and to dismiss the individual
defendants.  The motion was granted.  The only remaining NJLAD
claim is that of the named plaintiff; the ERISA claim remains in
the case.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: NID-Related Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit involving a Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated subsidiary has been dismissed with prejudice,
according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In April 2010, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and NID, a test kit manufacturing subsidiary which was
closed in 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of entities that allegedly
purchased or paid for certain of NID's test kits.  The complaint
alleges that certain of NID's test kits were defective and that
defendants, among other things, violated the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and state consumer
protection laws.  The complaint alleges an unspecified amount of
damages.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint.

In April 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation recommending that the court dismiss the complaint.
Following the Magistrate Judge's report, the plaintiff agreed to
dismiss their case with prejudice.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
12-cv-5825 on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock
of RadioShack Corporation, during the period July 26, 2011 through
July 24, 2012 against RadioShack Corporation and James F. Gooch
for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that RadioShack and Gooch each had a duty to
timely, fully and truthfully disclose all material facts and
information concerning RadioShack and they did not.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that in the beginning of the Class Period,
defendants allegedly claimed they were well on their way to
executing their strategy to transform RadioShack from its
historical roots as a seller of consumer electronics and
accessories into a reseller of wireless products.  Defendants had
begun opening kiosks in Target stores to sell wireless products
and had entered into a relationship with Verizon Wireless, the
largest wireless provider, to sell Verizon wireless products.  In
an attempt to cover-up the true financial realities facing the
company, Defendants repeatedly emphasized returning value to the
shareholders by funding the stock repurchase program and the solid
dividends.

However, on July 25, 2012, defendants surprised the market and
reported RadioShack's second quarter earnings which were a net
loss of $21 million resulting from weakened mobility sales and
margin erosion and that the dividends of 25 years were
"suspended".  As a result of this announcement, the stock dropped
precipitously, from a closing of $3.65 on July 24 to $2.60 on July
25, 2012.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 1, 2012.  Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  To discuss this action or any questions concerning this
notice, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross or
Susan R. Gross at 866-561-3600 or via e-mail at
debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com

A copy of the complaint can be viewed at
http://www.bernardmgross.com

Plaintiffs are represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
The firm has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and
extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

        CONTACT: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
                 Susan R. Gross, Esquire
                 Deborah R. Gross, Esquire
                 Telephone: (866) 561-3600
                 E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com
                         debbie@bernardmgross.com
                 Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com


SMITH MICRO: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Smith Micro Software, Inc. on July 31 disclosed that on May 21,
2012, the court granted Smith Micro's motion to dismiss the
federal securities fraud class action that had been filed against
the company shortly after the Q1 2011 guidance.  The plaintiffs
subsequently agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice
rather than amend their complaint.  Also plaintiffs in the state
and federal derivative actions have agreed to voluntarily dismiss
their cases.  No payments were made to any plaintiffs in
connection with any of these dismissals.

"Smith Micro is pleased that all the shareholder litigation
related to the guidance retracted in Q1 2011 is now over," said
William W. Smith, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of
Smith Micro Software.  "With this resolution, we can turn our
attention and resources toward the business of developing and
delivering critical wireless solutions to market."


SPARTAN STORES: Recalls Deli and Produce Products With Onions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spartan Stores Inc. is announcing the voluntary recall of two (2)
products processed between the dates of July 13 through July 26,
2012, that contain onions produced by Gills Onions of Oxnard,
California.  The recall is in connection with an expanded
voluntary recall announced by Gills Onions, LLC, of their Peeled
Whole Yellow Onions due to possible contamination with Listeria
Monocytogenes.  The products being voluntarily recalled are:

   * Deli - Three Bean Salad
   * Produce - 10 oz. Broccoli Stir Fry

Spartan Stores has received no confirmation of illness associated
with the consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
illness should contact their healthcare provider immediately.

All of the products involved in the recall should be discarded or
returned for a full refund or replacement.

Consumers with questions about the recall may contact Spartan
Stores' Consumer Affairs at 1-800-451-8500 or contact Gills Onions
Customer Service at 888-220-0436.

                      About Spartan Stores

Grand Rapids, Michigan-based Spartan Stores, Inc. (Nasdaq: SPTN)
is the nation's tenth largest grocery distributor with 1.4 million
square feet of warehouse, distribution, and office space located
in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  The Company distributes more than
40,000 private and national brand products to approximately 375
independent grocery locations in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, and
to its 97 corporate owned stores located in Michigan, including
Family Fare Supermarkets, Glen's Markets, D&W Fresh Markets, VG's
Food and Pharmacy, and Valu Land.


STOP & SHOP: Recalls Calico Bean Salad Sold at Salad Bars
---------------------------------------------------------
The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC, following a recall by
Costa Fruit & Produce, announced it removed from sale Calico Bean
Salad, sold on the salad bar, due to a possible health risk of
listeria monocytogenes.

No illnesses have been reported to date.  Customers who have
purchased the product between July 18, 2012, and July 26, 2012,
should discard any unused portions and bring their purchase
receipt to Stop & Shop for a full refund.

Listeria is a common organism found in nature.  Consumption of
food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.  Healthy
people rarely contract listeriosis.  However, listeriosis can
cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea.
Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as well
as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with weakened
immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons with HIV
infection or undergoing chemotherapy.

Consumers in Massachusetts looking for additional information on
the recall may call Costa Fruit & Produce at 1-800-322-1374. All
other consumers may call 1-800-343-0836 or visit Costa Fruit &
Produce's Web site at http://www.freshideas.com/ Customers may
also call Stop & Shop customer service at 1-800-767-7772 or visit
the Stop & Shop Web site at http://www.stopandshop.com/

                        About Stop & Shop

The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company employs approximately 62,000
associates and operates more than 400 stores throughout
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New York,
and New Jersey.  The Company helps support local communities fight
hunger, combat childhood cancer and promote general health and
wellness -- with emphasis on children's educational and support
programs.  In its commitment to be a sustainable company, Stop &
Shop is a member of the U.S. Green Building Council and EPA's
Smart Way program; has been awarded LEED (EB) certifications for
50 of its existing stores; and has been recognized by the EPA for
the superior energy management of its stores.  Stop & Shop is an
Ahold company.  To learn more about Stop & Shop, visit
http://www.stopandshop.com/


TOWN SPORTS: Pre-Trial Conference in "Labbe" Suit on August 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
An initial pre-trial conference is scheduled for August 17, 2012,
in the class action lawsuit against Town Sports International
Holdings, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Town Sports
International, LLC ("TSI, LLC"), according to the Company's
July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On or about May 30, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et al.
v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a purported
class action under the New York State labor law on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State, and a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") on behalf
of all personal trainers, in the Federal District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The action is largely duplicative
of the action styled Sarah Cruz, et al. v. Town Sports
International, d/b/a New York Sports Club.  Labbe seeks to
represent a smaller subset of the same class of New York personal
trainers who would be represented by Cruz if a class action were
certified in that matter.  TSI, LLC could not be held liable to
pay the same New York personal trainers for the same damages in
both cases.  Labbe seeks unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC
and alleges violations of various provisions of the New York State
labor law and the FLSA with respect to payment of wages and TSI,
LLC's notification and record-keeping obligations.  TSI, LLC has
not yet responded to this complaint.  The court has scheduled an
initial pre-trial conference for August 17, 2012.

While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an
unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, the Company intends
to contest this case vigorously.  Depending upon the ultimate
outcome, this matter may have a material adverse effect on TSI,
LLC's and the Company's consolidated results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows.


TOWN SPORTS: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Cruz" Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
On or about March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al.
v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club,
plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against Town Sports
International Holdings, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Town
Sports International, LLC ("TSI, LLC") in the Supreme Court, New
York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC
violated various overtime provisions of the New York State Labor
Law with respect to the payment of wages to certain trainers and
assistant fitness managers.  On or about June 18, 2007, the same
plaintiffs commenced a second purported class action against TSI,
LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated
various wage payment and overtime provisions of the New York State
Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to all New York
purported hourly employees.  On September 17, 2010, TSI, LLC made
motions to dismiss the class action allegations of both lawsuits
for plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to certify the
class actions.  Oral argument on the motions occurred on November
10, 2010.  A decision is still pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an
unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, the Company intends
to contest these cases vigorously.  Depending upon the ultimate
outcome, these matters may have a material adverse effect on TSI,
LLC's and the Company's consolidated results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows.


ULSTER BANK: Consumers' Association Launches Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Journal.ie reports that Consumers' Association of Ireland is
launching a class action-style initiative against Ulster Bank to
help consumers recoup money lost during recent major technical
problems.

The CAI is calling on anyone who was affected by the Ulster Bank
problems -- whether they were customers of the bank or not -- to
provide details of how they were affected and the compensation
they have been offered.

Class action law suits do not exist under Irish law, but the
organization says it will give the details to the Department of
Finance, the Central Bank, the National Consumer Agency, the Irish
Bankers Federation and Ulster Bank, so that "full transparent and
definitive understanding of the losses and response to those
losses can be determined for further consideration and, where
deemed necessary, further action".

The bank is already involved in working out exactly how much
compensation will be paid to customers and has eight weeks to
respond to any customers who have already been in contact to
complain or ask about compensation.

CEO Jim Brown has said he expects that the bank will pay out tens
of millions of euro in compensation.

The bank has told customers that any fees or charges that were
incurred because of the technical problems will be automatically
refunded.

Ulster Bank says that the majority of customer accounts are back
to normal but that some outstanding transactions will be processed
this week.


* Russian Justice Ministry Publishes Draft Law on Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAPSI, citing Rossiiskaya Gazeta, reports that the Russian Justice
Ministry has put together and published draft law on class
actions.  This is aimed at protecting individuals in litigation
with government authorities or major organizations.

In its notes to the bill, the ministry proposed setting up a
presidential council for the development and codification of
administrative laws.  One of its tasks could be to prepare a
restated Code of Administrative Violations.

The bill would supplement the Civil Procedure Code with
regulations on how the courts should handle class actions.

The right to file a class action would be granted to individuals
and entities, including NGOs.  The group should be made up of
multiple claimants with or without a definite number.  The subject
in the claim should be the same, as should the defendant.  Class
actions would be accepted by the courts only if the claimants
represent no fewer than 20 individuals.

The bill proposes to set the conditions for contesting statutory
regulations.  The regulation in question must directly affect an
individual or organization.

                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Affirms Judgment on Worker's Claim v. Exxon
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the
final administrative decision of the Division of Workers'
Compensation awarding benefits to Retha Johnson against her former
employer, Exxon-Mobile Chemical Co.  Ms. Johnson filed workers'
compensation claim against Exxon alleging occupational injuries
resulting from exposure to various substances, including asbestos,
during her employment.

The Court concluded that although the record in this case reflects
that scientific and medical research has not conclusively
determined whether the chemicals Ms. Johnson was exposed to cause
renal cell carcinoma, there was sufficient credible evidence for
the judge of compensation to find that Ms. Johnson established, by
a preponderance of evidence, that the chemicals she was exposed to
caused her renal cell carcinoma.

The case is RETHA JOHNSON, Petitioner-Respondent, v. EXXON-MOBILE
CHEMICAL CO., Respondent-Appellant, No. A-0665-10T2 (N.J.).  A
copy of the Court's July 30, 2012 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/ED7zAZfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rain Bird's Dismissal Bid Denied for Lack of Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied defendant Rain Bird Corporation's motion to dismiss the
asbestos-related personal injury action Robert N. Wexler and his
wife filed against the Company on the ground that it has a defense
founded upon documentary evidence.

The Wexlers filed the action to recover for personal injuries
caused by Mr. Wexler's alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products.  Mr. Wexler testified that he worked as a plumber at
various commercial construction sites throughout New York and New
Jersey and that he was regularly exposed to asbestos associated
with valves sold by the Hammond Valve Corporation.  All of
Hammond's outstanding stock was sold in 1984 to a unit created by
Rain Bird.  The asset purchase agreement listed that certain of
Hammond's property, plant and equipment were sold to Rain Bird.
Rain Bird asserted that it did not contractually assume any
liability for personal injury claims stemming from a product
manufactured, distributed or sold by Hammond.

In her decision dated July 2, 2012, Judge Heitler held that while
there is no continuity of ownership, at this stage of the case
there is also no information upon which the court may determine
whether and to what extent Hammond continued to operate after it
had sold what may have been all of its assets and intangibles to
Rain Bird.  Without more information, the defendant has not
equivocally demonstrated that plaintiffs' de facto merger argument
is without merit.

The case is ROBERT N. WEXLER and BETSY WEXLER, Plaintiffs, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, No. 190223/11,
Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y.).  A copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/HvY3abfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taco Inc. Fails in Bid to Dismiss Exposure Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied defendant Taco, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment
dismissing the asbestos personal injury action asserted by Roberto
Roman and Trudy Roman against it holding that evidence presented
does not sufficient establish that all Taco products sent to the
USS Lawrence where Mr. Roman worked and where he was allegedly
exposed to asbestos were asbestos-free.  Under the circumstances
of the case, a jury should be given the opportunity to determine
whether or not plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from Taco
products, Judge Heitler ruled.

The case is ROBERTO ROMAN and TRUDY ROMAN, Plaintiffs, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et. al, Defendants, No. 190262/11, Motion
Seq. No. 002 (N.Y.).  A copy of Judge Heitler's July 12, 2012
Decision is available at http://is.gd/KGAFRbfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still Defends 2,567 Asbestos Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company continues to face asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

The Company states: "We categorize the product liability losses
that we experience into two main categories, single incident and
cumulative trauma. Single incident product liability claims are
discrete incidents that are typically known to us when they occur
and involve observable injuries and, therefore, more quantifiable
damages. Therefore, we maintain a reserve for single incident
product liability claims based on expected settlement costs for
pending claims and an estimate of costs for unreported claims
derived from experience, sales volumes and other relevant
information. Our reserve for single incident product liability
claims was $4.6 million at June 30, 2012 and $4.7 million at
December 31, 2011. Single incident product liability expense
during the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 was $0.6
million and $0.7 million, respectively. We evaluate our single
incident product liability exposures on an ongoing basis and make
adjustments to the reserve as new information becomes available.

"Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to
harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that
occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods
of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis or coal
worker's pneumoconiosis. We are presently named as a defendant in
2,567 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted
certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica,
asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits mainly involve
respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by
us. We are unable to estimate total damages sought in these
lawsuits as they generally do not specify the injuries alleged or
the amount of damages sought, and potentially involve multiple
defendants.

"Cumulative trauma product liability litigation is difficult to
predict. In our experience, until late in a lawsuit, we cannot
reasonably determine whether it is probable that any given
cumulative trauma lawsuit will ultimately result in a liability.
This uncertainty is caused by many factors, including the
following: cumulative trauma complaints generally do not provide
information sufficient to determine if a loss is probable;
cumulative trauma litigation is inherently unpredictable and
information is often insufficient to determine if a lawsuit will
develop into an actively litigated case; and even when a case is
actively litigated, it is often difficult to determine if the
lawsuit will be dismissed or otherwise resolved until late in the
lawsuit. Moreover, even once it is probable that such a lawsuit
will result in a loss, it is difficult to reasonably estimate the
amount of actual loss that will be incurred. These amounts are
highly variable and turn on a case-by-case analysis of the
relevant facts, which are often not learned until late in the
lawsuit.

"Because of these factors, we cannot reliably determine our
potential liability for such claims until late in the lawsuit. We,
therefore, do not record cumulative trauma product liability
losses when a lawsuit is filed, but rather, when we learn
sufficient information to determine that it is probable that we
will incur a loss and the amount of loss can be reasonably
estimated. We record expenses for defense costs associated with
open cumulative trauma product liability lawsuits as incurred.
We cannot estimate any amount or range of possible losses related
to resolving pending and future cumulative trauma product
liability claims that we may face. As new information about
cumulative trauma product liability cases and future developments
becomes available, we reassess our potential exposures.

"A summary of cumulative trauma product liability claims activity
follows:

                                 Six Months Ended   Year Ended
                                 June 30, 2012      Dec. 31, 2011
                                 ----------------   -------------
Open claims, beginning of period         2,321           1,900
New claims                                 337             479
Settled and dismissed claims               (91)            (58)
Open claims, end of period               2,567           2,321

"With some common contract exclusions, we maintain insurance for
cumulative trauma product liability claims. We have purchased
insurance policies from over 20 different insurance carriers that
provide coverage for cumulative trauma product liability losses
and related defense costs. In the normal course of business, we
make payments to settle product liability claims and for related
defense costs. We record receivables for the amounts that are
covered by insurance. The available limits of these policies are
many times our recorded insurance receivable balance.

"Various factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of
our insurance receivables, including the outcome of negotiations
with insurers, legal proceedings with respect to product liability
insurance coverage and the extent to which insurers may become
insolvent in the future.

"Our insurance receivables at June 30, 2012 totaled $116.0
million, of which $2.0 million is reported in other current assets
and $114.0 million in other non-current assets. Our insurance
receivables at December 31, 2011 totaled $112.1 million, all of
which is reported in other non-current assets."

Mine Safety Appliances Company engages in the development,
manufacture, and supply of products that protect people's health
and safety in the fire service, homeland security, oil and gas,
construction, and other industries, as well as military worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 25 Pending Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. currently has 25 pending asbestos
cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 1, 2012.

The Company states: "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials.  The
Company currently has 77 pending silica cases and 25 pending
asbestos cases. To date, 1,389 silica cases and 10 asbestos cases
have been dismissed. One asbestos case was dismissed in the second
quarter of 2012.  Most of these claims do not provide adequate
information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the
Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability,
if any.  Additional claims of this nature may be made against the
Company or its subsidiaries.  At this time management anticipates
that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost
of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its
financial position or results of operations.

"The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to
date.  We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage.  The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense
of these cases since inception was approximately $0.2 million, the
majority of which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc pursuant to
the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with
the Company's initial public offering in 1992. Of the 25 pending
asbestos cases, at least 22 allege liability based solely on
products sold prior to the initial public offering, and for which
the Company is entitled to full indemnification pursuant to such
agreements.  Our experience has been that the Company is not
liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does
not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these
lawsuits."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairfax Financial Unit Reinsured Fibro Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited's Interim Report for the six
months ended June 30, 2012, disclosed that on December 31, 2011,
Crum & Forster effectively reinsured 100% of its net latent
exposures through the cession to Runoff (Clearwater Insurance) of
substantially all of its liabilities for asbestos, environmental
and other latent claims arising from policies with effective dates
on or prior to December 31, 1998, exclusive of workers'
compensation and surety related liabilities. Pursuant to this
transaction, Crum & Forster transferred net insurance liabilities
of $334.5 million to Runoff and Runoff received $334.5 million of
cash and investments as consideration from Crum & Forster for
assuming those liabilities. The transfer of these latent claims to
Runoff is expected to significantly reduce the volatility of the
operating income of Crum & Forster in future periods and may
reduce interest and dividend income earned as a result of the
transfer of cash and investments to Runoff.

Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited is a financial services holding
company which, through its subsidiaries, is principally engaged in
property and casualty insurance and reinsurance and the associated
investment management. The holding company is federally
incorporated and domiciled in Ontario, Canada.


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

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

                                   Year Ended December 31,
                                     2011           2010
                                   -----------------------
New Claims Filed                       31            122
Pending Claims Disposed Of             44            179
Total Amount Paid in Settlements     $0.7 million   $0.8 million

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Continues to Defend 42 Filter Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc., continue to defend an
aggregate of 42 filter cases as of July 23, 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.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard,
Inc., by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. As of July 23, 2012, Lorillard
Tobacco was a defendant in 38 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc., was a
defendant in eight Filter Cases, including four that also name
Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2010, Lorillard Tobacco has
paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately
$24.2 million in settlements to finally resolve 102 claims,
including the Lenney case. The related expense was recorded in
selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated
statements of income.

Since January 1, 2010, verdicts have been returned in the
following two Filter Cases: Lenney v. Armstrong International,
Inc., et al., tried in the Superior Court of California, San
Francisco County, and McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and
Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit Court, Division
Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky. In the Lenney trial, the jury
found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims for
compensatory damages and damages for loss of consortium, but it
determined that plaintiffs were not entitled to an award of
punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco or Hollingsworth & Vose.
Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard
Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the
filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material. The final judgment entered by the trial court awarded
plaintiffs a total of approximately $1.1 million in compensatory
damages, damages for loss of consortium and costs from Lorillard
Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose. Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose noticed an appeal to the California Court of
Appeals.

In 2012, Lorillard Tobacco reached agreement with the plaintiffs
to resolve plaintiffs' pending claims, and any claims they might
assert in the future, for an amount that is included in the total
for settlements reached since January 1, 2010. The jury in the
McGuire case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose, and the Court entered final judgment in May
2012. Plaintiff has noticed an appeal to the Kentucky Court of
Appeals. As of July 23, 2012, eight Filter Cases were scheduled
for trial or have been placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial
dates are subject to change.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes. Its principal products are
marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick
and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United
States of America. Lorillard recently acquired blu ecigs, the
leading electronic cigarette company in the U.S.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Recorded $5MM Expense in 2nd Qtr.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated recorded asbestos litigation expense of
$5 million in the three months ended 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.

Corning Incorporated and PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) each own 50%
of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC).
Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several other
defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.  On April 16,
2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Corning, with other relevant parties, has been involved in ongoing
efforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would resolve the
concerns and objections of the relevant parties.  A proposed PCC
plan of reorganization (Amended PCC Plan) filed in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania was not
confirmed by the Court.  Further changes to the Amended PCC Plan
are expected to be filed by August 20, 2012.  Corning also has an
equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian
Corporation that is a component of the Company's proposed
resolution of the PCC asbestos litigation.  At June 30, 2012 and
December 31, 2011, the fair value of PCE significantly exceeded
its carrying value of $136 million and $138 million, respectively.

The Amended PCC Plan does not include certain non-PCC asbestos
claims that may be or have been raised against Corning.  Corning
has recorded in its estimated asbestos litigation liability an
additional $150 million for the approximately 9,900 current non-
PCC cases alleging injuries from asbestos, and for any future non-
PCC cases.  The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC
asbestos claims was estimated to be $663 million at June 30, 2012,
compared with an estimate of the liability of $657 million at
December 31, 2011.  In the three and six months ended June 30,
2012, Corning recorded asbestos litigation expense of $5 million
and $6 million, respectively.  In the three and six months ended
June 30, 2011, Corning recorded asbestos litigation expense of $5
million and $10 million, respectively.  The entire obligation is
classified as a non-current liability as installment payments for
the cash portion of the obligation are not planned to commence
until more than 12 months after the Amended PCC Plan becomes
effective and the PCE portion of the obligation will be fulfilled
through the direct contribution of Corning's investment in PCE
(currently recorded as a non-current other equity method
investment).

Corning Incorporated is a manufacturer of glass, ceramics, and
related materials, primarily for industrial and scientific
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Had $904.8MM Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company's total asbestos-related
liabilities at June 30, 2012, were $904.8 million, 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: "Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the
Company are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in
state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large
number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The
vast majority of those claims have been filed against either
Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane Inc. (Trane) and
generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained
in certain historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane,
primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. Neither IR-New
Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of asbestos,
however, some formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos-
containing components such as gaskets and packings purchased from
third-party suppliers.

"The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an
estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a
detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to
update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. The
methodology used to project the Company's total liability for
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims
relied upon and included the following factors, among others:

   * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
     forecast of the population likely to have been
     occupationally exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
     likely to develop asbestos-related diseases such as
     mesothelioma and lung cancer;

   * the Company's historical experience with the filing of
     non-malignancy claims against it and the historical ratio
     between the numbers of non-malignancy and lung cancer claims
     filed against the Company;

   * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely
     to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against
     the Company based on such epidemiological and historical
     data and the Company's most recent three-year claims
     history;

   * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of
     disease claimed;

   * an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history
     to determine the average settlement and resolution value of
     claims, by type of disease claimed;

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
     value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted
     downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of
     claims resulting from the aging of the claimant population;
     and

   * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
     likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the
     future.

"At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, over 90 percent of the
open claims against the Company are non-malignancy claims, many of
which have been placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the
vast majority of which have little or no settlement value against
the Company, particularly in light of recent changes in the legal
and judicial treatment of such claims.

"The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to IR-New
Jersey and Trane was $125.2 million and $193.2 million at
June 30, 2012, and $126.9 million and $195.5 million, at
December 31, 2011, respectively.

"IR-New Jersey records income and expenses associated with its
asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries within
discontinued operations, as they relate to previously divested
businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold in
2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos
liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded
within continuing operations.

"Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with
most of its insurers. The settlements collectively account for
approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance
receivable as of June 30, 2012. Most of Trane's settlement
agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which
the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified
portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane
agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the
insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. Trane
remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November
2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wisconsin,
relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's
historical asbestos-related liabilities.

"On January 12, 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a
declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's
rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The
defendants are several dozen solvent insurance companies,
including companies that have been paying a portion of IR-New
Jersey's asbestos claim defense and indemnity costs. The action
involves IR-New Jersey's unexhausted insurance policies applicable
to the asbestos claims that are not subject to any settlement
agreement. The responding defendants generally challenged the
Company's right to recovery, and raised various coverage defenses.

"The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded
that its IR-New Jersey insurance receivable is probable of
recovery because of these factors:

   * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to
     IR-New Jersey, including Trane, and the success of other
     companies in recovering under their insurance policies,
     including Trane's favorable settlement discussed;

   * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
     terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

   * the Company's history of receiving payments under the IR-New
     Jersey insurance program, including under policies that had
     been the subject of prior litigation.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information. The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results. Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.  The aggregate amount of the stated limits in
insurance policies available to the Company for asbestos-related
claims acquired over many years and from many different carriers,
is substantial. However, limitations in that coverage are expected
to result in the projected total liability to claimants
substantially exceeding the probable insurance recovery."

Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company
that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Suit vs. Aqua-Chem Set for September
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial on remaining issues in a lawsuit filed by The Coca-Cola
Company against its former subsidiary, Aqua-Chem, Inc., is set for
September 2012, according to Coca-Cola's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 29, 2012.

The Company states: "During the period from 1970 to 1981, our
Company owned Aqua-Chem, Inc., now known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.
During that time, the Company purchased over $400 million of
insurance coverage, which also insures Aqua-Chem for some of its
prior and future costs for certain product liability and other
claims. A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that
contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside suppliers.
Several years after our Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem
received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a component of
some of the gaskets. Aqua-Chem was first named as a defendant in
asbestos lawsuits in or around 1985 and currently has
approximately 40,000 active claims pending against it.

"In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified our Company that it
believed we were obligated for certain costs and expenses
associated with its asbestos litigations. Aqua-Chem demanded that
our Company reimburse it for approximately $10 million for out-of-
pocket litigation-related expenses. Aqua-Chem also demanded that
the Company acknowledge a continuing obligation to Aqua-Chem for
any future liabilities and expenses that are excluded from
coverage under the applicable insurance or for which there is no
insurance. Our Company disputes Aqua-Chem's claims, and we believe
we have no obligation to Aqua-Chem for any of its past, present or
future liabilities, costs or expenses. Furthermore, we believe we
have substantial legal and factual defenses to Aqua-Chem's claims.
The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this
dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the
outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of
Aqua-Chem. In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed
a declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and
16 defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the
parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the
insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in
excess of their obligations.

"During the course of the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation,
Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements with several of the
insurers, including plaintiffs, who have or will pay funds into an
escrow account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos
claims against Aqua-Chem. On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial
court entered a final declaratory judgment regarding the rights
and obligations of the parties under the insurance policies issued
by the remaining defendant insurers, which judgment was not
appealed. The judgment directs, among other things, that each
insurer whose policy is triggered is jointly and severally liable
for 100 percent of Aqua-Chem's losses up to policy limits. The
court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin insurance coverage
litigation. The Georgia litigation remains subject to the stay
agreement. The Company and Aqua-Chem continued to negotiate with
various insurers that were defendants in the Wisconsin insurance
coverage litigation over those insurers' obligations to defend and
indemnify Aqua-Chem for the asbestos-related claims. The Company
agreed on a term sheet with three of those insurers in 2010 and
anticipated that a settlement agreement would be effective in May
2011, but such insurers repudiated their settlement commitments
and, as a result, Aqua-Chem and the Company filed suit in
Wisconsin state court to enforce the settlement agreement and the
2010 term sheet and to obtain a declaratory judgment validating
Aqua-Chem and the Company's interpretation of the court's judgment
in the 2004 Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.

"In February 2012, the parties argued a number of cross-motions
for summary judgment related to the issues of the enforceability
of the settlement agreement and the term sheet and exhaustion of
policies underlying those issued by the defendant insurers. The
court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment that the
2011 settlement agreement is not enforceable, but held over for
trial several of the plaintiffs' claims for enforcement of the
term sheet agreed to by the parties in 2010. The parties to this
case have also resolved several substantive coverage issues that
were once in the case. This should ensure coverage of Aqua-Chem
asbestos claims without any gap in insurance coverage for
approximately the next 10 years. The remaining issues in the case
are set for trial in September 2012. Whether or not Aqua-Chem and
the Company prevail in the coverage-in-place settlement
litigation, these three insurance companies will remain subject to
the court's judgment in the 2004 Wisconsin insurance coverage
litigation.

"The Company is unable to estimate at this time the amount or
range of reasonably possible loss it may ultimately incur as a
result of asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem. The Company
believes that assuming that (a) the defense and indemnity costs
for the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem in the future
are in the same range as during the past five years, and (b) the
various insurers that cover the asbestos-related claims against
Aqua-Chem remain solvent, regardless of the outcome of the
coverage-in-place settlement litigation but taking into account
the issues resolved to date, there will likely be little of
Aqua-Chem's defense or indemnity costs that are not covered by
insurance over the next 10 years."

The Coca-Cola Company is a beverage company. The Company owns or
licenses and markets more than 500 nonalcoholic beverage brands,
primarily sparkling beverages but also a variety of still
beverages, such as waters, enhanced waters, juices and juice
drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, and energy and sports
drinks. It owns and markets a range of nonalcoholic sparkling
beverage brands, which includes Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Fanta and
Sprite.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 Active Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had approximately 25,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims at June 30, 2012, down
slightly from the 26,000 claims at December 31, 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 addition, approximately 1,000 mostly
inactive claims have been settled and are awaiting final
documentation and dismissal, with or without payment. We have
accrued $83 million for indemnity and defense costs for settled,
pending and future claims at June 30, 2012, compared to $89
million at December 31, 2011. We use a fifteen-year time horizon
for our estimate of this liability.

"At June 30, 2012, we had recorded $52 million as an asset for
probable recovery from our insurers for the pending and projected
asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $53 million
recorded at December 31, 2011. The recorded asset represents our
assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to
provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs
for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition
of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to
recover under the respective contracts and on the financial
strength of the insurers. We have coverage agreements in place
with our insurers confirming substantially all of the related
coverage and payments are being received on a timely basis. The
financial strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually
with the assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not
represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the
amount we would expect to recover if we paid the accrued indemnity
and defense costs.

"During the second quarter of 2011, we reached an agreement with
an insurer to settle a long-standing claim pending in the
liquidation proceedings of the insurer and recorded the estimated
fair value of the recovery. As a result, other income includes a
$6 million credit for this recovery of past outlays related to
asbestos claims.

"We had accrued $1 million for non-asbestos product liability
costs at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, with no recovery
expected from third parties at either date. We estimate these
liabilities based on assumptions about the value of the claims and
about the likelihood of recoveries against us derived from our
historical experience and current information."

Dana Holding Corporation is headquartered in Maumee, Ohio and was
incorporated in Delaware in 2007. As a supplier of driveline
products (axles, driveshafts and transmissions), power
technologies (sealing and thermal management products) and genuine
service parts for vehicle manufacturers, its customer base
includes virtually every major vehicle manufacturer in the global
light vehicle, medium/heavy vehicle and off-highway markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Plc Continues to Defend Asbestos Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc continues to defend various asbestos-related lawsuits,
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 and certain subsidiaries have been named
as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as
co-defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi and
Louisiana by approximately 100 plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals
alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act,
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs
and associated facilities during the 1960s through the 1980s.

"We intend to vigorously defend against these claims and have
filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and challenges
to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still ongoing
and, therefore, available information regarding the nature of all
pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably
determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under
the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure,
if any.

"In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi and Louisiana, we
have other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in
litigation in other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect the
final disposition of these asbestos or lung injury lawsuits to
have a material adverse effect upon our financial position,
operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to
the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits."

Ensco plc is a provider of offshore contract drilling services to
the international oil and gas industry. As of December 31, 2011,
the Company owned and operated an offshore drilling rig fleet of
77 rigs, including rigs under construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Still Defending Suits & Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., and Owens-Illinois Group, Inc., continue to
defend asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately 4,700
plaintiffs and claimants, according to the Companies' Form 10-Q
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "The Company is a defendant in numerous
lawsuits alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure
to asbestos dust.  From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former
business units commercially produced and sold approximately $40
million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and
block insulation material containing asbestos.  The Company exited
the pipe and block insulation business in April 1958.  The typical
asbestos personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability and seek compensatory and in some cases, punitive
damages in various amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos
claims").

"As of June 30, 2012, the Company has determined that it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
approximately 4,700 plaintiffs and claimants.  Based on an
analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2011,
approximately 71% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary
damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount
sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial
court.  Approximately 27% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages
of $15 million or less, and 2% of plaintiffs specifically plead
damages greater than $15 million but less than $100 million.
Fewer than 1% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages $100
million or greater but less than $122 million.

"Current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the
assertion of monetary damages.  The Company's experience resolving
hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an
extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief that may be
alleged in a complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits
or disposition value.  Rather, the amount potentially recoverable
is determined by such factors as the severity of the plaintiff's
asbestos disease, the product identification evidence against the
Company and other defendants, the defenses available to the
Company and other defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which
the claim is made, and the plaintiff's medical history and
exposure to other disease-causing agents.

"In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-
handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel
throughout the country.  These agreements require evaluation and
negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under
the criteria established by such agreements. The criteria for such
claims include verification of a compensable illness and a
reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by
the Company's former business unit during its manufacturing period
ending in 1958.  Some plaintiffs' counsel have historically
withheld claims under these agreements for later presentation
while focusing their attention on active litigation in the tort
system.  The Company believes that as of June 30, 2012 there are
approximately 350 claims against other defendants which are likely
to be asserted some time in the future against the Company.

"The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants.  Based
upon its past experience, the Company believes that these
categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material
liability and they are not included in the description of pending
matters or in the description of disposed matters.

"Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of June
30, 2012, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately
388,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of approximately $8,200.  Certain of these dispositions
have included deferred amounts payable over a number of years.
Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately $34 million at June
30, 2012 ($18 million at December 31, 2011) and are included in
the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim.  The Company's
asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per claim basis, and
are expected to continue to vary considerably over time.  A part
of the Company's objective is to achieve, where possible,
resolution of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling
agreements.  Failure of claimants to meet certain medical and
product exposure criteria in the Company's administrative claims
handling agreements has generally reduced the number of marginal
or suspect claims that would otherwise have been received.  In
addition, certain courts and legislatures have reduced or
eliminated the number of marginal or suspect claims that the
Company otherwise would have received.  These developments
generally have had the effect of increasing the Company's per-
claim average indemnity payment.

"The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability
(i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs
plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning
with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993,
the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.0 billion
through 2011, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-
related liability.  The Company's ability to reasonably estimate
its liability has been significantly affected by, among other
factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the
United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have
filed for bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant
bankruptcy trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future
disease incidence and claiming patterns, the expanding list of
non-traditional defendants that have been sued in this litigation,
and the use of mass litigation screenings to generate large
numbers of claims by parties who allege exposure to asbestos dust
but have no present physical asbestos impairment.

"The Company has continued to monitor trends that may affect its
ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments
and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of
pending and future asbestos claims against the Company. The
material components of the Company's accrued liability are based
on amounts determined by the Company in connection with its annual
comprehensive review and consist of the following estimates, to
the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred
and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for asbestos
claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the liability
for preexisting but unasserted asbestos claims for prior periods
arising under its administrative claims-handling agreements with
various plaintiffs' counsel; (iii) the liability for asbestos
claims not yet asserted against the Company, but which the Company
believes will be asserted in the next several years; and (iv) the
legal defense costs likely to be incurred in connection with the
foregoing types of claims.

"The Company conducts a comprehensive review of its asbestos-
related liabilities and costs annually in connection with
finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless
significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an
earlier review.  If the results of an annual comprehensive review
indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is
insufficient to cover its estimated future asbestos-related costs,
then the Company will record an appropriate charge to increase the
accrued liability.  The Company believes that a reasonable
estimation of the probable amount of the liability for claims not
yet asserted against the Company is not possible beyond a period
of several years.  Therefore, while the results of future annual
comprehensive reviews cannot be determined, the Company expects
the addition of one year to the estimation period will result in
an annual charge.

"On March 11, 2011, the Company received a verdict in an asbestos
case in which conspiracy claims had been asserted against the
Company. Of the total nearly $90 million awarded by the jury
against the four defendants in the case, almost $10 million in
compensatory damages were assessed against all four defendants,
and $40 million in punitive damages were assessed against the
Company.

"The Company continues to deny the conspiracy allegations in this
case and will vigorously challenge this verdict, if necessary, in
the appellate courts, and, therefore, has made no change to its
asbestos-related liability as of June 30, 2012.  While the Company
cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit, the Company
and other conspiracy defendants have successfully challenged jury
verdicts in similar cases.

"The Company's reported results of operations for 2011 were
materially affected by the $165 million fourth quarter charge for
asbestos-related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to
be substantial.  Any future additional charge would likewise
materially affect the Company's results of operations for the
period in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of
significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has
affected and may continue to affect the Company's cost of
borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic
acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its operating
cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to
pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and to fund its
working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short-
term and long-term basis."

Owens-Illinois, Inc., is a manufacturer of glass containers with
81 glass manufacturing plants in 21 countries. It produces glass
containers for beer, ready-to-drink low alcohol refreshers,
spirits, wine, food, tea, juice and pharmaceuticals. The Company
also produces glass containers for soft drinks and other non-
alcoholic beverages outside the United States. It manufactures
these products in a range of sizes, shapes and colors.  Owens-
Illinois Group, Inc., is a subsidiary of Owens-Illinois, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 16,000 Pending Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. had 16,000 pending asbestos-related product
liability claims 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 who have
historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the
Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of
many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We
believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in
general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction
products that were manufactured many years ago and contained
encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation
and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these
products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of both June 30,
2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had approximately 16,000
pending asbestos-related product liability claims. Of the
approximately 16,000 outstanding claims at June 30, 2012,
approximately half were pending in jurisdictions that have
undergone significant tort and judicial reform activities
subsequent to the filing of these claims.

"The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects
that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product
liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to
indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the
Company or its insurers. In 2012, of the approximately 1,400
claims resolved, 161 (12%) resulted in payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2011,
of the approximately 1,800 claims resolved, 288 (16%) resulted in
any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the
Company.

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

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

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

"To date, the Company has paid and accrued $213.4 million in
defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and
has received $81.1 million in cash and notes from insurers,
including CNA. The net balance of $132.3 million, is expected to
be fully recovered, of which approximately $38.1 million is
expected to be recovered within one year. Timing of recovery is
dependent on final resolution of the declaratory judgment action
or additional negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2011,
insurers owed $109.8 million in association with these claims.

"In addition to the $132.3 million net balance relating to past
settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a
liability of $67.4 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs at June 30, 2012. The
Company also has a related asset of $67.4 million to recognize
proceeds from the insurance carriers. Insurance carrier
reimbursement of 100% is expected based on the Company's
experience, its insurance contracts and decisions received to date
in the declaratory judgment action. At December 31, 2011, the
comparable value of the insurance asset and accrued liability was
$61.7 million."

BorgWarner Inc. manufactures and sells engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications
worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Drilling Mud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., is one of several unrelated
defendants in lawsuits filed in state courts alleging that
defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud
containing asbestos and, in Diamond Offshore's case, allowed such
drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its offshore drilling
rigs, 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: "The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an
award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The
manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling mud had
already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs
addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are not liable for
the damages asserted and we expect to receive complete defense and
indemnity with respect to a majority of the lawsuits from Murphy
Exploration & Production Company pursuant to the terms of our 1992
asset purchase agreement with them. We also believe that we are
not liable for the damages asserted in the remaining lawsuits
pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset purchase agreement with
Diamond M Corporation, and we filed a declaratory judgment action
in Texas state court against NuStar Energy LP, or NuStar, the
successor to Diamond M Corporation, seeking a judicial
determination that we did not assume liability for these claims.
We obtained summary judgment on our claims in the declaratory
judgment action, but NuStar has appealed the court's decision. We
are unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these
lawsuits at this time but do not believe that ultimate liability,
if any, resulting from this litigation will have a material effect
on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMCOR Group Got Gaskets That May Have Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMCOR Group, Inc., in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2012, disclosed: "In December 2011, we received a letter
from a gasket supplier that it had supplied us with gaskets from a
Canadian manufacturer that, contrary to our supplier's product
specifications and purchase orders, may contain asbestos material.
Additionally, the supplier has informed us that one of its
customers had found that certain gaskets manufactured by the
Canadian company tested positive for asbestos during a routine
audit. However, our supplier also informed us that industry
experts have advised it no action is necessary to remove or
replace any of these gaskets manufactured by the Canadian company
that may have been installed by us inasmuch as any asbestos
material in the gaskets is fully encapsulated in the gasket
binding and enclosed within piping systems. No reasonable estimate
of our ultimate liability is possible at this time, and based on
our current knowledge, we do not expect that any amounts that we
may incur as a consequence of our installation of these gaskets
will have a material adverse effect on our financial position,
results of operations or liquidity. To the extent we incur any
expenditures related to this matter, we intend to seek
reimbursement from the supplier."

EMCOR Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
electrical and mechanical construction, and facilities services to
commercial, industrial, utility, and institutional customers in
the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Units' Ultimate Liability Still Unknown
------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s subsidiaries' ultimate asbestos liability
is still to be determined, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On May 31, 2010, Bondex International, Inc.
("Bondex") and its parent, Specialty Products Holding Corp.
("SPHC"), filed voluntary petitions in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy
Court") to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
(the "Bankruptcy Code"). SPHC is the parent company of Bondex and
also serves as the parent company for various operating companies
that are not part of the reorganization filing, including Chemical
Specialties Manufacturing Corp., Day-Glo Color Corp., Dryvit
Systems, Inc. through Dryvit Holdings, Inc., Guardian Protection
Products Inc., Kop-Coat Inc., TCI, Inc. and RPM Wood Finishes
Group, Inc. (collectively with SPHC and Bondex, the
"Deconsolidated Group"). SPHC and Bondex (the "filing entities")
took this action as a means to permanently and comprehensively
resolve all pending and future asbestos-related liability claims
associated with Bondex and SPHC. As a result of the filing, all
litigation related to Bondex and SPHC asbestos personal injury
claims has been stayed, with the exception of certain cases with
respect to which the stay was lifted. The Chapter 11 proceedings
will enable the filing entities to establish a section 524(g)
trust accompanied by a court order that will direct all existing
and future SPHC-related and Bondex-related claims to such trust,
which will then compensate only meritorious claims at appropriate
values.

"There are a number of issues and matters to be resolved in
connection with the SPHC and Bondex Chapter 11 proceedings,
including, among others:

   * the ultimate asbestos liability of the filing entities;

   * the outcome of negotiations with a committee of asbestos
     personal injury claimants and other participants in the
     Chapter 11 proceedings, concerning, among other things, the
     size and structure of a trust to satisfy the asbestos
     liability and the means for funding that trust; and

   * the Bankruptcy Court's decisions relating to numerous
     substantive and procedural aspects of the Chapter 11
     proceedings, including with regard to the length of time the
     existing preliminary injunction that prohibits derivative
     asbestos liability lawsuits and other actions from being
     brought against RPM International and other non-filing
     affiliates of the filing entities remains in effect, any
     shaping litigation regarding asbestos claims, and estimation
     of the aggregate asbestos liability of the filing entities.

"The ability of the filing entities to successfully reorganize
will depend on their ability to both reach an acceptable agreement
with the asbestos claimants that satisfies all applicable legal
requirements and obtain the requisite court approvals, and we
cannot ensure that these entities can successfully reorganize nor
can we give any assurances as to the impact of any such
reorganization on the financial condition, results of operations
or future prospects of the filing entities and their subsidiary
businesses. We are also unable to predict the timing of any of the
foregoing matters or the Chapter 11 proceedings themselves.

"As a result of the Chapter 11 filing, the filing entities are
precluded from paying dividends to shareholders and making
payments on any pre-bankruptcy filing accounts or notes payable
that are due and owing to any other entity within the RPM group of
companies (the "Pre-Petition Intercompany Payables") and other
pre-petition creditors during the pendency of the Chapter 11
proceedings, without the Bankruptcy Court's approval. Moreover, no
assurances can be given that any of the Pre-Petition Intercompany
Payables will be paid or otherwise satisfied in connection with
the confirmation of a SPHC plan of reorganization. As of May 30,
2010, the day prior to the Chapter 11 filing, SPHC and its
subsidiaries had Pre-Petition Intercompany Payables of
approximately $209.6 million and pre-petition intercompany
receivables from other entities within the RPM group of companies
(other than subsidiaries of SPHC) of approximately $87.3 million.

"We also expect that in the Chapter 11 proceedings, various claims
may be asserted against RPM International, including allegations
that we are liable for the asbestos-related liabilities of the
filing entities. Although we believe we have no responsibility for
liabilities of the filing entities, we cannot assure you that the
resolution of such claims, or the perception that RPM
International may have a risk of exposure to liability for the
asbestos-related liabilities of the filing entities, will not have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations or the market price of our securities. Moreover it is
uncertain whether, and to what extent, we may have to contribute
to an asbestos trust or whether any channeling injunction entered
in connection with a plan of reorganization will extend to all
non-filing affiliates of the filing entities, including RPM
International."

RPM International Inc. manufactures and sells specialty chemical
products to industrial and consumer markets in the United States
and internationally.  SPHC is a subsidiary of RPM International.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 57,559 Pending Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 23, 2012, disclosed its results of
operations for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.  It also disclosed
that as of June 30, 2012, the Company was a defendant in cases
filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos and the pending claims
total 57,559.

The Company states: "Of the 57,559 pending claims as of June 30,
2012, approximately 19,300 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 9,900 claims were pending in Texas, approximately
5,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 5,500
claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which
legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits.

"Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company
has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of $2.54
million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after
the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California,
after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate
remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was
made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case
in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009.

"The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one
of which, the Patrick O'Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on
appeal. In an opinion dated January 12, 2012, the California
Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and
instructed the trial court to enter a judgment of nonsuit in favor
of the defendants.

"On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
James Baccus claim in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with
compensatory damages of $2.45 million and additional damages of
$11.9 million. The Company's post-trial motions were denied by
order dated January 5, 2009. The case was concluded by settlement
in the fourth quarter of 2010 during the pendency of the Company's
appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

"On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles, California. The amount of the
judgment entered was $0.68 million plus interest and costs. The
Company is pursuing an appeal in this matter.

"On February 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury
found that the Company was responsible for one-half of one percent
(0.5%) of plaintiffs' damages of $16.93 million; however, based on
California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment
was entered against the Company in the amount of $1.65 million,
plus costs. Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a
motion with the trial court requesting judgment in the Company's
favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009,
the court advised that the Company's motion was granted and
judgment was entered in favor of the Company. The trial court's
ruling was affirmed on appeal by order dated August 25, 2011. The
plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court of
California, which dismissed the appeal on February 29, 2012; the
matter is now finally determined in the Company's favor.

"On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, state
court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a
$14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th
share of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On
February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in
the amount of $0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and
in the amount of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and
two other defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the
amount of $0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only,
in Nelson. All defendants, including the Company, and the
plaintiffs took timely appeals of certain aspects of those
judgments. The Nelson appeal is pending. The Company resolved the
Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the settled
claims for 2012.

"On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the
Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on
the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company has filed post-trial motions
seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to
reduce the damages, which the Company argues are excessive under
New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic
losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October
18, 2011, and a written decision is expected to be issued. The
Company anticipates that it will likely appeal any judgment that
may be entered on the verdict.

"On March 9, 2012, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, state
court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/8th share of a
$123,000 verdict in the Frank Paasch claim. The Company and
plaintiffs filed post-trial motions. On May 31, 2012, on
plaintiffs' motion, the Court entered an order dismissing the
claim against the Company, with prejudice, and without any
payment.

"Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred
costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final
payment amount is determined.

"The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the six-month
periods ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 totaled $49.7 million and
$56.2 million, respectively. The Company's total
pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs, net of funds
received from insurers, for the six-month periods ended June 30,
2012 and 2011 totaled a $39.2 million net payment and $35.6
million net payment, respectively.

"Cumulatively through June 30, 2012, the Company has resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) approximately 87,500 claims. The related
settlement cost incurred by the Company and its insurance carriers
is approximately $350 million, for an average settlement cost per
resolved claim of approximately $4,000. The average settlement
cost per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2011,
2010 and 2009 was $4,123, $7,036 and $4,781 respectively.

"The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc., a nationally recognized expert in the field, to
assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos liability
in the tort system.

"The Company recorded an additional liability of $285 million as
of December 31, 2011.

"A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. The liability was $848 million as of June 30, 2012."

Crane Co. manufactures and sells engineered industrial products in
the United States and internationally. The company operates in
five segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials,
Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Had $19.6MM Liability for Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries are defendants in various
legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to
asbestos) incidental to its past and current business activities.
As of June 30, 2012, December 31, 2011 and June 30, 2011, its
condensed balance sheets included liabilities for these legal
actions of $19.6 million, $16.4 million and $17.0 million,
respectively.  These liabilities do not include costs associated
with legal representation.  Based on the Company's analysis, and
considering the inherent uncertainties associated with litigation,
it does not believe that it is reasonably possible that these
legal actions will materially adversely affect its financial
position or results of operations in the near term, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

Olin Corporation is a manufacturer concentrated in two business
segments: Chlor Alkali Products and Winchester.  Chlor Alkali
Products, with nine U.S. manufacturing facilities and one Canadian
manufacturing facility, produces chlorine and caustic soda,
hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and potassium
hydroxide.  Winchester, with its principal manufacturing
facilities in East Alton, IL and Oxford, MS, produces and
distributes sporting ammunition, reloading components, small
caliber military ammunition and components, and industrial
cartridges.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Companies Still Defends Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated continues to defend asbestos-
related lawsuits, 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.

Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant, along
with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various state
courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to
asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle manufactured in limited
amounts between the late-1940's and the mid-1980's.  In addition
to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek punitive
damages.

To date, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of its
asbestos-related lawsuits with no material effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.  The Company
maintains insurance coverage that applies to the Company's defense
costs and payments of settlements or judgments in connection with
asbestos-related lawsuits.

On December 22, 2010, the Company settled a case involving alleged
asbestos-related injury.  The total amount of the award and
related loss, inclusive of insurance recoveries, was approximately
$5.8 million, which was recorded in discontinued operations in the
fourth quarter of 2010, as the related alleged asbestos-containing
product was manufactured by the Company's former on-highway brake
business.

Based on an ongoing evaluation, the Company believes that the
resolution of its remaining pending asbestos claims will not have
a material impact on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows, although these matters could result in
the Company being subject to monetary damages, costs or expenses,
and charges against earnings in particular periods.

Carlisle Companies Incorporated is a holding company for Carlisle
Corporation, and its wholly owned subsidiaries. Carlisle is a
diversified manufacturing company consisting of five segments,
which manufacture and distribute a range of products. Its segments
include Carlisle Construction Materials (CCM), Carlisle
Transportation Products (CTP), Carlisle Brake & Friction (CBF) and
Carlisle Interconnect Technologies (CIT).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates Up to $18MM Liability
------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its asbestos-related
aggregate liability to range between $7,000,000 and $18,000,000
for a period of 18 to 30 years from 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 industrial manufacturers, the
Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation.  In
continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-
related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the
incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal
rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the
plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the
number of cases pending against it, the status and results of
broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such
activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has
estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable
asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly
uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the
difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous
variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company
will continue to study the variables in light of additional
information in order to identify trends that may become evident
and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is
probable and estimable.

"Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $7,000,000 and $18,000,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years from
June 30, 2012.  The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
$12,900,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2012. The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be
influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of approximately $1,500,000 over the next 12
months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over
many years, management believes that the potential additional
costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial
condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of
any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a
future period."

Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a designer, marketer and
manufacturer of material handling products and services which
efficiently and safely move, lift, position and secure material.
Key products include hoists, rigging tools, cranes, and actuators.
The Company's material handling products are sold globally,
principally to third party distributors through diverse
distribution channels, and to a lesser extent directly to end-
users.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,400 Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. had 1,400 pending asbestos
claims 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: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past
several decades and through June 30, 2012, we have been named a
defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving
approximately 5,200 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately
1,400 claims were pending and 3,800 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and
through June 30, 2012, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of approximately one thousand dollars
per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals
based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount
of liability and related expenses, if any. We do not believe that
any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect
on our future results of operations, financial position or cash
flow, and, at June 30, 2012, we had approximately $1.8 million
accrued for liability and related expenses. With respect to
unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of
potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the
probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of
liability, if any. While we continue to pursue recovery for
recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through insurance,
indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are unable to
quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because
of the variability in coverage amounts, limitations and
deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with respect to our
insurance policies for the years in question."

Chicago Bridge and Iron Company N.V. is a Netherlands-based
integrated engineering, procurement and construction services
provider and process technology licensor, delivering solutions to
customers primarily in the energy and natural resources
industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynolds American Units Still Party to "Parsons"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiaries still a party to the
asbestos-related lawsuit captioned, Parsons v. A C & S, Inc.,
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.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and of Brown & Williamson Holdings,
Inc., and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR, seeking to recover $1 million in compensatory and
punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the
class in both compensatory and punitive damages. The class was
brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury
claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers
and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use
of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her
to develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. In
December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all
defendants.

Reynolds American Inc., referred to as RAI, is a holding company
that was created to facilitate the business combination of the
U.S. business of Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., referred to as
B&W, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of British American
Tobacco p.l.c., referred to as BAT, with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company on July 30, 2004.  Reynolds American Inc., through its
subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarette and other tobacco
products in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Corp. Still Defending Exposure Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation continues to defend asbestos-related cases,
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: "The Company is involved in legal and
regulatory proceedings, lawsuits and claims incidental to the
normal conduct of business, relating to such matters as product
liability, land disputes, contracts, antitrust, intellectual
property, workers' compensation, chemical exposure, asbestos
exposure, prior acquisitions and divestitures, past waste disposal
practices and release of chemicals into the environment. The
Company is actively defending those matters where the Company is
named as a defendant. Due to the inherent subjectivity of
assessments and unpredictability of outcomes of legal proceedings,
the Company's litigation accruals and estimates of possible loss
or range of possible loss may not represent the ultimate loss to
the Company from legal proceedings. For reasonably possible loss
contingencies that may be material and when determinable, the
Company estimates its Possible Loss, considering that the Company
could incur no loss in certain matters. Thus, the Company's
exposure and ultimate losses may be higher or lower, and possibly
materially so, than the Company's litigation accruals and
estimates of Possible Loss.

"For some matters, the Company is unable, at this time, to
estimate its Possible Loss that is reasonably possible of
occurring. Generally, the less progress that has been made in the
proceedings or the broader the range of potential results, the
more difficult for the Company to estimate the Possible Loss that
it is reasonably possible the Company could incur. The Company may
disclose certain information related to a plaintiff's claim
against the Company alleged in the plaintiff's pleadings or
otherwise publicly available. While information of this type may
provide insight into the potential magnitude of a matter, it does
not necessarily represent the Company's estimate of reasonably
possible or probable loss. Some of the Company's exposure in legal
matters may be offset by applicable insurance coverage. The
Company does not consider the possible availability of insurance
coverage in determining the amounts of any accruals or any
estimates of Possible Loss."

Celanese Corporation and its subsidiaries is a global technology
and specialty materials company. The Company's business involves
processing chemical raw materials, such as methanol, carbon
monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp,
into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other
chemical-based products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement of Wilton Mill Site Begins
-----------------------------------------------------
Matt Hongoltz-Hetling for the Kennebec Journal reports that the
man who is working to remove asbestos from a former mill on Depot
Street called it the worst asbestos site he's experienced in more
than 30 years on the job.

"I've done over 10,000 projects.  This is the worst that's ever
been seen," Bob Rickett, owner of Abatement Professionals, said
Tuesday, July 31.  "This is the absolute worst."

Rickett signed a six-figure contract with the property's owner,
Adam Mack, of Wilton Recycling, after a year of efforts by state
and federal officials to bring the site into compliance.  Rickett
began abatement efforts last August, but stopped, claiming that he
was owed $75,000 by Mack for work that he had completed.

"We're pleased that we're now in our second week of concerted
cleanup," said Samantha Depoy-Warren, spokeswoman for the
Department of Environmental Protection.  "Given the long history
of this site, we certainly won't be celebrating until the cleanup
is complete, but it does look like they're on track to finally
make this right."

Mack said he has wanted to clean up the site since he was first
alerted about the presence of asbestos, but said it has been a
difficult road.

"I always intended to get the site cleaned up," Mack said.  "Just
to get the work funded and all the pieces in place took a little
while."

The site has been a health hazard since last year, when contractor
Ryan Blyther, of Scarborough, was hired by Mack to perform
demolition work.  Blyther's employees called the Occupational
Health and Safety Office and alerted that agency to the lack of
proper procedure in handling the asbestos.

Rickett said Blyther endangered human health by ripping asbestos-
laden insulation sheaths from pipes and casting them aside.

Inside the building, discarded asbestos was strewn about the
floor; much of the material had crumbled into a fine, chalky
powder that poses an additional health risk.

Asbestos fibers are known to cause cancer when they are inhaled
and lodge themselves in the lungs.

"It's the smaller fibers that you can't see that are the problem,"
Rickett said.

Rickett's company began working on the site again late July.  Work
crews in specially designed suits with respirators have been
picking up the larger pieces of material and using vacuum cleaners
to clean the entire inside.

"Blyther was more concerned about the value of what was underneath
this material, which was the steel for the piping.  Where it
landed was where it sat.  It was dragged around everywhere,"
Rickett said.

The steel piping, which Blyther recovered and sold, was worth an
estimated quarter of a million dollars.

Blyther faces $154,200 in fines from the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration for workplace safety violations, and was
sentenced to six months in prison for stealing money in an
unrelated building project.

He and Mack are also likely to be fined by the state DEP, which
has been working with the federal Environmental Protection Agency
for a year to compel Mack and Blyther to make the site safe.

Depoy-Warren said that once the site has been made safe, the
department will continue enforcement actions by entering into
consent agreements that establish the fine amounts.  Drafts of the
agreements have been distributed to the two men.

The penalty proposed for Mack is "considerably less" than the one
Blyther faces.

"He was the one that started dismantling things, which caused the
asbestos to become a problem," Depoy-Warren said.

Depoy-Warren said Mack's proposed penalty was based partly on his
failure to correct the problem.  If the cleanup is completed on
the current schedule, she said, "the penalty may be decreased."

Mack said he is consulting with a lawyer about the fines and could
not comment on them.

He said the project was the first time he worked with Blyther,
although the two had been acquaintances for years.

"We had spoken about doing something at the mill.  He came to me
with a proposal that looked good," Mack said.

Now, he said, Blyther is gone, and Mack has been left to pick up
the pieces.  "Ryan left me a mess, and I'm cleaning it up," he
said.

Rickett said that he hopes to finish the work ahead of the
schedule outlined in the remediation plan, which extends to the
end of August.

"Work is progressing as we speak up at the facility," he said.
"I'm expecting by week's end to probably be 85 to 90 percent
complete with my work at the facility."

Before he clears the site, Rickett said, the work will be reviewed
by the federal agency.

"The EPA will come in and test the air quality, inspect it, clear
it, and then we'll be out of there," he said.

After the work is completed, Mack plans to demolish the building.

Depoy-Warren said he has an incentive to try to complete the
project quickly -- the fact that it will allow for the sale of
valuable salvage materials.

"The faster they can get this cleaned up, the faster they can
begin doing the demolition, which means they can start making
money on this project instead of spending money," she said.

Mack said that the sale of the salvageable materials will pay for
the entire remediation project.

Depoy-Warren said the cleanup is a major success for the
department, which has been working continually for 12 months to
make headway.

"From the beginning, we've been promising the public and the
community that the site would be cleaned up," she said.  "It seems
like we're almost there."

Rickett said that Central Maine Power Co. and the Wilton Water Co.
were helpful in temporarily restoring utility services to the
building to facilitate the project.

"It's been a community effort to get this thing cleaned up,"
Rickett said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bechtel Workers Speak Out on Asbestos Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Rollo of ABC News reports that a row has broken out over
white asbestos contained in prefab buildings brought in from
overseas to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility in
Queensland.

The union representing electrical workers says almost 100 of its
members have been exposed to asbestos.

They say when members refused to work on the site the US company
involved, Bechtel, cut their pay.

The company says employees were offered alternative work and it
took measures to quarantine the contaminated area.

Bechtel is one of the largest private construction firms in the
world and is contracted to build several LNG plants on Curtis
Island just north of Gladstone in Central Queensland.

When finished, the multi-billion dollar plants will convert coal
seam gas from the Surat and Bowen Basins into a liquid form for
export.

But tests have shown some of the building material on the sites
contains asbestos.

Peter Ong from the Electrical Trades Union says workers are
extremely concerned.

"They've been exposed, they've breathed it in, they've taken it
home on their clothes," he said.

Mr. Ong says up to 90 workers at Bechtel's Curtis Island plants
have been exposed to the carcinogen chrysotile, or white asbestos.

It was found in imported pre-fabricated switch rooms built in
Indonesia by the company Metito.

Mr. Ong says workers exposed themselves by drilling holes in the
switch rooms for electrical cabling.

"We've had members that have been drilling and hole sawing and
cutting basically asbestos flooring in these switch rooms.

"So obviously they're concerned they've been exposed to asbestos.

"Unfortunately on the GLNG project they'd already done all the
cutting, hole saw and terminating in, these so these guys have
been covered in the dust," he said.

The tests were released.  But Mr. Ong says alarm bells started
ringing several weeks ago.

He says Bechtel allowed workers to continue at the contaminated
sites during the investigation and staff that refused had their
wages docked.

But Kevin Berg from Bechtel says employees were offered
alternative work.

"What we ask is for our workforce to remain available to perform
alternate, safe work or work in other areas that aren't affected
by the concern," he said.

"And in this instance it's my understanding that alternative work
was available.

"They were asked to perform that work but would not avail
themselves to perform work."

Speaking anonymously to avoid repercussions, one employee said
alternative work was only offered well after suspicions were
raised.

"It was a long time afterwards.  It was virtually only after we
kicked up a stink about it, when we initially stopped work.

"We were then told that if we were sitting in the sheds and not go
back out to work that we wouldn't be paid for it," he said.

"And we put issues to them like cross-contamination, like the
airborne particle getting in the dirt around the place . . . but
they seemed pretty adamant they just wanted these little areas
cordoned off.

He says the incident has left an emotional toll.

"It is an airborne particle we're told.  I suppose, you know, you
don't really know whether we did [inhale it] or not.

"We were all over the area when the drilling was happening through
the material and that.  So there we just don't know," he said.

Bechtel says it did not anticipate the imported materials would
contain asbestos, and it is unlikely to use Metito products in the
future.

Australian businesses are banned from importing the material.

Customs will not comment on how the material was allowed in to
Australia, other than to say that officials are aware of the
matter.

The Electrical Trades Unions wants a register of those who had
contact with it.

Bechtel says it has made a record of employees working in the
contaminated area.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Firm Wins $2.86 Million Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------
A Delaware jury awarded a $2.86 million verdict July 31 to the
family of Michael Galliher, who died from mesothelioma, a rare and
aggressive cancer caused by exposure to asbestos fibers.  Simmons
Firm attorneys Randy Cohn -- rcohn@simmonsfirm.com -- Conard
Metcalf -- jmetcalf@simmonsfirm.com -- and Bill Kohlburn
represented Galliher's family, including his wife, sons and four
grandchildren, against RT Vanderbilt In re Asbestos Litigation
Michael Galliher, No. 10C-10-315 (Del. Super. Ct., New Castle
City.).  It is the largest asbestos verdict against a single
defendant in Delaware in over a decade.

Michael Galliher, of Mansfield, Ohio, was diagnosed with pleural
mesothelioma in August 2010.  He died months later on Feb. 3, 2011
at the age of 62.  While working at Crane Plumbing Fixtures
Factory for nearly 40 years, Galliher used a talc powder
contaminated with asbestos fibers to dust large molds of sinks,
bathtubs and other ceramic fixtures.  The asbestos fibers came
from a mine in Gouverneur, N.Y., owned and operated by RT
Vanderbilt Company, Inc.

Expert testimony during the trial linked Galliher's exposure to
talc dust containing asbestos fibers.  RT Vanderbilt did not list
the proper safety warning on the talc powder, Simmons Firm
attorney Randy Cohn said.

"The magnitude of Mr. Galliher's exposure is immeasurable," said
Cohn.  "Like many Americans, he worked hard his entire life so he
could enjoy retirement with his grandchildren.  Instead, it caused
him to be exposed to asbestos and develop a deadly cancer."

Six years before his death, Galliher retired to spend more time
with his grandchildren, family members said.  His three local
grandchildren would visit him and his wife almost daily.  He
taught them how to garden and play baseball.  He would also take
them on regular trips to a local lake or mushroom hunting.  He
passed away just two weeks shy of his 33rd wedding anniversary.

"This outcome is not about the money," said Galliher's wife,
Darcel.  "This is about the fact that a jury has held RT
Vanderbilt responsible for its actions.  We just hope no other
family has to go through the pain and loss we have experienced."

Founded in 1916, RT Vanderbilt is a mining and manufacturing
company that sells more than sixty categories of minerals and
chemicals used in over 800 products in industries including the
rubber, plastic, petroleum, ceramic, cosmetic, and household
products industries.

The verdict applies 100% liability to the company.  Cohn said the
decision reinforces that companies will be held responsible for
knowingly using substances containing carcinogens like asbestos
fibers without adequate safety warnings.

"No amount of money can replace these kids' grandfather.  However,
his family can rest assured that the ones responsible have been
held accountable," he said.

About Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC: The
Simmons Firm, headquartered in Alton, Ill., is one of the
country's leading asbestos and mesothelioma litigation firms.
With additional offices in St. Louis, Chicago, Los Angeles and San
Francisco, the firm has represented thousands of patients and
families affected by mesothelioma throughout the country.  The
Simmons Firm has pledged nearly $20 million to cancer research and
proudly supports mesothelioma research.  For more information
about the Simmons Firm, visit http://www.simmonsfirm.com/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lake Zurich Dist. Argues Alleged IDPH Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Earl of The Daily Herald reports that Lake Zurich Unit
District 95 is disputing state allegations that May Whitney
Elementary School had violations in its asbestos management plan.

The district received notice of an $18,000 fine issued by the
Illinois Department of Public Health for alleged violations in the
asbestos plan at the school at 100 Church St., spokeswoman Jean
Malek confirmed.

"We have responded to their notice and also requested a hearing,"
Malek said.  "We are awaiting a prehearing conference and any
other response."

According to a certified letter from IDPH obtained through a
Freedom of Information Act request, the penalty includes 18 counts
of violations.

The district plans to challenge the alleged violations, which
include: failure to maintain asbestos records, failure to notify
the department before an asbestos tile removal project in February
2011, and not ensuring the 1990 building addition was inspected.

"Anytime you do renovation or demolition, you have to have a
contractor come in and assess if there's asbestos and develop a
plan to abate it," said Melaney Arnold, IDPH communications
manager.

Asbestos has been a longtime concern for school officials.

In 2007, May Whitney was closed for the academic year because of
mold, forcing 436 registered students and 45 teachers to relocate.
The mold appeared after a storm caused flooding in the hallway and
cafeteria.  Cleaning crews saw asbestos underneath carpeting and
floor tiles.

District officials said they have always made asbestos abatement a
priority at the school.  Since the district received notice of a
penalty in late May, steps have been taken to remodel asbestos-
concerning areas, officials said.

Lyle Erstad, District 95's director of facilities, said officials
authorized Colfax Corporation, a Chicago environmental remediation
company, to remove carpeting in May and abate asbestos-containing
tile under the carpet by Monday.  After the asbestos abatement,
new tile and wall base will be installed the next day.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Priestly, I&I on Four Seasons Hotel Project
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan O'Reilly of Reed Construction Data relates that even in the
physically demanding construction industry, asbestos abatement
workers stand apart for their ability to work nine to 10-hour days
in often confined spaces, wearing respiratory equipment and full
layer of protective clothing.

"They have to be motivated and prepared to work as the conditions
are hot and dirty," says Ron Amaral, an estimator and project
manager with I & I Construction Services Limited.

Asbestos abatement is often considered an entry-level job into
construction and many workers often move on, he says.  "They go to
a job where conditions are better and once they leave they don't
come back."

Richmond Hill-based I & I is the abatement subcontractor at one of
the largest demolition and remediation projects currently underway
in Toronto.  The former Four Seasons Hotel in the city's trendy
Yorkville district is being converted into a condominium.
Priestly Demolition is the demolition contractor overseeing the
gutting of the units on the building which is comprised of 30
residential floors and two mechanical ones.  The project started
in early July and is expected to continue to Christmas.

Material deemed non-hazardous is being removed by the demolition
crews, followed by the physical removal and disposal of the
drywall which tests have confirmed contains asbestos.  The removal
is being conducted as Type 2 abatement under the Occupational
Health & Safety Act, although the mechanical floors are a Type 3
operation, he says.

"Ninety percent of asbestos abatement is the preparation work,"
says Amaral, in describing the elaborate precautions needed to
protect the workers.  The crews are comprised of both Priestly and
I & I employees.

At each storey, polyethylene is placed over the floors to catch
falling debris, negative air pressure is created and a
decontamination chamber is installed at each elevator opening
before the remediation can begin, he says.

Constructed by the abatement crews, the chamber is equipped with
both a "clean" a "dirty" room, and a shower stall.  At the
beginning of the day, the workers enter the clean room, remove
their street clothes and put on boots, masks, respiratory
equipment, gloves, and Tye suits.

When they leave the decommissioned zone, however, they have to
remove their safety equipment in the dirty room and then shower.
As no food or drinks can be consumed in the work space, it's a
procedure that is repeated many times in one day, says Amaral.

"We can work no more than five hours (straight)," says Priestly
Demolition supervisor Juan Storino.

Usually coffee and washroom breaks are staggered, so there is no
slowdown in the schedule.  But there have been occasions, when
it's very hot and uncomfortable, that he has ordered everyone out,
Storing says.

"The first thing we do is wash our masks."

An asbestos abatement worker for 11 years, Storino was one of a
group of Priestly employees -- most of whom are new Canadians --
who took time during their one-hour lunch to speak to DCN.  The
focus of the conversation was how they cope with the grueling
conditions.

"You get used to it.  But not everyone can do it," says Andres
Amezquita.  Citing examples such as constructing the
decontamination chamber and strictly following safety procedures,
the work actually requires a certain skills set, he says.

"This is a great job with a good pay" -- and at least in the case
of Priestly Demolition -- "they treat you like a human being,"
says Amezquita.

The workers at the Four Seasons Hotel, as with all Priestly
Demolition projects, have to be up to speed with such items as
WHMIS (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System), asbestos
awareness, and fall protection, says project manager Brian Druery.

Although Priestly has its own abatement workers, it will contact
union halls when additional manpower is needed, he says.

On this project the workforce is comprised of an equal number of
demolition and remediation crews.  Both will have to push hard to
meet project deadlines, says Druery.  "We will be doing two floors
a week.  We're not there yet, but that's the aim."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Attorney Indicts Old Chrysler Plant Supplier
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Shepardson of the Detroit News reports the U.S. Attorney's
Office charged a project manager overseeing removal of asbestos
from a former Chrysler factory in Detroit with a felony for
failing to remove the material safely.

Hubert J. Bell, a project manager at One Accord Environmental
Services, Inc., in Detroit, was charged in a criminal complaint
with failing to properly remove asbestos, a hazardous material,
from a shuttered plant in late 2010 that was part of Chrysler's
American Motors Corp. subsidiary at 14250 Plymouth Road.

The complaint was filed Tuesday, July 24, in U.S. District Court
in Detroit.

An affidavit filed by Environmental Protection Agency Special
Agent Michael Pemberton said Bell directed employees to push
potentially contaminated water down drains and didn't use proper
procedures to remove asbestos.  A cooperating witness told the EPA
that asbestos wasn't being removed properly.

Asbestos was used in factories, shipyards and homes as insulation,
especially around steam pipes, boilers and furnace ducts in the
1930s through 1950s and can lead to an increased risk of lung
cancer.  Improper removal can put workers at risk.

Bell could not immediately be reached for comment, and the U.S.
Attorney's Office didn't immediately respond to a message.

In early 2010, the property and three other properties in Michigan
and New York were sold for $2.3 million -- a fraction of what
Chrysler once sought for the Detroit property that made
helicopters in World War II and turned out millions of appliances.

The properties were sold to Mount Clemens-based Manchester
Plymouth LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Texas U's Elliott Hall Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Gass-Poore of The University Star in Texas reports that
vinyl composition tile that tested positive for asbestos is being
removed from Elliott Hall Building A.

The renovation was ongoing as of press time.  In an effort to
maintain the health and safety of students, faculty and staff, the
university works to identify, inspect and test all university
buildings that have or may have asbestos-containing materials.
Buildings constructed prior to 1980 may have asbestos-containing
materials.  These buildings include Hornsby, Burleson, Arnold and
Laurel halls, among others.

Don Compton, Facilities Planning, Design and Construction
associate director, said the fact that on-campus buildings have
been made with asbestos-containing materials is not merely a
rumor.

"While we are well aware of asbestos, that does not mean people
are being exposed," Compton said.

In Elliott Hall's case, it is uncertain whether the building's
tile had been physically damaged or if the tile's glue had become
exposed.  Kyle Estes, Housing and Residential Life associate
director, said asbestos-containing materials have also been
removed from Elliott Hall Building B in the past.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency lists vinyl
floor tile and sheet flooring among common asbestos-containing
materials.

Estes said initial campus-wide building asbestos testing began 10-
15 years ago, and has been continuously updated since then.

Compton said there are testing reports for all on-campus buildings
that have asbestos-containing materials.

Katie Eskridge, Texas State alumna, said she lived in Elliott Hall
as a freshman.

"My parents moved me in and said something had to be wrong,"
Eskridge said.

Eskridge said she was ill the entire time she lived in the
dormitory, and was diagnosed with bronchitis for the first time.
After spending time in and out of the doctor's office, she said
she was prescribed an inhaler to alleviate symptoms of bronchitis.

Eskridge said it was only after she moved from Elliott Hall to
College Inn, where only minor health problems were experienced,
did she begin to make a correlation between her previous illnesses
and place of residence.

Eskridge said even though symptoms persisted for a month, she did
not inform a hall staff member.

Compton said concerned residents should report any problems they
believe have to do with the building to their hall staff.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, long-
term asbestos exposure will increase a person's risk of lung
cancer and mesothelioma, among other respiratory disorders.

People are more likely to experience asbestos-related disorders
when they are exposed to high concentrations of asbestos and/or
are exposed for long periods of time.

Compton said asbestos-containing materials are only problematic
when they are exposed or friable, meaning the substance can be
broken into smaller particles with little effort, enabling them to
easily enter a person's lungs.

Compton said environmental factors have caused many asbestos-
containing materials to deteriorate over time, making them
friable.

Residence hall directors and assistants are supposed to report
problems with asbestos-containing materials or presumed asbestos-
containing materials, Compton said.

Louis Obdyke, labor and employment attorney, said in an email that
annual asbestos inspections of dormitories are not required by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

"The only time asbestos abatement and/or inspections are required
is when there is construction, demolition or remodeling that may
cause the asbestos to become friable or airborne," Obdyke said.

Compton said asbestos abatement has already been completed by the
time building demolitions have begun.  He said an air quality
sample is tested and public notices are placed around the
demolition site by the regulatory agency the university hires.

"It costs more to demolish a building with asbestos-containing
materials than to remove the materials first," Compton said.

Estes said this was the situation when Falls Hall was demolished
last year.  He said asbestos-containing materials, such as ceiling
grids, were safely removed prior to demolition.

Residents of any hall are asked to refrain from disturbing the
ceiling, walls, floor spaces or tiles within hallways, common
areas and rooms, and insulation on pipes.

Those who believe asbestos-containing materials have become
damaged are asked to contact the Texas State Department of Housing
and Residential Life or the Physical Plant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Sets Up GBP300MM to Help 3,000 ARC Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The UK Press Association reports a move to make it easier for
victims of asbestos-related cancer to claim compensation has been
announced by the Government.

Newly diagnosed victims of mesothelioma who developed the disease
after being exposed at work will receive help through the new
support scheme, Welfare Minister Lord Freud said.

It is estimated that the GBP300 million scheme, funded by
insurers, will help 3,000 victims over the next 10 years who are
not able to claim compensation.

Many sufferers are unable to claim compensation from employers
because the disease takes many years to develop and the companies
they worked for may no longer exist.

Lord Freud said: "We have worked tirelessly, together with the
insurance industry, to agree this package of measures on behalf of
those who face this terrible disease.

"The new scheme will mean that, for the first time, sufferers of
diffuse mesothelioma, who cannot trace either a liable employer or
employers' liability insurer, will have access to extra payments."

Association of British Insurers director general Otto Thoresen
said: "Mesothelioma is a particularly aggressive cancer and the
insurance industry, working with Government, is determined to do
all it can to ensure that sufferers get the support they need as
soon as possible.  We appreciate the urgency of this disease, and
while implementation depends on legislation being put in place, we
hope that the scheme will be up and running and the first payments
made by July 2014."

But asbestos law experts at the firm Irwin Mitchell said the
scheme is "limited" and many people will miss out as it applies
only to people suffering from the asbestos-related cancer, not
other asbestos-related diseases.

Adrian Budgen, head of the asbestos-related disease team at the
law firm, said: "While this is good news for some and a positive
step forward, it could be devastating news for others and we are
extremely disappointed that this scheme only covers one form of
illness related to asbestos, and only those that are diagnosed
with mesothelioma from today."

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: "This new system will
at least help provide some financial security to mesothelioma
victims and the families of those who develop this devastating
disease, but it falls well short of the scheme proposed by
ministers a few years ago.  Compensation should be available to
all those who cannot get justice because, through no fault of
their own, their insurer cannot be traced."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Welcomes The Safer Chemicals Act of 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) applauds
Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ),
and Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) for their commitment and leadership
on the Safer Chemicals Act of 2012 (S.847).

The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 needed a comprehensive
reform, as it is grossly outdated and fails to protect many
Americans from 85,000 toxic chemicals.  Asbestos claims the lives
of nearly 10,000 Americans every year and has not been banned in
the United States.

For more than nine years, ADAO has been working to advance
legislation that prevents consumer, environmental, and
occupational asbestos-caused diseases.  "We are extremely pleased
with the adoption of the Lautenberg Amendment which designates
asbestos as a substance of 'very high concern,' for which EPA must
quickly require exposure reduction measures."

"The facts are irrefutable, asbestos is a known human carcinogen
and there is no safe level of exposure.  ADAO looks forward to
working with both sides of the isle to pass the Safer Chemicals
Act of 2012 (S.847) and start saving lives."

        About Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace & Co. Net Income Drops 8.6%
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that W.R. Grace & Co. said Wednesday,
July 24, its second-quarter net income fell 8.6%, pulled down by
costs related to an asbestos settlement and its ongoing
restructuring under bankruptcy protection.

But Grace's adjusted profit beat Wall Street predictions and its
shares jumped 11% in morning trading.

The Columbia, Md.-based chemical maker earned $69.3 million, or 90
cents per share, down from $75.8 million, or $1 per share, in the
same quarter last year.

Excluding one-time charges related to its bankruptcy protection
proceedings and restructuring, including a $19.5 million payment
to residents of a small Montana town sickened by asbestos from one
of its plants, the company said it posted an adjusted profit of
$1.14 per share for the recent quarter.

Analysts, on average, expected a profit of $1.08 per share,
according to a FactSet poll.

Net sales were essentially flat at $826.7 million compared with
$826.4 million a year ago. The company said pricing improvements
and higher sales volumes were offset by unfavorable currency
exchange rates and lower rare-earth surcharges.

Grace said it expects its 2012 sales to total between $3.1 billion
and $3.2 billion, also boosted by better volumes and pricing, but
hurt by lower rare-earth surcharges and unfavorable exchange
rates.  Analysts polled by FactSet expect $3.27 billion in
revenue.

Grace filed to reorganize under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
in 2001.  A bankruptcy court reaffirmed its reorganization plan in
June, but several parties filed to appeal the decision.

Last month, the court approved agreements between Grace, several
insurance companies and the residents of Libby, Mont. who were
sickened by asbestos dust from a Grace plant.

In connection with the settlement, the company agreed to pay $19.5
million to help cover medical expenses in order to get the
residents to drop their appeals.  An estimated 400 people have
been killed and 1,750 sickened by asbestos in and around the town.

It's unclear when Grace will emerge from bankruptcy protection, or
if it will be allowed to before the other appeals are resolved.

Grace shares rose $6.03, or 12%, to $56.53 in morning trading of
July 24.  Over the past 52 weeks, the company's shares have traded
between $30.25 and $61.08.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Settles Sunriver Owners Lawsuit, Pays $500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth for the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance reports that a non-
profit organization known as the Sunriver Owners Association filed
a lawsuit against the federal government in July 2010, claiming
there was asbestos left on the site where their housing
development was built in 1968.  Just recently, the government
agreed to pay $500,000 to settle the lawsuit.

According to an article in the Portland Business Journal, the
organization provides road maintenance and other services to 4,000
member homes in the Sunriver development near Bend, Oregon.  The
homes sit on land that was once occupied by Camp Abbott, formerly
a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers training camp.

Most of the buildings in Camp Abbott were demolished around 1944.
However, the Army abandoned some asbestos-laden materials at the
site.  Though the houses in Sunriver were built beginning in 1968,
the association didn't discover the asbestos debris until 2002.
Now, the money paid by the federal government will help recover
the costs of asbestos removal at the site.

The asbestos remediation would have cost $3.2 million dollars,
noted the article, but the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality agreed to put a "cap" on the contaminated soil by building
the Sunriver Homeowners Aquatic & Recreation Center on the 22-acre
site.  Now, homeowners can breathe a sigh of relief and will be
less concerned about the dangers of asbestos exposure, which can
result in the development of lung diseases, including mesothelioma
cancer.

"We are pleased this dispute has been resolved fairly and that the
United States accepted responsibility," said Bill Peck, general
manager of the association.  "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."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup of Old River Center Site Initiated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Leonard of The Farmington Independent relates it's been
nearly four years since Farmington's Rambling River Center
relocated to its current site on Oak Street.  Since the move, very
little has happened with the former location on Spruce and Third
streets.

The building was up for sale, and the city had an offer to
purchase it, but the offer was low and council members turned it
down.  That leaves the building still vacant, but now work has to
be done on it, anyway.  And that work could cost nearly $53,000.

Recently, Farmington parks and recreation director Randy Distad
received a limited asbestos survey report from Davis
Environmental.  The report detailed where asbestos is located in
the 6,000-square-foot building, which was built in 1923.

According to Distad, the city received two proposals for removal
of the asbestos.  The lower bid of $42,998 to abate the asbestos
if the building was renovated came from Mavo Systems.  The company
cited a bid of about $7,000 less to take care of the asbestos if
the building were to be demolished.

In addition, the roof on the south side of the building has been
damaged by recent storms.  The shingles there have curled from the
heat.  Shingles on the north side are intact, but old.  Facility
maintenance staff looked into the cost of materials to replace the
roof, Distad said, and came up with an estimate of $10,000.  That
does not include the labor.

Council members have mixed emotions about the repairs.

"I hate sticking any money into it," mayor Todd Larson said.
"We're going to stick $60,000 into it and it's going to sit."

One way or another, the asbestos has to be cleaned up, city
administrator David McKnight told council members during Monday's
(July 23) workshop.  The bigger question, though, was whether or
not to put the building back up for sale, or to tear it down.

Council member Julie May wants to see the work done and the
building placed back on the market.

"I think there would be interest in it," May said, adding that she
would like to see a retail business of some sort in that location.

At this time, according to Distad, there is no funding approved
for the repairs.  Council would have to allocate funds from the
economic development authority fund or the city's general fund in
order to pay for the work.  The city could recoup the funding if
the building is sold, Distad said.

Council directed staff to initiate the cleanup and repairs, but to
seek out grants to aid in the funding of the asbestos abatement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oran Vanich to Fight Thailand's Anti-Fibro Move
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Nardi of The National Post relates, ever wonder what
it feels like to loan $58-million to an industry whose biggest
clients don't even want your product and are actively working to
ban it? If so, then look no further than Jean Charest for a prime
example of an ill-advised investment.  Last June, the Quebec
Liberals announced a $58-million loan to Mineral Fiber, the
company that owns Jeffrey Mine, in order to resuscitate the
(rightfully) dead asbestos industry.

Nearly all the mine's clients are developing countries, with
Thailand, India and China representing the core of its business,
and the core of its funding.  Apart from Quebec's loan,
$11 million was invested by Baljit Chadha, leader of the Sikh
community in Canada and co-owner of the mine, and $14-million was
invested by a Thai company, Ulan Marketing.  Ulan Marketing is
part of a family of companies in Thailand known as Oran Vanich
Co., which is the largest producer of construction products using
asbestos in Thailand, with five plants and over 1,000 employees.

Surprisingly, La Presse is now reporting that Thai authorities are
actively trying to ban chrysotile asbestos imports within the next
few months.  In January 2011, Thailand's National Economic and
Social Advisory Council recommended banning imports and sales of
asbestos in Thailand due to its link to health problems, including
cancer.  A month later, Thai authorities adopted a resolution to
ban the material from the country.  The resolution was proposed by
the National Health Commission of Thailand, chaired by the Prime
Minister.  The package of measures will be presented this
September, according to the commission's website.

Of course, with such a significant investment in Jeffrey Mine,
Ulan Marketing won't allow the ban without a fight.  The
organization has publicly questioned the danger of asbestos, such
as in August 2011, when Oran Vanich's CEO, Kriewsakul Uran said
that the roof tiles being manufactured with asbestos in Thailand
"pose no health risk."  During a public forum on the subject, he
added: "Only 55 of 194 member states of the World Health
Organization have stopped the use and so far it has not been
proved that asbestos causes death.  If Thailand ends it, that will
be tantamount to executing the innocent."

Despite the grisly warning, Thai authorities seem adamant on
getting a ban.  And why shouldn't they?  Asbestos use has met
opposition from key health associations, such as the World Health
Organization, the World Federation of Public Health Associations,
the International Commission on Occupational Health and the World
Bank.

Thus, if Thailand, a country that has struggled mightily with
human rights issues, is now at the forefront of the anti-asbestos
movement, how can the Charest government defend its decision to
"export cancer?" With dozens of organizations objecting to the
loan on both economic and health reasons, the Liberals are coming
under increasing fire for helping to revive and industry many were
happy to see expire.

Between 2006 and 2009, Canadian asbestos accounted for nearly 11%
of Thailand's annual consumption, or just under 11,000 tons a
year.  The owners of Jeffrey Mine no doubt hoped that, with
Thailand's growing housing market and Oran Vanich's ties to the
country, their sales would increase exponentially.

To make things worse, Chantal Corbeil, spokesperson for
Investments Quebec, the institution that manages the government's
$58-million loan, acknowledged that they weren't aware of the
efforts to ban asbestos until very recently.  She said the
association isn't worried because the mine "has many clients
concentrated in many different countries," but the fact the
government was in the dark about a key client raises significant
red flags.

The longer the story of Quebec's investment in Jeffrey Mine goes
on, the more problems emerge.  Unfortunately for Quebecers, the
government is now so deeply involved in the industry that when it
finally falls apart, not just the Liberals but all Quebecers will
have to answer to one simple question: Why was it allowed to go
on?


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Violator Gets 10 Years Plus $62,000 Fine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Environment News Service reports that a 10-year prison sentence
was imposed July 26 on an Illinois man who was convicted of
illegally removing asbestos insulation and exposing workers to
dangerous asbestos-laden dust.

Duane "Butch" O'Malley, 59, of Bourbonnais, Illinois was convicted
by a federal jury on Sept. 26, 2011, for the illegal removal,
handling and disposal of asbestos from a Kankakee building in
August 2009.

Today Federal District Court Judge Michael McCuskey sentenced him
to 10 years in prison.  The judge also ordered O'Malley to pay
restitution of $47,086 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
for cleanup of the illegally disposed asbestos and to pay a fine
of $15,000.

Asbestos, a hazardous air pollutant, is a mineral fiber used in
building construction materials.  When asbestos-containing
materials are damaged or disturbed by repair, remodeling or
demolition activities, microscopic fibers become airborne and can
be inhaled into the lungs, where they can cause serious health
problems, including lung cancer and mesothelioma.

"To increase his profits, a jury found that O'Malley knowingly
disregarded federal environmental laws that require asbestos-
containing materials be safely removed and properly disposed,"
said U.S. Attorney Jim Lewis, Central District of Illinois.

"This sentence is a consequence of the defendant's flagrant
disregard for his workers, the public, and the environment in
exposing them to dangerous airborne asbestos fibers," Lewis said.

During O'Malley's trial, the government presented evidence that
O'Malley, owner and operator of Origin Fire Protection, was hired
by Michael Pinski in August 2009 to remove asbestos-containing
insulation from pipes in a five-story building in Kankakee that
was owned by Pinski through his company, Dearborn Management, Inc.

Evidence was presented that neither O'Malley nor his company was
trained to perform the asbestos removal work and that O'Malley
agreed to remove the asbestos insulation for an amount that was
much less than a trained asbestos abatement contractor would have
charged to perform the same work.

Further, O'Malley arranged for James Mikrut to recruit and oversee
workers to remove the asbestos.

O'Malley was charged in June 2010 with five felony violations of
the Clean Air Act, including:

     -- failure to properly notify the EPA
     -- failure to have trained on-site representatives present
     -- failure to ensure the asbestos insulation was adequately
        wetted while it was being stripped and removed
     -- failure to mark vehicles used to transport the asbestos
        containing waste material
     -- failure to deposit the asbestos in a waste disposal site
        for asbestos

Instead, the asbestos insulation was stripped from the pipes while
dry, and placed in more than 100 large, unlabeled plastic garbage
bags.  The bags were then dumped in an open field in Hopkins Park,
a small town in Kankakee County, resulting in soil contamination
and exposing the workers and nearby residents to asbestos-laden
dust.

Under the Clean Air Act there are requirements to control the
removal, handling and disposal of asbestos.

"Asbestos must be removed in a safe and legal way in order to
protect people's health and reduce the risk of exposure," said
Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.  "The defendant's actions
endangered the health of his workers and the surrounding community
and the sentence shows that those who violate critical
environmental safeguards will be prosecuted."

Pinski and Mikrut, who were also charged, have both pleaded guilty
and will be sentenced later.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barraba Residents Demand To Be In "The Loop"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Clifford of ABC News reports that people in Barraba, in
the New England region of northern New South Wales, have demanded
to know why they were never invited to sit on the taskforce
implementing a remediation plan at the derelict Woodsreef Asbestos
mine.

About 90 people packed the amphitheatre of The Playhouse Hotel on
the night of July 26, in Barraba for a progress report on the
Woodsreef mine, which was abandoned in 1983 and never cleaned up.

Taskforce chairman Brad Mullard told the gathering a Health Risk
Assessment is imminent.

"(They will be) installing monitoring, looking at what is the air
quality, whether there's asbestos in the air and measuring that
around the mine site as well as in the township," he said.

The meeting also heard the closure of the road that passes through
the mine is probably not negotiable.

Landholder Ben Burgess tabled a motion demanding the taskforce
approach the government to include people from Barraba in
decision-making.

"It's about getting community representation and making sure
there's an evidence-based outcome for the local community to make
sure that all facets of the risks, as well as the costs, to the
Barraba community are taken into account," he said.

"I think it would be unwise to reach a conclusion that people in
the community have no expertise and nothing to offer."

Meanwhile, leading public health physician told the briefing there
is no safe level of exposure to chrysotile, or 'white', asbestos.

Dr. David Durrheim says anyone who believes white asbestos is safe
should read the latest data coming out of the International Agency
for Research on Cancer.

"When they categorize a cancer as a Category One it means there's
definitive evidence," he said.

"It's like smoking and lung cancer, that's the sort of category.
They've established that white asbestos exposure in the
occupational setting causes lung cancer, mesothelioma, larynx
cancer and ovarian cancer."

It is estimated about 40,000 Australians will have some kind of
asbestos-related disease by the year 2020.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Lawyers Ask For Review on Added Proposals
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis of The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that when
attorneys for more than three dozen asbestos defendant companies
asked Madison County Associate Clarence Harris to eliminate the
advanced setting of asbestos trial weeks earlier this year, they
included a few other recommendations in their request.

In their opposition to the since-overturned order setting the 2013
asbestos docket, these defense attorneys suggested limiting the
number of asbestos trials next year to 250 and the number of cases
per docket to 10.

They also recommended a 12-month preparation period between the
setting of a trial and the approval of a plaintiff's motion to set
a case for trial and pushed for these settings to be based on the
oldest case filed with priority to Illinois plaintiffs, as well as
a scheduling order that would provide "a meaningful opportunity"
to make non conveniens forum challenges.

And now, about four months after Harrison put an end to the
advanced trial setting practice, some of the attorneys for these
asbestos defendant companies said they are more than pleased with
Harrison's decision, but would like him to take another look at
some of their other suggestions.

"I think with respect to all of the defendants that signed on to
these proposals, we are all in agreement that the other aspects of
the request are critical to managing the overall docket," said
Lisa LaConte -- llaconte@heylroyster.com -- a partner at Heyl,
Royster, Voelker & Allen in Edwardsville.

"We would really like to see those additional issues considered."

LaConte and her colleague, Kent Plotner --
kplotner@heylroyster.com -- are two of a handful of attorneys who
threw their support behind the proposed trial calendar included in
the previously filed motion opposing former asbestos Judge Barbara
Crowder's preliminary order that set the 2013 asbestos docket.

Besides LaConte's firm, attorneys at Armstrong Teasdale; Schlafly
& Davis, Foley & Mansfield; and Segal, McCambridge, Singer &
Mahoney signed on to the motion on behalf of dozens of asbestos
defendant companies.

These attorneys argued that the court's trial reservation system
was no longer being used for its original purpose of resolving
local asbestos suits.  In response to defense arguments made over
forum at a March hearing that was held on the matter, plaintiffs'
attorneys told Harrison that the trial reservation system was
working fine.

Elizabeth Heller -- elizabeth@ghalaw.com -- an attorney at
Goldenberg Heller Antognoli & Rowland, said at the March hearing
that, "The sky is not falling.  Cases without merit are getting
dismissed or sent elsewhere."

Heller, as well as a few other plaintiffs' attorneys, did not
immediately return messages seeking comment.

LaConte said some of the other aspects of the defendant's motion,
such as proposals to limit the number of trials per year and to
better address forum issues, could help "make sure Madison County
isn't such a magnet for out-of-state cases to be filed here."

The defense motion that laid out the recommendations earlier this
year stated that, "Without reform, Madison County will
unfortunately continue as the destination for asbestos cases
rising from coast to coast."

In addition to the since-approved request to abolish the advanced
setting of asbestos trial weeks, the defense motion contended that
its proposed trial calendar could "help restore order and fairness
to Madison County asbestos litigation."

"Limiting the number of cases on a given trial calendar for the
year would obviously alleviate some of the problems," Plotner of
Heyl, Royster said.  "But we also need to continue to look at
these cases from a perspective of whether there is an Illinois
connection and a Madison County connection."

In regards to forum and venue issues, Plotner said that based on
his observation, it appears more of these motions have been
presented to the court in the past two months.

He attributes that to Harrison's order this past spring, which
along with eliminating the advanced trial setting practice, noted
that he would consider forum and venue issues on a case-by-case
basis when requested.

Harrison agreed with Plotner's observation.  He said he's heard
arguments in at least half of dozens motions over forum in the
past 30 days.

"It happens on a case-by-case basis," Harrison said.  "It's
something that needs to be addressed by a motion.  It's not
something I can do in an order that addresses all of the cases."

Raymond Fournie -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com -- an attorney
at Armstrong Teasdale in St. Louis who signed the previously filed
motion, said that he believes many of the proposals included in
the defense motion, such as limiting the number of trials per
year, could be resolved "if we were able to effectively address
the forum issue."

"The number of cases filed would probably take care of itself if
the cases that don't belong in Illinois weren't filed here," he
said.  Fournie, however, acknowledged the difficulty in addressing
the issue.

Coming up with an effective and constitutional solution to forum
challenges, he said, is "a very difficult thing for the court and
even the parties to do" since they are made on a case-by-case
basis.

Nevertheless, Fournie said it's important and contends that "a lot
of the other things would fall by the waste side if the forum
issue could be addressed."

Saying that issues over venue and forum have long been discussed
in Madison County given its reputation as a go-to destination for
asbestos lawsuits, Plotner said there is a case currently before
the Illinois Supreme Court that "could give us more insight as to
where we are going to go with this issue."

The case Plotner is referring to is Walter Fennell v. Illinois
Central Railroad Co., which came to the state high court on appeal
following a split decision from Fifth District Appellate Court.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, which originated in St.
Clair County, but has not yet set a date for oral arguments.

"If a mandate comes from the Supreme Court, then perhaps, that
will give some more teeth to the proposals we've made," Plotner
said.

Both Plotner and Fournie said they would also like to see a 12-
month period between when a case is set for trial and the approval
of a plaintiff's motion for a case to be set for trial.  Right
now, Plotner said, this time frame generally falls between six to
nine months.

Providing a 12-month period, Plotner said, would allow defense
attorneys more time to prepare.  Fournie acknowledged that certain
circumstances wouldn't always make their proposed time frame
possible.

In regards to the defense motion's proposal dealing with the 12-
month period and limiting the number of asbestos trials per year
to 250, Harrison said he believes he has addressed the issues in
"the practical way trials take place rather than the numerical
way."

"The effort I have been trying to make since the order is to limit
the number of firms that are set on any given trial week," he
said.  "The goal is to have no more than two firms on any given
trial week.  That way the defendants only have one or two
plaintiffs' law firms to deal with in their preparation."

Like many of the attorneys who handle Madison County asbestos
litigation, Harrison said it's still too early to see how his
order will play out.  He said "the system is not perfect" and that
"we're constantly looking at things" in an effort to make the
process more efficient.

For instance, Harrison said that he's been working to implement a
program to address the amount of paperwork getting filed in the
cases he hears.  He said several attorneys brought the idea to
him.

"We want to reduce some of the paperwork so attorneys don't have
to duplicate documents and file 200 pages when they really need to
just file three," Harrison said.  "There is stuff we are working
on all the time.  I consider all of the dockets a work in
progress."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asphalt Plant Near Grimesdale Worries Residents
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlueRidgeNow.com relates that state air quality regulators should
do more to reassure neighbors of the asphalt plant near Grimesdale
that cancer-causing asbestos won't enter the plant's new process
of recycling roof shingles.

Grimesdale residents fought and lost their battle to keep a local
paving company from building the plant next to their neighborhood
back in 2001.  The plant has changed hands, and the new owners
have applied for a permit to recycle shingles as part of asphalt
production.

Residents have long complained that they are plagued by smoke,
dust, obnoxious smells and late-night noise generated by the
plant.  The plant was built next to the neighborhood at a time
before Henderson County had comprehensive countywide zoning.

In a letter to state and local leaders, Grimesdale Homeowners
Association President Chuck Mason spelled out residents' fears
about potential health risks from the release of asbestos and
other hazardous materials.  The neighbors called on the Division
of Air Quality to require that the Rogers Group, owner of the
plant, adhere to the federal Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act,
with suggestions ranging from enclosing the entire asphalt plant
to submitting "effective and complete plans" for controlling dust,
odors and water runoff.

"We just want it done in a way that doesn't create hazards either
in the water or in the air for the people that are around there,
and that includes the homes as well as the people in (Berkeley)
Park," Mason said.

State air and water quality regulators say there's no reason for
neighbors to worry that adding shingles to the asphalt mix will
increase pollution from the plant.  But neighbors make a good
point in questioning the testing planned to assure that shingles
won't contain asbestos.

The permit requires that shingles recycled at the plant be
asbestos-free with documentation to prove they have been tested,
said Harold Brady, an inspector with the DAQ regional office in
Asheville.  The permit requires one sample per 100 tons.
Neighbors are concerned this is not enough testing to assure that
shingles containing asbestos are kept out of the process.

"A roof might generate one, two, maybe three tons of shingles, so
if you only sample one out of every hundred (tons), you might get
20 or 30 different roofs going into your process before you hit
the next batch that you sample," Mason said.

The use of asbestos in roofing materials was phased out in the
1980s, but many homes, commercial buildings and schools still have
older roofs that contain the substance.

The Rogers Group says it modified its air quality permit to allow
the plant to recycle asbestos-free shingles in order to increase
the use of recycled materials and reduce the need for raw
materials, company spokesman Tom Kenley said.  The N.C. Department
of Transportation and the Department of Environmental and Natural
Resources have approved this process as a safe alternative to
dumping shingles in landfills.  Kenley says the Rogers Group's
environmental team and DAQ will monitor air quality around the
plant.

A 2007 study by the EPA "suggests that the occurrence of asbestos
in tear-off shingles from residential re-roofing projects will be
minimal, but that the recycling facility operator should expect to
encounter asbestos-containing material on occasion and thus should
be adequately prepared to monitor and manage such debris."

Given the proximity of the local asphalt plant to homes, the state
should do more to assure neighbors that no shingles containing
asbestos enter the plant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ombudsman Sees Holes In Police Property Managing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Wood of The Daily Telegraph reports that police were
exposed to asbestos in homes and workplaces because of systemic
failures in how the state government and the police force managed
property, an Ombudsman's report has found.

Ombudsman Bruce Barbour has recommended the State Property
Authority review all property owned by the state to make sure
public servants are not exposed to asbestos, lead paint or other
hazards.

Police Minister Michael Gallacher said he could not answer for
other government departments but would refer the Ombudsman's
recommendations to the government.

"If the Ombudsman's assessments are correct then a whole-of-
government approach is needed for the identification and
governance of the risk," Mr. Gallacher said.

The report recommended increased funding to maintain or remediate
older properties that contain asbestos.

However, the $61 million allocated by the government over four
years is not new money, but a reallocation of existing police
funding.

The Ombudsman noted this was not enough and that "a special
allocation of funds from NSW Treasury or internally from (the
police force)" was needed to keep police safe at work and at home.

The report said there was no evidence of a cover-up by senior
police about asbestos in properties owned by the force.

One of the most high-risk properties -- Surry Hills Police Centre
-- was found in 2008 to have a build-up of lead dust in its firing
range.

A review of this in July 2011, found lead dust levels had risen
above the "appropriate standards" and there was "no program of
regular clean-ups to manage ongoing build-up."

The report also highlighted the case of an officer who moved into
a police residence in southwest NSW in 2010 with his wife and four
children.

He wasn't told that a report had been prepared about the property
in 2008 and that a "low to very low risk" of asbestos and lead
paint were found there.

In September 2011, he was told he had to move out because of the
"unacceptable" lead levels in his children's blood.

Mr. Barbour said the government needed to change the way police
properties were managed to stop this happening again: "The failure
to properly manage hazardous materials in police properties is
just one outcome of the poorly functioning property management
model."

Police Association president Scott Weber said the government and
the police force had to come to an agreement "immediately".

"Nothing excuses the gross mismanagement of this problem over so
many years," Mr. Weber said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Low Airborne Fibro Saturations Found in WA Mines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ScienceNetwork Western Australia reports that airborne monitoring
for fibrous materials in northern Western Australian mines have
recently found airborne concentrations is below legal workplace
limits.

The results, conducted by the Department of Mines and Petroleum
(DMP) and released in late June, say expert analysis of the test
results have indicated there is a low risk of individual exposure.

According to the reports, actinolite asbestos was found at Rio
Tinto's West Angelas and Marandoo mines, as well as BHP Billiton's
Jimblebar mine.

"The materials are linked to products exported from a Pilbara
quarry operated by Holcim," says DMP State Mining Engineer Simon
Ridge.

"Preliminary testing conducted at the quarry has also confirmed
airborne levels below the occupational exposure limit."

Holcim Australia, who operate hard rock, sand and gravel quarries,
have released information to their clients advising them that
products have the potential to contain actinolite fibers.

These recent findings of exposure have alarmed The Asbestos
Diseases Society of Australia (ADS), who are concerned about the
mine and construction workers who may have been exposed to the
fibers.

"The contamination of these three sites is a stark reminder of the
prevalence of asbestos at worksites," says ADS Australia
President, Robert Vojakovic.

Slater & Gordon Senior Asbestos Lawyer, Simon Millman has echoed
the concerns.

"The presence of asbestos at these sites may present an imminent
risk to the health and safety of these workers," he says.

"While it is certainly not the case that everyone who has been
exposed to asbestos develops an asbestos-related illness, it only
takes the briefest of exposure to asbestos to develop into a
deadly asbestos-related disease."

According to leading asbestos researcher and respiratory
physician, Professor Bill Musk, there is no indication for there
being a level of contact to asbestos which is entirely safe.

"There is no evidence for there being a level of exposure below
which there is no risk of disease developing," he says.

"Therefore the risks for people exposed occupationally tend to be
greater than those exposed non-occupationally, but the numbers of
people with non occupational exposure are greater."

"Asbestosis tends to progress after exposure has ceased and benign
pleural diseases, such as plaques, diffuse pleural thickening and
round atelectasis, may occur and progress after exposure," says
Prof Musk.

According to the DMP, precautionary measures have been taken, with
these mines and construction sites having invoked fibrous mineral
management protocols, while additional evaluation of the potential
for the release of fibers continues.

Holcim Australia is in the process of finalizing operational
management plans with input from external advisors and the DMP.

All workers at these sites will be kept informed by their
employers, particularly in relation to workplace safety and
ongoing test results from the companies that have used the
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Sues Schlumberger Ltd. et al for $525,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis of The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that the
widow of a man who died after developing mesothelioma has sued her
late husband's former employers under the Jones Act, claiming that
they failed to provide him with a safe place to work.

The Jones Act allows injured seamen to seek compensation for
injuries that resulted from the negligence of their employers or
co-workers during the course of their work on a vessel.

Johnnie Ault, the administrator of the estate for her late
husband, Bryan, filed a seven-count complaint earlier this week in
federal court in East St. Louis against Schlumberger Ltd. and its
subsidiaries, as well as a few other companies.

The complaint states that Bryan Ault was employed by Schlumberger
from 1965 to 1970 and again from 1973 to 1988 as an electrician
aboard various offshore mobile rigs owned, chartered or controlled
by the defendant companies.

Based on the time he spent on these rigs over the course of his
employment, the complaint asserts that he was a seaman, a
distinction that must be proved in order to make claims under the
Jones Act.

Ault contends that her late husband was exposed to and inhaled
asbestos fibers from asbestos and asbestos-containing products
that he worked around while employed by Schlumberger.

She argues that the defendants breached their duties under the
Jones Act to provide her husband with a safe place to work by
requiring him to work with or in the vicinity of asbestos.

Ault also contends that the defendants failed to warn Bryan that
he was being exposed to asbestos or the associated risks, and
failed to replace asbestos-containing products with non-asbestos
substitutes, which they should have known were available.

As a result of the defendants' alleged failures contained in the
complaint, Ault asserts her late husband developed mesothelioma,
which ultimately led to his death.

Prior to his death, the complaint states, Bryan Ault experienced
physical pain and mental anguish, had to pay for medical treatment
and lost "large sums" of money as a result of not being able to
work.

In addition to the three counts of negligence contained in the
complaint, Ault brought four counts of "unseaworthiness" under
General Maritime Law.

In those counts, Ault claims that the defendants breached their
warranty of seaworthiness because their vessels contained asbestos
and lacked appropriate procedures and equipment to deal with
asbestos and asbestos-containing products.

Ault seeks $75,000 in damages on each count of her seven-count
complaint.

Ault, a Texas resident, is represented by D. Todd Matthews and
Randy Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates in Edwardsville.

The citation for the lawsuit is 3:12-cv-833-JPG-PMF


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumped Fibro in Darwin Awaits Government Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Coggan of ABC News reports that the Northern Territory
Government is developing a management plan to deal with the
removal of asbestos uncovered in Darwin's George Brown Botanic
Gardens.

A Department of Natural Resources and Environment spokesman says
asbestos was discovered in the gardens more than a month ago.

It is believed to be among rubble dumped in the gardens area in
the wake of Cyclone Tracy.

The Department says it is not clear how much asbestos there is,
but it is considered safe in its current form.

Despite that assurance, workers are refusing to mow lawns in the
gardens because they are worried about disturbing the asbestos.

NT WorkSafe has confirmed its inspectors have visited the Gardens
and it is now up to the government to develop a management plan to
remove the asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albemarle County to Abate its Six Schools
----------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Wilson at NBC29 News reports that Albemarle County is
dealing with asbestos in six of its schools this summer, in
addition to some major construction at one of their elementary
schools.

Henley Middle School, Jack Jouett Middle School, Walton Middle
School, Albemarle and Western Albemarle high schools, and
Scottsville Elementary School are on the list for asbestos
removal.  In 1986, Congress passed the Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act requiring schools to inspect and manage the asbestos
in their buildings.

The big risk is when asbestos gets airborne or friable.  Two
common sources are the insulation around pipes and old floor
tiles, and they can either be sealed or removed.

The asbestos removal is one portion of a series of maintenance
improvements taking place at several schools, with the most
significant changes happening at Greer Elementary School.
Albemarle County is adding new classrooms, including an outdoor
one, as well as a courtyard at Greer.

In terms of maintenance, the school system wants to reassure the
reason its removing the asbestos is not because it's harmful.

Building engineer Joe Letteri says they are removing it because
funds are available and they want to reduce their Asbestos
Management Plan.

Letteri said, "The flooring itself is a non-friable asbestos we
are doing it not because we are mandated to do it but because we
are trying to eliminate it from the schools to reduce our asbestos
management plan."

Other initiatives include a water conservation audit to identify
areas to reduce costs.  The school system says the construction
and maintenance projects are on-budget and on-time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Reinsurance Coverage of US Liabilities Viewed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In his article, "English Law Reinsurance Contracts May Not Cover
Asbestos or Other U.S. Liabilities," Raymond L. Sweigart, Esq.,
partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, wrote:

In the words of the Court of Appeal in Faraday Reinsurance Co Ltd
v Howden North America Inc & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 980 (20 July
2012), "it would be idle to pretend that the English courts and
the American (including the Pennsylvania) courts see eye to eye on
the question of the liability of insurers to respond to asbestos
claims.

The Faraday court continued: "In Wasa v Lexington Co, [[2009] UKHL
[2010] A.C. 180], the House of Lords held, for example, that a
reinsurance contract, if it is governed by English law, does not
respond to an American insurer which is required to pay in
response to American notions of insurer-liability, unless it can
be shown that the insurer's liability arose during the currency of
the English policy.  In these circumstances it is inevitable that
differing conclusions may be arrived at by courts in England from
those that would be arrived at in (at any rate some) states in
America."

In Faraday, an excess insurer brought proceedings in England for a
declaration that an excess layer policy provided no liability
cover to the named insured for asbestos claims.  More
specifically, Faraday sought declarations that (a) the policy that
insured Howden is governed by English law and subject to the
jurisdiction of the English courts; (b) as a matter of English
law, effect must be given to the periods under each policy; (c)
under each policy, Faraday would be liable to indemnify Howden
only insofar as the personal injury or property damage happened
(or occurred) during (and not before or after) the relevant policy
period; and (d) Faraday is liable to indemnify Howden in respect
of legal liability only insofar as (i) claims were made against
Howden during the relevant policy period or (ii) claims have
subsequently been made against Howden which arise out of any
circumstances which could reasonably have been expected to give
rise to a claim under the policy, and as to which Howden became
aware during the relevant policy period.  The insured, Howden, had
been involved in coverage litigation against lower-layer insurers
on asbestos claims in Pennsylvania since 2003 and related mass
tort proceedings by victims of asbestos had been underway against
Howden since 1999.  Until very recently, however, Faraday and its
predecessor in interest had not been involved.  Upon receiving
notice from Howden that claims would be made under a 1998 policy,
Faraday commenced proceedings.  The ultimate underlying
substantial issue between the parties arose because of the
differences of approach by the Pennsylvania courts and the English
courts to the insurance of asbestos-related claims.

The first difference is whether exposure to a hazardous condition
is itself an injury.  Under English law (see Bolton MBC v
Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 1492 not overruled in
Durham v BAI [2012] 1 WLR 867) it is not.  Under the laws of a
number of U.S. jurisdictions including Pennsylvania, a theory of
multiple triggers of periods of insurance cover, running from and
including exposure to manifestation, has been followed: see e.g.,
Keene Corporation v Insurance Corporation of North America 667
F.2d 1034 (1981), and in Pennsylvania, J.H. France Refractories v
All State Insurance Co 626 A.2d 502 (PA 1993).

The second difference is that, under English law but not in many
U.S. jurisdictions, the period clause of an insurance policy is
considered a fundamental, material provision: see Municipal Mutual
Insurance Ltd v Sea Insurance Company Ltd and others [1998]
Lloyd's Rep. IR 421 at 435-6 -- "the stated period of time is
fundamental and must be given effect to" -- and Wasa International
Insurance Co v Lexington Insurance Co [2009] UKHL [2010] A.C. 180
at [3], [39], [74] and [77].

A third difference between English and Pennsylvania law involves
applicable principles of conflict of laws.  The English approach
to determining the applicable law is concerned only with the
circumstances at the time of contracting, whereas the approach in
the United States may permit consideration of factors applicable
or arising at the time of the dispute.

Ultimately, Faraday is only an appellate decision not to review
the High Court's allowance of service and acceptance of
jurisdiction over the proceedings and may not be additional
substantive precedent on the actual grounds of dispute noted.
Nevertheless, it is important for U.S. insureds who have excess
cover placed in the English market under English law contracts to
be aware of the quite significant differences in approach and
competing "notions of insurer-liability" and the potential
implications for both resolution of coverage disputes as well as
the forum in which those disputes may ultimately be addressed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at LNG Construction Site
-----------------------------------------------------
The Gladstone Observer reports that asbestos has been found on an
LNG construction site on Curtis Island.

Bechtel Gladstone general manager Kevin Berg on July 27 confirmed
traces of asbestos were detected within the bonded building
structure of two containerized switch rooms.

Mr. Berg said affected areas had been secured and workers were not
allowed access to those areas until Bechtel was satisfied the
issue was resolved.

"Our top priority at all times is the safety of our workforce on
Curtis Island," Mr. Berg said.

"We are taking this very seriously and have been working on this
issue for a number of weeks with our workforce and safety people."

Mr. Berg said the company had also brought in two independent
industry experts to advise on dealing with the situation and also
to speak directly to the workforce.

"The bottom line is that this is a serious issue which we are
determined to manage with the assistance of the workforce and the
independent industry experts we have brought in," Mr. Berg said.

The affected containers were brought in by foreign contractor
Metito.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Cites Contractor For Exposing Worker to Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Cheltenham contractor and a retailer have been prosecuted after
a construction worker was exposed to asbestos during a
refurbishment project.

Simon Cooper was engaged by Hutchinson HiFi and Vision Ltd in
February 2010 to refurbish an empty shop unit in Cheltenham High
Street, which involved replacing a suspended ceiling.

In a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE),
Cheltenham Magistrates' Court heard on July 27 that contractor
Simon Cooper failed to ensure a proper asbestos survey was
available before work began.  As a result, workers on site,
including Matthew Thompson 28, from Cheltenham, removed up to 85m
of asbestos insulating board over two days on 16 and 17 February
without the necessary controls or adequate protection.

The Court was also told that Hutchinson HiFi and Vision Ltd failed
to provide any client information regarding the presence of
asbestos within the building.  They should have ensured a
demolition and refurbishment survey was carried out and the
results made available to Mr. Cooper.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Simon Chilcott, said:

"As a result of the failings of Simon Cooper and Hutchinson HiFi
and Vision, people were unnecessarily exposed to asbestos.  This
incident could have been avoided if the retailer had provided
information on the presence of asbestos in the building and Mr.
Cooper had ensured he had seen a demolition and refurbishment
survey before commencing the renovation work.

"The risks of asbestos are well known in the construction industry
as are the controls required in dealing with it.  Exposure to
asbestos can have fatal or serious long term health consequences
and, as such, every precaution must be taken to minimize any risks
when working on buildings."

Hutchinson HiFi & Vision Ltd, of High Street, Cheltenham, pleaded
guilty to breaching Regulation 10 (1) (b) of the Construction
(Design & Management) Regulations 2007 and was fined GBP3,500 and
ordered to pay GBP1,836 in costs.  Simon Cooper, of Leckhampton,
Cheltenham, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5 of the
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined GBP600 and
ordered to pay GBP800 in costs.

Asbestos-related illnesses are responsible for around 4,000 deaths
every year.  Further information on working with asbestos can be
found at www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RIL Product Eyes To Entirely Replace Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kalpana Pathak of the Business Standard - Mumbai reports that the
late Dhirubahi Ambani, the founder of Reliance Industries Ltd
(RIL), was labelled as the 'polyster prince' much before the
group's mainstay became petroleum at the end of the 1990s.  Now,
the company's invention of a polyester short cut fiber is covering
the sheds that need asbestos and are dependent on imports.

RIL's research and development (R&D) wing has developed a
polyester fiber coated with a special chemical, which would
substitute asbestos used by the construction industry in roofing
applications, siliconized fibers for soil stabilization and other
applications.  One per cent of polyester fiber can be used to
replace 4% of asbestos fiber.

While asbestos needs to be milled before use, the new-generation
fiber can be straight away added in the mix tank.  "In the near
future, asbestos availability will become a concern.  Of the five
major producers, two are already closed," said an RIL official who
did not want to be named.

"RIL's new-generation fiber has successfully replaced 10-15 per
cent of asbestos, we are continuously working on research and
developments along with leading asbestos cement sheet roofing
companies to achieve a higher percentage replacement of asbestos,"
the official added.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral found in underground
rock formations.  For commercial purposes, it is recovered by
mining and rock crushing.  Of the two varieties of asbestos --
Chrysotile and Amphibole -- only Chrysotile is used for commercial
purposes.

Manufacturers of asbestos cement (AC) sheet and pipe manufacturers
in India import all their requirements of chrysotile fibers from
Canada, Brazil, Russia, Zimbabwe and Kazakhstan for production of
AC sheets and pipes.

AC sheets have been in use in India for over 70 years.  Their
weather-proof and corrosion-resistant qualities help them score
over metal sheets.

AC sheets are also cost-effective and strong and durable.  Other
than India, Russia, China, Thailand and Brazil are among the
largest users of AC sheets.

Mining of asbestos is banned in India, but its usage is not.
Thus, the industry depends on 100% imports.  However, with most
shipping lines not accepting asbestos, container companies have to
maintain around four months' inventory of asbestos to maintain
production.

"Chrysotile asbestos fiber, (composed mainly of magnesium and
silica), is a great reinforcing agent.  While its tensile strength
is greater than steel, it has other rare and highly valued fire-
retardant, chemical-resistant and heat-insulating qualities," says
the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers' Association, New
Delhi, on its Web site.

Hyderabad Industries Ltd (HIL), a flagship company of the CK Birla
Group of companies to which RIL is currently supplying the fiber,
says use of the fiber has led to a 5% cent increase in
productivity and reduced cost by 7%.

"We have been using RIL's fiber for some time now, and are happy
with the results.  Last year, we replaced 10 per cent of asbestos
and monitored the product's performance.  This year, we have
decided to replace 20 per cent asbestos," said S Jagadesh, general
manager, R&D, HIL.

Jagadesh added this fiber would help reduce its dependence on
asbestos.  HIL manufactured around 800,000 tonnes of roofing
sheets per annum.

Other companies using RIL's product include Sahyadri Industries
and Ramco Industries, both producers of fiber cement sheets.
Industrial trails, said RIL, are already on at Everest Industries,
UAL Inudstries and Visaka Industries, another set of fiber cement
sheets manufacturing companies.

So far, RIL has sold about 1,000 tons of polyester fiber.  The
company said sampling has also begun in Thailand, adding it was
continuously working on further R&D along with leading asbestos
cement sheet manufacturing companies to achieve 100% replacement
of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: KASCON LLC Gets Rome Schools Abatement Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
RomeSentinel.com reports that some isolated areas at Strough,
Staley and Joy schools will undergo minor asbestos removals this
month, and ongoing programs there will not be affected, a Rome
school district official said.

The work includes replacing insulation around some piping at
Strough, plus a valve gasket at Staley, said Superintendent of
Buildings and Grounds Paul Rabbia.  At Joy, some loose floor tiles
in one spot will be replaced, he added.

Among summer activities hosted by the sites are academic summer
school at Strough and an enrichment program with an accelerated
curriculum at Staley.  Asked if asbestos removals would affect
such programs, Rabbia said "absolutely not;" the locations
involved will temporarily be "off-limits," with air tests before
and after the brief one- and two-day projects, he noted.  The work
includes "isolated little areas," he told the Board of Education's
buildings and grounds committee on July 25.

The projects' total cost was estimated at about $2,500 by Rabbia.
The work will be handled by KASCON LLC of Marcy, whose contract
for asbestos removals as needed was approved by the board last
month.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: India's Ban Asbestos Network Member TWA Steps Up
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameya Charnalia of The Hindu News reports that after the only two
remaining asbestos mines in Canada's Quebec province wrapped up
operations in 2011, the country became asbestos-mining free for
the first time in 130 years.  But, in a recent move that has
stunned several environmental, health, labor and human rights
organizations, the government of Quebec has sanctioned a $58
million loan to revive the inoperative 'Jeffrey Mine' to resume
asbestos mining.

With an estimated 90% of Canada's asbestos being exported to
developing countries like India, advocacy campaigns in both India
and Canada have strongly condemned this turn of events, renewing
calls for a ban on the mining.  Toxics Watch Alliance (TWA), an
Indian advocacy initiative and one of two members of the Ban
Asbestos Network of India (BANI) movement, has stepped up its
lobbying with the Central government to stop asbestos usage by
banning imports.

In a statement, TWA said: "India has taken a position which
considers white asbestos a hazardous substance.  Mining of
asbestos is technically banned in India.  Trade in asbestos waste
(dust and fibers) is also banned.  The government should take the
next logical step and phase out asbestos use."

Despite calls for bans, India remains particularly infamous as the
one of the largest importers of asbestos.  On the proliferation of
asbestos usage in India, TWA's convener Gopal Krishna said:
"Artificial pricing through governmental patronage has made
asbestos cheaply available."

Chrysotile, the most common form of asbestos used in India, is a
fibrous substance often mixed with cement to create a fire-
retardant mixture applied to corrugated steel sheets and pipes.
Called "the poor man's material", it is often used in roofing
structures by the poor in India because of its high resistivity
and low-cost.

On the availability of alternatives to asbestos, Mr. Krishna said:
"There are multiple alternatives to the multiple uses of
asbestos."  He stressed that industries and countries that have
banned asbestos have managed to do without it because of the
availability of substitutes.  Commonly cited alternatives to
asbestos are cellulose and agricultural fibers.

Affordability nevertheless can come at the cost of contracting
lethal lung diseases, caused by inhalation of chrysolite dust -- a
common occurrence in asbestos plants, where safety regulations are
minimal and often not enforced.

An investigation by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
reporter Melissa Fung in June 2009 revealed how Indian workers
were shockingly ill-equipped when handling asbestos.  "Many
workers were found to be working wearing little more than
bandanas, sometimes no protective gear at all," revealed the
investigation.

The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies asbestos as a known
carcinogen, estimating that over 1,07,000 people die each year
from asbestos-related lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.
It remains banned in over 50 countries.

Canada exported 1,00,000 tons of asbestos in 2010, according to
the U.S. Geological Survey.  Maude Barlow, National Chairperson,
Council of Canadians -- Canada's largest social justice
organization -- said: "Canada has repeatedly blocked asbestos from
being listed as a hazardous chemical by the United Nations, even
while governments spend large amounts of money back at home
helping remove asbestos from Canadian homes and offices."

While Indian delegates distanced themselves from Canada's position
on asbestos trade at the U.N.'s Rotterdam Convention in 2011 by
favoring listing asbestos as a restricted chemical, the Supreme
Court of India refused to ban the substance in January 2011,
instead directing state governments to regulate its use and
manufacture.

In Canada, the asbestos issue is subject to frequent
politicization, with the official Opposition party -- The New
Democratic Party (NPD), holding 58 of 75 federal seats in Quebec,
noted as opposing asbestos mining and exports.

Ms. Barlow added: "The Indian government must not listen to the
handful of investors and big business operators in their demand
for Canadian asbestos.  The health and safety of the people is
paramount and we join the people of India in their opposition to
Canadian asbestos imports."

In the midst of demonstrations by villagers against asbestos
plants in Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha among
others recently, TWA has urged the government to begin a
compensation fund for the victims of asbestos related diseases, in
addition to phasing out all use of the substance.  "The only way
to prevent deadly diseases is to prevent mining, trade,
manufacturing and use of all forms of asbestos and asbestos-based
products," said the release.  The figure of asbestos' victims in
India remains elusive as no official estimate has been collected.

For victims and campaigners, however, the struggle against
asbestos continues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insulator's Union Vows to Fight ARD, Mesothelioma
------------------------------------------------------------------
General President James A. Grogan described the Insulator's Union
30th national convention as "inspiring and life-changing," lauding
the organization's wide-ranging achievements of the July 15-18
gathering in Las Vegas.

President Grogan, who was unanimously re-elected for another five-
year term, said emphatically "we now have a comprehensive and
well-funded plan of attack against mesothelioma and asbestos-
related diseases that emphasizes prevention and early diagnosis,
better treatment and longer, quality lives for our members and
their families."  He spoke passionately, asking convention
delegates and guests, "If we don't do this, who will?"

Distinguished labor leaders who spoke at the convention included
Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO; Sean McGarvey,
President, Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD);
Edwin D. Hill, General President, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW); and James A. Williams, General
President, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades
(IUPAT).

The War on Asbestos-related Diseases

President Grogan has made it his mission to address all facets of
this "orphan" health issue, and the convention delegates and his
leadership voted to put in place and fund a comprehensive plan for
its members, including a dedicated health fund, The Insulators
Tissue Bank, to find a cure or optimal treatment options for
asbestos-induced cancers, including mesothelioma and lung cancer.
Insulators have long suffered far higher than normal incidences of
mesothelioma, lung cancer and other related diseases, resulting in
disability and death.

Terry Johnson, Esq., along with two attorneys from the national
asbestos firm of Cooney and Conway (John Cooney and Kevin Conway),
announced a multi-million donation to the Insulators Tissue Bank.
The firms will contribute current legal fees totaling one million
dollars, and add to that two-percent of all future collected legal
fees involving cases where workers suffer from mesothelioma and
related asbestos-causing diseases.

Convention delegates voted for every insulator in the U.S. and
Canada to contribute four cents for every hour that they work to
the new Insulators Tissue Bank, starting January 1, 2013.  This
money will be used for research in finding a cure for mesothelioma
and other asbestos-induced diseases.  This is in addition to the
two cents per hour that is currently contributed to the Insulators
Health Hazard Fund, as well as what individual Local Unions do on
their own.

President Grogan, Secretary-Treasurer McCourt and the General
Executive Board froze their wages for 2013 and for years 2014,
2015, 2016 and 2017 their wages will mirror the CPI, not to exceed
4%.  In addition, the International Officers will contribute $100
per month from their salaries to the tissue bank.

It was announced by Andrew Todd, Ph.D., of Mt. Sinai Hospital in
New York City, that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has
formally approved the tissue bank, which will be located and
administered by Mt. Sinai.  Dr. Todd said that only 0.01% of the
general population die from mesothelioma.  In Insulators, the
current percentage (as of 2008 statistics) is about 1,000-fold
higher at 9%.  He noted that the problem is not going away,
because the death rate was also 9% in 1989.

Researchers and surgeons at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York,
have been long-standing partners in this effort.  Dr. Raja Flores,
who is a thoracic surgeon and currently the Chief of the Division
of Thoracic Surgery at Mt. Sinai Hospital and Ames Professor of
Cardiothoracic Surgery at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, also
addressed the delegates.  Dr. Flores told the insulators of the
positive inroads that are being made in the field of lung surgery,
and he also provided graphic video of an actual lung surgery in
his presentation.

President Grogan stressed that CAT scans are now needed to
accurately detect problems; therefore, the union may employ mobile
screening and blood testing that can pull right up to union
headquarters or job sites.

"We leaped light years ahead at this convention in building the
infrastructure and funding necessary to significantly improve our
workers' health," said President Grogan.  "But it is also is a
shift in culture as our members become smarter and more aggressive
in caring for themselves as well as their brothers and sisters."

Approximately three thousand U.S. citizens die of mesothelioma
each year.  The Canadian Medical Association recently reported
that more than 300 Canadian men receive a diagnosis of
mesothelioma each year.  The asbestos medical problem is not
limited to just insulators.  Mesothelioma and other asbestos -
induced diseases have decimated workers from every other craft in
the Building Trades as well.  The World Health Organization
reports that over a five-year period there were 85,512
mesothelioma deaths reported from 46 countries -- that's 17,000-
plus mesothelioma deaths per year from these countries, mainly
western developed countries.  It may continue to grow as asbestos
is still being mined in some countries.

The World Health Organization says mesothelioma is on the rise
globally.  The British Broadcasting Company recently reported that
more than two million tons of asbestos were mined worldwide in
2009.  Mining countries included Russia, China and Khazikstan.
Leaders from Canada attest from their attempts to ban asbestos
from being mined in Canada that it remains an uphill battle.
Asbestos is being exported to poor and undeveloped countries such
as India and Bangladesh where unsuspecting and untrained workers
are, once again, needlessly exposed.  The Insulators Tissue Bank
will benefit those afflicted worldwide.

Labor Leaders Weigh in at Insulators Convention

All of the Labor leaders commended President Grogan on his
leadership, dedication and commitment to the labor movement.  They
also all stressed the importance of re-electing President Barack
Obama this November.  President Hill spoke in great detail about
the upcoming "Workers Stand for America Rally" to be held in
Philadelphia on August 11.  He encouraged delegates to support the
rally and encouraged them to participate in this nonpartisan event
that will feature the signing of the second Bill of Rights for
both union and open shop workers.  President McGarvey articulated
how important it is for insulators to support the Republican
Members of Congress who have stood with the insulators and all of
the building trades crafts on Davis-Bacon protections and Project
Labor Agreements (PLAs).  Additionally, President Trumka
encouraged Congress to pass the Mechanical Insulation Installation
Incentive Act.

President Grogan said the convention speakers also "united our
membership and readied us for the "Workers Stand for America
Rally" on August 11 and the General Election on November 6.  Labor
leaders Trumka, McGarvey, Hill, and Williams all gave impassioned
remarks about supporting Members of Congress and state and local
officials who share values of the workers and their families.  A
moment of silence was held in memory of Mark H. Ayers, AFL-CIO
BCTD President who died April 8.

President Hill said August 11 is a Labor Summit on Workers to be
held in Philadelphia that will take place prior to the Republican
National Convention in Tampa, August 27 to 30, and the Democratic
National Convention in Charlotte, September 3 to 6.  He added that
the workers attending the summit will create a new "bill of
rights' that may be carried to both of those conventions.

President Grogan said it will be essential for Philadelphia area
insulators to attend the labor summit, and he encouraged all
others interested and able to participate to be at this historic
summit.  "There is no question we will be working tirelessly to
re-elect President Obama and those Members of Congress, Governors
and legislators who share our common-sense values and desire for
economic recovery."

The delegates also voted to fund a new "soft money" Political
Education Fund to which members will contribute one cent per every
hour that they work.

Promoting the Mechanical Insulation Industry

Progress on specific initiatives under way to promote the
mechanical insulation industry was highlighted, and union leaders
were encouraged to get involved in advocating at the local, state
and federal levels to maintain momentum.  Members of Congress, via
video messages, along with AFL-CIO President Trumka, stressed the
need for S. 1526 and H.R. 2866, the Mechanical Insulation
Installation Incentive Act.

Mike Fulton, president of the Arnold Agency's Washington office
gave a presentation on the Union and National Insulation
Association's (NIA) federal relations initiative.  Fulton, who has
worked with the Union and NIA promoting the increased use of
mechanical insulation, stated that there is bipartisan support for
these pending bills which includes three U.S. Senators and 69
members of the U.S. House of Representatives.  This proposed
federal tax deduction for building and manufacturing facility
owners to capture energy savings in commercial/government
buildings and the industrial sector has the potential to create as
many as 89,000 jobs annually in all 50 states.  Successes of an
education and awareness campaign, conducted in partnership with
the U.S. Department of Energy and the NIA, were outlined as well
as the pursuit for additional funding to achieve more awareness.

Insulators Leadership Team Intact

In addition to President Grogan, other international officers
re-elected for a five-year term include:

   - James P. "Buddy" McCourt, General Secretary-Treasurer
   - William P. Mahoney, International Vice President, Southeast
States Conference
   - Kenneth J, Schneider, International Vice President, Southwest
States Conference
   - Frederick A. DeMartino, International Vice President, New
York New England States Conference
   - Terry Lynch, International Vice President At Large
   - Douglas N. Gamble, International Vice President, Western
States Conference
   - Terrence M. Larkin, International Vice President, Middle
Atlantic States Conference
   - Gregory T. Revard, International Vice President, Central
States Conference
   - Frederick W. Clare, Jr., International Vice President,
Eastern Canada
   - Mark P. Selby, International Vice President, Midwest States
Conference
   - Vince Engel, International Vice President, Western Canada

International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied
Workers Affiliated with the AFL-CIO Building Trades Department and
the Canadian Labour Congress

The object of the International Association of Heat and Frost
Insulators and Allied Workers shall be to assist its membership in
securing employment, to defend their rights and advance their
interests as working men and women, and by education and co-
operation, raise them to that position in society to which they
are justly entitled.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stover Theatre Abatement Eyes Aug. 8 Completion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Whitney of The Daytona Beach News-Journal reports that
work crews are busy preparing Stetson University's Stover Theatre
for demolition this month.

Al Allen, Stetson's vice president for facilities management, said
all of the salvage work has been completed and crews now are
working on removing asbestos in the building, as required by the
state Department of Environmental Protection.

The state's goal is to keep asbestos fibers from escaping into the
air when the building is torn down, said Matt Adair, chief
building official for the city.

Allen said crews should be finished with this phase in the next
week or so.  Tentative plans call for installing a construction
fence around the building on Aug. 8 -- the same day that officials
want to begin tearing down the old building.  Stetson hopes to
have the site cleared and landscaped by Aug. 24, according to
Allen.

Meanwhile, he said, the college has donated a number of items from
the building including curtains, lights, seats and cabinetry to
several groups, including the Shoestring Theatre Company in Lake
Helen, the Orlando Ballet and Osceola Elementary School.

"We didn't want to throw things out," Allen said.

Officials with the Athens Theater are evaluating whether the fly
system that raised and lowered curtains and backdrops at Stover is
something their organization can use, he said.

"We have a number of flies that do work and a number that don't,"
said Alexa Baldwin, marketing director for the Athens.  "The
Stover is the one of the only other theaters that had this
system."

Stetson petitioned the city a couple of months ago for permission
to demolish the building, which was constructed in 1930.  It
housed the college's theater arts program until about three months
ago when officials signed a lease to take over vacant space in the
Museum of Florida Art across the street from the university.

"The paintings in the building's lobby and anything else that our
faculty and students thought was sentimental was taken over
there," Allen said, referring to the new location, which formerly
housed the Sands Theater Company.

He noted that the 82-year-old Stover was never meant to be a
theater.  "It was an assembly hall, " he said, and one that was
built as cheaply as possible.  It doesn't have many of the
amenities a theater requires, he said, such as space for building
sets, a green room and even classroom space.

"It wasn't designed by an architect," he said, adding the lack of
visual appeal and amenities have hampered the college's effort to
recruit students for its theater arts program.

"We have had as few as three to four kids in our program.  The
highest (so far) has been 14, " he said, adding the college has
lost potential theater students to Rollins College and even the
University of Florida.

The university conducted a study in 2005 and determined Stetson's
theater arts program needed more than twice the space, including
dedicated classroom space.  A recent review showed Stover had only
27% of the theater space of peer institutions.

The City Commission's decision to approve the demolition request
set off a mild controversy in the community.  The chairman of the
city's Historic Preservation Board, which recommended against
approving the request, resigned the day after the commission vote.
Also, another board member resigned, effective in October.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Modernizing Chemical Regulations Passed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Williams at PoliticalNews.me reports that Montana's
senior U.S. Senator Max Baucus secured key provisions for Montana
as the "Safe Chemicals Act" cleared a major hurdle in the Senate.
Specifically, he worked to speed up the EPA's response to asbestos
contamination while also encouraging innovation in developing new,
more environmentally friendly chemicals.  The Safe Chemicals Act
co-sponsored by Baucus passed in the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee by a vote of 10 to 8 and will now head to the full
Senate for a vote.  Senator Jon Tester also co-sponsored the bill.

"It's important to me that Montana families and communities around
the country do not have to live through the environmental
injustice that Libby experienced.  This is a common sense bill
that modernizes chemical regulations while making sure innovative
companies have the tools they need to develop more environmentally
friendly products," said Baucus, who was given the Tribute of Hope
Award, The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization's top
distinction.

Baucus, a senior member of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, fought for provisions in the bill that will require
asbestos, including the type of asbestos mined in Libby, to enter
into immediate risk management rather than undergoing further
study.

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) applauds Senator
Baucus for supporting the Safer Chemicals Act of 2012 and
empowering the EPA's work to strengthen regulatory and enforcement
efforts to protect Americans for deadly, but preventable asbestos-
caused diseases such as Mesothelioma, Asbestosis and Lung Cancer,"
said Linda Reinstein, co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization.

Baucus also secured a provision to encourage innovation in the
green chemical technology sector and support new jobs in the
emerging field.

"We thank Senator Baucus for his sponsorship and support of the
Safe Chemicals Act which aligns with our goal of increasing the
safety of consumer products and protecting our natural environment
through chemicals made from renewable sources," said Jason Kiely,
Vice President of Marketing at Missoula-based Rivertop Renewables.
"Consumers are increasingly demanding that the products that touch
our families, children and the world around us become safer and
more sustainable.  This Act will compel transparency of the safety
and health impacts of all chemicals, balancing fair regulation
with the public's call for protection."

Rivertop Renewables is at the cutting edge of a new category of
science -- Progressive Chemistry.  Merging proven science with
renewable resources, Rivertop Renewables is creating an abundant
and economical supply of sustainable, biodegradable and non-toxic
chemicals and bioproducts derived from renewable plant sugars.

Whitefish nurse, Kelli Barber, RN,MN co-chairs the Nurses Work
Group for Health Care Without Harm and is a member of the Alliance
of Nurses for Healthy Environments.  Barber hails the news as
important step toward protecting patients while lowering health
care costs.

"I'm proud to see Senator Baucus championing a bill that would
protect us from exposures to chemicals which are proven to not
only cause cancer but a host of other chronic diseases," said
Kelli Barber, RN, MN.  "The Safe Chemicals Act would significantly
reduce health care costs by reducing the risk of developing
diseases that are caused by toxic chemical exposure."

"All Montanans deserve homes and places of work free from
dangerous and life-threatening chemicals," said James Steele Jr.,
board member of Montana Conservation Voters and former chairman of
the Salish and Kootenai Tribes.  "Today, Senator Baucus answered
Montana's call for safer chemicals."

Baucus provisions in the Safe Chemicals Act:

   -- Immediate Action on Asbestos. Asbestos is identified as a
substance of very high concern, for which EPA must quickly require
exposure reduction measures.

   -- Encourages Innovation by Improving the New Chemicals
Process:

Promote innovation and development of safe chemical alternatives,
and bring some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited
review process.

About The Safe Chemicals Act:

The bill modernizes the "Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976"
(TSCA) and gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the
tools it needs to require health and safety testing of toxic
chemicals and places the burden on industry to prove that
chemicals are safe.  Under current law, the EPA can call for
safety testing only after evidence surfaces demonstrating a
chemical is dangerous.  As a result, EPA has been able to require
testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently
registered in the United States, and has been able to ban only
five dangerous substances.

The Safe Chemicals Act would:

   -- Require manufacturers to develop and submit safety data for
each chemical they produce, while avoiding duplicative or
unnecessary testing.

   -- Prioritize chemicals based on risk, so that EPA can focus
resources on evaluating those most likely to cause harm while
working through the backlog of untested existing chemicals.

   -- Place the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers to
demonstrate the safety of their chemicals.

   -- Restrict uses of chemicals that cannot be proven safe.

   -- Establish a public database to catalog the information
submitted by chemical manufacturers and the EPA's safety
determinations.

   -- Promote innovation and development of safe chemical
alternatives, and bring some new chemicals onto the market using
an expedited review process.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Taps Superfund to Clean Up Union Steel Plant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Wiseman for the BattleCreekEnquirer.com relates that Ramona
Saldana was working in her sunny yard Monday afternoon (July 30).
She took a few steps, put her hands on her hips and looked at the
former Union Steel plant just down the street.  She was worried,
but she's not the only one.

Inside the building, behind the broken windows and crumbling
brick, a crew of nine men total worked in paper suits with
respirators to contain a dangerous material: asbestos.

"If I ever get sick, it'll be because of this," Saldana said, her
laugh tinged with concern.  "I'm concerned about the health and
other safety risks that could come of this."

After working to clean the Kalamazoo River in Albion in April, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is back at 501 N. Berrien St.
Previously, officials said, someone had emptied hazardous liquids
into drains that led to the river.

This time, the EPA is tackling an asbestos problem.  EPA official
say the crew will spend three weeks and as much as $288,000 to
make things safe.

"There was asbestos in the plant and it was secure but it was the
scrappers with no concern for it . . . began tearing it apart,
that's when it became a threat," EPA project manager Jeff Lippert
said.

Lippert said he believes metal pipes containing asbestos were
carelessly removed, causing asbestos to escape into the air.

The Union Steel plant was foreclosed and auctioned by Calhoun
County in September 2011.  Sold for $550, the plant may have been
mined for valuable scrap metal.

Officials in the Calhoun County Treasurer's office declined to
identify the current property owners Monday, July 30.

After it was determined that the building owners would not be able
take financial responsibility for the cleanup, the EPA tapped into
its Superfund.

"Any time there's no responsible party to take care of the
concern, that's what the superfunds are used for," Lippert said.

The Superfund is a federal environmental program created in the
1970s for uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites.

Sitting on his porch just down the street from the old plant,
James Wyrick said he knew the site had gotten out of control.

"I think they should be prosecuted," Wyrick said.  "If you're
responsible, you should try to help clean up your actions."

To contain the present asbestos threat, EPA officials have been
using wet methods, saturating the material and eliminating the
potential for an airborne threat.  Air samples in and outside of
the Union Steel site are being tested but have not shown high
levels of asbestos.

The EPA crew in the area plans to distribute fact sheets to
residents explaining their presence, the situation and what
neighbors can expect.  Lippert said that the residential areas
near the former Union Steel plant are not in any danger.

As Toni Simpson walked past the plant, shattered and boarded up,
she looked at the signs plastered along the walls.

"Danger: Asbestos: Cancer and Lung Disease Hazard," the signs
read.

Simpson watched the cleanup workers entering the building, pleased
something was being done.

"They shouldn't have bought it if they can't fix it up," Simpson
said of the owners.  "They've really caused problems for the
community."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Abatement Costs "Killing" Ohio Land Banks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ferenchik of The Columbus Dispatch reports that federal
interpretations of regulations on asbestos removal are hampering
efforts by cities to tear down scores of vacant and abandoned
homes in Ohio, land-bank officials say.

The cost of demolitions has risen 40% in Cuyahoga County, said
Cheryl Stephens, the acquisition director for the land bank there.
And delays have stretched as long as 90 days, said Jim Rokakis,
the director of Cleveland's Thriving Communities Institute, which
helps communities set up land banks to acquire and deal with
abandoned and vacant properties.

As a result, land banks "are getting killed," Rokakis said.
"Where a surgeon's scalpel makes sense, (federal officials are)
using a meat cleaver."

Staff members for both of Ohio's senators, Republican Rob Portman
and Democrat Sherrod Brown, said they are working with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to address the high costs without
jeopardizing residents' health.  In July, officials from Ohio land
banks spoke via conference call to U.S. EPA representatives,
trying to find a compromise.

The problem is that federal officials are interpreting the rules
in such a way that land banks must assess every house for asbestos
if it is part of a larger urban-renewal project, said Franklin
County Treasurer Ed Leonard, who oversees the county's new land
bank.  It doesn't make sense to spend precious dollars on asbestos
assessments when officials already know that a house doesn't have
any because of when it was built, he said.

Linda Oros, an Ohio EPA spokeswoman, said the rules are in place
to protect workers and neighbors from asbestos hazards, which
include lung cancer and mesothelioma.

The U.S. EPA is working with federal, state and local officials to
address concerns, spokesman Dale Kemery wrote in an email.

Ohio has an estimated 100,000 vacant and abandoned houses in
cities large and small because of decades of urban flight,
deindustrialization and the recent foreclosure crisis.  Columbus
has more than 6,200 such houses, and Mayor Michael B. Coleman has
pledged to demolish 900 over the next four years, using $11.5
million in city funds.

Franklin County's land bank, run by the Central Ohio Community
Improvement Corp., recently received $8.2 million from Attorney
General Mike DeWine's office, part of the $75 million the state
received in a national settlement with mortgage companies.

About 35% to 50% of home-demolition costs in Columbus go toward
asbestos assessment and removal, said Nichole Brandon, the deputy
development director.  That limits the number of homes the city
can tear down, she said.

One way to compromise would be to exempt one- to four-family homes
from asbestos assessments, Rokakis said.  In Cuyahoga County, for
example, only 4% of those houses were "hot" with asbestos.

Too much money is being used for unnecessary testing, agreed
Michael Beazley, the president of the land bank in Lucas County,
home to Toledo.

"We're looking to have the EPA identify some ways to lower costs
for the community," Beazley said.

In Lima in northwestern Ohio, the price to demolish one home rose
from $5,000 to $23,000 because of the asbestos regulations, said
Howard Elstro, that city's director of public works.

That limits Lima's ability to tear down more homes, especially as
federal neighborhood-stabilization dollars have run out, Elstro
said.

If federal officials agree to a compromise, the Franklin County
land bank will still address environmental hazards when necessary,
Leonard said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ETU Wants Answers on Bechtel Asbestos Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that workers on an island
at the heart of Australia's gas boom have been exposed to asbestos
by their American employer, a union says.

The Electrical Trades Union (ETU) is demanding an investigation
into US engineering giant Bechtel after workers were allegedly
exposed to asbestos on Curtis Island, Queensland's planned LNG
hub.

ETU state secretary Peter Simpson says he has evidence that 90 of
the union's 200 members on the island came into contact with the
carcinogenic substance while working with building materials
produced by Indonesian company Metito.

"Our investigations show Bechtel as the primary contractor has
failed the most basic duty of care; white asbestos is hazardous,
illegal and dangerous," Mr. Simpson said in a statement.

"We are demanding that Bechtel reveal the location and extent of
their dealings with Metito.  We want to know what they knew
before, during and after the exposures."

The ETU says the US firm is also withholding wages from its
members, who stopped work last week and are seeking answers about
the asbestos.

Bechtel later denied the allegations, saying that when traces of
asbestos were detected at sites on the island they had been
immediately quarantined.

Gladstone manager Kevin Berg maintained that the health and safety
of Bechtel's workers was the number one issue.

"Until we are satisfied that the equipment is safe, affected plant
supplied by this contractor across the projects has been secured
and no workers will be able to access it," he told AAP.

"The bottom line is that this is a serious issue which we are
determined to manage with the assistance of the workforce and the
independent industry experts we have brought in."

The company said preliminary testing showed the risk associated
with exposure was similar to that people would expect to
experience living in any city or larger regional centre.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jeffrey Mine Proponents Unhindered By Critics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Lalonde of The Montreal Gazette relates that if the
Charest government was hoping to avoid criticism by quietly
announcing the relaunch of Quebec's controversial asbestos
industry on the Friday before a holiday weekend, it might have
miscalculated.

In the month following the June 29 announcement that Quebec would
loan $58 million to help reopen and expand the Jeffrey Mine in the
town of Asbestos, newspapers across Quebec and Canada have run
editorials and columns condemning the decision.  The wisdom of
staking public money on this project has come under question, and
last month an international scientific organization of
epidemiologists joined the call for a global ban on asbestos.

In April 2011, the Liberal government had promised to provide a
guarantee on a $58-million loan to the project's proponents --
Westmount businessman Baljit Chadha and Jeffrey Mine president
Bernard Coulombe -- if and when they could come up with $25
million in private investments to enable the reopening of the
mine.

The government is now providing a direct loan rather than a
guarantee, and critics charge that's because no financial
institution would loan the money, even with a government
guarantee.  Asked why the government decided to provide a direct
loan, an aide to Economic Development Minister Sam Hamad said only
that it was done to speed up the relaunch.

"The Quebec government has done this in order to accelerate the
process of the relaunching the Jeffrey Mine," Economic Development
Ministry spokesperson Jean-Pierre D'Auteuil wrote in an email,
days after the question was posed in an interview.

Finding investors proved to be no easy task.  Although, Chadha and
Coulombe had earlier indicated they had an international
consortium of interested investors behind them, in the end they
seem to have found only one: Ulan Marketing Co. Ltd. of Thailand.

That company has put down $14 million, and the remaining $11
million in private investment has been scraped together by Chadha
and Coulombe themselves, Guy Versailles, a spokesperson for the
Jeffrey Mine, confirmed in an interview with The Gazette.

Chadha and Coulombe are now co-owners of a new company called
Mineral Fibre Inc. which owns the Jeffrey Mine.

"Mr. Coulombe and Mr. Chadha have already put their money into an
account at the mine, and Ulan of Thailand has put in $14 million.
The $25 million is there.  That money is there.  It is in the bank
account of the mine," Versailles said.

Asked about reports that Chadha and Coulombe have had to
remortgage their assets to get the money together, Versailles
warned against reading this as a sign of desperation.

"You have to be careful when you start talking about remortgaging
and such.  What we know is that businessmen like Mr. Chadha, who
have all kinds of different investments, they mortgage their homes
and leverage their assets left and right.  It's normal."

The provincial land registry indicates that Chadha took out a new
$1.7-million mortgage on his Westmount home on April 2 of this
year.

Proponents of Quebec's exportation of chrysotile asbestos to
developing countries say the substance is a low-cost construction
material that can be used safely to fulfill a growing demand in
the developing world.

The Thailand investor, Ulan Marketing, is part of a chain of
companies that make roofing tiles out of asbestos-reinforced
cement, and the company is predicting brisk sales next year,
according to news reports from Thailand.

The trouble is, the government of Thailand seems to be seriously
considering a ban on asbestos imports, following in the footsteps
of more than 50 countries worldwide.

A resolution calling for a ban from Thailand's National Health
Assembly was submitted to Thailand's National Health Commission,
which is chaired by the Prime Minister, in February of 2011.  Some
reports indicate the government will be voting on a ban as early
as September.

But Versailles is optimistic.

"The ban-asbestos movement exists in every country where there is
a market, and there is talk in Thailand about banning it, but so
far it hasn't happened.  Even if they succeed and asbestos is
banned in Thailand, then we will sell it elsewhere."

He stressed that the reopening of the mine, which he said will
begin production by summer of 2013, will benefit the region and
the province in a number of ways.  The loan bears a 10% interest
rate.  Over its expected 20-year lifetime, the mine will pay $124
million in mining duties, $176 million in corporate income taxes,
and $25 million in municipal taxes.  The mine will also support
425 direct jobs and 1,000 indirect jobs.

The company will also pay the province $1.5 million every year;
the first $7.5 million to be used to create a fund dedicated to
economic diversification of the mining region.  The mine is
expected to produce 250,000 tons of chrysotile asbestos per year
for a total of 5 million tons over the next 20 years.

While creating jobs in one region may help the Liberal
government's chances in the expected September election -- at
least in that region -- the asbestos file continues to bruise
Quebec's international reputation.

A damning position statement released in July by the Joint Policy
Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology called for a global ban
on mining, use, and export of all forms of asbestos.

The committee, which includes epidemiologists from around the
world, completed a thorough review of epidemiologic evidence and
concluded that all types of asbestos cause diseases and premature
death and that continued use of asbestos in developing countries
will lead to "a public health disaster of asbestos-related illness
and premature death for decades to come in those countries."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Proprietor, Contractor Fined for Negligence
------------------------------------------------------------
The Gloucestershire Echo reports that a High Street TV store and a
property company have been fined after a builder was exposed to
asbestos.

Matthew Thompson, 28, was brought in to help refurbish a
Cheltenham store.

But the construction worker did not realize he was pulling out
asbestos insulating boards.

His then-boss Simon Cooper, who runs Montpellier Property
Maintenance, has now been fined for not carrying out the necessary
checks beforehand.

And both men have been told by doctors that there is no way of
knowing if their contact with the substance will kill them.

The impact of asbestos usually takes between 15-40 years to become
apparent.

Asbestos fibers can cause serious diseases, including mesothelioma
and lung cancer, if inhaled.  They are responsible for an
estimated 4,500 deaths each year.

Matthew, who is married to Joanne, said: "There is nothing the
doctors can do until something happens later in life.

"I am hoping there is nothing wrong with me but, if there is, I
will have to deal with it as and when it happens."  Simon, aged
39, was asked by Hutchinson HiFi and Vision in February 2010 to
replace a suspended ceiling.

He claimed he was told checks had already been made for asbestos.

But prosecutors from the Health and Safety Executive said he
should have ensured he had received written evidence that the
substance was not at the site before starting the work himself.

Hutchinson HiFi and Vision should have ensured a demolition and
refurbishment survey was carried out and the results made
available to him, magistrates in Cheltenham were told.

Hutchinson HiFi & Vision Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching
Regulation 10 (1) (b) of the Construction (Design & Management)
Regulations 2007 and was fined GBP3,500 and ordered to pay
GBP1,836 in costs.  Nobody from the store was available for
comment.

Cooper, of Merlin Way, Leckhampton, pleaded guilty to breaching
Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was
fined GBP600 and ordered to pay GBP800 in costs.  He said: "I hold
my hands up and accept I should not have just trusted what someone
was telling me without getting it in writing.

"It was shocking when I found out.  I now have to face the fact
that it might cause us health problems in the future.  It could be
up to 40 years before any of us find out."

HSE inspector Simon Chilcott, said: "Exposure to asbestos can have
fatal or serious long term health consequences and, as such, every
precaution must be taken to minimize any risks when working on
buildings."



                           *********

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  * * *