CAR_Public/120824.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 24, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 168

                             Headlines

APPLE INC: Owes $2.1 Mil. to Lawyers in iPhone Death Grip Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Time to Reinstate ERISA Suit Appeal Extended
BANK OF AMERICA: LIBOR-Related Suits Consolidated in N.Y. MDL
BANK OF AMERICA: Merrill Lynch MBS Litigation Dismissed in May
BANK OF AMERICA: Oct. 22 Trial in Merrill Acquisition Suit Set

BANK OF AMERICA: Remaining Appeal in MDL vs. BANA Dismissed
BANK OF AMERICA: Signs MOU to Resolve Interchange Fee Suits
BP: Recalls 2.1 Million Gallons of Unleaded Gasoline
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOC.: 9th Circuit Remands Union Class Action
CAMBREX CORP: Motions in Lorazepam Suit Appeal Still Pending

CANADA: Native Americans Sue Over Residential School Abuses
CBS CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Securities Suit Dismissal in May
CBS CORP: Simon & Schuster Defends Suits Over Sales of E-books
CIGNA CORP: B. Karp Did Not Appeal Discrimination Suit Dismissal
CIGNA CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Ingenix-Related Suit Pending

CIGNA CORP: Continues to Defend "Amara" Pension Plan Lawsuit
CLEAR CHANNEL: "Live Rock Concerts" Suits Dismissed in June
DUNNELLON, FL: Rainbow Spring Residents Sue Over Water Rate Hike
FACEBOOK INC: NC Pension System Seeks Lead Plaintiff Role in Suit
GOVGUAM: Taxpayers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action

HAWAII: Dep't. of Health Settles Mental Disability Class Action
HOLOGIC INC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
HOTELS.COM: Judge Approves Tax Class Action Settlement
JPMORGAN CHASE: Town of Cope Participates in Class Action
KICKBOARD USA: Recalls 5,600 Children's Scooter Due to Cut Risk

KOSMOS ENERGY: Zeldes & Haeggquist Files Securities Class Action
LEAR CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suits Over Wire Harness
LG ELECTRONICS: Recalls 21,000 Gas Dryers Due to Fire Hazard
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Racial Profiling Class Action Ongoing
NORTH AMERICAN TITLE: Loses Bid to Decertify Overtime Class Action

ONTARIO LOTTERY: Gamblers Can Appeal C$3.5-Bil. Class Action
SEQWATER: Three Engineers Cleared in Wivenhoe Dam Probe
SPRINT COMMS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for November 26
SULTAN, WA: Local Property Owners File Utility Fee Class Action
TANIMURA & ANTLE: Recalls Single Lot of Romaine Lettuce

TRAVELOCITY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
UNUM GROUP: Discovery in "Merrimon" Class Action Suit Ongoing
UNUM GROUP: Dismissed From Brokerage Antitrust MDL in June
WILLIAM CARTINHOUR: Counsel Sanctioned For Excessive Litigation
YELP!: Settles Wage & Hour Class Action for $1.25 Million

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Dismisses Injury Suit v. Nat'l Gypsum
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Ct. Junks Exposure Suit v. Local 8 & PHA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Suit v. Greyhound
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Goodyear's Bid to Dismiss Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ala. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Suit v. CAC & Lonza

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Ct. Junks School Workers' Suit v. Educ Board
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $636MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Comfort Systems Still Can't Estimate Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Still Defends Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Had $10MM Accrued Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals From WR Grace Plan Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Defends Claims & Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 298 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Had $1.87BB Asbestos Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Defending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Still Defends Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Circor Int'l. Units Continue to Face Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Defending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xylem Inc. Still Defending Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Net Asbestos Liability Was $480MM at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Defending Suits by 2,155 Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 46,020 Asbestos Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Still Defending PI Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Had $57.8MM Reserves End June
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workplace Minister Fears "Third Wave" of ARDs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Approves Quigley's Plan Outline
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Closes Kilbourn Hall For a Semester
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japan Labels Fibro as Industrial Health Risk

ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Sodexho Inc. for H&S Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blacks Road Work Pauses for Fibro Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lack of Cleanup Money May Close Aubert Childcare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Gets Second OSHA Citation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro May Be Present In Buildings Built Pre-2000

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Quality Fade" in Chery, Great Wall Blunder
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Authority Slapped $1,000 Civil Penalty
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fully Paid Subcontractors Leave Job Incomplete
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pueblo Landlord Jailed for Extreme Cost-Cutting
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Study Focuses on Crocidolite Asbestos Fiber

ASBESTOS UPDATE: New UK Payout Scheme Only Covers Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mount View Deal Hangs-On For Fibro-Test Results
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trade Unionists Slam India's Fibro Import
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OEPA Issues Violation Notices for Marion Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Cases Rise in Israel

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dandenong Residents Dump Fibro In Front Lawns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement for Steel Scheme at Peru Plant Fails
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro, Mustard Gas Close Part of Horn Island
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 200 of 302 Gloucestershire Schools Contaminated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACCC Issues Fibro Alert on Imported Car Gaskets

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia Did Not Initiate Full Recall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ICR Moves for Reimbursement of Attorneys Fees
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Framingham Files Lawsuit Against SB General
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms In Spodden Valley Scheme No Longer Exist
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con-Partners Plead Guilty to H&S Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mary Morrisson School Abatement Nears Completion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSWI States Abatement Advice Is Free of Charge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEM Inspector Stops Crown Point Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA to Clean Up Stratford Subterranean Pool


                          *********

APPLE INC: Owes $2.1 Mil. to Lawyers in iPhone Death Grip Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple owes
$2.1 million to lawyers who won at least 100 times that for
consumers unhappy with iPhone 4 antenna defects, a federal judge
ruled.

Twenty-three firms represented the consumers in a consolidated
class action over 4G iPhones that lost cellular service when users
held them by the bottom left corner of the device.

Facing claims that it rushed the iPhone 4 to market in 2010
despite a flaw in the device's signal meter, Apple agreed to $15
apiece to millions of class members.  Depending on the number of
class members who bought multiple phones, Apple is expected to pay
at least $235.5 million in claims under the settlement, which U.S.
District Judge Ronald Whyte approved in February.

The deal also requires Apple to extend and honor "bumper"
accessory requests for 18 months after discontinuation of the
gadget.  A bumper, or exterior rubber case, remedies the phone's
reception issues.

As of June 29, approximately 44,000 class members had filed claims
for monetary recovery, 94 potential class members had opted out of
the settlement, and 21 class members had filed objections.

Class counsel requested for $5.9 million in attorneys' fees, the
maximum figure Apple agreed not to challenge in the settlement.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte in San Jose, Calif., found that
the lawyers should collect less than their "very generous"
calculation.

The requested amount "includes the time of a multitude of
attorneys (more than necessary to efficiently handle the case) at
high-end rates and based upon what appear to be liberally-kept
time records," Judge Whyte wrote on Aug. 10.  "Second, the action
involved no motion practice.  In addition, while counsel brought
this action on a contingent basis, thus incurring the risk of non-
payment, the large number of firms competing to represent
plaintiffs suggests that such a risk was relatively low."

Judge Whyte's nine-page decision also grants final settlement
approval.

"The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that 'settlement is the offspring
of compromise; the question we address is not whether the final
product could be prettier, smarter or snazzier, but whether it is
fair, adequate and free from collusion,'" he wrote.  "Furthermore,
if any objector believed that 'his or her personal claim was being
sacrificed for the greater good . . . they had the right to opt-
out of the class.'  Put another way, without more, objections
seeking a 'better' result are not sufficient to overturn a
settlement agreement.  . . . The court does not find the
settlement to be unfair or inadequate, particularly since class
members were offered a choice of either cash or a case that
undisputedly fixes the alleged defect.  . . . The court concludes
that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and grants
the motion for final approval of the settlement agreement."

Judge Whyte ultimately awarded the class $2.1 million in fees and
$126,900 in expenses.

"Although the court finds the lodestar generously computed,
counsel should be complimented and credited for resolving the case
without court involvement and protracted litigation," Judge Whyte
wrote.

A copy of the Order Granting Motion for Final Settlement Approval;
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Request for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs in In re Apple iPhone 4 Products
Liability Litigation, Case No. 10-cv-02862 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/16/iphone.pdf


BANK OF AMERICA: Time to Reinstate ERISA Suit Appeal Extended
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the ERISA actions in the In re Bank of America
Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) Litigation stipulated to extend the time for the
plaintiffs to reinstate their appeal from the dismissal of their
cases to January 21, 2013, according to Bank of America
Corporation's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Since January 2009, the Corporation and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, among others, have been named as
defendants in a variety of actions filed in state and federal
courts relating to the Corporation's acquisition of Merrill Lynch
& Co., Inc. (Merrill Lynch) (the Acquisition).

On October 9, 2009, plaintiffs in the ERISA actions in the In re
Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation (the ERISA Plaintiffs)
filed a consolidated amended complaint for breaches of duty under
ERISA.  The amended complaint is brought on behalf of a purported
class that consists of participants in the Corporation's 401(k)
Plan, the Corporation's 401(k) Plan for Legacy Companies, the CFC
401(k) Plan (collectively, the 401(k) Plans) and the Corporation's
Pension Plan.  The amended complaint alleges violations of ERISA,
based on, among other things: (i) an alleged failure to prudently
and loyally manage the 401(k) Plans and Pension Plan by continuing
to offer the Corporation's common stock as an investment option or
measure for participant contributions; (ii) an alleged failure to
monitor the fiduciaries of the 401(k) Plans and Pension Plan;
(iii) an alleged failure to provide complete and accurate
information to the 401(k) Plans and Pension Plan participants with
respect to the Merrill Lynch and Countrywide acquisitions and
related matters; and (iv) alleged co-fiduciary liability for these
purported fiduciary breaches.  The amended complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages, equitable remedies and other relief.
On August 27, 2010, the court dismissed the complaint brought by
plaintiffs in the consolidated ERISA action in its entirety.  The
ERISA Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's dismissal
of their actions.  The parties then stipulated to the dismissal of
the appeal with the agreement that the ERISA Plaintiffs could
reinstate their appeal at any time up until July 27, 2012.

On July 16, 2012, the parties to the consolidated ERISA action
stipulated to extend the time for plaintiffs to reinstate their
appeal to January 21, 2013.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: LIBOR-Related Suits Consolidated in N.Y. MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation disclosed in its August 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that all LIBOR-related cases
naming it as defendant have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York by the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation.

The Corporation has received subpoenas and information requests
from government authorities including the U.S. Department of
Justice, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the
United Kingdom Financial Services Authority concerning submissions
made by panel banks in connection with the setting of London
interbank offered rates (LIBOR) and European and other interbank
offered rates.  The Corporation is cooperating with these
inquiries.

In addition, the Corporation and Bank of America, N.A., have been
named as defendants along with most of the other LIBOR panel banks
in a series of individual and class actions in various U.S.
federal courts relating to defendants' LIBOR contributions.  All
cases naming the Corporation have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York by the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation.  The
Corporation expects that any future cases naming the Corporation
will similarly be consolidated for pre-trial purposes.  Plaintiffs
allege that they held or transacted in U.S. dollar LIBOR-based
derivatives or other financial instruments and sustained losses as
a result of collusion or manipulation by defendants regarding the
setting of U.S. dollar LIBOR.  They assert a variety of claims,
including treble damage, antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations claims.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation
-- http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and
a financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Merrill Lynch MBS Litigation Dismissed in May
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action lawsuit entitled Public Employees'
Ret. System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. was
dismissed in May following the court's approval of the parties'
settlement, according to Bank of America Corporation's August 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (Merrill Lynch), Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith (MLPF&S), Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.
(MLMI) and certain current and former directors of MLMI are named
as defendants in a consolidated class action in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of New York, entitled Public
Employees' Ret. System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.
Plaintiffs assert certain claims over mortgage-backed securities
in connection with their purchase of MBS.  In March 2010, the
court dismissed claims related to 65 of 84 offerings with
prejudice due to lack of standing as no named plaintiff purchased
securities in those offerings.  On November 8, 2010, the court
dismissed claims related to one additional offering on separate
grounds.  On December 14, 2011, the court granted preliminary
approval of a settlement providing for a payment by the
Corporation in an amount not material to the Corporation's results
of operations (which amount was fully accrued by the Corporation
as of December 31, 2011).

On May 7, 2012, the court entered an order approving the
settlement and dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Oct. 22 Trial in Merrill Acquisition Suit Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the lawsuit captioned In re Bank of America Securities,
Derivative and Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Litigation is scheduled to commence on October 22, 2012, according
to Bank of America Corporation's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

Since January 2009, the Corporation and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, among others, have been named as
defendants in a variety of actions filed in state and federal
courts relating to the Corporation's acquisition of Merrill Lynch
& Co., Inc. (Merrill Lynch) (the Acquisition).

Plaintiffs in In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and
Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation
(Securities Plaintiffs), a putative class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, represent
all: (i) purchasers of the Corporation's common and preferred
securities between September 15, 2008, and January 21, 2009 and
its January 2011 options; (ii) holders of the Corporation's common
stock as of October 10, 2008; and (iii) purchasers of the
Corporation's common stock issued in the offering that occurred on
or about October 7, 2008.  During the purported class period, the
Corporation had between 4,560,112,687 and 5,017,579,321 common
shares outstanding and the price of those shares declined from
$33.74 on September 12, 2008, to $6.68 on January 21, 2009.
Securities Plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC rules
promulgated thereunder.  Securities Plaintiffs' amended complaint
also alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 related to the offering of the
Corporation's common stock that occurred on or about October 7,
2008, and names Banc of America Securities LLC (BAS) and Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (MLPF&S), among others, as
defendants on certain claims.  The Corporation and its co-
defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the court granted in
part in August 2010 by dismissing certain of the Securities
Plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  Securities Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint which repleaded some of the dismissed claims as well as
added claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of holders of certain debt,
preferred securities and option securities.  In July 2011, the
court granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  As a result of the court's July 2011 ruling,
the Securities Plaintiffs were (in addition to the claims
sustained in the court's August 2010 ruling) permitted to pursue a
claim under Section 10(b) asserting that defendants should have
made additional disclosures in connection with the Acquisition
about the financial condition and 2008 fourth-quarter losses
experienced by Merrill Lynch.  Securities Plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages, legal costs and attorneys' fees.  On
February 6, 2012, the court granted Securities Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  On February 21, 2012, the Corporation
filed a petition requesting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit review the district court's order granting
Securities Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Several individual plaintiffs have opted to pursue claims apart
from the In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative, and
Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation and,
accordingly, have initiated individual actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York relying on
substantially the same facts and claims as the Securities
Plaintiffs.

On June 3, 2012, the parties in In re Bank of America Securities,
Derivative and Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Litigation filed motions seeking partial summary judgment.  On
July 23, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
denied the defendants' petition requesting review of the district
court's February 6, 2012 order granting plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Trial is scheduled to commence on October 22, 2012.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Remaining Appeal in MDL vs. BANA Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed on
May 24, 2012, the remaining appeal from the final approval of the
settlement of the multidistrict litigation challenging certain
deposit account-related business practices of Bank of America
Corporation's subsidiary, according to the Company's August 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) is currently a defendant in several
consumer lawsuits challenging certain deposit account-related
business practices.  Four lawsuits are part of a multi-district
litigation proceeding (the MDL) involving approximately 65
individual cases against 30 financial institutions assigned by the
Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation (JPML) to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The four
cases: Tornes v. Bank of America, N.A.; Yourke, et al. v. Bank of
America, N.A., et al.; Knighten v. Bank of America, N.A.; and
Phillips, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A.; allege that BANA
improperly and unfairly increased the number of overdraft fees it
assessed on consumer deposit accounts by various means.  The cases
challenge the practice of reordering debit card transactions to
post high-to-low and BANA's failure to notify customers at the
point of sale that the transaction may result in an overdraft
charge.  The cases also allege that BANA's disclosures and
advertising regarding the posting of debit card transactions are
false, deceptive and misleading.  These cases assert claims
including breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of the unfair
and deceptive practices statutes of various states.  Plaintiffs
generally seek restitution of all overdraft fees paid to BANA as a
result of BANA's allegedly wrongful business practices, as well as
disgorgement, punitive damages, injunctive relief, pre-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees.  Omnibus motions to dismiss many of
the complaints involved in the MDL, including Tornes, Yourke and
Knighten, were denied on March 12, 2010.

Knighten was dismissed without prejudice on February 4, 2011.  On
November 22, 2011, the MDL court granted final approval of a
settlement of all the remaining class matters in the MDL
(including Tornes, Yourke and Phillips), providing for a payment
by the Corporation of $410 million (which amount was fully accrued
by the Corporation, as of December 31, 2011) in exchange for a
complete release of claims asserted against the Corporation in the
MDL.  Several MDL settlement class members have appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the judgment
granting final approval to the settlement.

All appeals by the MDL class members but one were voluntarily
dismissed by the appellants.  The remaining appeal was dismissed
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on May 24,
2012.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Signs MOU to Resolve Interchange Fee Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation entered into a memorandum of
understanding in July 2012 to settle the lawsuit captioned In Re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation, according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

A group of merchants have filed a series of putative class actions
and individual actions with regard to interchange fees associated
with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.  These
actions, which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In Re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation (Interchange), name Visa, MasterCard and several banks
and bank holding companies, including the Corporation, as
defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix
the level of default interchange rates, which represent the fee an
issuing bank charges an acquiring bank on every transaction.
Plaintiffs also challenge as unreasonable restraints of trade
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act certain rules of Visa and
MasterCard related to merchant acceptance of payment cards at the
point of sale.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief based on
their assertion that interchange would be lower or eliminated
absent the alleged conduct.  On January 8, 2008, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss all claims for pre-2004 damages.
Motions to dismiss the remainder of the complaint and plaintiffs'
motion for class certification are pending.  In February 2011, the
parties cross-moved for summary judgment.

In addition, plaintiffs filed supplemental complaints against
certain defendants, including the Corporation, relating to initial
public offerings (the IPOs) of MasterCard and Visa. Plaintiffs
allege that the IPOs violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Plaintiffs also assert that the
MasterCard IPO was a fraudulent conveyance.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and to undo the IPOs.  Motions to dismiss both
supplemental complaints, as well as summary judgment motions
challenging both supplemental complaints, remain pending.

The Corporation and certain affiliates have entered into loss-
sharing agreements with Visa, Mastercard and other financial
institutions in connection with certain antitrust litigation,
including Interchange.  Collectively, the loss-sharing agreements
require the Corporation and/or certain affiliates to pay 11.6
percent of the monetary portion of any comprehensive Interchange
settlement.  In the event of an adverse judgment, the agreements
require the Corporation and/or certain affiliates to pay 12.8
percent of any damages associated with Visa-related claims (Visa-
related damages), 9.1 percent of any damages associated with
MasterCard-related claims, and 11.6 percent of any damages
associated with internetwork claims (internetwork damages) or not
associated specifically with Visa or MasterCard-related claims
(unassigned damages).

Pursuant to Visa's publicly-disclosed Retrospective Responsibility
Plan (the RRP), Visa placed certain proceeds from its IPO into an
escrow fund (the Escrow).  Under the RRP, funds in the Escrow may
be accessed by Visa and its members, including Bank of America, to
pay monetary damages in Interchange, with the Corporation's
payments from the Escrow capped at 12.81 percent of the funds that
Visa places therein.  Subject to that cap, the Corporation may use
Escrow funds to cover 73.9 percent of its monetary payment towards
a comprehensive Interchange settlement, 100 percent of its payment
for any Visa-related damages and 73.9 percent of its payment for
any internetwork and unassigned damages.

On July 13, 2012, defendants, including the Corporation, and class
plaintiffs in the Interchange filed a memorandum of understanding
with the court regarding a global settlement of the Interchange
litigation.  The memorandum of understanding provides that
defendants and class plaintiffs have agreed to enter a definitive
settlement agreement that will provide, among other things, that
all defendants will pay a total of $6.05 billion to class
plaintiffs and that each network will make certain changes to
network rules regarding merchant point of sale practices.  Visa
and MasterCard also have agreed to distribute to class members an
amount equal to 10 bps of credit interchange rates for U.S.
merchant class members for a period of eight months, beginning
within 60 days after completion of the court-ordered period during
which individual class members may opt out of the settlement.
Such amounts otherwise would have been paid to Visa or MasterCard
issuers, including the Corporation.  In exchange, class plaintiffs
have agreed to a broad release for defendants.  The class action
settlement agreement to be executed by the parties will be subject
to court approval.  In addition to settlement with the class
plaintiffs, defendants in the individual actions also reached a
settlement with plaintiffs in the individual actions.  The
settlement of the individual actions provides that all defendants
will pay a total amount of $525 million.

Subject to the loss-sharing agreements the Corporation and certain
affiliates previously entered into with Visa, MasterCard and other
financial institutions, the Corporation will contribute a total of
$738 million to the settlement of the class and individual
actions.  Of that amount, $539 million will be paid from the
proceeds that Visa previously placed into an escrow fund pursuant
to Visa's Retrospective Responsibility Plan (the RRP) to cover the
Corporation's share of Visa-related claims.  The Corporation has
agreed to pay $199 million in cash for the MasterCard-related
claims.  The costs of the Interchange settlement have been fully
accrued by the Corporation.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BP: Recalls 2.1 Million Gallons of Unleaded Gasoline
----------------------------------------------------
Robert Channick, writing for the Chicago Tribune, reports that a
50,000-barrel batch of gasoline, or 2.1 million gallons, has been
recalled by BP's Whiting refinery after hundreds of reports of
hard-starting and stalling vehicles from motorists flooded
Northwest Indiana repair shops the past few days.

The fouled fuel has made its way into another state.  A BP
spokesman confirmed late Tuesday afternoon that a small amount of
contaminated premium and mid-grade fuel was trucked to the
Milwaukee area and sold between Monday evening and Tuesday morning
before the Company halted sales.

Previously, BP said the contaminated fuel was contained to
Northwest Indiana and just across the borders into Illinois and
Michigan.

BP issued a statement Tuesday, saying the regular grade gasoline
was blended at its Whiting storage terminal between August 13 and
17, and contained a "higher than normal level of polymeric
residue."  The fuel was distributed at BP stations and other
retailers in the last week.

Affected motorists are instructed to call BP's customer hot line
at 800-333-3991, but customers have reported difficulty getting
through to a representative.  Gas claims may also be filed at
bpconsum@bp.com

"The service line did get an extremely high call volume this
morning," said Scott Dean, a Chicago-based BP spokesman.  "We're
adding additional operators and staff to reduce hold times."

Car dealerships and service shops throughout Northwest Indiana
have been fielding hundreds of calls, while service bays are
jammed with repairs, which primarily consist of draining the fuel
tank and cleaning the fuel system.  Costs have ranged from $300 to
$1,200.

Bill Vlietstra, service manager at Schepel Buick GMC in
Merrillville, said the dealership has received hundreds of calls
since Saturday.  Those who just topped off their tanks are told to
add fuel cleaner and fresh gas.  Anyone who filled up with the
contaminated gas is advised to bring the car in for fuel flushing.

More than a hundred customers have done that since Monday,
according to Mr. Vlietstra.

"A few of them, we have towed in," Mr. Vlietstra said.  "We just
line them up outside and get to them as we can."

Mr. Dean said customers with approved claims will be reimbursed
for their repairs.

Several gas stations have been shut down in Northwest Indiana
while their storage tanks are drained and fresh fuel added, Mr.
Dean said.  The problem has also crossed state lines into Illinois
and Michigan.

"We definitely now are seeing a handful of customer complaints
along the Illinois and Michigan border," Mr. Dean said.  "It's not
unusual for those tankers to cross the border, particularly if
it's one of the communities right on the border."

Of the approximately 4,500 calls and 800 emails received by BP as
of Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Dean said about 95 percent of the gas-
related complaints were from Lake County, Indiana.

Mr. Dean said it is unclear how much of the contaminated fuel made
it into gas tanks.

"We're still trying to account for exactly how much has been
combusted," he said. "We are getting loads back and we're doing
that as quickly as possible."


CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOC.: 9th Circuit Remands Union Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit adopted Supreme Court
reasoning on Aug. 16 that unions cannot force nonmember workers to
fund their political activities.

The high court ruled in June that the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) in California had violated nonmembers'
free-speech rights in 2005 by raising its fees 25 percent to fight
two propositions related to union activity.  Public employees in
the state do not have to join a union, but they still must pay
annual fees to cover the costs of collective bargaining.

A group of nonmembers filed a class action over the issue and met
with an initial success when a federal judge in Sacramento granted
them summary judgment.  Later, however, a divided panel of the 9th
Circuit reversed and the case went to the Supreme Court.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito called the system
"indefensible" and a significant expansion of union power.

"By authorizing a union to collect fees from nonmembers and
permitting the use of an opt-out system for the collection of fees
levied to cover nonchargeable expenses, our prior decisions
approach, if they do not cross, the limit of what the First
Amendment can tolerate," Justice Alito wrote.  "The SEIU, however,
asks us to go farther.  . . . This aggressive use of power by the
SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible."

The high court declined to find the case moot after the union had
offered the plaintiffs a refund, and found that questions remained
over objections that class members made to the alleged conditions
that the union put on its refund offer.

In a brief order published on Aug. 16, the federal appeals court
in San Francisco vacated its initial finding and remanded the case
for "further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's
opinion."

A copy of the Order in Knox, et al. v. California State Employees
Association, et al., No. 08-16645 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/Ym4mQv


CAMBREX CORP: Motions in Lorazepam Suit Appeal Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, Cambrex Corporation and a subsidiary were named as
defendants along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma
Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the
Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia (the "District Court").  Lawsuits were
also commenced by several State Attorneys General and class action
complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts.  The
lawsuits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act
arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and
Mylan covering two Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (Lorazepam
and Clorazepate).

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health
care insurers.  In the remaining case, the District Court entered
judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in
the total amount of $19,200,000, payable jointly and severally,
and also a punitive damage award against each defendant in the
amount of $16,709,000.  In addition, the District Court ruled that
the defendants were subject to a total of approximately $7,500,000
in prejudgment interest.  Several motions are currently pending in
connection with the defendant's appeal of the judgment.

In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415,000 to Mylan in exchange for a
release and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in
related litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and
Clorazepate, as well as potential future claims related to the
ongoing matter.  Mylan has submitted a surety bond underwritten by
a third-party insurance company in the amount of $74,500,000.  In
the event of a final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex expects
any payment required by the Company to be made by Mylan under the
indemnity.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Cambrex Corporation -- http://www.cambrex.com/-- is an innovative
life sciences company providing products, services and
technologies to accelerate the development and commercialization
of small molecule therapeutics.


CANADA: Native Americans Sue Over Residential School Abuses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that Canada
unfairly excluded from a monetary settlement Native American
students who suffered abuse at residential schools, but did not
live at them, according to a federal class action.

Two Native American bands claim Canada unconstitutionally excluded
people harmed by residential schools from a settlement reached in
2006.

By their chiefs, members of the Tk'emlups Te Secwepemc Indian Band
and the Sechelt Indian Band claim that Canada's residential school
policy "was designed to eradicate Aboriginal culture and identity
and assimilate the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada into Euro-Canadian
Society."

"Through this policy, Canada ripped away the foundations of
identity for generations of Aboriginal People and caused
incalculable harm to both individuals and communities," the
complaint states.

The plaintiffs propose the action be based on three classes, one
for survivors, one for descendants of victims, and one on behalf
of entire native bands.

While the government has recognized the harm done by residential
schools, where students were subjected to physical and sexual
abuse, a "pan-Canadian" settlement implemented in 2007 wrongfully
excluded so-called "day-scholars," who attended the schools but
were not live-in students, according to the complaint.

Established before 1874, the last residential school was closed in
1997.

Attending a residential school became mandatory in 1920 for native
children age 7 to 15, the complaint states.  Students "were
confined and deprived of their heritage, their support networks
and their way of life, forced to adopt a foreign language and
culture alien to them and punished for noncompliance," the
complaint states.

After acknowledging the harm, Canada agreed in May 2006 to settle
with abuse victims who were residential students.  Compensation
was doled out through a "Common Experience Payment" of $10,000 for
the first year and $3,000 for each additional year "of residence
at a Residential School," according to the complaint.

But the government refused to compensate members of the "Survivor
Class," who attended the schools but didn't "reside there."

The Canadian government formally apologized to residential school
victims in 2008, but excluding groups of people harmed by the
schools "reflects Canada's continued failure" to compensate all
those affected, the plaintiffs claim.

"Canada continues, as it did from the 1970s until 2006 with
respect to 'residential students,' to deny the damage suffered by
the individual plaintiffs and the members of the Survivor,
Descendant and Band classes," the complaint states.

A copy of the Complaint in Gottfriedson, et al. v. Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of Canada, Case No. T-1542-12 (Vancouver, B.C.
Federal Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/21/CanadianNatives.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Len Marchand, Esq.
          FULTON & COMPANY LLP
          #300-350 Lansdowne Street
          Kamloops, BC
          V2C 1Y1
          Telephone: (250) 372-5542
          E-mail: lmarchand@fultonco.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Grant, Esq.
          PETER GRANT & ASSOCIATES
          900-777 Hornby Street
          Vancouver, BC
          V6Z 1S4
          Telephone: (604) 685-1229

               - and -

          John Kingman Phillips, Esq.
          PHILLIPS GILL LLP
          Suite 200
          33 Jarvis Street
          Toronto, ON
          M5E 1N3
          Telephone: (647) 220-7420
          E-mail: john.phillips@legaladvocates.ca


CBS CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Securities Suit Dismissal in May
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
in May 2012 the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit
against CBS Corporation, according to the Company's August 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On December 12, 2008, the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System filed a self-styled class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Treasurer,
alleging violations of federal securities law.  The complaint,
which was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between February 26, 2008, and
October 10, 2008 (the "Class Period"), alleges that, among other
things, the Company's failure to timely write down the value of
certain assets caused the Company's reported operating results
during the Class Period to be materially inflated.  The plaintiffs
seek unspecified compensatory damages.  On
February 11, 2009, a motion was filed in the case on behalf of The
City of Omaha, Nebraska Civilian Employees' Retirement System, and
The City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System (collectively,
the "Omaha Funds") seeking to appoint the Omaha Funds as the lead
plaintiffs in this case; on March 5, 2009, the court granted that
motion.  On May 4, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint, which removes the Treasurer as a defendant and adds the
Executive Chairman.  On July 13, 2009, all defendants filed a
motion to dismiss this action.  On March 16, 2010, the court
granted the Company's motion and dismissed this action as to the
Company and all defendants.  On April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.  On
September 23, 2010, the court issued an order granting leave to
amend.  On October 8, 2010, the Company was served with an Amended
Complaint, which redefines the Class Period to be April 29, 2008,
to October 10, 2008, and alleges that the impairment charge should
have been taken during the first quarter of 2008.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss this Amended Complaint on November 19,
2010.  On May 24, 2011, the court granted the motion to dismiss
and entered judgment in favor of defendants on May 25, 2011.

On June 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and, on
March 14, 2012, the Second Circuit heard oral argument on
plaintiffs' appeal.  On May 10, 2012, the Second Circuit affirmed
the dismissal of the case.

Founded in 1986 and headquartered in New York, CBS Corporation --
http://cbscorporation.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a mass media company in the United States and
internationally.  The Company is composed of an Entertainment
segment, a Cable Networks segment, a Publishing segment, a Local
Broadcasting segment, and an Outdoor segment.


CBS CORP: Simon & Schuster Defends Suits Over Sales of E-books
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation's publisher subsidiary continues to defend itself
against lawsuits over sales of e-books in the U.S. and Canada,
according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

A number of lawsuits are pending against the following parties
relating to the sale of e-books: Apple Inc., Hachette Book Group,
Inc., HarperCollins Publishers, LLC, Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC
d/b/a Macmillan, Penguin Group (USA) Inc. and the Company's
subsidiary, Simon & Schuster, Inc. (collectively, the "Publishing
parties").

On April 10, 2012, for purposes of settlement and without any
admission of wrongdoing or liability, Simon & Schuster and two of
the other Publishing parties entered into a settlement stipulation
and proposed final judgment (the "Stipulation") with the United
States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") in connection with the
DOJ's investigations of agency distribution of e-books.  In
furtherance of this settlement, on April 11, 2012, the DOJ filed
an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Publishing parties and
concurrently filed the Stipulation with the court.  The
Stipulation, which is subject to final approval by the court, does
not involve any monetary payments by Simon & Schuster, but will
require the adoption of certain business practices for a 24 month
period and certain compliance practices for a five year period.

On June 11, 2012, for purposes of settlement and without any
admission of wrongdoing or liability, Simon & Schuster entered
into a proposed settlement agreement to resolve the antitrust
action filed by a number of states and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico against several of the Publishing parties in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas, which was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("States") on April 30, 2012.  The proposed
settlement provides that Simon & Schuster will pay an agreed upon
amount for consumer restitution, among other things, and also
requires the adoption of certain business and compliance
practices, which are substantially similar to those described in
the Stipulation with the DOJ.  The proposed settlement is subject
to court approval.  While the Stipulation with the DOJ and the
proposed settlement with the States are subject to finalization
and court approval, the Company believes that these settlements,
as currently drafted, will not have a material adverse effect on
its results of operation, financial position or cash flows.

On December 9, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL") issued an order consolidating
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York various purported class action lawsuits that private
litigants had filed in federal courts in California and New York.
On January 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint with the court against the Publishing
parties.  These private litigant plaintiffs, who are e-book
purchasers, allege that, among other things, the defendants are in
violation of federal and/or state antitrust laws in connection
with the sale of e-books pursuant to agency distribution
arrangements between each of the publishers and e-book retailers.
The consolidated amended class action complaint generally seeks
multiple forms of damages for the purchase of e-books and
injunctive and other relief.  On March 2, 2012, the Publishing
parties filed a motion to dismiss this action.  On May 15, 2012,
the court denied the motion to dismiss.

Commencing on February 24, 2012, similar antitrust lawsuits have
been filed under Canadian law against the Publishing parties by
private litigants in Canada, purportedly as class actions.  Simon
& Schuster intends to vigorously defend itself in the MDL and
Canadian litigations.

In addition, the competition authority in the European Community
is conducting a competition investigation of agency distribution
arrangements of e-books in this industry and Simon & Schuster is
cooperating with this investigation.

Founded in 1986 and headquartered in New York, CBS Corporation --
http://cbscorporation.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a mass media company in the United States and
internationally.  The Company is composed of an Entertainment
segment, a Cable Networks segment, a Publishing segment, a Local
Broadcasting segment, and an Outdoor segment.


CIGNA CORP: B. Karp Did Not Appeal Discrimination Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, that Bretta Karp has chosen not to appeal the
dismissal of her gender discrimination lawsuit.

On March 3, 2011, Bretta Karp filed a class action gender
discrimination lawsuit against the Company in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The plaintiff
alleges systemic discrimination against females in compensation,
promotions, training, and performance evaluations in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and
Massachusetts law.  Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and various
other forms of broad programmatic relief, including injunctive
relief, backpay, lost benefits, and preferential rights to jobs.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on May 16, 2011,
that was granted by the court on March 30, 2012.

Plaintiff has chosen not to appeal the decision, and has elected
to pursue individual arbitration.  Therefore, the Company says
this matter no longer has the potential to be material to the
Company's results of operations.

Founded in 1792 and headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut,
CIGNA Corporation -- http://www.cigna.com/-- a health services
organization, through its subsidiaries, provides insurance and
related products and services in the United States and
internationally.


CIGNA CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Ingenix-Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide subscriber class in a
lawsuit against Cigna Corporation and other defendants relating to
the use of Ingenix Inc. data remains pending, according to the
Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On February 13, 2008, State of New York Attorney General Andrew M.
Cuomo announced an industry-wide investigation into the use of
data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare,
used to calculate payments for services provided by out-of-network
providers.  The Company received four subpoenas from the New York
Attorney General's office in connection with this investigation
and responded appropriately.  On February 17, 2009, the Company
entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance resolving the
investigation.  In connection with the industry-wide resolution,
the Company contributed $10 million to the establishment of a new
non-profit company that now compiles and provides the data
formerly provided by Ingenix.

The Company was named as a defendant in a number of putative
nationwide class actions asserting that due to the use of data
from Ingenix, Inc., the Company improperly underpaid claims, an
industry-wide issue.  All of the class actions were consolidated
into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et al.,
which is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  The consolidated amended complaint, filed
on August 7, 2009, asserts claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") statute, the Sherman
Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law on behalf of subscribers,
health care providers and various medical associations.

On September 23, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in
part the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  The court dismissed all claims by the health care
provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack of standing
to sue, and as a result the case will proceed only on behalf of
subscribers.  In addition, the court dismissed all of the
antitrust claims, the ERISA claims based on disclosure and the New
Jersey state law claims.  The court did not dismiss the ERISA
claims for benefits and claims under the RICO statute.  Plaintiffs
filed a motion to certify a nationwide class of subscriber
plaintiffs on December 19, 2011, which is fully briefed and
pending.

It is reasonably possible that others could initiate additional
litigation or additional regulatory action against the Company
with respect to use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc.  The Company
denies the allegations asserted in the investigations and
litigation and will vigorously defend itself in these matters.

Founded in 1792 and headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut,
CIGNA Corporation -- http://www.cigna.com/-- a health services
organization, through its subsidiaries, provides insurance and
related products and services in the United States and
internationally.


CIGNA CORP: Continues to Defend "Amara" Pension Plan Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation continues to defend a class action lawsuit
initiated by Janice Amara, et al., according to the Company's
August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On December 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit,
captioned Janice C. Amara, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cigna Corporation and Cigna Pension Plan, in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna
Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated participants in the Cigna Pension Plan
affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.  The
plaintiffs allege various Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") violations including, among other things, that
the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older
employees; the conversion resulted in a wear away period (when the
pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion
benefit); and these conditions are not adequately disclosed in the
Plan.

In 2008, the court issued a decision finding in favor of Cigna
Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan on the age discrimination
and wear away claims.  However, the court found in favor of the
plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims and ordered an
enhanced level of benefits from the existing cash balance formula
for the majority of the class, requiring class members to receive
their frozen benefits under the pre-conversion Cigna Pension Plan
and their post-1997 accrued benefits under the post-conversion
Cigna Pension Plan.  The court also ordered, among other things,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Both parties appealed the court's decisions to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which issued a decision on
October 6, 2009, affirming the District Court's judgment and order
on all issues.  On January 4, 2010, both parties filed separate
petitions for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court.  Cigna's petition was granted, and on May 16, 2011, the
Supreme Court issued its Opinion in which it reversed the lower
courts' decisions and remanded the case to the trial judge for
reconsideration of the remedy.  The Court unanimously agreed with
the Company's position that the lower courts erred in granting a
remedy for an inaccurate plan description under an ERISA provision
that allows only recovery of plan benefits. However, the decision
identified possible avenues of "appropriate equitable relief" that
plaintiffs may pursue as an alternative remedy.

The case is now in the trial court following remand.  Briefs have
been filed on the remedial issues and hearings took place on
December 9, 2011, and March 29-30, 2012.  The Company will
continue to vigorously defend its position in this case.

Founded in 1792 and headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut,
CIGNA Corporation -- http://www.cigna.com/-- a health services
organization, through its subsidiaries, provides insurance and
related products and services in the United States and
internationally.


CLEAR CHANNEL: "Live Rock Concerts" Suits Dismissed in June
-----------------------------------------------------------
All of the class action lawsuits against Clear Channel
Communications, Inc., and a subsidiary over allegations of "live
rock concerts" monopoly was dismissed in June 2012, according to
the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

The Company and its subsidiary were co-defendants with Live Nation
(which was spun off as an independent company in December 2005) in
22 putative class actions filed by different named plaintiffs in
various district courts throughout the country beginning in May
2006.  In the Master Separation and Distribution Agreement between
the Company and Live Nation that was entered into in connection
with the spin-off of Live Nation in December 2005, Live Nation
agreed, among other things, to assume responsibility for legal
actions existing at the time of, or initiated after, the spin-off
in which the Company is a defendant if such actions relate in any
material respect to the business of Live Nation.  Pursuant to the
Agreement, Live Nation also agreed to indemnify the Company with
respect to all liabilities assumed by Live Nation, including those
pertaining to the 22 putative class actions.

The class action proceedings generally alleged that the defendants
monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for "live rock
concerts" in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs claimed that they paid higher ticket prices for
defendants' "rock concerts" as a result of defendants' conduct,
and they sought damages in an undetermined amount.  The Judicial
Panel for Multidistrict Litigation centralized these class action
proceedings in the Central District of California.  Plaintiffs and
defendants settled the cases for $535,000, and all of the cases
were dismissed with prejudice on June 21, 2012.  Pursuant to the
Master Separation and Distribution Agreement, Live Nation paid the
entire $535,000 settlement amount on behalf of the defendants.


DUNNELLON, FL: Rainbow Spring Residents Sue Over Water Rate Hike
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Thompson, writing for Gainesville.com, reports that recently,
some 1,500 Rainbow Springs residents filed a class-action lawsuit
against the city over a spike in their water and sewer rates.

The residents contend in court documents that their new rates are
more than 50 percent higher than before the city acquired their
water utility system, a fiscal jolt that was exacerbated by a
city-imposed 25 percent surcharge.

Harriet Daniels, spokeswoman for the city, declined to comment.
The city's policy is to not discuss pending litigation, she said.

The lawsuit sprang from the City Council's vote in December to pay
$6 million to acquire Rainbow Springs Utilities, a privately held
water and sewer system that served the Rainbow Springs Golf and
Country Club about four miles away.

The system was outside the city limits but within Dunnellon's
legally defined service area.

The city immediately doubled the size of its water utility system,
to about 3,000 customers, with the purchase.

The newest customers in Rainbow Springs, however, had been paying
less prior to the acquisition.

City officials maintained that the increase ran about $7 a month
for a Rainbow Springs homeowner using 3,000 gallons of water a
month, which was the average amount for a counterpart on the
city's system.

Rainbow Springs residents complained that increase would be
steeper because they used more water than city customers and
because the city intended to keep phasing in higher rates for
Rainbow Springs customers over the next five years.


FACEBOOK INC: NC Pension System Seeks Lead Plaintiff Role in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that North Carolina's pension system
wants to be a lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit over
Facebook's botched initial public offering.

The News & Observer of Raleigh reported on Aug. 18 that the
retirement system for state workers has seen the value of its $26
million Facebook investment fall by at least $4 million.

The system joined a class-action lawsuit initially filed in May
against the social networking site and its underwriters.  Court
documents filed Aug. 9 that seek lead status show the extent of
North Carolina's exposure.

The state bought 685,737 shares of Facebook stock May 17 at the
initial price of $38 a share.  It sold a small portion the next
day to make about $215,000.  The state still holds about 618,000
shares.


GOVGUAM: Taxpayers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Brett Kelman, writing for Pacific Daily News, reports that a
federal judge has ruled in favor of taxpayers who sued GovGuam
over late tax refunds, and attorneys must now craft an injunction
that will force the government to pay refunds on time.

The permanent injunction could require GovGuam to set aside
funding for all refunds, or it could set a hard deadline by which
all refunds must be paid -- possibly as short as six months --
said Judge Consuelo Marshall in court on Aug. 21.

The injunction must also fix a flawed system that allowed some
taxpayers to apply for expedited refunds.  If attorneys decide
that an expedited refund system continues to exist, they must
ensure that the rules of the system are clearly "spelled out,"
Judge Marshall said.

A proposed permanent injunction in tax refunds is due to the court
on Sept. 21, Judge Marshall said.

This injunction will be the result of a class-action lawsuit that
demanded GovGuam start paying tax refunds on schedule.

Three taxpayers filed the lawsuit in April 2011, and it was set
for trial in October.  However, Marshall ruled on Aug. 21 that a
trial was unnecessary, and declared victory for the taxpayers
after reviewing arguments on both sides.

Assistant Attorney General Ken Orcutt, who represented the
government, said the taxpayers lawsuit was flawed because it
failed to identify any federal law that required GovGuam to pay
tax refunds within a specific timeframe.

Judge Marshall said she didn't believe any such law existed.

"You don't really think you are in compliance if people have been
waiting years, do you?" Judge Marshall asked Mr. Orcutt in court.

Over the last decade, GovGuam has frequently fallen behind in
payment of refunds, and it has not been uncommon for taxpayers to
wait three to five years for their money.  When this lawsuit was
filed last April, some taxpayers were still waiting for refunds
from 2006.

Generally, the government has cleared this refund debt by
borrowing money from the bond market to make payment, and Gov.
Eddie Calvo has already done this twice.  Currently, the refund
debt is only about $30 to $36 million, although GovGuam will
struggle to pay off that debt before it grows again.


HAWAII: Dep't. of Health Settles Mental Disability Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Hawaii Department of Health
has settled a lawsuit on behalf of residents denied eligibility
for state mental health services because of changes that became
effective in 2009.

The Hawaii Disability Rights Center sued the state's Adult Mental
Health Division on behalf of an estimated 250 people who were
denied services between July 2009 and December 16, 2010, but would
have been found eligible under a policy in effect on June 30,
2009.

The settlement allows them to be reassessed under the state's 2004
eligibility criteria.

Members of the plaintiff class have until the end of the month to
opt out of the settlement.

A fairness hearing is scheduled for Sept. 7.


HOLOGIC INC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hologic, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle
a consolidated merger-related lawsuit filed in Delaware, according
to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 23,
2012.

On August 1, 2012, the Company completed its acquisition of Gen-
Probe Incorporated ("Gen-Probe") pursuant to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") entered into on April 29,
2012.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against the Company, Gen-
Probe Incorporated, and Gen-Probe's board of directors.  These
include: (1) Teamsters Local Union No. 727 Pension Fund v. Gen-
Probe Incorporated, et al. (Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego); (2) Timothy Coyne v. Gen-
Probe Incorporated, et al. (Delaware Court of Chancery); and (3)
Douglas R. Klein v. John W. Brown, et al. (Delaware Chancery
Court).  The two Delaware actions have been consolidated into a
single action titled: In re: Gen-Probe Shareholders Litigation.
The lawsuits were filed after the announcement of the Gen-Probe
Acquisition on April 30, 2012, as putative stockholder class
actions.  Each of the actions assert similar claims alleging that
Gen-Probe's board of directors failed to discharge adequately its
fiduciary duties to shareholders by failing to adequately value
Gen-Probe's shares and ensure that Gen-Probe's shareholders
received adequate consideration in the Company's proposed
acquisition of Gen-Probe, that the Gen-Probe Acquisition is the
product of a flawed sales process, and that the Company aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.  The plaintiffs
demand, among other things, a preliminary and permanent injunction
enjoining the Gen-Probe Acquisition and rescinding the transaction
or any part thereof that has been implemented.

On May 24, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed an
amended complaint, adding allegations that the disclosures in Gen-
Probe's preliminary proxy statement were inadequate.  The
defendants in the Delaware action answered the complaint on
June 4, 2012.

On July 18, 2012, the parties in the Delaware action entered into
a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement.  The
proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the
execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement,
consummation of the merger, and final approval of the proposed
settlement by the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On May 21, 2012, and May 22, 2012, respectively, the defendants in
the California action filed a motion to stay such action.  On July
9, 2012, the plaintiffs in the California action filed for
voluntary dismissal without prejudice.  On July 12, 2012, the
California Superior Court entered an order dismissing the
California complaint without prejudice.

At this time, the Company says it cannot determine the ultimate
outcome of this litigation, or a reasonable estimate of the amount
or range of possible loss.


HOTELS.COM: Judge Approves Tax Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Doug Walker, Associate Editor for Rome News-Tribune, reports that
U.S. District Court Judge Harold L. Murphy has entered a final
order approving a settlement agreement of a class action legal
suit brought by the cities of Rome and Cartersville, along with
Hart County, against a group of online travel companies.

Hotels.com, Expedia, Orbitz, Travelocity and Priceline will be
required to make a lump sum payment for local hotel/motel taxes,
plus 7 percent interest from May 16, 2011, through November 30,
2012.

The cities of Rome, Cartersville, Rockmart, Cedartown, Dalton,
East Point, Warner Robins, Tybee Island, College Park, Macon,
Augusta-Richmond County, Alpharetta and Hartwell along with Cobb,
Gwinnett, Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton and Hart counties seek $2,500
each, attorneys' fees of one-third, and expenses, with any
remaining funds to be distributed the local governments on a pro
rata basis.

The $2,500 is a fee that is distributed to lead plaintiffs who
were willing to step out and put their names on the line as
plaintiffs.  That money comes off the top of the final amount that
the online travel companies pay in later this fall.  However, each
of the original plaintiffs will receive additional funds as part
of the pro rata distribution.

Judge Murphy ordered that any city and county which had not
already submitted to Class Counsel, the Rome firm of Brinson,
Askew, Berry, Siegler, Richardson and Davis LLP, the list of
hotels with physical address, hotel motel tax rate, sales tax
rate, and a certified copy of its hotel motel ordinance, to do so
by Oct. 15.

Rome City Manager John Bennett was pleased that Judge Murphy had
approved the settlement of the case.  Mr. Bennett said he had
hoped the settlement would go for compensation of improperly
collected taxes going back to 2005 but that anything the city gets
going forward will be more than they've received in the past.

Rome, Cartersville and Hart County were the original plaintiffs
who argued that the online travel companies ought to be paying
local hotel/motel taxes based on the retail rate which the online
companies charge their customers, as opposed to the wholesale rate
that they negotiate prices from the hoteliers.

Distribution payments to cities and counties are anticipated to be
made by the end of this year.  Thereafter, payments will be made
to cities and counties on a quarterly basis as long as the online
travel companies continue to use the Merchant Model of Business.

The other alternative for the online travel companies is known as
the Agency Business Model.  In that situation the online companies
simply acts as agents for the hoteliers and receive a commission
or booking fees as is typically the case for traditional travel
agents who book rooms through a global distribution system such as
Pegasus or Worldspan.

Lori Dover, owner of Travel Leaders of Rome, said that affiliation
with national firms such as Travel Leaders has helped the
traditional local travel agents compete with the online travel
companies and that she is able to compete price-wise for last
minute hotel bookings, but she is hopeful the settlement will be
another step toward leveling the playing field for the traditional
small local travel companies.

J. Anderson Davis, the lead counsel for the Rome firm in this
case, said he expects the online companies to continue to use the
Merchant Model going forward because all the taxes represent are a
pass through to the end line consumer and the Merchant Model
typically offers the firms a much higher rate of return than
traditional commissions or booking fees.

During his statement to the court prior to Murphy's final approval
of the settlement, Mr. Davis said he could not estimate how much
the precise amount of money the settlement should return to Rome
or any other individual community.

However, he did say that statewide, the hotel/motel taxes
generates about $3.6 million a year for the state of Georgia, and
that Atlanta has reported that it received about a million dollars
after it and the city of Columbus settled separately with the
online travel companies.  That leaves about $2.6 million to be
divided among all other cities and counties in Georgia, which levy
a hotel/motel tax.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Town of Cope Participates in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis A. Overstreet, writing for TheTandD.com, reports that the
Town of Cope has been included in a class action lawsuit against
JPMorgan Chase Inc. regarding trading losses and their impact on
certificates of deposit and other investments, Mayor Janet Joye
reports.

Cope has 77 residents and is the seventh smallest town in South
Carolina.


KICKBOARD USA: Recalls 5,600 Children's Scooter Due to Cut Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Kickboard USA of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and
manufacturer, Micro-Mobility Ltd., Kusnacht, Switzerland,
announced a voluntary recall of about 5,600 scooters.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The one-piece plastic platform that covers the front wheel base
can break, posing a laceration hazard to children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall is for the three-wheeled Mini Micro scooter for
children ages 3-5.  The scooter was sold in the following colors:
blue, orange, pink and aqua.  "Micro" is written in black and blue
letters on the metal handlebar and is imprinted on the black hand
grips.  "Mini Micro" is written on the front plastic covering.
The following recalled model numbers and serial numbers are on a
sticker on the bottom of the scooter:

   Model Number    Serial Number
   ------------    -------------
   MM0079          00061617 to 00064364 and
                   00064767 to 00065762

   MM0080          00066371 to 00666401 and
                   00097291 to 00098286

   MM0109          00093571 to 00093870
   MM0113          00067871 to 00068370

A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12252.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold at
independent toy stores, Amazon.com and Kickboardusa.com for about
$85 from May 2012 to July 2012.

Consumers should take this product away from children and contact
Kickboard USA for a free replacement product.  For additional
information, please contact Kickboard USA toll-free at (888) 236-
5657 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, by e-mail to safety@kickboardusa.com or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.kickboardusa.com/


KOSMOS ENERGY: Zeldes & Haeggquist Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zeldes & Haeggquist, LLP, a shareholder and consumer rights
litigation firm, filed the first class action complaint for
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers
of Kosmos Energy Ltd. common stock.

If you purchased Kosmos stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's May 16, 2011 IPO and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff
in the action, the deadline to file a motion or lead plaintiff is
August 24, 2012.  Any member of the investor class may file a
motion to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this action or have
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Amber Eck at Zeldes & Haeggquist (ambere@zhlaw.com (619) 342-
8000).  There is no cost to you.

Kosmos represented in offering documents leading up to the IPO
that it expected that its Jubilee oil field would produce 120,000
barrels of oil per day by "mid 2011," but failed to disclose known
defects with the oil wells.  Investors discovered the field
problems when Kosmos' partner, Tullow Oil PLC, issued a press
release announcing that production from the Jubilee oil field was
only 80,000 barrels per day.

It was not until November 10, 2011 in Kosmos' third quarter 2011
earnings release, that Kosmos announced generally that it had
identified completion and remediation issues with certain of its
wells, and that there would be significant costs in 2012 and
beyond to fix the problems with the Jubilee oil wells.  The
complaint alleges that Kosmos' stock has dropped over 30% since
the IPO due to defendant's false statements in the IPO about the
Jubilee oil wells.

Zeldes & Haeggquist, LLP -- http://www.zhlaw.com-- is a full-
service law firm which brings major class actions nationwide on
behalf of defrauded investors and consumers and handles a variety
of complex business litigation matters.


LEAR CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suits Over Wire Harness
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation disclosed in its August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, that it filed in July 2012 a motion to
dismiss antitrust lawsuits related to automotive wire harnesses.

On October 5, 2011, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and related laws.  Since that time, a
number of other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class
action complaints against the Company and these and other
suppliers and individuals in a number of different federal
district courts, and it is possible that additional similar
lawsuits may be filed in the future.  Plaintiffs purport to be
direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses
supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the
relevant period.  The complaints allege that the defendants
conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were
sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate
commerce in the United States.  The complaints further allege that
defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy.  The
plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and
recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and
expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys' fees.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the
various civil actions, for pretrial purposes, into one proceeding
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  On May 14, 2012, three purported classes of plaintiffs
-- direct purchasers of automotive wire harnesses; automotive
dealers that indirectly purchased automotive wire harnesses or
vehicles containing such harnesses; and indirect purchasers that
purchased or leased vehicles containing automotive wire harnesses
(or purchased replacement automotive wire harnesses for their
vehicles) -- filed consolidated amended complaints in the
consolidated proceeding.  With respect to the Company, the
consolidated amended complaints are substantially similar to the
individual complaints that had been filed in the various
jurisdictions.  On July 13, 2012, the Company filed a motion to
have these actions dismissed for failure to state a claim for
relief, because plaintiffs failed to plead a plausible claim
against the Company and because, even if it existed, such a claim
would be barred following the Company's emergence from bankruptcy.

Beginning in early 2012, single putative class action complaints
were filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario and Quebec
against the Company and several other global suppliers of
automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of Canadian laws
related to competition.  The allegations in this complaint are
substantially similar to those complaints that have been filed in
the United States.

On November 17, 2011, the Company filed a motion with the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
seeking entry of an order enforcing the Company's 2009 Plan of
Reorganization and directing dismissal of the pending class action
complaints.  The bankruptcy court heard oral argument on the
motion and, on February 10, 2012, ruled that claims against the
Company alleging violation of antitrust law are enjoined to the
extent that they arose prior to the Company's emergence from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on November 9, 2009.  The
bankruptcy court further held that the District Court was the
appropriate forum to address antitrust claims arising after the
Company's emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.  The
Company is currently appealing the bankruptcy court's decision on
the issue of claims against the Company after November 9, 2009,
not being enjoined.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of this litigation, and
consequently, an estimate of the possible loss, if any, related to
this litigation, cannot reasonably be determined at this time.
However, the Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations against
it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in
these proceedings.


LG ELECTRONICS: Recalls 21,000 Gas Dryers Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LG Electronics, Inc., of South Korea, announced a voluntary recall
of about 21,000 units of LG Electronics and Kenmore Elite(R) Gas
Dryers.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
until a repair is completed on affected dryers.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The gas valve in the recalled dryers can fail to shut off
properly, continuing to heat the dryer and its contents after the
drying cycle is complete.  High temperatures inside and on the
exterior surface of the dryers can scorch the drum, as well as
burn or damage the dryer contents, posing a risk of burn, fire and
smoke inhalation.

LG Electronics and Sears have received 141 consumer complaints
about dryers continuing to heat after the drying cycle is
complete.  There were three reports of minor burns to hands or
arms.  Burnt or scorched clothing was reported in more than 50
incidents.

LG Electronics and Sears' Kenmore Elite brand gas dryers come in
the following colors: LG models in white; Kenmore Elite(R) in red,
white and ginger (gold).  Model and serial numbers can be found on
a label fixed to the front of the dryer above the opened door,
which can be viewed only when the dryer door is open.  To confirm
if your dryer is part of this recall, identify both model and
serial numbers, since not all dryers with the listed models are
recalled.

       Brand       Model Nos.             Serial Numbers
  --------------   ----------     ------------------------------
  LG Electronics   DLG0452W       001KW**00001 thru 001KW**00090
                                  911KW**00271 thru 911KW**00630

  LG Electronics   DLG1320W       001KW**00001 thru 001KW**01518
                                  002KW**00001 thru 002KW**00450
                                  911KW**00184 thru 911KW**00561
                                  912KW**00001 thru 912KW**00090

  LG Electronics   DLG2051W       001KW**00001 thru 001KW**03150
                                  002KW**00001 thru 002KW**01620
                                  911KW**00061 thru 911KW**01860
                                  912KW**00001 thru 912KW**02520

  Kenmore          796.90512900   001KW**00001~001KW**00180
  Elite(R)                        911KW**00091~911KW**00450
                                  912KW**00001~912KW**00450

  Kenmore          796.90518900   001KW**00001~001KW**00540
  Elite(R)                        002KW**00001~002KW**00090
                                  911KW**00001~911KW**00450
                                  912KW**00001~912KW**00270

  Kenmore          796.91022900   001KW**00001~001KW**00360
  Elite(R)                        002KW**00001~002KW**00042
                                  911KW**00001~911KW**00315
                                  912KW**00001~912KW**00540

  Kenmore          796.91028900   001KW**00001~001KW**00270
  Elite(R)                        002KW**00001~002KW**00090
                                  911KW**00001~911KW**00171
                                  912KW**00001~912KW**00539

  Kenmore          796.91029900   001KW**00001~001KW**00270
  Elite(R)                        911KW**00271~911KW**00402
                                  912KW**00001~912KW**00450

  Kenmore          796.92192900   001KW**00001~001KW**00270
  Elite(R)                        911KW**00181~911KW**00542
                                  912KW**00001~912KW**00270

  Kenmore          796.92198900   001KW**00001~001KW**00360
  Elite(R)                        911KW**00001~911KW**00440
                                  912KW**00001~912KW**00270

  Kenmore          796.92199900   001KW**00001~001KW**00084
  Elite(R)                        911KW**00091~911KW**00361
                                  912KW**00001~912KW**00270

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12251.html

The recalled products were manufactured in South Korea.  LG
Electronics brand gas dryers were sold by various appliance
stores, including Sears, nationwide from November 2009 through
August 2010.  Kenmore Elite(R) brand gas dryers were sold at Sears
stores nationwide from November 2009 through August 2010.  The
approximate retail cost for the recalled dryers was between $650
and $1500 for these various models.

Consumers should turn off the gas supply and stop using the dryers
until repaired.  LG brand owners who purchased their dryer at
retailers other than Sears should contact LG customer service to
arrange for a free gas valve replacement.  Customers who purchased
Kenmore or LG brand dryers from Sears should contact Sears'
customer service to schedule a free repair to replace the gas
valve. Some consumers have already been notified and have received
the repair service.

ATTENTION: Dryers that have a colored sticker on the back, top, or
a colored sticker or a plus sign ("+") on the back, bottom, near
the gas valve assembly, have already been repaired.  If
accessible, consumers can check for these stickers or sign.  If
not accessible, contact LG or Sears as detailed below.

LG Consumer Contact: For additional information about the recall
and to schedule a repair, contact LG toll free at (866) 223-5355
between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Central Time on
Saturday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.lg.com/us/
and click on Public Notices.

Sears Consumer Contact: For additional information and to schedule
a repair, contact Sears toll-free at (888) 375-9741 between 7:00
a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, and between
7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Saturday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.sears.com/and click on Product Recalls under Customer
Service.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Racial Profiling Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
JJ Hensley, writing for Arizona Republic News, reports that more
than 1,700 days have passed since Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres
filed a racial-profiling lawsuit against the Maricopa County
Sheriff's Office, and from the perspective of those involved in
the case, little has changed since then.

The case would go on to become a class-action civil-rights suit
covering every Latino driver sheriff's deputies have stopped in
the past five years.  Depending how U.S. District Judge Murray
Snow eventually rules in the case, it could change how deputies do
their business on Valley streets.

At this point, there is only one thing both sides agree on: The
litigation probably isn't nearing an end yet.

Attorneys for each class of citizens and for the Sheriff's Office
recently filed a final set of written closing arguments, making
claims that have become familiar to those following the case's
evolution or the seven-day bench trial that wrapped up earlier
this month.

Plaintiffs attorneys portrayed it as a case in which an agency
head, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, developed an illegal-immigration
enforcement policy that resulted in deputies discriminating
against Latinos.  The sheriff's attorneys countered by describing
Sheriff Arpaio as the elected leader of a large, complex
organization whose immigration pronouncements had no impact on how
deputies performed their duties.

Judge Snow will decide who is correct, and in doing so, whether
the agency developed a policy that resulted in the violation of
constitutional rights of Latino residents in Maricopa County.

Judge Snow has offered no indication on when he might rule.
Whatever decision he reaches, both parties say it will almost
surely be appealed.

"Whoever is not satisfied with the result will appeal it, and it
will be appealed in the Ninth Circuit, and my guess is, the issues
are so important it may eventually make its way to the Supreme
Court one day," said Tim Casey, an attorney representing the
Sheriff's Office.

That sentiment was clear in closing arguments each side recently
filed with Judge Snow.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs reiterated their long-held belief
that Sheriff Arpaio chose to target illegal immigration in the
mid-2000s and, as a result, conducted crime-suppression operations
that were nothing more than an excuse for deputies to stop Latino
drivers and question their immigration status.

They pointed out that crime-suppression operations did not target
criminal activity aside from loitering by day laborers; that
deputies were not given direction on what crime to target in the
areas where they were conducting the operations; and that the only
post-operation assessment the agency conducted to determine the
success of the patrols was a count of undocumented immigrants
arrested.

"That's a required and typical exercise, if you will, to
demonstrate that what was reported and stated does not comply with
the evidence," said Dan Pochoda, an attorney with the American
Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.  "We also think there were
significant -- obviously starting with the sheriff -- that there
were very dramatic and clear differences in what he said there (in
trial) and what was said in other places."

To win the case, plaintiffs have the burden to prove the Sheriff's
Office intentionally sought to deny equal protection to Latino
residents, or that the agency unreasonably detained and searched
Hispanic residents.  Their attorneys used part of their final
statement to Snow to point out contradictions in the testimony of
sheriff's deputies and administrators, including Sheriff Arpaio.
Those contradictions called into question the credibility of many
sheriff's employees who testified, Mr. Pochoda said.

Sheriff Arpaio's attorneys also relied on deputies' testimony to
make their case in the final written arguments.  The reason was
simple, Mr. Casey said: Those deputies put the sheriff's policies
into practice, not Sheriff Arpaio.

During the trial, one of Sheriff Arpaio's deputy chiefs, Brian
Sands, told Judge Snow that there was some disconnect between
Sheriff Arpaio's view of the world and the work that deputies
actually perform during patrols in Maricopa County.  Critics
seized on the statement as a sign that Sheriff Arpaio is out of
touch with his agency.  Sheriff Arpaio's supporters said his
attempts to delegate decisions are part of the reality of running
a large, complex organization.

Proving that Sheriff Arpaio's views do not influence operations
essentially undermines one of the plaintiffs' main claims, Mr.
Casey said: Faults within the Sheriff's Office start at the top
and flow throughout the organization.

"The plaintiffs case rests on Sheriff Arpaio being rotten . . .
(but) he's not doing the operations himself, he is not even
planning the operations. If you want to make Arpaio the demon, he
better be exercising that, and he's not," Mr. Casey said.  "They
said it was rotten from the head down.  They better prove that
it's rotten and every level is rotten, including the guys actually
doing the work."

The attitudes of the parties involved might not have changed much
since the lawsuit was filed in December 2007, but there is one
significant difference in the sheriff's operations that Sheriff
Arpaio's attorneys noted in the closing argument.

Before the trial began, Judge Snow told all involved that he is
interested in what the Sheriff's Office is doing right now, not
what deputies were doing in 2009 when Judge Snow took over the
case.

Throughout the trial, deputies and sheriff's administrators took
the stand and testified that nothing has changed in the agency's
approach to immigration enforcement, even after federal officials
in 2009 stripped patrol deputies of their authority to enforce
federal immigration law.

But in the closing argument, Mr. Casey pointed out that operations
had changed fundamentally after the so-called 287(g) authority was
removed, particularly because deputies could no longer detain
suspected undocumented immigrants in order for the federally
trained deputies to determine their status.

Since then, deputies have had to call federal Immigration and
Customs Enforcement officials when they encounter a suspected
illegal immigrant, Mr. Casey said.  Then, federal authorities
determine whether a suspect should be detained based on the
federal government's own enforcement priorities.

Mr. Casey also cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's
immigration-enforcement law, Senate Bill 1070.

"There is no evidence that the MCSO is 'holding aliens in custody
for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and
supervision,'" Mr. Casey wrote.

Mr. Pochoda said the Supreme Court's decision on SB 1070 might
have helped the plaintiff's case.

"The Supreme Court in the U.S. vs. Arizona decision said . . . if
you do detain people past the point that would be required to
investigate the underlying reason for the stop, that could well be
a Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure," he said.


NORTH AMERICAN TITLE: Loses Bid to Decertify Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Ellis, writing for The Fresno Bee, reports that an effort to
derail a pending class-action lawsuit filed by around 700 escrow
officers who weren't paid overtime has been rejected by a judge,
clearing the way for a trial.

The case was certified as a class-action lawsuit in August 2010,
but North American Title Co. claimed that, because of new facts
and new law, the class should be decertified.

In a five-page ruling last week, Fresno County Superior Court
Judge Jeff Hamilton disagreed.

Judge Hamilton wrote that after a review of case law and other
legal documents "it would likely be considered an abuse of
discretion for the court to decertify the class in this case."

Fresno attorney Nicholas "Butch" Wagner, who is trying the case
along with former federal Judge Oliver W. Wanger, praised Judge
Hamilton's ruling.  "The court obviously disagreed on all counts."

Had North American succeeded in its effort to decertify the class,
each escrow officer who is part of the lawsuit would have had to
sue the title company individually.

Michael Brewer, an attorney for North American, did not return a
phone call seeking comment.  In the past, he has said the company
does not comment on pending litigation.

The multimillion-dollar case claims that hundreds of escrow
officers from San Diego to Sacramento -- including several in the
Fresno area -- weren't paid overtime due to them from North
American.

In court papers, North American Title Co. and North American
Services contend the class-action suit violates their due process
rights.

North American does business in 14 states including California and
has offices in Fresno and Visalia.  North American Services, which
was added to the lawsuit after its initial filing, hires escrow
officers and leases them to the title company.

"The amount of overtime worked by employees is an individual
issue," according to their motion to oppose the class-action
certification.

This case is the latest in a string of related class-action
lawsuits filed by Judge Wagner involving title and escrow
officers. Settlements in those cases have amounted to more than
$50 million.

This latest case could be worth $40 million or more in damages.

Judge Hamilton's ruling means the case is scheduled to go to trial
in February, though North American also is trying to delay the
case until the California Supreme Court rules on a case that
involves some of the same legal issues.

That hearing is scheduled for Aug. 29 before Judge Hamilton.


ONTARIO LOTTERY: Gamblers Can Appeal C$3.5-Bil. Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Brown, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that problem
gamblers have been given another shot at trying to launch a C$3.5-
billion class action lawsuit against the Ontario Lottery and
Gaming Corp.

On Aug. 3, leave to appeal was granted by the Ontario Court of
Appeal in Dennis v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp.

Between December 1999 and February 2005, more than 10,000 people
voluntarily signed self-exclusion forms, asking the lottery
corporation to bar them from its gaming establishments.

Gamblers who sign the forms have their photo taken and it is kept
on file so casino staff can identify them.  People may be charged
with trespassing if they are caught re-entering a casino during
the time they have chosen to be excluded.

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiffs suffered losses after OLG
failed to prevent them from entering gaming sites and gambling.

However, OLG places the responsibility to stay away from gaming
sites on the individual.  It has said the self-exclusion policy
isn't a policing program.

Prior to 2005, the self-exclusion forms included wording
indicating OLG would not be liable if it failed to prevent anyone
from entering its casinos.

Wording on the form included the following: "I understand that my
failure to comply with the voluntary ban may mean that I will be
apprehended for trespassing and dealt with according to law.  I
release and forever discharge the OLGC . . . from any and all
liability, causes of action, claims and demands whatsoever in the
event that I fail to comply with this voluntary ban."

"The government can't say there's responsible gaming but when they
get sued over a false self-exclusion program say 'read the fine
print,'" says Jerome Morse -- jmorse@adairmorse.com -- of Adair
Morse LLP, who is acting for plaintiffs Peter Dennis and Zubin
Noble and aims to represent the more than 10,000 individuals who
signed the self-exclusion forms from 1999 to 2005.

The forms that have been in place since 2005 include a clause that
absolves the gaming regulator of any responsibility if someone who
signs a form continues gambling at a government-owned site.

In a decision released in 2010 in Dennis v. OLG, Ontario Superior
Court Justice Maurice Cullity ruled against the class action
proceeding.

At the time, Justice Cullity didn't dismiss based on the merits of
the plaintiff's claims against OLG, but said the gamblers' claims
were based on their own personal circumstances -- that the
"evidence does not support that all class members were
pathological problem gamblers" -- so they would have to pursue
individual lawsuits.

Justice Cullity noted in the decision that nine individual actions
had been brought against OLG by self-excluded persons and they had
reportedly settled for an average payment of $167,000 per claim.

"The essence of Justice Cullity's decision was he felt there had
to be individual proof of vulnerability to establish liability, so
therefore you were doomed to individual trials to get the answer
to the question whether there would be liability, therefore the
issues would become overwhelmed by that analysis," says Mr. Morse.

Mr. Morse points to several recent decisions where cases have been
certified based on a group of individuals having a similar
experience, such as the unpaid overtime case in Fresco v. Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce which was issued in June.

"There is an abundance of cases that have been served by Justice
Cullity himself such as in the medical-device cases where a breach
of duty is determined for one and all, and individual trials will
be required to find out who amongst the people who had the product
were hurt by it owing to the defects that were identified in the
common issues trial," says Mr. Morse.

"The central argument is there is a contract and there's a breach
of contract.  Any exclusionary language in that contract either
doesn't capture what occurred here or is void for public policy,"
says Mr. Morse.  "It's also one of those cases where there is
therefore a duty of care -- because you have an ability to
recognize these people who are at risk of gambling."


SEQWATER: Three Engineers Cleared in Wivenhoe Dam Probe
-------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Paull, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
a dodgy dam manual has helped to exonerate three engineers accused
of trying to cover up the way they operated Wivenhoe dam before
Brisbane and Ipswich flooded.

Queensland's Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) has cleared
engineers John Tibaldi, Robert Ayre and Terry Malone of misleading
the long-running inquiry into the 2011 flood disaster.

Its inquiry found that there was no evidence to support criminal
or disciplinary action against the men, who were accused of
colluding to create a false account of how they managed the dam
before the cities went under.

Retired judge John Jerrard, who conducted the CMC's review, found
that the dam was operated in breach of its manual.

Mr. Jerrard said the manual was ambiguous around the issue of
water release strategies and that could explain the engineers'
inconsistent accounts about their actions.

CMC chairman Ross Martin said there was no evidence to suggest the
engineers had been engaged in a sinister cover-up.

"There was a fundamental difficulty with any criminal charges or
any consideration of misconduct that arose out of the fact that
the dam's manual contained inherent contradictory definitions of
the various strategies that are to be adopted," Mr. Martin told
reporters on Aug. 21.

The CMC launched its review after flood inquiry commissioner
Catherine Holmes in March found there was evidence the men had
colluded to pen a misleading report for the government-owned dam
operator Seqwater.

Justice Holmes found that the engineers had breached Wivenhoe's
operating manual but, similar to Mr. Jerrard, described the
document as "ambiguous, unclear and difficult to use".

Throughout the inquiry, the engineers denied any collusion and
said the strain of the accusations took a toll.

Messrs. Tibaldi and Malone are still employed as dam engineers but
have been on extended leave.  Mr. Ayre quit this year and is now
working for a private engineering company.

Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney said the former Labor government had
tried to make scapegoats of the engineers to cover up its failures
over the dam's manual.

"The previous ministers were the people who should have taken the
responsibility . . .  they were never held answerable for their
failings," Mr. Seeney told reporters.

But not everyone is happy with the review by the CMC, which said
it was bound to stick to the parameters set by the floods inquiry
-- that is the allegations around misleading conduct, not the
possibility of negligence during the crisis.

Ipswich councillor Paul Tully, whose Goodna home was flooded, said
the review was "a disgraceful whitewash".

"It's a real disappointment to the flood victims who were
expecting more out of that than just a narrow interpretation of
what the circumstances were," Mr. Tully told AAP.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn, which is representing more than 4000
flood victims in a multi-million-dollar class action against
Seqwater, said the CMC's findings would not derail their cause.

Principal Damian Scattini said the dam manual, while not a smoking
gun, would play an integral role in advancing the class action.

"The case is very simply put -- they retained too much water for
too long and let too much go at once and we had a flood that was
much, much worse than it should otherwise have been," Mr. Scattini
said.

Seqwater CEO Peter Borrows welcomed the CMC's findings.

It was important to note that the floods were the biggest the
state had experienced in 100 years and Seqwater had already
adopted most of the flood inquiry's recommendations, Mr. Borrows
said.


SPRINT COMMS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for November 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
George Hohmann, writing for Charleston Daily Mail, reports that a
proposed settlement has been reached in a class-action lawsuit
that involves owners of land next to or under some railroad rights
of way in West Virginia.

Beginning in the mid-1980s, Sprint Communications and several
other telecommunications companies buried fiber-optic cable and
installed related telecommunications equipment within railroad
rights of way.

The telecommunication companies entered into agreements with the
railroads that own and occupy the rights of way and paid the
railways for the right to install fiber-optic cable and related
equipment.

Some current or previous owners of land next to or under the
rights of way in 24 states sued, claiming the telecommunications
companies were required to obtain consent from the landowners who
owned the land under the rights of way before installing the fiber
optic cable and related equipment.

Proposed settlements, including a proposed settlement with Sprint
in West Virginia, would provide cash payments to qualifying class
members based on a variety of factors including the length of the
right of way where the cable is installed, the length of time the
class member owned the property, and whether the right of way was
created by a federal land grant.

In West Virginia, the proposed settlement involves a CSX right-of-
way from Charleston to Kenova, a Norfolk Southern right-of-way
from Martinsburg to the Maryland border south of Williamsport, a
CSX right of way from Harpers Ferry to the Maryland border north
of Oldtown Road, and a CSX right of way south of CSX Milepost 146
to the Maryland border south of Wiley Ford.

There will be a fairness hearing on the proposed West Virginia
settlement at 3:00 p.m. Nov. 26 at the U.S. District Court in
Elkins.


SULTAN, WA: Local Property Owners File Utility Fee Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sky Valley Chronicle reports that a group of local property owners
in Sultan has filed a class action lawsuit against the city
alleging that Sultan's use of the fees paid by the plaintiffs for
water, sewer, garbage and/or stormwater services have been used by
the city to pay for city expenses that are "not appropriately
related" to those utility services.

The lawsuit was filed August 14 in Snohomish County Superior Court
in Everett by the law office of Eric R. Stahfield of Seattle on
behalf of property owners Bart Dalmasso, Robert McCarty, Harold R.
Schlicker, G.H. Rowe and Dan Barmon collectively called the
Utility Stakeholders Group.

Named as defendants are Sultan Mayor Carolyn Eslick and City Clerk
Laura Koenig in their capacities as city officials.

The suit alleges the city has taken potions of the payments for
those city services made by the Utility Stakeholders Group and
"used that money to pay for general government functions" in
violation of Washington State law and the state auditor's rules.

Specifically the actions claim, "Sultan has allocated one-fifth of
the salary and benefits of the Mayor, Council.  City Administrator
and City Clerk to the garbage fund, one-fifth to the water fund
and one fifth to the sewer fund for the 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012
fiscal years, although no recorded time records have been kept
that substantiate that the individuals have indeed spent one-fifth
of their time providing services to those funds."

The lawsuit claims alleged misuse of the funds has damaged the
plaintiffs and asks the court for "declaratory relief, injunction
and other relief."

The stakeholders group specifically requests the court to provide
a "declaratory ruling that Sultan may not use funds collected for
utility services for purposes other than providing those utility
services," as well as a ruling that any funds Sultan collects for
utility services "must be accounted for under a system that
provides specific and substantive criteria and procedural
safeguards to adequately review and address claims that the funds
paid for utility services are in fact used only to provide those
services."

The plaintiffs also want the court to order Sultan to refund to
all class action stakeholder "all amounts collected for utility
services but misused for other purposes."

And finally the plaintiffs want an accounting for all monies
transferred from the utility funds to the general fund, and a
"return to the utility funds of all money improperly transferred,
with interest," attorney's fees and other relief as the court may
deem just and equitable.


TANIMURA & ANTLE: Recalls Single Lot of Romaine Lettuce
-------------------------------------------------------
Tanimura & Antle Inc. is voluntarily recalling a single lot of
romaine lettuce because it may be contaminated with Escherichia
coli O157:H7 bacteria (E. Coli O157:H7).  The affected product is
limited to Tanimura & Antle Field Fresh Wrapped Single Head
Romaine.  This product is packed in a plastic bag with the UPC
number 0-27918-20314-9 and may have a Best Buy date of "08 19 12".
The product was available at retail locations August 2 - August
19, 2012.  NO OTHER TANIMURA & ANTLE PRODUCTS ARE BEING RECALLED.

A total of 2,095 cases of potentially affected product were
distributed throughout the US and Canada starting on August 2.  A
total of 1,969 cases were shipped to the following states: AL, AR,
AZ, CA, GA, KS, KY, MD, NC, NM, NV, NY, NJ, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA
and Puerto Rico.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm316257.htm

Importantly, there are no reported illnesses associated with
consumption of this product.  E.coli O157:H7 can cause a diarrheal
illness, often with bloody stools.  Although most healthy adults
can recover completely within a week, some people can develop a
form of kidney failure called Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS).
HUS is most likely to occur in young children and the elderly.
The condition can lead to serious kidney damage and even death.

The recall is being conducted in consultation with FDA, and is
based on the testing of a single random sample by the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency.

The affected product was shipped in cases packed in either 12 or
18 heads per case.  Retailers and Distributors can identify the
affected products through a traceability code label affixed to
exterior of the case.  The traceability code label affixed to the
exterior of the case is 5417802151.  Tanimura and Antle's #1
priority is food safety, and in an overabundance of caution, the
Company is asking that if any of the above Romaine is in the
possession of consumers, retailers or distributors, the product be
disposed of and not consumed.

Consumers with questions or who would like replacement coupons may
call at 877-827-7388, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time,
Monday-Friday.


TRAVELOCITY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
John Discepolo, writing for KOMO News, reports that a class action
lawsuit on behalf of American consumers was filed on Aug. 13
against several major travel Web sites and some of the nation's
largest hotel operators.

The suit claims the two groups conspired to use their dominance in
the marketplace to fix prices on hotel rooms across the country.

The suit, which was filed in California District Court, argues
that customers have been overpaying for hotel rooms.  That's not
sitting well with consumers like Frank Farrow.

"Well, that's just not right," Mr. Farrow said.

Mr. Farrow is just one of many customers outraged by news that he
may have been taken by Web sites that were supposed to save him
money.

Among those named in the lawsuit are Travelocity, Orbitz,
Priceline and Bellevue-based Expedia.  Several of the country's
most popular hotel chains, including Hilton, Sheraton and
Marriott, are also named in the suit.

According to the complaint, online travel sites account for as
much as 50 percent of all hotel bookings in the United States.

"Most of us don't have a lot of money to spend right now, so it's
going to make us very disappointed and a lot of people very
upset," said Clem Harper, who travels for work.

Travel experts predict the lawsuit could protect hotel customers
in the future.

"If this goes through and the baseline is shattered, that is good
for the consumers because then we'll see the rates actually
fluctuating," said Steve Danishek of TMA Travel.

While rates may fluctuate, so will the backlash from consumers.

"It's going to make everybody feel like they have to double check
everything for a while," said Jack Risner, who travels for work.

Representatives from several hotel chains and travel Web sites
were asked to comment on the suit, but so far nobody has
responded.


UNUM GROUP: Discovery in "Merrimon" Class Action Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit commenced by
Denise Merrimon, et al., according to Unum Group's August 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others
similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maine.  This is a putative class action alleging that the Company
breached fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under
certain group life insurance policies when the Company paid life
insurance proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset
accounts rather than by mailing checks.  Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of beneficiaries under group life insurance
contracts that were part of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) employee welfare benefit plans and under which the
Company paid death benefits via retained asset accounts.  The
plaintiffs' principal theories in the case are: (1) funds held in
retained asset accounts were plan assets, and the proceeds earned
by the Company from investing those funds belonged to the
beneficiaries, and (2) payment of claims using retained asset
accounts did not constitute payment under Maine's late payment
statute, requiring the Company to pay interest on the undrawn
retained asset account funds at an annual rate of 18 percent.

On February 3, 2012, the District Court issued an opinion
rejecting both of plaintiffs' principal theories and ordering
judgment for the Company.  At the same time, however, the District
Court held that the Company breached a fiduciary duty to the
beneficiaries by failing to pay rates comparable to the best rates
available in the market for demand deposits.  The District Court
also certified a class of people who, during a certain period of
time, were beneficiaries under certain group life insurance
contracts that were part of ERISA employee welfare benefit plans
and were paid death benefits using retained asset accounts.  The
District Court authorized the parties to make an immediate appeal
of its decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and each of
the parties sought leave for an early appeal on the issues raised
by the District Court's rulings, but the First Circuit decided not
to hear the appeal at this time.  Therefore, the parties are
required to wait until the proceedings in the District Court have
concluded for further resolution of those issues.  The First
Circuit did not rule on or discuss the merits of the case.  The
case is proceeding in the District Court with discovery on the
issue of damages and notice to class members.

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, provides group and individual disability insurance
products primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom.
It also provides a portfolio of other insurance products,
including employer-and employee-paid group benefits, life
insurance, long-term care insurance, and related services.  The
Company was founded in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


UNUM GROUP: Dismissed From Brokerage Antitrust MDL in June
----------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group disclosed in its August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012, that it was dismissed from the multidistrict
litigation against insurance brokers and insurers in June.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, along with many other
insurance brokers and insurers, were named as defendants in a
series of putative class actions that were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings as part of multidistrict
litigation (MDL) No. 1663, In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation.  The plaintiffs in MDL No. 1663 were ordered to file a
consolidated amended complaint which alleged, among other things,
that the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws, the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and various state common
law requirements by engaging in alleged bid rigging and customer
allocation and by paying undisclosed compensation to insurance
brokers to steer business to defendant insurers.  After several
amendments to the complaint, all claims against the Company were
dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The only remaining proceeding against the Company that is part of
MDL No. 1663 is Palm Tree Computers Systems, Inc. v. ACE USA, et
al., which was filed in the Florida state Circuit Court on
February 16, 2005.  The complaint contains allegations similar to
those in the MDL.  The case was removed to federal court and, on
October 20, 2005, the case was transferred to MDL No. 1663.
Plaintiffs renewed a motion to remand the case to the state court
in Florida, and that motion was denied without prejudice on
October 16, 2009.

On June 27, 2012, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss the
Company from the case.  On June 28, 2012, the court entered the
order dismissing the Company from the case with prejudice,
terminating all proceedings against the Company in MDL No. 1663.

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, provides group and individual disability insurance
products primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom.
It also provides a portfolio of other insurance products,
including employer-and employee-paid group benefits, life
insurance, long-term care insurance, and related services.  The
Company was founded in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


WILLIAM CARTINHOUR: Counsel Sanctioned For Excessive Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that a Texas
attorney showed an "utter disregard for the judicial system" after
a jury entered a $7 million verdict against his client, a federal
judge ruled, ordering sanctions.

Ty Clevenger, of Youngkin & Burns in Bryan, Texas, represented
Wade Robertson in litigation against his former business partner
William Cartinhour Jr.

During the litigation, the U.S. District Court and the D.C.
Circuit issued Mr. Clevenger numerous warnings and $17,000 in
sanctions for "vexatious," "meritless," and "reckless" filings.

Messrs. Robertson and Cartinhour had entered into a 2004
partnership to invest in class action securities litigation, with
Mr. Cartinhour contributing $3.5 million and Robertson, an
attorney, contributing his legal services.

Unbeknownst to Mr. Cartinhour, however, Mr. Robertson borrowed
$3.4 million from the partnership in interest-free loans.  That
amount dwindled to $700,000 by the time Mr. Cartinhour tried to
get his money back in 2009.

In 2011, a jury awarded Mr. Cartinhour $7 million in compensatory
and punitive damages.

After this loss, Mr. Robertson filed a second action against Mr.
Cartinhour in a different jurisdiction seeking $3.83 million in
damages for fraud and defamation.  The District Court dismissed
his complaint, and accused Mr. Robertson of "blatant forum-
shopping."

Given the "tortured history" of this case, U.S. District Judge
Ellen Huvelle granted Mr. Cartinhour's motion for sanctions
against Mr. Clevenger for filing excessive and frivolous
pleadings.

"The court has no difficulty concluding that sanctions are
appropriate," she wrote.

"Given the court's rejection of the claims in Robertson II as
being flatly inconsistent with Robertson's claims in Robertson I,
the jury's verdict for $7 million in that case, and Clevenger's
course of conduct throughout this litigation, the court is
convinced, as were Judges [Laura] Swain and [Royce] Lamberth, that
Robertson II was brought for no legitimate purpose but rather for
harassment and delay," she added.

"Most importantly, the jury unanimously found that Robertson had
breached his fiduciary duties to Cartinhour and, therefore, there
could be no basis in law or fact for Clevenger's allegations in
Robertson II that Cartinhour and others had conspired to defraud
Robertson," the decision also states.  "By pursuing Robertson II
after the verdict in Robertson I, Clevenger was far more than
recklessly indifferent; he acted in bad faith and with utter
disregard for the judicial system."

Judge Huvelle said she gave Mr. Clevenger numerous warnings that
his frivolous litigation would not be tolerated.

"Despite this, Clevenger did not heed the warnings," she wrote.
"Instead, he defied the Court by pursuing baseless claims and
arguments.  Sanctions for this bad faith conduct are clearly
warranted."

"Nor can Clevenger immunize himself by relying on the duty to
zealously represent his client," Judge Huvelle added.  "An
attorney also has a duty to the profession and the Court and it is
his responsibility to fulfill both."

Since that the court declined to issue sanctions at the close of
Mr. Robertson's first case, however, Judge Huvelle limited
sanctions to attorneys' time spent after February 2011.

She ordered Mr. Cartinhour to resubmit documentation for
attorneys' time spent between February 2011 and March 2012.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Robertson v. Cartinhour, Jr.,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-01919 (D.D.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/16/sanctions.pdf


YELP!: Settles Wage & Hour Class Action for $1.25 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
The HR Specialist reports that a settlement has ended a class-
action wage-and-hour suit filed on behalf of nearly 1,000
employees at Yelp!, the Web site that allows consumers to submit
reviews of  restaurants, stores and health care professionals.

The executives sued, arguing that Yelp! misclassified sales
representatives as exempt and failed to pay them overtime.

The sales reps were paid a base salary, but could earn more based
on performance.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act, the California Labor Code and the California Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order.

Yelp! agreed to pay up, although it contended in the settlement
motion that "the employees' claims have no merit and a majority of
class members, including two of the named plaintiffs, signed
releases preventing them from bringing the claims asserted in the
filing."

Three named plaintiffs will receive $5,000 each.  The rest of the
$1.25 million settlement will cover attorneys' fees, court costs
and California state fines.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Dismisses Injury Suit v. Nat'l Gypsum
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles J. Siragusa of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York granted NGC Bodily Injury Trust's
motion to dismiss a diversity asbestos litigation case captioned
GAIL GARNER as Administratrix of the Estate of Angelo Palermo,
Plaintiff, v. NGC BODILY INJURY TRUST, Defendant, No. 11-CV-6567-
CJS (W.D.N.Y.), after determining that the Plaintiff's personal
injury and wrongful death claims are barred by the New York
statute of limitations.

A copy of Judge Siragusa's Decision dated August 15, 2012, is
available at http://is.gd/qu0j0dfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Ct. Junks Exposure Suit v. Local 8 & PHA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Smith alleges he was exposed to asbestos and other harmful
materials during his employment by the Philadelphia Housing
Authority at a construction site at Hill Creek, in Philadelphia.
The plaintiff brought claims against the PHA; its executive
director, Carl Greene; the City of Philadelphia; the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 8; and its
executive secretary, Edward Coryell.  Smith and the City
stipulated to the dismissal, without prejudice, of all claims
against the City.  The remaining defendants have moved to dismiss
all claims against them.

In an August 9, 2012 decision, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted the motions and dismissed all claims with prejudice except
Count I as brought against the Union, which will be dismissed
without prejudice.  Count I is a claim for breach of duty of fair
representation against Local 8.  According to Judge McLaughlin,
the complaint meets the elements to recover a claim for breach of
duty of fair representation, namely (1) an employer's action
violated the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement, and (2)
the union breached its duty of fair representation to its member.

The case is ROBERT SMITH v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY, et
al., Civil Action No. 12-329 (E.D. Pa).  A copy of Judge
McLaughlin's August 9, 2012 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/sW2wyZfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Suit v. Greyhound
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Delaware, in a decision dated August 13,
2012, affirmed a lower court's decision and denied an appeal
raised by Virginia Edmisten from the Superior Court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of Greyhound Lines, Inc.  Mrs. Edmisten
sued Greyhound alleging that her now-deceased husband, Frank
Edmisten, was tortiously exposed to asbestos contained in
Greyhound products.  On appeal, Mrs. Edmisten claims that the
Superior Court reversibly erred by impeaching the credibility of
witnesses in order to grant summary judgment.

The Delaware Supreme Court held that because Mrs. Edmisten
provided no evidence indicating that Greyhound, specifically, sold
or supplied asbestos-containing brakes and clutches to O'Neal's
Bus Service, where her husband worked, she failed to present
sufficient evidence to support an essential element of her claim.
Therefore, any error by the Superior Court was harmless, and the
court's grant of summary judgment to Greyhound was correct, the
Delaware Supreme Court ruled.

The case is VIRGINIA EDMISTEN, Individually and as Executrix of
the Estate of FRANK EDMISTEN, Appellant, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC.,
Appellee, No. 114, 2012 (Del.).  A copy of the Supreme Court's
decision is available at http://is.gd/iZ8IGlfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Goodyear's Bid to Dismiss Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's motion to dismiss an
asbestos-related personal injury action after concluding that the
plaintiff sufficiently identified specific brands of asbestos-
containing gaskets, including Goodyear, in use at the relevant
worksites at the relevant times.  The case is RONALD J. DEON and
LINDA M. DEON, Plaintiffs, v. A.C. & S, INC., et al., Defendants,
Docket No. 111994/02, Motion Seq. 001 (N.Y.).  A copy of Judge
Heitler's Decision dated August 16, 2012, is available at
http://is.gd/DwN6Effrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ala. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Suit v. CAC & Lonza
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed a lower court's decision and
denied the appeal raised by Dawn Elaine Patterson and her husband
Brooks Patterson from the judgment entered by the Jefferson
Circuit Court dismissing their claims against Consolidated
Aluminum Corporation and its corporate owner Lonza America, Inc.,
as being barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  The
Alabama Supreme Court held that because the Pattersons did not
promptly amend their complaint to substitute CAC and Lonza as
defendants after learning of their identity and potential
liability, they are not entitled to the benefit of the relation-
back doctrine.  The case is Dawn Elaine Patterson and Brooks
Patterson, v. Consolidated Aluminum Corporation and Lonza America,
Inc., No. 1110633 (Ala.).  A copy of the Supreme Court's Decision
dated August 17, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/qAcddDfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Ct. Junks School Workers' Suit v. Educ Board
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John F. Grady of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the motion by Mary
Ann Folino and The Board of Education for Chicago Public School
District #299 seeking dismissal of a complaint filed by workers
for Schurz High School.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, asbestos exposure asserted by one of the plaintiffs, Sally
Chiodo.  The complaint is dismissed on all counts.

With respect to the asbestos exposure allegation, Judge Grady
pointed out that it is unclear from plaintiffs' complaint what
legal theory underpins Ms. Chiodo's "asbestos exposure" claim, and
their one-paragraph discussion of that claim in their response
brief does not shed any light on that question.  They have not
cited any legal authority supporting Ms. Chiodo's claim, and their
one reference to the record is indecipherable, Judge Grady added.

The case is ELENA DIADENKO, SALLY CHIODO, and ANDREW BREEN,
Plaintiffs, v. MARY ANN FOLINO and THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR
CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT #299, Defendants, No. 10 C 2723
(Ill.).  A copy of Judge Grady's Decision dated August 20, 2012,
is available at http://is.gd/Koh18Jfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $636MM Liability at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $636 million at June 30, 2012, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed
against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation's products.

Influenced by the bankruptcy filings of numerous defendants in
asbestos-related litigation and the prospects of various forms of
state and national legislative reform, the rate at which
plaintiffs filed asbestos-related suits against various companies,
including UCC and Amchem, increased in 2001, 2002 and the first
half of 2003. Since then, the rate of filing has significantly
abated. The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be
filed against it and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively
defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and
future claims.

Based on a study completed by Analysis, Research & Planning
Corporation in January 2003, the Corporation increased its
December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2
billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since
then, the Corporation has compared current asbestos claim and
resolution activity to the results of the most recent ARPC study
at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual
continues to be appropriate. In addition, the Corporation has
requested ARPC to review the Corporation's historical asbestos
claim and resolution activity each November since 2004 to
determine the appropriateness of updating the most recent ARPC
study.

In November 2010, the Corporation requested ARPC to review the
Corporation's historical asbestos claim and resolution activity
and determine the appropriateness of updating its most recent
study completed in December 2008. In response to that request,
ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through October 31, 2010.  The
resulting study, completed by ARPC in December 2010, stated that
the undiscounted cost of resolving pending and future asbestos
related claims against UCC and Amchem, excluding future defense
and processing costs, through 2025 was estimated to be between
$744 million and $835 million.  As in its earlier studies, ARPC
provided estimates for a longer period of time in its December
2010 study, but also reaffirmed its prior advice that forecasts
for shorter periods of time are more accurate than those for
longer periods of time.

In December 2010, based on ARPC's December 2010 study and the
Corporation's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution
activity, the Corporation decreased its asbestos-related liability
for pending and future claims to $744 million, which covered the
15-year period ending 2025, excluding future defense and
processing costs.  The reduction was $54 million and was shown as
"asbestos-related credit" in the consolidated statements of
operations.  At December 31, 2010, the asbestos-related liability
for pending and future claims was $728 million.

In November 2011, the Corporation requested ARPC to review the
Corporation's 2011 asbestos claim and resolution activity and
determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2010 study.
In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data
through October 31, 2011.  In January 2012, ARPC stated that an
update of its study would not provide a more likely estimate of
future events than the estimate reflected in its December 2010
study and, therefore, the estimate in that study remained
applicable.  Based on the Corporation's own review of the asbestos
claim and resolution activity and ARPC's response, the Corporation
determined that no change to the accrual was required.  At
December 31, 2011, the Corporation's asbestos-related liability
for pending and future claims was $668 million.  At December 31,
2011, approximately 18% of the recorded liability related to
pending claims and approximately 82% related to future claims.

Based on the Corporation's review of 2012 activity, it was
determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at
June 30, 2012. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for
pending and future claims was $636 million at June 30, 2012.
Approximately 20% of the recorded liability related to pending
claims and approximately 80% related to future claims.

At December 31, 2002, the Corporation increased the receivable for
insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to $1.35
billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability
coverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos
liability was determined by the Corporation after a thorough
review of applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington
Agreement, to which the Corporation and many of its liability
insurers are signatory parties, as well as other insurance
settlements, with due consideration given to applicable
deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and taking into account
the solvency and historical payment experience of various
insurance carriers. The Wellington Agreement and other agreements
with insurers are designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and
collection of the Corporation's insurance policies and to resolve
issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

In September 2003, the Corporation filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds. The Insurance
Litigation was filed against insurers that were not signatories to
the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise have agreements
in place with the Corporation regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution
and collection of such insurance policies and to resolve issues
that the insurance carriers may raise. Since the filing of the
case, the Corporation has reached settlements with several of the
carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation, including
settlements reached with two significant carriers in the fourth
quarter of 2009. The Insurance Litigation is ongoing.

The Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability was $40 million at June 30, 2012 and $40
million at December 31, 2011. At June 30, 2012 and December 31,
2011, all of the receivable for insurance recoveries was related
to insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement
and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place regarding their
asbestos-related insurance coverage.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability, the Corporation had receivables for
defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that
have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage.

The Company's total receivables for asbestos-related costs were
$213 million at June 30, 2012.

A similar disclosure was made in The Dow Chemical Company's Form
10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.
The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-
block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into the most widely used plastics resins: polyethylene
and polypropylene. It is also a leading producer of ethylene oxide
and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze,
respectively. The company makes solvents and intermediates (such
as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate monomer, water-soluble
polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds. End uses include
automotive, paints, household and personal care products,
pharmaceuticals, and wires and cables. Dow Chemicals acquired
Union Carbide in 2001.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Comfort Systems Still Can't Estimate Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comfort Systems USA, Inc., says it still has no reasonable
estimate of asbestos liability, if any, at this time as a result
of receipt of gaskets that may have asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "In December 2011, we received a letter from
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., a distributor of plumbing supplies and
pipe, in which Ferguson stated that it had unintentionally
supplied us with gaskets that were mislabeled by a former supplier
as being non-asbestos. Ferguson currently states that we bought
approximately 29,000 gaskets that might have been mislabeled.
Ferguson further disclosed that four Ferguson customers had found
asbestos in gaskets above the 1% level at which they can be
classified as non-asbestos. No reasonable estimate of liability,
if any, is possible at this time."

Comfort Systems USA, Inc., provides comprehensive heating,
ventilation and air conditioning ("HVAC") installation,
maintenance, repair and replacement services within the mechanical
services industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Still Defends Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend asbestos-
related claims in state courts, 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: "One of our subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply
Company (Fairmont), which distributes industrial supplies,
currently is named as a defendant in approximately 6,900 asbestos-
related claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Maryland, Texas and Illinois. Because a very small
percentage of products manufactured by third parties and supplied
by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos and many of
the pending claims are part of mass complaints filed by hundreds
of plaintiffs against a hundred or more defendants, it has been
difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the cases actually
involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to
asbestos-containing products supplied by Fairmont.

"In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or
contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of
identified products, the availability of such indemnity or
contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some of
the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought
protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has
no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos cases. Based
on over 15 years of experience with this litigation, we have
established an accrual to cover our estimated liability for these
cases. This accrual is immaterial to the overall financial
position of CONSOL Energy and is included in Other Accrued
Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Past payments by
Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been material."

CONSOL Energy Inc. is a producer of coal and natural gas for
global energy and raw material markets, which include the electric
power generation industry and the steelmaking industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Had $10MM Accrued Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC, as of
June 30, 2012, had an accrued liability of $10 million relating
to asbestos-related cases and a corresponding receivable of
$10 million relating to its indemnity protection with respect to
these cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We have been named as a premises defendant in
a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-
employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility. In the
past, these cases typically have involved multiple plaintiffs
bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the complaints
have not indicated which plaintiffs were making claims against
which defendants, where or how the alleged injuries occurred or
what injuries each plaintiff claimed. These facts, which would be
central to any estimate of probable loss, generally have been
learned only through discovery.

"Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to our
ownership of the relevant premises, the prior owners generally
have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to
indemnify us against, asbestos exposure claims. This
indemnification is not subject to any time or dollar amount
limitations. Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, we
tender it to the prior owner. Rarely do the complaints in these
cases state the amount of damages being sought. The prior owner
accepts responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the cases
and payment of any amounts due to the claimants. In our eighteen-
year experience with tendering these cases, we have not made any
payment with respect to any tendered asbestos cases. We believe
that the prior owners have the intention and ability to continue
to honor their indemnity obligations, although we cannot assure
you that they will continue to do so or that we will not be liable
for these cases if they do not.

"At June 30, 2012, there were 1,082 unresolved cases for which
service has been received that we have tendered to the prior
owner, all of which have been accepted.

"We have never made any payments with respect to these cases. As
of June 30, 2012, we had an accrued liability of $10 million
relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable of $10
million relating to our indemnity protection with respect to these
cases. We cannot assure you that our liability will not exceed our
accruals or that our liability associated with these cases would
not be material to our financial condition, results of operations
or liquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate the amount
or range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestos
exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and such
claims could be material. However, because we are not able to
estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such
claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted
asbestos exposure claims as of June 30, 2012.

"Certain cases in which we are a premises defendant are not
subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. The
following table presents for the periods indicated certain
information about these cases. Cases include all cases for which
service has been received by us. Certain prior cases that were
filed in error against us have been dismissed.

"We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that
are not subject to indemnification of $82,000 and $342,000 during
the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. As of
June 30, 2012, we had an accrual of $225,000 relating to these
cases. We cannot assure you that our liability will not exceed our
accruals or that our liability associated with these cases would
not be material to our financial condition, results of operations
or liquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate the amount
or range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestos
exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and such
claims could be material. However, because we are not able to
estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such
claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted
asbestos exposure claims as of June 30, 2012."

Huntsman Corporation is a global manufacturer of differentiated
organic chemical products and of inorganic chemical products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals From WR Grace Plan Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA was originally formed as a
result of a series of transactions it completed pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Reorganization dated as of February 4, 1996,
by and between W.R. Grace & Co. and Fresenius SE.  At the time of
the Merger, a W.R. Grace & Co. subsidiary known as W.R. Grace &
Co.-Conn. had, and continues to have, significant liabilities
arising out of product-liability related litigation (including
asbestos-related actions), pre-Merger tax claims and other claims
unrelated to National Medical Care, Inc., which was W.R. Grace &
Co.'s dialysis business prior to the Merger. In connection with
the Merger, W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. agreed to indemnify the
Company, FMCH, and NMC against all liabilities of W.R. Grace &
Co., whether relating to events occurring before or after the
Merger, other than liabilities arising from or relating to NMC's
operations.  W.R. Grace & Co. and certain of its subsidiaries
filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code on April 2, 2001.

Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against W.R. Grace
& Co. and FMCH by plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of W.R.
Grace & Co.-Conn., and by the asbestos creditors' committees on
behalf of the W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy estate in the Grace
Chapter 11 Proceedings, alleging, among other things that the
Merger was a fraudulent conveyance, violated the uniform
fraudulent transfer act and constituted a conspiracy. All such
cases have been stayed and transferred to or are pending before
the U.S. District Court as part of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings.

In 2003, the Company reached agreement with the asbestos
creditors' committees on behalf of the W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy
estate and W.R. Grace & Co. in the matters pending in the Grace
Chapter 11 Proceedings for the settlement of all fraudulent
conveyance and tax claims against it and other claims related to
the Company that arise out of the bankruptcy of W.R. Grace & Co.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement as amended, fraudulent
conveyance and other claims raised on behalf of asbestos claimants
will be dismissed with prejudice and the Company will receive
protection against existing and potential future W.R. Grace & Co.
related claims, including fraudulent conveyance and asbestos
claims, and indemnification against income tax claims related to
the non-NMC members of the W.R. Grace & Co. consolidated tax group
upon confirmation of a W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy reorganization
plan that contains such provisions.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company will pay a total of
$115,000 without interest to the W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy
estate, or as otherwise directed by the Court, upon plan
confirmation. No admission of liability has been or will be made.
The Settlement Agreement has been approved by the U.S. District
Court. In January and February 2011, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
entered orders confirming the plan of reorganization and the
confirmation orders were affirmed by the U.S. District Court on
January 31, 2012. Multiple parties have appealed to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals and the plan of reorganization will not
be implemented until the appeals are finally resolved.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 6-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the month of
August 2012.

Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA is engaged primarily in
providing dialysis services and manufacturing and distributing
products and equipment for the treatment of end-stage renal
disease. In the U.S., it also provides inpatient dialysis services
and other services under contract to hospitals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Defends Claims & Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to defend various asbestos-related
cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In connection with the Carlyle acquisition in November 2002,
Invensys plc has provided the Company with indemnification against
certain contingent liabilities, including certain pre-closing
environmental liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to
such indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the matters relating to the
Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims. The
indemnity notice period for certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities, other than those relating to the Ellsworth Industrial
Park Site, expired in November 2009, and the indemnity notice
period for certain pre-closing environmental liabilities relating
to the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site expires in November 2012.
The indemnity obligations are subject, together with indemnity
obligations relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap
equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in excess of $900
million. The most significant actions and proceedings are:

   * In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC ("Rexnord Industries") was
     named as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), together
     with at least ten other companies, at the Ellsworth
     Industrial Park Site, Downers Grove, DuPage County, Illinois
     (the "Site"), by the United States Environmental Protection
     Agency ("USEPA"), and the Illinois Environmental Protection
     Agency ("IEPA"). Rexnord Industries' Downers Grove property
     is situated within the Ellsworth Industrial Complex. The
     USEPA and IEPA allege there have been one or more releases
     or threatened releases of chlorinated solvents and other
     hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, allegedly
     including but not limited to a release or threatened release
     on or from the Company's property, at the Site. The relief
     sought by the USEPA and IEPA includes further investigation
     and potential remediation of the Site and reimbursement of
     USEPA's past costs. Rexnord Industries' allocated share of
     past and future costs related to the Site, including for
     investigation and/or remediation, could be significant. All
     previously pending property damage and personal injury
     lawsuits against the Company related to the Site have been
     settled or dismissed. Pursuant to its indemnity obligation,
     Invensys continues to defend the Company in matters related
     to the Site and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

   * Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 1,000 claimants) are
     pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
     relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged
     presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
     previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division
     and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys and FMC, prior
     owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs
     to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the
     Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending
     multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
     injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a
     product allegedly manufactured by Prager. Additionally,
     there are approximately 4,000 individuals who have filed
     asbestos related claims against Prager; however, these
     claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation
     inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos
     matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the
     Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs
     related to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes
     that the combination of its insurance coverage and the
     Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs
     of these matters.

In connection with the Falk Corporation acquisition, Hamilton
Sundstrand has provided the Company with indemnification against
certain contingent liabilities, including coverage for certain
pre-closing environmental liabilities and certain products-related
asbestos exposure liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant
to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to
defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos
claims, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity
obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations.
Certain pre-closing environmental matters were subject to an
indemnity notice period that expired in May 2012.

The most significant actions and proceedings for which Hamilton
Sundstrand has accepted responsibility are:

   * Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in
     approximately 200 lawsuits pending in state or federal court
     in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal
     injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain
     clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk. There
     are approximately 600 claimants in these suits. The ultimate
     outcome of these lawsuits cannot presently be determined.
     Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these
     lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations and has paid
     100% of the costs to date.

Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos
and class action related litigation. As of June 30, 2012, Zurn and
an average of approximately 80 other unrelated companies were
defendants in approximately 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits
representing approximately 27,000 claims. Plaintiffs' claims
allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used
primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment
of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos
components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These
claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by
insurers. As of June 30, 2012, the Company estimates the potential
liability for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well
as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be
approximately $42.0 million of which Zurn expects to pay
approximately $33.0 million in the next ten years on such claims,
with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years. The $42.0 million was developed based on an
actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout
through the next 10 years. However, there are inherent
uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos
claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives.

As a result, Zurn's actual liability could differ from the
estimate described herein. Further, while this current asbestos
liability is based on an estimate of claims through the next ten
years, such liability may continue beyond that time frame, and
such liability could be substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of June 30, 2012, is approximately
$256.9 million, and believes that all current claims are covered
by this insurance. However, principally as a result of the past
insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain
coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers
have paid the first $180.9 million of aggregate liabilities. In
order for the next $51.0 million of insurance coverage from
solvent carriers to apply, management estimates that it would need
to satisfy $14.0 million of asbestos claims. Layered within the
final $25.0 million of the total $256.9 million of coverage,
management estimates that it would need to satisfy an additional
$80.0 million of asbestos claims. If required to pay any such
amounts, the Company could pursue recovery against the insolvent
carriers, but it is not currently possible to determine the
likelihood or amount of such recoveries, if any.

As of June 30, 2012, the Company has a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of $42.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance that $256.9 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's
asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed $256.9 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and seven of its subsidiaries are presently named
as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos.
Such components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were
not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, the majority
of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of
coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a
portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance,
subject to applicable deductibles.

However, the Company cannot predict whether and to what extent
insurance will be available to continue to cover such settlements
and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are
tendered to them. Claims have been filed in jurisdictions
throughout the United States. Most of the claims resolved to date
have been dismissed without payment. The balance have been settled
for various insignificant amounts. Only one case has been tried,
resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No
provision has been made in the financial statements of the
Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary
course, and the Company does not currently believe the asbestos-
related claims will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial position, results of operations or
cash flow.

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.

IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions business that sells
pumps, flow meters and other fluidics systems and components and
engineered products to customers in a variety of markets
worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 298 Pending Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation, as of June 30, 2012, had 298 pending claims
compared to 242 pending claims at December 31, 2011, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "A significant number of asbestos-related
product liability claims have been brought against numerous United
States industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs
allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing
products. We have been named, along with hundreds of other
companies, as a defendant in some of these claims. In virtually
all of these claims filed against us, the plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages, or, if an amount is specified, such amount
merely represents a jurisdictional amount.  However, occasionally
specific damages are alleged and in such situations, plaintiffs'
lawyers often sue dozens of defendants, frequently without factual
basis or support.  As a result, even when a specific amount of
damages is alleged, such action can be arbitrary, both as to the
amount being sought and the defendant being charged with such
damages.

"We did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos; rather we
made a limited number of products which contained encapsulated
asbestos.  Such products were provided to industrial users.  We
stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s.

   * Claims

"We have been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois,
Pennsylvania and Mississippi.  As of June 30, 2012, there were 298
pending claims compared to 242 pending claims at December 31,
2011.  The number of open claims at a particular time can
fluctuate significantly from period to period depending on how
successful we have been in getting these cases dismissed or
settled.  Some jurisdictions prohibit specifying alleged damages
in personal injury tort cases such as these, other than a minimum
jurisdictional amount which may be required for such reasons as
allowing the case to be litigated in a jury trial (which the
plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them than if heard
only before a judge) or allowing the case to be litigated in
federal court.

"This is in contrast to commercial litigation, in which specific
alleged damage claims are often permitted.  The prohibition on
specifying alleged damages sometimes applies not only to the suit
when filed but also during the trial -- in some jurisdictions the
plaintiff is not actually permitted to specify to the jury during
the course of the trial the amount of alleged damages the
plaintiff is claiming.  Further, in those jurisdictions in which
plaintiffs are permitted to claim specific alleged damages, many
plaintiffs nonetheless still choose not to do so.

"In those cases in which plaintiffs are permitted to and choose to
assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, we believe the
amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an indicator of a
company's potential liability. This is because (1) the amounts
claimed may bear no relation to the level of the plaintiff's
injury and are often used as part of the plaintiff's litigation
strategy, (2) the complaints typically assert claims against
numerous defendants, and often the alleged damages are not
allocated against specific defendants, but rather the broad claim
is made against all of the defendants as a group, making it
impossible for a particular defendant to quantify the alleged
damages that are being specifically claimed against it and
therefore its potential liability, and (3) many cases are brought
on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injury,
and ultimately are resolved without any payment or payment of a
small fraction of the damages initially claimed.  Of the 298
claims pending as of  June 30, 2012,  71 claims do not specify the
amount of damages sought,  224 claims cite jurisdictional amounts,
and only three (3) claims (approximately 1.0% of the total pending
claims) specify the amount of damages sought not based on
jurisdictional requirements. Of these three (3) claims, one (1)
claim alleges compensatory and punitive damages of $20 million
each; one (1) claim alleges compensatory damages of $65 million
and punitive damages of $60 million and one (1) claim alleges
compensatory and punitive damages of $1 million each.  These three
(3) claims name between ten (10) and 109 defendants.  However, we
do not believe that this data allows for an accurate assessment of
the relation that the amount of alleged damages claimed might bear
to the ultimate disposition of these cases.

"We believe the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related
suits against us increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because of
increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those
companies that sold asbestos-containing products, but which did
not directly mine, mill or market asbestos.  A significant
increase in the volume of asbestos-related bodily injury cases
arose in Mississippi in 2002.  This increase in the volume of
claims in Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort
reform legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries),
which became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in
a higher than average number of claims being filed in Mississippi
by plaintiffs seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by
the law in effect prior to the passage of tort reform.  The number
of asbestos related suits filed against us decreased slightly in
2005 and 2006, but increased slightly in 2007, declined in 2008
and increased again in 2009 and 2010.  The number of lawsuits
filed against us in 2011 was significantly higher than in 2010.
However, it is still too early to be able to determine if this is
a meaningful trend even though more such lawsuits were filed
against us in the first two quarters of 2012 compared to the
comparable period in 2011. Regardless, these new claims, and all
previously filed claims, may take a significant period of time to
resolve.

   * Defenses

"In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to our
asbestos-containing products.  We continue to believe that a
majority of the claimants in pending cases will not be able to
demonstrate exposure or loss.  This belief is based in large part
on two factors: the limited number of asbestos-related products
manufactured and sold by us and the fact that the asbestos was
encapsulated in such products.  In addition, even at sites where
the presence of an alleged injured party can be verified during
the same period those products were used, our liability cannot be
presumed because even if an individual contracted an asbestos-
related disease, not everyone who was employed at a site was
exposed to the asbestos containing products that we manufactured.
Based on these and other factors, we have and will continue to
vigorously defend ourselves in asbestos-related matters.

   * Dismissals and Settlements

"Cases involving us typically name 50-300 defendants, although
some cases have had as few as one (1) and as many as 833
defendants.  We have obtained dismissals of many of these claims.
For the six months ended June 30, 2012, we were able to have 44
claims dismissed and settled nine (9) claims.  For the year ended
December 31, 2011, 120 claims were dismissed and eight (8) were
settled.  The majority of costs have been paid by our insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of
cases that have been settled.  Such settlements totaled
approximately $3.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2012,
compared to $8.1 million for the year ended 2011.   Although these
figures provide some insight into our experience with asbestos
litigation, no guarantee can be made as to the dismissal and
settlement rates that we will experience in the future.

"Settlements are made without any admission of liability.
Settlement amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors,
including the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the
nature and extent of the disease alleged and the associated
medical evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the
existence or absence of other possible causes of the alleged
illness of the alleged injured party and the availability of legal
defenses, as well as whether the action is brought alone or as
part of a group of claimants.  To date, we have been successful in
obtaining dismissals for many of the claims and have settled only
a limited number.  The majority of settled claims were settled for
immaterial amounts, and the majority of such costs have been paid
by our insurance carriers.  In addition, to date, we have not been
required to pay any punitive damage awards.

   * Potential Liability

"National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (NERA), a consulting
firm with expertise in the field of evaluating mass tort
litigation asbestos bodily-injury claims, has historically been
engaged to assist us in projecting our future asbestos-related
liabilities and defense costs with regard to pending claims and
future unasserted claims.  Projecting future asbestos costs is
subject to numerous variables that are extremely difficult to
predict, including the number of claims that might be received,
the type and severity of the disease alleged by each claimant, the
long latency period associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal
rates, costs of medical treatment, the financial resources of
other companies that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case and the impact of potential
changes in legislative or judicial standards, including potential
tort reform.  Furthermore, any predictions with respect to these
variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the
projection period lengthens.  In light of these inherent
uncertainties, the  variability of our claims history and
consultations with NERA, we currently believe that five years is
the most reasonable period for recognizing a reserve for future
costs, and that costs that might be incurred after that period are
not reasonably estimable at this time.  As a result, we also
believe that our ultimate asbestos-related contingent liability
(i.e., our indemnity or other claim disposition costs plus related
legal fees) cannot be estimated with certainty.

   * Insurance Coverage

"Our applicable insurance policies generally provide coverage for
asbestos liability costs, including coverage for both resolution
and defense costs.  Following the initiation of asbestos
litigation, an effort was made to identify all of our primary and
excess level insurance carriers that provided applicable coverage
beginning in the 1950s through the mid-1980s.  Where appropriate,
carriers were put on notice of the litigation.  Marsh USA, Inc., a
consulting firm with expertise in the field of evaluating
insurance coverage and the likelihood of recovery for asbestos-
related claims, has historically been engaged to work with us to
project our insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims.
Marsh's conclusions are based primarily on a review of our
coverage history, application of reasonable assumptions on the
allocation of coverage consistent with certain industry practices,
an assessment of the creditworthiness of the insurance carriers,
analysis of applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits,
the experience of NERA and a review of NERA's reports.

   * Cost Sharing Agreement

"To date, our insurance carriers have paid for substantially all
of the settlement and defense costs associated with our asbestos-
related claims.  The current cost sharing agreement between us and
such insurance carriers is primarily designed to facilitate the
ongoing administration and payment of such claims by the carriers
until the applicable insurance coverage is exhausted.  This four
year agreement expires on January 25, 2015 and replaced an older
agreement that had expired.

   * Impact on Financial Statements

"Given the inherent uncertainty in making future projections, we
have had the projections of current and future asbestos claims
periodically re-examined, and we will have them further updated if
needed based on our experience, changes in the underlying
assumptions that formed the basis for NERA's and Marsh's models,
and other relevant factors, such as changes in the tort system and
our success in resolving claims. As of December 31, 2011, the
estimated liability and estimated insurance recovery, for the
five-year period through 2016, was $28.8 million and $28.4 million
respectively.  During the first quarter of 2012, NERA and Marsh
provided revised projections for the asbestos liability and
related insurance receivable, which resulted in revised
projections for the five-year period through 2016 of $27.9 million
and $27.7 million for the estimated liability and insurance
receivable, respectively.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables were based on facts known at the
time and a number of assumptions.  However, projecting future
events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year,
the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time
it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers
and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as
well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation
in the United States could cause the actual liability and
insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those
projected or recorded.

"There can be no assurance that our accrued asbestos liabilities
will approximate our actual asbestos-related settlement and
defense costs, or that our accrued insurance recoveries will be
realized.  We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will
incur additional charges for our asbestos liabilities and defense
costs in the future, which could exceed existing reserves, but
such excess amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and believe we
have substantial unutilized insurance coverage to mitigate future
costs related to this matter."

Rogers Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
development, manufacture, and distribution of specialty materials
and components worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Had $1.87BB Asbestos Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s recorded net
reserves as of June 30, 2012, were $1.87 billion for asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2012.

The Hartford continues to receive asbestos and environmental
claims that involve significant uncertainty regarding policy
coverage issues. Regarding these claims, The Hartford continually
reviews its overall reserve levels and reinsurance coverages, as
well as the methodologies it uses to estimate its exposures.
Because of the significant uncertainties that limit the ability of
insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves
necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses, particularly
those related to asbestos, the ultimate liabilities may exceed the
currently recorded reserves. Any such additional liability cannot
be reasonably estimated now but could be material to The
Hartford's consolidated operating results, financial condition and
liquidity.

During the second quarter of 2012, the Company completed its
annual ground-up asbestos reserve evaluation. As part of this
evaluation, the Company reviewed all of its open direct domestic
insurance accounts exposed to asbestos liability, as well as
assumed reinsurance accounts and its London Market exposures for
both direct insurance and assumed reinsurance. Based on this
evaluation, the Company increased its net asbestos reserves by $48
million. The Company found estimates for individual cases changed
based upon the particular circumstances of such accounts. These
changes were case specific and not as a result of any underlying
change in the current environment. The Company experienced
moderate increases in claim severity, expense and costs associated
with litigating asbestos coverage matters, particularly against
certain smaller, more peripheral insureds. The Company also
experienced unfavorable development on certain of its assumed
reinsurance accounts driven largely by the same factors
experienced by the direct policyholders. The Company currently
expects to continue to perform an evaluation of its asbestos
liabilities annually.

The Company divides its gross asbestos and environmental exposures
into Direct, Assumed Reinsurance and London Market. Direct
asbestos exposures include Major Asbestos Defendants, Non-Major
Accounts, and Unallocated Direct Accounts.

   * Major Asbestos Defendants represent the "Top 70" accounts in
     Tillinghast's published Tiers 1 and 2 and Wellington
     accounts. Major Asbestos Defendants have the fewest number
     of asbestos accounts and include reserves related to PPG
     Industries, Inc. ("PPG"). In January 2009, the Company,
     along with approximately three dozen other insurers, entered
     into a modified agreement in principle with PPG to resolve
     the Company's coverage obligations for all its PPG asbestos
     liabilities. The agreement is contingent on the fulfillment
     of certain conditions. Major Asbestos Defendants gross
     asbestos reserves account for approximately 30% of the
     Company's total Direct gross asbestos reserves as of
     June 30, 2012.

   * Non-Major Accounts are all other open direct asbestos
     accounts and largely represent smaller and more peripheral
     defendants. These exposures represent 1,143 accounts and
     contain approximately 41% of the Company's total Direct
     gross asbestos reserves as of June 30, 2012.

   * Unallocated Direct Accounts includes an estimate of the
     reserves necessary for asbestos claims related to direct
     insureds that have not previously tendered asbestos claims
     to the Company and exposures related to liability claims
     that may not be subject to an aggregate limit under the
     applicable policies.

The recorded net reserves as of June 30, 2012, of $2.18 billion
($1.87 billion and $312 for asbestos and environmental,
respectively) is within an estimated range, unadjusted for
covariance, of $1.74 billion to $2.53 billion.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., is a holding company
for insurance and financial services subsidiaries that provide
investment products and life and property and casualty insurance
to both individual and business customers in the United States.
Also, The Hartford continues to administer business previously
sold in Japan and the U.K.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Defending Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., continues to defend asbestos-related
claims, 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 (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago. Currently there are a few thousand
claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with
hundreds of other companies. In some cases, the claims involve
products from divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most
of the costs. However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify
asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by
our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor
repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which
occurred on January 31, 2007. We are also responsible for half of
the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against
the former Rockwell International Corporation's (RIC's) divested
measurement and flow control business. But in all cases, for those
claimants who do show that they worked with our products or
products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we
nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial
part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature
of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. We
defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been
dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment
to claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary. Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity
Company (Nationwide) and Kemper Insurance (Kemper), the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to Allen-
Bradley, we entered into separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with
both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility for
ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. In
exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its remaining
liability and has been released from further insurance obligations
to Allen-Bradley. Nationwide entered into a cost share agreement
with us to pay the substantial majority of future defense and
indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. We believe that
this arrangement with Nationwide will continue to provide coverage
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
the asbestos liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims
and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related
to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we
agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or
because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some
instances, the divested business has assumed the liabilities;
however, it is possible that we might be responsible to satisfy
those liabilities if the divested business is unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
component systems business, semiconductor systems business and
Rockwell Collins avionics and communications business, the spun-
off companies have agreed to indemnify us for substantially all
contingent liabilities related to the respective businesses,
including environmental and intellectual property matters.
In connection with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale."

Rockwell Automation, Inc., is a global provider of industrial
automation power, control and information solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Still Defends Exposure Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., and Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc., disclose in their Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2012, that they continue to be involved in asbestos
proceedings.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against the Utilities -- Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
Inc., and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. -- and many other
defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large
amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and
injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various
premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved,
which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the
Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate,
material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining
thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the
Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated,
based on the disposition of previous claims.

In 2010, CECONY estimated that its aggregate undiscounted
potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may
be brought over the next 15 years is $10 million. The estimate was
based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and
risk factor assessment. Actual experience may be materially
different. In addition, certain current and former employees have
claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on
alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current
rate agreements, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets
(for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its
asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims. The accrued
liability for asbestos suits and workers' compensation proceedings
(including those related to asbestos exposure) and the amounts
deferred as regulatory assets for the Companies at June 30, 2012,
were:

                                        Con Edison   CECONY
(Millions of Dollars)                  ----------   ------

Accrued liability -- asbestos suits          $10       $10
Regulatory assets -- asbestos suits          $10       $10
Accrued liability -- workers' compensation   $95       $91
Regulatory assets -- workers' compensation   $21       $20

                   Manhattan Steam Main Rupture

In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan
ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others
were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the
area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud
containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the
closing of several buildings and streets for various periods.
Approximately 93 suits are pending against the company seeking
generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages, for personal injury, property damage and business
interruption. The company has not accrued a liability for the
suits. The company has notified its insurers of the incident and
believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident
will cover most of the company's costs, which the company is
unable to estimate, but which could be substantial, to satisfy its
liability to others in connection with the incident.

Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which
owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which
delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New
York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities),
which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily
located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and
northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses,
which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy
services. CECONY's business operations are its regulated electric,
gas and steam delivery businesses. O&R's business operations are
its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Circor Int'l. Units Continue to Face Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Circor International, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to face
asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2012.

The Company states: "On July 12, 2010, our subsidiary Leslie
Controls, Inc., filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware and, simultaneously, filed a pre-negotiated plan of
reorganization (as amended, the "Reorganization Plan" or "Plan")
in an effort to permanently resolve Leslie's exposure to asbestos-
related product liability actions. On February 7, 2011, the U.S.
Federal District Court for the District of Delaware (the "District
Court") affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's earlier order confirming
Leslie's Reorganization Plan, thus clearing the way for Leslie to
emerge from bankruptcy. On April 28, 2011, pursuant to the terms
of the Reorganization Plan, Leslie and CIRCOR contributed $76.6
million in cash and a $1.0 million promissory note (the "Note") to
fund the Leslie Controls Asbestos Trust (the "Trust"), and Leslie
emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. On September 30,
2011, the District Court entered an order for the final decree
closing the Chapter 11 case. Under the terms of the Plan, all
current and future asbestos related claims against Leslie, as well
as all current and future derivative claims against CIRCOR, are
now permanently channeled to the Trust. During the three months
ended July 1, 2012, Leslie paid off the balance of the Note and,
as a result, neither Leslie nor CIRCOR has any remaining financial
obligation to the Trust.

"As of December 31, 2011, the net Leslie asbestos and bankruptcy
liability was $1.0 million, which represented the remaining
payment to the Trust after the initial funding of $76.6 million
was made on April 28, 2011. This remaining $1.0 million was paid
to the Trust in late April 2012.

"Smaller numbers of asbestos-related claims have also been filed
against two of our other subsidiaries -- Spence Engineering
Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the stock of which we acquired in 1984;
and Hoke Incorporated ("Hoke"), the stock of which we acquired in
1998. Due to the nature of the products supplied by these
entities, the markets they serve and our historical experience in
resolving these claims, we do not believe that asbestos-related
claims will have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity of Spence or Hoke,
or the financial condition, consolidated results of operations or
liquidity of the Company."

Circor International, Inc., engages in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of valves and other engineered products and sub-
systems worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Defending Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., continues to defend asbestos-related
claims, 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.

Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy contain or have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials.  CenterPoint Energy or its subsidiaries have been
named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits
filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure
to asbestos.  Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned
by subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy, but most existing claims
relate to facilities previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's
subsidiaries. CenterPoint Energy anticipates that additional
claims like those received may be asserted in the future. In 2004
and early 2005, CenterPoint Energy sold its generating business,
to which most of these claims relate, to a company which is now an
affiliate of NRG.

Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from CenterPoint Energy and its sale of that
business, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses
from claims relating to the generating business has been assumed
by the NRG affiliate, but CenterPoint Energy has agreed to
continue to defend such claims to the extent they are covered by
insurance maintained by CenterPoint Energy, subject to
reimbursement of the costs of such defense by the NRG affiliate.
Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time,
CenterPoint Energy intends to continue vigorously contesting
claims that it does not consider to have merit and does not
expect, based on its experience to date, these matters, either
individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse
effect on CenterPoint Energy's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc., is a public utility holding company.
CenterPoint Energy's operating subsidiaries own and operate
electric transmission and distribution facilities, natural gas
distribution facilities, interstate pipelines and natural gas
gathering, processing and treating facilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xylem Inc. Still Defending Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Xylem Inc. continues to defend claims alleging injury resulting
from asbestos exposure, 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: "While very few claims have been asserted
against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products
resulting from asbestos exposure, it is possible that additional
claims could be filed in the future. We believe there are numerous
legal defenses available for such claims and, should such a claim
not be indemnifiable by ITT Corporation, we would defend ourselves
vigorously. On October 31, 2011, ITT completed the Spin-off of
Xylem, formerly ITT's water equipment and services businesses (the
"Spin-off").  Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement, ITT will
indemnify Xylem for asbestos product liability matters, including
settlements, judgments, and legal defense costs associated with
all pending and future claims that may arise from past sales of
ITT's legacy products. We believe ITT remains a substantial entity
with sufficient financial resources to honor its obligations to
us.

"Although the ultimate outcome of any legal matter cannot be
predicted with certainty, based on present information, including
our assessment of the merits of the particular claims, we do not
expect that any asserted or unasserted legal claims or
proceedings, individually or in aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on our cash flow, results of operations, or
financial condition.

"As part of the Spin-off, ITT, Exelis and Xylem will indemnify
each of the other parties with respect to such parties' assumed or
retained liabilities under the Distribution Agreement and breaches
of the Distribution Agreement or related spin agreements. ITT's
indemnification obligations include asserted and unasserted
asbestos and silica liability claims that relate to the presence
or alleged presence of asbestos or silica in products
manufactured, repaired or sold prior to the Distribution Date,
subject to limited exceptions with respect to certain employee
claims, or in the structure or material of any building or
facility, subject to exceptions with respect to employee claims
relating to Xylem buildings or facilities. The indemnification
associated with pending and future asbestos claims does not
expire. Xylem has not recorded a liability for material matters
for which we will be indemnified by ITT or Exelis through the
Distribution Agreement and we are not aware of any claims or other
circumstances that would give rise to material payments from us
under such indemnifications."

Xylem Inc. is an equipment and service provider for water and
wastewater applications with a broad portfolio of products and
services addressing the full cycle of water, from collection,
distribution and use to the return of water to the environment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Net Asbestos Liability Was $480MM at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc.'s reserves relating to asbestos
and environmental claims reflect a comprehensive ground-up
analysis performed annually. The Company's gross asbestos
liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense at end
of June 30, 2012, was $5,053 million while the net asbestos
liability was $480 million.

In addition to the U.S. asbestos and environmental reserve,
Chartis also has asbestos reserves relating to foreign risks
written by non-U.S. entities of $212 million gross and $149
million net reserves as of June 30, 2012. Similar amounts were
held at December 31, 2011.

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

American International Group, Inc., is an international insurance
company, serving customers in more than 130 countries. AIG
companies serve commercial, institutional and individual customers
through property-casualty networks of any insurer. In addition,
AIG companies are providers of life insurance and retirement
services in the United States. AIG's segments include Chartis,
SunAmerica Financial Group (SunAmerica), Aircraft Leasing and
Other Operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Defending Suits by 2,155 Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is defending asbestos-related lawsuits involving 2,155
individual claimants at June 30, 2012, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company's respirator mask/asbestos liabilities were
$160 million at June 30, 2012.

As of June 30, 2012, the Company is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts
that purport to represent approximately 2,155 individual claimants
compared to approximately 2,260 individual claimants with actions
pending at December 31, 2011.

The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.

The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than its historical experience. The Company
expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the
future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past.
Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries,
including mesothelioma and other malignancies, will represent a
greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company
has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial, including seven of
the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999,
2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an appellate reversal in
2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The ninth
case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the Court at the close of
plaintiff's evidence, based on the Court's legal finding that the
plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury
verdict. The plaintiffs appealed but in February 2012 the
California Court of Appeals granted the plaintiff's voluntary
dismissal of the appeal.

The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims
on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by the unimpaired.

The State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a
complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers
of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln
County, West Virginia and amended its complaint in 2005. The
amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory
damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly
incurred by the State for worker's compensation and healthcare
benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis
and unspecified punitive damages. While the case has been inactive
since the fourth quarter of 2007, the Court held a case management
conference in March 2011, but no further activity has occurred in
the case since that conference. No liability has been recorded for
this matter because the Company believes that liability is not
probable and estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is
not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the
minimal activity in this case and the fact that the complaint
asserts claims against two other manufacturers where a defendant's
share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several
liability and by the amount of fault a jury allocates to each
defendant if a case is ultimately tried.

As a result of the greater cost of resolving claims of persons
with more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other
malignancies, the Company increased its reserves during the first
six months of 2012 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $50
million, $33 million of which occurred in the second quarter of
2012. As of June 30, 2012, the Company had reserves for respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities of $131 million (excluding Aearo
reserves).

As of June 30, 2012, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
$136 million. During the first six months of 2012, the Company
increased its receivables for insurance recoveries by $24 million
related to this litigation, $21 million of which occurred in the
second quarter of 2012.

On January 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory
judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers
(Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. -- both part
of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims. The action, pending in the
District Court in Ramsey County, Minnesota, seeks declaratory
judgment regarding coverage provided by the policies and the
allocation of covered costs among the policies issued by the
various insurers. The action named, in addition to the Company,
over 60 of the Company's insurers. This action is similar in
nature to an action filed in 1994 with respect to breast implant
coverage, which ultimately resulted in the Minnesota Supreme
Court's ruling of 2003 that was largely in the Company's favor.
The plaintiff insurers have served an amended complaint that names
some additional insurers and deletes others. A significant number
of the insurer defendants named in the amended complaint have been
dismissed because of settlements they have reached with 3M
regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit. The case is
currently in the discovery phase. Trial is scheduled to begin in
the summer of 2013. During the first six months of 2012, the
Company reached settlements with several insurers, including
Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. mentioned
above, that will result in payments totaling approximately $81
million ($7 million of which has been received as of June 30,
2012) to the Company over the next two years, most of which will
be received in 2012.

     Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation -- Aearo Technologies

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies. Aearo
manufactures and sells various products, including personal
protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and
certain respiratory protection products.

As of June 30, 2012, Aearo and/or other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation)
are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the
Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which
plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek
damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

As of June 30, 2012, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary,
has recorded $29 million as the best estimate of the probable
liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs related to
current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related
claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements
and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement
among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary
of Warner Lambert and their insurers.  Liability is allocated
among the parties based on the number of years each company sold
respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the
AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged
years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of
the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement
entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This
agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot an annual
fee of $400,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability
for, and indemnify Aearo against, asbestos and silica-related
product liability claims for respirators manufactured prior to
July 11, 1995. Because the date of manufacture for a particular
respirator allegedly used in the past is often difficult to
determine, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims
arising out of the alleged use of respirators while exposed to
asbestos or silica or products containing asbestos or silica prior
to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo's
potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen
from the use of respirators while exposed to asbestos, silica or
other occupational dusts on or after January 1, 1997. To date,
Aearo has elected to pay the annual fee. Aearo could potentially
be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11,
1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to
discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is
no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters.

In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a
lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of
Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement,
including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers'
pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract.

3M Company is a diversified technology company with presence in
the industrial and transportation; health care; consumer and
office; safety, security and protection services; display and
graphics, and electro and communications businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 46,020 Asbestos Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation, as of June 30, 2012, had pending approximately
46,020 asbestos claims, 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 is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one
of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases.
In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a
claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-
containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in
commercial ships.

Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. As of June 30, 2012, the Company had pending
approximately 46,020 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 50,090 as of December 31, 2011 and 50,390 as of June
30, 2011.

During the second quarter of 2012, the Company received
approximately 1,030 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive
docket approximately 3,660 claims. The Company reports claims as
closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been
entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with
the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement
costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the
basis of the claim, the quality of evidence supporting the claims
and other factors. The Company's total costs for the years 2011
and 2010 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after
insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were approximately
$33 million and $14 million, respectively. The Company's costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year as
insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as
the insured portion of the expenses.

Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos-
related disease. The predominant number of claims against the
Company are non-cancer claims. In a substantial number of the
pending claims, the plaintiff has not yet identified the claimed
injury. The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are
adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based
upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of
outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the
breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs
per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the
number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended
down in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos
liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including,
among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to
resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of
its asbestos liabilities.

CBS Corporation is a mass media company. The Company has
operations in segments, which include Entertainment, Cable
Networks, Publishing, Local Broadcasting and Outdoor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like other companies in recent years, Badger Meter, Inc., is named
as a defendant in numerous pending multi-claimant/multi-defendant
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and integrated into or
sold with a very limited number of the Company's products. The
Company is vigorously defending itself against these claims.
Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
these matters, the Company does not believe the ultimate
resolution of these issues will have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position or results of operations, either
from a cash flow perspective or on the financial statements as a
whole. This belief is based in part on the fact that no claimant
has proven or substantially demonstrated asbestos exposure caused
by products manufactured or sold by the Company and that a number
of cases have been voluntarily dismissed.

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.

Badger Meter, Inc., is a manufacturer and marketer of products
incorporating liquid flow measurement and control technologies
serving markets globally. The Company's products are used in a
variety of applications, including water, oil and lubricants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Still Defending PI Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc., continues to defend asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company is a party to various legal proceedings, lawsuits and
administrative actions, which are of an ordinary or routine nature
for a company of its size and sector. In addition, due to the
bankruptcies of several asbestos manufacturers and other primary
defendants, among other things, the Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a
number of silica-related personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiffs
in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple
sources and typically the Company is one of approximately 25 or
more named defendants. In the Company's experience to date, the
substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury
for which the Company bears responsibility.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
and silica lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither the Company
nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or
distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that
allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the
asbestos-containing components of the Products, if any, were
enclosed within the subject Products.

The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica lawsuits filed
against the Company. The Company has also pursued litigation
against certain insurers or indemnitors where necessary. The
latest of these actions, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9,
2010, in the Eighth Judicial District, Adams County, Illinois, as
case number 10-L-48. In the lawsuit, the Company seeks, among
other things, to require certain excess insurer defendants to
honor their insurance policy obligations to the Company, including
payment in whole or in part of the costs associated with the
asbestos lawsuits filed against the Company. In October 2011, the
Company reached a settlement with one of the excess insurer
defendants for approximately the amount of such defendant's
policies that were subject to the lawsuit.

The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and
silica lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's
anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the
risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure
from the Products; the Company's experience that the vast majority
of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to
alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the
Products or for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility;
various potential defenses available to the Company with respect
to such matters; and the Company's prior disposition of comparable
matters.

However, due to inherent uncertainties of litigation and because
future developments, including, without limitation, potential
insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an
adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability
to collect from the Company's historical insurers or indemnitors,
could cause a different outcome. While the outcome of legal
proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known
facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that
the amounts accrued on its consolidated balance sheet are adequate
and that the liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica
personal injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect
on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations or liquidity. However, in the event of unexpected
future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution
of these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operation or liquidity.

Gardner Denver, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets engineered
industrial machinery and related parts and services. The Company
is a global manufacturer of engineered compressors and vacuum
products for industrial applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Had $57.8MM Reserves End June
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., has $57.8 million of asbestos
and environmental reserves 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.

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
underwrites commercial and personal property, and casualty
insurance coverage in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workplace Minister Fears "Third Wave" of ARDs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports a government-commissioned
report has called for the removal of all materials containing
asbestos from commercial and government buildings by 2030.

The report, released by Workplace Minister Bill Shorten on
Thursday, Aug. 16, also called for a national asbestos management
body to be set up.

Current health and safety laws provide rules for managing asbestos
issues within the workplace, but more needs to be done in non-
employment related exposure, the report said.

Mr. Shorten warned Australians could be hit by a "third wave" of
diseases relating to asbestos exposure, pointing to research that
suggested an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 of Australians will be
diagnosed with asbestos related disease during the next 20 years.

"This 'third wave' includes men and women who built, renovated or
demolished a house, garage or fence containing asbestos or those
who innocently washed-asbestos-laden clothes," he told parliament
on Aug. 16.

About a third of homes built between 1945 and the late 1980s
contain some asbestos products -- in walls, ceilings, eaves,
kitchens, bathrooms, vinyl floor tiles, sheds and garages, Mr.
Shorten said.

He urged people planning to renovate their homes to get advice
from qualified asbestos removalists if they have any doubts about
the presence of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Approves Quigley's Plan Outline
------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Kary of Bloomberg News reports that Pfizer Inc.'s non-
operating Quigley Co. unit won permission to have creditors vote
on a bankruptcy plan that would bar most asbestos claims against
the two companies, as a judge said the issue of whether Pfizer
bought votes will be addressed later.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein in Manhattan on Aug. 15,
approved Quigley's sixth reorganization plan draft after
objections that it won't resolve whether Pfizer devised the plan
in bad faith and manipulated the bankruptcy for its benefit.

An issue that keeps resurfacing -- whether Pfizer's actions are
"just another attempt to buy the vote" of asbestos claimants --
will be addressed at a trial when Quigley seeks final confirmation
of its plan after a vote, Bernstein said.

His ruling may lead to an end to the seven-year Chapter 11 case
over how the former maker of products for the steel industry and
its parent, the world's largest drugmaker, will resolve their
liability for asbestos claims.

Under the draft plan, Pfizer would contribute assets to a trust to
cover claims that Quigley's past products caused asbestos-related
injuries.

Asbestos claims against Quigley may total $4.45 billion over
42 years, according to testimony cited by Bernstein in September
2010, when he denied Quigley's request to exit bankruptcy under a
prior plan.

At the time, the court found Pfizer's proposed contribution of
$216.2 million wasn't enough to pay asbestos claimants, who may
have fared better by suing the company under civil tort law.

Pfizer has since increased its contributions, and in March 2011 a
committee formed by asbestos claimants settled with Pfizer and
will receive $800 million under the agreement.

The U.S. Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department that oversees
bankruptcies, objected to the current disclosure statement, which
describes how creditors would be treated.  Concerns raised by
Bernstein in his September 2010 ruling still haven't been
resolved, Tracy Hope Davis, the acting trustee, said in court
papers.

In that ruling, Bernstein found Pfizer "wrongly manipulated the
voting process to assure confirmation of the plan, and thereby
gain the benefit of the channeling injunction" by giving some
asbestos claimants incentives to vote in favor of the plan, Davis
said.

Under the bankruptcy code, channeling injunctions allow companies
to limit future liabilities by channeling them to a trust.

The current plan still doesn't disclose whether settlements Pfizer
made with asbestos victims are consistent with historic standards,
and why asbestos claimants who settled their lawsuits against
Pfizer before Quigley's bankruptcy have a right to vote, Davis
said.

It would only give some asbestos claimants 7.5% of what they seek
and block them from making future claims against Pfizer under tort
law, where they might get an estimated 23% of what they seek,
Davis added.

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

The new plan's exception for claims under state law would be null
and void if the appeals court's decision was modified on rehearing
or by the Supreme Court, Quigley said in the plan.

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

Reaud, Morgan & Quinn LLP, a law firm that represents asbestos
claimants, objected, saying Pfizer is paying $300 million more to
the 40,000 claimants represented by the committee than it paid
193,000 earlier, to "settle the claims of the most outspoken
opponents" of its reorganization plan.

Hissey Kientz LLP, a law firm which said it represents 3,200
claimants with diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer,
joined in Reaud Morgan's objection.  A committee of unsecured
creditors and Pfizer said they supported the current disclosure
statement.

Albert Togut, a representative for people who haven't yet
manifested asbestos-related illnesses but will do so in the future
and bring claims against the trust, said in court papers that he
was still resolving issues with Quigley and Pfizer.

Christopher Loder, a Pfizer spokesman, said the company is
"pleased with the court's decision to approve Quigley's disclosure
statement" and looks forward to moving ahead with the bankruptcy.

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

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

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

Pfizer will also contribute a property leased to an Orange County,
California, Anheuser-Busch distributor to pay asbestos claims.
The property has an estimated value of $43.6 million and produced
cash flow of $1.9 million in the first 12 months since Pfizer
acquired it, according to court papers.

The committee of asbestos claimants asked in 2010 to have the
bankruptcy dismissed so it could bring tort claims, which are
otherwise blocked by bankruptcy law.

The U.S. Trustee also in 2010 asked the bankruptcy court to end
Quigley's Chapter 11 case, citing the fact that creditors alleging
asbestos-related health issues have been unable to sue New York-
based Pfizer during the case, and many have died.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Closes Kilbourn Hall For a Semester
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Spevak at Democrat and Chronicle.com reports that asbestos
abatement is forcing the Eastman School of Music to close Kilbourn
Hall for the entire fall semester, meaning alternate venues will
have to be found for all events scheduled for the venue.

"Two independent tests have concluded that there has not been, nor
is there at this time, any risk for faculty, staff, students and
patrons," Dean Douglas Lowry said in a statement issued by the
school.  The asbestos to be removed is in the area above the
ceiling.

The venue changes will be noted on the web sites of the Eastman
School and University of Rochester.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japan Labels Fibro as Industrial Health Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Japan Times editorial relates that in 2006, Kubota Corp., a
major machinery maker, established its own relief system for
sufferers of asbestos-linked diseases who were not its employees
but were living near its asbestos-contaminated Kanzaki plant in
Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture.

The firm set up the system because it was learned in June 2005
that not only employees but also local residents were suffering
health damage from asbestos.

Although the system, which offers "relief money" ranging from
JPY25 million to JPY46 million, is praiseworthy, Kubota does not
recognize the cause-and-effect relationship between asbestos from
the plant and health damage among local residents.

Because of this position taken by Kubota, the bereaved families of
Kojiro Yamauchi, who worked some 200 meters away from the factory
from 1939 to 1975, and Ayako Yasui, who lived about 1 km away from
the factory from 1960 to 1995, refused to receive the relief
money.  Instead, they filed compensation lawsuits against Kubota
and the state.

Yamauchi died in 1996 at the age of 80 and Yasui in 2007 at the
aged of 85, both of mesothelioma, cancerous tumors of the pleura
or peritoneum.

On Aug. 7, the Kobe District Court ordered the machinery maker to
pay some JPY31.9 million in compensation to Yamauchi's bereaved
family, saying that Kubota caused his death by releasing asbestos
at least from 1954 to 1975 from its Kanzaki plant, although it did
not award compensation to Yasuda's bereaved family.

The implication of the ruling is important.  As attorney Kazuya
Yagi pointed out, for the first time, asbestos has been recognized
as a form of industrial pollution, exposure to which can damage
health.  In the past, health damage from asbestos was handled as a
labor accident case that only happens inside a factory.

The court did not recognize illegality on the part of the state
because, as of 1975, it was not yet known that asbestos could
damage the health of residents around the plant.

But both Kubota and the state must give serious thought to the
fact that the court has recognized the existence of the cause and
effect between asbestos and health damage to a person who is not a
worker at Kubota's factory.  Kubota immediately appealed the
ruling to the Kobe High Court.

The use of asbestos was mostly banned from September 2006 and a
total ban went into force in March 2012.  Since it takes 20 to 40
years for asbestos-related health problems to appear, the
government must take thorough measures to protect workers engaged
in the demolition of aging structures built when asbestos was
being used.

The government should also improve its own relief system so that
sufficient compensation is provided to victims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Sodexho Inc. for H&S Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that federal officials said Thursday,
Aug. 16 they intend to fine Sodexho Inc. $81,000 for health and
safety violations that occurred when workers were removing
asbestos earlier this year at Alderson-Broaddus College in
Philippi.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said the
violations were found during a March inspection, and 12 were
labeled serious.  That means the employer knew or should have
known the violation created the "substantial probability" of death
or serious physical harm.

The violations included: failing to provide respirators,
protective clothing and training for employees; failing to inform
workers of the location and quantities of material containing
asbestos; and failing to provide workers with information on how
to voluntarily use dust masks and respirators.

Sodexo, based in Gaithersburg, Md., employs about 25
groundskeepers, housekeepers and security workers at Alderson-
Broaddus College.  It can either comply with or contest the
citations.

Spokesman Greg Yost said the company has reviewed the violations
and will meet with OSHA next week.

"The safety of our employees, customers and clients is our top
priority," he said.  "We are cooperating with OSHA and look
forward to a constructive discussion."

Additional violations included failure to: ensure a competent
person supervised the work; monitor daily employee exposure;
properly dispose of ceiling tiles; and equip vacuum cleaners with
HEPA filters.

"Asbestos work poses serious safety and health risks to workers,
including lung disease and other disorders," said Prentice Cline,
director of OSHA's Charleston Area Office.  "Sodexho must
immediately correct these violations to ensure that its employees
have a safe and healthful work environment."

Sodexho was also cited for failing to record accurate information
in 300 illness and injury logs.

Alderson-Broaddus College is affiliated with the American Baptist
Churches USA, and the West Virginia Baptist Convention.
Enrollment is surging this fall as the school adds 10 sports over
two years.  The new 400-member freshman class includes about 120
football players.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blacks Road Work Pauses for Fibro Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------
Kent Mallett of the Newark Advocate reports that safety
improvements at the Blacks Road-Watkins Road intersection, on the
edge of Pataskala, have been delayed because of asbestos
remediation at the house on the southwest corner.

Licking County Engineer Bill Lozier said the contractor was forced
to stop work because of an Environmental Protection Agency
investigation required for asbestos remediation prior to removal
of the house.

Blacks Road had been scheduled to reopen Aug. 22 and the entire
project was set to be completed by Oct. 31.  A new date for the
road opening has not been determined, but the project should be
completed by the end of October, Lozier said.

The crest of the hill immediately west of Watkins Road will be
lowered to improve the sight distance, but the home must be
removed to perform the work, Lozier said.  The project cost is
$337,496.

The eastbound Blacks Road approach to Watkins Road has only 100
feet of stopping distance because of a hill.

The engineer said people anxious for the construction to end have
been calling his office.  The road has been closed since July 9.

"The reason the people are calling is because they haven't seen
any activity out there," Lozier said.  "The contractor had to stop
work because of the asbestos."

Asbestos, a mineral fiber that once was commonly used in a variety
of building construction materials for insulation and as a fire-
retardant, can lead to health problems.

When asbestos-containing materials are damaged or disturbed by
repair, remodeling or demolition activities, microscopic fibers
become airborne and can be inhaled into the lungs, where the
fibers can cause significant health problems, according to the
EPA.

The reason for the delay in Blacks Road reopening is because of
the care taken and the time involved in removing the asbestos from
the home because of the aforementioned health concerns.  The
asbestos must all be removed before the house can be removed.

The Blacks Road closure is just west of Watkins Road.  Detour
routes are posted and Watkins Road has remained open.

Licking County Construction Projects Manager Ty Yoho said the
asbestos was a surprise, based on the state's previous approvals.

In May, Lozier discussed the project with the county commissioners
and Ohio Department of Transportation District 5 Deputy Director
Joe Rutherford.  Lozier expressed frustration with the regulations
on the local let project.  A let project is when a local
government takes over contracting and manages construction without
ODOT oversight and inspectors.

"It's a problem when we have to meet all federal regulations but
don't have the expertise," Lozier said during the May meeting.  "I
don't know if I'll ever do a local let project again.

"For a small local government, we don't have the resources to
manage it so well," Lozier said.  "That's why this project took so
long to initiate.  Some of these federal funds aren't worth it."

Rutherford said he's heard the same reaction from other county
engineers.

A 2009 safety study showed Blacks Road had a crash rate 181% above
the state average for similar roadways.  The Blacks Road-Watkins
Road intersection had 15 crashes from 2006 to 2008, with 10 T-bone
collisions.

The improvements also will include guardrail upgrades to two
bridges, thermo plastic striping to improve visibility and dual
stop signs and stop ahead signs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lack of Cleanup Money May Close Aubert Childcare
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jody O'Callaghan at Fairfax NZ News reports that a Wellington
childcare centre is being forced to close because the religious
order that owns it cannot afford to replace its asbestos roof.

The roof of Island Bay's Aubert Childcare Centre, owned by the
Sisters of Compassion, was sealed as soon as the asbestos was
discovered a couple of months ago.  Now the Order has been told a
permanent replacement would cost up to $300,000.

Mother Aubert Home of Compassion Trust Board chairwoman Sister
Margaret Anne Mills said it had agonized over the decision to
close the centre, but it needed to focus its funds on its core
mission of helping the frail aged, the sick, the poor and the
disadvantaged.

Aubert Childcare Centre board chairman Kelvin Wong said he and the
sisters had failed to find a suitable replacement property in the
suburb, meaning about 60 families and 22 staff will probably be
without a centre by the end of the year.

Parents Sarah-Jane Paine and Laird Cameron were devastated about
the closure of the centre, where daughter Piata, 2, attends and 7-
month-old son Angus was due to join.

"It's sad -- sad for the children because Piata has been [at
Aubert] since the end of 2010, and Angus was looking to start in
October," Ms Paine said.

Parents chose the centre for its high reputation, and they had a
close relationship with the teachers, she said.

Mr. Cameron said everyone was "gutted" and he felt for the staff
who would also lose their jobs.

Sister Margaret Anne said an increase in property insurance,
unfavorable earthquake evaluation reports and compliance with new
building standards meant it was not viable to have the roof
replaced.

"We know the centre closure will be a difficult time for staff,
the children and their families, and we are supporting the Aubert
Childcare board as much as possible."

The centre was opened in 1908 as a home for orphaned and
disadvantaged children and had been an early childcare centre
since 1995.

A meeting was held on Aug. 16 to discuss the future of the
building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Gets Second OSHA Citation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel reports that federal
workplace safety regulators have cited Johnson Controls Inc. for
five health violations involving asbestos removal at an Illinois
job site.

OSHA is proposing fines totaling $59,400 that resulted from work
the company was doing at an AT&T Inc. building in Kankakee, Ill.
According to OSHA, Johnson Controls did not provide training for
employees conducting asbestos removal, and failed to perform air
monitoring to measure for asbestos levels.  The company also was
cited after determining that employees weren't using impermeable
drop cloths or wearing protective clothing.

Johnson Controls spokesman Fraser Engerman said Johnson Controls
employees at the Kankakee job site received asbestos training,
"even though we were not hired to work with asbestos, and did not
knowingly handle asbestos."

The company hasn't decided whether to contest the violations, said
Engerman, adding Johnson Controls has a comprehensive health and
safety program that is updated regularly.

This is the second OSHA citation against the company this year,
with the other involving an Ohio plant that makes lead-acid
batteries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro May Be Present In Buildings Built Pre-2000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Hunt, writing for Shoosmiths LLP's Access Legal, relates that
workplace regulations about asbestos are now much more stringent
and the use of approved protective clothing and breathing
apparatus means that exposure to asbestos in the workplace is
hopefully far less likely than it was only a few years ago.

As a consequence, awareness of the risk asbestos poses may have
declined among the general public and the assumption is that
asbestos is a health issue of the past.

However, while those currently working directly with this toxic
substance may be better informed and protected, cases still
continue to present themselves among plumbers, carpenters and
electricians who may continue to be unwittingly exposed even
today.

Asbestos is not just a problem of the industrial and commercial
past and continuing awareness of its dangers and the suffering of
those diagnosed with mesothelioma is just as vital in domestic
settings.  Asbestos could still be present in any building built
or refurbished before the year 2000 undisturbed until tradesmen
such as joiners, electricians and plumbers inadvertently expose
themselves to its hazardous fibers as part of their work.

Asbestos was commonly used as a domestic building material in
sheet or other forms from the 1950s to the mid 1980s.  Typical
domestic applications for asbestos included eaves, gutters,
boilers, garage and shed roofs, linings for walls, ceilings and
doors, insulation panels in storage heaters, bath panels, floor
tiles and ceiling finishes.  The home may therefore be a setting
in which more people could be (or have already been) exposed to
asbestos.

The advice given by the BLF's Take 5 and Stay Alive campaign
should be a first stop for anyone contemplating DIY on a house
built before 2000.  People exposed today may not show symptoms
until several decades later, by which time it's usually too late
to do anything other than manage the symptoms of an asbestos
related illness.  So the assumption that asbestos is purely an
historic and industrial health issue affecting only people who
worked in certain professions is a dangerous one to make.

Of course, it's also important not to panic unnecessarily and if
you're unsure about whether your home does incorporate the
material you can get an asbestos survey by visiting the HSE
website which gives information about how to select a competent
surveyor.  If the asbestos has to be removed, you should use the
services of an Asbestos Removal Contractors Association (ARCA)
accredited member to do the work rather than attempt it yourself.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Quality Fade" in Chery, Great Wall Blunder
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dunne, president of Dunne & Company, a Hong Kong-based
consultancy specializing in Asian car markets, and an expert on
China's auto industry, writes for The Wall Street Journal's China
Real Time Report:

Some mistakes are understandable.  Others seem to defy
explanation.

Earlier this month, two leading Chinese car companies, Great Wall
Motor and Chery Automobile, confirmed they are recalling 23,000
cars and trucks they've sold in Australia because asbestos was
discovered in their engine and exhaust gaskets.

This is a genuine setback for the companies and yet another blow
to the image of Made in China.

After first reading the story headline, my reaction was
puzzlement.  Leading executives at Great Wall and Chery take
product quality seriously, spending millions of dollars every year
for better results.  Improved vehicle reliability at Chery and
Great Wall helped to ignite a 50% jump in exports to markets like
Australia, Russia and Brazil last year.

How could these two proud Chinese car companies permit such a
senseless error, one that is certain to damage their brand names?

Let's consider the possibilities.  First, were they simply unaware
of the existence of the cancer-causing asbestos -- or of the fact
that asbestos is banned in 50 countries, including Australia?  The
answer would seem to be no on both counts.

According to a report by Bloomberg, Great Wall and Chery had
signed letters to their distributor in Australia, Ateco,
guaranteeing that the vehicles were asbestos-free.  Further -- and
this is where things gets strange -- representatives from Great
Wall said that they had conducted their own in-house testing and
concluded that the asbestos was not a danger to "human bodies."

Chery, for its part, offered the implausible excuse that cars
meant for the domestic market (China does not ban asbestos) were
"accidentally" shipped to Australia.

If not an innocent mistake, what else could be the cause?

The most likely culprit is a China manufacturing phenomenon,
vividly described in the book Poorly Made in China, known as
"quality fade."  Companies deliver initial product samples that
pass inspection tests with flying colors.  In time, however, the
quality begins to deteriorate as the manufacturer -- often under
pressure to preserve profits -- introduces cheaper or non-standard
product materials.

The more the material is hidden from plain view, the more likely
it is to be replaced.  Result: Yesterday's good-looking high-
quality sample fades into today's good-looking-but-flawed
offering.

Chinese independent car companies like Chery and Great Wall are
under pressure in the home market.  Since 2010, they have been
losing market share to the more powerful joint-venture companies.
This places enormous financial pressure on the companies -- the
kind of strain that could lead people to act a little less
carefully, or even shoot themselves in the foot by shipping
asbestos-laden engine gaskets to Australia.

Chinese automakers saw Australia as a small but strategic test
market where they could prove their worth and win over some of the
world's more discerning customers.  Entry into America, Europe and
Japan was supposed to follow soon.  But this untimely blunder
shifts Chery, Great Wall and the reputation of China's auto
industry backwards onto precarious ground.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Authority Slapped $1,000 Civil Penalty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Yusko at timesunion.com reports that the state fined the
Saratoga Springs Housing Authority for failing to perform an
asbestos survey on a property that it had demolished and contained
the potentially hazardous material.

The state Labor Department slapped the SSHA with a $1,000 civil
penalty for tearing down a home at 36 Allen Drive that it managed
for the Saratoga Springs Affordable Housing Group, according to
records obtained this week through a Freedom of Information
request.  The state also cited the SSHA for using an unlicensed
and non-certified contractor to handle the material that contained
the asbestos, records state.

The building was demolished in late-summer 2009 for new housing
units, according to the documents.  The state received a complaint
about the project on Feb. 26, 2010, and inspected the site days
later.  Results from lab tests on materials from the site
indicated the home's linoleum flooring "was at least 35 percent
asbestos," according to the state Labor Department.

The state informed the SSHA of the fine in a letter to Ed
Spychalski, SSHA executive director.  The SSHA paid the fine on
May 11, 2010, according to the state.

The violations of state labor law and industrial code were
disclosed by city resident John Kaufmann, a critic of Spychalski
and SSHA operations since December, when public housing residents
in the city told city officials that Spychalski was not addressing
the presence of bedbugs in Stonequist Apartments.  Spychalski
should have known the requirements of knocking a building down,
Kaufmann said in an interview Friday, Aug. 17.

"It is also important to note that performing the required survey
entails the risk that asbestos will be found, and that the removal
of asbestos properly is quite expensive," said Kaufmann, the
former executive director of the Saratoga County Economic
Opportunity Council.  Spychalski told state inspectors he did not
know he was required to conduct an asbestos survey until the issue
came up when he went to knock down another building on Allen
Drive, according to documents.

Asbestos is a mineral fiber used in a variety of building
construction materials.  When asbestos-containing materials are
damaged or disturbed, microscopic fibers become airborne and can
be inhaled into the lungs, where they can cause significant health
problems, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The date when the SSHA demolished the home at 36 Allen Drive is
important because Spychalski received an email from the New York
State Housing Trust Fund on Aug. 20, 2009, specifically telling
him to submit an asbestos survey, removal and disposal plan prior
to any alteration of Allen Drive properties, according to the
letter.  Spychalski told a state Labor Department inspector he
demolished the home in "late-summer 2009."  The exact date of the
demolition and who performed it could not be independently
verified on Aug. 17.

Asked about the project and Kaufmann's allegations, SSHA Board
Chairman Eric Weller released a statement through an authority
attorney.

"The minimal amount of asbestos that was discovered between a
layer of flooring and concrete sub-floor was safely removed in
accordance with state and federal law," Weller said.  "The
decision was made to pay the minimum fine rather than expend funds
significantly in excess of that amount to challenge it."

The SSHA hired Evergreen Environmental to undertake a state-
mandated site assessment of the property.  The state warned
Spychalski that future involvement in any asbestos project without
a valid license or certification could result in additional
violations, a larger penalty and referrals to the EPA for possible
criminal proceedings.

Kaufmann received the information from the state Labor Department.
Even though the SSHA was fined in the case, an SSHA attorney told
Kaufmann the SSHA did not have any documents relating to asbestos
removal on Allen Drive, and directed him to the city's affordable
housing group, which is not subject to the law's requirements,
Kaufmann said.

The housing authority did not directly reply to the charge, though
Weller denied "it engaged in any improper conduct or in any way
attempted to cover anything up."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fully Paid Subcontractors Leave Job Incomplete
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Irving of The Fraser Coast Chronicle reports that a mother-
of-one Michelle Warren wants other families to think twice before
paying a tradesman upfront.

"We don't want others to be duped the way I was," Michelle said.

Initially hesitant about paying for services upfront, Michelle
said she was torn between getting the only asbestos removalist in
Gladstone, who would take upfront payment, and another company in
Rockhampton.

"The only problem was the company in Rockhampton was asking for
$1000 more to do the job.  I thought it would be better to get it
out of the way and just pay the business in Gladstone," she said.

After subcontractors left the job incomplete, Michelle took it
upon herself to remove the remaining fragments of asbestos from
the shed.

"(WHSQ) told me how to decontaminate and how to make the area
safe.  But they haven't double-checked it or verified if I have
done a good job," Michelle said.

Michelle said she was worried about the health of her 18-month-old
daughter Sally, who had been living in the contaminated
environment.

The Glen Eden resident is now concerned about the welfare of other
vulnerable families, who may be find themselves in a similar
situation to her.

"There is a real shortage of tradespeople in Gladstone due to the
building boom and some unscrupulous tradespeople are taking
advantage of this and asking for upfront payment," she said.

"Despite our desperation to get the work done, I should have
refused to pay him in full upfront."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pueblo Landlord Jailed for Extreme Cost-Cutting
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Denver Post reports that a Pueblo landlord was sentenced to
four years in state prison for hiring homeless people to remove
asbestos from the condemned multi-family home he was demolishing.

Thomas K. Tienda, 49, was convicted on eight felonies in the case
prosecuted by the Colorado Attorney General's Office.

The work between May 1, 2007, and July 11, 2007, led to the
airborne distribution of asbestos, a toxic fiber that can cause
lung illnesses that lead to death.

"Sheer greed drove Tienda to cut costs at the expense of the
public and jeopardized the health of vulnerable members of our
society, the homeless," said Colorado Attorney General John
Suthers said in a statement Friday, Aug. 17.  "A four-year prison
sentence is appropriate and proves that this type of unscrupulous
behavior will not go unpunished."

He was convicted last October, and his sentence includes credit
for 232 days of time served.

Public records show Tienda has bought and sold numerous homes and
other properties in Pueblo, some he bought for as little as
$15,000.

Prosecutors said Tienda lacked proper permits and hired homeless
men instead of licensed professionals to do the hazardous work. He
did not tell the workers the building contained asbestos,
prosecutors said.

Besides releasing asbestos during the demolition, Tienda also used
asbestos-contaminated debris to fill for potholes at his other
properties.

"There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos," stated Jeff
Martinez, acting special agent in charge of EPA's criminal
enforcement program in Colorado.  "The defendant not only employed
unsafe asbestos removal practices, he also tried to cover up his
illegal actions.  This sentence should send a clear message that
the EPA will continue working closely with our state enforcement
partners to prosecute those who violate the law and place their
private gains over the public's well being."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Study Focuses on Crocidolite Asbestos Fiber
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos and environmental health experts, Mr. Drew Van Orden,
P.E., Dr. Richard J. Lee, Mr. Matthew S. Sanchez, and Mr. Matthew
D. Zock, CIH, at RJ Lee Group, Inc., an industrial forensic
consulting firm and analytical laboratory, recently co-authored
three asbestos-centered publications that are now available on the
Annals of Respiratory Medicine Web site.

These publications, a review article, a case report and a case
study all deal with the pathogenicity of crocidolite asbestos
fiber width as a causative agent for mesothelioma (asbestos-
related disease).  The scientific and legal impact of these
studies is that the results indicate that current models may
overestimate asbestos risk by not including fibers which were not
able to be identified when the models were developed, but which
analytical technology today is able to detect.  The incorporation
of fiber width into the risk models, developed in the 1970s and
still in use today, has been limited by the availability of data
from operating asbestos plants and, in particular, ones with
unregulated workplace exposure similar to those on which current
models were based, or from those where there is no observable
mesothelioma.  Mr. Van Orden, Dr. Ilgren and Ms. Kamiya conducted
a study at a Bolivian asbestos cement plant that uses crocidolite
during the production of roofing shingles and water tanks.  The
study is the first to use modern analytical measurements in an
uncontrolled asbestos environment.  Their results suggest that
fiber concentrations were far in excess of those for which current
models would predict the onset of adverse health effects, yet the
plant and community did not have an elevated incidence of asbestos
disease or mesothelioma.

The trio of publications include the case study, "Evaluation of
Airborne Crocidolite Fibers at an Asbestos-Cement Plant", by Drew
R Van Orden, Richard J. Lee, Matthew S. Sanchez, Matthew D. Zock,
Edward B. Ilgren and Yumi Kamiya; the case report, "The Size
Distribution of Airborne Bolivian Crocidolite Fibers" by Drew R.
Van Orden, Richard J. Lee, Matthew S. Sanchez and Matthew D. Zock;
and the review article, "Further Evidence for Fiber Width as a
Determinant of Mesothelioma Induction and Threshold Anthophyllite,
Bolivian Crocidolite, and Cape Crocidolite", by Edward B. Ilgren,
Drew R Van Orden, Richard J. Lee, Yumi Kamiya and John A. Hoskins.

                          About RJ Lee Group

RJ Lee Group -- http://www.rjlg.com-- is an industrial forensics
consulting firm and analytical laboratory that is recognized as a
leader in providing innovative solutions to challenges in
materials characterization, forensic engineering, and information
management.  For 30 years, RJ Lee Group has been using its
scientific expertise, instrumentation and technology to offer
support strategies and provide solutions to its customers.  RJ Lee
Group is a 300-person company with headquarters located in
Monroeville, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New UK Payout Scheme Only Covers Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Doward of The Observer reports that a scheme to compensate
victims of asbestos cancer will not come into force for two years,
so many will die before receiving any money, the government is
being warned.

Lawyers and campaigners who have fought a long battle to get
compensation for asbestos victims are also angry that the scheme,
which will pay compensation in cases where employers' liability
insurance cannot be traced, only benefits claimants suffering from
the asbestos cancer mesothelioma.  Those suffering from
asbestosis, pleural thickening and asbestos-related lung cancer --
which campaigners say constitute 50% of all asbestos diseases --
are excluded from the scheme, which applies only to people who
have been diagnosed as suffering from mesothelioma since 25 July
this year.

"We are bitterly disappointed at the exclusion," said Tony
Whitston, chairman of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum,
which accused the government of giving in to "rich and powerful
insurers."  Patrick Walsh, a solicitor with Pannone, who
represents victims of industrial disease, estimated that around
2,500 people a year could be helped by the scheme.  But he warned:
"The scheme won't be effective for two years and the average life
expectancy of someone with mesothelioma is nine to 12 months.
They will die before the scheme comes into force."

It is estimated that the scheme will see insurers pay out GBP300
million over the next 10 years as the number of mesothelioma cases
peaks in around 2015 and then starts to drop off.  "It's a classic
case of producing something so they can tick a box and say they
have done something about it," Walsh said.  "But the many people
who, through no fault of their own, have not been able to trace
insurers have no redress."

Whitston said: "It would cost less than 20% more to provide cover
for all asbestos victims."  Asbestos diseases can take up to 30 to
40 years to develop.  As a result, many employers are no longer
trading when a claim for compensation is made, leaving victims to
rely on their insurers who, in around 10% of cases, cannot be
traced.

"I worked all my life as a heating engineer, constantly exposed to
asbestos, and I now suffer from asbestosis, which has seriously
affected my breathing," said Frank Hill.  "I could only trace the
insurers for part of my employment, so I have only received part
of the compensation due to me."

A state-run compensation scheme will continue to pay victims lump
sum payments in lieu of civil compensation, but campaigners say
these will be worth only a tenth of what is available under the
new scheme.

Privately, officials from the Department for Work and Pensions
hold out the prospect that the scheme might be expanded in the
future to include more victims of asbestos-related illnesses.
However, proving the link between these diseases and asbestos is
more complex than establishing its links with mesothelioma.

Work and pensions minister Lord Freud said that the new scheme
will cut bureaucracy and speed up claims from mesothelioma
victims.  "We have taken urgent action to ensure that people
suffering from the devastating disease get the help they have long
been denied," Freud said.  "The new scheme will correct an awful
deficiency and will significantly cut the bureaucracy victims
face."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mount View Deal Hangs-On For Fibro-Test Results
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Prohaska of The Buffalo News reports that an asbestos
survey of Mount View Health Facility was completed Friday,
Aug. 17, with the results to determine in large part whether the
sale of the vacant former county-owned nursing home will be
completed.

Niagara County Manager Jeffrey M. Glatz said he expects a report
in about two weeks from Sienna Environmental Technologies, a
Buffalo company hired to find out how much of the carcinogenic
fire retardant is still inside the building.

The County Legislature in July accepted the $550,000 purchase
offer of David M. Tosetto, former director of development for
Elderwood Senior Care, but the deal had several contingencies, and
the cost of asbestos abatement is one of the big ones.

According to the resolution passed by the Legislature, if the
asbestos cost is more than $50,000, either side can cancel the
sale within 10 days.

The resolution does not mention whether Tosetto or the county
would have to pay for the asbestos removal.  Glatz said the county
already has spent up to $14,000 on Sienna Environmental's work in
the five-story former nursing home, which closed at the end of
2007.

On July, Tosetto submitted a plan to the state Health Department
to place 150 new assisted living beds for seniors in the 73-year-
old former nursing home.

Under terms of a Medicaid-restructuring law passed by the State
Legislature this year, the state was to make licenses available
for 4,700 assisted living beds.

Tosetto said he heard there were applications for 15,000 beds.
Jeffrey Hammond of the state Health Department said the state will
not disclose that figure while the reviews are going on.

"We did get our application in on time," Tosetto said.  "We're in
a wait mode."

He thought he might hear from the Health Department in two to four
weeks on whether his application will be one of those accepted.

Hammond would not confirm that.  He said, "The department is
currently reviewing all applications received for assisted living
beds, and we anticipate notifying entities of award decisions by
the end of the year.  Mr. Tosetto's application . . . is part of
this review."

Glatz said that although the terms of the sale and who would pay
for the asbestos work need to be settled, "We probably won't start
that until [Tosetto] gets approval from the Health Department."

Mount View was constructed in 1939, and its age almost guarantees
the presence of asbestos.  The key questions are how much and
where.

For example, the nursing home has 9-inch squares of floor tile, in
contrast to the 12-inch tiles used today.  Given the age of the
tiles, Glatz said, that's usually a dead giveaway for asbestos.
Also, there probably is asbestos mixed in with the glue that
attaches the tiles to the floor, Glatz said.

Tosetto said another problem might be the waterproofing techniques
of 1939.

"The way they used to protect the building from moisture is, they
would tar the inside of the block walls," Tosetto said.  "Of
course, the tar contained asbestos.  If that's the case, removing
it would be extremely difficult and expensive."

Glatz said a plan for a partial asbestos abatement could be worked
out, depending on Sienna's findings.

"If you're renovating, you could tile over or carpet over [the
tiles]," Glatz said.  "If you're going to paint, you could wrap
some asbestos [installed] around the pipes."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trade Unionists Slam India's Fibro Import
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Elk for In These Times reports that Indian trade unionists
are upset by the Quebec government's decision to re-open an
asbestos mine, saying that tons of the cancer-causing material
will be exported to India.  From the Building and Wood Workers
International (BWI):

The Indian trade unions are outraged by Quebec's Premier Mr. Jean
Charest's decision to grant $58 million loan to revive the Jeffery
Mine.  The opening of the mine would mean export of more than
5 million tons of cancer causing Chrysotile Asbestos to
developing countries, including India over the next quarter
of a century. . . ."

Terming it 'immoral', Fiona Murie, Health and Safety Director of
the BWI, said "At a time when countries in the west are counting
bodies and grappling with the increased number of asbestos-caused
cancers, it is indeed immoral that the Government of India is
importing over four hundred thousand metric tons of asbestos every
year and putting it into the built environment.  Canada should be
ashamed of their role in supplying not only the asbestos, but more
so the misinformation that denies the risks to health and
encourages its use. . . .  The latency period for asbestos cancers
is around thirty years after exposure, so we can expect to see
many cases of asbestos cancers appearing in the near future, and
lasting for many years to come."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OEPA Issues Violation Notices for Marion Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Jarvis of The Marion Star reports the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency has issued notices of violation to two men for
improperly removing asbestos in demolishing a former factory site
on Marion's north side.

Stan Rosenfeld, principal for 333 Joseph LLC, which owns the
property that had been the location of a manufacturing plant for
several companies over the years, and Eric Keith, a contractor who
did demolition work at the site, could face fines, OEPA
spokeswoman Dina Pierce said.

The violations stem from failure to notify the OEPA at least 10
days before beginning removal of regulated asbestos-containing
material, demolishing an office building without removing all
regulated asbestos-containing material, failing to dispose of
asbestos-containing material in a disposal site authorized to take
asbestos, and failing to keep asbestos-containing material wet.

Earlier, the OEPA notified Robert Cendol, representative of
333 Joseph LLC, 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 ordered the company to
resurvey the site to determine if the asbestos, which can cause
cancer, is capable of becoming airborne.

An agency inspector said the company has not kept the property
wet, Pierce said, adding, "Every day they're not doing that is a
violation."  The violations could carry fines of up to $25,000 per
day, although the OEPA typically does not pursue that large a
fine.  "Our first priority of course is protecting public health."
The agency could pursue further legal action, "but that could drag
things out a lot longer because the legal process takes a lot of
time, so we really want to work with the company and get this
taken care of, because that's going to be the fastest solution."

Marion Municipal Court has issued a bench warrant for Robert
Cendol, 48, a Toledo contractor, who did not appear on Aug. 9 for
a disposition hearing, City Law Director Mark Russell said.  The
court had postponed to that date a verdict following a July 26
bench trial on a charge he violated the city zoning code.  Cendol
is accused of 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.

"I'm still confident we'll have a result where the responsible
party takes action," Russell said.  "They're all responsible, and
no one's more responsible than Stan Rosenfeld."

He said his office will continue "to conduct some activity every
day at the same time the EPA is doing their thing."

Pierce said 333 Joseph LLC filed a notification regarding the
demolition of all the structures on the site except for the office
building.

"However, they knocked down the office, as well, and no notice had
been provided," she said.

An OEPA inspector is checking the site at least once a week, she
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Cases Rise in Israel
--------------------------------------------------
Dan Even of The Haaretz Newspaper in Israel says asbestos is the
term used to define a group of fibrous minerals that were used for
industrial and construction purposes for many decades.  In 1977
and again in 1987, the International Agency for Research on Cancer
determined that there is evidence that asbestos causes cancer.
Israel also included asbestos in the list of positively cancerous
substances.

Most of the relevant research finds a definite link between
exposure to asbestos and lung cancer, as well as mesothelioma -- a
unique form of cancer that develops in the lung's membrane and is
caused in most cases (79%) by reoccurring exposure to asbestos.
Data collected in 2008 by the Health Ministry determined that lung
cancer and mesothelioma rates were often 10 times higher than the
national average among residents of Nahariya and its surroundings
who were employed in the local asbestos plant active from the
1950s until 1997.

Rates of cancer in the lung membrane among Israelis have
multiplied by 6.7% between 1980 and 2007, from 1.3 cases per
million people in 1980, to 8.8 per million in 2007.  In November
2000, Health Ministry researchers reported that the rise in
mesothelioma cases was related to the use of asbestos in the
country, which reached its peak between 1976-1978.

Japanese researchers reported in the July 2011 issue of
Respirology that the death rates in Israel related mesothelioma
resulting from asbestos exposure, between the years 1994 to 2008,
were the second highest in Asia (3.67 per million) after Cyprus
(4.79 per million ).

In recent years the authorities have sought to replace asbestos
roofs.  Still, the official stance of cancer researchers is that
there is no definitive proof that exposure to such roofs which are
not in a stage of disintegration increases the risk of cancer, or
that living in proximity to asbestos roofs or buildings made of
asbestos increases that risk.

The evidence mentioned in medical literature that links asbestos
and cancer deals mainly with exposure to the substance during
work, especially in plants that produced asbestos boards.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dandenong Residents Dump Fibro In Front Lawns
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Tran and Cameron Lucadou-Wells of The Greater Dandenong
Weekly report that residents are knowingly dumping asbestos on
their front lawns in the hope it will be taken away during hard
rubbish collection.

But a waste management company contracted to pick up the hard
rubbish in Melbourne's south-eastern suburbs says it won't be
tricked into doing people's dirty work for them.

"Our guys have done an asbestos awareness course and so if there's
something that's potentially got asbestos, they don't pick it up,"
WM Waste Management Services manager Michael Strickland said.

While some residents were genuinely unsure whether their rubbish
had the deadly material in it, Mr. Strickland said a number knew
what they were putting onto their front lawns.

"There's definitely some people who have asbestos they want to get
rid of.  It's not just asbestos.  There's quite a few things
people put out even though they know we're not supposed to pick it
up."

In most cases in Victoria, asbestos can only be removed by a
licensed removalist.  It can be removed without a license only in
a small number of cases, where the area containing the deadly
fiber is not more than 10 square meters and the operation takes
less than an hour over the course of seven days.

Brian Gavranic, manager of Dandenong asbestos removalist Asbestos
Safe, said there was a widespread lack of awareness of asbestos
hazards.  He said he often received emergency calls from home
renovators who "just rip into it without knowing".

"There are plenty of tradesmen who are dodgy operators who don't
say anything about it."

He said homes or sheds built before the 1980s were a high danger,
most particularly in bathrooms, behind floors, ceilings and walls
around the shower.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement for Steel Scheme at Peru Plant Fails
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Dankert at NewsTribune reports that the contractor
demolishing the old Peru power plant on Water Street packed up and
left town because it went broke trying to squeeze salvageable
metal out of the structure.

At first blush it seems like a disaster for the city but
demolition and asbestos removal performed so far has cost the city
nothing and the entire project cost would have been about $1
million, said Mayor Scott Harl and the city's attorney, Doug
Schweickert.  To finish the job, the city will spend about
$100,000, Harl estimated.

Harl said the city would likely begin finishing the work this
year.

The contractor paid the city $100 to take ownership of the
property.  This arrangement shielded the city from liability and
unknown costs including asbestos removal, which cost contractors
$400,000, Schweickert said.  The contractor agreed to this because
of the large amount of marketable steel in the building.

Last year the city deeded the property to A-Unified LLC of
Cincinnati, Ohio.  A-Unified removed some metal items and hired a
company to remove asbestos, per state orders.  Asbestos removal
proceeded in fits and starts with weeks of inactivity.  "A-Unified
went broke after spending about $300,000-plus on asbestos
remediation," Schweickert said.

A-Unified assigned its contract to Global Construction, which
finished asbestos removal and began demolishing the structure
April 26.  Demolition proceeded rapidly this summer, a promising
sign after months of inactivity.

Global Construction spent another $100,000-plus to finish asbestos
removal, cleared up some of A-Unified's liens and also went broke,
prompting it to leave, Schweickert said.  "They did not estimate
correctly and with salvageable steel dropping from $400 to $300
they went broke also," Harl said.

Originally, contractors estimated the building contained 2,000
tons of salvageable steel, fetching $400 a ton.  The building gave
up less than 1,000 tons, Schweickert said.

With half the steel expected and with asbestos removal costing
$150,000 more than expected, it became a white elephant for both
contractors.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has already signed
off on asbestos removal.

Schweickert perceives no challenge to the city taking over the
property again.  The property is less attractive than it was two
years ago, when the city failed to find a buyer.  Alternatively, a
tax scavenger might take possession by paying unpaid property
taxes, Schweickert said.

The city planned to build a park once the land is cleared.  The
coal-fired electrical generating station closed 11 years ago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro, Mustard Gas Close Part of Horn Island
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi Press reports that Gulf Islands National Seashore
superintendent Dan Brown announced on Aug. 20 that part of Horn
Island is closed to the public effectively because of the
discovery of asbestos materials and possibly mustard gas,
according to a news release.

About 30 acres of Horn Island around an area known as "The
Chimney" will be closed indefinitely.

"We received confirmation on Aug. 16 that there are asbestos
materials on the ground on the northwestern shore of the island in
an area that contains the remains of a military facility that was
active in the 1940s," Brown said in the release.  "A preliminary
test also indicated the possible presence of a chemical agent
known commonly as mustard gas.  We are still awaiting confirmation
of that."

The military facility was active during World War II and was
decommissioned in the 1960s.

The National Park Service found broken asbestos tiles left from
the military test site and mustard gas in the sand, Brown and
others said at a press conference on Aug. 20 at the National Park
Service Visitors Center in Ocean Springs.

"Our highest priority right now is the safety of the public and
our employees," Brown said in the release.  "We are therefore
using an abundance of caution with the closure of the area around
the site.  Park Rangers are placing area closure signage around
the perimeter around the site, about 1,000 feet in all directions.

"Additionally, based on the initial records search that was done,
we have reason to believe that some containers of mustard gas may
have been deposited in the island's Big Lagoon.  We are therefore
closing the portion of the lagoon that we own and we are notifying
the owners of those nearby privately-owned tracts of the potential
hazard."

The news comes on a day with BP was sending crews back to the
barrier islands to resume oil spill cleanup.

"There are a lot of things about this situation we still don't
know since we just received confirmation on one substance," Brown
said of the asbestos finding.  "We are assembling a team of
experts from a variety of disciplines to help us with this
situation and as we continue this process we will do our best to
keep the public informed about what we find out and our plans for
cleanup."

In June, BP asked the National Park Service to provide a list of
potential chemical and biological hazards on Horn Island before
the company deployed their cleanup crews as part of the Deepwater
Horizon spill response.

The park service contracted with the environmental services firm
Barksdale and Associates to conduct preliminary site assessment
and inspection.  This inspection led to the discovery of the
contaminants.

The list of other potential contaminants came from the initial
review of the sites historical records and includes: botulinum
toxin, ricin, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides,
polychlorina ted biphenyls, dioxins and furans, as well as
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals like silver and
arsenic.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 200 of 302 Gloucestershire Schools Contaminated
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Gloucestershire reports that More than 70% of schools in
Gloucestershire are likely to contain asbestos, the BBC has
learned.

Figures obtained by a Freedom of Information request reveal more
than 200 of the 302 state schools in the county could contain the
material.

More than 140 teachers in the UK have died from the asbestos-
related cancer mesothelioma in the past 10 years.

The county council said asbestos in schools is not dangerous
"unless it is disturbed".

In response to the FOI request, Gloucestershire County Council
said: "It is likely that 70% plus of Gloucestershire County
Council schools contain asbestos of some type (including low risk
products).

"Many of our schools built before the year 2000 contain some form
of asbestos."

Head teacher of Katharine Lady Berkeley's School in Wotton-under-
Edge, Andrew Harris, called on the government to provide capital
funding for asbestos removal.

He said: "Because we don't have a specific grant for asbestos
removal then much of that is coming from our normal revenue
funding.

"It's money that, if we weren't spending it on removing asbestos,
then we could be spending it on teaching staff and learning
resources."

Mr. Harris said about GBP80,000 had been spent on the problem in
his school since 2005.

A spokesperson for Gloucestershire County Council said: "Everyone
knows that schools built in the 1960s and 1970s often have
asbestos in them.

"It doesn't pose a risk unless it is disturbed and we help schools
keep accurate records to make sure it is treated properly and
safely.

"Schools that have converted to academy status are responsible for
making their own individual arrangements for the identification
and management of any asbestos containing materials in their
buildings."

Last year, the Department for Education revealed that its "best
estimate" was that more than three-quarters of schools in the UK
contain asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACCC Issues Fibro Alert on Imported Car Gaskets
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is monitoring a
recall of approximately 23,000 Great Wall and Chery motor vehicles
with engine and exhaust gaskets containing asbestos.  The Chery J1
model and newly imported stock of both brands are unaffected by
the recall.

The asbestos is bound into gaskets in the engine and exhaust
system and does not present any risk to consumers during use of
the vehicle.  However, consumers should not perform do-it-yourself
maintenance that might disturb these gaskets.

ACCC deputy chair Delia Rickard said, "Asbestos is a prohibited
hazardous substance and these engines and exhaust systems should
only be worked on by qualified personnel using appropriate safety
procedures."

Ateco has:

     -- Instructed all Chery and Great Wall dealers to 'stop sale'
of affected vehicles;

     -- Recalled gaskets that were distributed as spare parts;

     -- Ensured all newly supplied cars and replacement gaskets
are asbestos-free;

     -- Arranged to directly advise car owners that gaskets should
be replaced by authorized mechanics when replacement is required;

     -- Arranged for warning stickers to be placed in the engine
bay of affected cars;

     -- Ensured that warnings and instructions for the safe
handling and disposal of gaskets are provided with all spare parts
that include an affected gasket; and

     -- Prepared a safety training video and other materials for
automotive repairers.

"The automotive service industry is experienced in managing this
risk, as cars sold in Australia before 2004 often had gaskets that
contained asbestos," Ms. Rickard said.  "However, consumers and
automotive repairers must be made aware that the risk may be
present in these much newer vehicles.  This is the focus of the
recall campaign."

"All affected consumers will be contacted directly by Great Wall
and Chery.  In addition, they will provide training, warning
stickers and safety advice to repairers.  The ACCC will monitor
the recall and Workplace Health and Safety Authorities will
monitor the workplace safety issues," Ms. Rickard said.

Customs and Border Protection officers detected asbestos in
imported spare parts, triggering a safety investigation also
involving the WorkCover Authority of NSW, the Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, the ACCC and the
supplier of the cars, Ateco Automotive Pty Ltd.

If car owners have concerns about the presence of affected gaskets
in their Great Wall cars they should contact customer service on
1-800-114672 and 1-800-359456 for advice about Chery vehicles, to
arrange for replacement of the affected gaskets.

The importation or use of asbestos has been prohibited in
Australia since 2004.  Consumers with other older vehicles are
therefore also advised to take precautions when performing do-it-
yourself maintenance that might disturb gaskets.  A work safety
guidance note is available from www.worksafe.vic.gov.au.

Consumers can find more details about this and other recalls at
http://www.recalls.gov.au


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia Did Not Initiate Full Recall
-------------------------------------------------------
Ben Timmins of the Automobile Magazine reports that the Australian
government's Competition and Consumer Commission has issued an
alert that said government customs officers found asbestos in some
spare parts for Great Wall and Chery cars imported from China,
which triggered an investigation.  The results were a bit strange:
it found that about 23,000 Chinese imported cars, including Great
Wall and Chery branded ones, had engine and exhaust gaskets that
contain asbestos.

What happens next might be a bit unfamiliar to Americans: the
Australian government issued an alert but did not initiate a full
recall.  The supplier instructed the manufacturers to stop selling
all affected vehicles, and will recall and replace all spare parts
with asbestos-free ones, but owners of affected cars will not be
instructed to replace the affected parts.  If an owner demands the
removal of the parts, or a part goes bad and must be replaced,
it'll be replaced by an asbestos-free gasket.  Otherwise,
Australians will drive their Great Wall and Chery vehicles around
as normal.

The Australian government also instructed owners of those Great
Wall and Chery cars who would otherwise perform repairs themselves
to send their cars to a certified mechanic for replacement of
those gaskets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ICR Moves for Reimbursement of Attorneys Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reports the railroad that won a
fraud case against a pair of Mississippi asbestos attorneys is
trying to make sure it doesn't lose any more money on it.

Earlier this month, Illinois Central Railroad filed a motion for
attorneys fees it incurred fighting the appeal of William Guy and
Thomas Brock.  The company alleged the two attorneys defrauded the
company out of $210,000 in settlements, and the U.S Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently upheld a jury's verdict
against the attorneys.

Unfortunately for the railroad, U.S. District Judge David
Bramlette ruled in January 2011 that the fees request of more than
$1 million was unreasonable.  Now, the company is asking for the
$90,000 it spent during the appeal to be reimbursed.

"(T)he Fifth Circuit appeal involved complex jurisdictional
issues, never-before-raised issues and documents, hundreds and
hundreds of pages of briefing, trial testimony, documents,
exhibits and oral argument in Houston," the motion says.

"Illinois Central successfully defended the underlying judgment
and attorney fee award and should be awarded its fees for doing
so."

Bramlette has awarded $547,500 in attorney's fees to Illinois
Central, which says it spent $1,075,869.80 in fees, court costs
and online research.  Illinois Central recovered $588,822.96 in
the Jan. 25, 2011, order, as well as $420,000 from a jury award in
2010.

Bramlette called the company's original fees request
"extraordinarily high" and said the company knew the case could
result in only $210,000 in compensatory damages.

When Bramlette's award was applied to its legal bills, Illinois
Central still owed Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy more than
$487,000.  If the company used the $420,000 from the jury verdict,
it was still $67,000 in the hole on the case -- assuming the law
firm did not amend its bill after Bramlett.

Illinois Central's complaints alleged the company would not have
been obligated to pay $210,000 in settlements had it known that
Willie Harried joined a mass action titled Cosey in 1995 and
Warren Turner joined in 1996.

Harried and Turner both filed suit against Illinois Central in
2001.  The company's complaints say the attorneys knew their
clients had taken part in the mass action and failed to disclose
it.

Bramlette wrote that Illinois Central used the fraud lawsuit to
investigate any other potential wrongdoing by Guy and Brock.  He
added that even though the litigation was somewhat complicated,
the attorneys fees did not reflect the complexity of the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Framingham Files Lawsuit Against SB General
------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Ameden of The MetroWest Daily News reports Framingham is
under investigation for environmental violations and is suing a
Walpole contractor after contaminated fill the firm dug up in
Framingham ended up in a Milford resident's backyard.

In turn, Purchase Street property owner Lillian Rowe of Milford
and her son William Rowe, facing an estimated $900,000 bill to get
rid of the mound of soil containing asbestos, are threatening to
take Framingham to court.

Framingham is demanding SB General Contracting Inc. of Walpole, a
company the town hired to replace old concrete sewer and water
pipes in the Tech Park, take responsibility.

The town of Framingham filed suit July 30 and at the town's
request, a judge has already frozen the company's bank account.

In Milford, meanwhile, the Rowes are under a unilateral
administrative order from the state Department of Environmental
Protection to get rid of the contaminated fill, according to a
complaint Framingham filed in Middlesex Superior Court.

The family's attorney, Alexander Matulewicz, on Monday said
Framingham's lawsuit represents "the spill-off" of his quest to
hold the right parties responsible.

Matulewicz said the DEP, the state Attorney General's Office and
the Environmental Strike Force are involved, and William Rowe
recently testified on the matter before a grand jury.

SB's subcontractor Mark Manoogian of CJM Construction assured
William Rowe the soil was "clean" before that company and/or Ed
Brown Trucking dumped it on the family's land in Milford,
according to Framingham's complaint.

Tipped off by noisy "midnight dumping" in the summer of 2010,
curious neighbors of the Rowes followed dump trucks back to New
York Avenue in the Framingham Technology Park, where SB was
working, Matulewicz said.  The neighbors took photos and called
DEP.

"Eventually the DEP got a warrant, went on the Rowes' property and
found out there was asbestos pipe within the fill," he said.

As a result, the state is investigating whether Framingham, as the
project owner, violated the Clean Air Act and the Solid Waste
Management Act, according to the complaint the town filed in
Superior Court.

The AG's office is "actively investigating" the matter,
spokeswoman Jillian Fennimore said Monday, Aug. 20.

Framingham alleges breach of contract, fraudulent
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and six other
claims against SB.

The town cites the terms of a contract the company signed to make
infrastructure improvements on New York and California avenues,
requiring that it properly identify and dispose of asbestos cement
pipe and material containing asbestos.

Town Counsel Chris Petrini said there's no way Framingham
residents are on the hook for what happened.

"The ratepayers had nothing to do with this," Petrini said.

The town is seeking $945,000, plus fees, from SB, which represents
the estimated cost of cleanup and the town's attorney fees to
date.

The town filed suit after the Rowes twice wrote to the town of
Framingham, in April and June, demanding it take responsibility
for the damages.

SB first refused the town's request for defense and indemnity, in
May, then failed to respond to a repeated request, according to
the complaint.

The case is starting to play out as an earlier, unrelated tiff
between the town and company, filed in 2011, is pending in
Superior Court.

That dispute centers around Framingham allegedly failing to pay SB
for a change order after crews ran into problems with underground
rock.

SB's attorney Guy Carbone on Aug. 20m declined to comment on the
contaminated soil case, although he said Framingham knew about
that problem 11 months before selectmen this past March approved a
$162,500 settlement for the change order pay case.

Petrini, however, said Framingham never paid out the settlement.
The deal was never consummated, he said, because the sides
couldn't agree to terms of a release of any future claims.

In a May 4 letter, Carbone rejected the town's demand for SB to
take responsibility for the contamination, arguing the town's
claim for defense and indemnity was barred by the settlement
agreement.

"It's not a winning argument, in my opinion," Petrini said.

Carbone said he expects to soon file an answer to Framingham's
complaint and a counterclaim.

The town, meanwhile, replied to the Rowes, Petrini said.  "We
raised certain questions to them," he said.

Matulewicz said he hired investigator Amy Strand to research a
report and is pursuing financial relief for his clients under the
state's 21E statute.  That law allows private individuals to sue
parties responsible for contamination of hazardous materials.

Matulewicz said he is following the process to notify all the
parties involved.  He hopes to bring them to the table and reach a
settlement.  "We're looking for justice," he said.

Matulewicz said William Rowe was doing a "favor for a neighbor" by
agreeing to store the fill for Manoogian and now has a mess on his
hands.

By DEP order, the contaminated soil is now covered securely with
plastic until it can be removed.

Rowe's elderly mother, Lillian, had no idea what was going on,
Matulewicz said.

"There's no more innocent person in the world than Lillian Rowe,"
he said.  "We want to avoid protected multiparty litigation
because I have a 94-year-old client.  I want to solve this case
before she dies.  I want to give her some solace in her old age."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms In Spodden Valley Scheme No Longer Exist
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Hinchliffe of Rochdale Online reports that Save Spodden
Valley campaigner Jason Addy has said the group has identified the
fact that several companies involved in the controversial
destruction of woodland around the former Turner & Newall asbestos
factory in 2004 are no longer on the Companies House register, or
have been subject to winding-up procedures.

These include Treelink Ltd who felled several acres of woodland on
the site in 2004.  According to Mr. Addy, this company dissolved
in September 2008.

Mr. Addy has also found that the specialist remediation company
that wrote reports supporting the unsuccessful 2004 planning
application, Encia Consulting Ltd, dissolved in July 2010.

Once off the official Companies House register, companies cease to
exist as legal entities and any litigation becomes extremely
difficult.

It has also just been announced that planning consultants DPP has
also gone into administration.

As reported extensively by Rochdale Online, DPP was the company
that drafted the 2004 Environmental Statement to support the
building of over 600 homes and a children's nursery on the former
asbestos factory site.

Controversy was sparked by paragraph 5.30 of the report that
stated: ". . . of particular note is the absence of any asbestos
contamination."

However in 2006 an independent report commissioned by Rochdale
Council confirmed gross site contamination with waste asbestos
deposits over 4 meters in thickness in parts of the site.

Mr. Addy has researched the implications of past activities around
asbestos factory sites and has recently reported his findings to
the Parliamentary All Party Asbestos subcommittee.  He told
Rochdale Online: "The concerns raised by local people about the
former Turners' asbestos site since 2004 were proven to be
absolutely correct.

"In the sorry saga of the past 8 years it seems that paid experts
acting for property developers can disappear, so what safeguards
and guarantees do their past confident assurances have if their
limited liability companies are wound up?

"For the sake of those workers and local people who could have
been exposed to asbestos as a result of past activity, it is
important to ensure there is a record of the relevant public and
employers liability insurance policies.  I hope and pray they are
never needed but it would be the ultimate injustice if this
information is lost.

"As for the future of the Spodden Valley -- the watchwords must be
precaution and prevention.  There must be full accountability to
ensure the whole site is made permanently safe for the people of
Rochdale."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con-Partners Plead Guilty to H&S Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
The Safety & Health Practitioner Online reports two men have
admitted falsifying a record stating that a school in Oxfordshire
had been properly cleaned of asbestos.

Maylarch Environmental Ltd was contracted to clear asbestos, which
had been disturbed during the removal of a boiler at Our Lady's
Abingdon School.  The company carried out licensed asbestos work
at the school between July 21 and 25, 2010.

Environmental consultants Tersus Ltd had been contracted to
provide a final independent assessment of the clean-up.  On 25
July 2010, Ricky Gray arranged to meet Maylarch Environmental
employee David Gray to complete the assessment.  The two men
signed a report stating the work had been suitably completed.

The following day, an engineer visited the school to install a new
boiler and became concerned that asbestos was still present.  He
immediately contacted the HSE and an investigation was launched.

The HSE learned that both Tersus and Maylarch Environmental
believed the site had been made safe after they received the
report.  Tersus launched its own investigation and used GPS
tracking on Ricky Gray's van.  The tracker showed the vehicle had
been driven to a service station on the M40 and then back to his
home address, proving he hasn't visited the school.

He later admitted he had met David Gray and together they had
fabricated the clearance report to make it look as though the
assessment had been carried out.

Ricky Gray and David Gray appeared at Oxfordshire Magistrates'
Court on Aug. 17 and both pleaded guilty to breaching Section 7 of
the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.  Ricky was fined GBP4000
and GBP1000 in costs; David was fined GBP1000 and ordered to pay
GBP250 in costs.

In mitigation, both accepted they had done wrong and said they
regretted their actions.  Neither have any previous safety
convictions and they no longer work for the companies they
represented.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Andrew Moore said: "This was an
unusual fraud, the first of its type that I am aware of.  It was
only detected thanks to Mr. Benfield's [the engineer who visited
the school on July 26] knowledge and perseverance, and the use of
GPS technology.

"It was also a serious fraud, as it may have exposed other workers
coming on to the school site to the very real dangers of
inhalation of asbestos fibers.

"I can only have an educated guess at what motivated these two to
collude in this fashion."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mary Morrisson School Abatement Nears Completion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Straszheim of The Groton Patch reports that Groton's Mary
Morrisson Elementary School, where workers emptied all of the
furniture to remove and replaces asbestos floor tile from 19
classrooms, seven storage areas, three offices and the gymnasium,
is nearly completed.

The job was finished on Aug. 15, and staff were back putting
together classrooms Aug. 20.

Groton hired HazPros, Inc., an environmental and construction firm
from West Hartford to remove the asbestos tile at the end of the
last school year, then replace it over the summer, Groton School
Facilities Director Wes Greenleaf said.

The project had a budget of $250,000 and came in about $30,000
over budget, because concrete floors had to be leveled after tile
and glue was removed, Greenleaf said.

The school department is expected to seek a supplemental
appropriation from the Town Council and Representative Town
Meeting to cover the additional cost.

Staff has began moving furniture back in the classrooms, and
teachers were busy setting up for the coming school year.

"It's all going to come out fine at the end," said fifth grade
teacher Christiana Donnel.  "It always does."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSWI States Abatement Advice Is Free of Charge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manx Radio reports there's no charge for advice about asbestos
removal in the Isle of Man.

That assurance comes from the Head of the Health and Safety at
Work Inspectorate (HSWI) following a claim on Manx Radio's Talking
Heads program that getting guidance was a "money making racket."

Bernard Warden says they usually get two to three queries a week
about the safe removal of asbestos, and this is always provided
for free.

He says the Island's two contractors who are licensed to remove
the potentially dangerous substance do charge, but in some cases
following specialized advice people may be able to get rid of it
themselves.

Mr. Warden stresses that people should always contact them in the
first instance on 686247.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEM Inspector Stops Crown Point Demolition
------------------------------------------------------------
Post-Tribune's Kitty Conley reports that on Friday, Aug. 17, Letty
Zepeda, Northern Regional Inspector for the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management, put a stop to all activity regarding the
demolition of three buildings where the Crown Point Library wants
to build a parking lot.

She explained that since these buildings are zoned B-2, they are
businesses, and come under the authority of IDEM.

According to Deputy Fire Chief Mark Baumgardner, Sr., when Zepeda
talked to him she told him that until they know that there is no
asbestos the building should be secured.

The federal Environment Protection Agency is the authority that
regulates and sets the rules on the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants.

The information that has been brought to light by Zepeda is that
on March 5, 2012, Amereco, Inc., did a pre-demolition asbestos
survey.  Its conclusion five months ago, which still stands, is:

"Based on the results of the Pre-Demolition Asbestos Survey,
abatement is required for the exterior window glazing, transite
siding, transite paneling, pipe wrap, and duct wrap insulation per
local, state and federal rules and regulations.  Additionally, by
advised Category 1 Non-Friable asbestos containing materials were
identified.

"Amereco made a diligent effort to inspect all areas of the
buildings that may contain asbestos.  However, demolition
activities may uncover suspect AMCs that were previously
inaccessible."

At the present time there is no fence around the three buildings,
but there are still windows and doors.

The property is owned by the Crown Point Community Library.

On Aug. 17, Zepeda thought that the Library Board should be happy
that they were stalled on the demolition.  Had demolition
proceeded, she would have given them a $25,000 fine.  Those fines
usually are per structure, and there are three structures on this
site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA to Clean Up Stratford Subterranean Pool
------------------------------------------------------------
Ctpost.com reports that news that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is moving forward with a proposal to clean up a
500-acre subterranean pool of contaminated water in Stratford is
certainly good.

The trick now is for town officials to keep the heat on the
agency.

This is a project that is long overdue and one that should move
ahead as quickly as possible.

After all, this water is under some 100 homes and releases toxic
gas that, under some circumstances, can seep into the homes and,
if trapped between walls and ceilings, can concentrate and be
potentially hazardous to breathe.

The underground pool is but part of the decades-old Raymark
Superfund site, which is spread around the town, the result of
Raymark Industries' dumping of asbestos, carcinogens and other
hazardous chemicals on hundreds of properties in town during most
of the 20th century.

The EPA is set to report this autumn on potential ways to clean up
the groundwater.  Then residents and town officials will have an
opportunity to share their thoughts.

Needless to say, officials have to plan for a suitable period
between release of the report and any hearing so that anyone
interested can digest and understand the options.

It has been 20 years since the EPA first built a temporary cap on
a portion of the site known as Raybestos Memorial Field and the
following year, 1993, according to the EPA description of this
Superfund site, the agency began to excavate contaminated waste
and soil from 46 residential properties.

Through the '90s both the EPA, Raymark and the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection continued to pick away at
this extensive problem, including the removal of thousands of one-
cubic-yard bags of asbestos from the Raymark facility at 75 East
Main St., a site that has since been capped and is home to a
shopping center.

Naturally this sort of work can't be done over night, and it may
be considered reasonable in some quarters that 20 years on the
work is still under way.

Milestones in this project come infrequently.  This is one of
them. Officials at all levels, the Raymark Advisory Committee and
SaveStratford, another citizen group, need to put their shoulders
to the wheel and keep this cleanup moving along.


                           *********

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  * * *