CAR_Public/120907.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, September 7, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 178

                             Headlines

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Claims in Securities Suit Dismissed
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Acquisition-Related Class Suits
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: "Howell" Class Suit Stayed Indefinitely
BEAZER HOMES: Awaits Approval of Chinese Drywall Suit Settlement
BEST BUY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Annual Fee Class Action

BLUFF CITY, AZ: Judge Dismisses $6-Mil.Speed Camera Class Action
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Class in Antitrust Suit Certified in June
COHEN DEVELOPMENT: Sued Over Procedure for Co. Share Acquisition
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Sues Class Action Lead Plaintiffs
CUTTING EDGE: Recalls Shake'Ems With Undeclared Milk and Red 40

CYNOSURE INC: Ari Weitzner Files New Class Action Suit in N.Y.
DAVITA INC: Accounting Hearing in Suit vs. Unit Set for This Fall
DAVITA INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Wage and Hour Suit Pending
DISH NETWORK: Call Center Workers File Overtime Class Action
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Membership Suit Class Cert. Denial Bid Pending

EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Settlement of Unpaid Wages Suits Approved
EXPEDIA INC: Faces Class Action for Room Reservation Price-Fixing
FLORIDA: ACLU Files Suit Over Gov. Scott's Welfare Drug Test Law
FOOD LION: Removes Daniella Brand Mangoes from Store Shelves
GHILOTTI BROS: Accused of Denying Laborers Lunch & Rest Breaks

GRUNENTHAL: Issues First Apology to Thalidomide Victims
HACHETTE BOOK: Settles eBook Price-Fixing Class Action
HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Says
JP MORGAN: Louisiana's Police Pension Fund File Class Action
KENNETH COLE: To Seek Dismissal of Acquisition-Related Suit

L'OREAL USA: Sued for Misleading Labels in Matrix Products
LEGOLAND DISCOVERY: Sued in Texas for Misclassifying Workers
LIBERMAN BROADCASTING: Class Action to Proceed to Arbitration
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Policyholders File Class Action
NAT'L AUSTRALIA: Shareholders Urged to Join US Class Action

NAT'L AUSTRALIA: APRA to Dispute Bid to Divulge Meeting Records
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Being Sold to AT&T for Too Little, Suit Says
PANTRY INC: Potential Plaintiff in Two Consolidated Class Suits
PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Dismisses Claims in Suit vs. Education Dept.
PRIDE BAKERIES: Faces Overtime Class Action in California

SMARTHEAT: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over CEO Stake Sale
SMITH MICRO: Awaits OK of Stipulation to Dismiss Securities Suit
STATE STREET: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over FOREX Services
STATE STREET: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits in Mass.
STATE STREET: Defends Investors' ERISA Class Action Suit

STATE STREET: Defends Suit Over Investment Servicing Business
STEWART INFORMATION: Still Defends Antitrust Class Action Suits
TENAHA COUNTY, TX: ACLU Settles Racial Profiling Class Action
UNITED STATES: 19 Robeson County Farmers Get Settlement Money
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Approval of Purchasers' Suit Deal

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Class Suit in British Columbia
WALT DISNEY: 11th Circuit Upholds Class Action Settlement

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Faced 26 PI Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Continues to Defend Asbestosis Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Still Has Exposure to Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Liable for Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Continues to Defend Insurer Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPL Continues to Defend 30 Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Had $393.9MM Net Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rowan Companies Continues to Defend 21 Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had $41.8M Liability at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Asbestos Liability Still at $1.7BB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kids From Aussie Mining Town Developing Cancers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McLean Judge Vacates Portion of $90MM Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groups to Pursue Efforts Against Jeffrey Mine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Appeals Court Flips $17.8MM Verdict

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BC Cancer Agency Wants Detection Improved
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean-up at Washington School to Continue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal at Hubble School Property Begins Monday
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Meso Conference in Boston on Sept. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DIY Home Renovators Urged to Be Wary

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workplace Relations Minister Sees More ARD Deaths
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lab Test Can Confirm Fibro Presence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Legal Action v. Aussie State Government Possible
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheffield Resident Fears of Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mining Town Residents May Not Be Aware of Danger

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Larimer City to Cover Cleanup Cost of Burned Home
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Demolition at Danvers High School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia to Set Up Agency to Oversee Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crew Removed Ceiling Coating With Asbestos


                          *********



AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Claims in Securities Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachusetts court dismissed "Securities Act" claims in the
consolidated class action lawsuit against American Superconductor
Corporation and its officers in July 2012, according to the
Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Between April 6, 2011, and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts; one complaint additionally asserted claims
against the underwriters who participated in the Company's
November 12, 2010 securities offering.  On June 7, 2011, the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
consolidated these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American
Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.
On August 31, 2011, Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint
against the Company, its officers and directors, and the
underwriters who participated in the Company's  November 12, 2010
securities offering, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), as well as under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").  The complaint
alleges that during the relevant class period, the Company and its
officers omitted to state material facts and made materially false
and misleading statements relating to, among other things, its
projected and recognized revenues and earnings, as well as its
relationship with Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. that artificially
inflated the value of the Company's stock price.  The complaint
further alleges that the Company's November 12, 2010 securities
offering contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted
to state material facts required to be stated therein.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescindment of the Company's
November 12, 2010 securities offering, and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees.  All defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  On December 16, 2011,
the district court issued a summary order declining to dismiss the
Securities Act claims against the Company and its officers, and
taking under advisement the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act
claims against the Company and its officers and the motion to
dismiss the Securities Act claims made against the underwriters.

On July 26, 2012, the district court dismissed the Exchange Act
claims against the Company and its officers and denied the motion
to dismiss the Securities Act claims made against the
underwriters.

With respect to the litigation, the Company says an estimate of
loss or range of loss cannot be made.  There are numerous factors
that make it difficult to meaningfully estimate possible loss or
range of loss at this stage of the litigation, including that: the
proceeding is in relatively early stage, there are significant
factual and legal issues to be resolved, information obtained or
rulings made during the lawsuit could affect the methodology for
calculation of rescission and the related statutory interest rate.
In addition, with respect to claims where damages are the
requested relief, no amount of loss or damages has been specified.
Therefore, the Company is unable at this time to estimate possible
losses.  The Company believes that the litigation is without
merit, and it intends to defend the action vigorously.  Therefore,
no adjustment has been made to the financial statements to reflect
the outcome of these uncertainties.


AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Acquisition-Related Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is facing numerous stockholder class
action lawsuits arising from its proposed acquisition by Bristol-
Myers Squibb Company, according to the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 29, 2012, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, or BMS, and Amylin
announced that BMS will acquire Amylin, pursuant to which a
subsidiary of BMS, or the Merger Sub, has initiated a tender offer
to purchase all the Company's outstanding shares of common stock
at a price of $31.00 per share in cash, pursuant to a cash tender
offer and second step merger, or an aggregate purchase price of
approximately $5.3 billion.  The total value of the transaction,
including Amylin's net debt and a contractual payment obligation
to Eli Lilly & Company, or Lilly, together totaling about $1.7
billion, is approximately $7 billion.  The acquisition has been
unanimously approved by the boards of directors of BMS and Amylin.
The board of directors of Amylin has unanimously recommended that
Amylin's stockholders tender their shares into the tender offer.

On July 3, 2012, a putative stockholder class action complaint was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Phillips v. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 7673.  The
complaint names as defendants the Company, certain officers and
directors of the Board (the "Individual Defendants"), Bristol-
Myers Squibb and Merger Sub.  The complaint asserts two causes of
action: breach of fiduciary duty against the Individual Defendants
and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against
Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merger Sub.  The complaint includes
allegations that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing the Company to enter into the Merger
Agreement, by agreeing to sell the Company at an inadequate price,
by failing to maximize the value of the Company and by agreeing to
preclusive deal protection devices that unduly restrict the
ability of other potential acquirers to bid successfully for the
Company.  Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting consummation
of the proposed transaction, rescission and rescissory damages (to
the extent the proposed transaction has already been consummated),
and fees and costs associated with prosecuting the action.

On July 3, 2012, a putative stockholder class action complaint was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Diego, captioned Peterson v. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Case No. 37-2012- 00100092-CU-BT-CTL.  The complaint names as
defendants the Company, the Individual Defendants, Bristol-Myers
Squibb, Merger Sub and Does 1-25.  The complaint asserts three
causes of action: breach of fiduciary duty against the Individual
Defendants and Does 1-15, aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty against the Company, and aiding and abetting a
breach of fiduciary duty against Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merger Sub
and Does 16-25.  The complaint includes allegations that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing
the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement, by agreeing to
sell the Company at an inadequate price, by failing to maximize
the value of the Company and by agreeing to preclusive deal
protection devices that unduly restrict the ability of other
potential acquirers to bid successfully for the Company.
Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction prohibiting
consummation of the proposed transaction, rescission and
rescissory damages (to the extent the proposed transaction has
already been consummated), imposition of a constructive trust, and
fees and costs associated with prosecuting the action.

On July 9, 2012, a putative stockholder class action complaint was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Halberstam v. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 7682.  The
complaint names as defendants the Company, the Individual
Defendants, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merger Sub.  The complaint
asserts two causes of action: breach of fiduciary duty against the
Individual Defendants and aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty against Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merger Sub.  The
complaint includes allegations that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by causing the Company to enter
into the Merger Agreement, by agreeing to sell the Company at an
inadequate price, by failing to maximize the value of the Company
and by agreeing to preclusive deal protection devices that unduly
restrict the ability of other potential acquirors to bid
successfully for the Company.  Plaintiff seeks an injunction
prohibiting consummation of the proposed transaction, rescission
or actual and punitive damages (to the extent the proposed
transaction has already been consummated), and fees and expenses
in connection with the litigation.  On
July 10, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice and proposed order of
voluntary dismissal of the action.  On July 20, 2012, the Court of
Chancery granted the plaintiff's order of voluntary dismissal and
the action was formally dismissed.

On July 10, 2012, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
captioned Solak v. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 7684.
On July 12, 2012, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
captioned Jurko v. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 7695.
Each complaint names as defendants the Company, the Individual
Defendants, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merger Sub, and each
complaint was subsequently consolidated.

On July 10, 2012, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
approved a stipulated order of class certification and case
management, which certified a conditional class in the case
captioned Phillips v. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 7673-
CS (the "Delaware Action") and named Maxine Phillips as lead
plaintiff for the class (the "Lead Plaintiff").  The terms of the
order provide that it shall apply to each case subsequently filed
in the Court of Chancery or transferred to the Court of Chancery
that relate substantially to the same matter as the Delaware
Action and that the Lead Plaintiff shall promptly seek to have any
such case consolidated with the Delaware Action.  The parties to
the Delaware Action have agreed to expedited discovery and a
preliminary injunction hearing has been scheduled for August 6,
2012.

On July 12, 2012, attorneys for the Lead Plaintiff filed a
verified amended class action complaint in connection with the
Delaware Action (the "Amended Complaint").  The Amended Complaint
names as defendants the Company, the Individual Defendants, the
Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merger Sub.  The Amended Complaint
alleges generally that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the purported breaches of such fiduciary duties.  The
Amended Complaint includes allegations that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take
steps to maximize the value of Amylin to its public shareholders.
The relief sought includes an injunction, rescission (to the
extent the proposed transaction has already been consummated) or
rescissory damages, exclusion of certain shares from any vote in
favor of the proposed transaction, and costs and disbursements,
including attorneys' and experts' fees.  The description in this
paragraph is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Amended
Complaint filed as Exhibit (a)(5)(H).

On July 17, 2012, the court entered an order consolidating three
of the purported stockholder class action complaints filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Phillips v.
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 7673, Solak v.
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 7684, and Jurko v.
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 7695.  The
consolidated case is captioned In re Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, Case No. 7673-CS (the "Consolidated
Delaware Action"), and the Amended Complaint is designated as the
operative complaint.

On July 10, 2012, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, captioned Warnock v. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No.
37-2012-00100410-CU-SL-CTL.  The complaint names as defendants,
the Company, the Individual Defendants, Bristol-Myers Squibb and
Merger Sub.  The complaint alleges generally that the Individual
Defendants have violated fiduciary duties owed to public
shareholders of the Company, have failed to obtain for such
shareholders the highest value available for the Company and have
failed to take steps to maximize the value of the Company in a
change of control transaction.  The complaint alleges that
Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merger Sub and the Company have participated
in the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty and have
aided and abetted the wrongdoing alleged therein.  The relief
sought includes an injunction enjoining the defendants from
consummating the proposed transaction, rescission or the award of
rescissory damages (in the event that the proposed transaction is
consummated), compensatory damages, and the award of the costs and
disbursements of the action, including attorneys' and experts'
fees.

On July 20, 2012, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Southern
District of California, captioned Halberstam v. Amylin
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2CV1787 LAB JMA.  The complaint
names as defendants the Company, the Individual Defendants,
Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merger Sub.  The complaint alleges
generally that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under Delaware state law and that the Individual
Defendants, Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the purported breaches of such fiduciary duties.  The
complaint also alleges that the Individual Defendants and the
Company violated Sections 14(d) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and
the rules promulgated thereunder and that the Individual
Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and the
rules promulgated thereunder.  The complaint includes allegations
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
contractually preventing a higher offer from other interested
buyers and attempting to unfairly deprive stockholders of the
value of their investment in the Company and by disseminating
materially false and misleading statements in connection with the
Offer.  The relief sought includes declaratory judgment, an
injunction prohibiting consummation of the proposed transaction,
rescission (in the event the proposed transaction has already been
consummated), or actual, rescissory, and/or punitive damages,
compensatory damages, including pre-judgment and postjudgment
interest, and fees, costs and expenses, including attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses.

On July 20, 2012, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Southern
District of California, captioned Doucet v. Amylin
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 12CV1807WQH JMA.  The complaint
names as defendants the Company, the Individual Defendants,
Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merger Sub.  The complaint alleges
generally that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and that the Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the purported breaches of such fiduciary duties.
The complaint also alleges that the Individual Defendants and the
Company violated Sections 14(d)(4) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act
and the rules promulgated thereunder.  The complaint includes
allegations that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to take steps to maximize the value of
the Company to its public shareholders and taking steps to avoid
competitive bidding, failing to properly value the Company and
ignoring or not protecting against the Individual Defendants'
conflicts of interests.  The complaint further alleges that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties through
materially inadequate disclosures and material disclosure
omissions.  The relief sought includes declaratory judgment, an
injunction prohibiting consummation of the proposed transaction,
rescission or an award of rescissory damage (in the event the
proposed transaction has already been consummated), and an award
of costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.

On July 26, 2012, plaintiffs in the California Federal Actions
filed a joint Ex Parte Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and
Expedited Discovery (the "Joint Motion").  On July 27, 2012, the
parties in the Consolidated Delaware Action executed the MOU and
agreed to settle all claims in exchange for the Supplemental
Disclosures that were filed with the SEC that same day.  On
July 30, 2012, Defendants file a Motion to Stay the California
Federal Actions.  On July 30, 2012, after reviewing the
Supplemental Disclosures, the plaintiffs in the California Federal
Actions withdrew the Joint Motion.

Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://amylin.com/-- a
biopharmaceutical company, engages in the discovery, development,
and commercialization of drug candidates for the treatment of
diabetes, obesity, and other diseases.  The company was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: "Howell" Class Suit Stayed Indefinitely
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties agreed to stay indefinitely the class action lawsuit
captioned Duane Howell v. Paulo F. Costa, et al., according to
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

On April 4, 2012, a putative Amylin stockholder filed a derivative
and putative class action titled Duane Howell v. Paulo F. Costa et
al., Case No. 37-2012-00095130, in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Diego ("San Diego Class
Action") against the Company and the Company's Board of Directors
(the "Board").  The complaint alleges that the Board breached its
fiduciary duties in connection with its response to an offer to
acquire the Company.  The complaint seeks, among other things, a
declaration that the Board breached its fiduciary duties, the
establishment of a committee of independent directors or third
party to evaluate strategic alternatives and potential offers for
the Company, a prohibition of the directors from entering into
certain contractual provisions that could harm the Company or its
stockholders and an invalidation of the Company's shareholder
rights plan.  On May 1, 2012, the parties entered into a joint
stipulation staying the San Diego Class Action indefinitely.

Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://amylin.com/-- a
biopharmaceutical company, engages in the discovery, development,
and commercialization of drug candidates for the treatment of
diabetes, obesity, and other diseases.  The company was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


BEAZER HOMES: Awaits Approval of Chinese Drywall Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a global
settlement of a multidistrict litigation over defective Chinese
drywall, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 3, 2009, Beazer Homes Corp. was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Lee
County, State of Florida, filed by Bryson and Kimberly Royal, the
owners of one of the Company's homes in its Magnolia Lakes'
community in Ft. Myers, Florida.  The complaint names the Company
and certain distributors and suppliers of drywall and was on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated owners
of homes in Magnolia Lakes or alternatively in the State of
Florida.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company built their homes
with defective drywall, manufactured in China that contains sulfur
compounds that allegedly corrode certain metals and that are
allegedly capable of harming the health of individuals.
Plaintiffs allege physical and economic damages and seek legal and
equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's fees.  This
case has been transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana
pursuant to an order from the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.  In addition, the Company has been named
in other multi-plaintiff complaints filed in the multidistrict
litigation and individual state court actions.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in these actions are
governed by home warranties or are without merit.  Accordingly,
the Company intends to vigorously defend against these actions.
The Company has offered to repair all of these homes pursuant to a
repair protocol that has been adopted by the multidistrict
litigation court, including those homes involved in litigation.
To date, the owners of all but two of the affected homes have
accepted the Company's offer to repair.  Furthermore, the Company
has agreed to participate in a global class settlement with the
plaintiff class counsel and numerous other defendants in the
multidistrict litigation, which if approved by the Court, would
resolve all claims, including future claims, against Beazer
related to Chinese drywall, except those by persons or entities
that opt out of the settlement.  To the extent necessary, the
Company intends to vigorously defend against those opt out
actions.  The Company also continues to pursue recovery against
responsible subcontractors, drywall suppliers and drywall
manufacturers for its repair costs.

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

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- is a
homebuilder headquartered in Atlanta.  The Company's ongoing
operations are geographically diversified in 16 states across the
country, and its high performance homes, called eSMART, are
designed to appeal to homebuyers at various price points across
various demographic segments.


BEST BUY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Annual Fee Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that Best Buy should
not have to face claims that it concealed an annual fee to drive
membership in its credit card rewards program, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled.

The federal appeals court in Pasadena affirmed dismissal of a
proposed class action against the consumer-electronics retailer
and HSBC Bank Nevada.

The 2009 complaint claimed that Best Buy and the bank had failed
to properly disclose a $59 annual fee in advertisements and
applications for the Reward Zone Program MasterCard.

Though lead plaintiff Gary Davis could have canceled the card to
the avoid the fee, he instead refused to activate it and continued
to pay the annual fee for five years.

U.S. District Judge George King dismissed the Los Angeles case,
and a three-judge appeals panel unanimously affirmed on Aug. 31.

Neither Best Buy's online application nor its advertisements
violated federal disclosure laws, according to the ruling.
Furthermore, whatever alleged harm Mr. Davis suffered could have
been easily avoided.

"The advertisement contained the disclaimer, 'other restrictions
may apply,' which would have motivated a reasonable consumer to
consult the terms and conditions," Judge Dorothy Nelson wrote for
the court.  "If that were not enough, the online application used
boldface and oversized font to alert Davis to the Important Terms
& Disclosure Statement, instructing him to 'read the notice below
carefully.'  The disclaimer and the terms and conditions were
enough to give a reasonable consumer 'reason to anticipate' the
possibility of fees.  Additionally, the fact that Davis was
required to check the box indicating his assent before completing
the application meant that he could have aborted his application
upon reading the terms and conditions.  This provided 'the means
to avoid' the alleged harm."

Mr. Davis could even have received a refund of the annual fee if
he canceled the card within 90 days.

"Because Davis failed to read the terms and conditions before
agreeing to them, and because he refused to cancel his card within
90 days, even when viewing the facts in Davis's favor, we must
conclude that any harm he suffered was the product of his own
behavior, not the advertisements," Judge Nelson wrote.

A copy of the Opinion in Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., et al.,
No. 10-56488 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/cYyu76


BLUFF CITY, AZ: Judge Dismisses $6-Mil.Speed Camera Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Lane, writing for Timesnews.net, reports that a federal
judge has dismissed a $6 million class action lawsuit filed
against Bluff City, its mayor and an Arizona-based traffic camera
company regarding tickets issued from two speed-enforcement
cameras on Highway 11-E.

Motorists Chris Cawood and Jonathan Kelly Proffitt filed the
lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Greeneville in September 2011
naming Bluff City, Mayor Irene Wells and American Traffic
Solutions as the defendants.

The lawsuit claimed Bluff City and ATS conspired to violate the
Fair Debt Collections Act, state law and the city's own ordinances
by imposing an administrative fee of $40 on top of the $50 fine
imposed for motorists allegedly captured on the city's two speed-
enforcement cameras on Highway 11-E.

Last month, Judge Ronnie Greer granted the motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.

In his opinion, Judge Greer wrote that conspiracy has to be
supported with enough factual allegations . . . that is plausible
on its face.

"The only factual allegation regarding ATS is that ATS installed
and maintained the cameras at issue," Judge Greer wrote, noting
this is insufficient to establish a conspiracy.

Court documents state Mr. Cawood received such a ticket in May
2010 for traveling 58 mph in a 45 mph zone on Highway 11-E, while
Mr. Proffitt received a similar ticket for driving 56 mph in the
same zone.  Though Mr. Proffitt paid his violation, Mr. Cawood did
not, nor did he attend the court hearing on the matter in
September 2010.

Bluff City argues the one-year statute of limitations on filing a
claim has expired since Messrs. Cawood and Proffitt received their
citations more than a year ago.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Class in Antitrust Suit Certified in June
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class has been certified in the consolidated antitrust lawsuit
involving a subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC,
according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company's principal operating subsidiary, BNSF Railway Company
and other Class I railroads have been subject since May  2007, to
some 30 similar class action complaints alleging that they have
conspired to fix fuel surcharges with respect to unregulated
freight transportation services in violation of the antitrust
laws.  The complaints seek injunctive relief and unspecified
treble damages.  These cases were consolidated in the federal
district court of the District of Columbia for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings (In re: Rail Freight Fuel
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869).  Consolidated
amended class action complaints were filed against BNSF Railway
Company and three other Class I railroads in April 2008.

On June 21, 2012, the court certified the class sought by the
plaintiffs.  As a result, with some exceptions, rail customers who
paid a fuel surcharge on non-Surface Transportation Board
regulated traffic between July 2003 and December 2008, are part of
a class that, subject to appeal, can be tried jointly in a single
case.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
continues to defend against the allegations vigorously.  The
Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings
will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.


COHEN DEVELOPMENT: Sued Over Procedure for Co. Share Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delek Group on Sept. 3 disclosed that it has received an
application for the approval of a class action, addressed to the
Company's subsidiary -- Cohen Development and Industrial Buildings
Ltd., and to some members of the Cohen Tadmor family, former
controlling shareholders of Cohen Development with regard to the
procedure of the acquisition of control of Cohen Development
transaction.

The requested relieves include, among other things, monetary
relief which is estimated by the petitioner not less than
approximately NIS48.8 million and declaratory relief that the
acquired shares from the respondents shall not confer any rights,
and shall be dormant shares as long as they are held by the
Company.

The company will be studying the details of the application and
cannot assess the chances of the procedure at this stage.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Sues Class Action Lead Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marx, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that the
Commonwealth Bank has sued Storm Financial victims at the heart of
a highly anticipated court battle set to kick off next week.

In a move denounced as "deliberately intimidating", the bank filed
a cross claim in Federal Court in Brisbane against Sean and Paula
McArdle seeking to recover AUD1.21 million allegedly owing from
their mortgage and margin loans.

The McArdles are one of two couples serving as lead plaintiffs in
a class action against the bank, which provided high-risk margin
loans to 3,000 Storm victims who lost AUD3 billion when
sharemarkets dived in late 2008.

Mr. McArdle, a Sunshine Coast police officer, lambasted the bank
on Sept. 3 and vowed that the legal action launched against him in
mid-July had only strengthened his determination to seek justice.

"It's bully boy tactics by an organization willing to spend its
shareholders' money to send a clear message of intimidation to all
Australians that may be anticipating raising problems or issues
with the bank," Mr. McArdle said.

"I asked our solicitors to send them a message: You have just
driven a steel rod down the spine of my resolve."

The bank granted a moratorium on repayments for many Storm
victims, including the McArdles, following the collapse of the
Townsville-based financial planning firm in early 2009.

But the bank now alleges the McArdles failed to pay AUD75,864
owing from their margin loan on May 31 and did not make a AUD8573
repayment on their home loan due on June 22.

The couple secured a AUD1 million home loan in early 2007.  They
also used more than AUD2 million of a AUD3 million line of credit
from the bank's subsidiary, Colonial First State, as margin loans
to invest with Storm.

Brett Imlay, a senior associate with the McArdle's law firm,
Levitt Robinson, said yesterday the bank had agreed not to seize
the couple's home or actively pursue the cross claim until after
the class action case had been heard.  Mr. Imlay accused the bank
of "sabre rattling" and said the cross claim was "definitely
designed to add pressure on the lead applicants in the lead up to
the trial".

Levitt Robinson's class actions against the Commonwealth Bank and
Macquarie Bank on behalf of about 650 Storm victims will run in
tandem with an action brought by the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission.

ASIC alleges the Commonwealth Bank, Macquarie Bank and Bank of
Queensland committed numerous breaches, including unconscionable
conduct and operation of an unregistered managed investment
scheme.  The banks deny the allegations.

Storm victims from across the country were expected to converge on
Brisbane's Federal Court for the start of the three-month case on
Sept. 3.  They could recover more than $1 billion if the court
decides in their favor.  ASIC is expected to call more than 80
witnesses during the course of the trial.


CUTTING EDGE: Recalls Shake'Ems With Undeclared Milk and Red 40
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cutting Edge Concessions issued an allergy alert on undeclared
milk and red 40 in 0.5 oz. Shake'Ems seasoning cups distributed in
movie theaters in California, Colorado, Arkansas and Tennessee.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The products were distributed in a 0.5 oz. plastic cup labeled
with Shake'Ems on the top.  Flavors include: White Cheddar, Nacho
Cheddar, Ranch, Cinnamon Sugar and Parmesan Garlic.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm318198.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after the FDA discovered that the
products contain milk and red 40, but product packaging did not
reveal the presence of these ingredients.  Subsequent
investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary
breakdown in the Company's labeling process.

Production of the product has been suspended until the FDA and the
Company are certain that the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased 0.5 oz. packages of Shake'Ems are
urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 952-237-1551
Monday to Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.


CYNOSURE INC: Ari Weitzner Files New Class Action Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Ari Weitzner commenced a new purported class action lawsuit
against Cynosure, Inc. in New York, which alleges similar claims
to his Massachusetts case, according to the Company's August 3,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against
Cynosure under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys fees.
The complaint alleges that Cynosure violated the TCPA by sending
unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff and other
recipients without the prior express invitation or permission of
the recipients.  Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited
facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of up to $500 per
facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 per
facsimile for knowing or willful violations.  Based on discovery
in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that approximately three
million facsimiles were sent on Cynosure's behalf by a third party
to approximately 100,000 individuals.  In 2008, the plaintiff
served, and the Court held a hearing regarding a motion for class
certification.  In 2010, the Court issued an order dismissing the
complaint without prejudice for Dr. Weitzner's failure to
prosecute the case and subsequently allowed a plaintiff motion for
relief from the dismissal order.

In January 2012, the Court issued a Memorandum of Decision denying
the class certification motion.  The Court has scheduled a status
conference for September 20, 2012, regarding Dr. Weitzner's
individual claims.  On July 23, 2012, Dr. Weitzner filed a new
purported class action, based on the same operative facts and
asserting the same claims as the Massachusetts action, in federal
court in the Eastern District of New York.

Cynosure says it has not been served with a summons or complaint
in the New York action.  Cynosure believes it has numerous
defenses to Dr. Weitzner's claims.


DAVITA INC: Accounting Hearing in Suit vs. Unit Set for This Fall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A final accounting hearing in the class action lawsuit involving a
subsidiary of DaVita Inc. is scheduled to take place this fall,
according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In June 2004, the Company's subsidiary, DVA Renal Healthcare, was
served with a complaint filed in the Superior Court of California
by one of its former employees who worked for its California acute
services program.  The complaint, which is styled as a class
action, alleges, among other things, that DVA Renal Healthcare
failed to provide overtime wages, defined rest periods and meal
periods, or compensation in lieu of such provisions and failed to
comply with certain other California Labor Code requirements.  The
parties reached an agreement last year to fully resolve this
matter for an amount that did not materially impact the Company's
financial results.  That settlement has now received final
approval from the court.  Settlement payments have been made to
the class members, and a final accounting hearing is scheduled to
take place this fall.


DAVITA INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Wage and Hour Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is
pending against DaVita Inc. in the Superior Court of California.
The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April
2008, and it has been amended since that time.  The lawsuit, as
amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods,
failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal
periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain
other California Labor Code requirements.  In September 2011, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs have appealed that decision.  The Company intends to
continue to vigorously defend against these claims.  Any potential
settlement of these claims is not anticipated to be material to
the Company's consolidated financial statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


DISH NETWORK: Call Center Workers File Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dish Network stiffs its call
center workers for overtime and makes them work off the clock, a
class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Frisari v. Dish Network, LLC, Case No.
12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 15929 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on
Aug. 31, 2012 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/04/DishNetwork.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan I. Nirenberg, Esq.
          THE NIRENBERG LAW FIRM, LLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 607
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 487-2700
          E-mail: jnirenberg@njemploymentlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Membership Suit Class Cert. Denial Bid Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to deny class certification in the lawsuit arising from
membership terms in its Thousand Trails network of campgrounds,
according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On July 29, 2011, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in California state court filed by two named plaintiffs,
who are husband and wife.  Among other allegations, the lawsuit
alleges that the plaintiffs purchased a membership in the
Company's Thousand Trails network of campgrounds and paid annual
dues; that they were unable to make a reservation to utilize one
of the campgrounds because, they were told, their membership did
not permit them to utilize that particular campground; that the
Company failed to comply with the written disclosure requirements
of various states' membership camping statutes; that the Company
misrepresented that it provides a money-back guaranty; and that
the Company misrepresented that the campgrounds or portions of the
campgrounds would be limited to use by members.

Allegedly on behalf of "between 100,000 and 200,000" putative
class members, the lawsuit asserts claims for alleged violation
of: (1) the California Civil Code Sections 1812.300, et seq.; (2)
the Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 32-2198, et seq.; (3)
Chapter 222 of the Texas Property Code; (4) Florida Code Sections
509.001, et seq.; (5) Chapter 119B of the Nevada Administrative
Code; (6) Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., (7)
Business & Professions Code Section 17500; (8) Fraud - Intentional
Misrepresentation and False Promise; (9) Fraud - Omission; (10)
Negligent Misrespresentation; and (11) Unjust Enrichment.  The
complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the membership
agreements and refund of the member dues of plaintiffs and all
others who purchased a membership from or paid membership dues to
the Company since July 21, 2007; general and special compensatory
damages; reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of
lawsuit; punitive and exemplary damages; a permanent injunction
against the complained of conduct; and pre-judgment interest.

On August 19, 2011, the Company filed an answer generally denying
the allegations of the complaint, and asserting affirmative
defenses.  On August 23, 2011, the Company removed the case from
the California state court to the federal district court in San
Jose.

On July 23, 2012, the Company filed a motion to deny class
certification.  On July 24, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to amend their class action complaint to add four
additional named plaintiffs.

The Company says it will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Settlement of Unpaid Wages Suits Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
California and Washington courts have entered final approval
orders with respect to Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.'s
settlement of two class action lawsuits asserting unpaid wages,
according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On October 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in California state court filed by a single named
plaintiff (the "California Case").  The lawsuit alleged that, at
the time the Company acquired the assets of Privileged Access, LP
and its affiliates ("PA"), the Company and other named defendants
willfully failed to pay former California employees of PA who
became employees of the Company all of the wages they earned
during their employment with PA, including accrued vacation time.
The lawsuit also alleged that the Company improperly "stripped"
those employees of their seniority.  The lawsuit asserts claims
for alleged violation of the California Labor Code; alleged
violation of the California Business & Professions Code and for
alleged unfair business practices; alleged breach of contract;
alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and for
alleged unjust enrichment.  The original complaint sought, among
other relief, compensatory and statutory damages; restitution;
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; attorney's fees, expenses
and costs; penalties; and exemplary and punitive damages.  The
complaint did not specify a dollar amount sought.  The Court
granted in part without leave to amend and in part with leave to
amend the Company's motions seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's
original complaint and various amended complaints.  Discovery
proceeded on the remaining claims in the third amended complaint.
On February 15, 2011, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

On December 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in Washington state court ("the Washington Case") filed by
a single named plaintiff, represented by the same counsel as the
plaintiff in the California Case.  The complaint asserted on
behalf of a putative class of Washington employees of PA who
became employees of the Company substantially similar allegations
as are alleged in the California class action.  The Company moved
to dismiss the complaint.  On April 3, 2009, the court dismissed:
(1) the first cause of action, which alleged a claim under the
Washington Labor Code for failure to pay accrued vacation time;
(2) the second cause of action, which alleged a claim under the
Washington Labor Code for unpaid wages on termination; (3) the
third cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington
Labor Code for payment of wages less than entitled; and (4) the
fourth cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington
Consumer Protection Act.  The court did not dismiss the fifth
cause of action for breach of contract, the sixth cause of action
for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; or the
seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment.  On May 22, 2009,
the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the causes of
action not previously dismissed, which was denied.  With leave of
court, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the material
allegations of which the Company denied in an answer filed on
September 11, 2009.  On July 30, 2010, the named plaintiff died as
a result of an unrelated accident.

On November 22, 2011, the parties agreed to a settlement the
principal terms of which are that, without admitting any
liability, the Company would pay $0.5 million in cash, would
provide on a one-time basis one week of vacation to the vacation
balance of any class member who on August 13, 2008, had at least
five years of service with a PA affiliate (the cost of which to
the Company would be approximately $0.1 million), and would
receive in exchange a full release and dismissal with prejudice of
all individual and class claims, including claims for attorneys'
fees and costs, in both the California Case and the Washington
Case.  The Courts in both the California Case and the Washington
Case have entered orders of final approval of the settlement.


EXPEDIA INC: Faces Class Action for Room Reservation Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Another class action lawsuit claims that hotel operators and
travel Web sites conspired to fix the price for room reservations.

Laith Ulaby, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com LP, Travelocity.com LP,
Sabre Holdings Corporation, Priceline.com Incorporated,
Booking.com B.V., Booking.com (USA), Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.,
Hilton Worldwide, Inc., Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.,
Marriott International, Inc., Trump International Hotels
Management, LLC, Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC,
Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc., and John Does 1-
100, Case No. 4:12-cv-04582 (N.D. Calif., August 30, 2012) is a
direct purchaser antitrust action brought to challenge the Online
Retailer Defendants' conspiracy with the Hotel Defendants to enter
into, maintain and enforce minimum resale price maintenance
("RPM") agreements.

The Online Retailer Defendants conspired with the Hotel Defendants
and agreed to impose an RPM scheme that would fix the retail price
for room reservations at the price the Hotel Defendants were
selling the Room Reservation ("Rack Rates") and restrain
competition for Room Reservations ("Defendant Retailer-Hotel
Agreements") in the market for online reservations, Mr. Ulaby
alleges.  He adds that the Defendant Retailer-Hotel Agreements
restrained price competition by requiring the Defendant Hotel
Defendants to impose, amend, enforce, and heighten enforcement of
minimum resale price maintenance agreements with respect to price-
cutting Online Retailers, and to prevent price-cutting Online
Retailers from discounting Room Reservations or engaging in the
profit-lowering effects of retail price competition for Room
Reservations.

Mr. Ulaby is a resident of San Francisco, California.  He
purchased hotel room reservations online directly from one or more
of the Online Retailer Defendants in the United States.

Expedia is a Delaware corporation based in Bellevue, Washington.
Hotels.com, a Texas limited partnership based in Dallas, Texas, is
an affiliate of Expedia.  Travelocity.com, a Delaware limited
partnership based in Southlake, Texas, is owned by Sabre.
Booking.com B.V. is a company based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
and owns and operates Booking.com, the leading worldwide online
Room Reservations agency by room nights sold, attracting over 30
million unique visitors each month via the Internet from both
leisure and business markets worldwide.  Booking.com B.V. is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Priceline.com.  Booking.com (USA is a
Delaware corporation based in New York and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Priceline.com.  Priceline.com is a Delaware
corporation based in Norwalk, Connecticut.  Orbitz is a Delaware
corporation based in Chicago, Illinois.

Sabre Holding is incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in
Southlake, Texas.  Intercontinental Hotels Group is a Delaware
corporation based in Atlanta, Georgia.  Starwood Hotels is a
Maryland corporation based in Stamford, Connecticut.  Marriott is
a Delaware corporation based in Bethesda, Maryland.  Trump
International is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in New York.  Hilton Worldwide is a Delaware company
based in McLean, Virginia.  Kimpton Hotel is a Delaware limited
liability company based in Francisco, California.

A copy of the Complaint in Ulaby v. Expedia, Inc., et al., Case
No. 12-cv-04582 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/04/expedia.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          Meghan M. Boone, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
                  mboone@cohenmilstein.com


FLORIDA: ACLU Files Suit Over Gov. Scott's Welfare Drug Test Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Local10.com and The Associated Press report that a law dealing
with welfare backed by the governor is costing Florida thousands
of dollars.  The state had to pay back nearly $600,000 to welfare
recipients who were denied welfare aid because they failed or
refused to take a drug test.

An Orlando federal judge ordered the state last year to
temporarily suspend the law championed by Gov. Rick Scott that
required welfare recipients pay for and pass a drug test.  The
judge said the law may violate a constitutional ban on
unreasonable searches and seizures.

Nearly 4,000 adults did not have drugs in their system and 108
tested positive.  However, nearly 2,500 people refused to take the
drug test.

Critics said roughly 4,000 of the state's poorest families were
not able to buy food or pay rent during the four month period when
they were denied benefits because of the drug testing law.

Gov. Scott's law requiring welfare applicants to submit to drug
testing has spurred a class action suit filed by the ACLU.


FOOD LION: Removes Daniella Brand Mangoes from Store Shelves
------------------------------------------------------------
Food Lion, Harveys and Reid's have been notified that the
companies are part of the national Splendid Products voluntary
recall for Daniella mangoes.  Upon notification from the supplier,
all affected items were immediately removed from store shelves.

Splendid Products voluntarily recalled Daniella mangoes this week
due to possible salmonella contamination.  The recalled items
include mangoes with PLU No. 4051 and purchase dates would range
from Aug. 14 to Aug. 29.

In addition, one packaged produce item sold at Food Lion stores
that contained Daniella mangoes has also been removed from
shelves. The packaged produce item would be labeled, "Garden
Highway Mango Medley," and would have the UPC code (8-26766-
21437).  This product would have a sell-by date of Aug. 28.

The Company is in the process of notifying loyalty card customers
via e-mail who purchased the Daniella mangoes or fresh fruit
product, as well as updating the product recall section of the
companies' respective Web sites.

Customers who may have purchased the affected products are urged
to dispose of the items and bring the receipt or sticker to their
local Food Lion, Harveys or Reid's stores for a full refund.
These products should not be consumed.

                           About Food

Lion Food Lion, based in Salisbury, North Carolina, is a company
of Delhaize America, the U.S. division of Brussels-based Delhaize
Group (NYSE: DEG).  Food Lion operates more than 1,100
supermarkets in 10 Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, and
employs approximately 57,000 associates.  For more information,
visit http://www.foodlion.com/

                          About Harveys

Harveys is an affiliate of Delhaize America, a subsidiary of
Brussels-based Delhaize Group (DEG) (NYSE:DEG).  Harveys operates
73 stores in Georgia, Florida and South Carolina.  For more
information go to http://www.harveys-supermarkets.com/

                          About Reid's

Reid's is a company of Delhaize America, the U.S. division of
Brussels-based Delhaize Group (NYSE: DEG) and operates 11 stores
in South Carolina.  For more information, visit
http://www.reidsgroceries.com/


GHILOTTI BROS: Accused of Denying Laborers Lunch & Rest Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ramirez, Luis Gomez and Marck Mena Ortega on behalf of
themselves and all persons similarly situated v. Ghilotti Bros.
Inc., a corporation; Ghilotti Brothers Construction, Inc., a
corporation; Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc., a corporation;
and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. RG12636635 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Alameda Cty., June 27, 2012) accuses the Defendants of
violating the Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission Order
No. 16-2001 and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs, who are United States
citizens of Mexican descent, work grueling days for the
Defendants, loading their trucks with heavy equipment, traveling
to job sites throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, working hard
at the construction job sites, and then returning the trucks and
equipment to the loading area in clean and working condition.  Yet
the Defendants refuse to pay the Plaintiffs for any of the hours
that they work outside the official job site, the Plaintiffs
allege.  The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants routinely deny
lunch and rest breaks to these construction workers, reducing the
safety of the job site.

The Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens of Mexican descent whose primary
language is Spanish.  They are residents of Costa County,
California.  They are currently employed by the Defendants as non-
exempt laborers.

GBI is a California corporation.  Ghilotti Brothers Construction
is a corporation authorized to do business in California.
Ghilotti Construction is a corporation authorized to do business
in California.  Maggiora and Ghilotti is a corporation authorized
to do business in California.  The Plaintiffs do not know the true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Defendants removed the lawsuit on August 31, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Defendants argue that the removal is proper
because the lawsuit is brought under the FLSA, and hence, the
District Court has proper jurisdiction.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-04590 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq.
          Laura Boysen-Aragon, Esq.
          Jenny S. Yelin, Esq.
          ROSEN BIEN & GALVAN, LLP
          315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1823
          Telephone: (415) 433-6830
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
          E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbg-law.com
                  lboysen-aragon@rbg-law.com
                  jyelin@rbg-law.com

                    - and -

          Elisa J. Stewart, Esq.
          Wendy E. Musell, Esq.
          STEWART & MUSELL, LLP
          351 California Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 593-0083
          Facsimile: (415) 520-0920
          E-mail: estewart@stewartandmusell.com
                  wmusell@stewartandmusell.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Louise Ann Fernandez, Esq.
          Michael J. Hassen, Esq.
          An Nguyen Ruda, Esq.
          JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Seventh Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4308
          Telephone: (310) 203-8080
          Facsimile: (310) 203-0567
          E-mail: LFernandez@JMBM.com
                  MHassen@JMBM.com
                  ANguyen@JMBM.com


GRUNENTHAL: Issues First Apology to Thalidomide Victims
-------------------------------------------------------
Agence France-Presse reports that the German firm that made
thalidomide has issued its first apology in 50 years to the
thousands born disabled as a result of the drug's use, drawing
stinging criticism from advocates for some survivors.

Grunenthal's chief executive Harald Stock said in a speech on
Aug. 31 his firm was "very sorry" for its silence towards the
victims of the drug, which was sold to pregnant women to cure
morning sickness in the 1950s and early 1960s.

An estimated 10,000 children worldwide were born with defects --
including missing limbs -- after their mothers took thalidomide,
which was sold in nearly 50 countries before being pulled from the
market in 1961.

In a translated copy of the German text published on Grunenthal's
Web site, M. Stock said he wanted to express his company's
"sincere regrets" and "deep sympathy" to all those affected,
"their mothers and their families."

"We ask that you regard our long silence as a sign of the shock
that your fate has caused us," he said in the speech.

"We also apologize for the fact that we have not found the way to
you from person to person for almost 50 years. Instead, we have
been silent and we are very sorry for that."

Mr. Stock delivered the speech at the inauguration of a special
memorial to thalidomide victims in Stolberg, western Germany,
where the company is based.

He said that the drug "was taken by many women who had no reason
to imagine that it could seriously harm their unborn children".

The apology was rejected as insufficient by the charity
Thalidomide Agency UK, which represents people affected by the
drug in Britain.

Freddie Astbury, the charity's head consultant, said the company
needed to "put their money where their mouth is" rather than
simply express regret.

Mr. Astbury, who was born in Chester in 1959 without arms or legs
after his mother took the drug, said: "If they are serious about
admitting they are at fault and regret what happened they need to
start helping those of us who were affected financially."

Mr. Stock said his firm was taking steps to help the victims of
the drug's use.

"We have learned how important it is that we engage in an open
dialogue with those affected and to talk and to listen to them,"
he said.

Lawyers for Australian survivors of the drug Saturday described
the belated apology from the firm which developed and marketed the
drug as "pathetic" and "insulting".

"The apology issued by Grunenthal to thalidomide survivors is
pathetic: it is too little, too late and riddled with further
deceit," lawyers for Australian survivor Lynette Rowe said in a
statement.

"To suggest that its long silence before today ought to be put
down to 'silent shock' on its part is insulting nonsense.

"For 50 years Grunenthal has been engaged in a calculated
corporate strategy to avoid the moral, legal and financial
consequences of its reckless and negligent actions of the 1950s
and 1960s."

Ms. Rowe's lawyers, from Gordon Legal and Slater & Gordon, said it
would have been better for Grunenthal to release its private
records to the world, including those it recently handed over in a
class action led by the Australian woman.

Court papers used in the case brought by Ms. Rowe, who was born
without arms or legs after her mother took thalidomide, allege
that the German makers of the drug were warned of birth defects
some two years before it was withdrawn.

Ms. Rowe's lawyers said on Sept. 1 that the case against
Grunenthal, which has denied wrongdoing and vowed to "fully
defend" any legal action, was on hold after she reached a multi-
million dollar settlement with another firm that had distributed
the drug.

But they said lawsuits recently commenced in Australia would be
followed up in many other countries.

A Japanese supporting group for Thalidomide victims also said an
apology was not good enough.

"An apology is a matter of course," said Tsugumichi Sato,
director-general of "Sakigake" Thalidomide Welfare Centre, in
Japan, one of the major countries victimized of the drug disaster
after Germany and Britain.

"The number of victims would have been smaller if the company had
stopped its sales earlier," Mr. Sato said.  "We are closely
watching what responsibility the company will take on top of
apologies."


HACHETTE BOOK: Settles eBook Price-Fixing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jason Vallee, writing for Woodbury-Middlebury Patch, reports that
a court settlement reached Wednesday, Aug. 29, could soon put $69
million back into the pockets of eBooks purchasers, including an
estimated $1.26 million to residents of Connecticut, including
those in Middlebury and Woodbury.

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen announced Thursday,
Aug. 30, that 54 attorney generals, as part of a class action
lawsuit, have come to an agreement with three publishers to
resolve antitrust claims surrounding an alleged conspiracy to fix
eBook prices.

The case was brought to court in June, alleging that Hachette Book
Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., and Simon & Schuster
Inc. were involved in the conspiracy.  Another case against non-
settling publishers, Penguin and MacMillan and Apple, Inc.,
remains pending in the Southern District of New York.

Payments are expected to be sent to consumers automatically once
the U.S. District Court approves the settlement, officials said.

The Office of the Connecticut Attorney General released the
following in regard to the latest settlement agreement:

"Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen along with 54
attorneys general in other states, districts and U.S. territories,
announced on Aug. 30 that they have reached an antitrust
settlement with three of the largest book publishers in the United
States.

Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. and
Simon & Schuster Inc. have agreed to pay a total of more than $69
million to consumers to resolve antitrust claims of an alleged
unlawful conspiracy to fix the prices of electronic books
(eBooks).  They have also agreed to change the way they price
eBooks going forward.

The settlement occurs in conjunction with a civil antitrust
lawsuit filed on Aug. 30 in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon &
Schuster, which alleges that the three settling publishers and
others, including non-settling publishers Macmillan and Penguin
(collectively, the "Agency Five" publishers), "conspired and
agreed to increase retail eBook prices for all consumers" and
"agreed to eliminate eBook retail price competition between eBook
outlets, such that retail prices to consumers would be the same
regardless of the outlet patronized by the consumer."

"While publishers are entitled to their profits, consumers are
equally entitled to a fair and open marketplace," said Attorney
General Jepsen.  "This settlement will provide restitution to
those customers who were harmed by this price-fixing scheme, but
it also will restore competition in the eBook market for
consumers' long-term benefit."

The lawsuit and the Aug. 30 settlement stem from a two-year
antitrust investigation conducted jointly by the U.S. Department
of Justice's Antitrust Division and the Connecticut and Texas
Attorneys General.  That investigation developed evidence that the
Agency Five conspired to end eBook retailers' freedom to compete
on price by taking control of pricing from eBook retailers and
substantially increasing the prices that consumers paid for
eBooks.  The attorneys general said that the publishers prevented
retail price competition resulting in consumers paying tens of
millions of dollars more for their eBooks.

"This action sends a strong message that this sort of
anticompetitive behavior will not be accepted.  Through our
ongoing litigation, we hope to provide additional restitution to
consumers," Attorney General Jepsen said, "Additionally, I'm
especially proud of the exemplary bipartisan cooperation on both
the state and federal level on this matter, which involved 54
states and jurisdictions working together on behalf of consumers
across the country."

Under the proposed settlement agreement, which the court must
approve, Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster will
compensate consumers who purchased eBooks from any of the Agency
Five during the period of April 1, 2010, through May 21, 2012.
Payments will begin 30 days after the court approval of the
settlement becomes final.

Consumers in Connecticut are expected to receive up to $1,264,658
in total compensation. The settling defendants will also pay
approximately $7.5 million to the states for fees and costs.

In addition to paying the $69 million consumer compensation,
Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster have agreed to
terminate their existing agency agreements with certain retailers,
requiring the publishers to grant retailers -- such as Amazon and
Barnes & Noble -- the freedom to reduce the prices of their eBook
titles.

Attorney General Jepsen serves as co-chair of the Antitrust
Committee for the National Association of Attorneys General.


HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard Lasker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ronald E. Hermance, Jr., Dennis J. Salamone, Michael
W. Azzara, William G. Bardel, Scott A. Belair, Victoria H. Bruni,
Cornelius E. Golding, Donald O. Quest, Joseph G. Sponholz, Hudson
City Bancorp, Inc., and M&T Bank Corporation, Case No. 7818- (Del.
Chancery Ct., August 30, 2012) asserts that Hudson City Bancorp is
selling itself too cheaply to M&T Bank Corp., for $3.7 billion, in
a cash and stock deal.

Both the value to Hudson City shareholders contemplated in the
Proposed Transaction and the process by which the Defendants
propose to consummate the Proposed Transaction are fundamentally
unfair to the Plaintiff and the other shareholders of the
Company, Mr. Lasker contends.  He insists that the consideration
offered, equivalent to $7.23 per share and a premium of a mere 12%
over the close of Hudson City stock at the close of the previous
trading day, does not adequately reward shareholders nor justify
the Individual Defendants' abandonment of the Company's carefully
conceived corporate strategy.  He adds that the Company and the
Individual Defendants give no explanation why they cannot continue
their strategy while maintaining the Company's independence.

Mr. Lasker is a shareholder of Hudson City.

Hudson City is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Paramus,
New Jersey.  Hudson City serves as the holding company of its only
subsidiary and principal asset, Hudson City Savings Bank.

M&T Bank is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Buffalo, New
York.  M&T Bank had $81 billion in assets as of June 30, 2012, and
is one of the 20 largest commercial bank holding companies in the
U.S.

A copy of the Complaint in Lasker v. Hermance, Jr., et al., Case
No. 7818 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/04/BankBuyout.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          Gregory F. Fischer, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
                  gfischer@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Jules Brody, Esq.
          Mark Levine, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: jbrody@ssbny.com
                  mlevine@ssbny.com


JP MORGAN: Louisiana's Police Pension Fund File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
aiCIO reports that Louisiana's police pension fund has filed a
class action suit against JP Morgan Chase in Manhattan district
court, claiming that the custodial bank manipulated interest rates
in foreign exchange trades to skim off millions of additional
dollars from the pension fund.

"JP Morgan extracted inappropriate fees from its custodial
clients, abusing its superior position and disregarding its
fiduciary duties," attorneys for the Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees Retirement System (LAMPERS) argue in the complaint.
"Moreover, rather than disclose the profits it earned by trading
FX, JPMorgan bundled the exchange rate and its profit into the
conversion 'rate' it provided to clients.  Thus, LAMPERS . . . did
not and could not know that JP Morgan was extracting profits from
indirect FX trading nor could they determine the amount of profit
JP Morgan was extracting.  JP Morgan's excess profit from FX
transactions resulted in a breach of fiduciary duties, including
duties of care and loyalty, to LAMPERS."

The US Department of Justice brought a similar case against BNY
Mellon in July.  The lawsuit alleged the bank cheated customers on
foreign exchange services, leading to ill-gotten gains of more
than $1.5 billion from some of the largest institutional investors
worldwide, including the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the
Kuwait Investment Authority, and the Alaska Permanent Fund.

LAMPERS is demanding a jury trial, and is seeking recovered
assets, compensation for damages, and reimbursement of its legal
fees.

LAMPERS itself is on something of a litigation streak.  In August,
the fund filed a lawsuit against a property developer over its
CEO's pay.  The $1.4 billion public plan has also previously sued
JP Morgan, alleging breach of fiduciary duty over banking sanction
violations in November 2011.


KENNETH COLE: To Seek Dismissal of Acquisition-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a consolidated shareholder litigation arising from
the proposed acquisition of Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. by
Kenneth D. Cole have informed the court that they intend to file
motions to dismiss the lawsuit, according to the Company's August
3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On February 24, 2012, the Company had announced that it had
received a non-binding proposal from a group led by Kenneth D.
Cole, the Company's Chairman and Chief Creative Officer, to
acquire all shares of Class A Common Stock that he does not
already own or control for $15.00 per share in cash.  Within five
days of the Company's announcement of Mr. Cole's proposal, four
purported shareholders of the Company filed putative class actions
in New York state court against the Company, Mr. Cole and the
members of the Board of Directors.  On June 6, 2012, the Company
announced that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement
under which Mr. Cole would acquire all Class A shares that he does
not already own or control for $15.25 per share in cash (the
"Proposed Transaction").

Following the June 6, 2012 announcement, two more putative class
actions were filed in New York state court by purported
shareholders of the Company.  On July 9, 2012, the court
consolidated all six actions into a single action captioned In re
Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Index No.
650571/2012.  On July 11, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint against the Company, Mr. Cole, the
members of the Board of Directors, Marlin Equities VII, LLC, and
KCP Holdco, Inc. and KCP Mergerco, Inc., two entities formed by
Mr. Cole for the purpose of engaging in the Proposed Transaction.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges that Mr. Cole and the
members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
to the Company's public shareholders in connection with the
Proposed Transaction, and that Marlin Equities VII, LLC, KCP
Holdco, Inc. and KCP Mergerco, Inc. aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  All of the defendants have
filed notices with the court stating that they intend to file
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its
entirety.


L'OREAL USA: Sued for Misleading Labels in Matrix Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Nancie Ligon, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-04585 (N.D.
Calif., August 30, 2012) is brought on behalf of those who
purchased the Defendant's products that were falsely and
misleadingly labeled, marketed and advertised as for sale only in
professional beauty salons when consumers can purchase these
products in major retail outlets throughout the United States
where professional salon services are not available.

By labeling its products as for sale only in professional salons,
the Defendant has created a demand for them, Ms. Ligon contends.
She argues that such labeling, marketing and advertising creates a
false perception by the consumer that these products are superior
in terms of properties and qualities from products manufactured or
distributed to non-salons.

Ms. Ligon is a resident of Sonoma, California.  She purchased
L'Oreal's Matrix Biolage Shampoo at Marketplace Haircutters, a
professional hair salon, and Matrix Biolage Shampoo and
Conditioner at the Big Kmart Store.

L'Oreal is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
L'Oreal manufactures, advertises, sells and distributes hair care
products under the "Matrix" brand name.  Matrix offers a wide
range of hair care products under its brand, Biolage, Amplify,
Sleek.look, Vavoom, Curl.life, Color.smart, Opti.smooth, SOCOLOR
and Color Sync.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM
          One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 293-8039
          Facsimile: (415) 293-8001
          E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com

               - and -

          Clayton Halunen, Esq.
          Susan M. Coler, Esq.
          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  co1er@halunenlaw.com
                  wolchansky@halunenlaw.com


LEGOLAND DISCOVERY: Sued in Texas for Misclassifying Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Legoland Discovery Centre
misclassifies its marketing coordinators nationwide to cheat them
of overtime, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Crosby v. Merlin Entertainment Group
U.S. Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-03576 (N.D. Tex.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/04/Legoland.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Scott, Esq.
          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          THE KENDALL LAW GROUP
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          E-mail: mscott@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com


LIBERMAN BROADCASTING: Class Action to Proceed to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action alleging wage
and hour violations against the Spanish-focused Liberman
Broadcasting must proceed to arbitration, a California appeals
court ruled.

A copy of the decision in Reyes v. Liberman Broadcasting, Inc.,
Case No. B235211 (Calif. App. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/04/liberman.pdf


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Policyholders File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Galen Moore, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that
policyholders are suing the Springfield, Mass.-based insurer,
alleging it improperly withheld millions that rightfully should
have been disbursed or invested back into the company.

Unlike most companies, MassMutual's policyholders act as
stockholders, reaping dividends on the company's profits and
voting for directors.  But the Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Co. has prevented voting rights and withheld $5 million in profits
over the past decade, according to a Boston Globe report.

The case could involve more than 2 million policyholders, and the
plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for their lawsuits,
according to the report.


NAT'L AUSTRALIA: Shareholders Urged to Join US Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that National Australia
Bank (NAB) shareholders are being urged to join a class action
relating to its 2008 heavy losses over toxic US subprime home
loans.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn is placing advertisements urging
investors in NAB, one of Australia's big four banks, to join the
action before the October 12 deadline.

The Supreme Court has ordered the ads be placed in national
newspapers and that NAB write to the 230,000 shareholders who held
NAB stocks between January 1 and July 25, 2008.

In July, 2008 NAB suffered the biggest drop in its share price
since 1987 after it revealed it had lost up to AUD1 billion in the
US mortgage crisis.

The lawsuit will allege that NAB did not properly disclose to
shareholders and potential shareholders the level of its exposure
to the toxic US housing debts, said Jacob Varghese, the action's
principal lawyer.

"Thousands of investors who bought shares in that period were, we
say, misled and suffered losses as a result," he said in a
statement.

The bank, like any listed company, was obliged under the
Corporations Act to tell the ASX about any information that could
impact its share price so investors could make informed decisions,
he said.

Two hundred and fifty institutional and retail investors are
currently group members in the class action, with a hearing that
was due to be held on Tuesday, September 4.

NAB, in 2006, had bought AUD1.2 billion in Collaterised Debt
Obligations (CDOs) which were heavily exposed to the US' subprime
residential mortgage market which became toxic debt in 2007 and
early 2008, Maurice Blackburn said in a statement.

NAB first made a AUD181 million provision for the CDO exposure in
May 2008, then increased it to AUD1.1 billion sending the share
price plunging by nearly AUD6.

NAB's share price plunged 61 per cent, from AUD43.10 to AUD16.94,
between November, 2007 and December, 2008

The bursting of the US housing bubble played a central role in
triggering the global financial crisis.


NAT'L AUSTRALIA: APRA to Dispute Bid to Divulge Meeting Records
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the banking regulator is
set to fight demands that it divulge details of a secret meeting
with National Australia Bank over the bank's dealings in toxic US
sub-prime mortgages.

Shareholders have demanded the records as part of a class action
lawsuit worth as much as AUD450 million in which they allege NAB
failed to disclose the true extent of its exposure to
collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) until mid-2008.

However, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) was
expected to fiercely oppose disclosing its dealings with NAB at a
directions hearing in Melbourne on Sept. 4 before a Victorian
Supreme Court judge, Tony Pagone.

While the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the
stock exchange and big four firms KPMG and Ernst & Young have
already handed over documents to lawyers Maurice Blackburn, who
represent the shareholders, APRA is believed likely to claim it
cannot do so because of secrecy provisions in its governing
legislation.

The shareholders are seeking records of meetings and telephone
calls between APRA and the bank before April 30, 2008.

NAB made a first provision of AUD181 million against the CDO
portfolio on May 9, 2008, and announced a second provision of
AUD830 million on July 25 that year, sending its share price
plummeting.

This week's dispute comes as Maurice Blackburn begins advertising
in national newspapers, seeking potential members of the
shareholder class, and details emerge of the fees plaintiffs will
pay to litigation funder International Litigation Funding Partners
(ILFP) in the event of a victory or settlement.

After the fees of Maurice Blackburn and legal counsel are paid,
members of the class will pay a percentage of their share of the
remaining sum to ILFP.

Of the remaining amount, those holding fewer than 1 million NAB
shares are to pay 40 per cent, those with between 1 million and 10
million shares are to pay 35 per cent and those with more than 10
million shares are to pay 30 per cent.

The class will remain open until October 12.


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Being Sold to AT&T for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that NextWave Wireless is selling
itself too cheaply to AT&T, for $600 million, shareholders say in
a class action in Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Weiss v. Salmasi, et al., Case No. 7821
(Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/04/TelecomBuyout.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290


PANTRY INC: Potential Plaintiff in Two Consolidated Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc. disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is a
potential member of the plaintiff class in the two consolidated
lawsuits over interchange fees and the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill.

The Company is a potential member of the plaintiff class in the In
Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No 1720, a class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging anticompetitive practices and price fixing in setting
interchange fees. A proposed settlement estimated at approximately
$7.25 billion was submitted to the Court on July 13, 2012 and is
pending preliminary and final approval. The class consists of
those businesses that accepted Visa or Mastercard credit cards or
debit cards for payment at any time since January 1, 2004. At this
time, the Company is not able to estimate what if any it may
receive under any final settlement.

The Company is a potential member of the plaintiff class in the In
Re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of
Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No 2179, a class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana alleging damages as a result of the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill. The class consists of all persons and businesses which
own or lease property in the Gulf Coast Area who suffered economic
losses as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A proposed
settlement agreement estimated at approximately $7.8 billion was
granted preliminary approval on May 2, 2012. The Court will
conduct a fairness hearing on November 8, 2012 and thereafter will
decide whether to approve the proposed settlement agreement. At
this time, the Company is not able to estimate what if any it may
receive under any final settlement.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.pantry.com/-- operates a chain of
convenience stores in the southeastern United States.  The
Company's stores offer a selection of merchandise, fuel, and
ancillary products and services.  Its merchandise products include
cigarettes, grocery and other tobacco products, packaged
beverages, beer, and wine.  The Company operates stores under
various selected banners, which primarily include Kangaroo
Express.  The Company was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in
Cary, North Carolina.


PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Dismisses Claims in Suit vs. Education Dept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge dismissed claims that the Pennsylvania Department of
education underfunds special education programs in low income
school districts.

Parents of disabled students from poor school districts led the
2006 class action for discrimination against the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Education and its secretary, Gerald
Zahorchak.

Though higher-income schools have fewer disabled students, they
receive thousands more dollars per student under Pennsylvania's
funding formula, according to the complaint.

The formula, created in 1994, hypothesized that 16 percent of each
school district is disabled.

A federal judge certified two classes in the case: a class of
special-needs students from poor school districts and a class of
special-needs students from poor school districts who also have
limited English proficiency.

In pretrial proceedings, the court ruled that Mr. Zahorchak could
not be sued in his individual capacity.  After a week-long bench
trial in September 2011, Chief U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane
entered judgment for the defendants.

The 62-page decision rejects the findings of class expert
Dr. Bruce Baker, who used an outside study to conclude that
special-education funding per student declines as special-
education funding rates increase.

Mr. Baker also determined that poor funding caused differences in
the educational outcomes between class students and non-class
students.  He relied on the Pennsylvania System of School
Assessment scores, which are conducted in math and reading.

But Judge Kane noted that "PSSAs do not test life skills,
occupational abilities, or speech and language skills, although
these are goals of special education."

Mr. Baker's study "suffers from a lack of clarity" and fails to
show the funding formula hurts students in poor districts," she
wrote.  The Harrisburg judge also disputed the reliability of Mr.
Baker's theory that poorly funded districts have a higher drop-out
rate.

All evidence produced at trial suggests disabled students with
limited English proficiency were assessed in their native language
and translators were provided to their parents, Judge Kane noted.

The class failed to properly calculate the percentage of disabled
students in each district, the court ruled.

Special-education directors and coordinators from Reading,
Lancaster, York, Allentown and Harrisburg school districts
testified in court that the needs of their disabled students were
being met.  Testimony showed that school officials properly
identified located and evaluated disabled students in each
district.

"Contrary to Plaintiffs' bald speculation, defendants have
presented ample evidence to support a finding that the class
districts are compliant with the child find requirement," Judge
Kane wrote.

"The trial record is utterly devoid of any evidence establishing
systematic, or even isolated, violations of the IDEA's child find
requirement," she added, abbreviating Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act.

The class also failed to show how the funding scheme affects the
Least Restrictive Environment clause of the IDEA, mainstreaming
disabled students with nondisabled students, according to the
ruling.

"In sum, Dr. Baker's findings show that children with disabilities
are slightly more likely to be placed in restrictive environments
in class districts than non-class districts," Judge Kane wrote.
"The findings are silent, however, as to whether these placements
are appropriate or whether the districts have the resources they
need to comply with the LRE requirement."

Though families identified obvious deficiencies with the special-
education programs available in low-income districts, they would
have to do more to succeed with their legal challenge, the court
found.

"Regarding their IDEA claims, Plaintiffs showed that certain
outcomes were different, but they failed to show that those
differing outcomes were IDEA violations or, to the extent IDEA
violations did occur, that those violations were the result of the
commonwealth's funding formula," the decision states.

A copy of the Memorandum in CG, et al. v. The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Education, et al., Case No. 06-cv-01523
(M.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/31/specialed.pdf


PRIDE BAKERIES: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pride Bakeries stiffed
workers for overtime, a class action claims in Orange County
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Bennett v. Pride Bakeris, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 30-2012-00595050 (Calif. Super. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/04/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel H. Qualls, Esq.
          Robin G. Workman, Esq.
          Aviva N. Roller, Esq.
          QUALLS & WORKMAN, L.L.P.
          177 Post Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 782-3660
          E-mail: dan@qualls-workman.com
                  robn1@qualls-workman.com


SMARTHEAT: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over CEO Stake Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that SmartHeat did not disclose
that its founder and CEO James Jun Wang sold off half of his
shares, for $23 million, before the share price plummeted from
more than $100 to $4.04, shareholders say in a federal class
action.


SMITH MICRO: Awaits OK of Stipulation to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Smith Micro Software, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a
stipulation to dismiss a purported stockholder class action
lawsuit initiated in California, according to the Company's August
3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 29, 2011, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against the Company and
certain of its current officers on behalf of certain purchasers of
the Company's common stock.  The complaint was brought as a
purported stockholder class action, and, in general, included
allegations that the Company and certain of its officers violated
federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding its business prospects and financial results,
thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock.  The
plaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On August 29, 2011, two prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions
for appointment of lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead
counsel.  On October 17, 2011, the court appointed the two
prospective lead plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs and their
respective counsel as co-lead counsel.  On December 15, 2011, the
co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint.

On February 14, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On April 2, 2012, plaintiffs
filed an opposition, and on May 1, 2012, defendants filed a reply.
On May 21, 2012, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
without prejudice and afforded plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.  Co-lead plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint,
and instead agreed to dismiss the action with prejudice.

On July 19, 2012, the parties stipulated to dismiss the action
with prejudice, with each side to bear its own attorney's fees and
costs.  The stipulation fully, finally and forever releases
defendants from any and all claims asserted by co-lead plaintiffs
in the federal class action.  The Court has not yet entered an
order.


STATE STREET: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over FOREX Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation continues to defend two class action
lawsuits relating to its indirect foreign exchange services,
according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company offers indirect foreign exchange services such as
those it offers to the California pension plans to a broad range
of custody clients in the U.S. and internationally.  The Company
has responded and is responding to information requests from a
number of clients concerning its indirect foreign exchange rates.
In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in federal
court in Boston seeking unspecified damages, including treble
damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed certain
foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 to 2009.
The putative class action alleges, among other things, that the
rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades
constituted an unfair and deceptive practice under Massachusetts
law and a breach of the duty of loyalty.  A second putative class
action is currently pending in federal court in Boston alleging
various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) on behalf of all ERISA plans custodied with the
Company that executed indirect foreign exchange transactions with
State Street between 2001 and 2009.  The complaint alleges that
State Street caused class members to pay unfair and unreasonable
rates for indirect foreign exchange transactions with State
Street.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement of
profits, and other equitable relief.

The Company has not established a reserve with respect to any of
the pending legal proceedings relating to its indirect foreign
exchange services.  There can be no assurance as to the outcome of
the pending proceedings in California or Massachusetts, or whether
any other proceedings might be commenced against the Company by
clients or government authorities.  The Company expects that
plaintiffs will seek to recover their share of all or a portion of
the revenue that the Company has recorded from providing indirect
foreign exchange services.  The Company's total revenue worldwide
from such services was approximately $141 million for the six
months ended June 30, 2012, approximately $331 million for the
year ended December 31, 2011, approximately $336 million for the
year ended December 31, 2010, approximately $369 million for the
year ended December 31, 2009, and approximately $462 million for
the year ended December 31, 2008.  Although the Company did not
calculate revenue for such services prior to 2006 in the same
manner, and have refined its calculation method over time, the
Company believes that the amount of its revenue for such services
has been of a similar or lesser order of magnitude for many years.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of any pending
proceedings or whether a court, in the event of an adverse
resolution, would consider its revenue to be the appropriate
measure of damages.  The resolution of pending proceedings or any
that may be filed or threatened could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's future consolidated results of operations
and its reputation.  The Company's revenue calculations related to
indirect foreign exchange services reflect a judgment concerning
the relationship between the rates the Company charges for
indirect foreign exchange execution and indicative interbank
market rates near in time to execution.  The Company's revenue
from foreign exchange trading generally depends on the difference
between the rates the Company set for indirect trades and
indicative interbank market rates on the date trades settle.

State Street Corporation -- http://www.statestreet.com/-- a
financial holding company, provides various financial products and
services to institutional investors worldwide.  It was founded in
1832 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Company
offers investment servicing and investment management services.


STATE STREET: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation continues to defend four shareholder
lawsuits pending in Massachusetts, according to the Company's
August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Four shareholder-related complaints are currently pending in
federal court in Boston.  One complaint purports to be a class
action on behalf of State Street shareholders.  A second complaint
is a purported shareholder derivative action on behalf of State
Street.  The two other complaints purport to be class actions on
behalf of participants and beneficiaries in the State Street
Salary Savings Program who invested in the program's State Street
common stock investment option.  The complaints variously allege
violations of the federal securities laws, common law and the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in connection with
the Company's foreign exchange trading business, its investment
securities portfolio and the Company's asset-backed commercial
paper conduit program.

State Street Corporation -- http://www.statestreet.com/-- a
financial holding company, provides various financial products and
services to institutional investors worldwide.  It was founded in
1832 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Company
offers investment servicing and investment management services.


STATE STREET: Defends Investors' ERISA Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation is defending a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 filed by investors in unregistered SSgA-managed funds,
according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company is currently defending a putative ERISA class action
by investors in unregistered funds managed by State Street Global
Advisors, or SSgA, which challenges the division of the Company's
securities lending-related revenue between the SSgA lending funds
and State Street in its role as lending agent.  The action
alleges, among other things, that State Street breached its
fiduciary duty to investors in the SSgA lending funds.  The
plaintiff contends that State Street's agency lending clients
received more favorable fee splits than did clients of the SSgA
lending funds.

State Street Corporation -- http://www.statestreet.com/-- a
financial holding company, provides various financial products and
services to institutional investors worldwide.  It was founded in
1832 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Company
offers investment servicing and investment management services.


STATE STREET: Defends Suit Over Investment Servicing Business
-------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation continues to defend a class action
lawsuit brought by investment management clients of TAG Virgin
Islands, Inc., according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

State Street Bank is named as a defendant in a series of related
complaints by investment management clients of TAG Virgin Islands,
Inc., or TAG, who hold custodial accounts with State Street.  The
complaints, collectively, allege claims for breach of contract,
breach of implied in fact contract, gross negligence, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting fraud and violation of Massachusetts consumer
protection statutes in connection with certain assets managed by
TAG and custodied with State Street.  The complaints include a
putative consolidated class action, which alleges that the class
has suffered tens of millions of dollars in damages, and two
individual complaints, which seek unspecified damages.

State Street Corporation -- http://www.statestreet.com/-- a
financial holding company, provides various financial products and
services to institutional investors worldwide.  It was founded in
1832 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Company
offers investment servicing and investment management services.


STEWART INFORMATION: Still Defends Antitrust Class Action Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Information Services Corporation continues to defend
itself against antitrust class action lawsuits commenced in
various states, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance
Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several
other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title
Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc. (TIRSA).  The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates for title
insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized and
licensed rate service organization.

Complaints were subsequently filed in the United States District
Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in
the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington,
West Virginia, Texas and Delaware.  All of the complaints make
similar class action allegations, except that certain of the
complaints also allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) and various state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  The complaints generally request treble damages
in unspecified amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.  To date, 78 such complaints have been filed,
each of which names the Company and/or one or more of its
affiliates as a defendant (and have been consolidated in the
aforementioned states), of which seven have been voluntarily
dismissed.

As of July 25, 2012, the Company has obtained dismissals of the
claims in Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (where the court
dismissed the damages claims and granted defendants summary
judgment on the injunctive claims), Texas and Washington.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss in West Virginia (where all
proceedings have been stayed and the docket closed).  The
dismissals in New York and Texas have been affirmed by the United
States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits,
respectively, and on October 4, 2010, the United States Supreme
Court denied the plaintiffs' petitions for review of those
decisions.  The United States Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit
has affirmed the dismissal of the Ohio complaints, the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the dismissals of the
Delaware and New Jersey complaints, and the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the RESPA claims
in New York.  Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of
these actions, it is vigorously defending itself against the
allegations and does not believe that the outcome will materially
affect its consolidated financial condition or results of
operations.


TENAHA COUNTY, TX: ACLU Settles Racial Profiling Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Y. Richardson, writing for News-Journal, reports that the
American Civil Liberties Union has settled a class-action suit
filed against officials in Tenaha and Shelby County, who are
accused of racial profiling motorists by stopping them without any
legal justification and seizing their assets.

The suit was filed on behalf of three alleged victims -- James
Morrow, Javier Flores and William Parsons.

Jury selection in one of the cases, James Morrow v. the city of
Tenaha, was scheduled to begin on Sept. 4 in the courtroom of U.S.
District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.  Now that the suit has been
settled, a hearing date to consider approval of the settlement is
pending.

In his suit, Mr. Morrow, of Pine Bluff, Ark., sued several city
and county officials including Tenaha's Mayor George Bowers, City
Marshal Barry Washington and Shelby County District Attorney Lynda
K. Russell, for violating Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution,
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures; and
Amendment XIV, equal protection clause. Other co-defendants named
in the suit included: Shelby County District Attorney Investigator
Danny Green, and Shelby County Pct. 4 Constable Randy Whatley.
According to a press release form the ACLU, it is estimated that
police seized $3 million between 2006 and 2008 in at least 140
cases.  The ACLU explained that police routinely pulled over
motorists -- usually black or Latino -- without any legal
justification, asking if they were carrying cash and, if they
were, ordered them to hand over the cash or face charges of money
laundering or other serious crimes.

The ACLU noted that, in one instance, police pulled over an
interracial couple and threatened to put their children, who were
traveling with them, in foster care if they did not sign papers
agreeing to forfeit their money.

"This was a brazen case of highway robbery, plain and simple,"
Elora Mukherjee, a staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice
Program, stated in the press release.  "Law enforcement needs to
focus on protecting the communities they serve, not on policing
for profit.

"This far-reaching settlement radically alters how officers in
Tenaha and Shelby County can go about their daily duties and
protects all motorists driving along Highway 59," she said.
ACLU officials said they have found multiple instances of this
happening across other states, but Tenaha represented some of the
worst abuses in racial profiling and civil asset forfeiture.

The press release noted that under the consent decree filed by the
ACLU in the U.S. District Court here in Marshall, police will now
be required to observe strict rules that will govern traffic stops
in Tenaha and Shelby County.

According to the decree, all stops will now be videotaped, and the
officer must state the reason for the stop and the basis for
suspecting criminal activity.


UNITED STATES: 19 Robeson County Farmers Get Settlement Money
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Rockett, writing for FayObserver.com, reports that nineteen
Robeson County farmers received nearly $2 million in a settlement
with the U.S. government.

Each farmer or rancher on Aug. 31 received payments of at least
$50,000 from the Keepseagle v. Vislack class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit claimed that the U.S. Department of Agriculture
discriminated against American Indians between 1981 and 1999 by
denying them access to USDA loan and assistance programs. A $760
million settlement was reached in 2010, and payments are just now
reaching those eligible for compensation.

Beverly Collins-Hall, who works with American Indian Mothers, said
her organization helped eligible residents file their applications
for compensation.

"This is good news for Robeson County and these farmers," Collins-
Hall said. "This is a victory years in the making."

The checks were presented Friday during a gathering at the North
Carolina Indian Cultural Center, just outside Pembroke.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Approval of Purchasers' Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is awaiting court
approval of its parent's settlement of a direct purchasers class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On September 28, 2010, Biovail Corporation ("Biovail") completed
the acquisition of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
("Valeant") with Valeant surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Biovail (the "Merger").  In connection with the Merger, Biovail
was renamed "Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc." (the
"Company").

On April 4, 2008, a direct purchaser plaintiff filed a class
action antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Biovail, GlaxoSmithKline plc,
and SmithKline Beecham Inc. (the latter two of which are referred
to here as "GSK") seeking damages and alleging that Biovail and
GSK took actions to improperly delay FDA approval for generic
forms of Wellbutrin XL(R).  In late May and early June 2008,
additional direct and indirect purchaser class actions were also
filed against Biovail and GSK in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, all making similar allegations.  After motion
practice, the complaints were consolidated, resulting in a lead
direct purchaser and a lead indirect purchaser action, and the
Court ultimately denied defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaints.

The Court granted direct purchasers' motion for class
certification, and certified a class consisting of all persons or
entities in the United States and its territories who purchased
Wellbutrin XL(R) directly from any of the defendants at any time
during the period of November 14, 2005, through August 31, 2009.
Excluded from the class are defendants and their officers,
directors, management, employees, parents, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, and federal government entities.  Further excluded
from the class are persons or entities who have not purchased
generic versions of Wellbutrin XL(R) during the class period after
the introduction of generic versions of Wellbutrin XL(R).  The
Court granted in part and denied in part the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The defendants have
asked the Third Circuit to review the class certification.

After extensive discovery, briefing and oral argument, the Court
granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all but one
of the plaintiffs' claims, and deferred ruling on the remaining
claim.

Following the summary judgment decision, the Company entered into
binding settlement arrangements with both plaintiffs' classes to
resolve all existing claims against the Company.  The total
settlement amount payable is $49.25 million.  In addition, the
Company will pay up to $500,000 toward settlement notice costs.
These charges were recognized in the second quarter of 2012,
within Legal settlements in the consolidated statements of (loss)
income.  The settlements require Court approval.  The direct
purchaser class filed its motion for preliminary approval of its
settlement on July 23, 2012.

The Company expects the hearing on final approval of that
settlement to take place in the fourth quarter of 2012.  The
indirect purchaser class is expected to file its motion for
preliminary approval in the fourth quarter of 2012, with a hearing
on final approval of that settlement likely to be held in the
first quarter of 2013.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Class Suit in British Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and a subsidiary are
defending a proposed class action lawsuit in British Columbia,
according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and Afexa Life
Sciences Inc.  The proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the
Company made false representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to all
residents of British Columbia who purchased the product during the
applicable period and that the class has suffered damages as a
result.  The Company denies the allegations being made and intends
to defend this matter.


WALT DISNEY: 11th Circuit Upholds Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Deshayla Strachan at Courthouse News Service reports that the 11th
Circuit upheld a class action settlement that lets Walt Disney
World ban Segways while it develops its own stand-up vehicle.

Disney bans the use of all two-wheeled vehicles in all of the
parks and hotels within its Walt Disney World Resort and
Disneyland Resort.  The ban provides no exception for those with
disabilities who rely upon the two-wheeled vehicles for mobility.

In a 2007 federal complaint, Mahala Ault, Stacie Rhea and Dan
Wallace claimed that the policy violates Title III of the
Americans With Disabilities Act.

The parties settled a year later, with Disney agreeing to maintain
its ban while it develops its own electric stand-up vehicle (ESV)
that operates on four wheels.  The device is intended for disabled
guests who cannot use a wheelchair, scooter or other mobility
device that requires sitting.

A federal judge in Orlando approved the settlement, but the U.S.
Department of Justice, Disability Rights Advocate for Technology
and 23 states attorneys filed objections.

The Atlanta, Ga.-based federal appeals court also approved the
settlement on Aug. 30 and affirmed certification of the
settlement-only class.

"Class representatives in this class only seek injunctive or
declaratory relief; therefore, the class receives either nothing
or an injunction requiring Disney to permit Segways at Disney
Resorts," Chief Judge Joel Dubina wrote for a three-member panel.
"Because the District Court found that class representatives were
unlikely to prevail at trial, the District Court found that
Disney's agreement to produce and make available the ESVs is a
beneficial remedy for the class.  This finding does not constitute
an abuse of discretion.  If Disney prevails at trial, the class
will be left with no remedy at all.  This settlement precludes
such a Draconian result and ensures that a stand-up mobility
device is available at Disney Resorts that conforms to its unique
safety requirements."

Earlier this year, the 9th Circuit revived similar claims from a
woman who wanted to use a Segway to navigate Disneyland.

The Pasadena, Calif.-based federal appeals court said Disney had
to make "reasonable" accommodations for disabled patrons and must
keep up with the developing technology.

Disney's lawyer, Daniel Fears, criticized the dangers of Segways,
which lack brakes and steering wheels, yet go as fast as 12 mph.

But prominent disabilities rights attorney David Geffen countered
that "Disneyland is the largest purchaser of Segways in the
country."

"Their employees use them in the back lots," Mr. Geffen said.
"They show the device in Tomorrowland and say, 'The Segway is the
mobility device of the future.  It's as natural as walking.' And,
after an hour of training, you can use a Segway at Disneyland to
tour their park.

A copy of the ruling in Ault, et al. v. Walt Disney World Co.,
Case No. 11-cv-12013 (11th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/04/Segways.pdf


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Faced 26 PI Suits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation faced 26 asbestos-related lawsuits at June 30,
2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We are from time to time a party to various
lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the
claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for
personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.
At June 30, 2012, there were 26 asbestos related lawsuits in which
we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in
the United States in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and
Texas. We intend to vigorously defend against the litigation. We
do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have
a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

Noble Corporation, a Swiss corporation, is a leading provider of
offshore contract drilling services for the oil and gas industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Continues to Defend Asbestosis Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation continues to face respirator liabilities
including asbestosis, 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 exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from
American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset
purchase transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators
under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In
connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary
agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's
liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts
paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.
our respirator liabilities involve claims for personal injury,
including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis,
allegedly resulting from the use of respirators that are claimed
to have been negligently designed or labeled.

"As of June 30, 2012 and September 30, 2011, there were
approximately 41,000 and 42,000 claimants, respectively, in
pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with
respiratory products. We have a reserve to cover our expected
share of liability for existing and future respirator liability
claims. The book value of the reserve is being accreted up to the
undiscounted liability through interest expense over the expected
cash flow period, which is through 2062. At June 30, 2012 and
September 30, 2011, the reserve was $9 million and $11 million,
respectively, on a discounted basis ($14 million and $16 million
on an undiscounted basis at June 30, 2012 and September 30, 2011,
respectively). Cash payments related to this liability were $2
million and $3 million in the first nine months of fiscal 2012 and
2011, respectively."

Cabot Corporation operates as a specialty chemicals and
performance materials company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Still Has Exposure to Fibro Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. still exposed to asbestos-related lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We are involved in unresolved legal actions
that arise in the normal course of business. The most prevalent of
these unresolved actions involve disputes related to product
design, manufacture and performance liability (including claimed
asbestos and welding fumes exposure), contracts, employment
issues, environmental matters or intellectual property rights.
The aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of
accrued liabilities, if any, associated with these unresolved
legal actions is not material.  In some cases, we cannot
reasonably estimate a range of loss because there is insufficient
information regarding the matter.  However, there is no more than
a remote chance that any liability arising from these matters
would be material.  Although it is not possible to predict with
certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions, we
believe that these actions will not individually or in the
aggregate have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
results of operations, financial position or liquidity."

Caterpillar Inc. manufactures and sells construction and mining
equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, industrial gas
turbines, and diesel-electric locomotives worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Liable for Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC's parent 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, including
CenterPoint Houston, 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 CenterPoint Energy or
CenterPoint Houston, but most existing claims relate to facilities
previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's other subsidiaries or
CenterPoint Houston, but currently owned by NRG Texas LP.
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 Houston or CenterPoint Energy, as appropriate, intends
to continue vigorously contesting claims that are not considered
to have merit and CenterPoint Houston does not expect, based on
its experience to date, these matters, either individually or in
the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, engages in the electric
transmission and distribution business in the Texas Gulf Coast
area that includes the city of Houston.  CenterPoint Houston is an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a
public utility holding company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Continues to Defend Insurer Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc., continues to defend claims by
certain insurers over 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 states: "On or about August 23, 2004, a declaratory
judgment action entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London,
et al. v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc. et al., was filed by certain
underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company
Limited (the "London Insurers"), in the 23rd Judicial District
Court, Assumption Parish, Louisiana, against McDermott
International, Inc., J. Ray McDermott, Inc. ("JRMI") and two
insurer defendants, Travelers and INA, seeking a declaration that
the London Insurers have no obligation to indemnify MII and JRMI
for certain bodily injury claims, including claims for asbestos
and welding rod fume personal injury which have been filed by
claimants in various state courts. Additionally, Travelers filed a
cross-claim requesting a declaration of non-coverage in
approximately 20 underlying matters. This proceeding was stayed by
the Court on January 3, 2005. We do not believe an adverse
judgment or material losses in this matter are probable, and,
accordingly, we have not accrued any amounts relating to this
contingency. Although there is a possibility of an adverse
judgment, the amount or potential range of loss is not estimable
at this time. The insurer-plaintiffs in this matter commenced this
proceeding in a purported attempt to obtain a determination of
insurance coverage obligations for occupational exposure and/or
environmental matters for which we have given notice that we could
potentially seek coverage. Because estimating losses would
require, for every matter, known and unknown, on a case by case
basis, anticipating what impact on coverage a judgment would have
and a determination of an otherwise expected insured value,
damages cannot be reasonably estimated."

McDermott International, Inc., a corporation incorporated under
the laws of the Republic of Panama, is an engineering,
procurement, construction and installation ("EPCI") company
focused on designing and executing complex offshore oil and gas
projects worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc., continues to defend asbestos
exposure-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "On December 16, 2005, a proceeding entitled
Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott, Inc., et al.("Antoine
Suit"), was filed in the 24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana, by approximately 88 plaintiffs against
approximately 215 defendants, including our subsidiaries formerly
known as J. Ray McDermott, Inc. ("JRMI") and Delta Hudson
Engineering Corporation ("DHEC"), generally alleging injuries for
exposure to asbestos, and unspecified chemicals, metals and noise
while the plaintiffs were allegedly employed as Jones Act seamen.
This case was dismissed by the Court on January 10, 2007, without
prejudice to plaintiffs' rights to refile their claims. On January
29, 2007, 21 plaintiffs from the dismissed Antoine Suit filed a
matter entitled Boudreaux, et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al. (the
"Boudreaux Suit"), in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, against JRMI and our subsidiary
formerly known as McDermott Incorporated, and approximately 30
other employer defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and
generally alleging exposure to welding fumes, solvents, dyes,
industrial paints and noise. The Boudreaux Suit was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana on May 2, 2007, which entered an order in September 2007
staying the matter until further order of the Court due to the
bankruptcy filing of one of the co-defendants. Additionally, on
January 29, 2007, another 43 plaintiffs from the dismissed Antoine
Suit filed a matter entitled Antoine, et al. v. McDermott, Inc.,
et al. (the "New Antoine Suit"), in the 164th Judicial District
Court for Harris County, Texas, against JRMI, our subsidiary
formerly known as McDermott Incorporated and approximately 65
other employer defendants and 42 maritime products defendants,
alleging Jones Act seaman status and generally alleging personal
injuries for exposure to asbestos and noise. On April 27, 2007,
the District Court entered an order staying all activity and
deadlines in the New Antoine Suit, other than service of process
and answer/appearance dates, until further order of the Court. The
New Antoine Suit plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay on
February 20, 2009, which is pending before the Texas District
Court. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified
amount in both the Boudreaux Suit and New Antoine Suit cases and
attorneys' fees in the New Antoine Suit. We cannot reasonably
estimate the extent of a potential judgment against us, if any,
and we intend to vigorously defend these suits."

McDermott International, Inc., a corporation incorporated under
the laws of the Republic of Panama, is an engineering,
procurement, construction and installation ("EPCI") company
focused on designing and executing complex offshore oil and gas
projects worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPL Continues to Defend 30 Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary remains a defendant to
30 asbestos exposure-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "IPL is a defendant in approximately thirty
pending lawsuits alleging personal injury or wrongful death
stemming from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing
products formerly located in IPL power plants. IPL has been named
as a "premises defendant", which means that IPL did not mine,
manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos containing
products. These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who
worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL. IPL has
insurance which may cover some portions of these claims;
currently, these cases are being defended by counsel retained by
various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of
time during which much of the exposure has been alleged.

"It is possible that material additional loss with regard to the
asbestos lawsuits could be incurred. At this time, an estimate of
additional loss cannot be made. IPL has settled a number of
asbestos related lawsuits for amounts which, individually and in
the aggregate, were not material to IPL's or IPALCO's results of
operations, financial condition, or cash flows. Historically,
settlements paid on IPL's behalf have been comprised of proceeds
from one or more insurers along with comparatively smaller
contributions by IPL. Additionally, approximately twenty cases
have been dismissed by the plaintiffs in the first half of 2012
without requiring a settlement. We are unable to estimate the
number of, the effect of, or losses or range of loss which are
reasonably possible from the pending lawsuits or any additional
asbestos suits. Furthermore, we are unable to estimate the portion
of a settlement amount, if any, that may be paid from any
insurance coverage for any known or unknown claims. Accordingly,
there is no assurance that the pending or any additional suits
will not have a material adverse effect on IPALCO's results of
operations, financial condition, or cash flows."

IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., is a holding company incorporated under
the laws of the state of Indiana. IPALCO is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of The AES Corporation.  Substantially all of IPALCO's
business consists of the generation, transmission, distribution
and sale of electric energy conducted through its principal
subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light Company. IPL has
approximately 470,000 retail customers in the city of Indianapolis
and neighboring cities, towns and communities, and adjacent rural
areas all within the state of Indiana, the most distant point
being approximately forty miles from Indianapolis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Had $393.9MM Net Reserves at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation's net reserves for Asbestos and
Environmental Impairment Exposure were $393.9 million at June 30,
2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "As of June 30, 2012, gross and net reserves
for risks relating to asbestos-related illnesses and environmental
impairment were $510.3 million and $393.9 million, respectively,
of which $496.7 million and $380.4 million, respectively, related
to Transatlantic and $13.6 million and $13.5 million,
respectively, related to CATA. The reserves carried for such
claims, including the IBNR portion, are based upon known facts and
current law at the respective balance sheet dates. However,
significant uncertainty exists in determining the amount of
ultimate liability for asbestos-related and environmental
impairment losses, particularly for those occurring in 1985 and
prior, which represents the majority of Transatlantic's asbestos-
related illness and environmental impairment reserves. This
uncertainty is due to inconsistent court resolutions and judicial
interpretations with respect to underlying policy intent and
coverage and uncertainties as to the allocation of responsibility
for resultant damages, among other reasons. Further, possible
changes in statutes, laws, regulations, theories of liability and
other factors could have a material effect on these liabilities
and, accordingly, future earnings."

Alleghany Corporation is engaged in the property and casualty
reinsurance and insurance business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rowan Companies Continues to Defend 21 Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rowan Companies plc, at June 30, 2012, was a party to
approximately 21 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We are from time to time a party to various
lawsuits filed by current or former employees that are incidental
to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified
amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on our drilling
rigs.  At June 30, 2012, there were approximately 21 asbestos
related lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants.  These
lawsuits have been filed in the state courts of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas.  We intend to vigorously defend against the
litigation.  We are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of
these lawsuits; however, we do not believe the ultimate resolution
of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.  No
amounts were accrued at June 30, 2012, for these asbestos related
lawsuits."

Rowan Companies plc is a provider of international and domestic
offshore oil and gas contract drilling services and provides its
services utilizing a fleet of 31 self-elevating mobile offshore
"jack-up" drilling units.  The Company conducts offshore drilling
operations in various markets throughout the world including the
North Sea, Middle East, Southeast Asia and U.S. Gulf of Mexico,
among others.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had $41.8M Liability at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc.'s asbestos liability at June 30, 2012, was
$41.8 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We are the subject of numerous lawsuits and
claims incidental to the conduct of our or certain of our
predecessors' businesses, including lawsuits and claims relating
to product liability and personal injury, including asbestos,
environmental, contractual, employment and intellectual property
matters.

"As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the aggregate self-
insured and insured contingent liability was $51.6 million and
$53.0 million, respectively, and the related insurance recovery
receivable for the liability as well as claims for past payments
was $21.9 million at June 30, 2012 and $22.1 million at
December 31, 2011. The asbestos liability included in the amounts
at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 was $41.8 million and $42.4
million, respectively, and the insurance receivable related to the
liability as well as claims for past payments was $21.5 million at
June 30, 2012 and $21.8 million at December 31, 2011. We
anticipate receiving a net tax benefit for payment of those claims
for which full insurance recovery is not realized.

"We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as one
of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in the
U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The
claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that we own or
formerly owned, or from products that we formerly manufactured for
specialized applications. Most of these cases involve numerous
defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. Historically,
most of the closed asbestos claims against us have been dismissed
without any indemnity payment by us, however, we can make no
assurances that this pattern will continue.
The table presents information about the number of claimants
involved in asbestos claims with us:

                         Six months ended   Year ended
                            June 30, 2012   December 31, 2011
                         ----------------   -----------------
   Number of claimants
   at beginning of period          8,000             8,000

   Number of claimants
   associated with claims
   closed during period             (100)             (100)

   Number of claimants
   associated with claims
   opened during period              100               100

   Number of claimants
   at end of period                8,000             8,000

"Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance
receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third
party. This study is based on, among other things, the incidence
and nature of historical claims data, the incidence of malignancy
claims, the severity of indemnity payments for malignancy and non-
malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim type, estimated future
claim frequency, settlement values and reserves, and expected
average insurance recovery rates by claim type The study is
updated every three years. Our last study was prepared during the
third quarter of 2009, based on experience through June 30, 2009.
We have initiated a new study in the
third quarter of 2012, which will be based on experience through
June 30, 2012. At this point, it is too early to determine if
there will be any potential financial impact as a result of our
findings from the study. Any adjustments would be recorded in the
third quarter of 2012, upon completion of the study.

"Overall, we expect to recover approximately 48% of our future
indemnity costs. We have completed coverage in place agreements
with most of our larger insurance carriers.

"Most of our insurance is with carriers with investment grade
ratings and only those with such ratings or other solvent carriers
were included in the estimation of the recovery of indemnity and
incurred defense costs."

Cytec Industries Inc., a specialty chemicals and materials
company, engages in developing, manufacturing, and selling
chemical products primarily for aerospace composites, structural
adhesives, automotive and industrial coatings, electronics, inks,
mining, and plastics markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Asbestos Liability Still at $1.7BB
--------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. remains a defendant in property damage and
personal injury lawsuits relating to previously sold asbestos-
containing products. As of its bankruptcy filing, Grace was a
defendant in 65,656 asbestos-related lawsuits, 17 involving claims
for property damage (one of which has since been dismissed), and
the remainder involving 129,191 claims for personal injury. Due to
the Filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed from
continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from commencing new
lawsuits against the Debtors. Grace's obligations with respect to
present and future asbestos claims will be determined through the
Chapter 11 process.

As of June 30, 2012, approximately 430 PD Claims subject to the
March 31, 2003 claims bar date remain outstanding. The Bankruptcy
Court has approved settlement agreements covering approximately
410 of such claims for an aggregate allowed amount of $151.6
million.

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a claims bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved
a related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI
PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than
October 31, 2008. Approximately 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were
filed prior to the October 31, 2008 claims bar date, and as of
June 30, 2012 an additional 1,310 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed.
Under the Canadian ZAI Settlement, all Canadian ZAI PD Claims
filed before December 31, 2009 would be eligible to seek
compensation from the Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund.
Approximately 13,100 Canadian ZAI PD Claims were filed by December
31, 2009.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI Claims were pending against
Grace. Grace believes that a substantial number of additional PI
Claims would have been received between the Filing Date and
June 30, 2012 had such PI Claims not been stayed by the Bankruptcy
Court.

The Bankruptcy Court entered a case management order for
estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims. A trial for
estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but was
suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.

The total recorded asbestos-related liability as of June 30, 2012
and December 31, 2011, including pre-Filing Date and post-Filing
Date settlements, was $1,700.0 million and is included in
"liabilities subject to compromise" in the accompanying
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Grace's asbestos-related liability will finally be determined on
the effective date of the Joint Plan and adjustments to the
currently recorded amount will result primarily from the
valuations of the warrant and the deferred payment obligations.

Grace holds insurance policies that provide coverage for 1962 to
1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and claims. For the
most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has been
exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985 available
for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985, insurance
coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been
commercially available to Grace.

As of June 30, 2012, excluding the effect of settlements that are
dependent upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan and after
subtracting previous reimbursements by insurers and allowing for
discounts pursuant to certain settlement agreements that are not
dependent upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan, there remains
approximately $970.0 million of excess coverage from 54 presently
solvent insurers. Grace estimates that eligible claims would have
to exceed $4.0 billion to access total coverage.

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.

W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in
specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses on a global
basis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kids From Aussie Mining Town Developing Cancers
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Wittenoom kids" who spent their childhoods exposed to asbestos in
the north-west of Western Australia are now developing a range of
cancers or dying at a rate well above the average population,
according to a new study by researchers from The University of
Western Australia for the UWA-affiliated Western Australian
Institute for Medical Research (WAIMR).

Mining of the deadly blue asbestos at Wittenoom, 1106km north of
Perth, ceased in 1966 and the town was later closed after airborne
fibres in dust from mining operations were found to cause
malignant mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis and other serious
diseases.

While data has been collected previously looking at asbestos-
related diseases caused by occupational asbestos exposure among
men (either working in asbestos mining towns or using asbestos
products), this new study is the first to look at the long-term
health of children who were exposed to asbestos at Wittenoom.

The study, which has been published in the American Journal of
Industrial Medicine, shows that girls up to the age of 15 who
lived in Wittenoom have been more likely to develop mesothelioma,
ovarian and brain cancers and have had increased death rates.

Boys who spent their childhood and early teenage years in
Wittenoom during the years that asbestos was mined (1943-1966) now
have elevated rates of mesothelioma, leukaemia, prostate, brain
and colorectal cancer, diseases of the circulatory and nervous
system, and excessive death  rates.

"The original township was only 1.6km from the mine," said leading
researcher on the paper, WAIMR's Associate Professor Alison Reid.
"Later in 1947, when the population grew, the township was moved
12km away from the mine site but tailings from the mine were used
throughout the town.

"These tailings, rich in crocidolite fibres, were used to pave
roads, footpaths, parking areas, the local racecourse and school
playgrounds.  They were even used in people's backyards, where, of
course, children often played," she said. "These "Wittenoom kids"
are now reaching the age where chronic adult diseases are becoming
more prevalent and many have died."

Associate Professor Reid said the study by WAIMR researchers from
UWA's School of Population Health found that a total of 2460
former Wittenoom children were documented to have been exposed to
blue asbestos before the age of 15.

The median age of their first exposure was at three years of age.

Of the people studied, 63 per cent were either born in Wittenoom
or had moved to the mining town by the time they were three years
old.  The vast majority (93.5 per cent) left Wittenoom by the time
they were 16, so were exposed to asbestos only during their
childhoods.

By the end of 2007, 228 former residents had died from a range of
causes.  By the end of 2009, there were 215 cases of cancer in 207
individuals.

This means that compared with the general population in Western
Australia, Wittenoom girls have had a 20-47 per cent greater risk
of dying from any cause, while boys have had a 50-83 per cent
increased chance of dying from any cause.

"We will continue to follow this group to provide important
information on the long-term implications of exposure to asbestos
during childhood," Associate Professor Alison Reid said.

Residents purchased the deadly tailings which were commonly used
as sandpits in backyards for the purposes of children's play and
also to reduce dust around houses.  Philip Noble grew up to be a
keen footballer before dying from mesothelioma at 36.  Ross Munroe
became a High School Principal and died from mesothelioma at 38.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McLean Judge Vacates Portion of $90MM Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edith Brady-Lunny, writing for Pantagraph.com, reports a McLean
County (Ill.) judge has reduced the jury award related to a 2011
verdict against four companies accused of exposing a man to
asbestos from almost $90 million to $8.4 million.

Charles Gillenwater, 59, worked as pipe fitter when he contracted
mesothelioma in the 1970s while working at several work sites,
including Illinois State University, Bridgestone-Firestone and The
Eureka Co., according to the lawsuit filed by Bloomington lawyers
James Wylder and Andrew Kelly.

Judge Scott Drazewski ruled Aug. 31 that judgments against Pneumo
Abex LLC, Honeywell International and Owens-Illinois are vacated.

A judgment against John Crane Inc. for $8.4 million was allowed to
stand.

Lawyers for the victim's widow, Donita Gillenwater, expressed
disappointment with Drazewski's opinion that evidence was
insufficient to show a conspiracy among the companies to keep
information about the harmful potential of asbestos from the
public.

"Not only did the 12 jurors in this case unanimously find such a
conspiracy existed, but ten other juries made up of McLean County
residents, since 2005, have equally found that the asbestos
companies engaged in such a conspiracy caused other members of our
community to develop asbestos diseases such as mesothelioma that
killed Charles Gilllenwater," said Kelly.

The jury awarded compensatory damages of $9.6 million against
Honeywell, Pneumo Abex and against Owens-Illinois. Punitive
damages of $20 million were found against Honeywell and Pneumo
Abex and $40 million against Owens-Illinois.

Drazewski also denied a motion by Crane for a new trial.

The decision recognizes a ruling by the 4th District Appellate
Court that firms not directly related to the job sites where the
victim worked should not be held accountable for his disease or
death.

Similar appellate rulings have been returned in several other
cases involving asbestos-related deaths of workers who were
employed at the former Union Asbestos & Rubber Co. In reversing
the jury awards the appellate court has rejected conspiracy
claims.

Kelly said an appeal will be filed of Drazewski's ruling.

                  Owens-Illinois Issues Statement

Owens-Illinois, Inc. issued a statement concerning a favorable
ruling handed down by a McLean County, Illinois, judge regarding a
verdict issued on March 11, 2011, in an asbestos case.

"On August 31, 2012, a McLean County, Illinois, trial judge
granted Owens-Illinois' motion to vacate O-I's portion of a nearly
$90 million 2011 jury verdict in a case involving allegations that
Owens-Illinois and other companies participated in a conspiracy to
conceal or misrepresent information about the health risks
associated with asbestos exposure. The McLean County trial judge
entered judgment in O-I's favor, a judgment that is subject to
appeal. Of the damages vacated by this ruling, $9.6 million in
compensatory damages had been assessed against all defendants and
$40 million in punitive damages had been assessed against Owens-
Illinois.

"Owens-Illinois is pleased with this ruling.  The ruling is
consistent with O-I's position that it did not conspire with
anyone concerning asbestos health hazards.  It also is consistent
with a prior Illinois Supreme Court decision that granted Owens-
Illinois judgment in a similar case. Owens-Illinois did not change
its financial outlook after the 2011 jury verdict, and does not
anticipate any change to its 2012 financial outlook as a result of
this ruling."

Owens-Illinois (NYSE: OI) -- http://www.o-i.com/-- is the world's
largest glass container manufacturer and preferred partner for
many of the world's leading food and beverage brands. With
revenues of $7.4 billion in 2011, the Company is headquartered in
Perrysburg, Ohio, and employs more than 24,000 people at 81 plants
in 21 countries. O -I delivers safe, effective and sustainable
glass packaging solutions to a growing global marketplace.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groups to Pursue Efforts Against Jeffrey Mine
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle LaLonde, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that
anti-asbestos advocates plan to hold the newly-elected Parti
Quebecois government to its promise to cancel the $58-million
government loan to the Jeffrey Mine and put an end to this
province's long history of production and export of the deadly
fibre.

That promise was made in the final days of the election campaign
by PQ candidate Daniel Breton, now the newly-elected MNA for the
Plateau Mont Royal riding of Sainte-Marie-Saint-Jacques and a
long-time environmental activist.  PQ Leader Pauline Marois
confirmed the commitment on Thursday, Aug. 30, promising to cancel
the loan and instead invest the money in economic diversification
for the asbestos-producing region.

But a spokesperson for the Jeffrey Mine said no discussions have
yet been held with the new government, and work to expand
underground and reopen the mine is continuing, he said.

"Look, we have an agreement with the government, work is
continuing, and we have no further comment," Guy Versailles said.

It is not known how the new PQ government can legally cancel the
loan at this point, but Marois has made it clear she intends to
end asbestos mining in the province.

The former Liberal government had announced the granting of the
controversial loan on June 29, after years of stalling, at a press
conference in Asbestos, home of the Jeffrey Mine. The outgoing
Liberal MNA for Richmond riding, Yvon Vallieres, made the
announcement just before taking his retirement from politics. His
daughter, Karine Vallieres, replaced him as the Liberal candidate
for Richmond and managed a very narrow victory over the PQ's
Etienne-Alexis Boucher on Tuesday, Sept. 4, beating him by only
269 votes.

Dr. Fernand Turcotte, professor emeritus of public health and
preventive medicine at Universite Laval, said he is certain the PQ
will follow through on the promise, and he is only disappointed
the party didn't take this position earlier.

"The scientific facts are so robust and incontestable that the
only legitimate way for a modern state to proceed is to leave the
remaining asbestos in the ground, and take all reasonable measures
to protect people from the asbestos that we have used in our built
environment," he said.

He added the new government needs to publish a registry of all
public buildings that contain asbestos and conduct regular
inspections to ensure these buildings are safe.

"We also have to take care of asbestos victims properly and stop
propagating idiotic statements such as 'Chrysotile (asbestos) is
safe' or that there is a safe way to use it. That's like saying
there is a safe way to fall from the 15th floor of a building."

Virtually every scientific and health-related institution that has
studied the issue, including the World Health Organization, the
Institut national de sante publique du Quebec and the Canadian
Medical Association, have concluded that asbestos causes deadly
diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis, and should not be
mined or exported.

The Jeffrey Mine was to reopen next summer and produce 250,000
tonnes of asbestos per year over the next 20 years, mainly for
export to the developing world. It would create 425 jobs directly
and 1,000 indirectly, proponents said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Appeals Court Flips $17.8MM Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for Legal Newsline, reports a split
panel of the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court has reversed
a $17.8 million verdict in a McLean County asbestos conspiracy
case.

The majority of the panel relied on the Fourth District's 2011
ruling in Rodarmel v. Pneumo Abex to come to its conclusion that
plaintiff Jayne Menssen did not present sufficient evidence to
prove that Honeywell International and Pneumo-Abex conspired with
other corporations to suppress the health hazards of asbestos
exposure.

Justice Robert Steigmann delivered the panel's Friday (Aug. 31)
decision.  Justice John Turner specially concurred in the opinion
and Justice Robert Cook dissented.

In his nearly five-page dissent, Cook asserted that the lower
court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendants'
motions.

Cook wrote that Menssen presented persuasive evidence that
Honeywell, the successor to brake maker Bendix, and Abex, the
successor to American Brake and Block, conspired with other
companies to prevent the publication of information from a study
on the health hazards of asbestos.

The split ruling stems from a lawsuit Menssen filed in 2009
against Pneumo Abex, Honeywell and a few other companies.

Her suit sought to recover damages for the pleural mesothelioma
that Menssen alleges she suffered as a result of being exposed to
asbestos while employed at the Union Asbestos and Rubber Company
(UNARCO) in Bloomington.

Menssen worked at UNARCO, a manufacturer and distributor of
asbestos and asbestos products, from 1967 to 1969 and claimed that
during her time there, she inhaled asbestos fibers manufactured by
Abex and Honeywell, among other companies.

Her suit accused Abex, Honeywell and UNARCO of entering into a
civil conspiracy by agreeing to suppress information about the
effects of asbestos and falsely asserting that exposure to
asbestos was safe.

To bolster her conspiracy argument, Menssen presented evidence
that Abex allegedly conspired with eight other corporations to
conceal information from a study that Dr. LeRoy U. Gardner
conducted on the effects of asbestos more than seven decades ago
through the use of mice.

Two years after Gardner died, the Saranac Laboratory prepared the
final report of Gardner's findings and sent it to Johns-Manville,
which supplied asbestos to Abex and was one of the nine
corporations that financed the study.

The general counsel of Johns-Manville passed on the draft report
to the other financing corporations, the majority of which later
met and voted to delete references to cancer and tumors from the
final published report.

The Saranac Laboratory in 1951 published the report, which did not
include any references to tumors and malignancies in the mice,
according to the appellate court opinion.

In February 2010, a McLean County jury returned a verdict in favor
of Menssen and against Abex and Honeywell. It awarded Menssen $3.5
million in compensatory damages, $4.37 million in punitive damages
against Abex and $10 million against Honeywell for a total verdict
of about $17.8 million.

The two companies appealed, alleging numerous deficiencies.

Writing for the majority of the appeals panel, Steigmann said that
because it considered the Fourth District's opinion in Rodarmel as
dispositive, it only needed to address the companies' claim that
the trial court erred in denying their motions for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict.

In Rodarmel, according to the majority opinion, the plaintiffs
sued Abex and Honeywell, claiming the companies conspired with
others to falsely assert that asbestos exposure was safe and to
withhold information about the effects of asbestos.

Like Menssen's case, the two companies in Rodarmel filed motions
for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court
denied.

On appeal, the Fourth District relied on the Illinois Supreme
Court's 1999 decision in McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp.
to reject Rodarmel's claim that the evidence presented, which
included details on the study, was proof of the defendants'
participation in a civil conspiracy.

In McClure, the state high court determined that in order to
recover damages under a civil conspiracy claim, "the plaintiff
must prove an agreement and a tortious act committed in
furtherance of the agreement," which "must be knowingly and
intentionally made," Steigmann wrote.

The state high court in May denied a petition for leave to appeal
filed by the plaintiffs in Rodarmel, letting the appellate court
ruling stand.

Based on Rodarmel and McClure, Steigmann wrote that the appeals
panel reversed the lower court's ruling because "the evidence
Menssen presented was insufficient to prove Abex or Honeywell
conspired with other corporations to misrepresent or suppress the
health hazards of asbestos exposure."

Although Menssen presented more information than the plaintiffs in
Rodarmel did and her exposure occurred later, Steigmann wrote that
neither the additional evidence nor the expanded time frame
"clearly and convincingly shows a conspiratorial agreement among
corporations in the asbestos industry."

"Simply put," Steigmann wrote, "the additional evidence merely
shows the continued efforts Bendix engaged in-on its own accord
and initiative-to misrepresent and suppress the dangers of
asbestos exposure despite the increasing cascade of medical and
scientific literature to the contrary."

When it came to Menssen's arguments over the study published by
the Saranac Laboratory, the appeals panel also relied on the
Rodarmel ruling in its analysis.

The court in Rodarmel noted that Abex didn't enter into a
conspiratorial agreement to conceal information about the study's
findings over tumorous mice because concealing information that
has no significance can't be unlawful.

The Rodarmel court noted that a doctor who evaluated Gardner's
grant request to further study cancer and asbestos said his
findings were "not of any tremendous value."

In his dissent, Cook wrote that "it is surprising that this court
would conclude that the suppression of the results of the Saranac
Laboratory research was no big deal."

"Johns-Manville did not do anything wrong? UNARCO did not do
anything wrong? That approach is inconsistent with previous
decisions and with our supreme court's decision in McClure," Cook
wrote. "There was direct evidence that UNARCO and Johns-Manville
prevented information about the health hazards of asbestos from
being published."

Although Cook agrees that a plaintiff must show there was an
agreement in order to state a claim for civil conspiracy, he cited
McClure in his dissent to argue that a defendant company can be
held liable as a conspirator if it "understands the general
objectives of the conspiratorial scheme, accepts them, and agrees,
either explicitly or implicitly[,] to do its part to further those
objectives.

"It is not necessary that defendant admit the conspiracy; evidence
of an implicit agreement is enough," Cook wrote in his dissent.

Pointing to meetings, conferences and phone calls between
Honeywell, Abex and Johns-Manville regarding the study and their
desire to keep the draft report confidential, Cook wrote "there
was persuasive evidence, both explicit and implicit, of an
agreement here."

"Of course the defendants attached excuses to their decisions to
suppress, in an attempt to justify those decisions," Cook wrote.
"We should not give undue weight to those excuses."

As such, Cook wrote that he believes the lower court did not abuse
its discretion when it denied the defendants' motions for a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Texas attorney Reagan Simpson, who serves on the legal team
representing Abex, said his client was pleased with the recent
appellate court ruling. Simpson also argued on Abex's behalf in
the Rodarmel case.

Bloomington attorneys James Wylder and Lisa Corwin represented
Menssen before the appellate court. Wylder did not immediately
return a message today seeking comment as to whether his client
planned to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BC Cancer Agency Wants Detection Improved
----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports a team at the B.C. Cancer Agency is trying to
convince WorksafeBC that lives would be saved if it were to cover
the costs of routine CT scans for all workers in the province who
have had long-term exposure to asbestos.

New research has shown that X-rays are not nearly as effective as
CT scans at detecting lung cancer, for instance.

Many people who worked at an asbestos mine closed 20 years ago in
Cassiar, B.C., told CBC they believe they are healthy because
their X-rays are clear.

But new research indicates that if the workers are in the high-
risk category -- due to a history of other lung illnesses,
smoking, or exposure to asbestos -- they might not learn of life-
threatening disease until it's too late if they depend solely on
X-rays for detection.

"We know that exposure to asbestos alone increases the risk of
lung cancer by six times, if they smoked that increases 10 times,
and together the risk is 60 times," said Dr. Stephen Lam, a
respirologist with the B.C. Cancer Agency.

A CT scan itself costs about $250, but other costs also have to be
factored in, including a radiologist to analyze the scan and a
physician to review the analysis and deal with the patient.

Lam and some labor unions are among those lobbying WorksafeBC to
cover the cost of routine CT scans for asbestos workers.

Union officials say they're tired of attending funerals of workers
slowly suffocated to death by mesothelioma, the most deadly of the
cancers caused by asbestos.

"By the time you go to the doctor and say, 'I have a sore back,'
it's too late," said Andre Pachon, of the British Columbia
Insulation Contractors Association.

WorksafeBC has not yet announced a decision on the request.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean-up at Washington School to Continue
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Finn, writing for KIMATV.com, reports that KIMA learned
construction and asbestos clean up at Wapato (Wash.) High School
will continue into the school year as crews are running behind
schedule.

District officials say crews fell behind schedule this summer when
they ran into some unexpected asbestos.

Clean-up and demolition was scheduled to wrap up before the school
year began.

"The student safety issues, staff safety issues, are all up to
city codes.  What we're really struggling with is the traffic flow
and student traffic patterns," said Dan Murray, Wapato Schools
Assistant Superintendent.

This phase should be done by the end of next week. The next part
of the remodel will begin soon after.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal at Hubble School Property Begins Monday
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Eriksen, writing for the Wheaton (Ill.) Patch, reports
that Bradford Equities will close on the old Hubble school
property with District 200 on Friday, Sept. 7, and begin asbestos
removal Monday, Sept. 10, developers said Wednesday.

With plans to build a Mariano's Fresh Market at the corner of
Naperville and Roosevelt roads in Wheaton, Bradford will purchase
the property from Community Unit School District 200 for
$5,000,200.

Bradford bought the Hubble property from District 200 last summer.
The Wheaton Park District partnered with the developer, and will
buy a portion of the property to maintain its gym and outdoor
recreation space.

The Wheaton Park District will buy part of the Hubble school
building from Bradford for $3 million, to keep the three gyms it
uses for athletics. Bradford will also donate a parcel of open
space for athletic fields to the park district. The two will also
swap Bradford's open space at the corner of Main Street and
Roosevelt Road for the park district's Central Park property.

The Wheaton Park District met for a special board meeting
Wednesday night to finalize its agreement with Bradford Equities
to divvy up the park district's portions of the property. The
board will also award a construction contract for work in the
school's gyms, parks Executive Director Mike Benard said.

District 200 Superintendent Dr. Brian Harris wrote in an email
Wednesday, "We are very happy to be finally closing the sale of
this property. We are looking forward to the redevelopment."

District 200 Board President Rosemary Swanson wrote in an email,
"This is an important milestone for our district and its
communities. We thank everyone who worked to bring about a
promising new future for this property."

The park district will not begin major work until spring of 2013,
after the busy indoor sports season. Bradford CFO Chad Jones said
neighbors have been alerted of the asbestos removal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Meso Conference in Boston on Sept. 26
-----------------------------------------------------------
"You don't have to wait until Sept. 26 to start observing the
official Mesothelioma Awareness Day.  The whole month should do
just fine, becoming a key time to make progress in the fight
against this dreaded disease," said Tim Povtak, writing for
Asbestos.com.

Some of the best scientific minds, and some of the most skilled
surgical hands in the world, will be gathering for the 11th
International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) Conference in
Boston.

More than 500 experts from different specialties, all relevant to
mesothelioma, will huddle Sept. 11-14, hoping to spark new ideas
in therapeutics, surgery, pathology, genomics and other novel
strategies to deal with this rare but intricate cancer.

A Busy Mesothelioma Month

The Malignant Mesothelioma: Knowledge is Hope Conference will
follow in New York, Sept. 28.  Between the two conferences comes
Awareness Day, which should receive considerable national
attention when the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (MARF)
orchestrates its appearance on NBC's Today show at Rockefeller
Plaza.

Also this month, there are several mesothelioma research fund-
raising events around the country. The calendar is full.

While the Boston conference is geared more toward the medical
professionals and the scientific minds looking for breakthroughs,
the New York conference is designed for the patients, families and
friends to listen and learn from the experts, arming themselves
with the most up-to-date options.

"The conference (in Boston) will provide the ideal forum to
stimulate ideas and establish collaborations, as well as initiate
intense discussions about surgery, pathology, new treatments, and
relevance of biological data," wrote hosts Raphael Bueno, M.D.,
and David Sugarbaker, M.D, of Brigham and Women's Hospital, which
is serving as host.

Previous IMIG conferences were in Chicago, Amsterdam, and Kyoto,
Japan, generating the impetus for significant progress in the
past.

Boston Should Spark New Ideas

The conference will include general informational sessions, dozens
of oral presentations, poster sessions and workshops, on topics
like new multimodality therapies, immunotherapy, imaging,
pathology and chemotherapy. New discoveries related to biology,
pathogenesis, epidemiology and the overall management of
mesothelioma will be debated and discussed.

Mesothelioma is the cancer caused by an exposure to asbestos. And
while the use of asbestos has been dramatically reduced -- or
banned in some parts of the world -- its overall use continues,
virtually assuring another generation of victims.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 100,000
people still die annually from asbestos-related diseases like
mesothelioma. And 125 million people still are exposed to asbestos
in the workplace.

The greatest value of the IMIG conference is the rare opportunity
to team the most-respected experts from different parts of the
world, testing the theory that better collaboration will lead to
new ideas.

Collaboration Will Be The Theme

Surgeons David Sugarbaker from Boston and Walter Weder of
Switzerland will take the stage together to discuss theories and
techniques.  Surgeons Robert Cameron of Los Angeles and Hasan
Batirel of Turkey will do the same in a later session. Lee Krug of
New York and Paul Baas of The Netherlands will lead a discussion
on chemotherapy.

Hedy Lee Kindler of Chicago will join Anna Nowak of Australia to
chair a discussion on the newest drugs and latest clinical trials
in the pipeline. Steven Albelda of Philadelphia and Arnaud
Scherpereel of France will talk on diagnostic and predictive
markers for mesothelioma.

The New York conference later in the month will be geared toward
the patients. Harvey Pass of New York University will talk on the
role of surgery for malignant mesothelioma. Marc Ladanyi of
Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital will discuss advances in gene
therapy. Jacqueline Moline of North Shore Health will talk about
9/11 asbestos exposures in New York City, and future cancer risks.

There also will be several fund-raising efforts along the East
Coast on the weekend before Mesothelioma Awareness Day. On Sept.
22, there is Kayaking 4 A Cure in Mechanicvile, NY; a 5K Run/Walk
for MESO in memory of Gary Batch in New London, CT; and the 3rd
annual ROD's Benefit for Meso Event in Eleanor, WV.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DIY Home Renovators Urged to Be Wary
-----------------------------------------------------
Matt Smith, writing for TheMercury.com.au, reports that do-it-
yourself home renovators are being urged not to become the next
generation of Tasmanian victims to the "silent killer" of
asbestos.

With every house built before 1990 expected to have some asbestos,
experts warn that many have little idea of the dangers.

Asbestos Free Tasmania CEO Susan Wallace said Sept. 4 about 15
people are diagnosed in Tasmania with mesothelioma every year, and
she fears the new wave of victims will be renovators.

"Australia has the highest recorded rate of asbestos-related
deaths from the dreadful cancer, mesothelioma, 600 to 700 per
year," Ms Wallace said.

"Now we are seeing a new wave of these preventable diseases from
people exposed to asbestos . . . through the home-renovation
boom."

IPM occupational hygienist Caroline Langley said Tasmania seemed
to have a higher number of homes with asbestos. Ms Langley said
the state was also seeing a growing number of people renovating
their homes instead of buying new properties.

The concerns follow reports from Asbestos Diseases Foundation of
Australia president Barry Robson in August last year that a
growing number of female Tasmanians were becoming mesothelioma
victims in the renovation boom.

Federal Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten
yesterday announced a national office to oversee asbestos
awareness and management.

A Tasmanian Government fund has so far paid $2.9 million to
workplace asbestos victims, while nationally hundreds of millions
of dollars are expected to flow to victims of asbestos, largely
related to long-time asbestos producer James Hardie.

Tasmanian Labor senator Lisa Singh told an asbestos summit in
Sydney Sept. 4 that without a national approach, thousands of
Australians would continue to be diagnosed with the condition.

"Without a co-ordinated approach to asbestos awareness and
management, an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 Australians will be
diagnosed with asbestos-related disease in the next 20 years,"
Senator Singh said.

"Most of these cases will result from poor management of asbestos
in the home."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workplace Relations Minister Sees More ARD Deaths
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Ireland and Richard Willingham, writing for The Sydney
Morning Herald, report that Australian deaths from asbestos-
related diseases have not yet peaked, Workplace Relations Minister
Bill Shorten has warned at the launch of a new agency to oversee
the staged removal of the toxic material from all buildings over
the next 18 years.

Mr. Shorten said the new Office of Asbestos Safety would begin
work on community awareness and education and would work to
"ultimately remove asbestos from the Australian built
environment".

The office follows a government review that called for a
Commonwealth-led national effort to manage asbestos and reduce
people's exposure.

It is charged with costing and implementing the review's
recommendations.

The review stated that the national agency should aim for a staged
removal of asbestos from government and commercial buildings by
2030.

"In 2010, mesothelioma killed 642 people and there are many more
with lung cancers related to exposure to asbestos. Numbers of
deaths from asbestos are not due to peak until 2020," Mr. Shorten
said.

The report recommends reporting asbestos in houses built before
1987 with a labelling system to alert buyers, tenants and
renovators.

The plan has been welcomed by unions and industry groups.

Opposition workplace relations spokesman Eric Abetz acknowledged
that most Australians would like to see a bipartisan approach to
asbestos but said he was not sure about the need for a new agency.

"We do have Safe Work Australia, we do have established
bureaucracy, so I'm somewhat agnostic about establishing a new
bureaucracy which could potentially cost more money," Senator
Abetz told ABC Radio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lab Test Can Confirm Fibro Presence
----------------------------------------------------
Dwight Barnett, a certified master inspector with the American
Society of Home Inspectors, answered questions on asbestos in the
Business News section of the Norwich (Conn.) Bulletin.

Question: Our home has old linoleum in the kitchen and hall that I
would like to remove and replace, or, if the floor is decent,
refinish the wood. What are the dangers of asbestos? We've lived
here 33 years plus, so who knows how old it is.

Answer: Asbestos is a known carcinogen and should be handled by
trained professionals.  There are many items in older homes that
contain asbestos, but linoleum generally does not fall into that
category.

However, 8-inch floor tiles commonly used in older kitchens and
bathrooms most likely contain asbestos and the glue that was used
for both the floor tiles and linoleum may contain asbestos fibers.

Asbestos was, and still is, a useful fireproof product and the
fibers of asbestos were incorporated into numerous products to add
tensile strength and fire resistance. A list of many of these
products can be found on the Environmental Protection Agency
website, www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/ashome.html.

If the asbestos-containing material is in a good condition, there
is no need to remove or disturb it. Asbestos becomes a health
issue only when the fibers are disturbed and become airborne.

I understand the desire to restore the floors to their original
finish, but the costs may be more than one wants to bear. You need
to take a sample of the glue under the linoleum to a certified
laboratory. Contact a local lab to get information on how big a
sample it needs and any procedures it suggests for taking the
sample.

Over the years, I have been instructed to wet the areas for
sampling so that the fibers are contained. In a corner of the room
or in a closet, dampen the area where you want to take a sample.

Pull back the linoleum, dampen the exposed glue and, using a stiff
knife blade or flat chisel, carefully scrape a small sample of the
glue and place it in a sealed plastic bag.  Deliver the sample to
the lab, where you will have to complete a "chain of custody"
form.

If the test is negative, you can remove the linoleum and the glue
with a hand scraper. If the sample is positive, consider
encapsulating the linoleum with a new wood floor or one of the
newer laminate floor coverings.

Write to Dwight Barnett with home improvement questions at C.
Dwight Barnett, Evansville Courier & Press, P.O. Box 268,
Evansville, IN 47702 or e-mail him at d.Barnett@insightbb.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Legal Action v. Aussie State Government Possible
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aleisha Orr, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a
man who believes his mesothelioma was caused by asbestos fibres
exposed during renovations at his school in the Great Southern
could take legal action against the state government.

John McDonald, 49, was diagnosed with metastatic mesothelioma in
July last year.

His lawyer, Tricia Wong from Slater and Gordon said there was
evidence confirming James Hardie's asbestos building materials
were used in renovations and additions to the school.

"It is likely that a claim would be made against the state
government as the occupier of the school, as well as James Hardie
as manufacturer of the asbestos cement building materials," she
said.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer that mainly attacks the
lining of the lungs, abdomen and the heart.

The head of the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia, Robert
Vojakovic, said more people were being diagnosed with asbestos
malignancies and other related illnesses.

"Mesothelioma has a long incubation period, from usually 20-60
years after exposure to asbestos for symptoms to arise," he said.

"Although asbestos is no longer used, these insidious asbestos
products made their way into the wider community through its use
in everyday products."

Mr. Vojkovic said the asbestos diseases epidemic was expected to
peak in Australia about 2025 and as many as 45,000 people could
die from it throughout the next two decades.

With the median life expectancy prognosis for malignant
mesothelioma being between nine and 12 months, Mr. McDonald is
trying to gather evidence in order to seek compensation while he
still can.

Former students, teachers or builders who were at the Wagin Junior
High School in the early 1970s and who could remember the
renovations are asked to contact Slater and Gordon law firm.

A spokesperson for the Department of Education would not comment
on the matter of asbestos at the Wagin school but said they had
not been contacted by Slater and Gordon and had not received any
claim for compensation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheffield Resident Fears of Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to thestar.co.uk, a Sheffield resident is living in fear
of asbestos exposure after contractors carried out an unannounced
visit to his home.

Glyn Lambert was left without flooring in one room after
contractors arrived at his home on Archdale Road, Manor, and
ripped up the kitchen tiles without explanation -- even lifting
his oven from the floor while his dinner was cooking inside.

It was only after Mr Lambert, aged 54, and his mother Pat called
Kier, which was working on behalf of property owner Pennine
Housing, that they were told the tiles had been removed due to the
risk of asbestos.

The news has worried them both, as contractors did not appear to
be using specialist protective clothing or equipment.

Mr Lambert, who has a number of medical conditions, is still
without a kitchen floor and living in fear his house could be
contaminated with the potentially deadly substance.

Mrs Lambert, also of Sheffield, said: "We only found out about the
asbestos because he phoned up to find out when they were coming to
replace his tiles. They said it was down on their books as
something to do with asbestos.

"Surely it would have required certain clothing? It makes you
worry. What if he needs to be moved out of the house?

"They left tread marks all over his house and haven't cleaned up
the stuff they left behind."

Pennine said the alarm was raised after the tenant requested an
inspection relating to kitchen repairs and the inspector picked up
the need for tile renewal.

A Pennine Housing spokeswoman said: "Following a request by the
tenant for our repairs inspector to visit, a few repairs were
identified and ordered.

"One job order raised was to remove and replace the old floor
tiles in the kitchen as these tiles can contain a very small, not
harmful, trace of asbestos.

"Kier's asbestos team called and removed the tiles and the floor
will be levelled this week before new tiles are laid at a pre-
arranged appointment time.

"We will be contacting the tenant to assure them the removal of
the tiles poses no risk to health."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mining Town Residents May Not Be Aware of Danger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of former residents of a British Columbia asbestos-mining
town may have a time bomb ticking in their lungs -- and because no
one is tracking their health as a group, many of them might not be
aware of the potential danger they face, CBC News has learned.

An estimated 50,000 people were employed over the lifetime of the
Cassiar mine, which closed in 1992.  They lived with their
families in the now-abandoned town, about 220 kilometres south of
the B.C.-Yukon border.

It takes about 20 years for asbestos-related cancers like
mesothelioma to show up in the lungs, and workers say they were
routinely exposed to the dangerous mineral without any protection.

"There was no face masks there," said former worker Rolly
Gunville, who has been diagnosed with the lung disease asbestosis,
which can be a precursor of mesothelioma.

"I asked for face masks. And what happened, this safety guy came
up and he brought me this little container of salt pills,"
Gunville said.

He spent just three months working in the Cassiar mine.

"I wanted to get out of there. It was dangerous work. It was cold.
It was hard to breathe."

Dozens of former Cassiar residents met for a reunion in Penticton,
B.C., in August.

Many, like Gary Stratton, say they miss the old town.

"It was the greatest experience of my life living up there,"
Stratton said at the reunion.

'Green haze'

Some recalled typical sights they now wonder about.

"There was green haze over the town all the time. The more that I
think about it, I used to jog by the tailings pile every morning.
That was my exercise," said Kelly Holzhaus.

Many former residents stay connected through a website run by a
miner who spent his first 29 years in Cassiar.

"It's a virtual community website where there's tonnes of photos
and, sadly, an 'In Memory' section that grows steadily," said Herb
Daum.

But, like many from Cassiar, Daum says he has no symptoms and is
not overly concerned..

"I had exposure, no denial of that. The impact, who knows?" said
Daum.

Former resident Todd Whiteside also is not terribly concerned
about the threat.

"It's been 20 years, since I've been exposed to asbestos," said
Whiteside. "I refuse to let it rule my life. If something happens,
something happens. I will deal with it then."

Lung specialist Dr. Stephen Lam says CT scans can detect asbestos-
related diseases sooner than other technologies. (CBC)
Many know they're at risk and get regular chest X-rays. But X-ray
technology does not detect asbestos-related cancer early enough.

New research suggests that CT scans are much more effective at
detecting lung cancer in people who were exposed to asbestos and
also had other risk factors, like smoking or other lung damage.

"Getting an X-ray or CT scan will not really provide me any ways
to deal with the problem. It would only be an indication of a
problem. There's nothing I can do about it," Daum said.

At least one medical expert disagrees.

"It's not uncommon for people to think that way. There's an
anxiety level. 'What if I found something that is not normal?' But
if you discover disease early, the result of treatment is much
better," said Dr. Stephen Lam, respirologist at the B.C. Cancer
Agency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Larimer City to Cover Cleanup Cost of Burned Home
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Dickman, writing for the Reporter Herald, reports that the
owner of a home destroyed by fire in Drake cannot afford the
costly cleanup required by state asbestos rules, so Larimer
County, Colo., is stepping in to cover the $35,000 cost.

However, that amount will become a lien on the property, 2361 U.S.
34 in Drake, meaning the county can recover the cost through the
sale of the property.

The slice of land, though, is not worth $35,000 without the home,
so the full cost will not be recovered, county officials told the
commissioners Tuesday.

"It's a bad situation, and there's no good solution," Larimer
County Commissioner Tom Donnelly said.

Hugo Henry Ehret owns the property and the home destroyed by fire
Oct. 25, according to public records. News reports indicate no one
was home when the flames devoured the home, which property records
reveal was built in 1920.

While the house is destroyed, the walls are still standing and
tests show levels of asbestos that concern state health officials,
noted Candace Phippen, code compliance officer with Larimer
County. When crews begin to tear down those walls, the dangerous
and deadly asbestos could be discharged into the air, she
explained.

Therefore, the state requires special procedures to take down the
home and dispose of the debris in a special landfill -- a costly
task.

Larimer County received a bid of $35,000 from an abatement company
to remove the home as long as the state allows the destruction to
occur in the open air. If it requires tents to prevent asbestos
from escaping, the cost will increase.

Larimer County officials did ask the state to ease the rules for
Ehret and to allow the debris to be dumped at the Larimer County
landfill, but health officials would not agree because of the
asbestos levels and the risk of it filtering into the air,
according officials.

The state did ease those rules for homes destroyed by the High
Park fire and will allow that debris to be dumped locally. The
difference, Phippen said, is the homes devastated by wildfire and
burned to the ground without standing walls.

For the house in Drake, Larimer County will cover the $35,000 bill
from its general fund reserves and try to recover some costs by
the sale of the property.

"It will be assessed as a lien against the property," said
Phippen. "The owner has agreed. He was uninsured and doesn't have
a means to clean it up."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Demolition at Danvers High School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Forman, writing for the Salem (Ore.) News, reports that the
demolition of the three-story Dunn Wing at Danvers High has been
delayed due to the discovery of asbestos in the adhesive material
used to glue in windows.

The plan had been to demolish the structure before school started,
but now, demolition will "consume most of the month of September,"
Town Manager Wayne Marquie said.

Work has been ongoing to remove or abate asbestos before the
building is torn down.

The wing, which was built in the early 1970s as a middle school,
has had chronic problems with its walls, ventilation systems and
windows. For the past two years, it has housed the high school
while work continues on the $71 million renovation and
construction program. The Dunn Wing must be torn down to make way
for the final phase of high school construction.

Once the asbestos was discovered in the bonding material for the
windows, the contractor hired a licensed site professional to come
up with a plan to mitigate it and submit the plan to the state
Department of Environmental Protection, Marquis said. That report
has been done, and Marquis said he expects demolition to begin in
a week.

The asbestos was used as an additive to the adhesive that held the
Dunn Wing's windows in place. It affects one row of bricks
attached to the windows. Unlike ceiling tiles that contain
asbestos, which are friable and can easily crumble into dust, the
asbestos in the window adhesive cannot be easily released into the
air.

The plan to deal with the asbestos in the window glue is simple,
Marquis said. The bricks that held the windows will be taken out
as a unit and stacked away from other demolition materials, and
then they will be disposed of separately.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia to Set Up Agency to Oversee Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports the federal government
will act on the recommendations of its own asbestos management
review by setting up a national agency to oversee the removal of
the deadly material from all government and commercial buildings
by 2030.

Federal Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten was slated to
address a union summit on asbestos removal in Sydney Sept. 4.

"The government fundamentally believes we need a national approach
to asbestos -- it can't just be left to local government, state
government and different federal agencies," he told ABC radio
ahead of the summit.

"There's no doubt in my mind the federal government -- part of
their response will have to be a coordinated national body to
assist with the research, education and identification of asbestos
risk."

Labor's asbestos management review, released in mid-August,
recommended the commonwealth lead the charge on developing a
national strategic plan to manage asbestos.





The review states a national agency should be set up to implement
the plan which would investigate the prioritized removal of
asbestos from government and commercial buildings by 2030.

It also recommended reporting asbestos in residential homes built
prior to 1987 with a labeling system to alert buyers, tenants and
renovators to the presence of the material.

"If we know Australians will renovate their homes . . . and people
will be in public buildings which will eventually be upgraded or
renovated -- then don't we have an obligation to start tackling
the cause of the risk," Mr Shorten said.

Opposition workplace relations spokesman Eric Abetz acknowledges
most Australians would like to see a bipartisan approach to
asbestos.

"(But) in relation to a new bureaucracy we do (already) have Safe
Work Australia, we do have established bureaucracies, so I'm
somewhat agnostic about establishing a new bureaucracy which could
potentially cost more money," he told ABC Radio.

The move to a national agency came as a study found people exposed
to asbestos as children in the West Australia mining town
Wittenoom are developing cancers and dying sooner than the general
population.

The Australian study, published in the American Journal of
Industrial Medicine, is the first to look at the long-term health
effects of children from the town, which closed eventually after
the deadly blue-asbestos mine shut in 1966.

The study found girls up to the age of 15 who lived in Wittenoom
had higher death rates and were more likely to develop the
asbestos-related disease mesothelioma, ovarian and brain cancers.

Boys who lived in the town between 1943 to 1966 when the mine was
in operation had higher rates of mesothelioma, leukaemia,
prostate, brain and colorectal cancer.

They also had circulatory and nervous system diseases and
excessive death rates, the study found.

The Western Australian Institute for Medical Research (WAIMR)
study found that 2460 Wittenoom children had been exposed to the
asbestos before the age of 15, with the median age of exposure
being three years of age.

By the end of 2007, 228 of them had died from a range of causes.

There were 215 cases of cancer in 207 individuals at the end of
2009.

The township of Wittenoom was originally just 1.6km from the mine
but it was moved 12km away in 1947 as the population grew.

Most of the children left the town before the age of 16, so were
they were exposed to asbestos only in childhood.

WAIMR Associate Professor Alison Reid said tailings from the mine
were used throughout the town in roads, pavements, car parks, the
racecourse and school playgrounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crew Removed Ceiling Coating With Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wyff4.com reports that more than 200 Wofford College students
moved into Marsh Hall on Sept. 3 after crews removed a ceiling
coating that contained asbestos.

Air quality tests confirm the building is safe for students,
according to a news release from the college.

"The health and well-being of our students and staff are of the
utmost importance to us," said Roberta Bigger, Wofford's dean of
students. "We are pleased that the contractor was able to complete
the work ahead of schedule and that our staff has been so
committed to getting all of our students into their residence
halls so quickly. We want to thank the affected students and their
parents for their patience and understanding, and I want to
especially thank the Wofford staff who worked around the clock to
make sure our student were taken care of. We also want to thank
the students who hosted new students in their rooms and
apartments. This is a great example of how we come together at
Wofford."

Students had been staying at the Spartanburg Marriott at
Renaissance Park since last Wednesday, Aug. 29 but were able to
move in Monday at 2 p.m.

"We all just got really excited. We started screaming like we won
a championship, or something. We were just really happy. Just glad
to move in," said Cam Kimber, a senior.

Other students said hotel life wasn't so bad.

"Not every freshman can say that they lived at the Marriott, but
we can, but getting a dorm room is really nice," said Taylor Till,
a freshman.

"We got to meet the two girls that we're living with, and they
ended up being some of our best friends, so I think that was great
that came out of it," said Ellen Edwards, a freshman.

Sept. 3 was also the first day of classes for the 2012-13 academic
year.


                           *********

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  * * *