CAR_Public/120817.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 17, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 163

                             Headlines

ACE LIMITED: Continues to Defend Suits Over Commercial Insurance
ANZ BANK: Court Begins Hearing on Overdraft Fee Class Action
AT&T TELEHOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Onerous Lunch Policy
AVON PRODUCTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
AVON PRODUCTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit

CANON USA: Recalls 68,200 of EOS Rebel T4i Digital Cameras
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: To Seek Dismissal From Two Remaining Cases
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Dismissal From Gas Mismeasurement Suit Sought
CLIF BAR: Recalls Mislabeled Blueberry Crisp CLIF(R) Bars
CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over False Claims on Parkay Spray Butter

DALE T. SMITH: Recalls 38,200 Pounds of Beef Products
DEX ONE: Awaits Court Approval of $2.1MM ERISA Suit Settlement
DEX ONE: Settlement in Suit vs. Ex-Officers Approved in June
DISH NETWORK: Sup. Ct. Review of Suit Dismissal Ruling Sought
DOW CHEMICAL: Unit's Pension Plan Made $122MM Settlement Payment

FMC CORP: Argument Over Indirect Purchase Claims Set for Oct.
FMC CORP: Defends Cross-Border Class Suit vs. Foret in Germany
FOREST OIL: Defends "Augenbaum" IPO-Related Suit in New York
FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Interns Seek to Expand Class Action
GARDEN FRESH: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

GENERAL REINSURANCE: 2nd Cir. Orders Class Certification Review
GOOGLE INC: Can Appeal Authors' Class Action Status
GRISTEDE'S FOODS: Settles Female Cashiers' Class Action
HULU LLC: Judge Allows Privacy Class Action to Proceed
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Defends Suits Alleging Underpayment of Claims

HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Amended Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: "Silsby" Suit Remains Stayed in N.Y. Court
INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Unfair Trade Practices Suits
INTEL CORP: Reversal Bid in McAfee-Related Suit Denied in July
NASDAQ OMX: Accused of Negligence Over Facebook's May 18 IPO

NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in Calif.
RADIAN GROUP: Still Defends RESPA-Violations Class Suits
SKECHERS USA: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend AATI Merger-Related Suit

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Generates Profit From "Passenger Usage Fees"
STANLEY BLACK: Sued in Conn. Over Ineffective Pest Repellants
STATE OF FLORIDA: Judge Tosses In-State Tuition Class Action
STURM RUGER: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Remains Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: 9th Cir. Affirms Order in ATM Fee Antitrust Suit

THOMSON REUTERS: To Settle Class Action Over FXall Tender Offer
TOYSMITH: Recalls 89,500 Animal Snap Bracelets Due to Cut Hazard
US HOME: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Texas
VIVENDI SA: Investors Can Use Facts From Suit to Pursue Claims
WELLPOINT COMPANIES: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action

WELLS REAL: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Securities Litigation
YAHOO INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Alipay Investment
ZYNGA INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Suits v. Union Pacific to Proceed to Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Ch.7 Conversion of Skinner Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Dana Companies' Bid to Dismiss Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses Worker's Suit v. United Air Lines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Affirms Judgment in Asbestos Removal Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Reverses Judgments in 3 Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. Reichhold to Proceed to Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies CBS's Bid to Dismiss or Transfer Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hormel Dismissed as Defendant in Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Dist. Ct. Denies Bid to Remand Exposure Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Ct. Reverses Decision in Duty to Warn Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Suits to be Tried in Groups, Court Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies CSX's Bid for Bifurcation of Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 550 New Claims Filed vs. Goodyear Tire in 2Q
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 18,626 PI Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Suit Remains Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Still Faces Asbestos Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco International Faced 5,200 Suits at June 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $1.03BB Reserves at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 36,000 Razed Christchurch Homes Eyed for Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleanup Temporarily Closes Hale Road School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peru Central School Renovation Stirs Up Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota Expected to Appeal JPY32 Million Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Agency Probes Dale Farm Contamination

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Impact of Early Meso Detection Questioned
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Melbourne Widow Gets $476,000 WorkCover Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watauga Leaders Grant Additional Abatement Funds
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SOS Says Containers at La Collette Releases Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 75% to 82% of Devon Public Schools Have Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Fibro Dumping A Growing Concern
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Macias v. Saberhagen Asbestos Case Reviewed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: El DuPont Nemours, 3 Others Face Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dump at Corio Bay Likely Be "Encapsulated"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buyers of Contaminated Pasadena Lot Sue Vendors

ASBESTOS UPDATE: OEPA Confirms Fibro Presence in Old Marion Plant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BoRit Site Asbestos Removal Reaches 2nd Stage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Plan for Zachary Tompkins Field Initiated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owner of Tracy Shooting Supplies May Have ARD
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thailand Tightens Regulation on Product Labeling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: S&P Lowers Corp. Credit Rating on Sealed Air
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bermuda Hospital Assures Safety Over Fibro Report
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Breath Testing for Mesothelioma Gains Traction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Political Party to Phase Out Fibro Export
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wenatchee Housing Rehab Program Fixes 44th Home

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 217 Bins of Fibro at La Collette Need Resolution
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Kills 52 People Yearly in Northern Cape
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Reports Increase in Sales, Profits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Testing Urged Before Every DYI Renovations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Power Plant Owner Faces $300K Abatement Bill

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tetra Tech To Manage Mexico DSS Bldg. Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4,000 Signed Against Fibro-Dumping in Chew Valley
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EA Reports 4,249 Burnley Fly-Tippings in 2010-11
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MoD Faces GBP250K Lawsuit After GBP17.5K Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim's Kin Blames QE Hospital

ASBESTOS UPDATE: China Carmakers Recalls 23,000 Units in Australia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Confirms High Carcinogenicity of Chrysotile
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deans Mill Cleanup Bars Minors From Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 217 Bins of Fibro to be Buried in Jersey
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Colony School Remains AHERA Compliant


                          *********

ACE LIMITED: Continues to Defend Suits Over Commercial Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Limited continues to defend numerous lawsuits filed by
insurance policyholders concerning commercial insurance, according
to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

ACE Limited, ACE INA Holdings Inc., and ACE USA, Inc., along with
a number of other insurers and brokers, were named in a series of
federal putative nationwide class actions brought by insurance
policyholders.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) consolidated these cases in the District of New Jersey.  On
August 1, 2005, plaintiffs in the New Jersey consolidated
proceedings filed two consolidated amended complaints -- one
concerning commercial insurance and the other concerning employee
benefit plans.  The employee benefit plans litigation against ACE
Limited has been dismissed.

In the commercial insurance complaint, the plaintiffs named ACE
Limited, ACE INA Holdings Inc., ACE USA, Inc., ACE American
Insurance Co., Illinois Union Insurance Co., and Indemnity
Insurance Co. of North America.  They allege that certain brokers
and insurers, including certain ACE entities, conspired to
increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B"
quotes and contingent commissions.  In addition, they allege that
the broker defendants received additional income by improperly
placing their clients' business with insurers through related
wholesale entities that acted as intermediaries between brokers
and insurers.  Plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied
the purchase of primary insurance to the placement of such
coverage with reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants'
reinsurance broker subsidiaries.  The complaint asserts the
following causes of action against the ACE defendants: Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), federal
antitrust law, state antitrust law, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

In 2006 and 2007, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' first two
attempts to properly plead a case without prejudice and permitted
plaintiffs one final opportunity to re-plead.  The amended
complaint, filed on May 22, 2007, purported to add several new ACE
defendants: ACE Group Holdings, Inc., ACE US Holdings, Inc.,
Westchester Fire Insurance Company, INA Corporation, INA Financial
Corporation, INA Holdings Corporation, ACE Property and Casualty
Insurance Company, and Pacific Employers Insurance Company.
Plaintiffs also added a new antitrust claim against Marsh, the ACE
defendants, and other insurers based on the same allegations as
the other claims but limited to excess casualty insurance.  In
2007, the Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs'
antitrust and RICO claims with prejudice.  The Court also declined
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law
claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice.  Plaintiffs
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.  On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed, in part,
and vacated, in part, the District Court's previous dismissals
with instructions for further briefing at the District Court on
remand.  Defendants renewed their motions consistent with the
Third Circuit's instructions.  On June 28, 2011, the District
Court administratively terminated defendants' motions without
prejudice to re-file after adjudication of issues related to a
proposed class settlement involving a number of other parties and
stayed the case.  On October 17, 2011, the Court lifted the stay
and indicated that it will issue a new scheduling order in the
coming months.  On April 30, 2012, the Court entered a discovery
scheduling order; discovery is ongoing.

As of July 31, 2012, plaintiffs have not specified an amount of
alleged damages and the Court has not decided defendants' renewed
motions to dismiss.  The Court has also not determined if this
case may proceed as a class action and has, therefore, not
determined the size or scope of any class.  As a result, ACE is
unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from this litigation.

There are a number of federal actions brought by policyholders
based on allegations similar to the allegations in the
consolidated federal actions that were filed in, or transferred
to, the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey for coordination ("tag-along cases").  On October 17, 2011,
the Court lifted the stay and indicated that it will issue a new
scheduling order.  On April 30, 2012, the Court entered a
discovery scheduling order; discovery is ongoing.

   * New Cingular Wireless Headquarters LLC et al. v. Marsh &
     McLennan Companies, Inc. et al. (Case No. 06-5120; D.N.J.),
     was originally filed in the Northern District of Georgia on
     April 4, 2006.  ACE Limited, ACE American Ins. Co., ACE USA,
     Inc., ACE Bermuda Insurance Ltd., Illinois Union Ins. Co.,
     Pacific Employers Ins. Co., and Lloyd's of London Syndicate
     2488 AGM, along with a number of other insurers and brokers,
     are named.

   * Avery Dennison Corp. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et
     al. (Case No. 07-00757; D.N.J.) was filed on February 13,
     2007.  ACE Limited, ACE INA Holdings Inc., ACE USA, Inc.,
     and ACE American Insurance Co., along with a number of other
     insurers and brokers, are named.

   * Henley Management Co., Inc. et al. v. Marsh, Inc. et al.
     (Case No. 07-2389; D.N.J.) was filed on May 27, 2007.  ACE
     USA, Inc., along with a number of other insurers and Marsh,
     Inc., are named.

   * Sears, Roebuck & Co. et al. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
     Inc. et al. (Case No. 07-2535; D.N.J.) was originally filed
     in the Northern District of Georgia on October 12, 2007.
     ACE American Insurance Co., ACE Bermuda Insurance Ltd., and
     Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Co., along with a number
     of other insurers and brokers, are named.

   * Lincoln Adventures LLC et al. v. Those Certain Underwriters
     at Lloyd's, London Members of Syndicates 0033 et al. (Case
     No. 07-60991; D.N.J.) was originally filed in the Southern
     District of Florida on July 13, 2007.  Supreme Auto
     Transport LLC et al. v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's of
     London, et al. (Case No. 07-6703; D.N.J.) (Supreme Auto) was
     originally filed in the Southern District of New York on
     July 25, 2007.  Lloyd's of London Syndicate 2488 AGM, along
     with a number of other Lloyd's of London Syndicates and
     various brokers, are named in both actions.  The allegations
     in these putative class-action lawsuits are similar to the
     allegations in the consolidated federal actions, although
     these lawsuits focus on alleged conduct within the London
     insurance market.  On May 29, 2012, the Supreme Auto case
     was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the
     plaintiffs.

As of July 31, 2012, plaintiffs have not specified an amount of
alleged damages in any of the remaining tag-along cases.  The
proceedings in the tag-along cases were stayed at a very early
stage, before the ACE defendants could challenge the sufficiency
of the claims with, for example, motions to dismiss.  Also, the
scope of the tag-along cases, in large part, will be affected by
the outcome of the Multidistrict Litigation Court's decision on
defendants' renewed motions to dismiss.  As a result, ACE is
unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from these litigations.

In addition to the related federal cases, there are two state
cases with allegations similar to those in the consolidated
federal actions:

   * Van Emden Management Corporation v. Marsh & McLennan
     Companies, Inc., et al. (Case No. 05-0066A; Superior Court
     of Massachusetts), a class action in Massachusetts, was
     filed on January 13, 2005.  Illinois Union Insurance Company
     is named.  The Van Emden case has been stayed pending
     resolution of the consolidated proceedings in the District
     of New Jersey or until further order of the Court.

     As of July 31, 2012, plaintiffs have not specified an amount
     of alleged damages in this case.  The proceedings were
     stayed at a very early stage, before Illinois Union could
     challenge the sufficiency of the claims with, for example, a
     motion to dismiss.  As a result, ACE is unable to reasonably
     estimate the potential loss or range of losses, if any,
     arising from this litigation.

   * State of Ohio, ex. rel. Marc E. Dann, Attorney General v.
     American Int'l Group, Inc. et al. (Case No. 07-633857; Court
     of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio) is an Ohio state
     action filed by the Ohio Attorney General on August 24,
     2007.  ACE INA Holdings Inc., ACE American Insurance Co.,
     ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Insurance Company of
     North America, and Westchester Fire Insurance Co., along
     with a number of other insurance companies and Marsh, are
     named.  In December 2011 the ACE parties agreed to settle
     the case for $1.97 million.  On December 27, 2011, the case
     was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

In all of the lawsuits, except where specifically noted,
plaintiffs seek compensatory and in some cases special damages
without specifying an amount.  As a result, ACE cannot at this
time estimate its potential costs related to these legal matters
and, accordingly, no liability for compensatory damages has been
established in the consolidated financial statements.

ACE says its ultimate liability for these matters is not likely to
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition, although it is possible that the effect could be
material to ACE's consolidated results of operations for an
individual reporting period.


ANZ BANK: Court Begins Hearing on Overdraft Fee Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Agence France-Presse reports that an Australian court began
hearing what is said to be the country's largest class action case
on Aug. 14 with tens of thousands of consumers fighting back
against US$231 million in bank fees.

The lawsuit against the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group
(ANZ) is part of a larger class action against eight major
lenders, with 170,000 consumers alleging that their penalty
charges are excessive and illegal.

Lead lawyer Andrew Watson said the case, which could have huge
ramifications for consumers, would claim that fees for services
like account overdrawals were "out of all proportion" to what it
costs to provide them.

"The banks have been charging excessive fees for many years now
and this case will be a real test in the High Court of the extent
of the doctrine of penalties," Mr. Watson told ABC television.
"We're arguing for an expanded doctrine, one which looks at the
reality of these transactions."

Mr. Watson said a win would have "incredible implications" for the
170,000 customers who had joined what is said to be Australia's
largest class action, asking that the banks repay AUD220 million
in "extravagant" penalty fees.

"More broadly it will have an impact on banking customers right
across Australia, and for consumers in relation to all sorts of
transactions," he said.

According to documents filed with the High Court on behalf of
38,000 ANZ customers, the case hinges on a "variety of fees for
overdrafts, overdrawn accounts, dishonor fees and overlimit credit
card accounts".

The lower-level Federal Court ruled in December that only four
classes of fees falling under ANZ's late payment schedule relating
to credit cards merited being characterized as a "penalty" that
could be contested in court.

ANZ was cleared over four other classes covering over-drawing from
accounts and having insufficient funds to make scheduled payments,
in the case first launched in 2010.

Maurice Blackburn, the legal firm representing the customers, has
appealed to the High Court seeking a broader finding of what
constitutes a penalty in the hopes of expanding the case against
the banks.

ANZ had welcomed the earlier ruling, which was largely in its
favor, and said it would vigorously defend itself.


AT&T TELEHOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Onerous Lunch Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T
enforces such grim conditions on lunch breaks -- no reading, no
music, no heat or air-conditioning, guard the manholes -- that
it's no break at all, technicians say in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Deborah Sturgeon says AT&T's lunch policy is so
onerous, it encourages technicians to work through their break
without pay.

Sturgeon and 10 other named plaintiffs from Indiana sued AT&T
Teleholdings, Indiana Bell, Ameritech Services and AT&T Services.

The technicians do a variety of jobs, including underground cable
or manhole work and installing Internet, telephone and cable
services.  They work 8- to 9-hour shifts, with an unpaid lunch
break of 30 to 60 minutes.

It's hardly a break though, the class claims: "First, technicians
assigned to underground cable (or manhole work) are subject to the
specific restriction that they must remain at the site of the
manhole and guard it throughout the lunch break.

"Second, technicians not assigned to manhole work may eat their
lunches at eating establishments outside of their vehicles, but
under heavy restriction as to where.  Specifically, they are
required to break while en route from one assigned job site to
another along GPS-monitored routes prescribed by the company, and
are prohibited from deviating more than one-half mile from those
routes (even in rural areas).

"Leaving the prescribed route by more than the half mile permitted
during the lunch break is grounds for discipline; yet more often
than not, finding a place to eat within the half mile is difficult
to impossible.

"Third, technicians may eat packed lunches in the company vehicle
rather than attempting to find an establishment within the
prescribed radius from their routes, but rules designed and
enforced to preserve the company's public image prohibit them --
after the few minutes that consuming the packed lunch typically
requires -- from using the remainder of the 30 to 60 minute unpaid
lunch break for any personal activities such as reading
newspapers, magazines, or books in the vehicle, napping or using
personal laptops or CD players, etc.

"Further, and regardless or the weather, AT&T Midwest does not
permit these technicians to idle their vehicles, and hence
prohibits their use of heating or air conditioning in the vehicle
during the course of the unpaid lunch break."

Breaking any of these rules can get them disciplined, the class
claims.

And, they say, AT&T's performance evaluation ranking system "puts
the technicians under significant pressure to work through the
unpaid lunch breaks in order to complete as many jobs as possible
in each work shift."

"In combination, the company's restrictions on movement and
activities during the unpaid lunch break and its productivity
measurement system put pressure on the technicians to work through
all or part of the lunch break without pay (rather than sitting in
a potentially cold or overheated vehicle doing nothing)."

The class seeks an injunction and punitive damages for violations
of the Fair Labor Standard Act, and violations of Indiana's wage
and record-keeping laws.

A copy of the Complaint in Sturgeon, et al. v. AT&T Teleholdings,
Inc., Case No. 12-cv-01099 (S.D. Ind.), is available at;

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/14/AT&TCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kimberly D. Jeselskis, Esq.
          JESELSKIS LAW OFFICES, LLC
          6515 East 82nd Street, Suite 207
          Indianapolis, IN 46250
          Telephone: (317) 596-1000
          E-mail: kjeselskis@kdjlegal.com


AVON PRODUCTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In April 2012, several purported shareholders' actions were filed
against the Company and certain present or former directors of the
Company in New York Supreme Court, New York County (Pritika v.
Jung, et al., Index No. 651072/2012; Feinman v. Avon Products,
Inc., et al., Index No. 651087/2012; Gaines v. Jung, et al., Index
No. 651097/2012; Schwartz v. Avon Products, Inc., et al.,
651152/2012; Robaczynki, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Avon Products,
Inc. v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651176/2012).  On April 26, 2012,
the actions were consolidated in New York Supreme Court, New York
County (In re Avon Products, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated Index No. 651087/2012E).  An amended consolidated
complaint was filed on May 18, 2012.  The amended consolidated
complaint asserts a derivative claim against the individual
defendants based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
Company is named as a nominal defendant on the purported
derivative claim, and no relief appears to be sought against the
Company on that claim.  The amended consolidated complaint also
asserts a direct claim on behalf of a class of shareholders
against the individual defendants based on alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as
injunctive relief.  On June 27, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated action.

In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company says it is unable to predict the outcome
of the class action claim and are unable to make an estimate of
the amount or range of loss that it is reasonably possible that
the Company could incur from an unfavorable outcome.

Avon Products, Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of beauty and
related products.  The Company's corporate headquarters is in New
York City.


AVON PRODUCTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a purported shareholder class action lawsuit pending in
New York, according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against certain
present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. On
September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management
Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel.  Lead plaintiffs have filed an amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's
common stock from July 31, 2006, through and including October 26,
2011.  The amended complaint names the Company and two individual
defendants and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements
and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's
compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"),
including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14,
2012.

In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company says it is unable to predict the outcome
of this matter and is unable to make an estimate of the amount or
range of loss that it is reasonably possible that it could incur
from an unfavorable outcome.

Avon Products, Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of beauty and
related products.  The Company's corporate headquarters is in New
York City.


CANON USA: Recalls 68,200 of EOS Rebel T4i Digital Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Canon U.S.A., Inc., of Lake Success, New York, announced a
voluntary recall of about 68,200 units of EOS Rebel T4i Digital
SLR Cameras.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A chemical used in the camera's rubber grips can result in a
reaction that changes the grips from black to white and poses a
risk of skin irritation to the consumer.

Canon U.S.A., Inc. has received one report of a consumer who
developed a minor rash after contact with a surface where the
camera had been.

This recall involves EOS Rebel T4i digital SLR cameras with a 12-
digit serial number that contain a second digit that is a "3" or
"4" and a sixth digit that is a "1."  Serial numbers are printed
on the bottom of the camera.  The Canon logo and the model name
are printed on the front of the camera.  A picture of the recalled
products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12246.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold at B&H
Photo, Best Buy and camera and mass merchandise stores nationwide
and Amazon.com and other online retailers between June 2012 and
July 2012 for between $850 and $1,200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cameras and
contact Canon U.S.A. to have replacement rubber grips installed
free of charge.  For additional information, contact the firm
toll-free at (855) 902-3277 between 8:00 a.m. to midnight Eastern
Time Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Saturday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.usa.canon.com/


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: To Seek Dismissal From Two Remaining Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp. will continue to pursue
dismissal from two pending cases alleging violations of state and
federal antitrust laws in connection with the operation of natural
gas markets in 2000-2002, according to the Company's August 10,
2012 Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002. CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, Reliant Resources,
Inc. (RRI), was a participant in gas trading in the California and
Western markets. These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as
class actions, allege violations of state and federal antitrust
laws. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms
of relief, including, among others, recovery of compensatory
damages (in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of
compensatory damages, full consideration damages and attorneys'
fees. CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009. CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have been
released or dismissed from all but two of such cases. CenterPoint
Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CERC Corp., is a
defendant in a case now pending in federal court in Nevada
alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in
2000-2002.  In July 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims against the other defendants in the case, each
of whom had demonstrated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
jurisdictional sales for resale during the relevant period, based
on federal preemption.  The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007, but in
March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Nevada
Supreme Court. CenterPoint Energy believes that neither it nor CES
is a proper defendant in these remaining cases and will continue
to pursue dismissal from those cases.  CenterPoint Energy does not
expect the ultimate outcome of these remaining matters to have a
material impact on its financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Dismissal From Gas Mismeasurement Suit Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp. disclosed in its August 10,
2012 Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that plaintiffs in two gas
mismeasurement lawsuits have filed a motion to dismiss certain
defendants from their lawsuits, including CenterPoint Energy
defendants.

CERC Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
mismeasurement lawsuits brought against approximately 245 pipeline
companies and their affiliates pending in state court in Stevens
County, Kansas.  In one case (originally filed in May 1999 and
amended four times), the plaintiffs purport to represent a class
of royalty owners who allege that the defendants have engaged in
systematic mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more
than 25 years. The plaintiffs amended their petition in this
lawsuit in July 2003 in response to an order from the judge
denying certification of the plaintiffs' alleged class. In the
amendment, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against certain
defendants (including two CERC Corp. subsidiaries), limited the
scope of the class of plaintiffs they purport to represent and
eliminated previously asserted claims based on mismeasurement of
the British thermal unit (Btu) content of the gas. The same
plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit, again as representatives
of a putative class of royalty owners in which they assert their
claims that the defendants have engaged in systematic
mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for more than 25
years. In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
along with statutory penalties, treble damages, interest, costs
and fees.  In September 2009, the district court in Stevens
County, Kansas, denied plaintiffs' request for class certification
of their case and, in March 2010, denied the plaintiffs' request
for reconsideration of that order.  In July 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to dismiss certain defendants from both lawsuits,
including the remaining CenterPoint Energy defendants.

CERC believes that there has been no systematic mismeasurement of
gas and that these lawsuits are without merit. CERC does not
expect the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits to have a material
impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


CLIF BAR: Recalls Mislabeled Blueberry Crisp CLIF(R) Bars
---------------------------------------------------------
Clif Bar & Company is initiating a voluntary recall of a small
amount of 12-pack Blueberry Crisp CLIF(R) Bars and individual
mislabeled Blueberry Crisp CLIF Bars in Chocolate Chip CLIF Bar
Wrappers with one "Best By" date 17MAR13G3 that were distributed
to a limited number of stores predominately east of the
Mississippi.  The 12-packs may contain Blueberry Crisp CLIF Bars
that are mislabeled with Chocolate Chip CLIF Bar wrappers and do
not list almonds in the ingredient statement.  Clif is taking this
precautionary safety step for people who are allergic to almonds.

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

Only the product meeting the following criteria is affected:

   * 12-pack boxes of Blueberry Crisp CLIF Bars with "Best By"
     date 17MAR13G3 UPC: 7-22252-30260-1

   * Blueberry Crisp CLIF Bars mislabeled in Chocolate Chip CLIF
     Bar individual wrappers with the same "Best By" date
     17MAR13G3

   * UPC: 7-22252-10090-0

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm315531.htm

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

The company is strongly advising consumers who have almond
allergies not to consume these mislabeled bars with "Best By" date
17MAR13G3 and discard them to avoid the possibility of an allergic
reaction.  People with an allergy to almonds 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
call 888-992-6227, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time,
Monday-Friday.  Details also can be found at
http://www.clifbar.com/almond/

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


CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over False Claims on Parkay Spray Butter
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that ConAgra Foods pushes its
Parkay Spray Butter with false claims that it's "fat free" and
"calorie free," though it has 832 calories and 93 grams of fat per
bottle, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Trewhitt v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., Case
No. 12-cv-00287 (D. Neb.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/14/Butter.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ureka E. Idstrom, Esq.
          THE EUREKA LAW FIRM
          6744 Holmes Road
          Kansas City, MO 64131
          Telephone: (816) 665-3515
          E-mail: uidstrom@eurekalawfirm.com

               - and -

          Larry D. Wright, Esq.
          WRIGHT & FISHER
          1000 Broadway Blvd.
          Fourth Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: 816-471-7008
          E-mail: larry@wrightandfisher.com


DALE T. SMITH: Recalls 38,200 Pounds of Beef Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Dale T. Smith and Sons Meat Packing, a Draper, Utah establishment,
is recalling approximately 38,200 pounds of beef products that may
be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * Various weight combo bins of Boneless Beef "50/50," "85/15,"
     "90/10," "93/07" or "95/05" produced on August 7, 2012.

   * Various weight boxes of primal cuts, subprimal cuts and
     boxed beef produced on August 7, 2012.

Each box bears a label with the identifying package date of
"08/07/2012" as well as the establishment number "EST. 4975"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products subject to
recall were distributed to wholesale and retail establishments in
California and Salt Lake City, Utah.  It is important to note that
the products were destined for further processing and may not bear
"EST. 4975" on the products available for direct consumer
purchase.  When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be
posted on FSIS' Web site at:

  http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp

The problem was discovered through lab testing conducted by USDA's
Agricultural Marketing Service, which confirmed positive results
for E. coli O157:H7, and may have occurred as a result of a
refrigeration malfunction.  The company is recalling all beef
products produced on August 7, 2012, because of a strong potential
for cross contamination during production.  FSIS and the company
have received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption
of these products.  Individuals concerned about an illness should
contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and to ensure
that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and in the most severe cases, kidney
failure.  The very young, seniors and persons with weak immune
systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160 degrees F.  The only
way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high
enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that
measures internal temperature.

Consumers and media with questions regarding the recall should
contact the company's Plant Manager, Mike Smith, at (801) 571-
3611.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
www.AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen"
live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.


DEX ONE: Awaits Court Approval of $2.1MM ERISA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dex One Corporation is awaiting court approval of a $2.1 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed against its
subsidiaries alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, according to the Company's August 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On December 7, 2009, a putative ERISA class action lawsuit was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of certain participants in, or
beneficiaries of, the R.H. Donnelley 401(k) Savings Plan at any
time between July 26, 2007, and January 29, 2010 and whose plan
accounts included investments in R.H. Donnelley common stock.

R.H. Donnelley Corporation and R.H. Donnelley Inc. are direct
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Dex One Corporation.

The putative ERISA class action complaint contains allegations
against certain current and former directors, officers and
employees similar to those set forth in the Securities Class
Action Complaint as well as allegations of breaches of fiduciary
duties under ERISA and seeks damages and equitable relief.  The
Company is not named as a defendant in this ERISA class action.
On June 21, 2012, the parties to the ERISA class action lawsuit
entered into a memorandum of understanding containing the
essential terms of a settlement of all disputes between them.  On
July 9, 2012, a formal settlement agreement and release was filed
with the court.  Pursuant to the settlement agreement and release,
in exchange for a complete release of all claims, the Company's
fiduciary liability insurers will create a $2.1 million settlement
fund for the benefit of the settlement class.  The Company is not
making any financial contribution to the settlement fund.  The
settlement agreement and release is subject to final court
approval, which the Company expects to receive during the second
half of 2012.


DEX ONE: Settlement in Suit vs. Ex-Officers Approved in June
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement resolving a securities class action lawsuit against
Dex One Corporation's former officers was approved in June 2012,
according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

Beginning on October 23, 2009, a series of putative securities
class action lawsuits were commenced against certain former
Company officers in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities
between July 26, 2007, and the time the Company filed for
bankruptcy on May 28, 2009, alleging that such officers issued
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial condition and seeking damages and equitable relief.
On August 19, 2010, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed as the operative securities class action complaint (the
"Securities Class Action Complaint").  The Company is not named as
a defendant in the Securities Class Action Complaint.  On December
30, 2011, the parties to the Securities Class Action Complaint
entered into a memorandum of understanding containing the
essential terms of a settlement of all disputes between them.  On
February 17, 2012, a formal stipulation of settlement was filed
with the court.  Pursuant to the stipulation of settlement, in
exchange for a complete release of all claims, the Company's
director's and officer's liability insurers will create a $25
million settlement fund for the benefit of the settlement class.
The Company is not making any financial contribution to the
settlement fund.  The stipulation of settlement was approved by
the court on June 19, 2012.


DISH NETWORK: Sup. Ct. Review of Suit Dismissal Ruling Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in an antitrust action against a unit of DISH Network
Corporation filed a petition seeking review by the United States
Supreme Court of a lower court decision dismissing their lawsuit
with prejudice, according to the Company's August 10, 2012 Form
10-Q/A filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against DISH Network Corporation's
wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
lawsuit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision,
Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal,
Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company.  The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged
in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled
channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to
purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.  On October 16, 2009,
the District Court entered an order granting the defendants'
motion to dismiss with prejudice.  On June 3, 2011, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
order.  The plaintiff class sought rehearing en banc.  On October
31, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued an order vacating the previous
June 3, 2011 order, directing that a 3-judge panel be
reconstituted, and denying the plaintiff class' motion for
rehearing.  On March 30, 2012, the reconstituted panel of the
Ninth Circuit again affirmed the District Court's order.  On April
10, 2012, the plaintiff class again filed a petition for rehearing
en banc, which was denied on May 4, 2012.  On August 2, 2012, the
plaintiff class filed a petition seeking review by the United
States Supreme Court.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. The Company
cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the
lawsuit or determine the extent of any potential liability or
damages.


DOW CHEMICAL: Unit's Pension Plan Made $122MM Settlement Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The pension plan of a unit of The Dow Chemical Company made
settlement payments totaling $122 million during the second
quarter of 2012, according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In December 2005, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana (the "District Court") issued a
decision granting a class of participants in the Rohm and Haas
Pension Plan (the "Rohm and Haas Plan") who had retired from Rohm
and Haas Company ("Rohm and Haas"), now a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Company, and who elected to receive a lump sum benefit from
the Rohm and Haas Plan, the right to a cost-of-living adjustment
("COLA") as part of their retirement benefit.  In August 2007, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Seventh Circuit") affirmed
the District Court's decision, and in March 2008, the U.S. Supreme
Court denied the Rohm and Haas Plan's petition to review the
Seventh Circuit's decision.  The case was returned to the District
Court for further proceedings.  In October 2008 and February 2009,
the District Court issued rulings that have the effect of
including in the class all Rohm and Haas retirees who received a
lump sum distribution without a COLA from the Rohm and Haas Plan
since January 1976.  These rulings are subject to appeal, and the
District Court has not yet determined the amount of the COLA
benefits that may be due to the class participants.  The Rohm and
Haas Plan and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement
that, in addition to settling the litigation with respect to the
Rohm and Haas retirees, provides for the amendment of the
complaint and amendment of the Rohm and Haas Plan to include
active employees in the settlement benefits.  The District Court
preliminarily approved the settlement on November 24, 2009 and,
following a hearing on March 12, 2010, issued a final order
approving the settlement on April 12, 2010.

A group of objectors to the settlement filed an appeal from the
final order.  In November 2010, the District Court issued an order
approving class counsel's fee award petition in an amount
consistent with the terms of the settlement.  The same objectors
also appealed this order.  On September 2, 2011, the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the approval of the settlement and award of
attorneys' fees.  A lone objector filed a petition for rehearing,
which was denied on October 17, 2011.  The objector continued the
appeal process by timely filing a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on
April 16, 2012, rendering the settlement and award of attorneys'
fees final.

A pension liability associated with this matter of $185 million
was recognized as part of the acquisition of Rohm and Haas on
April 1, 2009.  The liability, which was determined in accordance
with the accounting guidance for contingencies, recognized the
estimated impact of the judicial decisions on the long-term Rohm
and Haas Plan obligations owed to the applicable Rohm and Haas
retirees and active employees.  The Company had a liability
associated with this matter of $189 million at December 31, 2011.
The Rohm and Haas Plan made settlement payments totaling $122
million during the second quarter of 2012.  The Company's
remaining liability for this matter was $67 million at June 30,
2012.  Approximately 40 percent of the remaining liability is
expected to be settled by the end of 2012 and the remaining
liability will be resolved over time through the administration of
the Rohm and Haas Plan.


FMC CORP: Argument Over Indirect Purchase Claims Set for Oct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation is awaiting resolution by the Canadian Supreme
Court of the viability of indirect purchaser claims, the argument
of which is currently scheduled for October 2012, according to the
Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In 2005 after public disclosures of the U.S. federal grand jury
investigation into the hydrogen peroxide industry (which resulted
in no charges brought against the Company) and the filing of
various class actions in U.S. federal and state courts, which have
all been settled, putative class actions against the Company and
five other major hydrogen peroxide producers were filed in
provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under
the laws of Canada.  The other five defendants have settled these
claims for a total of approximately $20.6 million.  On
September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen
peroxide from 1994 to 2005.  The Company's motion for leave to
appeal the class certification decision was denied in June 2010.
Since then, the case has been largely dormant.

In early 2012 the parties began a more detailed dialogue on
discovery and at a hearing on April 5, 2012, they requested the
judge to issue more specific guidance on document production.  The
court instead stayed the litigation pending resolution by the
Canadian Supreme Court of the viability of indirect purchaser
claims.  The Canadian Supreme Court is scheduled to hear argument
on that issue in October 2012.

Since the proceedings are in the preliminary stages with respect
to the merits, the Company says it is unable to develop a
reasonable estimate of its potential exposure of loss at this
time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters.


FMC CORP: Defends Cross-Border Class Suit vs. Foret in Germany
--------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation continues to defend a cross-border class action
lawsuit in Germany involving its subsidiary, according to the
Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Multiple European purchasers of hydrogen peroxide who claim to
have been harmed as a result of alleged violations of European
competition law by hydrogen peroxide producers assigned their
legal claims to a single entity formed by a law firm.  The single
entity then filed a lawsuit in Germany in March 2009 against
European producers, including the Company's wholly-owned Spanish
subsidiary, Foret.  Initial defense briefs were filed in April
2010, and an initial hearing was held during the first quarter of
2011, at which time case management issues were discussed.  At a
subsequent hearing in October 2011, the Court indicated that it
was considering seeking guidance from the European Court of
Justice ("ECJ") as to whether the German courts have jurisdiction
over these claims.  After submission of written comments on this
issue by the parties, on March 1, 2012, the judge announced that
she would refer the jurisdictional issues to the ECJ.  Such a
reference to the ECJ normally takes 12-18 months for completion.

Since the case is in the preliminary stages and is based on a
novel procedure -- namely the attempt to create a cross-border
"class action" which is not a recognized proceeding under the
European Union or German law -- the Company says it is unable to
develop a reasonable estimate of its potential exposure of loss at
this time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.


FOREST OIL: Defends "Augenbaum" IPO-Related Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Oil Corporation is defending a class action lawsuit styled
Augenbaum v. Lone Pine Resources Inc. et al., in New York,
according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On May 25, 2012, a lawsuit, styled Augenbaum v. Lone Pine
Resources Inc. et al., was brought as a purported class action in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
against Forest, its then wholly-owned subsidiary, Lone Pine
Resources Inc. ("Lone Pine"), certain of Lone Pine's current and
former directors and officers (the "Individual Defendants"), and
certain underwriters (the "Underwriter Defendants") of Lone Pine's
initial public offering (the "IPO"), which was completed on June
1, 2011.  The complaint alleges that Lone Pine's registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the IPO
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
material facts relating to forest fires that occurred in Northern
Alberta in May 2011 and the rupture of a third party oil sales
pipeline in Northern Alberta in April 2011 and the impact of those
events on Lone Pine, that the alleged misstatements or omissions
violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act"), and that Lone Pine, the Individual Defendants, and the
Underwriter Defendants are liable for such violations.  The
complaint further alleges that the Underwriter Defendants offered
and sold Lone Pine's securities in violation of Section 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act, and the putative class members seek
rescission of the securities purchased in the IPO that they
continue to own and rescissionary damages for securities that they
have sold.  Finally, the complaint asserts a claim against Forest
under Section 15 of the Securities Act, alleging that Forest was a
"control person" of Lone Pine at the time of the IPO.  The
complaint alleges that the putative class, which purchased shares
of Lone Pine's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Lone
Pine's registration statement and prospectus, was damaged when the
value of the stock declined in August 2011.  The complaint does
not specify the amount of such damages.  Lone Pine has existing
obligations to indemnify Forest, the Individual Defendants, and
the Underwriter Defendants in connection with the lawsuit.  Forest
believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend
the claim against it vigorously.


FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Interns Seek to Expand Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline Hollywood, reports that a
hearing in Manhattan on August 24 could significantly enlarge the
class action suit two Black Swan interns brought last year against
Fox Searchlight.  In an order made public on Aug. 13, Judge
William Pauley III has agreed to a conference next week on Alex
Footman and Eric Glatt's request to amend their suit.  "Plaintiffs
will seek to broaden the scope of the case to include all interns
who participated in Fox Entertainment Group's ('FEG's") internship
program," wrote their lawyer Rachel Bien in an August 2 memo to
the judge.  The duo also want to separate the class of interns for
their suit into "Corporate Interns," those who worked through the
FEG program, and "Production Interns," those who worked on films
that Fox Searchlight co-produced.  To that end the amended suit
will add two new plaintiffs, Eden Antalik and Kanene Gratts.  The
former worked through the FEG program and the latter worked on
2009's (500) Days of Summer, a Searchlight co-produced film.  The
legal documents also state that "Ms. Gratts would seek to bring
classwide claims under California's Unfair Competition law for
unpaid minimum wages on behalf of Production Interns who worked in
California."

Fox had no comment on Aug. 13 on the potential expansion of the
suit.  Messrs. Footman and Glatt took their action on behalf of
themselves and more than 100 Fox Searchlight interns last
September to seek back wages for work that they did that they feel
they should have been paid for.  Then suit also aimed to cease
what it says is the studio's incorrect use of students for what is
supposed to be training similar to that provided by an educational
institution, not getting coffee and other grunt work.  Early last
October, after the initial suit was filed, Fox fired back that the
two were never actually Searchlight interns and were actually
working for Black Swan director Darren Aronofsky's production
company.  "These are completely meritless claims aimed solely at
getting press coverage for the litigants and their attorneys," Fox
said.  Fox Searchlight isn't the only company put under the intern
spotlight recently.  In March of this year, former Charlie Rose
Show intern Lucy Bickerton filed a class action suit against the
PBS show alleging it exploits its interns.  Messrs. Footman and
Glatt are represented by Rachel Bein and Adam T. Klein of New York
firm Outten & Golden LLP.


GARDEN FRESH: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
meat and poultry salad products that have been recalled by Garden
Fresh Foods.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/KCamZO,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
    -------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name          Location
    -------------          --------
    Cermak Fresh Market    Stores in greater Chicago, IL area
    and Cermak Produce
    Coborn's               Stores throughout MN, ND, and SD
    Festival Foods         Stores throughout MN and WI
    Harding's              Stores throughout MI
    Jewel Foods            Stores throughout IL, IN, IA
    Marsh Supermarket      Stores throughout IN and OH
    Martin's Food Market   Stores throughout IN
    Piggly Wiggly          Stores throughout WI
    Sentry                 Stores throughout WI
    Super One              Stores throughout MI, MN, ND, and WI
    SuperValu              Stores throughout IN, MI, and WI
    Target                 All stores nationwide
    Weis                   Stores throughout MD, NJ, NY, PA & WV

    Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name              City and State
    -------------              --------------
    Joe Caputo & Sons          Algonquin, Illinois
    Valli Produce              Arlington Heights, Illinois
    Prisco's                   Aurora, Illinois


    Woodman's                  Aurora, Illinois
    Walt's Beecher             Beecher, Illinois
    Edmar Foods Grocery Store  Bensenville, Illinois
    Village Market Place       Carol Stream, Illinois
    Woodman's                  Carpenterville, Illinois
    A & G                      Chicago, Illinois
    Edgewater Produce          Chicago, Illinois
    Family Fruit Market        Chicago, Illinois
    Family Pride               Chicago, Illinois
    Gene's Sausage Shop        Chicago, Illinois
    Harvest Time               Chicago, Illinois
    Hyde Park                  Chicago, Illinois
    L & P Provisions           Chicago, Illinois
    Market Place               Chicago, Illinois
    Pete's Produce             W 87th St., Chicago, Illinois
    Pete's Produce             E 87th St., Chicago, Illinois
    Potash Bros                Chicago, Illinois
    Shop & Save                Chicago, Illinois
    Treasure Island            Chicago, Illinois
    Super Marcado Torres       Cicero, Illinois
    Crete County Market        Crete, Illinois
    Joseph's Marketplace       Virginia St., Crystal Lake, IL
    Joseph's Marketplace       Crystal L. Plaza, Crystal Lake, IL
    Inbodens Meats             Dekalb, Illinois
    Dixmoor Fruit & Meat Mkt.  Dixmoor, Illinois
    Angelo's Foods             Downersgrove, Illinois
    Elgin Fresh Market         Mcclean Blvd., Elgin, Illinois
    Elgin Fresh Market         Summit St., Elgin, Illinois
    Cub Foods                  Freeport, Illinois
    Valli Produce              Glendale Heights, Illinois
    Valli Produce              Hoffman Estates, Illinois
    Walt's Homewood            Homewood, Illinois
    Angelo's Foods             Johnsburg, Illinois
    Lincolnwood Produce        Lincolnwood, Illinois
    Berkot's                   Lockport, Illinois
    Valli Produce              Loves Park, Illinois
    Angelo's Foods             Mchenry, Illinois
    Montgomery Marketplace     Montgomery, Illinois
    Produce World              Dempster, Mornton Grove, Illinois
    Produce World              Waukegan Rd., Morton Grove, IL
    The Meat Shop              Mundelein, Illinois
    H Mart                     Naperville, Illinois
    7-Eleven                   New Lenox, Illinois
    Fresh Farms Int'l Market   Niles, Illinois
    H Mart                     Niles, Illinois
    Produce World              Norridge, Illinois
    Bizio's Fresh Market Deli  Olympia Fields, Illinois
    Eurofresh Market           Palatine, Illinois
    Morning Fields             Park Ridge, Illinois
    Tischler Market            Plainfield, Illinois
    Van's Supermarket          Richmond, Illinois
    Woodman's                  Rockford, Illinois
    Main Street Meat Company   Roscoe, Illinois
    Pik-Kwik Foods             Roselle, Illinois
    Sullivan's                 Savanna, Illinois
    Seneca Foods               Seneca, Illinois
    Village Market Place       Skokie, Illinois
    Eurofresh Market           Tinley Park, Illinois
    Super Fresh                Waukegan, Illinois
    Westbrook Grocery Store    Westmont, Illinois
    7-Eleven                   Willowbrook, Illinois
    Lassak Market              Willowbrook, Illinois
    Grand Food Center          Winnatka, Illinois
    Lakeside Foods             Winnetka, Illinois
    Wisted's Supermarket       Woodstock, Illinois
    Wilson Farm Market         Arcadia, Indiana
    O'Malia                    Bloomington, Indiana
    O'Malia                    Carmel, Indiana
    Park-N-Shop                Culver, Indiana
    Manley Meats               Decatur, Indiana
    Fresh County Market        Gary, Indiana
    O'Malia                    N N.J. St., Indianapolis, IN
    O'Malia                    Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN
    Hardings Friendly Market   Middlebury, Indiana
    Groceries By Joe           New Carlisle, Indiana
    Mike's Market              Terre Haute, Indiana
    S&D Market                 Winamac, Indiana
    Houchen's                  Albany, Kentucky
    Ron's Deli                 Burgin, Kentucky
    IGA                        Burkesville, Kentucky
    California Marketplace     California, Kentucky
    Remke's                    Crescent Spring, Kentucky
    Ken's New Market           Cynthiana, Kentucky
    Hansman's Market           Dayton, Kentucky
    Riverside Marketplace      Dayton, Kentucky
    Remke's                    Florence, Kentucky
    Remke's                    Fort Mitchell, Kentucky
    Georgetown Cheese Store    Georgetown, Kentucky
    Houchen's                  Glasgow, Kentucky
    Houchen's                  Hardinsburg, Kentucky
    Remke's                    Hebron, Kentucky
    Houchen's                  Horse Cave, Kentucky
    Houchen's                  Leitchfield, Kentucky
    Frank's Meat & Produce     Louisville, Kentucky
    Valu Super Market          Whittington Pky., Louisville KY
    Valu Super Market          Outer Loop, Louisville, Kentucky
    Riverside Marketplace      Ludlow, Kentucky
    Midway Corner Grocery      Midway, Kentucky
    Valu Super Market          Mt Washington, Kentucky
    Houchen's                  Munfordville, Kentucky
    Remke's                    Newport, Kentucky
    IGA                        Scherm Road, Owensboro, Kentucky
    IGA                        Carter Road, Owensboro, Kentucky
    IGA                        E 25th St., Owensboro, Kentucky
    Remke's                    5016 Old T.M. Rd., Taylor Mill, KY
    Remke's                    6016 Old T.M. Rd., Taylor Mill, KY
    IGA                        Virgie, Kentucky
    Village Food Market        Allegan, Michigan
    Moscheck's Downriver Meat  Allen Park, Michigan
    IGA                        Alma, Michigan
    D&D Groceries              Alpena, Michigan
    Mohawk Superette           Alpena, Michigan
    Neiman's Market            Alpena, Michigan
    Hiller's                   Ann Arbor, Michigan
    Huron's Finest             Bad Axe, Michigan
    McDonalds Food Center      Bad Axe, Michigan
    Beson's Market             Bay City, Michigan
    Fruchey Family Market      Beaverton, Michigan
    Better Health              Bloomfield Hill, Michigan
    Brighton Super Market      Brighton, Michigan
    Marv's Meats               Brighton, Michigan
    Ben's Supermarket          Brown City, Michigan
    Nehring's Market           Burton, Michigan
    First Choice Meats         Cadillac, Michigan
    Pat's Foods                Calumet, Michigan
    Holiday Market             Canton, Michigan
    Bunting's Cedar Market     Cedar, Michigan
    Cedarville Foods           Cedarville, Michigan
    Oleson's                   Charlevoix, Michigan
    Louie's Fresh Market       Cheboygan, Michigan
    Boff's Quality Meats       Chesterfield Township, Michigan
    Witbeck's                  Clare, Michigan
    Julian Bros Italian Baker  Clawson, Michigan
    Nino's                     Clinton Township, Michigan
    Village Food Market        Colon, Michigan
    Hiller's                   Commerce Township, Michigan
    IGA                        Crystal Falls, Michigan
    Alcamo's Market            Dearborn, Michigan
    Dearborn Sausage           Dearborn, Michigan
    V Gonella's Original Deli  Dearborn, Michigan
    Pelham Market              Dearborn Heights, Michigan
    New Center Gourmet         Detroit, Michigan
    Savon Foods Supermarket    Detroit, Michigan
    Carl's Market              Dimondale, Michigan
    Dick's Food Market         Dorr, Michigan
    Riverside                  Durand, Michigan
    Fresh Choice Market        Eastpointe, Michigan
    Deering's Food Market      Empire, Michigan
    Elmer's County Market      Escanaba, Michigan
    Foster's Supermarket       Evart, Michigan
    Fennville Main St. Market  Fennville, Michigan
    Bueches                    Flushing, Michigan
    Curtis Grocery             Fowlerville, Michigan
    Pat's Foods                Freeland, Michigan
    Fruitport Orchard          Fruitport, Michigan
    Handy Mart                 Garden City, Michigan
    Village Food Market        Gobles, Michigan
    Food Castle                Grand Blanc, Michigan
    Duthler's Family Foods     Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Forest Hills               Grand Rapids, Michigan
    G B Russo & Son Int'l      Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Gene's Family Market       Grant, Michigan
    Jorgi's Marketplace        Greenville, Michigan
    Village Food Market        Grosse Pointe, Michigan
    Pat's Foods                Hancock, Michigan
    Steve's Country Market     Harrison, Michigan
    D-Brothers Store           Harrison Township, Michigan
    Metro Party Shoppe         Harrison Township, Michigan
    Hawks Mini Mart            Hawks, Michigan
    Chandler's Market          Hemlock, Michigan
    Hillsdale Market           Hillsdale, Michigan
    Russ' Commissary           Holland, Michigan
    Honor Family Market        Honor, Michigan
    Festival Foods             Houghton, Michigan
    Econo Foods                Houghton, Michigan
    Bird's Meat Market         Howard City, Michigan
    Leppink                    Howard City, Michigan
    Howell Village Market      Howell, Michigan
    Middletown Market          Howell, Michigan
    Ken's Village              Indian River, Michigan
    Angeli's Central Market    Iron River, Michigan
    IGA                        N 2nd St., Ishpeming, Michigan
    IGA                        US Hwy. 41 W, Ishpeming, Michigan
    Beef Barn                  Jackson, Michigan
    M & B Corners              Jackson, Michigan
    Polly's Spring             Jackson, Michigan
    Prime Cuts                 Jackson, Michigan
    Riteway Party Store        Jackson, Michigan
    Tiffany's                  Kalamazoo, Michigan
    Cherry Street Market       Kalkaska, Michigan
    Nothland Foodcenter        Kalkaska, Michigan
    Kinross Co-Op              Kincheloe, Michigan
    Nothland Foodcenter        Kingsley, Michigan
    Foster's Supermarket       Lake City, Michigan
    Leppink                    Lakeview, Michigan
    Foodtown                   Lambertville, Michigan
    Howard's Meats             Lambertville, Michigan
    Pat's Foods                L'Anse, Michigan
    Leland Mercantile          Leland, Michigan
    Kris Mart                  Lincoln, Michigan
    Value Center               Livonia, Michigan
    Best Choice Market         Ludington, Michigan
    Shop-N-Save                Ludington, Michigan
    Gourmet Express            Macomb, Michigan
    Value Center               Madison Heights, Michigan
    Manchester Market          Manchester, Michigan
    Wally's                    Marysville, Michigan
    Darrell's Supermarket      Mason, Michigan
    The Vault                  Mason, Michigan
    Wingert's                  Mayville, Michigan
    Angeli's County Market     Menominee, Michigan
    Metamora Foodland          Metamora, Michigan
    Tim's Market               Michigan Center, Michigan
    Middleville Market         Middleville, Michigan
    Country Corners Grocery    Midland, Michigan
    Milan City Market          Milan, Michigan
    Frank's Meat               Millington, Michigan
    Hi-Lite Supermkt - Deli    Monroe, Michigan
    Montague Foods             Montague, Michigan
    Ric's                      Mount Pleasant, Michigan
    Stahl's                    Mt. Clemens, Michigan
    Captain's Store            Mt. Clemens, Michigan
    Muir Village Market        Muir, Michigan
    IGA                        Munising, Michigan
    Hill Top                   Newaygo, Michigan
    Mac's Red Owl              Newberry, Michigan
    Martin's                   Niles, Michigan
    Bryan's Super Market       North Branch, Michigan
    Better Health              Novi, Michigan
    Mert's                     Okemos, Michigan
    Pat's Foods                Ontonagon, Michigan
    U Save                     Ontonagon, Michigan
    Bueches                    Ortonville, Michigan
    Louie's Fresh Market       Oscoda, Michigan
    Uncle Boomba's             Oxford, Michigan
    Pellston General Store     Pellston, Michigan
    IGA                        Perry, Michigan
    Louie's Fresh Market       Petoskey, Michigan
    Oleson's                   Petoskey, Michigan
    Hiller's                   Plymouth, Michigan
    Vic's Supermarket          Reed City, Michigan
    Poindexter's Specialty     Rockford, Michigan
    Romulus Market Place       Romulus, Michigan
    IGA                        Roscommon, Michigan
    Dearborn Sausage           Roseville, Michigan
    Fresh Approach             Royal Oak, Michigan
    Martin's                   Saint Joseph, Michigan
    Jerry's Foodland           Sandusky, Michigan
    Hollywood                  Shelby Township, Michigan
    Village Food Market        South Haven, Michigan
    Eureka Farm Market         Southgate, Michigan
    Fazer Foods                Spalding, Michigan
    Leppink                    Spring Lake, Michigan
    Spring Lake Orchard Mkt.   Spring Lake, Michigan
    Neiman's Market            St. Clair, Michigan
    Nautical                   St. Clair Shores, Michigan
    Nino's                     St. Clair Shores, Michigan
    Louie's Fresh Market       St. Helen, Michigan
    Roger's Foodland           St. Joseph, Michigan
    Anderson's & Girls' Orch.  Stanton, Michigan
    Martin's                   Stevensville, Michigan
    Central Meats              Sturgis, Michigan
    Neiman's Market            Tawas City, Michigan
    Deering's Food Market      Traverse City, Michigan
    Max Bauer's Market         Traverse City, Michigan
    Oleson's                   Hammond, Traverse City, Michigan
    Oleson's                   Long Lake Rd., Traverse City, MI
    TC Produce Market          Traverse City, Michigan
    Tom's                      Bay Shore Dr., Traverse City, MI
    Tom's                      Munson Ave., Traverse City, MI
    Nino's                     Troy, Michigan
    Whistle Stop Grocery       Union Pier, Michigan
    AJ's Meat Market           Vestaburg, Michigan
    Hiller's                   Walled Lake, Michigan
    Value Center               Warren, Michigan
    Bauman's                   Weidman, Michigan
    Hiller's                   West Bloomfield, Michigan
    Checkered Flag             West Branch, Michigan
    Hill Top                   White Cloud, Michigan
    White Lake Country Market  White Lake, Michigan
    Wagoner's                  White Pigeon, Michigan
    Tom's                      Williamsburg, Michigan
    Trentwood Farm Market      Woodhaven, Michigan
    Jerry's Market             Wyandotte, Michigan
    Shoppers Valley            Wyondotte, Michigan
    Cub Foods                  Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
    Jerry's Foods              Eden Prairie, Minnesota
    Woodland Marketplace Foods International Falls, Minnesota
    Teal's Market              Milaca, Minnesota
    Village Market Deli        Prior Lake, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                  Rogers, Minnesota
    Schutz Family Foods Deli   Sleepy Eye, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                  St. Louis Park, Minnesota
    Dehmer's Meat Market       St. Michael, Minnesota
    Cashwise                   Bismarck, North Dakota
    Cashwise                   Fargo, North Dakota
    Marketplace Foods          Minot, North Dakota
    Convenient                 Akron, Ohio
    Freshway Valley Grocery    Akron, Ohio
    Shaffer's Market           Akron, Ohio
    Country Fresh              Anderson, Ohio
    Gerwig's White Barn        Ashland, Ohio
    IGA                        Bainbridge, Ohio
    IGA                        Canfield, Ohio
    Fisher Foods               Harrison Avenue SW, Canton, Ohio
    Fisher Foods               Cleveland Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio
    Fisher Foods               Fulton Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio
    Fisher Foods               Cleveland Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio
    Bistro S                   Chagrin Falls, Ohio
    Mazzulo's Butcher Block    Chagrin Falls, Ohio
    Deer Park                  Cincinnati, Ohio
    Bigg's                     Cincinnati, Ohio
    Country Fresh              Cincinnati, Ohio
    Marsh                      Hamilton Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio
    Marsh                      Northland, Cincinnati, Ohio
    Summit Meats               Cincinnati, Ohio
    Clifton Constantino's Mkt  Cleveland, Ohio
    Dave's                     Cleveland, Ohio
    Irene Dever Westside Mkt.  Cleveland, Ohio
    K & K Portag               Cleveland, Ohio
    Dave's                     Cleveland Heights, Ohio
    Halls Garden Gate          Clyde, Ohio
    Anderson                   Columbus, Ohio
    Reider's Market            Concord Twp, Ohio
    Groceryland                Dayton, Ohio
    Green Farms                East Canton, Ohio
    Marsh                      Eaton, Ohio
    Dave's                     Euclid, Ohio
    Marsh                      Fairfield, Ohio
    IGA                        Frankfort, Ohio
    Marsh                      Franklin, Ohio
    IGA                        Ft. Recovery, Ohio
    Geyer Galion               Galion, Ohio
    Dave's                     Garfield Heights, Ohio
    IGA                        Hamilton, Ohio
    Marsh                      W Main St., Hamilton, Ohio
    Marsh                      Plaza Drive, Hamilton, Ohio
    Bigg's                     Harrison, Ohio
    Cornell's Food             Huron, Ohio
    Kent Sunoco West           Kent, Ohio
    Hatting's Market           Mack, Ohio
    Wood's Grocery             Malvern, Ohio
    Wayne's Market             Mansfield, Ohio
    Convenient                 Maple Heights, Ohio
    Mutach's Market            Marblehead, Ohio
    IGA                        Wales Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio
    IGA                        Lincoln Way, Massillon, Ohio
    Anderson                   Maumee, Ohio
    Marsh                      Middletown, Ohio
    Cornerstone Market         Munroe Falls, Ohio
    Romano's Farmers           North Royalton, Ohio
    Anderson                   Northwood, Ohio
    Gardner's                  Norwalk, Ohio
    Redigo Food Mart           Richmond St., Painesville, Ohio
    Redigo Food Mart           Walnut Ave., Painesville, Ohio
    Gillombardo's              Parma, Ohio
    S & R Produce              Parma, Ohio
    Kazmaier's                 Perrysburg, Ohio
    Dave's                     Richmond Heights, Ohio
    Rittman                    Rittman, Ohio
    Pick'n Save                S Zanesville, Ohio
    Rego's Grocery             Strongsville, Ohio
    St Mary's Meats            Swanton, Ohio
    Anderson                   Sylvania, Ohio
    Sautter Food               Sylvania, Ohio
    Molyet's Farm Market       Tiffin, Ohio
    Anderson                   Toledo, Ohio
    Monnette's Produce Market  Toledo, Ohio
    Schorling's 5 Star         Toledo, Ohio
    Zavotski Custom Meat       Toledo, Ohio
    Marsh                      Troy, Ohio
    Best Stop Market           Twinsburg, Ohio
    Marsh                      Union City, Ohio
    Steve's Market             Urbana, Ohio
    Marsh                      Van Wert, Ohio
    Sautter Food               Waterville, Ohio
    IGA                        West Milton, Ohio
    IGA                        West Union, Ohio
    Double D Beverage & Deli   Willoughby Hill, Ohio
    Riesbeck's                 Woodsfield, Ohio
    Convenient                 Wooster, Ohio
    Anderson                   Worthington, Ohio
    Cornersburg Italian        Youngstown, Ohio
    Pick'n Save                Zanesville, Ohio
    Kuhn's                     Aliquippa, Pennsylvania
    Jet's Market               Bentleyville, Pennsylvania
    Shop N Save                Bridgeville, Pennsylvania
    Planet Mart                Butler, Pennsylvania
    Shop N Save                Carnegie, Pennsylvania
    Pechin Shopping Village    Connellsville, Pennsylvania
    Kuhn's                     Coraopolis, Pennsylvania
    Sander's                   Corry, Pennsylvania
    Shop N Save                Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania
    Giant Eagle                Cranberry Twp, Pennsylvania
    Bello's Sure Fine          Erie, Pennsylvania
    Bel-Mart Foods             Erie, Pennsylvania
    Shop N Save                Fairchance, Pennsylvania
    B & Z Deli                 Glenshaw, Pennsylvania
    Kuhn's                     Ingomar, Pennsylvania
    Sprankles Neighborhood Mkt Leechburg, Pennsylvania
    Planet Mart                Mars, Pennsylvania
    JK's County Market         Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania
    Sander's                   North East, Pennsylvania
    Kuhn's                     Highwood St., Pittsburgh, PA
    Kuhn's                     Mcknight Road, Pittsburgh, PA
    Kuhn's                     Lincoln Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA
    Kuhn's                     Buehlah Road, Pittsburgh, PA
    Kuhn's                     Banksville Plaza, Pittsburgh, PA
    Market Fresh Meats         Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Shop N Save                William Penn Hwy., Pittsburgh, PA
    Shop N Save                Castle Shannon, Pittsburgh, PA
    Wholey Market              Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Fairground Market          Prospect, Pennsylvania
    Planet Mart                Sarver, Pennsylvania
    Soergel Orchards           Wexford, Pennsylvania
    T-Bones Marketplace        Wexford, Pennsylvania
    Food Fair                  Ravenswood, West Virginia
    Vienna Foodland            Vienna, West Virginia
    Shop N Save                Weirton, West Virginia
    IGA                        Elizabethton, Tennessee
    IGA                        Erwin, Tennessee
    IGA                        1328 Dennis Hwy., Kingsport, TN
    IGA                        3006 Dennis Hwy., Kingsport, TN
    Kramers County Market      Abbotsford, Wisconsin
    A-F County Market          Adams, Wisconsin
    Niemuth's Southside Mkt.   Appleton, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                  Appleton, Wisconsin
    Athens IGA                 Athens, Wisconsin
    Viking Express Market      Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                  Beloit, Wisconsin
    Church Street Market       Berlin, Wisconsin
    Burnstad's                 BI River Falls, Wisconsin
    Econo Foods                Brillion, Wisconsin
    Grasch Foods               Brookfield, Wisconsin
    Murf's Frozen Custard      Brookfield, Wisconsin
    Sendiks Market             West Capital Dr., Brookfield, WI
    Sendiks Market             North 124th St., Brookfield, WI
    Marchant's Foods Inc.      Brussels, Wisconsin
    Gooseberries Fresh Market  Burlington, Wisconsin
    Main Street Market         Denmark, Wisconsin
    Trigs                      Eagle River, Wisconsin
    Edgar IGA                  Edgar, Wisconsin
    Frank's County Market      Elkhorn, Wisconsin
    Fish Creek General Store   Fish Creek, Wisconsin
    Max's World Liquor & Gr.   Franksville, Wisconsin
    Austin's Original          Green Bay, Wisconsin
    Mason's Red Owl            Green Bay, Wisconsin
    Webster Avenue Market      Green Bay, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                  Green Bay, Wisconsin
    Rueben's County Market     Hartford, Wisconsin
    Hillsboro County Market    Hillsboro, Wisconsin
    Gilbert's Foods            Hortonville, Wisconsin
    Iola IGA                   Iola, Wisconsin
    Econo Foods                Iron Mountain, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                  Janesville, Wisconsin
    Frank's County Market      Jefferson, Wisconsin
    Haen Meat Packing Inc.     Kaukauna, Wisconsin
    Lenci's Food & Deli        Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Tenuta's                   Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                  Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Ojibwe Market              Lac Du Flambeau, Wisconsin
    Stodolas IGA               Luxemburg, Wisconsin
    Cub Foods                  Nakoosa Trail, Madison, Wisconsin
    Cub Foods                  Mineral Point Rd., Madison, WI
    Jenifer Street Market      Madison, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                  Milwaukee St., Madison, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                  S Gammon Rd., Madison, Wisconsin
    La Portes Food Market      Manitowish Waters, Wisconsin
    Angeli's County Market     Marinette, Wisconsin
    Curry's IGA                Marinette, Wisconsin
    Econo Foods                Marquette, Wisconsin
    Medford County Market      Medford, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                  Men Falls, Wisconsin
    Snows Family Market IGA    Mercer, Wisconsin
    Dave's County Market       Merrill, Wisconsin
    Mancl's IGA                Milladore, Wisconsin
    Aladdin                    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Bunzel's                   Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Groppi's Food Market       Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Kaul's Mini Store          Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Sendiks Market             North Downer Ave., Milwaukee, WI
    Sendiks Market             W Brown Deer Rd., Milwaukee, WI
    Save More IGA Foods        Minocqua, Wisconsin
    Trigs                      Minocqua, Wisconsin
    Muskego Marketplace        Muskego, Wisconsin
    Hansen's IGA               Neillsville, Wisconsin
    Wheatland Convenience Ctr  New Munster, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                  Oak Creek, Wisconsin
    Thompson County Market     Oconto, Wisconsin
    Woodman's                  Onalaska, Wisconsin
    Bill's Food Center         Oregon, Wisconsin
    Lee's Family Foods         Peshtigo, Wisconsin
    Prentice IGA               Prentice, Wisconsin
    Dannys Meats & Catering    Racine, Wisconsin
    Reedsburg Village Market   Reedsburg, Wisconsin
    Viking Village             Reedsburg, Wisconsin
    Trigs                      Rhinelander, Wisconsin
    Ed's IGA                   Rib Lake, Wisconsin
    Burnstad's                 Richland Center, Wisconsin
    Quality Foods IGA          Schofield, Wisconsin
    Sharon Supermart           Sharon, Wisconsin
    Shawano Country Store      Shawano, Wisconsin
    IGA                    Stanley, Wisconsin
    Trigs                      Stevens Point, Wisconsin
    Foodland                   Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin
    Econo Foods                Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin
    Burnstad's                 Tomah, Wisconsin
    Nelsons County Market      Tomahawk, Wisconsin
    Stoneridge Mart            Waukesha, Wisconsin
    Crossroads County Market   Wausau, Wisconsin
    Quality Foods IGA          Rib Mtn Dr., Wausau, Wisconsin
    Quality Foods IGA          Wausau Ave., Wausau, Wisconsin
    Trigs                      Wausau, Wisconsin
    KD's IGA                   Weyawega, Wisconsin
    Zinke Village Market       Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin
    Quality Foods IGA          W Grand Ave, Wisconsin Rapids, WI
    Quality Foods IGA          Baker Drive, Wisconsin Rapids, WI
    Dick's Family Foods        Wrightstown, Wisconsin


GENERAL REINSURANCE: 2nd Cir. Orders Class Certification Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kenealy, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the 2nd
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 13 ordered a lower court to
reconsider class certification in a US$72 million settlement
involving General Reinsurance Co. and several pension funds.

The three-judge panel vacated a 2009 ruling by a district court
judge denying class certification to the plaintiffs that was
necessary to move the settlement forward.  The plaintiffs had
alleged that Gen Re was involved in a sham reinsurance deal that
was aimed at boosting the balance sheet of American International
Group Inc.

The public pension fund plaintiffs -- the Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System, the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio
and the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund -- alleged that the
transactions that took place in late 2000 and early 2001 enabled
AIG to book $500 million in reinsurance transactions purely for
AIG's accounting purposes.  As holder of AIG shares, the
plaintiffs alleged they suffered materially when AIG was forced to
restate its earnings in May 2005.

While the lower court denied class certification to the pension
funds, the three-judge appeals court panel on Aug. 13 ordered the
lower court to reconsider whether the class certification is
appropriate and whether the proposed settlement is fair.


GOOGLE INC: Can Appeal Authors' Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Google Inc. won permission on Aug. 14 to
appeal the granting of class-action status to thousands of authors
suing the company over its plan to create the world's largest
digital books library.

In a brief order, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
York said Google may appeal a May 31 decision by a federal judge
letting the authors sue as a group, rather than individually.


GRISTEDE'S FOODS: Settles Female Cashiers' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bill Donahue, writing for Law360, reports that New York City
grocery chain Gristede's Foods Inc. has agreed to pay $1.45
million to more than 800 female cashiers over allegations that the
supermarket steered women into lower-paying, part-time jobs and
refused to promote them to management positions, according to
settlement papers filed on Aug. 10.

Susan Duling, Margaret Anderson and Lakeya Sewer asked U.S.
District Judge Laura Taylor Swain to sign off on a deal that would
put to rest more than five years of litigation.


HULU LLC: Judge Allows Privacy Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge on Aug. 10 allowed a proposed class action accusing online
video provider Hulu LLC of wrongfully disclosing users'
information to proceed, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficient
standing to bring the suit after the U.S. Supreme Court dropped a
separate case that could have changed class standing requirements.

In the 2011 proposed class action, viewers of Hulu's online video
content alleged that Hulu wrongfully disclosed their video viewing
selections and personal identification information to third
parties.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Defends Suits Alleging Underpayment of Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is defending itself
against class action lawsuits alleging, among other things,
underpayment of claims and improper underwriting practices,
according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

The Hartford is involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of
which assert claims for substantial amounts.  These actions
include, among others, putative state and federal class actions
seeking certification of a state or national class.  Such putative
class actions have alleged, for example, underpayment of claims or
improper underwriting practices in connection with various kinds
of insurance policies, such as personal and commercial automobile,
property, disability, life and inland marine.  The Hartford also
is involved in individual actions in which punitive damages are
sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of
insurance claims or other allegedly unfair or improper business
practices.  Like many other insurers, The Hartford also has been
joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs asserting, among other
things, that insurers had a duty to protect the public from the
dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed unfair trade
practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their policyholders
in the underlying asbestos cases.  Management expects that the
ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such lawsuits, after
consideration of provisions made for estimated losses, will not be
material to the consolidated financial condition of The Hartford.
Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in
certain of these actions, and the inherent unpredictability of
litigation, the outcome in certain matters could, from time to
time, have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual
periods.


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Amended Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended consolidated class action lawsuit entitled In Re:
Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., is pending in Florida,
according to Health Management Associates, Inc.'s August 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On January 25, 2012, Health Management and certain of its
executive officers, one of whom is a director, were named as
defendants in an action entitled Milen Sapssov v. Health
Management Associates, Inc. et al., which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  This action
purported to have been brought on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock during the period from
July 27, 2009, through January 9, 2012, and alleged that Health
Management made false and misleading statements in certain public
disclosures regarding its business and financial results.  A
substantially similar purported class action lawsuit, entitled
Norfolk County Retirement System v. Health Management Associates,
Inc. et al., was filed against the same defendants on or about
February 2, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.  On April 30, 2012, the two class action
lawsuits were consolidated in the same court under the caption In
Re: Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:12-cv-
00046-JES-DNF) and three pension fund plaintiffs were appointed as
lead plaintiffs.

On July 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint purportedly on behalf of the same class of stockholders
as alleged in the prior complaints and asserting claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  Among other things, the plaintiffs claim that Health
Management inflated its earnings by engaging in fraudulent
Medicare billing practices that entailed admitting patients to
observation status when they should not have been admitted at all
and to inpatient status when they should have been admitted to
observation status.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations in this lawsuit.  Because this lawsuit is in its early
stages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or determine
the potential impact, if any, that could result from its final
resolution.

Health Management Associates, Inc. -- http://www.hma.com/--
through its subsidiaries, engages in the operation of general
acute care hospitals and other health care facilities in non-urban
communities in the United States.  Its hospitals provide services,
including general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics,
emergency room care, radiology, oncology, diagnostic care,
coronary care, and pediatric services.  The Company also offers
outpatient services, such as one-day surgery, laboratory, x-ray,
respiratory therapy, cardiology, and physical therapy.  As of
December 31, 2011, the company operated 66 hospitals with a total
of 10,330 licensed beds in non-urban communities in Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, and West Virginia.  The Company was founded in
1977 and is based in Naples, Florida.


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: "Silsby" Suit Remains Stayed in N.Y. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned Silsby v. Icahn et. al. remains
stayed pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy
Code, according to Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P.'s August 10,
2012 Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On March 28, 2012, an action was filed in New York Supreme Court,
entitled Silsby v. Icahn et. al.  Defendants include Carl C. Icahn
and Dynegy Inc., as well as two of the Company's officers. The
action purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of
Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between September
2011 and March 2012.  The Complaint alleges violations of the
federal securities laws in defendants' allegedly making false and
misleading statements in securities filings that artificially
inflated the price of Dynegy stock. The individual defendants are
alleged to have been controlling persons of Dynegy. Plaintiff is
seeking damages in an unspecified amount. Subsequent to the filing
of this action, Dynegy filed for bankruptcy, and the Court has
stayed the litigation against Dynegy, pursuant to the automatic
stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.  By agreement, defendants
have not yet responded to the Complaint.  However, defendants
believe they have meritorious defenses to the claims.


INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Unfair Trade Practices Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
At least 82 separate class actions have been filed in the U.S.
District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern
District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska,
District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of
Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee
state courts.  These actions generally repeat the allegations made
in a now-settled lawsuit filed against Intel Corporation by
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) in June 2005 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware (AMD litigation).
Like the AMD litigation, these class-action lawsuits allege that
Intel engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act
and other laws by, among other things, providing discounts and
rebates to the Company's manufacturer and distributor customers
conditioned on exclusive or near-exclusive dealings that allegedly
unfairly interfered with AMD's ability to sell its
microprocessors, interfering with certain AMD product launches,
and interfering with AMD's participation in certain industry
standards-setting groups.  The class actions allege various
consumer injuries, including that consumers in various states have
been injured by paying higher prices for computers containing the
Company's microprocessors.  The Company disputes the class-action
claims and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

All of the federal class actions and the Kansas and Tennessee
state court class actions have been transferred by the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in
Delaware for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL
proceedings).  The Delaware district court has appointed a Special
Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by
the court.  In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action
filed a motion for sanctions for the Company's alleged failure to
preserve evidence.  This motion largely copies a motion previously
filed by AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled.  The
plaintiffs in the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of
a class of members who purchased certain PCs containing products
sold by Intel.  In July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report
and Recommendation (Class Report) denying the motion to certify a
class.  The MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the Special
Master's Class Report, and a hearing on these objections was held
in March 2011.  The Delaware district court has not yet ruled on
those objections.  All California class actions have been
consolidated in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara
County.  The plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for
class certification, which the Company is in the process of
opposing.  At the Company's request, the court in the California
actions has agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the
Delaware district court rules on the similar motion in the MDL
proceedings.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Based on the procedural posture and the nature of the cases,
including, but not limited to, the fact that the Special Master's
Class Report is on review in the Delaware district court, the
Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential
loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these matters.

Intel Corporation -- http://www.intel.com/-- designs,
manufactures, and sells integrated digital technology platforms
primarily in the Asia-Pacific, the Americas, Europe, and Japan.
The company offers microprocessors that process system data and
controls other devices in the system; and chipsets, which sends
data between the microprocessor and input, display, and storage
devices, such as keyboard, mouse, monitor, hard drive or solid-
state drive, and CD, DVD, or Blu-ray drives; system-on-chip
products that integrate its processing functions with other system
components, including graphics, audio, and video onto a single
chip; wired network connectivity products; and wireless
connectivity products.  It also provides mobile phone components
comprising baseband processors, radio frequency transceivers, and
power management integrated circuits; and mobile phone platforms,
such as Bluetooth wireless technology and GPS receivers, software
solutions, customization, and interoperability tests.  Intel
Corporation was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California.


INTEL CORP: Reversal Bid in McAfee-Related Suit Denied in July
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal denied in July 2012 plaintiffs'
petition to reverse an order holding that they are not entitled to
a jury trial in the consolidated class action lawsuit arising from
the acquisition of McAfee Inc. by Intel Corporation, according to
the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On August 19, 2010, the Company announced that it had agreed to
acquire all of McAfee's common stock for $48.00 per share.  Four
McAfee shareholders filed putative class action lawsuits in Santa
Clara County, California Superior Court, challenging the proposed
transaction.  The cases were ordered consolidated in September
2010.  Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint that names the
former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel as defendants, and
alleges that the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary
duties and that Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty.
The complaint requests rescission of the merger agreement and such
other equitable relief as the court may deem proper and an award
of damages in an unspecified amount.  In June 2012, plaintiffs'
damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for
purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
and appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the
class representative.  In January 2012, the court also scheduled
trial to begin in January 2013.  In March 2012, the Company filed
a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of
mandate to reverse the class certification order, which was denied
in June 2012.  In March 2012, the court entered an order, at the
Company's request, holding that plaintiffs are not entitled to a
jury trial in this case, and ordered a bench trial.  In April
2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of
Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the
court of appeal denied in July 2012.

Because the resolution of the contemplated motions for summary
judgment and other potential motions related to damages may
materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, because
discovery is not yet complete, and because plaintiffs seek
equitable relief including rescission, the Company is unable to
make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from this matter.  The Company disputes
the class-action claims and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

Intel Corporation -- http://www.intel.com/-- designs,
manufactures, and sells integrated digital technology platforms
primarily in the Asia-Pacific, the Americas, Europe, and Japan.
The company offers microprocessors that process system data and
controls other devices in the system; and chipsets, which sends
data between the microprocessor and input, display, and storage
devices, such as keyboard, mouse, monitor, hard drive or solid-
state drive, and CD, DVD, or Blu-ray drives; system-on-chip
products that integrate its processing functions with other system
components, including graphics, audio, and video onto a single
chip; wired network connectivity products; and wireless
connectivity products.  It also provides mobile phone components
comprising baseband processors, radio frequency transceivers, and
power management integrated circuits; and mobile phone platforms,
such as Bluetooth wireless technology and GPS receivers, software
solutions, customization, and interoperability tests.  Intel
Corporation was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California.


NASDAQ OMX: Accused of Negligence Over Facebook's May 18 IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Zack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC, Case No. 652737/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 7, 2012) is
brought in relation to NASDAQ's alleged negligent conduct with
respect to the May 18, 2012 initial public offering of Facebook,
Inc.

Facebook's IPO was hotly anticipated and many investors sought to
purchase its shares through the IPO, Mr. Zack relates.  However,
he contends, due to the Defendants' negligence, the IPO was
severely mishandled creating "race conditions" in NASDAQ's
automated order system, thereby disabling the exchange from
matching buy and sell orders for several hours, and eventually
causing NASDAQ to enlist brokers to sell Facebook shares.

Mr. Zack, a citizen of New York, placed purchase and cancellation
orders for Facebook's stock that NASDAQ failed to promptly and
accurately execute, which resulted in losses.

The Defendants operate NASDAQ, an American stock exchange.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: hlongman@ssbny.com

               - and -

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
          THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
          521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (212) 292-4441
          Facsimile: (212) 292-4442
          E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com


NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a second amended class action
complaint filed by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund is
pending, according to Novation Companies, Inc.'s August 10, 2012
Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC") and its individual
directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company
("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated investment
banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by
plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which
the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend.
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and
the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012,
the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint with
prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiff filed an
appeal. Given the court's ruling in an early stage of the
litigation, the Company cannot provide an estimate of the range of
any loss. The Company believes that the affiliated defendants have
meritorious defenses to the case and expects them to defend the
case vigorously.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Powerwave Technologies, Inc. is facing a purported shareholder
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, according to the Company's August
10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012.

In the first quarter of fiscal 2012, a purported shareholder class
action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against the Company, its
President and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer. On July 23, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.  The amended complaint, Pawel I. Kmiec v. Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. et. al. asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint
purports to state claims on behalf of all persons who purchased
the Company's Common Stock between October 28, 2010 and October
18, 2011 and seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proven
at trial. The complaint alleges that the defendants made
misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company's
operations and projected sales revenues and engaged in false and
misleading financial reporting. The Company believes that the
purported shareholder class action is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.

In the first quarter of fiscal 2012, three additional lawsuits
that relate to the above purported shareholder class action were
filed. The lawsuits are shareholder derivative actions, purported
to be brought by individual shareholders on behalf of Powerwave,
against certain executive officers and the current directors of
Powerwave. Powerwave is also named as a nominal defendant in the
shareholder derivative actions. The shareholder derivative
lawsuits are Yin Shen v. Buschur, et al., filed in the Superior
Court of California, Kevin Pehlman v. Buschur, et al., filed in
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, and Jorge L. Verar v. Buschur, et al., filed in the
Superior Court of California and subsequently removed to United
States District Court for the Central District of California. The
allegations of the derivative complaints closely resemble those in
the initial class action complaint filed and pertain to the time
period of February 1, 2011 through October 18, 2011. Based on
those allegations, the derivative complaints assert various claims
for breach of fiduciary duty under state law. These three actions
are presently stayed by stipulated orders entered in each action.


RADIAN GROUP: Still Defends RESPA-Violations Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits
alleging violations of the Real Estate Practices Act of 1974,
according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Recently, the Company has been named as a defendant in a number of
putative class action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that
its captive reinsurance agreements violate the Real Estate
Practices Act of 1974 ("RESPA").  In addition to these private
lawsuits, the Company and other mortgage insurers have been
subject to inquiries from the Minnesota Department of Commerce and
the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), requesting information relating to
captive reinsurance.  The Dodd-Frank Act amended RESPA and
transferred the authority to implement and enforce the statute
from HUD to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB").  In
January 2012, the Company and other mortgage insurers received a
request for information and documents from the CFPB relating to
captive reinsurance arrangements, and in June 2012, the Company
and other mortgage insurers received a Civil Investigative Demand
("CID") from the CFPB as part of its investigation to determine
whether mortgage lenders and private mortgage insurance providers
engaged in acts or practices in violation of the Dodd Frank Act,
RESPA and the Consumer Financial Protection Act.  The Company says
it is cooperating with the CFPB in its investigation and is in
active discussions with the CFPB with respect to its response to
the CID.  Various regulators, including the CFPB, state insurance
commissioners or state attorneys general may bring actions or
proceedings regarding the Company's compliance with RESPA or other
laws applicable to its mortgage insurance business.  The Company
cannot predict whether additional actions or proceedings will be
brought against it or the outcome of any such actions or
proceedings.


SKECHERS USA: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
KWTX.com reports that a federal judge on Aug. 13 tentatively
approved a $40 million settlement between Skechers USA Inc. and
consumers who bought the company's toning shoes in a class-action
lawsuit filed over ads that consumers said made unfounded claims
that the footwear would help people lose weight and strengthen
muscles.

An undetermined number of people will be able to get refunds for
their purchases of as much as $80 per pair of Shape-Ups; $84 per
pair of Resistance Runner shoes; up to $54 per pair of Podded Sole
Shoes; and $40 per pair for Tone-Ups.

The agreement comes three months after Manhattan Beach, Calif.-
based Skechers reached a deal with the Federal Trade Commission
over the advertisements for the shoes.

Skechers denies the allegations, but said it settled to avoid long
litigation.


SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend AATI Merger-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skyworks Solutions, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated
merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2012.

On January 10, 2012, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
shares of Advanced Analogic Technologies, Incorporated ("AATI")
for a total purchase price of approximately $200.0 million in
cash, net of cash acquired.  The Parties previously entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 26, 2011, by and
among Skyworks Solutions, Inc., PowerCo Acquisition Corp., and
Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated.  AATI is an analog
semiconductor company focused on enabling energy-efficient devices
for consumer electronics, computing and communications markets.

On June 6 and 7, 2011, two putative stockholder class action
lawsuits (Case No. 111CV202403 (the "Bushansky action") and Case
No. 111CV202501 (the "Venette action"), respectively) were filed
in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County naming AATI,
members of AATI's board of directors, the Company and PowerCo
Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub") as defendants.  The lawsuits
related to conduct surrounding the Company's acquisition of AATI.
On July 26, 2011, the Court issued an order consolidating the
Bushansky action and Venette action into a single, consolidated
action captioned In re Advanced Analogic Technologies Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 111CV202403, and designating
an amended complaint filed on July 14, 2011, in the Venette action
as the operative complaint in the litigation.

On November 30, 2011, following confidential arbitration
proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Company
announced that it and AATI had amended their previously announced
merger agreement whereby the Company would acquire AATI at a
reduced price through a tender offer.  The Company and AATI
completed the transaction on January 9, 2012.  On March 2, 2012,
the Court stayed all discovery in the matter and ordered that
Plaintiffs file an amended complaint by April 20, 2012.

On April 20, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint ("First
Amended Complaint") against each of the original defendants with
the exception of Merger Sub.  The First Amended Complaint alleges,
among other things, that (1) members of AATI's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by (a) failing to take steps to
maximize the value of AATI to its public shareholders by failing
to adequately consider potential acquirers, (b) agreeing to the
merger for inadequate consideration on unfair terms; (c) causing
the filing of a materially misleading Schedule 14D-9 that failed
to (i) disclose a basis for the price reduction, (ii) describe the
arbitration proceedings, and (iii) include any financial valuation
or fairness opinion concerning whether the revised merger
consideration was fair; and (d) causing the issuance of amendments
to the Schedule 14D-9 that failed to respond adequately to the
SEC's disclosure directives; and (2) Skyworks and AATI allegedly
aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties.

During the three and nine months ended June 29, 2012, the Company
recorded a $5.0 million charge to selling, general and
administrative expenses to recognize a contingent liability
associated with the probable settlement of a warranty claim.  The
Company has assessed the possibility of additional charges
associated with the warranty claim and other outstanding
litigation matters and has determined that there were no
additional material losses that were reasonably possible of
occurring.  The Company monitors the status of these contingencies
on an ongoing basis to ensure amounts are recognized and/or
disclosed in the Company's financial statements and footnotes as
required by ASC 450, Loss Contingencies.


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Generates Profit From "Passenger Usage Fees"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Huffington Post reports that Spirit Airlines raked in more
than $140 million in fees between 2008 and 2011, according to a
new study of financial documents by personal finance Web site
NerdWallet.

The news comes less than a week after Spirit was slapped with a
class-action lawsuit alleging that its "Passenger Usage Fee,"
essentially a $9-$17 per flight charge that the airline levies on
all tickets not purchased at airport ticket counters, is
deceptive.

Lawyers in the case suggested that millions of passengers could
potentially be entitled to join the class action, which alleges
that the fees are nothing more than a sneaky way for the airline
to increase the fares it charges passengers.

And the amount of money Spirit is making from those fees is only
going up, writes Alicia Jao, VP of Travel at NerdWallet, citing
the airline's public SEC filings as her sources.

In 2006, Spirit's average ticket revenue per passenger flight
segment was $109.36.  As of June 30, 2012, average ticket revenue
per passenger flight segment has only grown 19% to $130.54.  Non-
ticket revenue per passenger flight segment, on the other hand,
has grown 974% over the same time period.  Non-ticket revenue is
primarily composed of extra fees, such as baggage fees, PUFs and
seat selection fees.

While baggage fees and seat selection fees are indeed optional,
lawyers involved in the case against Spirit say that paying the
PUF isn't realistically optional because the only way to avoid it
is by purchasing tickets at the airport.  The suit alleges that
Spirit raked in at least $40 million in PUF charges in 2011 alone.

"I am sure the company has additional details around the PUFs,"
Jao writes in an e-mail to HuffPost Travel, "As well as the more
recent Department of Transportation Unintended Consequences fee
(initiated in early 2012) that is extremely reminiscent of the PUF
but completely unavoidable from our research and inquiries to the
company.  However, publicly available data is already quite
telling."


STANLEY BLACK: Sued in Conn. Over Ineffective Pest Repellants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Stanley Black & Decker's
plug-in Pest Repellants "simply put . . . do not work," a class
action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Fraiser v. Stanley Black & Decker,
Inc., Case No. 12-cv-01182 (D. Conn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/14/Bugs.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Slossberg, Esq.
          David L. Belt, Esq.
          HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC
          147 North Broad Street
          P.O. Box 112
          Milford, CT 06460
          Telephone: (203) 877-8000
          E-mail: dslossberg@hssklaw.com
                  dbelt@hssklaw.com

               - and -

          Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Johnathan P. Seredynski, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: sdumain@milberg.com
                  arado@milberg.com
                  jseredynski@milberg.com


STATE OF FLORIDA: Judge Tosses In-State Tuition Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to certify a class of college applicants who were
denied in-state tuition in Florida because their parents are
undocumented immigrants.

The named plaintiffs, natural-born citizens living in Florida,
said that the State Board of Education refused to classify them as
residents for tuition purposes because their parents could not
establish legal residence in the state.

To qualify for lower in-state tuition rates, public university
applicants in Florida must prove they have resided legally in the
state for the 12 consecutive months preceding enrollment.  If the
applicants are claimed as dependents on their parents' tax
returns, the parents must prove continuous legal residence in the
state as well.

The plaintiffs, all dependents under 24, claimed that the state
wrongfully classified them as "non-residents" who would face
higher tuition rates because they could not establish their
parents' lawful immigration status.

They argued the classification violated their constitutional
rights, and sought class certification.

U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore denied their request on
Aug. 9, finding that a class action would be unduly burdensome.

Judge Moore rejected the claims that the case alleged by the
individual plaintiffs would become moot once they reach the age of
24 and become independent.

None of the named plaintiffs are over 20, and some of them are
only 18, which gives them six years until independent status would
moot their claims, the ruling states.

Judge Moore said there was no "imminent threat of mootness"
requiring class certification to protect the putative class
members' interests.

A copy of the Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class in
Ruiz, et al. v. Robinson, et al., Case No. 11-cv-23776 (S.D.
Fla.), is available at:

  http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/14/Immigrant%20Tuition.pdf


STURM RUGER: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 18, 2009, Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. was served with a
complaint captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, on Behalf
of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.
Inc., et al. pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages
for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
is a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between April 23, 2007, and October 29,
2007.  On October 9, 2009, the Company waived service of a
complaint captioned Alan R. Herrett, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al.
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  This matter is based upon the same facts and basic
allegations set forth in the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund
litigation.  On October 12, 2009, a motion to consolidate the two
actions was filed by counsel for the Steamfitters.  On January 11,
2010, the court entered an order consolidating the two matters.  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2010.  The
defendants, including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss on
April 26, 2010, and plaintiffs filed a response on June 18, 2010.
Defendants then filed a reply in support of the motion on July 19,
2010.  Oral argument was held on November 22, 2010.  On February
4, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss
in part and denying it in part.  The matter is ongoing.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Sturm, Ruger & Company Incorporated is a Southport, Connecticut-
based firearm manufacturing company.


SUNTRUST BANKS: 9th Cir. Affirms Order in ATM Fee Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has recently
affirmed a district court's decision granting SunTrust Banks,
Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the consolidated antitrust
litigation over ATM fees, according to the Company's August 1,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in a number of antitrust actions that
have been consolidated in federal court in San Francisco,
California under the name In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master File No. C04-2676 CR13.  In these actions, Plaintiffs, on
behalf of a class, assert that Concord EFS and a number of
financial institutions have unlawfully fixed the interchange fee
for participants in the Star ATM Network.  Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants' conduct is illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs initially asserted the Defendants' conduct was illegal
per se.  In August 2007, Concord and the bank defendants filed
motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' per se claim.  In
March 2008, the Court granted the motions on the ground that
Defendants' conduct in setting an interchange fee must be analyzed
under the rule of reason.  The Court certified this question for
interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit rejected Plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal on
August 13, 2008.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended
Complaint in which they asserted a rule of reason claim.  This
complaint was dismissed by the Court as well, but Plaintiffs were
given leave to file another amended complaint.  Plaintiffs filed
yet another complaint and Defendants moved to dismiss the same.
The Court granted this motion in part by dismissing one of the
Plaintiffs two claims -- but denied the motion as to one claim.
On September 16, 2010, the Court granted the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment as to the remaining claim on the grounds that
Plaintiffs lack standing to assert that claim.  Plaintiffs filed
an appeal of this decision with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
and the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the District Court's
decision.


THOMSON REUTERS: To Settle Class Action Over FXall Tender Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finextra reports that Thomson Reuters has filed an application to
settle a class action lawsuit over its proposed acquisition of
multi-bank foreign exchange portal FXall and extended its $616
million tender offer by three days.

Thomson Reuters agreed to pay $22 per share for Nyse-listed FXall
in early July, but was hit with a proposed class action lawsuit
within weeks claiming that the offer seriously undervalued the
company.

In a complaint filed in New York state court, Michael Rubin claims
the deal is inadequate in light of the company's strong financial
health, accusing top executives of pushing through a takeover
proposal that rewarded top staff at the expense of ordinary
shareholders.

With just 30.1% of FXall shareholders tendering their shares in
favor of the offer before the August 14 cut-off point, Thomson
Reuters has moved to extend the deadline to close of business on
Aug. 17, and signed a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the
action brought by Rubin.

In a statement, the company says: "Thomson Reuters and the other
defendants entered into the Memorandum of Understanding solely to
avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation
and the Memorandum of Understanding contains no admission of
liability or wrongdoing."

It adds that FXall was set to file on Aug. 14 with the SEC an
amendment that would set out revised disclosures agreed under the
terms of the settlement.


TOYSMITH: Recalls 89,500 Animal Snap Bracelets Due to Cut Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Toysmith of Sumner, Washington, announced a voluntary recall of
about 89,500 units of Animal Snap Bracelets.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The metal snap band can wear through the fabric covering resulting
in exposing sharp edges and posing a laceration hazard.

The firm has received eight reports of injuries including
lacerations.

This recall includes Animal Snap Bracelets in assorted metallic
fabrics with animal figures, including: Seahorse, Frog, Snake,
Starfish, Crab, Lizard, Dolphin and Fish.  Manufacturing date
codes between 07/11 and 01/12 are printed on a sewn-in label found
on the inside of the bracelet.  The label includes the Toysmith
name and address.  A round paper tag is attached to the product
with the product name, Toysmith information, the words "Item #
2360 Animal Snap Bracelet," SKU number and bar code.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12245.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Cost
Plus World Market, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store and other
retailers from September 2011 to February 2012 for about $3.

Consumers should return the product to the store where purchased
for a full refund.  For additional information, contact Toysmith
at (800) 356-0474 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.toysmith.com/


US HOME: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Texas
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that U.S. Home Systems is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Home Depot, for
$94 million or $12.50 a share, shareholders say in Dallas County
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Foy v. Buchholz, et al., Case No. DC-
12-08956 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty.0, is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/14/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. David Apple, Esq.
          APPLE & FINK, LLP
          735 Plaza Blvd., Suite 200
          Coppell, TX 75019
          Telephone: (972) 315-1900

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200


VIVENDI SA: Investors Can Use Facts From Suit to Pursue Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney, writing for Law360, reports that investors excluded
from a class action accusing Vivendi SA of issuing misleading
statements about its liquidity can use some settled facts from the
suit to pursue their claims individually, a New York federal judge
ruled Friday.

In an order granting investors' motion for collateral estoppel,
U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin barred Vivendi from
relitigating claims that it violated the Securities Exchange Act
by misleading investors about its financial strength while it was
pursuing major acquisitions.


WELLPOINT COMPANIES: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 3, 2012, the Los Angeles employment lawyers at
Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action complaint
against The Wellpoint, Companies, Inc. for alleged unpaid overtime
wages. Talamantez, et al. vs. The Wellpoint Companies, Inc., Case
No. BC489001 is currently pending in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court.

According to the class action complaint filed against Wellpoint,
the health benefits service provider paid their hourly employees
incentive wages based on their performance with Wellpoint.
According to the lawsuit, Wellpoint "failed and still fails to
include the bonus compensation as part of the employees' 'regular
rate of pay' for purposes of calculating overtime pay."  As a
result, the Complaint states that these employees were underpaid
throughout their employment with Wellpoint.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors
and consumers fight back against unfair business practices,
including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor
Standards Act.


WELLS REAL: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for summary judgment is pending in an amended putative
class action complaint styled In re Wells Real Estate Investment
Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, according to Wells Real Estate
Fund XI, L.P.'s August 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Wells Real Estate Fund XI, L.P. (the "Partnership") is a Georgia
public limited partnership with Leo F. Wells, III and Wells
Partners, L.P. ("Wells Partners"), a Georgia nonpublic limited
partnership, serving as its general partners (collectively, the
"General Partners").  Wells Capital, Inc. ("Wells Capital") serves
as the corporate general partner of Wells Partners.  Wells Capital
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc.
("WREF").

The Partnership owns indirect interests in all of its real estate
assets through joint ventures with other entities affiliated with
the General Partners and Piedmont Operating Partnership, LP
("Piedmont OP"), formerly known as Wells Operating Partnership,
L.P.  Piedmont OP is a Delaware limited partnership with Piedmont
Office Realty Trust, Inc. ("Piedmont REIT"), formerly known as
Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., serving as its general
partner.

In March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a putative
class action and derivative complaint, presently styled In re
Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III, one of
the Partnership's General Partners; Wells Capital, the corporate
general partner of Wells Partners, the Partnership's General
Partner; Wells Management, the Partnership's property manager;
certain affiliates of WREF; the directors of Piedmont REIT; and
certain individuals who formerly served as officers or directors
of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization
transaction on April 16, 2007.

The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from
the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related
proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, as
amended. The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT
internalization transaction.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons
who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy
statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative
claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court dismissed five
of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety.
The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of
allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT
proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in
acquiring Piedmont REIT. On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal
proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy statement to
obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction
omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring
Piedmont REIT. The second amended complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the
internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock
issued to the defendants as consideration for the internalization
transaction. On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised
certain defenses to the second amended complaint. Since the filing
of the second amended complaint, the plaintiff has said it intends
to seek monetary damages of approximately $159 million plus
prejudgment interest.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On September 16, 2009, the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On September 20, 2009,
the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal
immediately the Court's order granting the motion for class
certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The
petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30, 2009.
On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants. The Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment. On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The Court
ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest
in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information
required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval
for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions
of fact that must be determined at trial.
On November 17, 2011, the Court issued rulings granting several of
the plaintiff's motions in limine to prohibit the defendants from
introducing certain evidence, including evidence of the
defendants' reliance on advice from their outside legal and
financial advisors, and limiting the defendants' ability to relate
their subjective views, considerations, and observations during
the trial of the case. On February 23, 2012, the Court granted
several of the defendants' motions, including a motion for
reconsideration regarding a motion the plaintiff had filed seeking
exclusion of certain evidence impacting damages, and motions
seeking exclusion of certain evidence proposed to be submitted by
the plaintiff. The lawsuit has been removed from the Court's trial
calendar pending resolution of a request for interlocutory
appellate review of certain legal rulings made by the Court.

On March 20, 2012, the Court granted the defendants leave to file
a motion for summary judgment.  On April 5, 2012, the defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. On April 24, 2012, the
plaintiff filed its response to the defendants' motion for summary
judgment. On May 7, 2012, the defendants filed their reply in
support of their motion for summary judgment. The defendants'
motion for summary judgment is currently pending before the Court.

Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management believe that the
allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend this action. Although WREF believes
that it has meritorious defenses to the claims of liability and
damages in these actions, WREF is unable at this time to predict
the outcome of these actions or reasonably estimate a range of
damages, or how any liability and responsibility for damages might
be allocated among the 17 defendants in the action, which includes
11 defendants not affiliated with Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, or
Wells Management. The ultimate resolution of these matters could
have a material adverse impact on WREF's financial results,
financial condition, or liquidity.


YAHOO INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Alipay Investment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge dismissed a
class action that claimed Yahoo and its executives misled
investors about its interest in China-based Alipay.

A copy of the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in In re Yahoo!
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 11-cv-02732 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/14/yahoo.pdf


ZYNGA INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
shareholders claim Zynga pumped up its share price by failing to
disclose that its game cards could be distributed and redeemed on
Facebook only until April 30 this year.

A copy of the Complaint in Moayyed v. Zynga, Inc., et al., Case
No. 12-cv-04250 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/14/ZyngaCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR. P.C.
          519 Allegheny Building
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Suits v. Union Pacific to Proceed to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three groups of former employees filed an action pursuant to the
Federal Employers' Liability Act alleging that they were exposed
to asbestos while employed by Union Pacific Railroad Company and,
as a result, have developed an asbestos-related lung disease.
Union Pacific has filed a motion to sever the claims of the
individual plaintiffs.  Union Pacific argues that the plaintiffs'
claims are not properly joined under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, so the Court should sever them pursuant to
Rule 21. In the alternative, Union Pacific argues the Court should
order a separate trial for each plaintiff pursuant to Rule 42(b).

In separate orders dated July 25, 2012, Judge J. Leon Holmes of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine
Bluff Division, denied Union Pacific's motion to sever but granted
its motion for separate trials.  The plaintiffs will be divided
into three groups, according to their employment tenure, for
trial.

The cases are:

   * LEROY SPEARS, JR.; FRANK BOHANNON; ELLIS E. CARROLL; JIM
     JACKSON; WILLIE G. JOHNSON; McCLARY MERRITT; CLARENCE E.
     PUGH; and CHARLIE L. ROGERS, JR., Plaintiffs, v. UNION
     PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, No. 5:12CV00202 JLH
     (E.D. Ark.).  A copy of Judge Holmes' Decision for the
     Spears, et al., Plaintiffs is available at
     http://is.gd/xjh5bMfrom Leagle.com

   * JAMES M. TRUHETT; CONNIE TRUHETT; DAVID T. SHIPMAN; DANIEL L.
     SIMS; GEORGE W. THOMAS; BENNY R. TAYLOR; WILLIE J. STEPHENS;
     MAJOR V. NELSON; and THOMAS M. FLEMMING, Plaintiffs, v. UNION
     PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, No. 5:12CV00185 JLH
     (E.D. Ark.).  A copy of Judge Holmes' Decision for the
     Truhett, et al. Plaintiffs is available at
     http://is.gd/5HxNT7from Leagle.com

   * JIMMY S. LANGRELL; JAMES R. BLASENGAME; WILLIAM BURNS; FOSTER
     HARSHAW, JR.; DAVID K. JACKSON; RONALD J. THOMAS; STEVEN E.
     TYLER; MICHAEL L. WILSON; and BILLY K. WRIGHT, Plaintiffs, v.
     UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, No. 5:12CV00084
     JLH (E.D. Ark.).  A copy of Judge Holmes' Decision for the
     Langrell, et al. Plaintiffs is available at
     http://is.gd/JH2GjQfrom Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Ch.7 Conversion of Skinner Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Capital Equipment, Inc. and Skinner Engine Company,
appeal from the District Court's order affirming the Bankruptcy
Court's order, which converted Skinner's Chapter 11 bankruptcy
case to a Chapter 7 on the basis that its plan is patently
unconfirmable.  Joining its appeal is Willard Bartel,
representative for the estate of an asbestos claimant.  Appellees
are insurers, the legal representative for future asbestos
claimants, the Maritime Asbestosis Legal Clinic, and the Interim
Chapter 7 Trustee, Jeffrey J. Sikirica.

The issue before the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, is
whether a bankruptcy court can determine at the disclosure
statement stage that a Chapter 11 plan is unconfirmable without
first holding a confirmation hearing.  The Third Circuit held that
a bankruptcy court has the authority to do so if it is obvious
that the plan is patently unconfirmable, such that no dispute of
material fact remains and defects cannot be cured by creditor
voting.  Additionally, the Third Circuit found that the plan in
this case was patently unconfirmable, and that the Bankruptcy
Court did not err in converting the case to Chapter 7.
Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the lower courts'
decision.

The case is In re: AMERICAN CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, LLC AND SKINNER
ENGINE COMPANIES, INC., Debtors-Appellants, No. 10-2239.  In re:
AMERICAN CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, LLC AND SKINNER ENGINE COMPANIES,
INC., Debtors.  WILLARD E. BARTEL, Appellant, No. 10-2240.  Nos.
10-2239 and 10-2240. (3rd Cir.).  A copy of the Circuit Court's
July 25, 2012 Decision is available at http://is.gd/F8uyQRfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Dana Companies' Bid to Dismiss Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied Dana Companies LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing
the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it in the
asbestos personal injury action captioned JOAN JOHNSON,
Individually and as Executrix for the Estate of CHARLES F.
JOHNSON, Plaintiff(s), v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al.,
Defendants, Docket No. 105917/04, Motion Seq. No. 004 (N.Y.).

Judge Heitler concluded that the defendant it has not prima facie
established its entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of
law.  A copy of Judge Heitler's July 23, 2012 Decision is
available at http://is.gd/CHoKsEfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses Worker's Suit v. United Air Lines
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Simkus brought a suit against United Air Lines, Inc.,
alleging violations of the Asbestos School Hazard Detection and
Control Act ("ASHDCA"), the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"),
the mail and wire fraud criminal statutes, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act ("SOX"), the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"),
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), and the Family and
Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), and also purporting to assert state
law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.  United has moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

In a July 31, 2012 memorandum opinion and order, Judge Gary
Feinerman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted United's motion to dismiss
holding that:

   -- the ASHDCA governs only to state and local education
      agencies and United is not such an agency;

   -- there is no private right of action under the criminal mail
      and wire fraud statutes;

   -- the TSCA protects employees involved in a TSCA proceeding
      but Simkus has not identified any TSCA proceeding that he
      commenced or in which he testified, assisted, or
      participated; and

   -- with respect to the state law claims, United is correct in
      contending that the negligent infliction of emotional
      distress claim is barred by the Illinois Workers'
      Compensation Act, which provides an exclusive means of
      recover against an employer for an employee's accidental
      injuries.

The case is PAUL SIMKUS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC.,
Defendant, No. 11 C 2165 (N.D. Ill.).  A copy of Judge Feinerman's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/5UBRZPfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Affirms Judgment in Asbestos Removal Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN THE MATTER OF NORTH FORK MANAGEMENT &
MAINTENANCE, LLC, appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, respondent, 2011-04569 (N.Y.), the Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, affirmed a lower
court's decision holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate
a clear legal right to the relief he sought in his request for
mandamus on notices of violations issued by the Commissioner of
the NY Dept. of Labor.  The Appellate Court also found that the
Commissioner's determination that the petitioner violated a
provision of the Labor Law was not arbitrary and capricious and
the decision to impose the maximum civil penalty for each
violation was not an abuse of discretion.

The case arose after the petitioner partially demolished six
buildings located on Main Street in Smithtown, without valid
permits, and the Commissioner conducted an investigation and
issued six separate notices of violation and orders to comply.
The Commissioner determined that the petitioner violated the Labor
Law, in that it had engaged in asbestos removal projects without a
valid asbestos handling license, and in that it had permitted its
employees to disturb asbestos-containing materials without valid
asbestos handling certificates.

A copy of the Appellate Court's Decision dated August 1, 2012, is
available at http://is.gd/XGPWMYfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Reverses Judgments in 3 Exposure Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Citing a recent decision of the California Supreme Court in O'Neil
v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Two, reversed lower courts'
judgments holding Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., and Crane Co.
liable for injuries arising from exposure to asbestos-laden
products.

In O'Neil, the California Supreme Court held "that a product
manufacturer may not be held liable in strict liability or
negligence for harm caused by another manufacturer's product
unless the defendant's own product contributed substantially to
the harm, or the defendant participated substantially in creating
a harmful combined use of the products."

The Appellate Court found that the matters in O'Neil involved the
same facts as to the cases captioned:

   -- JOHN M. NOLEN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FOSTER
      WHEELER ENERGY CORP., Defendant and Appellant, No. B216202
      (Calif. App. Ct.).  A copy of the Appellate Court's Decision
      dated Aug. 2, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/JS5NYyfrom
      Leagle.com

   -- EUGENE W. ROLLIN, JR., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
      FOSTER WHEELER, LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents, No.
      B209935 (Calif. App. Ct.).  A copy of the Appellate Court's
      Decision dated August 2, 2012, is available at
      http://is.gd/IyBbpAfrom Leagle.com

   -- CHIEF Y.R. BREWER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.
      CRANE CO., Defendant and Appellant, No. B213096 (Calif. App.
      Ct.).  A copy of the Appellate Court's Decision dated
      August 2, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/9wLq9jfrom
      Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. Reichhold to Proceed to Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied Reichhold Chemicals' motion for summary judgment dismissing
the complaint and all cross-claims against it in an asbestos-
related personal injury action filed by Murray N. Walker, Sr., and
Barbara Walker.  The Court agreed with the plaintiffs that whether
Reichhold was a source of Mr. Walker's exposure must be sought
through further discovery.  Reichhold, the Court noted, has not
produced discovery in this case, including its relevant sales
records, which it claims to have transferred to another company in
connection with Reichhold's sale of its phenolic molding compound
division in 1986.  Information related to the sales records would
determine whether the other company assumed Reichhold's asbestos-
related tort liabilities.

The case is MURRAY N. WALKER, SR. and BARBARA WALKER, Plaintiffs,
v. ABB, INC., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190433/11, Motion
Seq. 003 (N.Y.).  A copy of Judge Heitler's August 3, 2012
Decision is available at http://is.gd/LjegEkfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies CBS's Bid to Dismiss or Transfer Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In an August 6, 2012 decision, Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division, denied CBS Corporation's motion to dismiss for
improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the
District of Idaho, Eastern Division, a civil tort action alleging
that plaintiff Admiral William L. Harris was exposed, without
warning, to friable asbestos by the defendant's predecessor
corporation, Westinghouse Electric Corporation.  The exposure,
which caused Admiral Harris to develop malignant mesothelioma,
allegedly took place at a United States Navy facility in Idaho.

The Court noted that the plaintiff has lived in the Northern
District of California for more than 30 years and is now of an
advanced age and in poor health, making travel difficult.
Substantial deference is required to be given to the Plaintiff's
choice of forum, especially when, as in this case, there appears
to be no suggestion of forum shopping or other motive that would
tend to diminish the weight to be given to the plaintiff's choice,
the Court added.

The case is WILLIAM L. HARRIS and JEAN HARRIS, Plaintiffs, v. CBS
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:12-cv-00049-EJD (N.D. Calif.).
A copy of Judge Hodges' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/0gV2lrfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hormel Dismissed as Defendant in Exposure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy D. DeGuisti of the United States District Court,
W.D. Oklahoma, dismissed Hormel Foods Corporation as defendant in
an asbestos-related personal injury action titled NORMA BOOTENHOFF
and EUGENE BOOTENHOFF, Plaintiffs, v. HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, No. CIV-11-1368-D (W.D. Okla.), after concluding
that the Court has no general personal jurisdiction over Hormel in
the case.  Judge DeGuisti also held that Plaintiffs' other
arguments are inadequate to establish a prima facie showing that
Hormel has systematic and continuous general business contacts in
the forum.  The factors consistently applied by the Tenth Circuit
to assess the existence of such contacts are not present here to
an extent which supports the exercise of jurisdiction over Hormel,
Judge DeGuisti concluded.

A copy of Judge DeGuisti's Decision dated August 7, 2012, is
available at http://is.gd/16Migafrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Dist. Ct. Denies Bid to Remand Exposure Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Lewis filed an asbestos claim against a number of
companies and defendant CBS Corporation successfully removed the
case to the United States District Court, D. New Jersey, based on
federal question jurisdiction.  What followed was a complex
procedural history that involved the matter being made part of a
Multi-District Litigation case before the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted summary judgment for CBS and reassigned the
matter back to this court.  The only defendants remaining are Bell
Asbestos Mines, Ltd., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and
General Electric.  Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this matter
back to New Jersey state court arguing that no independent basis
for federal jurisdiction now exists because CBS is no longer a
party.

In an opinion dated August 7, 2012, Judge Freda L. Wolfson denied
Plaintiff's Motion holding that the Court has original
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, although
questions remain regarding the citizenship of the Defendants.
Nevertheless, Judge Wolfson did not decide whether she has subject
matter jurisdiction based on diversity because it is clear that
the Court has jurisdiction based on the federal officer removal
statute, thus raising a federal question.

The case is ELIZABETH LEWIS, Individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of THOMAS I. LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS CORP., LTD. et
al, Defendants, Civil Action No. 10-650 FLW (D.N.J.).  A copy of
Judge Wolfson's Decision is available at http://is.gd/DaiAlWfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Ct. Reverses Decision in Duty to Warn Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Macias worked as a tool keeper in a shipyard and his job
required that he maintain respirators that other workers wore to
filter out dangerous contaminants.  Mr. Macias and his wife,
Patricia Macias, brought a suit against the respirator
manufacturers, alleging that cleaning and maintaining the
respirators exposed Mr. Macias to asbestos, causing him to develop
mesothelioma.  The plaintiffs claim that the manufacturers owed a
duty to warn Mr. Macias of the danger that he could be exposed to
harmful asbestos dust when he cleaned and maintained the
respirators.  The respirator manufacturers moved for summary
judgment on the ground that as a matter of law under Simonetta v.
Viad Corporation, 165 Wn.2d 341, 197 P.3d 127 (2008), and Braaten
v. Saberhagen Holdings, 165 Wn.2d 373, 198 P.3d 493 (2008), they
owed no duty to warn.  The trial court denied the motion.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under Simonetta and
Braaten the defendants did not owe a duty to warn because they did
not manufacture the asbestos-containing products that were the
source of the asbestos to which Mr. Macias was exposed.

In a decision dated August 9, 2012, the Supreme Court of
Washington, deciding en banc, reversed the Court of Appeals after
determining that the Simonetta and Braaten do not control the
present case.  In Simonetta and Braaten, the Supreme Court held
that generally a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn of the
dangers inherent in a product that it does not manufacture, sell,
or supply.  However, in this case, the duty at issue is to warn of
the danger of asbestos exposure inherent in the use and
maintenance of the defendant manufacturers' own products, the
respirators.

The case is LEO MACIAS and PATRICIA MACIAS, husband and wife,
Petitioners, v. SABERHAGEN HOLDINGS, INC., as successor to TACOMA
ASBESTOS COMPANY and THE BROWER COMPANY; AMERICAN OPTICAL
CORPORATION; AMETEK, INC.; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY; NORTH
SAFETY PRODUCTS, USA, Respondents; TODD PACIFIC SHIPYARDS
CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to TODD
SHIPYARDS CORPORATION; TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION, individually
and as successor-in-interest to TODD PACIFIC SHIPYARDS
CORPORATION; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, f/k/a
VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to CBS CORPORATION, a
Pennsylvania corporation, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION;
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS (IPG), INC.; and INGERSOLL-
RAND COMPANY, Defendants, No. 85535-8 (Wash.).  A copy of the
Supreme Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Yuqxvmfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Suits to be Tried in Groups, Court Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
By order of the Administrative Judge dated June 8, 2012, 22 April
2012 in extremis asbestos-related personal injury and wrongful
death cases were referred to the Supreme Court, New York County,
for trial by jury.  Plaintiffs, all represented by the same
counsel, now move by order to show cause to join the 22 individual
actions for a single trial on the ground that the actions present
common issues of law and fact.  The remaining defendant, numbering
in excess of 80 at the time of the argument of the motion, either
through their joint opposition, or their individually filed
opposition, raise numerous arguments as to why these cases should
be tried separately.

The Court, in an August 7, 2012 memorandum, has determined that
the 22 actions shall be tried in three groups: one will consist of
plaintiffs who have been diagnosed with lung cancer; a second will
consist of plaintiffs who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma
and who also allege exposure during their time working in the U.S.
Navy (including one who worked for the U.S. Merchant Marine); and
a third will consist of plaintiffs who have been diagnosed with
mesothelioma but who never worked in the Navy.  Two plaintiffs --
Glenda Vega and Thomas Neuer -- will be excepted from these sub-
groups and will be tried separately and individually.

The case is HARRY ADLER, SCOTT DEWITT, EUGENE LEHNERT, JOSEPH
MIRABILE, ALAN NUDELMAN, MARK ROCK, ROBERT WEXLER, MURRAY BLONDER,
CHARLES CHIDESTER, JOHN DELLARATTA, JOSEPH MILAZZO, WILLIAM
MORITZ, IVO PERAICA, ANTONIO PEREZ, ROBERTO ROMAN, FRANK RUGNETTA,
RAYMOND SABO, EDWARD SADOWSKI, GEORGE SANTIAGO, GEORGE SMITH,
GLENDA VEGA, THOMAS NEUER, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, as successor-by-merger to BUFFALO PUMPS, et al.,
Defendants, Docket No. 190181/11, Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y.).  A
copy of the Supreme Court's August 7, 2012 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/ncRbwlfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies CSX's Bid for Bifurcation of Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frederick P. Stamp of the United States District Court, N.D.
West Virginia, denied CSX Transportation, Inc.'s motion for
separate trials of the claims in the third amended complaint
against Robert N. Peirce, Jr., Louis A. Raimond, Mark T. Coulter,
-- Lawyer Defendants -- and Ray Harron, M.D., and counterclaims
related to the complaint.  The third amended complaint alleges
that the lawyer defendants prosecuted fabricated asbestos claims
against CSX Transportation, including a claim filed on behalf of
Earl Baylor, and thereby violated the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and the common law of West Virginia.

Judge Stamp held that this case is not suited to bifurcation
because the lawyer defendants' counterclaims do not hinge solely
upon the success of CSXT's claims.  Also, Judge Stamp notes, the
facts and legal issues presented in the third amended complaint
and the counterclaims are inextricably intertwined -- all of the
claims relate to allegedly fraudulent conduct in the Federal
Employers Liability Act litigation involving Baylor and the past
history of CSXT and the defendants with regard to FELA action.

Although CSXT asserts that two separate trials would not result in
increasing expense, Judge Stamp finds that a bifurcated trial in
this matter would substantially increase costs by requiring the
parties to re-try issues and re-present facts.  Duplication of
pretrial pleadings, testimony, and evidence would almost certainly
add up to increased costs for both the parties and the Court,
Judge Stamp says.  Bifurcation would also delay the ultimate
resolution of this case, the procedural history of which extends
back over five years, he adds.

The case is CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROBERT V.
GILKISON, PEIRCE, RAIMOND & COULTER, P.C., a Pennsylvania
professional corporation a/k/a ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., a
Pennsylvania professional corporation, ROBERT PEIRCE, JR., LOUIS
A. RAIMOND, MARK T. COULTER and RAY HARRON, M.D., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 5:05CV202 (N.D. W.Va.).  A copy of Judge Stamp's
August 10, 2012 Decision is available at http://is.gd/E6QqR8from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 550 New Claims Filed vs. Goodyear Tire in 2Q
-------------------------------------------------------------
During the second quarter of 2012, approximately 550 new asbestos-
related claims were filed against The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, 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 were one of numerous defendants in legal
proceedings in certain state and Federal courts involving
approximately 76,000 claimants relating to their alleged exposure
to materials containing asbestos in products allegedly
manufactured by us or asbestos materials present in our
facilities. During the second quarter of 2012, approximately 550
new claims were filed against us and approximately 2,200 were
settled or dismissed. The amount expended on asbestos defense and
claim resolution by Goodyear and its insurance carriers during the
second quarter and first six months of 2012 was $1 million and $4
million, respectively. At June 30, 2012, there were approximately
74,350 asbestos claims pending against us. The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and other relief.

"To date, we have disposed of approximately 103,300 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into
a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability
and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by us and our
insurers totaled approximately $392 million through June 30, 2012
and $388 million through December 31, 2011.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $69
million and $67 million as of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011,
respectively. We expect that approximately 50% of asbestos claim
related losses would be recoverable through insurance through the
period covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, $9
million and $8 million was included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts Receivable at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011,
respectively. The recorded receivable consists of an amount we
expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain
primary carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of
recovery from certain of our excess coverage insurance carriers.

"We believe that, at June 30, 2012, we had approximately $160
million in limits of excess level policies potentially applicable
to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims. We
also had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining
aggregate limits, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense
costs for asbestos premises claims on a per occurrence basis,
pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements at June 30, 2012."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires. The
Company, together with subsidiaries and joint ventures, develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes tires for a range of
applications. The Company also manufactures and markets rubber-
related chemicals for various applications. The Company is an
operator of commercial truck service and tire retreading centers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 18,626 PI Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation had 18,626 pending asbestos personal injury
claims as of 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.

In the United States, the Company has been named as one of many
defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal
actions alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne
asbestos over the past several decades.  In their suits, the
plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.
The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers.  Any component within a Company product that
may have contained asbestos would have been purchased from a
supplier.  Based on scientific and medical evidence, the Company
believes that any asbestos exposure arising from normal use of any
Company product never presented any harmful levels of airborne
asbestos exposure, and, moreover, the type of asbestos contained
in any component that was used in those products was protectively
encapsulated in other materials and is not associated with the
types of injuries alleged in the pending suits.  Finally, in most
of the depositions taken of plaintiffs to date in the litigation
against the Company, plaintiffs have failed to specifically
identify any Company products as the source of their asbestos
exposure.

The majority of the asbestos complaints pending against the
Company have been filed in New York.  Almost all of the New York
complaints contain a standard claim for damages of $20 million or
$25 million against the approximately 90 defendants, regardless of
the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
specifically identifying any Company product as the source of
plaintiff's asbestos exposure.

As of June 30, 2012, there are 18,626 pending asbestos personal
injury claims filed against the Company.  Of these cases, 18,126
are pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York County in
New York State.  The other claims, totaling 500, are filed in
various counties in a number of state courts, and in certain
Federal District Courts (including New York), and those complaints
generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York State
court cases or do not state any amount claimed.

As of June 30, 2012, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 26,128 cases.
In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation nationwide, the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims.
However, there have been developments during the past several
years, both by certain state legislatures and by certain state
courts, which could favorably affect the Company's ability to
defend these asbestos claims in those jurisdictions.  These
developments include procedural changes, docketing changes, proof
of damage requirements and other changes that require plaintiffs
to follow specific procedures in bringing their claims and to show
proof of damages before they can proceed with their claim.

An example is the action taken by the New York Supreme Court (a
trial court), which is responsible for managing all asbestos cases
pending within New York County in the State of New York.  The
Court issued an order in December 2002 that created a Deferred or
Inactive Docket for all pending and future asbestos claims filed
by plaintiffs who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant
condition or discernible physical impairment, and an Active or In
Extremis Docket for plaintiffs who are able to show such medical
condition.  As a result of this order, the majority of the
asbestos cases filed against the Company in New York County have
been moved to the Inactive Docket until such time as the
plaintiffs can show that they have incurred a physical impairment.
As of June 30, 2012, the Company has been listed as a defendant in
804 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.  The
Court's Order has been challenged by some plaintiffs.

Except with regard to the legal costs in a few limited,
exceptional cases, the Company's insurance carrier has paid all
legal and settlement costs and expenses to date related to the
Company's U.S. asbestos cases.  The Company has liability
insurance coverage under various primary and excess policies that
the Company believes will be available, if necessary, to
substantially cover any liability that might ultimately be
incurred on these claims.

The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases.  It is not possible to predict
the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and
proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury
litigation.  Despite this uncertainty, and although results of
operations and cash flows for a given period could be adversely
affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings,
management believes that the ultimate outcome of these cases will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Harsco Corporation is a multinational provider of industrial
services and engineered products serving global industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Suit Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------
In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a case pending in
West Virginia, a class was commenced on behalf of all West
Virginia residents who allegedly have personal injury claims
arising from exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The
complaint seeks to recover $1,000,000 in compensatory and punitive
damages individually and unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages for the class. The case is stayed as a result of the
December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants.

No further updates were reported in Vector Group Ltd.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

Vector Group Ltd is a holding company. The Company operates in
tobacco and real estate. The Tobacco segment consists of the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes. The Real Estate segment
includes the Company's investments in consolidated and non-
consolidated real estate businesses. It is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States through
its Liggett Group LLC (Liggett) and Vector Tobacco Inc. (Vector
Tobacco) subsidiaries, and the real estate business through its
New Valley LLC (New Valley) subsidiary, which is seeking to
acquire additional operating companies and real estate properties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Still Faces Asbestos Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., like other manufacturers, is
subject from time to time to a variety of civil and administrative
proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business.  Such
claims and litigation include, without limitation, product
liability claims and health, safety and environmental claims, some
of which relate to cases alleging asbestos and manganese induced
illnesses.  The claimants in the asbestos and manganese cases seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
amounts.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
these claims and intends to contest such suits vigorously.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has been named as defendant in certain lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in
products made by the Company. The Company is a co-defendant with
numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these claims.  The claims are
similar to previous asbestos suits that named the Company as
defendant, which either were dismissed when it was shown that the
Company had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of
work or were settled for amounts below the expected defense costs.
The outcome of these lawsuits cannot be determined at this time.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco International Faced 5,200 Suits at June 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd., as of June 29, 2012, had approximately
5,200 lawsuits pending against it, its subsidiaries or entities
for which the Company has assumed responsibility, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2012.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous
other companies are named as defendants in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims
based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or
distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos
or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components
manufactured by third-parties. Each case typically names between
dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants.

While the Company has observed an increase in the number of the
lawsuits over the past several years, including lawsuits by
plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large percentage of
these suits have not presented viable legal claims and, as a
result, have been dismissed by the courts. The Company's
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, the Company cannot predict
the extent to which it will be successful in resolving lawsuits in
the future.

In addition, the Company continues to assess its strategy for
resolving asbestos claims. Due to the number of claims and limited
amount of assets at one of the Company's non-operating
subsidiaries, the Company is pursuing alternatives for this
subsidiary, including a negotiated settlement with representatives
of all current and future asbestos claimants against such
subsidiary. While the Company has not finalized its approach, if
the Company is ultimately successful with this alternative, it
will likely assign rights to certain insurance assets and make a
cash payment in order to fully resolve the claims against the
subsidiary.

As of June 29, 2012, there were approximately 5,200 lawsuits
pending against the Company, its subsidiaries or entities for
which the Company has assumed responsibility. Each lawsuit
typically includes several claims, and the Company has determined
that there were approximately 6,100 claims outstanding as of
June 29, 2012, which reflects the Company's current estimate of
the number of viable claims made against it, its affiliates or
entities for which it has assumed responsibility in connection
with acquisitions or divestitures. This amount includes
adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted,
identify incorrect defendants or are duplicative of other actions.

Annually, during the Company's third quarter, the Company performs
an analysis with the assistance of outside counsel and other
experts to update its estimated asbestos-related assets and
liabilities. In addition, on a quarterly basis, the Company re-
evaluates the assumptions used to perform the annual analysis and
records an expense as necessary to reflect changes in its
estimated liability and related insurance asset. The Company's
estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for
pending and future claims and defense costs is based on the
Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the number
and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed.
The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts
these estimates. The Company considers various trends and
developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back
period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is
used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be made
in the future during a defined period of time (the look-forward
period). As part of the Company's annual valuation process in the
third quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company determined that a look-
back period of three years was more appropriate than a five-year
period because the Company has experienced a higher and more
consistent level of claims activity and settlement costs in the
past three years.

As a result, the Company believes a three year look-back period is
more representative of future claim and settlement activity than
the five year period it previously used. The Company also revised
its look-forward period from seven years to 15 years.  The
Company's decision to revise its look-forward period was primarily
based on improvements in the consistency of observable data and
the Company's more extensive experience with asbestos claims since
the look-forward period was originally established in 2005. The
revisions to the Company's look-forward and look-back periods do
not apply to claims made against the subsidiary described above
for which the Company is pursuing alternatives, including a
negotiated settlement with representatives of all current and
future asbestos claimants. Excluding these claims, the Company
believes it can make a more reliable estimate of pending and
future claims beyond seven years. The Company believes valuation
of pending claims and future claims to be filed over the next
fifteen years produces a reasonable estimate of its asbestos
liability, which it records in the consolidated financial
statements on an undiscounted basis.

The Company's estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries
represents estimated amounts due to the Company for previously
paid and settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating
to its estimated liability for pending and future claims. In
determining the amount of insurance recoverable, the Company
considers a number of factors, including available insurance,
allocation methodologies, and the solvency and creditworthiness of
insurers. During the third quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company
reached an agreement in principle with one of its primary
insurance carriers for asbestos related claims. In connection with
the settlement, the Company also expects to terminate a cost-
sharing agreement that it had entered into with an entity that it
had acquired a business from several decades ago and as a result,
has access to all of the insurance policies and is responsible for
all liabilities arising from asbestos claims made against the
subsidiary that was acquired. Under the terms of the settlement,
the Company agreed with the insurance carrier to accept a lump sum
cash payment of $97 million in respect of certain policies, and
has reached a coverage-in-place agreement with the insurance
carrier with respect to certain claims.

The Company recorded a net charge of $114 million during the
quarter ended June 29, 2012. As of June 29, 2012, the Company's
estimated net liability of $154 million was recorded within the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending
and future claims and related defense costs of $436 million, and
separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $282 million.
The Company believes that its asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets as of June 29, 2012 are appropriate.
Similarly, as of September 30, 2011, the Company's estimated net
liability of $82 million was recorded within the Company's
Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future
claims and related defense costs of $306 million, and separately
as an asset for insurance recoveries of $224 million.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the
Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently
available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions.
Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new
claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of
claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers,
amount of insurance and the solvency risk with respect to the
Company's insurance carriers. Furthermore, predictions with
respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in
the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may
affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-
related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation
process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case,
reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability
of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher
or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's
calculations vary significantly from actual results.

Tyco International Ltd is a Switzerland-based holding company of
Tyco Group. The Tyco Group (the Group) is a diversifies, global
provider of diversified products ranging from electronic security
and alarm monitoring to fire-fighting equipment and breathing
apparatus, water purification and flow control solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $1.03BB Reserves at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were $1.03
billion and $1.08 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of $500
million and $529 million, as of June 30, 2012, and December 31,
2011, respectively.  Reserves for environmental claims were $181
million and $185 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $38
million and $40 million, as of June 30, 2012 and December 31,
2011, respectively.  Approximately 58% and 59% of the total net
asbestos and environmental reserves as of June 30, 2012 and
December 31, 2011, respectively, were for incurred but not
reported estimated losses.

Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are
appropriately established based on available facts, technology,
laws and regulations.  However, establishing net loss reserves for
asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is
subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those
presented by other types of claims.  The ultimate cost of losses
may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on
management's best estimate.

Among the complications are lack of historical data, long
reporting delays, uncertainty as to the number and identity of
insureds with potential exposure and unresolved legal issues
regarding policy coverage; unresolved legal issues regarding the
determination, availability and timing of exhaustion of policy
limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding theories of liability;
availability and collectability of recoveries from reinsurance;
retrospectively determined premiums and other contractual
agreements; estimates of the extent and timing of any contractual
liability; the impact of bankruptcy protection sought by various
asbestos producers and other asbestos defendants; and other
uncertainties.

There are also complex legal issues concerning the interpretation
of various insurance policy provisions and whether those losses
are covered, or were ever intended to be covered, and could be
recoverable through retrospectively determined premium,
reinsurance or other contractual agreements.  Courts have reached
different and sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses
are deemed to have occurred and which policies provide coverage;
what types of losses are covered; whether there is an insurer
obligation to defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy
exclusions and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether
clean-up costs represent insured property damage.

Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in
the near future, and the ultimate costs may vary materially from
the amounts currently recorded resulting in material changes in
loss reserves.  In addition, while the Company believes that
improved actuarial techniques and databases have assisted in its
ability to estimate asbestos, environmental, and other
discontinued lines net loss reserves, these refinements may
subsequently prove to be inadequate indicators of the extent of
probable losses.  Due to the uncertainties and factors described
above, management believes it is not practicable to develop a
meaningful range for any such additional net loss reserves that
may be required.

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

The Allstate Corporation is a holding company for Allstate
Insurance Company. The Company's business is conducted principally
through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance
Company and their affiliates. It is engaged, principally in the
United States, in the property-liability insurance, life
insurance, retirement and investment product business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 36,000 Razed Christchurch Homes Eyed for Cleanup
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Cropp of The New Zealand Herald reports that up to 36,000
quake-damaged Christchurch homes may be tested for asbestos
providing a bonanza for companies in the asbestos testing and
removal business.

Asbestos fibers are a potential health hazard because of their
association with cancer and were used building materials, such as
textured ceilings, cladding, roofing, and in backing for older
floor tiles and vinyl.  The material normally poses little risk
unless disturbed -- which is increasingly an issue in Christchurch
were so many damaged homes are being repaired or demolished.

Fletcher EQR is managing repairs on about 80,000 Christchurch
homes and says all houses built between 1940 and 1990 which have
damaged ceilings will have to be tested for asbestos.

EQR says the figure of 36,000 is consistent with estimates based
on historical building data but it is too early to say how many
homes will return positive results.

However industry sources suggest about half the samples being
collected (often more than one per property) are positive, and the
number of homes needing remedial work on asbestos could run to
thousands.

Capital Environmental Services (CES) in Wellington does bulk
asbestos testing and consultant Linda Dwyer says Christchurch
samples now make up 80% of the company's work load, whereas
previously it was only 5 or 10%.

Over recent weeks CES has received between 40 and 60 samples a day
from Christchurch buildings, mostly residential properties, and so
far this year just under 40% of textured ceilings have tested
positive for asbestos.

Chemsafety collects samples and checks homes to ensure they are
safe to reoccupy once asbestos-related repairs are completed.

Company owner Mike Gray says work in Christchurch has increased
markedly and of the 200 samples a week sent to Auckland for
testing, about half show asbestos is present.  "The textured
ceilings that look like oat meal, 80% of them come back positive
for asbestos."

Removing damaged asbestos ceilings costs between $90 and $130 per
square meter and one company specializing in this work has quoted
to treat close to 500 homes since the quakes started almost two
years ago.

Another company, Canterbury Heating Ltd, has about 150 houses on
its books awaiting attention and owner John Wilder says the scale
of the work is mindboggling.  "Nobody really realized what a huge
job we have got in front of us, it's thousands of houses."

EQR has four options for dealing with damaged ceilings containing
asbestos.  They include covering with plaster board (encasement),
repairing (raking out, re-plastering and painting), sealing with
paint or resin, or complete removal and replacement.

Wilder says the disadvantage of encasement is that it poses a
future risk to DIY homeowners or tradesmen unaware asbestos is
present.  "If you cover it up with gib board and an electrician
drills a hole to put a down light in and gets asbestos on himself,
he's going to go ape."

In May Canterbury District Health Board CEO David Meates raised
concerns about encasement because he said nailing up batons to
erect false ceilings disturbed asbestos-containing material and
this method also covered up a significant issue which would still
need to be addressed at some stage in the future.

The Labour Group of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment has talked to contractors about asbestos at hazard
identification workshops run in Christchurch.

Labour Group Christchurch Service manager Margaret Radford says
ideally asbestos should be removed from buildings; however there
are situations where encapsulation, sealing or covering may be
acceptable alternatives.  "We do not have any reason to express
concern over the standard of work done to date."

Chemsafety's Mike Gray says an asbestos register is needed so
buyers of commercial or residential buildings can establish
whether asbestos is present and where it is located.

EQR provides homeowners with records of repair work carried out on
quake-damaged properties, but the Christchurch City Council says
owners are not obliged to lodge copies of those documents on
council property files where they can be viewed by prospective
buyers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleanup Temporarily Closes Hale Road School
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sheil at Fox8.com reports that officials of the Riverside
Local Schools District have come up with a plan on where students
will begin fall classes after asbestos was discovered earlier at
Hale Elementary.

"It was a challenge, because we found out about this Monday
morning (Aug. 6)," said superintendent Jim Kalis.

The asbestos was discovered after some construction workers
accidentally loosened some floor tiles.

The old insulating material is not dangerous when it's sealed, but
has been linked to cancer once it's airborne.

Test results were mostly negative, but some spots at the school
did show the presence of asbestos.

"As a precaution, we chose to close the building down," Kalis
said.

Fourth and fifth graders from Hale will now go to a district
middle school.

Kindergarten through third grade will hold classes in the
education wing of the Painesville Assembly of God church.

Kalis said the asbestos removal is expected to take a month or
two.

All students will be offered transportation to their alternative
school locations until Hale is reopened.

              Hale Road School Sends Out Fibro Alert

Tim Misny at WOIO reports that Hale Road Elementary may remain
closed past the start of the school year after the presence of
asbestos was detected in the building.

School officials placed a sign on the front door of the school
warning people to stay out.

Parents and students in the Riverside School District received a
reverse phone call and e-mail alerting them of the situation:

"Good afternoon, this is Superintendent James Kalis calling with
an important message about Hale Road Elementary School.  As some
of you may be aware summer time is a busy time in our schools,
much work is done to prepare them for the start of the new school
year.  This year was no exception, during routine summer
construction and maintenance work the existence of asbestos was
found at Hale Road Elementary.  We believe this happened when
asbestos was disturbed during the construction process.  We
immediately halted the summer construction and maintenance work
and are working with a firm to clean and restore the building to
safe levels.

"Unfortunately, we were notified that the complete clean-up will
not be done in time to start the new school year.  Please know we
are doing everything possible to secure an alternate school
location to start the school year for your students, who normally
attend Hale Road Elementary School.  We will continue to provide
you with updates as they become available and will post this
information on the district web site.

"We thank you for your patience as we work to resolve this issue."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peru Central School Renovation Stirs Up Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Livingston of the Press-Republican reports that summer
renovations to Peru Central Intermediate School have necessitated
additional asbestos abatement.

The hazardous material was recently removed from hallway ceilings
on both floors of the Intermediate School after it was
unexpectedly disturbed during renovations to the building.

Peru Central School Superintendent Dr. Patrick Brimstein said the
abatement came at a cost of $20,000.

Earlier in the summer, asbestos, which was used in the past in
building materials as an insulator and fire retardant, was also
abated from floor tiles in the Intermediate School.

The district, however, did not anticipate having to remove it from
the building's ceiling, Brimstein said.

"In 1938, when this building was constructed, asbestos was
commonly used," he wrote in an email to the Press-Republican.
"This was before people knew about the dangers."

But while it is now known to cause a serious lung condition known
as asbestosis, it is only when the material becomes disturbed and
its fibers airborne that it poses a health risk.

Brimstein said the district was aware of the asbestos in the
ceiling, but expected to find it safely fixed in place.  Instead,
when the old ceiling tiles were being removed, the asbestos began
to break off.

The material has been safely abated from both the first and second
floor hallways of the building, he said, and the air on the first
floor was tested and deemed free of asbestos fibers.

The district is now awaiting results of second-floor air tests
before continuing with installation of new ceiling tiles there.

Brimstein said he has been told by the building crew that the
renovations will be completed on schedule and in time for the
start of the upcoming school year despite the setback.

"I'm pushing pretty hard behind the scenes to make sure that
happens," he said.

In addition to the new flooring and ceilings, the renovations also
include building improvements in preparation for incoming sixth-
graders, who will be housed in the Intermediate School in 2012-13.
Due to budget constraints, the School Board opted to relocate the
classes there from the Middle School.

Brimstein said he is committed to making sure construction is
completed in time for staff associated with the sixth-grade move
to get settled into the new work environment before students
arrive.

The Intermediate School renovations are part of the final phase of
Peru Central's district-wide EXCEL capital improvement project,
which was approved by voters in March 2008.  The work encompassed
the modernization of heating, window and ventilation systems;
flooring and bathrooms; the renovation of several program spaces,
including the High School auditorium and gymnasium; and lighting
components in a number of classrooms.

"The bulk of the work was done in the first two phases of the
project," Brimstein said.

Due to the unexpected abatement expenditure, some minor
improvements to the Intermediate School building, such as
painting, will be done by the district's Buildings and Grounds
crews.

That way, he said, costs can be minimized.

"When there's a safety issue, that trumps all," Brimstein said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota Expected to Appeal JPY32 Million Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan) reports that the Kobe District Court
has ordered major machinery manufacturer Kubota Corp. to pay about
JPY32 million to the family of a man who worked near a Kubota
factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, recognizing that his death
from pleural mesothelioma was caused by asbestos released from the
plant.

This is the first time a court has ruled that a company's
responsibility for asbestos-related damage extends to areas around
its facilities.

The suit was filed by the families of two people killed by the
asbestos-linked disease, but the ruling said Kubota was only
responsible to pay damages for one of the deaths.  The plaintiffs
had also demanded compensation from the government, but the court
ruled the state was not liable.

According to the ruling handed down Tuesday, Aug. 7, Kojiro
Yamauchi of Amagasaki, who died at 80 years old in 1996, worked at
a factory about 200 meters away from Kubota's former Kanzaki
factory for about 20 years until 1975.

The families of Yamauchi and a woman who also died of the disease
had demanded a total of JPY79 million from Kubota and the
government.

Presiding Judge Yoshihiro Konishi recognized that Yamauchi's death
was related to asbestos from the Kubota plant and ordered the
company to pay JPY31.95 million in damages to his family.

The plaintiffs are expected to appeal the decision to a higher
court, as they expressed dissatisfaction that the court did not
hold the state responsible.

The court acknowledged both Yamauchi and Ayako Yasui, also of
Amagasaki and who died at 85 years old in 2007, developed pleural
mesothelioma because of asbestos.

Yasui lived at two places within 1.5 kilometers of the Kanzaki
plant for 35 years, and shopped in an area near the factory every
day over a certain period of time, according to the plaintiffs.

The ruling said Kubota was liable for the death of Yamauchi
because the factory used large amounts of asbestos.  In his
ruling, Konishi referred to an expert opinion on mesothelioma that
stated the area near the factory, including Yamauchi's workplace,
carried a considerable risk of the disease because of the asbestos
released from the plant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Agency Probes Dale Farm Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------
Billericay Gazette at Thisistotalessex.co.uk reports that the
Environment Agency is sending inspectors to Dale Farm to gather
evidence of contamination reportedly unearthed during the eviction
of travelers.

Should contaminants be found by the government team of
consultants, Basildon Council might be forced to relay hardcore in
order to contain the pollutants.

Gypsy campaigners claim that asbestos, oil and scrap metal were
exposed in October's eviction, posing a health risk to travelers
and neighboring residents in Crays Hill.

Soil samples will be taken for analysis over two days next week
and the report, which will take six weeks to complete, will assess
if there is any contamination.

Traveller campaigner Stuart Carruthers said he raised the issue of
contamination with Basildon Council in the aftermath of the
eviction.  He claims the authority failed to act, so he took up
the issue with the Environment Agency in November.

"It will clarify once and for all if there's pollution," said Mr.
Carruthers.  "I have been down many times since the clearance and
you can see lumps of asbestos there."

Campaigners claim the contaminants originate from when the land
was used as an unregulated landfill site prior to the travelers
taking ownership.

By removing hardcore and digging down several feet during the
GBP7.2 million eviction, it is claimed council contractors exposed
the pollutants.

"It's ludicrous it has got to this situation," said Mr.
Carruthers. He also said the gypsies could sue the council for
negligently exposing a landfill site on their land.

The Gazette revealed in June that the agency was to investigate
claims of contamination

The agency has also confirmed that should pollution be found at
the five-acre site, the party responsible for the damage will be
liable to resolve the situation, plus the costs of the
investigation.

Leader of Basildon Council, councilor Tony Ball, said: "I am clear
that if there any breaches it is not the council that has done it,
the land is in private ownership.

"I am clear that we did not disturb any asbestos. Any other
infringements have been caused by other parties."

Mr. Ball said he did not envisage the council having to pay out
any further costs.

"The point is the council didn't dump those items," he said.

"They were brought illegally by the owners of the land at the
time.  My understanding is it is not the council that's guilty."

Dale Farm has also become a magnet for fly-tippers.  The Gazette
has seen human excrement on site and neighbors have reported a
rise in rats and foxes.

The Environment Agency said: "Once we have the report, we will
know more about what needs to happen next."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Impact of Early Meso Detection Questioned
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak of The Mesothelioma Center reports that early detection
of cancer is a proven, effective tool in treating many variations
of the disease.  And it remains a focus for research in the field
of mesothelioma.

Yet it might be little more than fool's gold in this case.  There
are no guarantees.

Even leaders in the field, those working tirelessly to find
in-roads to help people who develop mesothelioma, admit there is
no definitive proof that early detection of mesothelioma actually
can extend anyone's chances of survival.

"We are making some measured progress (in early detection)," said
thoracic surgeon Robert Cameron, M.D., scientific advisor of the
Pacific Meso Center in Los Angeles, California.  "But it is very
hard to demonstrate that we are doing anything more than just
detecting the disease earlier.  People are aggressively pursuing
this area of research, but how fertile it will be to actually
making an impact on patient survival, remains to be seen."

Mesothelioma is the cancer caused almost exclusively by an
exposure to asbestos.  It affects the thin, protective membrane
surrounding the lungs, heart or abdominal cavity.

Microscopic asbestos fibers are inhaled or ingested.  They most
often become lodged in that lining of the lungs, called the
pleura, and over time cause inflammation, scaring, and genetic
damage, setting the stage for pleural mesothelioma.

It can take 10 to 50 years after an initial exposure to asbestos
before mesothelioma symptoms can appear to the point where someone
acknowledges there is something wrong. By the time the cancer is
detected, it is often so developed that there is a poor prognosis.
Life expectancy typically is in the range of seven to 18 months.

In theory, earlier detection should lead to more effective
treatment options.  It works with many cancers, catching the
tumors while still small, and when they can be more easily removed
or treated.

Advances in early detection of mesothelioma have come primarily in
three categories:

     1. Early radiographic detection through chest X-rays, CT
scans, MRI's and PET scans.  The screening of patients with a
history of asbestos exposure, often before a patient becomes
symptomatic with coughing, shortness of breath, or chest pains,
which all can be early signs of mesothelioma, has shown promise.
But they often can't differentiate between mesothelioma and other
less-serious asbestos-related problems.

     2. Biological molecules, or biomarkers, are being identified
and can be detected from simple blood or urine tests.  These
already are being used with other cancers like prostate and colon.
This involves chemically-modified DNA molecules that specifically
bind to proteins identified with mesothelioma in its earliest
stages.  There are a number of studies currently being done in
various labs, and the early results have been encouraging.

     3. Breath testing with an electronic nose is an even newer
concept gaining traction.  It is completely non-invasive -- making
it ideal for early screening -- adapted from a concept that has
been used for years to detect chemicals.  Airport security today
uses a form of this breath testing to detect potential explosives.
Although still in its formative stages, a breath print can be
established to detect scents exclusive to certain diseases.

"There is nothing quite ready yet for prime time, but stay tuned,"
said Harvey Pass, M.D., professor of thoracic oncology at the NYU
Langone Medical Center, whose laboratory is doing extensive
studies of early detection.

"There are a lot of people who are concerned with finding
therapies now for patients with late-stage disease, which is
extremely important, but the real gains will be made from finding
it (mesothelioma) earlier.  Treatments will work better.  It could
be very important in turning this into a chronic illness."

Mesothelioma is diagnosed in approximately 3,000 Americans each
year, which is only a fraction of those found with other more
prominent cancers like breast and lung cancer.  The rarity has
resulted in fewer studies, fewer trials and slower advances in
treatment and diagnostics.

The typical treatment for mesothelioma now includes a multi-
modality approach that includes surgery, chemotherapy and
radiation.  And while advances in treatment have occurred -- many
patients are living longer -- there has been no consistent,
across-the-board success related to earlier diagnosis.

"No matter what some people say, there really aren't very
effective therapies yet (for mesothelioma)," Cameron said.  "And
there is absolutely no evidence that surgery, chemotherapy and
radiation would be more effective if given at this earlier stage."

Cameron has company in his belief that an earlier diagnosis will
not automatically lead to longer survival rates.  He said that the
calculations of those rates can be deceptive -- lead-time bias --
because they often just start the clock ticking earlier with the
same ending date.

One of the reasons for Cameron's skepticism is the nature of
mesothelioma cancer, which is very complex and different from
other cancers.  Every tumor, even at the earliest stage, is
diffuse.  The entire pleural surface is involved.  The cancer
often cannot be removed like a small nodule could.

"People make the assumptions that earlier stage diagnosis of
mesothelioma means more treatment options and living longer, but
unfortunately, we don't know that to be true," said Daniel
Sterman, M.D., director of the Thoracic Oncology Gene Therapy
Program at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center.  "It
just hasn't been proven.  It's tempting to make those assumptions
-- to extrapolate from other cancers -- but they don't always
work."

The lack of a proven, minimally-invasive diagnostic tool is
another reason there has not been a widespread call for early
screening for mesothelioma.  There are particular occupations more
vulnerable to asbestos exposure, but patients have come from all
walks of life.  Asbestos, through much of the 20th century, was
everywhere in the United States.

"The population-at-risk is huge.  The number of people who
actually develop the disease is small," Sterman said.  "We have
the tools to do it, but screening large populations, with all the
false positives and false negatives, might not be very effective."

Pass, Sterman and Cameron all have been treating mesothelioma
patients for many years.  All three are encouraged by the advances
in early-diagnosis for lung cancer, but they point out how
different mesothelioma can be from any other cancer.

"The only way we definitively can tell we are making a difference
(with early diagnosis) would be if the treatment effect were
huge," Cameron said.  "And right now, that is very hard to
demonstrate."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Melbourne Widow Gets $476,000 WorkCover Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at Australian law firm Slater &
Gordon's Web site, a former Toyota employee's widow wants asbestos
settlement to be a lesson for others.

A year after tragically losing her husband to asbestos-related
cancer, Melbourne widow Lisa Mugg has described a WorkCover
settlement in excess of half a million dollars as bittersweet.

The Seaford resident, whose husband Farid Moghaddas contracted
mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos when he worked at
Toyota's Port Melbourne factory in the 1980s, will receive
$476,000 plus interest and a pension for three years.

Lisa wants the settlement to send a message to other families
devastated by the deadly disease that they are entitled to pursue
compensation for their loss.

"There is a lot of confusion around compensation and asbestos,
particularly when it comes to entitlements for surviving family
members," Lisa said.

Lisa, who has been involved in asbestos support groups including
Asbestoswise, said nothing could make up for the pain of losing
her beloved husband but the settlement would provide some relief.

"I'd describe it as bittersweet," Lisa said.

"Frankly it has allowed me to survive financially while I'm
dealing with my grief and it brings me some relief to know that my
husband would be satisfied that my welfare has been taken care
of."

Slater & Gordon workers compensation lawyer James Casey, who
worked on Lisa's claim, said the amount she will receive was the
maximum payable to surviving spouses under WorkCover legislation.

"Lisa is an incredibly strong woman who was dedicated to her
husband and they expected to live long and happy lives together,"
Mr. Casey said.

"The WorkCover compensation that she will receive will hopefully
provide her with financial security.  But nothing can ever
compensate the fact that Lisa's loving husband has been cruelly
taken away from her by a horrible disease that was caused by his
work."

Lisa said her life changed forever in 2007 when Farid, aged 49,
went for a check-up to see what was causing pains in his rib area.
Tests confirmed he had contracted mesothelioma and he was given
four years to live.

The pair married the following year after a ten-year relationship.

Decaying asbestos sheets at Toyota's Port Melbourne factory, where
Farid worked in cost analysis between 1988 and 1991, were
pinpointed as the cause of his cancer.

"Farid was from Persia and the meaning of his name is 'unique',
and that was him," Lisa said.

"He was a man who was wonderful with people, showed incredible
tolerance and patience and was loved by many.  He had a wonderful
fighting spirit and was just a wonderful husband."

"To see him go on without complaint and with his usual positivity
as he accepted his fate was inspiring but, in the end, it was
heartbreaking to see him withdraw from the things he liked to do
like tinkering with cars and even just walking.  His last months
were spent breathing through an oxygen mask."

Lisa was forced to quit her job in marketing in 2009 to care for
her husband until he died on July 23 last year.

Lisa said more still needed to be done in the general community to
highlight the dangers of asbestos, which was still present
throughout the community

"Someone can take down a toolshed in the backyard with a few mates
over the weekend and there is this false belief that you need to
be working with asbestos for a long time to get sick, but that's
not the case," she said.

"It can be one inhalation, one exposure and that can be enough and
that's what people need to know.  Of course there are a lot of
factors that have to come together but people need to be aware of
those."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watauga Leaders Grant Additional Abatement Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Frank at Goblueridge.net reports the Watauga Commissioners
voted Tuesday, Aug. 7, to take funds from the reserve set aside
for the old Watauga High demolition to pay for additional asbestos
abatement, with more found as workers take apart interior areas of
the school.

Commissioners approved something over $37,000 from the $100,000
reserve fund to deal with the additional asbestos, which has to be
cleared before the rest of the building can be torn down.

Commissioner David Blust voted against the expense as a
continuation of his opposition to the destruction of the old
school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SOS Says Containers at La Collette Releases Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark McQuillan at Channelonline.tv reports that an environmental
campaign group, Save Our Shoreline (SOS), in Jersey have raised
concerns that asbestos isn't being stored safely.

Save Our Shoreline claim the material which are being kept in
containers at La Collette, are not airtight, and that it is
possible fibers are being released.

Transport and Technical Services say they are confident that is
not happening but do want to find a long term, alternative
solution to the containers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 75% to 82% of Devon Public Schools Have Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Kumah of BBC News Devon reports that asbestos is present in
about 75% of council-run schools in Devon, according to figures
obtained under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act.

Some people want it completely removed, but a government expert
said disturbing it could be more harmful.

Asbestos, which used to be a common building material, is no
longer used.

Education authorities in Devon, Torbay and Plymouth have insisted
regular checks are done to ensure asbestos does not pose a health
risk.

The National Union of Teachers is campaigning for a program to
remove asbestos as well as a national audit of asbestos in schools
to get a country-wide picture of the situation.

ATaC (asbestos testing and consultancy) which offers independent
advice on the management of asbestos reported its concerns to the
government in 2010, after a random national survey of 12 schools
highlighted serious concerns.

Spokesman Andy Jackson said: "If asbestos is properly managed it's
a safe material, but not all schools are managing it properly and
that's when it can be a problem."

The report said none of the schools it surveyed were fully
compliant with HSE guidance, only four had an adequate standard of
asbestos management, while the majority had standards which were
"either ineffective or unworkable and with the potential to cause
a contamination or exposure incident."

The FoI request showed that 84% of Plymouth's council-maintained
schools and 60% of Torbay's, contained asbestos.

In Devon, 82% of schools run by the county council have, or are
presumed to have, the material in its buildings.

There has been one successful legal claim against Devon County
Council in the last decade for asbestos exposure in a school,
which resulted in a compensation payout of GBP8,000.

Pete Nash, of the Plymouth Association of Primary Head Teachers,
said there was a strict monitoring of schools, with risk
assessments carried out every month.

"The more dangerous asbestos was taken out of our schools years
ago," he said.

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

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

The Health and Safety Executive said, statistically speaking, the
number of teachers dying from asbestos-related conditions was in
line with the average for all occupations.

Michael Lees, who set up the Asbestos in Schools Group following
the death of his wife Gina -- a supply teacher who died in 2000
from the asbestos-related condition mesothelioma after a 30-year
teaching career -- would like to see all the material removed.

"Progressive government's have had this policy that it's safer to
leave it in place and manage it without addressing the problem,"
he said.

"If they adopted this policy we're asking them to do -- identify
the asbestos, set your priorities to remove the most dangerous
asbestos first -- you then incrementally solve the problem."

Professor David Philips, chairman of the government's committee of
carcinogenicity, said the government policy was to manage the
exposure of asbestos in schools.

"Once you start disturbing it you could be creating a greater
problem than leaving it where it is, if it's not properly
managed," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Fibro Dumping A Growing Concern
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Sullivan of ABC News reports that the Environment Protection
Authority (EPA) says illegal dumping is a growing concern in South
Australia's regional areas, with abandoned asbestos a particular
problem.

The authority says a recent clean-up near Port Pirie highlights
the issue.

A hydrocarbon spill was detected at a site known as Red Creek
between Port Pirie and Port Germein in April.

The EPA paid for up to 6,000 liters of liquid to be pumped out at
the time but locals say vegetation is dying off months later.

Tony Williams from the EPA's illegal dumping unit says it is not
an isolated incident.

"It is something that's very frustrating," he said.

"We are not set up as the agency to be conducting clean-up of
people's laziness."

Mr. Williams says the perpetrators are unlikely to be found and
encouraged people to report dumping if they see it happening.

"They are criminal offences similar to stealing or assaulting
people, so we require the same burden of proof," he said.

"It is difficult to follow some of these things up."

He says calls to the unit about illegal dumping around South
Australia are increasing and are mostly about asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Macias v. Saberhagen Asbestos Case Reviewed
------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Ramsey of The Seattle Times discussed a case about a
business's responsibility for an injured worker, as came down from
the Washington Supreme Court Thursday, Aug. 9 (Macias v.
Saberhagen Holdings):

From 1978 to 2004, Leo Macias was tool keeper at Todd Shipyards in
Seattle.  As part of his job he would take respirators from
shipyard workers who had been working with asbestos and were
finishing their shifts.  He would chuck the respirators into a
basket, sometimes causing "little poofs of dust."  Later he would
go through the respirators, taking out the dusty filters and
throwing them away.  In 2008, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma,
a type of cancer typically caused by asbestos dust.

According to the Court, Macias "maintained that he did not know he
was at risk from exposure to the asbestos dust coating the used
respirators and filters and that he never saw a warning to take
precautions when handling and maintaining them such as wearing a
respirator himself or wetting the respirators before disassembling
them."

"Whose fault is this? It did not happen in the 1940s.  It happened
in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.  The first fault is the worker's
himself.  A worker in today's world is assumed to use his
intelligence.  It's common knowledge that asbestos is deadly, and
it was common knowledge in the 1980s.  An intelligent worker
should not take risks like this.  If his boss expects it of him,
he should tell the boss where to get off," Mr. Ramsey wrote.

Mr. Ramsey also said, "The second fault is the employer's.  If
you've got an employee chucking respirators into a bin and making
"little poofs" of asbestos dust, you have a responsibility to
correct that.  And not in 10 or 20 years.  Right away.  Todd
Shipyards is one of the defendants, as it should be."

Thursday's court ruling was not about the shipyard.  It was about
the responsibility, if any, of the companies that had made the
respirators and the filters.  The man who got sick, Macias, was
arguing that these manufacturers should be liable, too, because
they had not provided any warnings for the people who cleaned
their equipment.

The manufacturers argued that their equipment was not dangerous.
They hadn't put asbestos dust on it.  Somebody else had.  That's a
lame argument.  The Court's majority -- Chief Justice Barbara
Madsen and justices Tom Chambers, Mary Fairhurst, Debra Stephens
and Charles Wiggins -- argued that the respirators were designed
to be used with asbestos.  The risk to the worker cleaning the
respirators was bound to come up, and therefore the manufacturer
had a duty to warn him.

"I think there is such a duty.  The warning should be put on the
box the respirator comes in, so that the buyer of the respirator
knows it.  Probably a warning should put it on the respirator
itself, if it could reasonably be done," Mr. Ramsey said.

The Courts dissenters -- Justices Jim Johnson, Charles Johnson,
Susan Owens and Gerry Alexander -- argued that the respirators
were designed to protect workers from a number of contaminants,
not just asbestos, and they can't warn the user about all of them.
That's a point, but not crucial.  A general warning about taking
precautions when respirators have been used with dangerous
contaminants would have been enough.

The dissenters also argue that respirators are safety equipment,
and that penalizing the maker of safety equipment tends to
undermine "the promotion of safe products."  Interesting point.
Maybe it does.

"To me, the main thing is that in the queue of responsibility, the
manufacturer of the safety equipment is not at the head of the
line.  He's in third place, at most.  The big responsibility, in
my opinion, is of the employer to provide a safe workplace and the
worker to look out for himself," Mr. Ramsey wrote.

"That a case like this would happen at a major Seattle employer in
the late 20th and early 21st century is shameful.  We can do
better than this," Mr. Ramsey added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: El DuPont Nemours, 3 Others Face Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
John Suayan of The Southeast Texas Record reports that the family
of the late John B. Fielder has filed suit against a slew of
companies in response to his death from lung cancer two years ago,
recent court documents say.

A lawsuit filed July 25 in the Southern District of Texas,
Galveston Division asserts that El DuPont Nemours and Co., 4520
Corp., Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. and Zurn Industries LLC
contributed to Fielder's illness and eventual death on July 28,
2010.

DuPont employed Fielder at its facilities in La Porte as a pipe
fitter from 1955 to 1961.

According to the suit, he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers
during that time which resulted in his cancer.

The original petition argues DuPont "was aware, or should have
been aware, of the dangers associated with exposures to asbestos
at the premises where the plaintiffs' decedent worked."

"Nevertheless, defendant DuPont failed to warn employees, invitees
and contractors of the dangers associated with occupational
exposure to asbestos and required employees, contractors and/or
invitees such as the decedent to work with or in proximity to
asbestos without the necessary precautions to avoid dangerous
exposures," the suit states.

Foster Wheeler, Zurn and 4520 Corp. are faulted for manufacturing,
selling, designing, supplying distributing, mining, milling,
relabeling, reselling, processing, applying or installing
insulation and machinery that was "poisonous and highly harmful."

Consequently, the complainants seek unspecified monetary damages.

They are represented by attorney Ian P. Cloud with Heard Robins
Cloud & Black, L.L.P. in Houston.  Case No. 3:12-cv-230


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dump at Corio Bay Likely Be "Encapsulated"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Begg of The Geelong Advertiser reports the illegal asbestos
dump on the Corio Bay foreshore at North Geelong discovered three
months ago will most likely be capped rather than removed.

Geelong Mayor John Mitchell said on Aug. 9 that the asbestos was
stable if not moved and it could be "encapsulated" to ensure it
was not disturbed.

Cr Mitchell said the city had had a notice served on it by the EPA
in relation to the site.

"We sought legal advice and we have a legal opinion that says when
the land was handed over, it was handed over inappropriately -- it
was contaminated and the council at the time didn't even know it
was handed over," he said.

"We have fleshed it out with the DSE (Department of Sustainability
and Environment).  We are in negotiations with DSE and where those
talks are I'm not sure, but the operations unit is doing that.

"We have spent $30,000 on fixing it, and there is no doubt that to
encapsulate it would cost $200,000 plus.

"We don't believe that the Geelong ratepayers should have to pay
that if our legal opinion is right that it was handed over
inappropriately."

The city is reviewing the process undertaken in 1999 that saw it
appointed as the committee of management for the site.

A report commissioned by City of Greater Geelong on clean-up
options for the site has been sent to the Environment Protection
Authority.

An EPA spokeswoman said the authority was assessing the report.

The report was done by Environmental Health Solutions and the
council said it would also discuss the experts' advice with the
EPA to decide on an action plan.

But Cr Mitchell said he had been told the asbestos would be
encapsulated so it would not be disturbed.

The area is Crown land but managed by the council.

Authorities were forced to act after a Geelong Advertiser
investigation in May revealed how much asbestos -- believed to
have been there for 20 years -- was exposed along the coast.

The council initially said the land belonged to DSE and it had
raised the asbestos issue with the authority three years ago.

The Geelong Advertiser later revealed that the land was
transferred to the council from the Port of Geelong Authority in
the late 1990s.

The DSE had been aware of asbestos at the site for about seven
years but had chosen not to take any action, claiming there had
been "minimum exposure of the material" during each site
inspection.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buyers of Contaminated Pasadena Lot Sue Vendors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glenna Herald at UltimateClearLake.com reports that Harris County
residents are suing after, they say, they were misled into buying
asbestos-contaminated property in Pasadena.

Raul Rodriguez and Jose Juan Gonzalez filed a lawsuit on Aug. 1 in
Harris County District Court against Betesda Iglesia Hispana
International and Ruben Perez, of Pasadena, citing fraud,
conspiracy to commit fraud and breach of contract.

Rodriguez and Gonzalez say on March 23, 2011, the defendants
tricked them into buying asbestos-contaminated property, located
at 600 Walter St. in Pasadena.  In addition to hiding the
asbestos, the defendants also failed to disclose that they were
leasing the property and collecting rent, even after the sale was
final, according to the brief.

The plaintiffs are seeking attorney's fees, court costs and
damages.  They are being represented in the case by Houston
attorneys Mark Carrigan -- mcarrigan@cmrllp.com -- and Ana Luna --
ana@cmrllp.com

Harris County District Court Case No. 2012-44020.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OEPA Confirms Fibro Presence in Old Marion Plant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Jarvis of The Marion Star reports that an Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency investigation has uncovered the presence of
asbestos at a former manufacturing plant site on the city's north
side, an OEPA official said.

An OEPA inspector collected samples earlier throughout the site at
333 Joseph St., OEPA spokeswoman Dina Pierce said.  Analysis
determined asbestos comprised 2 percent or more of various
samples, which the agency considers "regulated asbestos-containing
material," she said.

The OEPA informed Robert Cendol, the agent for 333 Joseph LLC,
whose principal member is Stan Rosenfeld, that the company must
have the entire property resurveyed for asbestos and keep the
material remaining at the site wet, Pierce said.  She said the
agency as of Thursday (Aug. 9) afternoon had not determined if the
asbestos is capable of becoming airborne.

Cendol, a contractor, did not appear on Aug. 9 for a disposition
hearing, the day to which a verdict was postponed following a July
26 bench trial on a charge he violated the Marion city code by
failing to complete the demolition within one year of April 19,
2010, when he obtained the permit.  He faces a maximum penalty of
a $150 fine on the charge.

Pierce said if the asbestos is determined not to be friable, or in
a form that is easily crumbled and can become airborne, the
company can have it hauled away to a landfill, she said.  "If it
is friable, there are certain things, whole other rules, that kick
in as far as disposal," she said.

"Ultimately, the property owner is responsible," she said.  "Now,
could they come back against their contractor, . . . that's not
for us.  Our main concern right now is the public health and
safety.  So get the new survey done and keep it wet."

Municipal Magistrate Jason Warner said unless he learns that
Cendol had a valid reason for not attending the disposition
hearing he would issue a bench warrant for his arrest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BoRit Site Asbestos Removal Reaches 2nd Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Devlin at Montgomerynews.com reports that EPA-hired
contractors began installing cable concrete mats along the creek
bed at Rose Valley Creek next to the BoRit asbestos site July 27,
as the next stage of reconstruction at the site begins.  Following
the construction, workers will begin installing a cover over the
former Whitpain park area.

The BoRit site, located in Ambler Borough, Upper Dublin and
Whitpain townships between Butler Avenue, North Maple Street and
the Wissahickon Creek, was placed on the EPA's Superfund National
Priorities List in April 2009.

The first stage of work, which the EPA refers to as removal, is
stabilization to prevent asbestos from going off site.  The EPA
has started a remedial investigation of the site, which will
analyze the nature and extent of the waste, along with the risk to
ecological and human health.  The investigation, along with a
feasibility study, will help determine a final remediation method
for the site.

Ruth Wuenschel, Superfund community involvement coordinator for
the EPA, said there are three components to the current removal
stage.  The first is the pile, which received a cap to seal it off
to prevent the asbestos from becoming airborne.

The second is the work currently being done along the stream bank
and reservoir, which Wuenschel said were extremely contaminated,
and have been covered and stabilized.

A drainage swale was built along the perimeter of the pile to
manage future storm-water runoff, as well as an access ramp to the
top of the pile for future maintenance, in early 2010.

During Tropical Storm Lee in September 2011, a massive volume of
water and debris broke through a chain link fence at Maple Street
and rushed into the Rose Valley Creek, causing damage to the
concrete mats.  Because of that, the EPA is fixing the
stabilization materials along the stream banks.

In order to gradually release water during heavy storms, Wuenschel
said the EPA installed a swing gate at Maple Street to control the
water and a guard rail to prevent debris from entering Rose Valley
Creek.  Crews are currently installing replacement cable concrete
mats, with work scheduled to be completed sometime in the early
fall, according to Wuenschel.

The third component is to cover the former Whitpain park area.
According to an EPA community update issued in July, once Rose
Valley Creek's banks are stabilized, the park area will be covered
in the same manner as the asbestos pile with a geotextile, or
fabric, liner, with a minimum of two feet of clean fill, six
inches of top soil, grass and straw mats for erosion control.  The
cover, which the EPA said will exceed federal air protection
standards, will stabilize the park area and protect human health
and the environment.

The amount of time it will take to complete the cover will depend
on the weather, Wuenschel said.  If the weather cooperates, it
could be completed as early as January or February; if not, it may
take longer.

The EPA said clean fill and top soil will be trucked in to cover
the park area, affecting residents on Mt. Pleasant Avenue, Maple
Street and Oak Street.  The truck traffic will begin in the fall
from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays.

"Residents on these streets are advised to use extra caution with
children and pets during this time," the EPA wrote.

Activity based sampling of the soil, air, groundwater, surface
water and sediment was collected between 2009 and 2011 along
private properties adjacent to the BoRit site, and the results of
those samples are being quality checked and compiled to prepare
for upcoming risk assessments.  Wuenschel said the EPA will
conduct one more round of ground water sampling to confirm the
results.

The EPA said it will also conduct human health and ecological risk
assessments once all the sampling data analysis is completed. It
said these risk assessments will evaluate the potential human and
ecological risks, if exposed to asbestos.  They will be used as
guides in determining the final remediation methods, and a report
will be available next year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Plan for Zachary Tompkins Field Initiated
------------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Place of The Nashua Telegraph reports that before Zach
Tompkins' dream of having a football stadium for his team can be
realized, town officials need to clean up the site where it will
be built.

The public will be getting a chance to weigh in on the bidding
process for the cleanup for the future home of the Zachary
Tompkins Memorial Field as the community continues to push to
fulfill the young boy's wish.

Zach, 11, was a fifth-grade student at Presentation of Mary
Academy, where he made honor roll and played football for the
Hudson-Litchfield Bears.  He also was an avid New England Patriots
fan.

Zach died in his sleep March 8, 2010, from cardiac arrest because
of an unknown cause.

A few weeks before he died, Zach dreamed of his football team
having its own field.

Shortly after his death, his parents and the Hudson community
launched a campaign to make his dream a reality.

A public hearing was set to be held at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 14,
during the Hudson Board of Selectmen meeting in the Hudson Town
Hall, 12 School St.

Three reports will be presented regarding the cleanup of the
Brownfield site.

The plot is located at 9-17 Industrial Drive, and it was
discovered that the soil is contaminated with asbestos waste.

The 13 acres was donated by the town.

On March 8, 2011, voters overwhelmingly approved a 25-year, rent-
free lease agreement for the field with the Hudson-Litchfield
Youth Football and Cheer program, the league for which Zach
played.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is funding the cleanup
project through a $150,000 grant from the Brownfield Revolving
Loan Fund.  This is administered through the Regional Economic
Development Center of Southern New Hampshire in Exeter.  A meeting
was held to designate the structure of the bidding process for the
work.

According to REDC Executive Director Laurel Bistany, she hopes the
town will be able to send out bid packages by the beginning of
next month.

Once the bids come in, they will be evaluated, and if things
remain on schedule, the selectmen could choose a company or
companies by late October, she said.

Bistany said the cleanup work for the field isn't that
complicated.

"What needs to happen is a hole needs to be excavated and all of
the contaminated material gets pulled out of the ground, all of
that soil and asbestos, and put in that hole, which is above the
water table," she said.  "It is then marked off and capped with a
final top of pavement and that becomes the parking lot for the
field."

Bistany noted that the parking lot is a good size, measuring
roughly 400 feet by 125 feet.

"We're really excited to be a part of this because it is such a
big project for the community of Hudson.  It really goes along
with the goals of the Brownfield program, to look at redevelopment
and community development," she said.  "The final project is very
much dependant on the foundation, the Zachary Tompkins Foundation.
It needs continued support from the community, both financial
support and support with services."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owner of Tracy Shooting Supplies May Have ARD
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Ellen Rizzo of the Tracy Press reports that Rick Hedrick,
the owner and operator of Tracy Shooting Supplies at 22 E. 11th
St., closed his business in mid-June because his health was
steadily deteriorating.

Sick since January, Hedrick said doctors couldn't figure out what
was causing him chest pains, difficulty breathing and trouble
talking.

He now says his illness is the result of asbestos, a substance
used in construction for its flame-retardant properties that can
cause cancer and other respiratory problems if particles are
inhaled.

Hedrick said asbestos is present in the building he formerly
rented and might have been stirred up after a burglary attempt in
2002, when burglars tried to get into his gun shop by cutting
through a portion of the roof.

"It started out as chest pains," he said.  "They did a ton of
tests and never came out with anything."

When his home and business were tested, he said, no mold was
found, and the mystery of his illness continued.

Hedrick said he discovered the asbestos problem when he hired
Sierra Environmental Testing and Consulting in Woodbridge to test
the building he had been leasing for more than a decade.

"They found airborne asbestos in my (rented) building," Hedrick
said.

According to Sierra's June 8 report, an inspection was conducted
inside the building, and three samples of building materials were
collected to be tested for asbestos.  Of the three samples taken,
asbestos was reportedly found in the wallboard and joint taping
compound and ceiling tile texture.

Hedrick said the inspectors told him he had been breathing
asbestos since January 2002, when he says the ceiling was damaged
by a water leak where the burglars reportedly tried to break in.

He said doctors recently found nodules in his lungs but have yet
to determine if they are cancerous or if they could have been
caused by breathing asbestos.

"Once I found out, doctors told me, 'You've got to get out (of the
building),'" Hedrick said.  "It's really sad.  Nothing they can do
if it is asbestos (-related disease)."

Hedrick said he informed the landlord about the water leak in
2002, and the landlord, whose name Hedrick declined to disclose,
told him it would be fixed.

But according to Hedrick, the repair was never properly made.

Ana Contreras, the leader of Tracy's code enforcement team, said
she considered posting an order that all people stay out of the
building, which she said is owned by George Papadakis, who lives
in Washington.

But Contreras learned from the Sierra consultant who prepared the
report that the structure was never tested for airborne asbestos.
She added that it's not uncommon to find asbestos-laden materials
in older buildings, noting that the substance is harmful only if
it is disturbed and becomes airborne.

Contreras said that because the building had been closed since
Hedrick left, the city did not have to take action unless
Papadakis wanted to rent it to a new tenant.

"We don't have any evidence that there is a risk (to the public)
based on the report," she said.  "At this point, the tenant has
vacated the building, and it's secure.  Before it can be occupied,
we have to have a report from an environmental testing firm to
verify if any asbestos is airborne.  He can't occupy it until we
have that report."

If airborne asbestos were discovered, Contreras said, it would
have to be removed by a company that specializes in asbestos
removal to be sure that the particles were contained.  The
building would have to be re-inspected and the asbestos removal
verified before the city would allow occupation.

She said city officials have also tried to reach the owners of
Tracy Embroidery, which occupies a space at the back of the
building, though she said there was no evidence that the back unit
is at risk.

According to city officials, Tracy Embroidery relinquished its
business license in 2010, and no one returned calls made to the
number posted on the side of the building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thailand Tightens Regulation on Product Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Myint Shwe of The Bangkok Post reports that the Consumer
Protection Board (CPB) will now require stricter labeling of
products containing asbestos.

Deputy secretary-general Jirachai Moontongroy said from now on,
the CPB will make more frequent visits to vendors selling products
using asbestos, which is a mineral fiber commonly used in building
construction materials and products such as cement, roofing, water
supply lines and fire blankets.  It is also found in automobile
brakes and clutches.

The CPB has the authority under the Consumer Protection Act to ban
imports, manufacturing and sales of products that are potentially
dangerous.

In 2009, the CPB issued measures that required labeling for
products containing asbestos, and in 2010 manufacturers had to
include a warning that asbestos may lead to cancer.  Manufacturers
filed a legal complaint regarding the measure, but the court
dismissed it last week.

Mr. Jirachai said if there is increasing evidence that asbestos
causes cancer, then the CPB will use its authority under Section
36 of the Consumer Protection Act to ban sales of the substance.
He said the CPB will work more to educate workers directly in
contact with asbestos such as construction workers.

Maurizio Bussi, director of the Decent Work Technical Support Team
of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), said there are at
least 100,000 worker deaths per year related to asbestos exposure
around the world.

"To be very clear, the position of the ILO is fully synchronized
with the position of the World Health Organization (WHO)," he
said.

Somkiat Siriruttanapruk, director of the Public Health Ministry's
Bureau of Occupational and Environmental Diseases, said while some
manufacturers are pressing for more research within the country,
it is unnecessary as the dangers of asbestos are already widely
accepted internationally.

Moreover, Thailand has a number of patients with asbestos-related
diseases, but they are difficult to diagnose and have long latency
periods such as 30-50 years for mesothelioma.

Maureen Birmingham, the WHO's representative in Thailand, said the
group recommends all asbestos use including chrysotile asbestos be
stopped worldwide, as there are safer substitutes, and there is no
safe threshold level of exposure to any type of asbestos.

It is a proven fact that all forms of asbestos are cancer-causing
in humans, she said.

Dr. Birmingham said even one little fiber that gets in your lungs
can lead to an asbestos-related disease.  Even people washing
clothes with a few fibers on them are at risk.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: S&P Lowers Corp. Credit Rating on Sealed Air
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomson Reuters reports that on Aug. 10, 2012, Standard & Poor's
Ratings Services lowered its long-term corporate credit rating on
Sealed Air Corp. to 'BB-' from 'BB'.  The outlook is stable.

At the same time, Standard & Poor's lowered the issue rating on
the company's senior secured credit facilities to 'BB' from 'BB+'
and lowered the issue ratings on the unsecured notes to 'BB-' from
'BB'.  The recovery rating on the secured debt remains '2',
indicating the expectation of substantial (70%-90%) recovery of
principal in the event of payment default.  The recovery rating on
the unsecured debt remains '4', indicating the expectation of an
average (30%-50%) recovery of principal in the event of payment
default.

The downgrade reflects the expectation that earnings will not
improve materially over the next few years.  Standard & Poor's
bases this assumption on current sales volume pressures in the
Diversey and food segments, particularly given the company's
sizable exposure to Europe.  In Standard & Poor's view, this will
result in credit measures remaining more consistent with a 'BB-'
rating.

In November 2003, Sealed Air signed a definitive settlement
agreement with the Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants
and the Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants in the
bankruptcy proceedings for chemical company W.R. Grace & Co.
(Sealed Air purchased the Cryovac packaging business from Grace in
1998.)  Under the agreement terms, Sealed Air is to pay the
settlement in full when W.R. Grace & Co. emerges from bankruptcy
on the reorganization plan's effective date.  The payments include
$512.5 million in cash, with interest accruing at 5.5% annually
since December 2002, and 18 million shares of Sealed Air common
stock.  The Grace reorganization plan includes establishing one
or more trusts under Section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The
settlement will provide protection to Sealed Air against all
current and future Grace-related asbestos, fraudulent transfer,
and successor liability claims made against it in connection with
the Cryovac acquisition.  In January 2012, the U.S. District Court
of Delaware confirmed Grace's reorganization plan, but the
District Court rulings remain subject to further appeals.  Grace
has indicated that emerging from bankruptcy before the appeals are
fully and finally resolved will require consents or waivers from
several parties, including Sealed Air, and that a final decision
will need to be made by early September of 2012 in order for Grace
to emerge by the end of 2012.

Standard & Poor's considers Sealed Air's liquidity to be
"adequate."  As of June 30, 2012, Sealed Air had about $504
million in cash, and full availability under its $700 million
revolving credit facility expiring in 2016.  Sealed Air's Diversey
acquisition financing included its $3 billion senior secured
credit facilities and $1.5 billion senior notes.  The company also
has a $125 million U.S. accounts receivables securitization
program, under which $92 million was available at June 30, 2012.

Standard & Poor's expects free cash generation of about $425
million in 2012, after reduced capital spending of $130 million
(from previously expected $180 million).  In addition to
prioritizing discretionary cash flows (after annual dividend
outlays of around $100 million) for debt reduction, Standard &
Poor's also expects management to maintain significant liquidity
in anticipation of the asbestos-related settlement agreement
payment (about $854 million including accrued interest as of June
30, 2012), which Sealed Air will make when Grace emerges from
bankruptcy.

The outlook is stable.  During the next few years, Standard &
Poor's expects Sealed Air to use discretionary cash flow primarily
for debt reduction until credit measures strengthen to appropriate
levels.  While the headroom under its financial covenant is
limited, Standard & Poor's would expect the company to take timely
steps to obtain an amendment, if needed.  Standard & Poor's
believes Sealed Air should be adequately positioned to make the
asbestos-related settlement payment if Grace exits bankruptcy in
2012 or 2013.  Given the uncertainties related to timing and
resolution of the asbestos settlement payment, Standard & Poor's
has not factored in a potential tax refund (the amount and timing
of which are uncertain and subject to IRS review) and resultant
debt reduction in the scenario.

The potential upside to the rating is limited in the next 12
months.  Standard & Poor's may raise the rating if Sealed Air
further improves its sales growth and profitability, and boosts
its financial profile and financial flexibility, including
headroom under its financial covenant.  Standard & Poor's could
raise the ratings if credit measures strengthen more than
expected, with Sealed Air achieving and maintaining FFO to total
adjusted debt in the 15% to 20% after paying the asbestos related
settlement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bermuda Hospital Assures Safety Over Fibro Report
------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Hainey of the Bermuda Sun reports that hospital chiefs, on
Aug. 9, moved to dispel fears over asbestos in ceilings and roofs
at the island's psychiatric hospital.

A worried reader contacted the Bermuda Sun after he spotted
asbestos cladding through damaged sections of roof and ceiling at
the Mid Atlantic Wellness Institute in Devonshire.

He said: "It's particularly noticeable in the courtyards outside
the kitchen and at Turning Point outside the methadone clinic.

"There is an overhang in both areas and if you look up as you are
walking along, the asbestos can be clearly seen."

But a spokeswoman for the Bermuda Hospitals Board said it was
aware of visible asbestos at the hospital.

She added: "These structures have been in place since the roofs
were built some time ago and have not been disturbed or alerted in
any way so are quite safe."

The reader said: "Last time I looked, it appeared to be intact,
but the superstructure around it and supporting it is wearing out.

"I still think it should be removed before it becomes a problem."

Asbestos, once a common fireproofing and insulation material, has
been banned in many countries for decades after prolonged exposure
to its fibers was linked to cancer, especially lung cancer, and
the lung disease asbestosis.

The substance is regarded as safe -- as long as it is not broken
up, allowing fibers to escape into the atmosphere.

Demolition projects now require special equipment, including
breathing masks and special storage facilities to hold asbestos
removed from buildings being leveled or modernized.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Breath Testing for Mesothelioma Gains Traction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak of The Mesothelioma Center relates that after working
for so long with mesothelioma, renowned surgeon Robert Cameron
doesn't get this enthusiastic often.

But that is his mood now, smelling the potential for a significant
breakthrough in a field too often filled with frustration and
disappointment.

The Breath Print for Mesothelioma has him -- and a lot of others
around the world -- believing real progress is getting close.

"This is exciting.  We are really excited about this right now,"
said Cameron, scientific advisor for the Pacific Meso Center in
Los Angeles, California, and surgeon at the UCLA Medical Center.
"The early returns are very impressive."

Cameron's lab is one of a few in the world, along with labs in
Australia and Italy, testing a type of electric nose that can
detect mesothelioma at an early stage.  The test?  Someone's
breath.

The prospect of a non-invasive, easy-to-administer test that
anyone can take -- especially with a cancer that has been so
difficult to diagnose -- has the mesothelioma community taking
notice.

"Everyone could be screened for the risk of mesothelioma, and not
just the disease itself," Cameron said.  "Very exciting."

Only a few days earlier, Cameron pointed out that there is no
definitive proof that early detection of mesothelioma was leading
to longer survival rates, unlike many other cancers.

But while the typical surgery/chemotherapy/radiation therapy
combination hasn't proven it would work better at an earlier
stage, the hope is that new therapies would be uncovered with the
screenings of high-risk candidates and early detection from the
electric nose.

Researchers have shown the effectiveness of breath analysis in
identifying emphysema, COPD, lung cancer and organ rejection
following transplantation.  The mesothelioma testing is in its
early stages.

Much of the previous work with the breath test has involved lung
cancer.  Cameron worked earlier with several other well-known
colleagues, including Harvey Pass (New York University Medical
Center) and Michael Phillips (New York Medical College), on
research involving digital analysis of breath biomarkers to detect
lung cancer.

The issue with mesothelioma is obtaining a large enough sample to
prove its worth.  And with mesothelioma, research funding is
usually an issue.  Breath testing for mesothelioma, though, now is
gaining traction.

"This one makes good sense," Pass said recently, adding his
sought-after stamp of approval.

Researchers at the University of South Wales recently completed a
study involving a breath-test analysis focusing on malignant
mesothelioma.  In that analysis, the sample included 20 patients
with mesothelioma, 18 with other asbestos-related diseases and 42
control subjects.

Authors of the study, which used a carbon polymer array electronic
nose, distinguished between the three groups accurately 88% of the
time.

Professor Deborah Yates, who headed the study at South Wales, said
that she hopes eventually the breath test can be used in
conjunction with other screening tests, like blood biomarkers and
CT scans.  She also said much more research would need to be done
before it could stand on its own or used in a clinical setting.

"We do not know, on current evidence, that early detection will
improve survival.  But advances in surgical techniques,
radiotherapy and chemotherapy are occurring, and eventually we
will have effective therapy," Yates said.  "The earlier we can
institute this [breath test], the better.  Earlier detection could
help us to understand the mechanisms by which mesothelioma occurs
and spreads."

She said her group is hoping to coordinate efforts with
researchers in New York and beyond.

"What we need is a large,  more appropriately-powered study to
replicate the findings," she said.  "The technique is up and
running.  We just need to develop it further."

Researchers in Italy and the Netherlands last fall completed a
breath-test study using the same technology that included an 80%
success rate in differentiating mesothelioma patients from
patients with other asbestos-related illnesses, and healthy
individuals.

Researchers consistently say that the more conventional techniques
to diagnose mesothelioma often can't distinguish between benign
and malignant asbestos-related diseases.

It often requires an invasive procedure, which is difficult for
elderly patients already struggling with an undiagnosed illness,
and it discourages screening for high risk patients.  Often it
takes a thoracoscopy for a small tissue sample or a excisional
biopsy to make a definitive diagnosis.

The development of an accurate, clinical breath test for
mesothelioma would be a huge improvement.

The latest breath-test technology that could be used for
mesothelioma, according to Cameron, would start with an expensive,
time-consuming analysis to identify the "breath print," of
patients confirmed with asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.

For screening purposes, though, it would be used as a benchmark
for comparative purposes against for anyone taking a test that
would take as little as 10 minutes and be done with a relatively-
inexpensive machine anywhere in the world.

"This could work.  What we really need at this point is to find a
funding source to  get this done.  It takes money to do the kind
of research it would need," Cameron said.  "The other diseases
already have told us it will work.  It might take a few years, but
the potential is really exciting."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Political Party to Phase Out Fibro Export
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Harrold of The Montreal Gazette reports that a Coalition
Avenir Quebec government would try to obtain all the environmental
powers and functions that the federal government now has in
Quebec, party leader Fran‡ois Legault says.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper should be open to the idea because
the environment "doesn't seem to be his cup of tea," Legault said,
explaining that Harper's government has shown a general
disinterest in environmental regulation.  Harper is also a big fan
of efficiency, Legault added.

"It's an opportunity for us.  We'll say there should be one wicket
for environmental matters in Quebec."

Although he told a press conference at a recycling plant that his
party wants Quebec to obtain all federal powers and functions in
environmental matters, an aide later clarified that Legault meant
that a CAQ government would try to obtain all powers over
environmental impact studies in the first mandate.

The rest of the powers, such as the federal regulation of
environmental standards in Quebec, would be a goal for a
subsequent CAQ government, party spokesperson Guillaume Simard-
Leduc said.

"Ideally we would like to get all the functions and powers" that
Quebec does not already have, Simard-Leduc added.  Currently
environmental impact studies in some areas are done by Ottawa
while Quebec does some of its own.

Simard-Leduc pointed to the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency, which conducts tests and studies to determine the
environmental impacts of proposed development projects, as an
example of what Quebec would try to get out of, with compensation
for the share of the agency's budget paid for by Quebecers.  The
agency had an annual operating budget of $36 million and 240
employees as of last spring but the Tories said they plan to cut
the budget by 40%.

Legault also said Quebec should stop exporting asbestos and
rescind the Quebec government's $58 million loan, promised by the
Liberal government of Jean Charest earlier this summer, to the
Jeffrey Mine in the Eastern Townships.

Science has proven asbestos is dangerous to health, Legault said.
The government has said the substance can be used safely.

"Exporting asbestos is morally and scientifically indefensible,"
Legault said.  "It does not conform to the moral values of
Quebecers.  We have to accept the death of an industry from an era
that has passed.  Asbestos is dangerous.  I don't see why we would
export that danger to other countries."

The loan is expected to revive the industry in the town of
Asbestos and create between 400 and 500 direct full-time jobs over
20 years and 1,000 positions indirectly related to the mine.

Legault said he would personally involve himself in trying to help
Jeffrey Asbestos Mine adapt to another industry and to find other
jobs for those affected.  "It will be difficult for them," Legault
admitted.

The CAQ would also impose a moratorium on most shale gas
exploration, although not on some pilot projects closely followed
by Quebec's Environment Department.  Many of the ongoing projects
are not properly monitored, he said.  Legault added that there is
no conflict with his party's proposal to boost oil and natural gas
exploration and drilling because those techniques are older, safer
and more advanced.

The party planned to release its full platform on Sunday, Aug. 12,
Legault added.  However, it will not contain the full explanations
on how the party plans to finance its promises.  That is because
the CAQ would prefer to know the governing Liberal party's
financial framework before it releases its own, he said.

"We based our figures on the government's last projections in the
last budget (in the spring), with revenues and expenses over five
years," Legault said.  "We calculated our budget cuts with the
expenses along with our promises, such as our tax cuts and
investments in schools and I can tell you, it balances.  We would
have a zero deficit as soon as next year."

But Legault said he does not know if the provincial government's
real expenditures for the last five months have altered the spring
projections and that is why he would prefer the Liberals release
their financial platform before the CAQ does, so he could adjust
it if necessary.

However if the Liberals do not release their full budgeted
platform soon, the CAQ will definitely do so before the party
leaders televised debates, which start on Aug. 19.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wenatchee Housing Rehab Program Fixes 44th Home
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visitors to 827 Cascade St. are greeted by the crumbling front
stairs and broken retaining walls that hold back nothing but hard,
sun-beaten dirt and rocks.

The boxy, flat-roofed house at one time housed a neighborhood
barbershop and looks like it may also have once been a store.  But
now it is a sad-looking house, with a damaged front entryway, an
overhang that could fall down, unfinished rooms, interior water
damage from a roof leak, and asbestos siding that is starting to
come off.

To the city of Wenatchee, this is the 44th -- and quite possibly
the last -- house to be fixed through its Housing Rehabilitation
Program, a federally funded effort that helps low-income
homeowners make essential safety repairs.

To Norm and Catherine Olsen, this is home.

Over 30 years, they raised their three daughters here, and now
live in retirement with their dog, Frodo, and three cats.  They
tend a neat garden of vegetables and fruit trees in the back yard.

In the spring of 2011, a city code enforcer came to their back
fence.  The city was trying to clean up a large swath of south
Wenatchee.  Residents were asked to throw away garbage, cut down
overgrown weeds and haul away junker cars.  The Olsons were asked
to remove some garbage and debris from their yard, which they did.

Code enforcer Stacey Burts also noted that the house had some
structural damage.  He talked with one of the Olsens' daughters,
who was visiting at the time, and told her about the Housing
Rehabilitation Program.  She told her parents.

"It took us three or four months to decide that we needed help,"
Catherine said.  "So will filled out an application for the
program."

The city accepted their application, and the work was originally
scheduled to be done last fall.  But the city struggled to get
enough funding to do all the work that needed to be done at their
house.  The majority of the homes that have been helped by the
program received small loans for minor repairs.  But the problems
at the Olsons' home are extensive.

The work got underway earlier this month with crews in white
protective suits stripping off the asbestos siding.  They've also
removed the front steps and started work on the unfinished space
with exposed insulation covered in plastic that once housed the
barbershop.  The contract will also replace all the windows; fix
the water damage in the couple's bedroom; replace the front steps
and some interior steps; and remove the dilapidated overhang over
their front door.

Since the housing program only pays to fix up problems that are
unsafe, the Olsens will be responsible for any interior and
exterior painting and any other cosmetic improvements.

The work will cost about $40,000 and is funded entirely by a
federal Housing and Urban Development Grant.  Though it is
technically a loan, the Olsens will never have to pay it back,
unless they sell their house.  Even then, the amount they would
have to repay diminishes each year, and will eventually be nothing
if they stay in their home long enough.

The Olsens say they don't plan to move.  That would only happen if
their health took a turn for the worse and they were forced to
move closer to their daughters in the Spokane area, Catherine
said.

"We really like this house," she said.  "We don't need a big
place.  It's comfortable for us.  And we like having the big back
yard."

She said they are grateful for the city's help in making it more
livable.

"It will make things so much easier and nicer for us," she said.
"It will lift a huge financial burden from our shoulders for
fixing things.  I wouldn't even know about getting a loan at our
age to get all this repaired."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 217 Bins of Fibro at La Collette Need Resolution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Jersey Evening Post reports that Transport Minister Kevin
Lewis has revealed that there are 217 shipping containers of
cancer-causing asbestos stockpiled at La Collette.

The minister is stepping up the pressure on Environment Minister
Rob Duhamel to end 20 months of delay on storing waste asbestos,
saying that the situation has to be sorted out 'as a matter of
urgency.'

With stockpiles of the toxic waste growing by the week at the La
Collette reclamation site, the Transport and Technical Services
Minister says that urgent safety works to temporarily store the
toxic asbestos in lined pits are being held up by the Planning
department.

Deputy Lewis says there are 217 shipping containers of asbestos at
La Collette -- significantly more than the 40 he initially said
were at the site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Kills 52 People Yearly in Northern Cape
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Agence France Presse reports that death knows the small town
of Prieska all too well.  A poisonous legacy of South Africa's
years as a global blue asbestos hub, the Grim Reaper has snaked
through here for decades, wiping out families and striking down
neighbors with deadly precision.

"In most of the houses in our street, there is someone who has
died of asbestosis or mesothelioma," said Chris Julius, 58, who
was diagnosed with asbestos cancer three months after his mother-
in-law passed away next door.

A former teacher, Julius never worked at the town's mill or in the
nearby hills where mining started in the late 1800s along rich
deposits known as the country's "asbestos mountains" that run
along the vast Northern Cape.

But he has mesothelioma, an aggressive lung cancer whose diagnosis
is a death sentence.

"It felt like I was going to the electric chair," said Julius, who
lives 100 meters (yards) from where the now-demolished mill once
spat dust over the town.

"I still feel the same.  I live from one day to the next.  I can't
really plan.  It's very difficult for me to say goodbye, I can't
even discuss it with my wife.  For her, it's just as emotional an
issue."

Locals were once pitted against mining firms in David and Goliath-
style class action battles which were settled about a decade ago.
Yet nearly one in three homes is still contaminated, according to
government statistics.

Environmental scientist Rob Jones estimates asbestos exposure is
killing up to 52 people a year in the Northern Cape, while nearly
90% of 36 communities he surveyed had one or more sites ranked as
severe risk.

"This is really a national environmental emergency that should be
dealt with.  It is analogous to Libby, Montana in the US and
Wittenoom, Australia," said Jones, who has studied contamination
levels for the state.

Wittenoom was shut down by Australian authorities in 1966 and
Libby has received millions of dollars for rehabilitation.  Yet,
while South Africa once produced 98% of the world's blue asbestos,
the government has yet to act with the same urgency for its dozens
of toxic communities.

The older generation in Prieska tells of playing obliviously on
soft dumps as children, with no warnings from mine bosses or
authorities.  Documented accounts point to fibers being dusted off
fruit picked from trees.  While still possible to stumble across a
pile of fibers lying in the open, those days are over.

But asbestos is a patient killer: it can lie dormant for decades.
"Imagine walking along a dirt road that is contaminated with
asbestos fibers and a vehicle drives past.  The dust that you
inhale is full of microscopic asbestos fibers," explained Jones.
"The same scenario applies to sweeping the garden, house, working
in the garden, etc.  The exposures are almost constant."

On the wall of a homely cafe, not too far from where the old mill
lay, is a black-and-white photograph which shows a giant dust
cloud above the tiny settlement.

It is an image that haunts doctor Deon Smith who moved to the area
28 years ago.

"We see about 10 cases a year, new cases of mesothelioma," he told
AFP.

"It has a very, very poor prognosis," he said.  "There's no cure."
Mesothelioma does not discriminate.  It targets poor locals who
never worked on the mines, to former mill bosses and entire
households.

One such family are the Cilentos.  Only two siblings are still
alive after having watched their parents, two brothers and two
sisters die.

Wearing a hoop earring and Jimi Hendrix t-shirt, Nicholas lives
with a permanent oxygen tube piped into his nose and can only walk
a few steps before having to rest.

"I knew I am going to get sick but I didn't expect it to be
permanent.  I'm suffering a lot, I didn't know I'll be suffering
so much.  I learned to accept it, I mean there is nothing else I
can do," the gaunt 60-year-old told AFP.  "All the people are
talking about this sickness and why is the government not doing
anything," he added.

In June, the Department of Environmental Affairs said nearly 5,000
out of some 23,000 households and 400 kilometers (248 miles) of
road surfaces were polluted in the Northern Cape.  Out of 45
schools surveyed, 26 were affected including four in Prieska.

Rehabilitation is estimated at 249,000 rands ($31,000, 25,000-
euros) per housing plot and 1.2 million rands per square kilometer
(0.3 square mile) of contaminated roads.

"It is taking some time because the remediation activities involve
different stakeholders and at this moment the action plan is being
finalized," said spokeswoman Roopa Singh.

For the sick, the town's legal settlement made no provision for
latent illness and the government does not pay compensation.
Locals largely do not qualify for trusts set up for other mines,
such as the Asbestos Relief Trust which paid out 3,555 claims by
March.

"Rehabilitation is crucial because someone exposed today may only
get an asbestos related disease say 40 years later," said Jim te
Water Naude, a doctor at the trust.  "The most likely to suffer
are children, and those exposed environmentally."

With the companies long gone, the buck now stops with the state
which is accused of "paralysis by analysis."

"Other than study the problem, no real efforts have been initiated
to date (to my knowledge)," said Jones.

"Asbestos does not rot; it never goes away on its own.  It is only
safe when it is completely removed from the potential of human
disturbance," he warned.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Reports Increase in Sales, Profits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Australian building materials manufacturer
James Hardie Industries Ltd on Monday, Aug. 13, posted an 11% rise
in first-quarter net profit due to a pick-up in demand in its U.S.
businesses, beating market expectations.

The world's largest maker of fiber cement products said net
operating profit for three months to June 30, excluding asbestos
and tax adjustments, rose to US$43.8 million, compared with a
forecast of US$42.3 million in to a Reuters poll of five analysts.

Net profits were up from US$39.4 million a year ago.

Net sales came in at US$339.7 million and earnings rose 2% to
US$57.7 million before interest and taxes, and excluding asbestos
and tax adjustments.

James Hardie said it expected full-year earnings excluding
asbestos, ASIC expenses and tax adjustments to be in US$140-160
million range, assuming an average exchange rate of US$1.01/A$1.00
through March 2013.

James Hardie said the very early stages of a recovery in the U.S.
residential market appeared to be underway.

                   Profit Margin Comes In Short

Bridget Carter of The Australian reports that investors sold off
shares in James Hardie on Aug. 13 after its profit margin and
annual earnings guidance came in below analysts' expectations.
The building bellwether warned that the housing market was
deteriorating, as it posted an 11% rise in first-quarter net
operating profit excluding adjustments to US$43.8 million ($41.5
million), driven by a turnaround in the US market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Testing Urged Before Every DYI Renovations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Tran at Monash Weekly reports that lives are being put in
danger because homes are not being tested for asbestos before
renovations begin, industry sources have warned.

The Asbestos Contractors Group says people face serious disease,
even death, because there are no laws making it mandatory for
homeowners to conduct a hazardous materials audit before they
start work.

The group says the absence of auditing heightens the risk of
previously unknown quantities of asbestos being disturbed.

"Unfortunately, tradespeople and, quite often, domestic homeowners
are being exposed to asbestos when doing their own renovations,
simply because they don't know it's there or what it looks like,"
group spokesman Pat Pearson said.  "There's no legislation like
there is in the general workplaces for an asbestos audit to be
carried out."

Oakleigh South asbestos removalist A Plus Building Services says
residents are at risk of finding asbestos in their backyard.

A Plus director Kamil Zajac says the company's 24-hour emergency
line gets numerous calls.  "A lot of them are initiated by tradies
or homeowners who give us a call and say, 'My builder's just
stopped work because he thinks he's found asbestos. What do I
do?'"

Before the 1980s, materials containing asbestos were common in the
building industry.

Breathing in asbestos fibers has since been linked to lung cancer
and deadly respiratory diseases such as mesothelioma.  Last year,
a Safe Work Australia report found that 660 cases of mesothelioma
were diagnosed in Australia in 2007.  In the same year, 551 people
died of asbestos-related diseases.

In 2010-11, WorkSafe was notified of 7,275 jobs carried out by
asbestos removalists across the state.  The figure included work
done at domestic properties and workplaces.

The Weekly asked Southern Health how many asbestos-related illness
had been treated at its Monash Medical Centre in the past two
years and was told it was an "impossible question to answer."

"We deal with acute respiratory patients and the majority of
asbestos-affected individuals are usually symptom-free," one
doctor said.

Most asbestos-affected individuals can go decades without showing
symptoms.

Mr. Pearson says the number of asbestos-related cases among home
renovators is rising.  "It's not unusual for them to find asbestos
up there in the older homes."

Mr. Zajac says that even some tradespeople are oblivious to the
looming danger.

"You're relying on these guys when they're doing renovations to
say, 'Oh, this material could have asbestos.  Let's get it tested
and do the right thing.'

"But if you get people who are really ignorant of the presence of
asbestos, they'll just go about their business as if the
material's not there, potentially exposing themselves, their
workers and the residents."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Power Plant Owner Faces $300K Abatement Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Prohaska at Buffalo News reports the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency plans to take charge of the asbestos cleanup for
an abandoned building and a Dumpster in Lockport's Lowertown
district.

Spokesman Michael Basile said Friday, Aug 10, the EPA is talking
to owner Scott J. Krzyzanowski about gaining access to 89 Mill
St., where his efforts to clean up the site and construct a
neighborhood retail development were torpedoed in 2010 by the
state Labor Department's insistence on an asbestos survey.

The 16,000-square-foot, largely roofless building, once a power
plant for a long-defunct paper mill, is owned by Krzyzanowski's
Texas-based company, Liberty Plant Maintenance.

City Judge Thomas M. DiMillo has found the company guilty of
failing to remove the Dumpster for more than a year and could
impose fines of $1,000 a day.

However, sentencing has been put off several times, as James P.
Milbrand, Krzyzanowski's attorney, tries to work out a cleanup
plan.  The next possible date for the sentencing is Oct. 4.

After a court appearance Thursday, Aug. 9, Milbrand said if the
EPA carries out the cleanup and bills Krzyzanowski, the tab could
be $300,000.  Basile was unable to confirm that number, saying the
agency has yet to carry out a detailed assessment of conditions at
89 Mill St.

But Basile said, "We'll conduct a removal action, either with his
assistance or on our own."

Basile said the state called the EPA in on the project, and an EPA
staffer made a visit to the site in June.

"Hopefully the site will be sealed in the next two or three
weeks," Milbrand said, "and we can proceed to the cleanup."

He told DiMillo that "sealing the site" means a fence around the
perimeter, a covering over the Dumpster, and capping the "friable"
asbestos, which means the asbestos that might get into the air.

"This is a difficult property," said Deputy Corporation Counsel
Matthew E. Brooks, the city's Housing Court prosecutor.  "We can't
really press it [further] than the EPA."

Milbrand said Lozier Environmental of Rochester did an asbestos
assessment and believes the cleanup could be done at a lower price
than the $300,000 estimate from the EPA, which would be billed to
Krzyzanowski.

Milbrand said not all the asbestos in the Dumpster came from the
former power plant.  He said, "Somebody from the neighborhood was
scraping up floor tiles [from another building] and put them in
the Dumpster."

The EPA was keeping Krzyzanowski from maintaining the lot,
Milbrand said.  "He can't mow the grass because it stirs up
asbestos.  EPA says you can't touch it," the attorney said.

Milbrand met on Aug. 9 with City Treasurer Michael E. White to
discuss possible funding sources to help Krzyzanowski with the
cleanup cost.  White said no city money would be involved.

"We know the potential of that parcel.  [Krzyzanowski] knew it,
too," White said.

The taxes on the property are delinquent, with $1,991 in city and
school taxes owed for the past two years.  White said the city
could consider foreclosing next year.

During the 2011 citywide revaluation, the assessment on 89 Mill
was cut from $35,000 to $4,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tetra Tech To Manage Mexico DSS Bldg. Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Poole of The Palladium Times reports that hiring Tetra Tech
Architects and Engineers to manage removal of asbestos-laced tiles
in the Mexico Department of Social Services (DSS) building was
just the first in a series of decisions still facing the Oswego
County Legislature on its abatement project.

Legislators have approved hiring Tetra Tech, and at the same time
increased the capital project funding for the abatement from
$30,000 to $100,000.

The $100,000 will cover the initial asbestos study and the
contract with Tetra Tech.

Asbestos was initially discovered in the DSS building in Mexico
earlier this year after an employee asked the county whether the
tiles had ever been tested.

The asbestos levels are slightly higher than the federal levels
for removal, said Administrator Phil Church.  Air monitoring tests
showed the area was safe to work, but every time the ceiling tiles
were moved to access cables, environmental control systems and
telephone wires, the risk of releasing asbestos fibers increased.

Legislators will have the final say about how much is spent on the
abatement, but remodeling inside the building could also be part
of the project.  Officials said that the state would reimburse the
county 75% of the project costs.

Other decisions beyond awarding the project manager contract to
Tetra Tech still face the county, though.  The company will
solicit sub-contracting bids, which are expected to arrive in
September.

The full cost of the abatement will not be known until the bids
are opened, but Church guessed the cost could be $600,000 to
$800,000.

Concerns that the cost for the abatement and remodeling could
reach $1 million led Legislator Louella LeClair, R-Fulton, to vote
against the resolutions during a joint meeting of the
Infrastructure and Facilities and the Finance and Personnel
committees.

Once it was explained that legislators would have the final say
over the project costs, she supported the measure when the full
Legislature voted on the resolution.

"I think it's very important that we remove the asbestos.  No
question.  That's got to be done," she said.  "The other things
have to be looked at more closely."

Officials also need to determine whether DSS employees working
under contaminated tiles will move to an outside location or to a
new section of the building.  Tetra Tech will help officials
evaluate the two options.

"This isn't simply abating tiles.  It's because we have to
maintain operations, this is also a project about moving, about
whether we move outside the building or move around inside the
building," said Church.

DSS Commissioner Greg Heffner said Tetra Tech indicated that
abating asbestos incrementally around the building and moving
staff into "swing space" would make the project last a minimum of
12 months.

"The problem that we have at the department right now, is that we
don't have enough free space, enough swing space we've been
calling it, to move staff into an empty area with all their files,
(and) get them set up so they have connectivity for computers,"
said Heffner.

Church said Cayuga Community College in Fulton has offered a
location for DSS employees, but added the college needs the space
back by Feb. 1.

That puts more of a time crunch on the abatement, but keeping the
employees in-house would mean reconfiguring work space, building
temporary walls and paying more for labor as the project would
take longer to complete.

"It's far more complicated than most people would imagine," said
Church.  "(Tetra Tech) will look at both options and present the
plan for either moving out or doing it by staying in the
building."

Possibly adding costs to the project would be whether legislators
include remodeling work in the DSS building during the same time
frame.  The 75% reimbursement from the state would also cover the
remodeling if it was rolled into the abatement project.

The remodeling includes replacing or repairing worn out carpet,
holes in walls, painting and other work.

"It needs to be done regardless of whether we do it during the
abatement project or some time after," said Church.  "If we do it
as part of the abatement project, we get some reimbursement."

Both resolutions have been passed by 21-2 margins, with two
members absent.  Legislators Doug Malone, D- Oswego, and Robert
Hayes, Sr., R- Phoenix, voted against the measures.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4,000 Signed Against Fibro-Dumping in Chew Valley
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Bristol reports that a petition has secured 4,000
signatures against plans to dispose of asbestos at a quarry in the
Chew Valley.

Protesters fear asbestos at Stowey Quarry will stray into Chew
Valley Lake which supplies water for residents.

Sally Monkhouse, from Stop Stowey Action Group, said any risk of
contamination was too great.

Bath and North East Somerset Council said it would be
inappropriate to comment ahead of the meeting to decide the issue
on Aug. 29.

Mrs. Monkhouse said: "People care very passionately -- to get
2,000 signatures on paper and then another 2,000 online, I think
that amounts to a lot of public feeling.

"We think if there is the slightest risk of contamination, the
council must not let it go ahead."

An application to dispose of hazardous waste at Stowey Quarry was
initially approved by Bath and North East Somerset Council last
July.

The decision was later quashed but an application has since been
resubmitted by Oaktree Environmental.

North East Somerset MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg will hand the petition in
to councilors during the Development Control Committee Meeting on
Aug. 29.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EA Reports 4,249 Burnley Fly-Tippings in 2010-11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Burnley Express reports that shameful fly-tippers are
continuing to blight beauty spots across Burnley.

An astonishing 4,249 incidents were reported throughout the
borough in 2010/11 according to figures released by the
Environment Agency.

The numbers also show the North-West now has the second biggest
number of fly-tippers outside London and calls are being made for
increased investment in waste and recycling centers to combat the
problem.

Paul McCarthy, regional secretary for trade union GMB, said "Not
only is fly-tipping illegal but it is damaging to the environment
and according to the Environment Agency it costs GBP100-150
million a year to clean up.

"Two thirds of fly-tipping involves household rubbish and GMB
believes it would make good economic sense to invest in more
municipal waste and recycling centers to make it easier and
cheaper for the public to dispose of waste properly.

"However local authorities also need to target fly-tipping to
improve their policing of the problem -- out of 820,000 incidents
last year there were only 2,500 prosecutions throughout England
and Wales."

Joanne Swift, Burnley Council's head of Streetscene, said: "The
reason the figures increased so dramatically in 2010/11 was that
we started to include incidents of dirty backyards in our fly-
tipping reports.

"We actively encourage people to report fly-tipping so we can act
quickly to clean up the mess and, hopefully, catch those
responsible.

"That's why Burnley Council is the second best authority in
Britain at prosecuting people for anti-social behavior such as
fly-tipping, littering and dog fouling."

Water supply and treatment firm United Utilities, one of the
biggest private landowners in the county, spends millions of
pounds every year clearing dumped rubbish from around their
reservoirs, parks and water catchment land.  The water firm
recently launched a hunt for a fly-tipper in Burnley after
hazardous asbestos was dumped near the Singing Ringing Tree site,
one of the town's most scenic spots.

United Utilities spokesman Shaun Robinson said: "Ultimately it is
water bill payers who foot the bill to clear fly-tipping on water
catchment land.

"We are cracking down through partnerships with local police and
councils who all have a vested interest in protecting our natural
environment.

"This is money which would be better spent improving networks and
local infrastructure for public use, not removing fly-tipping".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MoD Faces GBP250K Lawsuit After GBP17.5K Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
This Is Wiltshire News reports that a Bradford on Avon widow whose
husband died from asbestos related cancer has launched a legal
battle for compensation of up to GBP250,000.

Gerald Hodge, 84, died from lung cancer after being exposed to
deadly asbestos dust and fibers between 1947 and 1986, according
to a writ issued at London's High Court and just made publicly
available.

Twelve years ago he had sued the Ministry of Defence in Bristol
County Court after working as a shipwright and draughtsman at
Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth, and on various ships.

He won damages of GBP17,500, based on the assumption that his
condition would not deteriorate and that he would not develop
certain specified conditions, including lung cancer.

But the High Court writ says that he then started to feel unwell,
coughing up blood, losing weight, and suffering breathlessness,
and by May 2010 doctors feared he had lung cancer.

Within weeks, his condition had deteriorated, he could only walk
inside his home, needed constant oxygen, and needed help with
washing and dressing.  On June 23, 2010, his wife found him
struggling for breath, and he died before medical help arrived.

Now his widow Christine Hodge, 77, of Fitzmaurice Place, Bradford
on Avon, is suing the Ministry of Defence for damages of up to
GBP250,000, saying his pain, illness and death were caused by its
negligence.

Until February 2009 he was an active man, who looked and behaved
as if he were ten years younger, and was happy, full of energy,
and active at home and in the garden.  The couple enjoyed a happy
marriage, the court will hear.

He had been regularly exposed to asbestos during the refit of HMS
Terrible between 1947 and 1949, and then worked for the Admiralty
at Bath, where he worked on many ships afloat, the Bristol court
heard.

During his last illness he was plagued by a terrible cough,
sometimes bloody, and was very anxious and distressed that his
declining heath was due to asbestos exposure, the writ says.

It claims he developed bed sores, and lost 3.6 years of life
because of the cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim's Kin Blames QE Hospital
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anuji Varma of The Birmingham Post reports that the family of a
great grandmother who died from asbestos-related cancer believes
she had been exposed to the deadly dust while working at a
Birmingham hospital.

Betty Killworth, aged 82, of Weoley Castle, was a cleaner at the
old Queen Elizabeth Hospital, in Edgbaston, between 1976 and 1988.

She was diagnosed with mesothelioma in September last year and
died just seven months later.

An inquest into her death recorded a verdict of industrial
disease.  Evidence suggested the only possible exposure that the
mum-of-five had to asbestos was when she was at the hospital,
which was noted in deputy coroner Sally Scanlon's summing up.

Before she died Betty, who worked in the hospital pharmacy
department, told Birmingham-based lawyers Irwin Mitchell she
believed she had been exposed to asbestos dust while sweeping up
after maintenance workers who had been carrying out renovations.

Now her family want to appeal to former colleagues to come forward
to help in their search for answers.

Daughter Carol Pendleton said: "When mum started to feel poorly
around Christmas 2010, we thought it was something that would just
pass, but as her condition deteriorated we knew it was much more
serious.

"She was initially told she was suffering from pneumonia but when
her condition didn't improve, further tests revealed that she had
an asbestos-related cancer which was such a shock to us all.

"In her last few months she was in a lot of pain and lost a lot of
weight.  It's really upsetting to think that mum worked hard all
those years to provide for her family."

Alida Coates -- alida.coates@irwinmitchell.com -- who is
representing the family, said: "This is a sad case because Betty
had always been such a fit and active woman, long after her
retirement, so her diagnosis completely shocked the family.

"The inquest verdict confirms that Betty died as a direct result
of being exposed to asbestos."

A spokesman for University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation
Trust said: "The Trust extends its sympathies to the family on
their sad loss.

"The Trust was not invited to give evidence at the inquest and
cannot comment on the proceedings or subsequent claims."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: China Carmakers Recalls 23,000 Units in Australia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports an Australian recall by China's two biggest
car exporters for potential cancer-producing asbestos parts may
threaten plans by Chinese automakers to expand into the U.S. and
Europe amid intensifying competition at home.

Australia was to be the "testing area" for Chinese carmakers
looking to enter larger markets and the recall has dealt a blow to
those ambitions, according to Dunne & Co.  Great Wall Motor Co.
and Chery Automobile Co. recalled 23,000 of their vehicles sold in
Australia after authorities found asbestos in some models.

"It's a significant setback for the individual companies and
development of the industry," said Michael Dunne, head of industry
researcher Dunne & Co., in a telephone interview on Aug. 14.
"Chinese car companies will continue to push overseas, but you can
bet that other countries that they are moving into, or are
exporting to, are going to take a closer look on what's on offer."

The use of asbestos in exports raises concerns about the quality
and safety of products made in China, which has struggled with
repeated health scares that include excessive lead found in toys,
melamine-tainted milk and pet food killing children and dogs.
Vehicle exports from the country may rise about 50% this year,
extending record shipments in 2011, according to the official
trade chamber.

Great Wall led shares of Chinese automakers lower in Hong Kong on
Aug. 14 as the discovery of asbestos -- banned in 55 nations
because of the fiber's links to cancer and respiratory illnesses
-- undermines the nation's carmakers in their push to build their
brands in overseas markets.

Passenger-vehicle deliveries trailed analysts' estimates for the
first time in five months in July, according to data from the
China Association of Automobile Manufacturers.  Domestic brands
have been the hardest hit in the market slowdown, facing higher
levels of sales pressure than international brands, Westlake
Village, California-based researcher J.D. Power & Associates said.

Algeria, China's second biggest export market for cars in 2011,
prohibits the use of asbestos for most uses, according to the
International Ban Asbestos Secretariat's website.  Chile, Uruguay
and Egypt are others among China's top 10 auto export markets last
year that have similar bans.

Great Wall plans to double its number of overseas assembly plants
to 24 by 2015 and raise total manufacturing capacity to 500,000
units a year, it said in April.  The company plans to export
100,000 vehicles this year, or 18% of its expected total
deliveries, Chairman Wei Jianjun said in March.

Chery sold a record 160,200 units overseas last year, a 73%
increase from 2010.  In the first six months of this year, the
company exported 94,494 units, on track to meet its full-year
target of 170,000 units, according to a statement on its website.

The automaker currently sells to more than 80 countries and
regions and has 16 manufacturing bases abroad.  Chery invested
$400 million in a plant in Brazil, which starts operating in late
2013 with an annual production capacity of 150,000 units.

Shang Yugui, a spokesman at Great Wall, the biggest maker of sport
utility vehicles and pick-up trucks in China, said the company
became aware of the issue in April and then stopped using the
parts in question.  The components were used in some vehicles sold
in China and overseas markets, he said, without giving more
details.

"We need to reflect at Great Wall," Shang said.  "We became
careless after our repeated checks showed that the asbestos parts
won't cause harm to the human body."

Chery said workers mistakenly used a wrong batch of parts that
wasn't meant for cars to be exported to Australia.  The automaker
hasn't discussed recalling vehicles with similar asbestos parts in
markets outside of Australia, spokesman Huang Huaqiong said.  The
company will issue recalls if the respective authorities require
them, Huang said.

The recall in Australia, which has identical safety standards to
Europe's, will tar the consumer perception of China-made cars and
sets back the progress made by Chinese automakers in recent years,
according to CIMB Securities (CIMBI) HK.

"This will change consumers' mindsets toward Chinese cars," said
Cheam Tze Shen, auto analyst at CIMB Securities HK.  "After all,
better to be safe than sorry with regards to health issues
especially if the vehicle is designated as your family car."

Consumers should avoid "do-it-yourself" maintenance that may
disturb contaminated engine and exhaust gaskets, the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission said in a statement on
Aug. 14.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Confirms High Carcinogenicity of Chrysotile
------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Xpress reports that Chrysotile, a commercially used type
of asbestos, induces malignant mesothelioma (MM) in the rat
peritoneal cavity, with pathogenesis strongly linked to iron
overload, according to a study published online Aug. 2 in The
Journal of Pathology.

To examine the carcinogenicity of chrysotile, Li Jiang, from the
Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine in Japan, and
colleagues injected rats with a suspension of standard asbestos in
saline.  Some of the asbestos-treated rats were injected with 80
mg/kg nitrilotriacetate (NTA) to enhance an iron-catalyzed Fenton
reaction.  Rat samples were analyzed for histological and
immunohistochemical characteristics.

The researchers found that the pathogenesis of chrysotile-induced
mesothelial carcinogenesis correlated closely with iron overload.
The period required for carcinogenesis was significantly reduced
with repeated administration of the iron chelator NTA.  Peritoneal
organs were found to have massive iron deposition.  The most
frequent genomic alteration in human MM and in iron-induced rodent
carcinogenesis -- homozygous deletion of the CDKN2A/2B/ARF tumor
suppressor genes -- was observed in 92.6% of the cases studied
with array-based comparative genomic hybridization.  There was
high expression of mesoderm specific transcription factors Dlx5
and Hand1 in induced rat MM cells, which demonstrated active iron
uptake and utilization.

"In conclusion, chrysotile is a strong carcinogen that acts
through the induction of local iron overload in vivo when it
[reaches] mesothelial cells," the authors write.  "Therefore, more
appropriate measures have to be taken to reduce environmental
cancer risk in this era of human longevity."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deans Mill Cleanup Bars Minors From Station
------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Fyke and Bree Shirvell, writing for The Stonington-Mystic
Patch, report that the District 3 Deans Mill School polling
station remains closed to those under the age of 18, due to
asbestos abatement being conducted inside the building.

Teenagers from the Stonington Community Center's summer program
will be outside the building to watch children for anyone who
needs to vote inside.  First Selectman Edward Haberek, Jr.,
Republican Registrar of Voters Linda Camelio and the Stonington
School Administration discussed other voting options with the
Secretary of the State's office such as moving a polling station
closer to the door, but for legal reasons those options were not
allowed.

"We're going to try to handle it on a case-by-case basis," Haberek
said.  "The Secretary of the State's office is aware of the
situation and if someone has a concern they can file a complaint.
"It's a very disappointing situation."

District 3 has a total of 639 registered Republicans and Democrats
that are eligible to vote in Aug. 14's primaries.  In Connecticut,
if you are 17-years-old at the time of a primary, but going to be
18 by-election day you are allowed to vote in the primary.  It is
not clear if any of those registered voters are 17.

Stonington Public Schools Operations Manager Bill King said the
asbestos abatement had been planned since last October but the
exact date of the asbestos abatement was dependent on the
contractors.

"We're at the mercy of the contractors," King said.

Stonington teenagers got a bit of surprise when they showed up to
the Stonington Community Center's summer program on Aug. 14.
Instead of their normal activities several teenagers were sent to
the District 3 polling station at Deans Mill School to help out
with the democratic process.

No one under the age of 18 is being allowed inside the building
due to asbestos abatement but with Democratic and Republican
primary voting taking place inside the building the town wanted to
make sure parents with young children could still vote.

Camelio said there haven't been any complaints so far, but that
they are trying to be proactive and Haberek said the town wants to
make sure anyone who wants to vote feels comfortable doing so.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 217 Bins of Fibro to be Buried in Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Jersey reports that rusting crates filled with asbestos
will have to be buried in Jersey before being shipped off-island,
says the minister in charge of waste.

Transport and Technical Services Minister Deputy Kevin Lewis hopes
to ship the 217 containers within the next 18 months.

He said he was looking overseas for places to export the crates of
old material from buildings for treatment.

He admitted they needed to bury them in sealed pits first.

Deputy Lewis pledged to do more about the issue after admitting
the States could have dealt with it better in the past.

He said: "They are getting old now, I am happy with it as it is,
in a sense it is double wrapped and sealed in containers but the
containers are starting to rust.

"I am just as impatient as everyone else to get it sorted.  There
are several processing plants around the world but we need
permission to ship it into Europe or around the world."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Colony School Remains AHERA Compliant
----------------------------------------------------------
The Wicked Local Mattapoisett reports that the Old Colony Regional
Vocational Technical High School is in full compliance with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act (AHERA), according to Old Colony Regional
Vocational School Superintendent-Director Gary Brown.

The North Street vocational school has been in compliance since
1998, he said.

The inspection findings and asbestos management plans have been on
file in the office of the school's superintendent-director since
that time.

The public is welcome to view the AHERA Management Plan by
contacting Brown at 508-763-8011, ext 116, or by e-mail at
gbrown@oldcolony.us


                           *********

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  * * *