CAR_Public/120914.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, September 14, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 183

                             Headlines

3FISH INC: Recalls Seafood Cakes and Crab Stuffed Fish
ARBITRON INC: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on Oct. 19
ASPENBIO PHARMA: Still Awaits Order on "Wolfe" Suit Dismissal Bid
AUSTRALIA: Slater & Gordon Mulls Bushfire Class Action v. DEC
BREEDER'S CHOICE: Recalls AvoDerm Lamb Meal & Brown Rice Dog Food

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Awaits Final OK of Wage and Hour Suit Deal
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Reduced Witness List to Shorten Class Action
DGSE COS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
DISH NETWORK: Sued in Calif. Over Foreign-Language Channel Fee
H&R BLOCK: "Rapid Refund" Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action

IMMERSION CORP: Appeal in Securities Suit Remain Pending
LAKE COUNTY, IL: Settles Inmates' Class Action for $7.2 Million
MELA SCIENCES: Bid to Amend Securities Class Complaint Pending
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Upholds Class Certification Order
NETWORK ENGINES: Enters MoU to Settle UNICOM Merger-related Suit

NORTHWEST PIPE: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit for $12.5MM
OSSIPEE, NH: Lakefront Property Owners File Another Class Action
PG&E CORP: Trial in San Bruno Accident Suit Moved to Oct. 9
PLATINUM EQUITIES: Investors Launch Class Action
POKERSTARS: Owners Face Class Action Seeking to Recover Lost Funds

PRICELINE.COM INC: "Breckenridge" Class Suit Partly Dismissed
PRICELINE.COM INC: Defends Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
PRICELINE.COM INC: Owes No Back Taxes, Georgia Court Ruled
PROSHARES ADVISORS: Class Action Over Leveraged ETFs Dismissed
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal Pending

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Frozen Donations
SKECHERS: Proposes Settlement of Shape-Ups Footwear Class Action
STEEL DYNAMICS: Bid to Certify Class in Antitrust Suit Pending
STEINER LEISURE: Agrees to Settle "Ferrari" Suit in California
SUNTECH POWER: Sued Over Nonexistent EUR560MM German Gov't. Bonds

TOSHIBA CORP: Settles LCD Panel Antitrust Class Action for $30MM
URS CORP: Consolidated Suit Related to Hurricane Katrina Pending
WALGREEN CO: Faces Suit Filed by Non-Exempt California Employees
WORLDWIDE ASSET: Debt-Collection Settlement Gets Court Approval
ZAGG INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Affirms Judgment vs. San Antonio Water System
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Ct. Overturns Judgment v. Abex & Honeywell
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Refuses to Reverse Ruling v. Fluor
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D.C. Court Won't Hear Compensation Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies Karmak's Bid to Junk Exposure Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Dismisses Exposure Suit v. Taco Inc.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies LILCO's Bid to Dismiss Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Defend Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Unit Still Defending Wrongful Death Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes Continues to Defend 37 PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Unit Still Defending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Inc. Had 11,800 Cases at June 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Units Had 24,051 Unresolved Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Continues to Defend Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,135 Cases at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chinese Carmaker Pulls Out 12,500 Units in Brazil
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marois Will Revoke Asbestos Loan If Elected
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bellingham Chief Restarts Fibro-Management Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DSS Building Abatement Project May Cost $1.34MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNZ House Demolition Plan Stopped by Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chery Automobile Calls Back Units In 5 Countries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Dumped at Kadina Park Irks City Chief
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Separatist Party Attracts Anti-Asbestos Voters
ASBESTOS UPDATE: LHA May Be Fined for Lead/Asbestos Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Companies Cited for Exposing Workers to Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Ex-Swindon Railway Man Gets GBP70,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stop Stowey Action Group Hangs On for Decision
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Allows Retrial on CPChem Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Fibro-Test at Old Gun Shop Turns Out Negative
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Avoniel Leisure Center Pool

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lead Inspector's Death Closes Northampton Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Subcommittee Assures Peebles Elementary Is Safe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stiff Sanctions Pushed for Ridgedale Violators
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Inspectors Flunk Students' Apartment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCTV Catches Fly-tipper Near Hythe Football Club

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Bidding for Henderson Power Plant Opens
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Kohler Mira Worker's Family Gets Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recall Won't Impact Great Wall Motor Exports
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Royal Navy Ex-Engineer's Family Seeks Justice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSI Investigates Four Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Initiates Cleanup of Abandoned Lockport Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Poll Shows Majority Wants Fibro-Free Australia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESB Vows to Pursue Coolcower Toxic Violator
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia to Set Up Agency to Oversee Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Could Add Up Cases v. Wittenoom Operators

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wofford Students Return To Cleaned Up Marsh Hall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia's Fibro-Free Plan Eyed to Cost Billions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos, Among Others Deters Globosat Project


                          *********

3FISH INC: Recalls Seafood Cakes and Crab Stuffed Fish
------------------------------------------------------
3fish, inc. of Gastonia, North Carolina, is issuing a voluntary
recall of all seafood cakes and stuffed fish items that contain
onions produced by Gills Onions, due to potential contamination
with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled items were distributed along the east coast in retail
stores and repackaged at store level.  The products were sold to
Harris Teeter, Ingles, MDI (Merchants Distributors Inc), and US
Foodservice.

Only items with use by dates between 9/10/2012 and 9/15/2012 are
included in the recall.  The full list of recalled items can be
found below.

    Item      Description
    -----     ------------
    79003     Maryland Crab Cake Bulk
    79009     Charl Crab Cake Bulk
    79011     Crab Stuffing - Bucket
    79018     Signature Lump Crab Cake
    79035     Carolina Style Crab Cakes 4oz
    79037     Carolina Style Crab Cakes .5oz
    79048     MD Crab Cakes - Value Tray Pack
    79202     Stuffed Salmon 8ct
    79203     Stuffed Tilapia 8ct
    79204     Stuffed Flounder 8ct
    79217     Devil Stuffed Crab 10ct
    79219     Devil Stuffed Crab 3oz
    79420     Premium Lobster Cake 3oz

The products in question have been quarantined or destroyed at
store level or the warehouse level.

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

The potential for contamination was noted after receiving notice
of CLASS 1 RECALL - PR #12.155 Cross Valley Farms Gills Onions
from US Foods.  The recalled onions were an ingredient in some
products manufactured and sold by 3fish, inc.

Consumers who think they may have purchased any of these items are
urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact 3fish, inc. at 1-800-213-
3462, Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.


ARBITRON INC: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on Oct. 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York has scheduled a hearing on the final approval of Arbitron
Inc.'s $7 million settlement of a securities class action lawsuit
to October 19, 2012, according to the Company's August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On April 30, 2008, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund filed a securities class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a purported Class of all purchasers of
Arbitron common stock between July 19, 2007, and November 26,
2007.  The plaintiff asserts that Arbitron, Stephen B. Morris (the
Company's former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer),
and Sean R. Creamer (currently the Company's Executive Vice
President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer)
violated federal securities laws.  The plaintiff alleges
misrepresentations and omissions relating, among other things, to
the delay in commercialization of the Company's Arbitron Portable
People Meter(TM) ("PPM") ratings service in November 2007, as well
as stock sales during the period by company insiders who were not
named as defendants and Messrs. Morris and Creamer.  The plaintiff
sought class certification, compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees, among other remedies.  On September 22, 2008, the
plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint.  On November
25, 2008, Arbitron, Mr. Morris, and Mr. Creamer each filed Motions
to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint.  In September 2009,
the plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint in lieu of oral argument on the pending Motions to
Dismiss.  The court granted leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint and denied the pending Motions to Dismiss without
prejudice.  On or about October 19, 2009, the plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint.  Arbitron and each of Mr.
Morris and Mr. Creamer again moved to dismiss the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint.  Briefing on motions to dismiss the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint was completed in March 2010.  On
September 24, 2010, the Court granted Mr. Creamer's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's claims against him, and all claims against
Mr. Creamer were dismissed with prejudice.  The motions to dismiss
the Second Amended Class Action Complaint by Arbitron and Mr.
Morris were denied.  Arbitron and Mr. Morris each then filed
answers denying the claims.  On September 6, 2011, the Court
entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion to certify the
action as a class action, to appoint the lead plaintiff as class
representative, and to appoint its counsel as lead counsel.  The
court defined the class as all purchasers of common stock of the
Company who were damaged through purchasing stock during the
period July 19, 2007, through November 26, 2007.

On February 3, 2012, as a result of a mediation process overseen
by an independent mediator, the Company and its insurers agreed to
settle the case for $7 million, which will be funded by insurance.
Because this is a class action, settlements of this type are
subject to preliminary and final review by the Court with an
opportunity for class members to respond to the proposed
settlement and object if they so desire.  The Court has issued an
order preliminarily approving the settlement and Notice of the
settlement has been sent to the class members.  The Court has
scheduled a hearing on the final approval of the settlement to be
held on October 19, 2012.


ASPENBIO PHARMA: Still Awaits Order on "Wolfe" Suit Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 1, 2010, AspenBio Pharma, Inc. received a complaint,
captioned John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. et al., Case No. CV10
7365.  This federal securities purported class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California on
behalf of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased
common stock of the Company during the period between February 22,
2007, and July 19, 2010, inclusive.  The complaint names as
defendants certain officers and directors of the Company during
such period.  The complaint includes allegations of violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants, all related to the Company's blood-based
acute appendicitis test in development known as AppyScore.  On the
Company's motion, this action was also transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado by order dated January
21, 2011.  The action has been assigned a District of Colorado
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00165-REB-KMT.  On July 11, 2011, the court
appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel.  On August
23, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class
action complaint, alleging the same class period.  Based on a
review of the amended complaint, the Company and the individual
defendants believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against these claims.  On
October 7, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the plaintiff's response and the Company's reply
thereto were subsequently filed.  Currently, the motion is
pending, awaiting a decision by the court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

AspenBio Pharma, Inc. -- http://www.aspenbiopharma.com//--
operates as an emerging biomedical company focused on obtaining
the United States FDA clearance for its lead product, AppyScore.
Its research and development activities primarily focus on a human
appendicitis blood-based test.  The company's lead product
candidate, AppyScore, is a blood-based diagnostic test to help
physicians manage patients who enter emergency rooms complaining
of abdominal pain and suspected of having acute appendicitis.  It
is also developing animal healthcare products focusing on
reproduction. The company was formerly known as AspenBio, Inc. and
changed its name to AspenBio Pharma, Inc. on September 26, 2005.
AspenBio Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Castle
Rock, Colorado.


AUSTRALIA: Slater & Gordon Mulls Bushfire Class Action v. DEC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ninemsn reports that law firm Slater and Gordon is about to launch
legal action against the West Australian Department of Environment
and Conservation (DEC) on behalf of Margaret River bushfire
victims.

The bushfire on November 23 and 24 last year spread from a
prescribed burn by the DEC that got out of control, destroying
more than 40 properties in the southwest tourism and wine-growing
region.

Slater and Gordon on Sept. 10 said it had received sufficient
interest from bushfire victims to launch the action and urged
others to get in touch before October 5 to sign up.

Proceedings would be launched in the Supreme Court of WA soon
after that date.

Perth bushfire litigation lawyer Kevin Banks-Smith, a Slater and
Gordon consultant, said the DEC needed to be held responsible for
damage caused by the fires.

"Our investigations indicate that responsibility for the fires
lies with the DEC," Mr. Banks-Smith said.

"If someone loses their house and their possessions because of a
fire you deliberately start, then we take the view that you are
fully responsible for all their losses, not just a part of them."

Slater and Gordon general manager for commercial and project
litigation, James Higgins, said bushfire victims were left short
by the WA government's RiskCover payments.

"The feedback we have received from homeowners is that the
RiskCover scheme, whilst obviously better than nothing, provided
an arbitrary measure of the damage inflicted by the fires,"
Mr. Higgins said.

"The scheme also fails to compensate residents and homeowners for
the loss of amenity and decline in property values which have
resulted from these fires."

The legal firm said the use of a class action format would be a
first for litigation of this type in WA.

The DEC declined to comment.


BREEDER'S CHOICE: Recalls AvoDerm Lamb Meal & Brown Rice Dog Food
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Breeder's Choice Pet Food is recalling a single manufacturing
batch of Breeder's Choice AvoDerm Natural Lamb Meal & Brown Rice
Adult Dog Formula due to possible contamination with Salmonella.
The product affected by this recall is identified below and has
the following "Best Before" dates:


   Product Code/      Product Name/            Best Before Code
  SKU/ Material #      Description              (day/month/yr)
  ---------------     -------------            ----------------
  1000065074          AvoDerm Natural Lamb        29 Aug 2013
                      Meal & Brown Rice           28 Aug 2013
                      Adult Dog Formula           30 Aug 2013
Size: 26 lb.
UPC Code: 0 5290702043 8

A picture of the label of the recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm319041.htm

Product and product lots that do not appear on the list are not
subject to this recall.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is a
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.

Healthy people exposed to Salmonella should monitor themselves for
some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.  Rarely,
Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial
infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation,
and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers exhibiting these signs
after having contact with this product should contact their
healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.  Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans.  If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

No human or pet illnesses have been reported to-date.  The recall
notification is being issued based on a single manufacturing batch
wherein a sample with the "Best Before" dates of August 28, 29 and
30, 2012 had a positive result for salmonella.  The AvoDerm
Natural Lamb Meal & Brown Rice Adult Dog Formula product was
originally manufactured on August 29, 2012, and distributed on
August 30 and 31, 2012.  Salmonella testing was conducted by
Silliker, Inc. (Southern California Laboratory).  Breeder's Choice
Pet Foods has taken immediate action to remove the product from
all applicable distribution centers and retail customers, and is
fully investigating the cause.

Recalled products were distributed to retailers and distributors
in the states of California, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, Virginia,
and Washington.

Consumers who have purchased the AvoDerm Natural Lamb Meal & Brown
Rice Adult Dog Formula product with the above-referenced "Best
Before" dates are urged to contact Breeder's Choice Customer
Service representatives.

A letter and instructions have been forwarded to all Breeder's
Choice Pet Food customers.  Breeder's Choice Customer Service
representatives and company veterinarians are responding to
inquires through the 1-866-500-6286 phone number and will answer
any questions regarding pets that have been fed the product.  Pet
owners can also visit the Breeder's Choice Pet Food Web site for
more information http://www.avoderm.com/


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Awaits Final OK of Wage and Hour Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of a consolidated wage and hour class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In February 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed
as a class action lawsuit naming the Company, Ashford University,
LLC, and certain employees as defendants.  The complaint was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego and
was captioned Stevens v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. The complaint
generally alleged that the plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees were improperly denied certain wage and hour protections
under California law.

In April 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as
a class action lawsuit naming the Company and Ashford University,
LLC, as defendants.  The complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California in San Diego, and was captioned Moore
v. Ashford University, LLC.  The complaint generally alleged that
the plaintiff and similarly situated employees were improperly
denied certain wage and hour protections under California law.

In May 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as a
class action lawsuit naming the Company as a defendant.  The
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego and was captioned Sanchez v. Bridgepoint
Education, Inc.  The complaint generally alleged that the
plaintiff and similarly situated employees were improperly denied
certain wage and hour protections under California law.

In October 2011, the three cases were consolidated because they
involved common questions of fact and law, with Stevens v.
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. designated as the lead case.

In April 2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs of the cases to settle the claims on a class-
wide basis.  Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the
Company agreed to pay an amount to settle the plaintiffs' claims,
plus any related payroll taxes.  The Company accrued a $10.8
million expense in connection with the settlement agreement during
the six months ended June 30, 2012.  On May 15, 2012, the Court
granted preliminary settlement approval and scheduled a final
settlement approval hearing in August 2012.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Reduced Witness List to Shorten Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rae Wilson, writing for APN Newsdesk, reports that a reduced list
of witnesses to testify about the Storm Financial collapse should
shorten the length of a trial and class action.

As "millions of documents" have been reduced to "hundreds" and
many of the 98 witnesses no longer need to take the stand, the
trial could take less than three months.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission is taking action
against the role the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Macquarie
Bank and the Bank of Queensland played in the debacle which
resulted in hundreds of people losing their futures.

The trial length should please Storm victims who, last week, were
asked to dig deeper to fund their legal team for the class action,
which is running on the coat tails of the ASIC case.

Storm Investors Consumer Action Group co-chairman Mark Weir said
he believed every investor would welcome a shorter trial and hoped
that was the right interpretation of the Sept. 10 hearing.

"Provided the judgment can be made in an expeditious manner, then
I'm certain the investors would welcome that," he said.

"But, of course, there are many who believe in the opportunity to
have all of the evidence out there for the whole world to see and
they would be disappointed with any attempt to inhibit that
process."

ASIC alleges the three banks acted unconscionably and supported an
unregistered managed investment scheme.  The banks deny the
allegations.

The Federal Court in Brisbane heard on Sept. 10 there would be
much analysis of Storm's policies and practices during the trial.

But the trial was pushed back a week until next Monday while the
parties negotiate on "agreed facts".

Justice John Reeves said the conceded facts should mean many
witnesses would no longer need to take the stand.

He said initial court hearings into the matter involved millions
of documents but that had been whittled down to thousands and he
had been told now hundreds of documents.

"I'm trying to manage the trial in the most efficient manner I
can," he said.

"There will still be a lot of material.

"There has to be a control on that to keep it to (time limits)."

David Robinson, acting for ASIC, asked the court to remember it
was a trial and the organization should still have the right to
call evidence not negotiated in advance.

He said ASIC wanted investors to have "every chance to put their
evidence before the court".

"There may be a need to fill a hole (in the evidence).  We will
endeavor to identify any holes in advance," he said.

The court heard CBA and BOQ had agreed to almost all facts ASIC
put forward.

John Sheahan, from Macquarie Bank, said his client had reached
agreement with ASIC on 85 paragraphs of facts and was close to
resolving another 5-10% in dispute.

"The vast bulk are common ground," he said.

Mr. Sheahan said while the banks hoped to agree to a large portion
of ASIC facts, they wanted to reserve the right to object on
relevance or hearsay once the trial was under way.

Justice Reeves will first hear from 21 investors, followed by
Storm Financial witnesses and then witnesses from each of the
three banks involved in the case.

The court heard ASIC would take about a week to open its case and
take the justice through all the documents it relied on.

CBA will take one to two days, the two class actions should take
about half a day to open and the other banks a matter of hours.

Justice Reeves said he would therefore not expect to hear evidence
from witnesses until October 1.


DGSE COS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Sept. 7 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
common stock of DGSE Companies, Inc. during the period from
April 15, 2011 to April 17, 2012 seeking to recover damages for
violations of the federal securities laws.

To join the DGSE class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at
866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.  The lawsuit filed by the firm is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against DGSE and certain if its officers and directors for issuing
materially false and misleading financial information.  The
Complaint asserts that during the Class Period defendants falsely
attested to the accuracy DGSE's financial statements filed with
the SEC.  On April 16, 2012 the Company announced that investors
could no longer rely on the Company's financial statements dating
back to 2007 and continuing through the third quarter of 2011, as
those financial statements had to be restated.  As a result, the
Complaint alleges that the NYSE AMEX halted all trading in DGSE
stock, rendering DGSE's stock illiquid and damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 6, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


DISH NETWORK: Sued in Calif. Over Foreign-Language Channel Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Dish Network promises not to charge a $10 monthly fee for foreign-
language channels to subscribers to local channels, but it does
charge them for it.

A copy of the Complaint in Melamed v. Dish Network Corporation, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-07739 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/11/Dish.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph S. Farzam, Esq.
          Angel M. Baker, Esq.
          JOSEPH FARZAM LAW FIRM
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1345
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 226-6890
          E-mail: farzam@lawyer.com
                  angelb@farzamlaw.com


H&R BLOCK: "Rapid Refund" Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court ruled on Sept. 7 that a case accusing H&R Block Inc.
of failing to disclose high interest rates attached to its "Rapid
Refund" loan program could not be treated as a class action.

The six justices who participated in the decision found that the
case was not amenable to class treatment because an individualized
determination would have to be made for each plaintiff to
determine whether a fiduciary relationship was established with
the tax preparation company.


IMMERSION CORP: Appeal in Securities Suit Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their consolidated
securities class action lawsuit against Immersion Corporation
remains pending, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against the Company and certain current and former Immersion
directors and officers.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers.  Over the following
five weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed.
(One of these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.)  The
securities class action complaints name the Company and certain
current and former Immersion directors and officers as defendants
and allege violations of federal securities laws based on the
Company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements.
The various complaints assert claims covering the period from May
2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory damages allegedly
sustained by the purported class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation.  On
the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel.  Following the Company's restatement of its
financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on April 9, 2010.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
action on June 15, 2010, and that motion was granted with leave to
amend on March 11, 2011.  Lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on April 29, 2011.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on July 1, 2011.  On December 16, 2011, the
motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice and on December 19,
2011, judgment was entered in favor of defendants.

On January 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In May 2012, plaintiffs filed
their opening appeals brief.  On July 13, 2012, the Company filed
its response brief.


LAKE COUNTY, IL: Settles Inmates' Class Action for $7.2 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Napoleon, writing for Post-Tribune, reports that
approximately 25,000 people received letters informing them they
may be eligible to participate in a $7.2 million settlement of a
class action lawsuit filed by inmates of the Lake County Jail.

A settlement between the county and the seven inmates representing
the class was reached in August in U.S. District Judge Philip
Simon's court, according to the plaintiffs' attorney Samantha
Liskow, with Chicago civil rights firm Loevy & Loevy.  A
settlement approval hearing is scheduled at 9:30 a.m. Dec. 14 in
Simon's court.

Members of the class include any inmate incarcerated at the jail
between May 13, 2006, and Feb. 1 who spent more than 24 hours at a
time in the holding cell at the county jail.  The length of time
and number of prisoners incarcerated at any given time lead to the
high number of possible claimants.  Potential claimants have until
Dec. 3 to file.

"The claim period is nearly a six-year period," Ms. Liskow said.

Ms. Liskow said the list of potential claimants was derived from
jail records during that period but may not be all-inclusive.
Anybody in jail during that time period who believes they may be
part of the class is eligible to submit a claim.

The plaintiffs had sued the county due to inhumane conditions at
the Lake County Jail during that time.  Inmates claimed they were
forced to stay weeks, even months at a time, in holding cells
where they were forced to sleep directly on concrete and in
quarters so cramped they were nearly sleeping on top of each
other.  Detainees in the holding cells were not provided showers,
clothing changes or soap, and one toilet was provided for up to 40
men, among other claims.

The original complainants were Richard Flood, Roberto Cantu,
Terrance Smith, Patrick Flood, Jacqueline Drankus, Edward Walker
and David Kurcz.

Gerald Bishop, who represented the county in the matter, said
people have until Dec. 3 to opt in to the class or file an
objection and pursue the matter on their own.  The settlement
could be modified depending on the response from potential
claimants.

"I think the county is pleased the matter appears to be behind
them," Mr. Bishop said.  He said a settlement is an agreement both
sides approve and if there are no objections it will move forward
bringing a close to the matter.

"It is a definitive resolution both sides can live with,"
Mr. Bishop said.

Anyone who believes they should be considered part of the class,
but who may not have received a letter, may contact the claim
administrator at (800) 332-6198 or go to the Web site
http://www.lakecountyjailsettlement.com


MELA SCIENCES: Bid to Amend Securities Class Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to amend their complaint filed by plaintiffs in a
consolidated securities class action suit against MELA Sciences,
Inc. and certain of its officers and directors remains pending,
according to MELA Sciences, Inc.'s August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On November 19, 2010, a purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming as defendants the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, entitled Randall J. Pederson,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I. Steinhart, and
Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-08774-JFM.  Two similar complaints
were also filed, one on December 2, 2010, and the other on January
20, 2011, in the same District Court, entitled Amy Steigman,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I. Steinhart, and
Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-09024-JFM; and Martin Slove and
Linda Slove, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I.
Steinhart, and Breaux Castleman, No. 1:11 cv-00429-JFM.  These
three securities class actions were consolidated into one action
on February 15, 2011, entitled In re MELA Sciences, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 10-Civ-8774-JFM ("securities class
action").

The securities class action plaintiffs assert violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging, among other things,
that defendants made misstatements and omissions regarding the
Company's product, MelaFind(R), and its prospects for FDA
approval, on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's
common stock during the period from February 13, 2009, through
November 16, 2010, and seek unspecified damages.  On May 2, 2011,
the securities class action plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint, alleging similar claims to their prior
complaints.  On July 29, 2011, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.
Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed on
September 23, 2011.  In light of the Company's receipt of the
Approvable Letter from the FDA for the MelaFind(R) PMA Application
on September 22, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation on October
19, 2011, in which plaintiff stated its intention to file a motion
seeking leave to amend its complaint.  Defendants withdrew the
outstanding motion to dismiss the current Amended Complaint
without prejudice to renew it at a later date.  On November 18,
2011, plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend the
consolidated amended complaint.  On December 18, 2011, defendants
filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the
consolidated amended complaint.  On February 8, 2012, plaintiffs
filed their reply to defendants' opposition to the motion.  On
March 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a revised proposed second amended
complaint.  On March 30, 2012, defendants filed a surreply in
further opposition to the motion.  On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs
filed a surreply in further support of the motion.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend against the securities class action; however,
as with any litigation, the Company cannot predict with any degree
of certainty the eventual outcome of this litigation.  An adverse
outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business and its business could be materially harmed.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Upholds Class Certification Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bibeka Shrestha, writing for Law360, reports that the Sixth
Circuit on Sept. 5 upheld a class certification order in a lawsuit
blaming five insurers for improper premium tax charges, rejecting
arguments that the certified subclasses were "fail-safe."

The ruling deals a blow to Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance, State Farm Fire and
Casualty Insurance, Standard Fire Insurance Co. and Travelers
Property Casualty Insurance Co., the last carriers remaining in a
lawsuit that started out with more than 20 insurers.


NETWORK ENGINES: Enters MoU to Settle UNICOM Merger-related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Network Engines, Inc. a provider of server-based application
platforms, deployment solutions and lifecycle support services for
software technology developers and OEMs worldwide, on Sept. 10
disclosed that it has signed a memorandum of understanding to
settle the previously disclosed class action lawsuit captioned In
re Network Engines, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 7650-CS
pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the lawsuit in the
Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
entitled Shiva v. Network Engines, Inc. et al., No. C.A. No. 12-
2392-BLS and the newly-filed action in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts entitled Strum v. Network
Engines, Inc. et al., No. 12-cv-11533-RGS (collectively, the
"Merger Litigation").  The Merger Litigation relates to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 18, 2012, by and
among UNICOM Systems, Inc. ("UNICOM"), UNICOM Sub Two, Inc. and
NEI.

NEI agreed to the settlement solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing.  NEI denies all liability with respect to
the facts and claims alleged in the Merger Litigation and
specifically denies that any breach of fiduciary duty occurred, or
that any further disclosure is required to supplement the Proxy
Statement under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.
The settlement provides, among other things, that the parties will
seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for
the conditional certification of the Merger Litigation as a non
opt-out class action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23 on
behalf of a class consisting of all record and beneficial owners
of NEI common stock during the period beginning on June 19, 2012,
through the date of the consummation of the proposed merger,
including any and all of their respective successors in interest,
predecessors, representatives, and the release of all asserted
claims.  The asserted claims will not be released until such
stipulation of settlement is approved by the court.  There can be
no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  The settlement will not affect the merger
consideration to be received by NEI stockholders or the timing of
the special meeting of NEI stockholders scheduled for
September 18, 2012.

Additionally, as part of the settlement, NEI has agreed to make
certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger.


NORTHWEST PIPE: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit for $12.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Pipe Company has agreed to settle for $12.5 million a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed in Washington,
according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On November 20, 2009, a complaint against the Company, captioned
Richard v. Northwest Pipe Co. et al., No. C09-5724 RBL
("Richard"), was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington.  The plaintiff is allegedly a
purchaser of the Company's stock.  In addition to the Company,
Brian W. Dunham, the Company's former President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Stephanie J. Welty, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, are named as defendants.  The complaint
alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false or misleading statements
between April 23, 2008, and November 11, 2009, subsequently
extended to December 22, 2011 (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff
seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's
stock during the same period, and seeks damages for losses caused
by the alleged wrongdoing.

A similar complaint, captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund v. Northwest Pipe Co. et
al., No. C09-5791 RBL ("Plumbers"), was filed against the Company
in the same court on December 22, 2009.  In addition to the
Company, Brian W. Dunham, Stephanie J. Welty and William R.
Tagmyer, the Company's current Chairman of the Board, are named as
defendants in the Plumbers complaint.  In the Plumbers complaint,
as in the Richard complaint, the plaintiff is allegedly a
purchaser of the Company's stock and asserts that defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false or misleading statements during the Class Period.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased the
Company's stock during that period, and seeks damages for losses
caused by the alleged wrongdoing.

The Richard action and the Plumbers action were consolidated on
February 25, 2010.  Plumbers and Pipefitters Local No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund was appointed lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed
by the plaintiff on December 21, 2010, and the Company's motion to
dismiss was filed on February 25, 2011, as were similar motions
filed by the individual defendants.  On August 26, 2011, the Court
denied all defendants' motions to dismiss, and the Company filed
its answer to the consolidated amended complaint on October 24,
2011.  The parties participated in an initial settlement mediation
on January 30, 2012.

On July 19, 2012, the parties participated in a second settlement
mediation at which the parties agreed, subject to court approval,
to settle all of the plaintiff's claims for $12.5 million.  All of
this amount will be paid by the Company's insurers with the
exception of $400,000 in retention, of which $200,000 was expensed
in 2010 and $200,000 has been expensed in the second quarter of
2012.  The full settlement amount is included in accrued
liabilities.  The amount that will be paid by the insurers is
included in trade and other receivables.

Northwest Pipe Company -- http://www.nwpipe.com/-- is a North
American manufacturer of large-diameter, high-pressure steel
pipeline systems for use in water infrastructure applications,
primarily related to drinking water systems.  The Company also
manufactures other welded steel pipe products for use in a wide
range of applications, including energy, construction,
agriculture, and industrial systems.  The Company's pipeline
systems are also used for hydroelectric power systems, wastewater
systems and other applications, and the Company makes products for
industrial plant piping systems and certain structural
applications.


OSSIPEE, NH: Lakefront Property Owners File Another Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larissa Mulkern, writing for Union Leader, reports that more than
60 Ossipee Lake shorefront property owners have banded together to
file another class-action lawsuit for property tax abatement for
tax year 2011.

The lawsuit -- headed up by landowners Roland Cherwek and James
Fitzpatrick, and joined by 60 others -- is similar to the one
filed for the 2010 property tax year.  The plaintiffs' claim is
that the land-base shorefront property values are over-assessed in
comparison with other parts of Center Ossipee and that the
calculations used to figure the rate do not include all the
property sales transactions.  The town of Ossipee's tax assessor
and select board have denied, either in full or in part, the
taxpayers' request for abatement.

Attorney Amy Manzelli of BCM Environmental and Land Law in Concord
filed the latest lawsuit Aug. 31 in Carroll County Superior Court.
Manzelli has filed a request asking the New Hampshire Supreme
Court to classify the first lawsuit as a class-action suit.


PG&E CORP: Trial in San Bruno Accident Suit Moved to Oct. 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial date for the first case arising from the San Bruno accident
has been rescheduled to October 9, 2012, according to PG&E
Corporation's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

The Company conducts its business principally through Pacific Gas
and Electric Company ("Utility"), a public utility operating in
northern and central California.  The Utility is regulated by the
California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC").

On September 9, 2010, an underground 30-inch natural gas
transmission pipeline (Line 132) owned and operated by the
Utility, ruptured in a residential area located in the City of San
Bruno, California ("San Bruno accident").  The ensuing explosion
and fire resulted in the deaths of eight people, numerous personal
injuries, and extensive property damage.

At June 30, 2012, approximately 120 lawsuits involving third-party
claims for personal injury and property damage, including two
class action lawsuits, had been filed against the Company and the
Utility in connection with the San Bruno accident on behalf of
approximately 400 plaintiffs.  The lawsuits seek compensation for
personal injury and property damage, and other relief, including
punitive damages.  These cases have been coordinated and assigned
to one judge in the San Mateo County Superior Court.  The trial
date for the first of these cases has been rescheduled from July
23, 2012, to October 9, 2012.  The court also postponed until
September 4, 2012, the hearing on various motions filed by PG&E
Corporation and the Utility to request that the court dismiss
certain claims, including the plaintiffs' claims for punitive
damages, based upon a lack of evidence to support such claims.


PLATINUM EQUITIES: Investors Launch Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a group of investors from across the country
hope to pursue a multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit.

They put C$160 million into Platinum Equities Inc., a Calgary-
based company that promised a safe investment.

Many of them say they've now lost their entire life savings.

At 74, Simon Okkerse says he has had to go back to work after
losing money in what he thought was a safe investment.

"$200,000 -- that was my retirement fund that I collected through
the years," said Mr. Okkerse.

Mr. Okkerse put his money into Platinum Equities Inc., which he
says promised safe and secure investments in office buildings.

"We were getting only five or six per cent return on investment on
these buildings -- that is not astronomical 'too good to be true'
type of investments," said Mr. Okkerse.

Other investors put millions of dollars into about a dozen office
buildings in Calgary.

In return they thought they were getting an ownership stake, but
some buildings fell into foreclosure, others were sold and
investors say they've been left with nothing.

"Then all of a sudden we heard there was no money left in the
kitty to pay us and we never got any of that money," said
Mr. Okkerse.

Company officials with Platinum Equities Inc. were contacted for
this story but calls were not returned.

Calgary-based lawyer Kevin McGuigan's firm is advancing the
lawsuit.

"This is something hurting the economy, hurting integrity of the
investment system.  People thought by investing in property it was
going to be safer and less risky than investment in the stock.
That's how it was marketed [and] turned out not to be the case,"
said Mr. McGuigan.

Platinum Equities investor Jeffrey Exconde said the loss has wiped
him out.  He's joining the lawsuit.

"I feel stress, right? It's hard-earned money, right? I didn't get
this money from stealing from others, doing some bad stuff, I work
hard for it," said Mr. Exconde.

Investors gathered for a meeting on Sept. 10 at 7:00 p.m. MT at
Southside Victory Church in Calgary to talk about the class-action
lawsuit.

Justin McElroy, writing for The Province, reports that when
Mr. Exconde put $50,000 of his life savings in 2007 into a Calgary
commercial property managed by Platinum Equities, he thought he
was getting a secure investment.

"They're doing the sales pitch about Calgary, how [Alberta is] the
best province because of the oil and gas industry, so it will
continue to grow, and it's better to get in on commercial real
estate because it's stable," said Mr. Exconde, who immigrated to
Vancouver with his wife and two young children from the
Philippines in 1997.

"The presentation was done by a very well-spoken guy.  The hotel
they were in was wonderful.  It was really well presented."

They promised Exconde returns of 17 per cent a year.  But by 2010,
they abruptly told him they need an additional C$7,000 to extend
the mortgage, or he would lose his money.  Later that year, he
heard from others that the building had foreclosed.  Platinum
Equities, which managed buildings in Alberta and B.C., had cut off
all communication.

Mr. Exconde had lost his life savings.  It appears he wasn't the
only one.

A class action lawsuit has been launched against Platinum Equities
and related companies, alleging that at least C$160 million was
taken from close to 2,200 people in similar schemes.

"People started coming in and complaining, and we were hearing
similar stories," said Mr. McGuigan of McGuigan Nelson LLP, the
firm initiating the suit.  "We had to launch the action we did
because otherwise people are fighting over the same pie."

The suit alleges that Platinum inflated the value of buildings to
investors using sub-leases, and failed to disclose financial
statements that would show the duress the investment was in.

One of Platinum's employees was Dave Humeniuk, who was fined C$3.3
million by the Alberta Securities Commission for his role with
another Calgary-based group that sold investments in office
buildings named Concrete Equities.  Their executives were found
guilty last year on a variety of charges after more than 3,700
investors lost more than C$100 million.

The majority of buildings Platinum managed were in Calgary, but
two were in B.C. One is the Lucaya development in Kelowna, an
unfinished condominium project stalled in 2008.  The other is the
Pemberton Building, an office building on Hastings Street in
Vancouver that was sold to Reliance Properties last year for C$19
million.

As more and more Platinum properties were foreclosed, disgruntled
investors looking for answers congregated on a blog, where they
shared information about various properties in 2010 and 2011
before the class action suit was initiated.  Investors have up
until Sept. 30 to join the action, and Mr. McGuigan is hopeful
that many more will follow the hundreds already signed up.

"There are a lot of people in B.C still unaware of our suit. If
they dealt with Accolade (a subsidiary of Platinum based in
Vancouver), they might want to look at our Web site and think
about their decision."

While Mr. Exconde is hopeful that the action will be successful,
his sense of betrayal won't subside.

"I lost my entire RSP.  It's gone.  I'm 45, and it backs us up.
It's huge money.  I'm not sure what we'll do," he said.

"We are very conservative in Canada.  When you buy properties,
it's very conventional.  You go to the bank, they do their
appraisal.  What has happened is un-Canadian."


POKERSTARS: Owners Face Class Action Seeking to Recover Lost Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Dearden, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a St. Clair County woman has filed a class action lawsuit to
recover money allegedly lost to an offshore gambling Web site.

Kelly Sonnenberg, individually and on behalf of a group of others,
filed a lawsuit Aug. 24 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against
Isai Scheinberg, Paul Tate, Nelson Burtnick and Oldford Group Ltd.
Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., Pyr Software Ltd.,
Stelekram Ltd. and Sphene International Ltd. are also named as
defendants.

According to the class action complaint, Mr. Scheinberg was the
director, CEO and owner of PokerStars, an internet poker company
founded in 2001.  He, along with Tate and Burtnick, allegedly ran
the gambling Web site and many other shell companies from their
headquarters in the Isle of Mann.  In April 2011 the card rooms
operated by PokerStars were shut down by the U.S. Department of
Justice, according to the lawsuit, and the defendants were
indicted for alleged wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering and
violating state and federal gambling laws.

Up to that point, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of
Illinois residents allegedly held personal accounts with
PokerStars where they deposited their own funds into the accounts
and were allowed to play internet poker games for real money
stakes.  Many, if not all, lost money to the defendants, according
to the class action lawsuit.

Ms. Sonnenberg says she is related to one of those internet
gambling customers.  She alleges the defendants violated Illinois
criminal code and claims she is entitled to sue for losses greater
than $50, according to the state's gambling laws.  Ms. Sonnenberg
and the group seeks an undisclosed amount of money in damages and
court costs.

Attorney Lloyd M. Cueto of Bellevile represents the class.  They
ask for a jury trial.

St. Clair County Circuit Court Case No. 12-L-444


PRICELINE.COM INC: "Breckenridge" Class Suit Partly Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Colorado court granted in part and denied in part priceline.com
Incorporated and other defendants' motion to dismiss the class
action lawsuit commenced by the Town of Breckenridge, according to
the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On June 8, 2012, in Town of Breckenridge v. Colorado Travel
Company, LLC, et al. (District Court for Summit County, Colorado;
filed in July 2011), the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint.
Specifically, the court dismissed without prejudice the claims
relating to the sales tax but allowed all remaining claims under
the accommodations tax and common law to proceed.  On June 22,
2012, in City of Houston, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
(District Court of Harris County, Texas; filed in March 2007);
(Texas 14th Court of Appeals; appeal filed in April 2010); (Texas
Supreme Court; petition for review filed in January 2012) the
Texas Supreme Court requested briefing from the parties on the
appeal.  The request for briefing does not mean that the court
agreed to hear the appeal.  On June 15, 2012, in Expedia, Inc., et
al. v. City of Portland, et al. (Circuit Court for Multnomah
County, Oregon), the court denied defendant municipalities' motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, rejecting defendants'
assertion that administrative remedies were required to be
exhausted, and ruling that it had jurisdiction to hear plaintiff
online travel companies' claims for declaratory relief.  On
July 31, 2012, in The Village of Rosemont, Illinois v.
Priceline.com Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois; filed in 2009), the court granted in part,
and denied in part, the parties' cross motions for summary
judgment related to damages.  Specifically, the court held that a
six year statute of limitations (subject to a discovery rule),
simple interest and a 25% penalty cap would apply for damages.
The court previously had granted plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on
October 14, 2011.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Defends Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Incorporated is defending class action lawsuits over
issues involving the payment of hotel occupancy and other taxes,
according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company and certain third-party defendant online travel
companies are currently involved in approximately forty-five
lawsuits, including certified and putative class actions, brought
by or against states, cities and counties over issues involving
the payment of hotel occupancy and other taxes (i.e., state and
local sales tax) and the Company's "merchant" hotel business.  The
Company's subsidiaries Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are
named in some but not all of these cases.  Generally, each
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to
cover taxes under each law.  Each complaint typically seeks
compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law,
attorneys' fees and other relief.  The Company is also involved in
one consumer lawsuit relating to, among other things, the payment
of hotel occupancy taxes and service fees.  In addition,
approximately seventy municipalities or counties, and at least
eight states, have initiated audit proceedings (including
proceedings initiated by more than forty municipalities in
California), issued proposed tax assessments or started inquiries
relating to the payment of hotel occupancy and other taxes (i.e.,
state and local sales tax).  Additional state and local
jurisdictions are likely to assert that the Company is subject to,
among other things, hotel occupancy and other taxes (i.e., state
and local sales tax) and could seek to collect such taxes,
retroactively and/or prospectively.

With respect to the principal claims in these matters, the Company
believes that the laws at issue do not apply to the service it
provides, namely the facilitation of reservations, and, therefore,
that it does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed.
Rather, the Company believes that the laws at issue generally
impose hotel occupancy and other taxes on entities that own,
operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or
provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations.  In addition, in
many of these matters, the taxing jurisdictions have asserted
claims for "conversion" -- essentially, that the Company has
collected a tax and wrongfully "pocketed" those tax dollars -- a
claim that the Company believes is without basis and has
vigorously contested.  The taxing jurisdictions that are currently
involved in litigation and other proceedings with the Company, and
that may be involved in future proceedings, have asserted contrary
positions and will likely continue to do so.  From time to time,
the Company has found it expedient to settle, and may in the
future agree to settle, claims pending in these matters without
conceding that the claims at issue are meritorious or that the
claimed taxes are in fact due to be paid.

In connection with some of these tax audits and assessments, the
Company may be required to pay any assessed taxes, which amounts
may be substantial, prior to being allowed to contest the
assessments and the applicability of the laws in judicial
proceedings.  This requirement is commonly referred to as "pay to
play" or "pay first."  For example, the City of San Francisco
assessed the Company approximately $3.4 million (an amount that
includes interest and penalties) relating to hotel occupancy
taxes, which the Company paid in July 2009.  Payment of these
amounts, if any, is not an admission that the Company believes it
is subject to such taxes and, even if such payments are made, the
Company intends to continue to assert its position vigorously.
The Company has successfully argued against a "pay first"
requirement asserted in another California proceeding.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Owes No Back Taxes, Georgia Court Ruled
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled
in July 2012 that that no back taxes were owed in connection with
the class action lawsuit initiated by of the City of Rome,
Georgia, et al., according to priceline.com Incorporated's August
7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 5, 2012, in City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com,
L.P., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia; filed in November 2005), a certified class action on
behalf of Georgia cities and counties, the court granted the
parties' motion for approval of the partial class settlement
agreement providing that the online travel company defendants
would pay hotel occupancy taxes from May 16, 2011, going forward.
May 16, 2011, is the date of the Georgia Supreme Court's decision
in the City of Atlanta appeal requiring payment on a prospective
basis in that case.  On July 8, 2012, the court entered summary
judgment against all of plaintiffs' claims for past damages.  The
court found that the defendants were not operators and thus, that
no back taxes were owed.


PROSHARES ADVISORS: Class Action Over Leveraged ETFs Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Toonkel, writing for Reuters, reports that a New York
judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit by exchange traded fund
investors who claimed that the funds' advisor and distributor did
not fully disclose risks associated with investing in the ETFs.

The lawsuit, originally filed in August 2009, pertains to 44
leveraged and inverse ETFs managed by ProShares Advisors LLC.  In
the suit, the plaintiffs alleged that ProShares Advisors LLC and
SEI Investments Distribution Co did not disclose the risks of
holding on to the ETFs for longer than a day.

Furthermore, the suit alleged that ProShares knew in advance,
through a mathematical formula, that investors could suffer large
losses.

Leveraged ETFs are designed to amplify short-term returns by using
debt and derivatives, and are designed for short-term professional
traders, rather than long-term investors.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been looking into
whether leveraged ETFs have caused some of the market volatility
over the past several months.

But in its Sept. 10 dismissal of the class action suit, Judge John
G. Koeltl in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of
New York, wrote that ProShares was explicit in disclosing the
risks involved with investing in its products.

Furthermore, in his dismissal Judge Koeltl wrote that the idea
that ProShares knew in advance that investors could suffer large
losses through a mathematical formula was "implausible."

"That the plaintiffs held the ETF shares over long periods of
time, despite the language in the registration statement, is not
enough to support a cause of action," the judge wrote in his
dismissal.

ProShares and SEI did not immediately return calls seeking
comment.

As of Aug. 31, ProShares had $10.9 billion in leveraged and
inverse ETF assets, making it the biggest provider of these funds
in the United States, according to Lipper.  The firm had $22.5
billion in fund assets overall.


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit
filed in California remains pending, according to Rigel
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012.

On February 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers, directors and underwriters for its
February 2008 public offering of common stock (Stock Offering).
An additional purported securities class action lawsuit containing
similar allegations was subsequently filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on February
20, 2009.  By order of the Court dated March 19, 2009, the two
lawsuits were consolidated into a single action.  On June 9, 2009,
the Court issued an order naming the Inter-Local Pension Fund
GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(formerly Coughlin Stoia) as lead counsel.  The lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated complaint on July 24, 2009.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss on September 8, 2009.  On December 21,
2009, the Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the
consolidated complaint with leave to amend.  Plaintiff filed its
consolidated amended complaint on January 27, 2010.  The lawsuit
alleged violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act in
connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by
the Company related to the results of the Phase 2a clinical trial
of its product candidate fostamatinib (then known as R788).  The
plaintiff sought damages, including rescission or rescissory
damages for purchasers in the Stock Offering, an award of their
costs and injunctive and/or equitable relief for purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period between December 13,
2007, and February 9, 2009, including purchasers in the Stock
Offering.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on February 16, 2010.  On August 24, 2010, the
Court issued an order granting the Company's motion and dismissed
the consolidated complaint with leave to amend.  On September 22,
2010, plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that it will
not amend its complaint and requested that the Court enter a final
judgment.  On October 28, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a proposed
judgment requesting entry of such judgment in favor of the
defendants.  On November 1, 2010, judgment was entered dismissing
the action.  The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November
15, 2010, to the Circuit Court appealing the district court's
order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.  The plaintiff filed its opening brief on
February 23, 2011.  The Company filed its opposition brief on
April 8, 2011.  On May 9, 2011, the plaintiff filed its reply
brief.

On February 17, 2012, the Circuit Court heard oral arguments on
plaintiff's appeal.

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

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intend
to defend this lawsuit vigorously.  This lawsuit and any other
related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the
actual costs to be incurred relating to the lawsuit will depend
upon many unknown factors.  The outcome of the litigation is
necessarily uncertain and the Company could be forced to expend
significant resources in the defense of this lawsuit, and the
Company may not prevail.  Monitoring and defending legal actions
is time consuming for the Company's management and detracts from
its ability to fully focus its internal resources on its business
activities.  In addition, the Company may incur substantial legal
fees and costs in connection with the litigation.  The Company is
not currently able to estimate the possible cost to it from this
matter, if any, and the Company cannot be certain how long it may
take to resolve this matter or the possible amount of any damages
that the Company may be required to pay.  The Company has not
established any reserves for any potential liability relating to
this lawsuit.


RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Frozen Donations
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that Rutgers
University froze donations for the U.S. Boat to Gaza when it
learned the money "would support criticism of the Israeli
government," a Rutgers professor claims in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Larry Romsted, a professor at Rutgers, and Manijeh
Saba, a human rights activist, say the $3,400 they helped raise
has been frozen for almost 2 years, after Rutgers and its Board of
Trustees bowed to "pressure from outside groups," in particular
the Anti-Defamation League and Hillel, which describes itself as a
Foundation for Jewish Campus Life.

The Rutgers student organization BAKA: Students United for Middle
Eastern Justice raised more than $3,400 at a Nov. 4, 2010 event,
Mr. Romsted says.

He says the fund raiser for the U.S. Boat to Gaza was attended by
"250 paying students and members of the public."  The money was to
go to Stand for Justice Inc., which was organizing the boat to
Gaza.

Immediately after the event, the complaint states, the class
"learned that Anti-Defamation League ('ADL') and Hillel opposed
the fundraiser because it criticized Israel's naval blockade of
Gaza.  Some concerns were also voiced about the nonprofit status
of the organizations sending the boat to Gaza.  Plaintiffs
provided documentation from the Center for Constitutional Rights
attesting to the legality of the flotilla, a statement from STJ
[Stand for Justice] asserting that the US to Gaza boat is legal
under US laws and on the 501c3 status of the Institute for Media
Analysis Inc. that was handling the finances of the US boat."

Despite this documentation, Mr. Romsted says, Rutgers froze the
donations.

Then, Mr. Romsted says, the Anti-Defamation League touted on its
Web site that "'[a]fter ADL's intervention, the school informed
organizers that the proceeds could no longer go to the group they
had designated and that no funds will be released until the
university determines a legal recipient;' and '[t]hanks to ADL's
action, the anti-Israel group was forced to change its plans and
find a different donor.'"

When Rutgers told BAKA it would not send the money to Stand for
Justice, the student organization asked that the money be sent to
the WESPAC Foundation.

"However, Rutgers never actually gave the November 4, 2010
proceeds or any other money to WESPAC," the complaint states.
"Instead, after the BAKA statement, Rutgers froze the check to
WESPAC.  On June 22, 2011, an attorney from Rutgers legal
department also called WESPAC to inquire how the money would be
used.  Nada Khader, WESPAC's director and a speaker at the
November 4, 2010 event, told the attorney that the money would be
used to support the spirit and intent of the November 4, 2010
event -- in other words, that it would support criticism of the
Israeli government and Israeli government policy, in particular
the naval blockade of Gaza."

Rutgers still hasn't released the money, the class claims.

"Although defendants contend they are withholding the funds for
content- and viewpoint-neutral reasons, upon information and
belief defendants' decisions to initially freeze the funds and
refuse to release them to STJ or the substitute organization
subsequently chosen by BAKA, the WESPAC Foundation, is based on
the content of plaintiff's speech -- specifically, support for
Palestine and opposition to the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza,"
the complaint states.

The class wants the court to order Rutgers to release the money to
WESPAC, and wants the college enjoined from retaliating against
plaintiffs for exercising their constitutional rights.

A copy of the Complaint in Romsted, et al. v. Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, et al., Case No. 12-cv-05588 (D. N.J.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/11/GazaBoat.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John P. Leschak, Esq.
          LESCHAK & BARBOSA, LLC
          7 Broad St., Suite 103
          Elizabeth, NJ 07201
          Telephone: (888) 765-1126


SKECHERS: Proposes Settlement of Shape-Ups Footwear Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP on Sept. 9 issued a statement
regarding the Skechers proposed class action settlement.

                           Legal Notice

If you purchased Skechers' footwear called Shape-ups, Resistance
Runner, Shape-ups Toners/Trainers, or Tone-ups between August 1,
2008 and August 13, 2012 in the United States, your rights may be
affected by a proposed class action settlement.

A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit regarding
the following toning footwear categories: (a) Shape-ups rocker
bottom shoes ("Shape-ups"); (b) Resistance Runner rocker bottom
shoes ("Resistance Runner"); (c) Shape-ups Toners/Trainers, and
Tone-ups with podded outsoles ("Podded Sole Shoes"); and (d) Tone-
ups non-podded sandals, boots, clogs, and trainers ("Tone-ups
(Non-Podded Sole)") sold by Skechers (the "Eligible Shoes").  The
Court in Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00204
(W.D. Ky.) will hold a final approval hearing on March 19, 2013.

ARE YOU AFFECTED?

You are a Class Member and may be eligible to receive a payment if
you purchased any of the Eligible Shoes in the United States from
August 1, 2008 to August 13, 2012 inclusive, with limited
exclusions.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

The lawsuit alleges that Skechers violated certain state laws
regarding the marketing and sale of toning shoes between August 1,
2008, until and including August 13, 2012.  Skechers expressly
denies any wrongdoing and does not admit or concede any actual or
potential fault, wrongdoing, or liability in connection with any
facts or claims that have been alleged against it.  Specifically,
Skechers contends that fitness benefits of Shape-ups and other
rocker bottom shoes have been extensively studied and confirmed in
numerous well-designed clinical studies, many of which have been
published in peer-reviewed journals.  Skechers contends that this
body of scientific literature and experts in the field of
biomechanics confirm that competent and reliable scientific
evidence supports fitness benefits for those shoes.  The Court did
not decide which side was right.  Instead, the Parties have
decided to settle.  The Parties believe the proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and will provide substantial
benefit to the Class.

WHAT DOES THIS SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

The settlement provides a fund of $40 million, less the costs of
notice and settlement administration, to pay claims to eligible
Class Members relating to the purchase of Eligible Shoes.  The
Settlement Agreement is found at http://www.Skecherssettlement.com
Skechers also agrees to make certain conduct changes and
separately pay Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and class
representative awards.

HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A PAYMENT?

To be eligible for a payment, Class Members must send in a
completed Claim Form electronically submitted no later than
April 18, 2013 or postmarked no later than April 18, 2013.
Payment amounts to eligible Class Members will vary depending
upon, among other factors, the product(s) purchased, the number
and amounts claimed by all Class Members and other adjustments and
deductions.  The amount could be more (up to double), the same, or
less than $40.00 for Shape-ups, $42.00 for Resistance Runner,
$27.00 for Podded Sole Shoes, and $20.00 for Tone-ups (Non-Podded
Sole).

WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?

If you are a Class Member, you may (1) do nothing; (2) exclude
yourself; (3) send in a Claim Form; and/or (4) object to the
settlement.

If you don't want to be bound by the settlement, you must exclude
yourself by letter postmarked by January 14, 2013.  If you exclude
yourself, you can't get a payment from this settlement or object
to the settlement, but you can sue Skechers for these claims.  If
you stay in the Class, you may submit a Claim Form and/or object
to the settlement.  Claim Forms must be submitted to the Claims
Administrator by April 18, 2013.  Objections must be filed with
the Court by January 14, 2013.  The detailed notice describes how
to file a Claim, object, or exclude yourself and provides other
important information.  The Court will hold a hearing in this case
on March 19, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. ET at the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky, 601 West Broadway,
Louisville, Kentucky 40202-2227, to consider final approval of the
settlement, payment of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses of up to $5
million, payments of up to $2,500 for each of the two named
Plaintiffs, and related issues.  You may appear at the hearing,
but you don't have to.

HOW CAN YOU GET A CLAIM FORM OR MORE INFORMATION?

To obtain a detailed notice, Claim Form or other documents, visit
http://www.Skecherssettlement.comor call, toll-free, (866) 325-
4186, or write to Administrator, PO Box 2008, Chanhassen, MN
55317-2008.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Bid to Certify Class in Antitrust Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class in their antitrust lawsuit
against Steel Dynamics, Inc. and other steel manufacturing
companies remains pending, according to the Company's August 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company is involved, along with eight other steel
manufacturing companies, in a class action antitrust complaint
filed in federal court in Chicago, Illinois, that alleges a
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at
which steel products were sold in the United States starting in
2005, by artificially restricting the supply of such steel
products.  All but one of the Complaints purport to be brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel
products during the period of the alleged conspiracy.  The other
Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting
of all indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time
period.  All Complaints seek treble damages and costs, including
reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and
injunctive relief.  On January 2, 2009, Steel Dynamics and the
other defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss all of the direct
purchaser lawsuits, but this motion was denied.  The parties have
been conducting discovery related primarily to class certification
matters, and on May 24, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Class Certification.  A time frame for hearing this Motion has not
yet been determined.  Due to the uncertainties of litigation, the
Company cannot presently determine the ultimate outcome of this
litigation.  However, the company believes that, based on the
information available to the Company at this time, there is not
presently a "reasonable possibility" (as that term is defined in
ASC 450-20-20) that the outcome of these legal proceedings would
have a material impact on the company's financial condition,
results of operations, or liquidity.


STEINER LEISURE: Agrees to Settle "Ferrari" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steiner Leisure Limited reached an agreement to settle a class
action lawsuit commenced by Yvette Ferrari against a subsidiary,
according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In April 2011, a Complaint was filed in California Superior Court,
Los Angeles Central Division, against Bliss World LLC and related
entities (Yvette Ferrari v. Bliss World LLC, et al) on behalf of
an employee of Bliss claiming violations of various California
requirements relating to the payment of wages.  The action was
presented as a class action.  In May 2012, the parties to this
action reached a preliminary agreement to settle the matter.
Because of the putative class action nature of the lawsuit, that
agreement is subject to a formal agreement currently being worked
on by the parties and that formal agreement would then be subject
to approval by the court.  Management currently believes that the
amount of such liability would not be material to the Company's
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.


SUNTECH POWER: Sued Over Nonexistent EUR560MM German Gov't. Bonds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanh V. Le, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., Zhengrong Shi, David
King and Amy Yi Zhang, Case No. 4:12-cv-04655 (N.D. Calif.,
September 6, 2012) is brought on behalf of purchasers of Suntech's
American depositary shares between August 18, 2010, and July 30,
2012, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, Ms. Le alleges.  She contends that the Defendants
failed to disclose that (i) Suntech had not been pledged EUR560
million in German government bonds from GSF Capital Pte Ltd., in
connection with its May 2010 financing arrangement with the China
Development Bank, (ii) the Company lacked internal and financial
controls, and (iii) as a result, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Ms. Le purchased Suntech ADSs during the Class Period, and
suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law
violations, and false and misleading statements.

Suntech is a Cayman Islands corporation with its principal
executive offices located in Jiangsu Province, People's Republic
of China.  Suntech, a solar energy company, engages in the design,
development, manufacture, and marketing of photovoltaic products,
which are used to provide electric power for residential,
commercial, industrial, and public utility applications primarily
in Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Benelux, Greece, the United
States, Canada, China, the Middle East, Australia, and Japan.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
                  lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mgoldberg@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          Ten South LaSalle Street - Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: Pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


TOSHIBA CORP: Settles LCD Panel Antitrust Class Action for $30MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Magazine.com reports that Toshiba Corp. said it will
settle claims of alleged antitrust violations in the LCD business
brought by purchasers of LCD panels and some products containing
the panels.  The settlement terms call for Toshiba to pay $30
million. In return, plaintiffs will relinquish all claims for
damages, fees, costs, and other relief.  The agreement still needs
to be approved by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

This settlement comes after an $87 million July 3 jury verdict
against Toshiba, which the company planned to appeal.  Toshiba
chose to settle instead, to avoid more prolonged litigation.

Toshiba admitted no wrongdoing as part of this settlement, and
continues to maintain that it did not engage in illegal activity.


URS CORP: Consolidated Suit Related to Hurricane Katrina Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International,
Inc., an Ohio company ("WGI Ohio"), a wholly owned subsidiary
acquired by URS Corporation on November 15, 2007, performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of
the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in New
Orleans, Louisiana.  On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina
devastated New Orleans.  The storm surge created by the hurricane
overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the
Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city.

Since September 2005, 59 personal injury, property damage and
class action lawsuits have been filed in Louisiana State and
federal court naming WGI Ohio as a defendant.  Other defendants
include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the
Orleans Levee District, and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine
Insurance Company.  Over 1,450 hurricane-related cases, including
the WGI Ohio cases, have been consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District
Court").  The plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in
their design, construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans
levees.  The plaintiffs are all residents and property owners who
claim to have incurred damages arising out of the breach and
failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina.  The allegation against the Company is
that the work the Company performed adjacent to the Industrial
Canal damaged the levee and floodwall and caused and/or
contributed to breaches and flooding.  The plaintiffs allege
damages of $200.0 billion and demand attorneys' fees and costs.
WGI Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the
levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane
Katrina.  WGI Ohio performed the work adjacent to the Industrial
Canal as a contractor for the federal government and has pursued
dismissal from the lawsuits on a motion for summary judgment on
the basis that government contractors are immune from liability.

On December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that it
performed the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a
contractor for the federal government and are therefore immune
from liability, which was appealed by a number of the plaintiffs
on April 27, 2009, to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals ("Court of Appeals").  On September 14, 2010, the Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision
and WGI Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further litigation.  On August 1, 2011, the
District Court held that the defense of government contractor
immunity is not available to WGI Ohio at trial, but would be an
issue for appeal.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

WGI Ohio says it intends to continue to defend these matters
vigorously; however, WGI Ohio cannot provide assurance that it
will be successful in these efforts.  The potential range of loss
and the resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this
time primarily due to the unknown number of individual plaintiffs
who are actually asserting claims against WGI Ohio; the
uncertainty regarding the nature and amount of each individual
plaintiff's damage claims; uncertainty concerning legal theories
and factual bases that plaintiffs may present and their resolution
by courts or regulators; and uncertainty about the plaintiffs'
claims, if any, that might survive certain key motions of the
Company's affiliate, as well as a number of additional factors.


WALGREEN CO: Faces Suit Filed by Non-Exempt California Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Jerominski and Alicia Arenas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. RG12637909 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.,
July 3, 2012) is brought on behalf of a putative class of all
Walgreen's non-exempt current and former employees in California
beginning four years prior to the filing of the complaint through
the present, and continuing.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant failed to (i) pay wages for
all hours worked, (ii) pay overtime wages (iii) provide meal
periods, (iv) provide rest periods, (v) indemnify business
expenses, (vi) furnish accurate wage statements, and (vii) keep
accurate payroll records.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Riverside, California.

Walgreen is based in Deerfield, Illinois. The Plaintiffs are
ignorant of the true names and identities of the Doe Defendants.

The Company removed the lawsuit on September 5, 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.  Walgreen argues that the removal is proper because
parties to the lawsuit have different citizenship.  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-04635 to the proceeding.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Diana Tabacopoulos, Esq.
          Jill Porcaro, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: dtabacopoulos@seyfarth.com
                  jporcaro@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Candace S. Bertoldi, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: cbertoldi@seyfarth.com


WORLDWIDE ASSET: Debt-Collection Settlement Gets Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristi Tousignant, writing for Daily Record, reports that state
residents involved in a class action lawsuit against a group of
debt collection agencies will have their debts erased and lawsuits
against them dropped as part of a settlement agreement.

The class will also receive $575,000 to be distributed among the
3,195 class members, defined as Maryland residents sued by the
defendants from Sept. 22, 2006, to Sept. 22, 2009.

The parties entered the proposed class action settlement agreement
March 26, and Judge Richard D. Bennett issued a final order on the
agreement in U.S. District Court on Aug. 24.

The class, represented by Wilson C. Winemiller Jr. of Middle
River, Warren P. Adams of Frederick and Mickey S. Slaghter of
Lusby, filed suit against four collection agencies working
together who acquire consumer debts, then try to collect on them
by suing Maryland consumers, according to court documents.  The
debts are usually beyond the statute of limitations, had already
been ruled void or were previously discharged in bankruptcy.

The agencies are also not registered or licensed in Maryland,
according to court documents.

Within 10 days of the judge's final order, each class member's
debt will be eliminated, lawsuits against them will be dropped
with prejudice, all judgments against them will be satisfied and
all judgment liens released.  The debts will also be removed from
the members' credit scores.

The settlement is the latest of several reached this year under
state and federal debt-collection laws, with Scott C. Borison of
Legg Law Firm LLC in Frederick and Peter A. Holland of The Holland
Law Firm PC representing the plaintiff class.

"The main thing is that it's a lot of people and a lot of debt and
getting rid of judgments and liens and lawsuits," Mr. Holland
said.  "That is a really good thing for consumers in a credit-
starved economy."

Mitchell Rubenstein of Rubenstein & Cogan in Gaithersburg, one of
the defendants' attorneys, said he did not want to comment on the
case.

As class representatives, Mr. Winemiller will receive $10,000 and
Messrs. Adams and Slaghter will each receive $7,500.  After
attorneys' fees and other costs of $231,970 are taken out of the
fund, the rest will be distributed to the other class members who
file claim forms.

Class members will receive no more than $500 each, according to
the settlement agreement.

The defendants are a group of collection agencies and include
Worldwide Asset Purchasing LLC, Worldwide Asset Purchasing II,
West Receivable Services Inc. and West Corp. Worldwide and
Worldwide II are subsidiaries of West Receivable, and West
Receivable is a subsidiary of West Corp.

"The defendants are the alter ego of each other and coordinate
their illegal conduct directly with each other and indirectly
through their mutual attorneys," the plaintiffs' complaint said.

The plaintiffs alleged that the collection agencies would acquire
defaulted consumer debt, often for as low as a few cents on the
dollar.  The companies then attempted to collect on the debts by
contacting consumers and suing them, according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs also alleged that the agencies disclosed personal
information of consumers, including Social Security numbers.

"Virtually every collection effort in Maryland by Defendants,
including each and every civil action filed in Maryland and each
and every judgment lien filed in Maryland, is an unfair and
deceptive trade practice," the complaint said.

WINEMILLER ET AL. V. WORLDWIDE ASSET PURCHASING LLC ET AL.

Court:

U.S. District Court, Maryland, Baltimore

Case No.:

1:09-cv-02487-RDB

Judge:

Richard D. Bennett

Outcome:

Settled without trial for $575,000

Dates:

Suit filed: Sept. 22, 2009

Proposed settlement entered: March 26, 2012

Settlement approved: Aug. 24, 2012

Plaintiffs' Attorneys:

Scott C. Borison of Legg Law Firm LLC in Frederick, Peter A.
Holland of The Holland Law Firm PC in Annapolis and Michael Gregg
Morin of counsel to The Holland Law Firm PC.

Defendants' Attorneys:

Mitchell Rubenstein of Rubenstein & Cogan in Gaithersburg, Dayle
M. Van Hoose and Bryan C. Shartle of Sessions, Fishman, Nathan &
Israel LLC in Tampa, Fl., Erin O. Millar of Whiteford, Taylor &
Preston LLP in Baltimore

Count:

Violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, the
Maryland Personal Information Protection Act, the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act


ZAGG INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Sept. 10 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit against Zagg, Inc. asserting violations of
the federal securities laws on behalf of purchasers of ZAGG stock
during the period from February 28, 2012 to August 17, 2012.

To join the ZAGG class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com or call Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan toll-
free at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The complaint alleges that ZAGG's CEO and founder Robert Pedersen
pledged more than 50% of his ZAGG stock as collateral for a margin
loan and that as a result, the company began a secret plan to
replace him as CEO.  On August 17, 2012, ZAGG announced that its
co-founder Robert G. Pedersen II resigned from his posts as CEO
and Chairman of the company.  Following the announcement, Robert
Pedersen disclosed in an SEC filing that he had sold a total of
515,000 shares of ZAGG stock three days prior to his resignation.
The majority of the shares were sold to meet margin calls.  This
adverse news caused the price of ZAGG stock to drop, damaging
investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 5, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Affirms Judgment vs. San Antonio Water System
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, in San Antonio,
affirmed the judgment of a trial court finding that the evidence
in a whistleblower action filed by Albert Kevin Martin against his
former employer, San Antonio Water System and the City of San
Antonio, is sufficient to prove causation that SAWS improperly
handled and disposed pipes containing asbestos at its Medio Creek
site.

SAWS filed an appeal after a jury found in favor of Martin and
awarded him damages.  In its appeal, SAWS argued that (1) the
evidence is legally and factually insufficient to prove causation;
and (2) the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to
support the jury's award of compensatory damages.  The Court of
Appeals, however, modified the trial court's judgment to delete
all references to compensatory damages after finding that there is
no evidence to support the jury's award of compensatory damages.

The case is CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, and its Agent, San Antonio Water
System, Appellant, v. Albert Kevin MARTIN a/k/a Kevin Martin,
Appellee, No. 04-11-00402-CV (Tex. Ct. App.).  A copy of the Court
of Appeals' Decision dated August 29, 2012, is available at
http://is.gd/GrJaAVfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Ct. Overturns Judgment v. Abex & Honeywell
----------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2009, Jayne Menssen sued Pneumo Abex, LLC, the successor
of Pneumo Abex Corporation (Abex), and Honeywell International,
Inc. (Honeywell), the successor of the Bendix Corporation
(Bendix), among others, to recover damages for a malignancy caused
by exposure to asbestos that occurred while Menssen was employed
at the Union Asbestos and Rubber Company (UNARCO).  Menssen's suit
alleged that Abex, Honeywell, and UNARCO entered into a civil
conspiracy to (1) falsely assert that exposure to asbestos was
safe and (2) suppress information about the harmful effects of
asbestos.

In February 2010, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Menssen
and against Abex and Honeywell, awarding Menssen $3.5 million in
compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages of $4.37 million
against Abex and $10 million against Honeywell.  Abex and
Honeywell appeal, alleging numerous deficiencies.

Taking as dispositive the decision in Rodarmel v. Pneumo Abex,
L.L.C., 2011 IL App (4th) 100463, 957 N.E.2d 107, the Appellate
Court of Illinois, Fourth District, reversed the lower court's
judgment 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.

The cases are JAYNE MENSSEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PNEUMO ABEX
CORPORATION, PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants, and JAYNE MENSSEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Nos. 4-10-
0904, 4-10-0921 cons (Ill.).  A copy of the Appellate Court's
Decision dated August 31, 2012, is available at
http://is.gd/FmKvnSfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Refuses to Reverse Ruling v. Fluor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Between 1971 and 1986, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company
provided comprehensive liability insurance coverage to Fluor
Corporation ("Fluor-1") through 11 different policies.  These
policies were invoked when various Fluor entities were sued for
injuries arising out of asbestos-containing materials at sites
where Flour allegedly did business.  Since 1985, Hartford has
participated in the defense of these asbestos lawsuits.  In 2000,
a new company, named Fluor Corporation ("Fluor-2"), was created
through a process called "reverse spinoff."  Between 2001 and
2008, Hartford paid defense and indemnity costs in connection with
its defense of the asbestos lawsuits, including a defense of both
Fluor-1 and Fluor-2.

In 2006, Fluor-2 initiated a coverage action against Hartford to
resolve various coverage disputes, including the designation of
the applicable policies, the interpretation of the "completed
operations" clause, and Hartford's calculation of Fluor's
retrospective premium obligations.  Hartford cross-complained,
raising other coverage issues.

In a decision dated August 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division Three, denied Fluor-2's
petition for writ of mandate holding that it is duty-bound to
follow the ruling laid down in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident &
Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934, where the Supreme Court
enforced an identical consent-to-assignment clause under a similar
fact pattern.  As a result of the ruling, a company that acquired
a policyholder's assets and liabilities could not receive the
benefits of the policyholder's "occurrence-based" liability
coverage, the Appeals Court pointed out.

The Court of Appeals held that Henkel directly applies to the
Hartford policies at issue.  Indeed, the Court of Appeals noted,
the language of the consent-to-assignment is identical -- not a
surprising coincidence since Hartford also was the insurer in
Henkel.  Like Fluor-2, the plaintiff in Henkel argued that it was
entitle to coverage because the liability insurance policies were
written on an "occurrence" basis, thereby fixing the insurer's
coverage obligations when the tort claimants were injured as a
result of their exposure.  The Supreme Court disagreed and
concluded that consent-to-assignment clauses are generally valid
and enforceable until the time that claims had been "reduced to a
sum of money due or to become due under the policy."

As in Henkel, the appeals court continued, the mere fact that the
events giving rise to liability -- exposure to asbestos -- took
place before the reverse spinoff does not automatically expand the
universe of insureds with whom Hartford owes a relationship to
include both Fluor-1 and Fluor-2.

The case is FLUOR CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY
COMPANY, Real Party in Interest, No. G045579 (Cal.4th).  A copy of
the August 30 Decision is available at http://is.gd/5t3i60from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D.C. Court Won't Hear Compensation Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Estate of Millie Ann McDaniels filed a lawsuit against Liberty
Mutual Group, Inc., seeking damages for breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of contract, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing, and negligence.  The damages sought by the plaintiff
arises from the defendant's alleged failure to timely and
accurately pay workers' compensation benefits for Fletcher
McDaniels who was exposed to asbestos in the course of his
employment with John H. Hampshire, Inc.  Liberty Mutual was the
employer's insurance carrier.  Mr. McDaniels died in 1989 and Mrs.
McDaniels, who also died in 2010, became entitled to receive those
benefits.  The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint

Judge Richard J. Leon of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia granted the motion to dismiss on August 31,
2012, after concluding that:

   (1) The District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act bars
       plaintiff from raising tort claims against a workers'
       compensation insurer for failure to timely pay benefits.
       The District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
       has primary jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims.
       Accordingly, Judge Leon dismissed the complaint for lack
       of subject matter jurisdiction.

   (2) Because neither Mrs. McDaniels, her beneficiaries, nor her
       husband were ever party to the contract at issue, nor was
       Mrs. McDaniels or her beneficiaries third-party
       beneficiaries of the contract, plaintiff lacks standing to
       bring a breach of contract claim.

The case is ESTATE OF MILLIE ANN McDANIELS, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY
MUTUAL GROUP INC., Defendant, Civil Case No. 12-202
(RJL)(U.S.D.C.,D.C.).  A copy of Judge Leon's August 31 Decision
is available at http://is.gd/LauV0Ofrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies Karmak's Bid to Junk Exposure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied Karnak Corporation's motion to dismiss an asbestos personal
injury action captioned SCOTT DEWITT, Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH
WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190429/11,
Motion Seq. 002 (N.Y.), pointing out that testimony presented in
the case shows that the plaintiff would become personally
inundated with asbestos-containing Karmak roofing cement every
time he used the product to repair or replace roofs.  A copy of
Judge Heitler's August 31, 2012, Decision is available at
http://is.gd/HNF3lRfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Dismisses Exposure Suit v. Taco Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted Taco, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an asbestos personal injury
action captioned IVO J. PERAICA, Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190339/11, Motion
Seq. 001 (N.Y.) after finding that no evidence has been submitted
that asbestos-containing parts are or were necessary for the
proper operation of a Taco pump, nor is there any evidence that
Taco recommended or specified the use of asbestos-containing
materials with its products.  A copy of Judge Heitler's Decision
dated August 31, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/njg6Bffrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies LILCO's Bid to Dismiss Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
dismissed the motion filed by National Grid Generation, LLC, a/k/a
Long Island Lighting Company, seeking dismissal of an asbestos
personal injury action captioned PAUL CRANE and ARLENE CRANE
Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al. Defendants,
Docket No. 190082/11, Motion Seq. No. 6 (N.Y.) after holding that
evidence shows that LILCO was responsible for the presence of pure
asbestos blankets and Novatex blankets at its Shoreham nuclear
plant where Mr. Crane worked.  Evidence also showed that LILCO
directed and implemented safety procedures regarding those
materials.  This evidences LILCO's authority to supervise and
control the exact unsafe conditions which plaintiffs allege caused
Mr. Crane's injuries, the Court ruled.  The defendant's denial of
supervisory authority prior to NIOSH's involvement is without
merit, the Court added.

A copy of Judge Heitler's Decision dated September 5, 2012, is
available at http://is.gd/7ruKnlfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Defend Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to defend itself against asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We are subject to lawsuits initiated by a
significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a
result of exposure to asbestos. In the early 2000's we were named
in nearly 20,000 complaints, most of which were filed in
Mississippi state court and the vast majority of which made no
allegations of exposure to asbestos from our product categories.
Most of these claims have been dismissed and our current docket of
active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide. A
small number of claims have been asserted by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of our subsidiaries. The
substantial majority of the remaining claims are related to
alleged exposure to asbestos in our automotive products. Only a
small percentage of the claimants allege that they were automobile
mechanics and a significant number appear to involve workers in
other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient
information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim
against us. We believe, based on scientific and other evidence, it
is unlikely that mechanics were exposed to asbestos by our former
products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased
risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these
products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100 defendants
from a variety of industries. Additionally, the plaintiffs either
do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages. As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users
continue to go out of business or file for bankruptcy, we may
experience an increased number of these claims. We vigorously
defend ourselves against these claims as part of our ordinary
course of business. In future periods, we could be subject to
charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved
unfavorably to us. To date, with respect to claims that have
proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, we have
regularly achieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly, we
presently believe that these asbestos-related claims will not have
a material adverse impact on our future consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

Tenneco Inc. is a producer of emission control and ride control
products and systems for light, commercial and specialty vehicle
applications. The Company serves both original equipment vehicle
manufacturers (OEMs) and the repair and replacement markets, or
aftermarket, worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Unit Still Defending Wrongful Death Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2011, an asbestos complaint was filed in the New
Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, against Atlantic City
Electric Company (ACE) (among other defendants) asserting claims
under New Jersey's Wrongful Death and Survival statutes. The
complaint, filed by the estate of a decedent who was the wife of a
former employee of ACE, alleges that the decedent's mesothelioma
was caused by exposure to asbestos brought home by her husband on
his work clothes. Unlike the other jurisdictions to which Pepco
Holdings, Inc., (PHI) subsidiaries are subject, New Jersey courts
have recognized a cause of action against a premise owner in a
so-called "take home" case if it can be shown that the harm was
foreseeable. In this case, the complaint seeks recovery of an
unspecified amount of damages for, among other things, the
decedent's past medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and
suffering between the time of injury and death, and asserts a
punitive damage claim. At this time, ACE has concluded that a loss
is reasonably possible with respect to this matter, but ACE was
unable to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss
because (i) the damages sought are indeterminate, (ii) the
proceedings are in the early stages, and (iii) the matter involves
facts that ACE believes are distinguishable from the facts of the
"take home" cause of action recognized by the New Jersey courts.

No further updates were reported in the Form 10-Q filed by Pepco
Holdings, Inc., Potomac Electric Power Company, Delmarva Power &
Light Company, and Atlantic City Electric Company with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2012.

Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI) is a holding company that, through
regulated public utility subsidiaries, is engaged in the
transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and
the distribution and supply of natural gas: Potomac Electric Power
Company (Pepco), Delmarva Power & Light Company (DPL) and Atlantic
City Electric Company (ACE).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes Continues to Defend 37 PI Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation continues to defend 37
remaining asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "The Company or its former subsidiary, NATCO
Limited Partnership, was named as a defendant in approximately 251
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, the majority of which
were filed between 1989 and 2000. The claims were filed on behalf
of seamen or their personal representatives alleging injury or
illness from exposure to asbestos while employed as seamen on
Company-owned vessels. In these cases, the Company is typically
one of many defendants, including manufacturers and suppliers of
products containing asbestos, as well as other vessel owners.
Following certain administrative proceedings, counsel for
plaintiffs agreed to name a group of cases that they intended to
pursue and to dismiss the remaining cases without prejudice.
Plaintiffs previously named 40 cases against the Company that they
intended to pursue, each of which involves one plaintiff. The
remaining cases against the Company were dismissed without
prejudice. Plaintiffs in the dismissed cases could file a new
lawsuit if they develop a new disease allegedly caused by exposure
to asbestos on board our vessels. Of the 40 named cases, three
were subsequently dismissed, leaving 37 cases remaining. The
Company is presently unable to quantify the amounts of damages
being sought in the remaining lawsuits because none of the
complaints specify a damage amount. Based on preliminary discovery
and settlement demands received to date, the Company does not
believe that it is probable that losses from these claims could be
material, and an estimate of a range of losses relating to these
claims cannot reasonably be made. Based on the foregoing,
management does not believe that any of the remaining 37 lawsuits,
individually or in the aggregate, will have a material impact on
our business, financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation is a provider of dredging
services in the United States. Great Lakes provides dredging
services in the East, West, and Gulf Coasts of the United States
and worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Unit Still Defending Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
A wholly-owned subsidiary of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc., and its wholly-
owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. (referred to as
"WAG"), are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims
for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late
1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed
certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains
liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's
assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is
provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the
Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs
in connection with this matter that would be material to its
consolidated financial statements.

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.

U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc., offers online sources for
automotive aftermarket parts and repairs information. The Company
principally sells its products, identified as stock keeping units
(SKUs), to individual consumers through its network of Websites
and online marketplaces.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Inc. Had 11,800 Cases at June 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 29, 2012, there were approximately 11,800 asbestos
liability cases pending against Mallinckrodt Inc., according to
Covidien Public Limited Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 29, 2012.

Mallinckrodt Inc. is named as a defendant in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability
claims, based principally on allegations of past distribution of
products incorporating asbestos. A very limited number of the
cases allege premises liability, based on claims that individuals
were exposed to asbestos while on Mallinckrodt's property. Each
case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to
Mallinckrodt. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for
personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure
to products containing asbestos.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed
by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in
a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims, and intends
to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. When appropriate,
the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and
defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of June 29,
2012, there were approximately 11,800 asbestos liability cases
pending against Mallinckrodt.

The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that were
incurred but not reported, as well as related insurance
recoveries. The Company's estimate of its liability for pending
and future claims is based on claims experience over the past five
years and covers claims either currently filed or expected to be
filed over the next seven years. The Company believes that it has
adequate amounts recorded related to these matters. While it is
not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate
outcome of these asbestos-related proceedings, the Company
believes that the final outcome of all known and anticipated
future claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued
and insurance coverage, will not have a material adverse effect on
its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Covidien Public Limited Company is engaged in the development,
manufacture and sale of healthcare products for use in clinical
and home settings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Units Had 24,051 Unresolved Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's subsidiaries had 24,051 unresolved asbestos
claims at June 29, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2012.

Colfax Corporation's claims activity since December 31 related to
asbestos claims of its fluid-handling subsidiaries is:

                                           Six Months Ended
                                            June 29, 2012
(Number of claims)                         ----------------

Claims unresolved, beginning of period             23,682
Claims filed                                        2,045
Claims resolved                                    (1,676)
Claims unresolved, end of period                   24,051

The Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets included these
amounts related to asbestos-related litigation:

                                            June 29, 2012
                                            -------------
Current asbestos insurance asset              $34,800,000
Current asbestos insurance receivable          50,234,000
Long-term asbestos insurance asset            326,236,000
Long-term asbestos insurance receivable         7,063,000
Accrued asbestos liability                     38,916,000
Long-term asbestos liability                  383,020,000

The Company states: "In addition to the asbestos litigation of our
fluid-handling subsidiaries, certain subsidiaries acquired in
conjunction with the Charter Acquisition have been named as
defendants in asbestos related actions in the U.S. These lawsuits
have alleged that the defendants were liable for acts of a former
affiliate. The defendants have contested these actions and, in
most cases, have obtained dismissals. The Company expects to
continue to defend successfully the actions brought against them.

"Additionally, another subsidiary acquired in conjunction with the
Charter Acquisition has been named as a defendant in a number of
lawsuits in state and federal courts in the U.S. alleging personal
injuries from exposure to manganese in the fumes of welding
consumables. This subsidiary, along with other co-defendants,
entered into an agreement with plaintiffs' counsel that provides
for the dismissal with prejudice of substantially all of the
pending manganese claims.

"Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

"In June 2012, one of the Company's subsidiaries entered into a
settlement agreement for and made a payment of $8.5 million
associated with a complaint in a case brought by Litton
Industries, Inc. in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The
settlement had no impact on the Condensed Consolidated Statements
of Operations for the three and six months ended June 29, 2012."

Colfax Corporation is a global industrial manufacturing and
engineering company. The Company provides gas- and fluid-handling
and fabrication technology products and services to commercial and
governmental customers worldwide under the Howden and ESAB brand
names and by Colfax Fluid Handling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Continues to Defend Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc., is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the company is one of
numerous defendants.  After taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political
environment with respect to asbestos related claims, and the
liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion
of management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows of the company.

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

The Manitowoc Company, Inc. (MTW) is a multi-industry, capital
goods manufacturer. MTW operates in two markets: Cranes and
Related Products (Crane) and Foodservice Equipment (Foodservice).
Crane is a provider of engineered lifting equipment for the global
construction industry, including lattice-boom cranes, tower
cranes, mobile telescopic cranes, and boom trucks. Foodservice is
a manufacturer of commercial foodservice equipment serving the
ice, beverage, refrigeration, food-preparation, and cooking needs
of restaurants, convenience stores, hotels, healthcare, and
institutional applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,135 Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., had approximately 2,135 asbestos
cases outstanding at June 30, 2012, for which it may be
responsible for any related liabilities, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012.

The Company states: "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the
seller of the acquired brake business.  In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate
exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on
or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and
defense thereof.  At June 30, 2012, approximately 2,135 cases were
outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related
liabilities.  Since inception in September 2001 through June 30,
2012, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately $12.4
million.  We acquired limited insurance coverage up to a fixed
amount for defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims.  Under the policy currently in effect, we
have submitted claims to our insurance carrier and have received
$0.9 million in reimbursement for settlement claims and defense
costs with a nominal amount remaining under the policy.

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study performed by an independent actuarial firm with
expertise in assessing asbestos-related liabilities, our
settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the
jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and
results of settlement discussions.  As is our accounting policy,
we engage actuarial consultants with experience in assessing
asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim
liability. The methodology used to project asbestos-related
liabilities and costs in the study considered: (1) historical data
available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our
recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the
future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4)
an analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average
settlement values.

"The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31,
2011.  The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $27.5 million to
$66.5 million for the period through 2059. The change from the
prior year study was a $1.8 million increase for the low end of
the range and a $0.4 million decrease for the high end of the
range.  Based on the information contained in the actuarial study
and all other available information considered by us, we concluded
that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more
likely than any other and, therefore, recorded the low end of the
range as the liability associated with future settlement payments
through 2059 in our consolidated financial statements.
Accordingly, an incremental $1.3 million provision in our
discontinued operation was added to the asbestos accrual in
September 2011 increasing the reserve to approximately $27.5
million. According to the updated study, legal costs, which are
expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of
operations, are estimated to range from $26.2 million to $63
million during the same period.

"We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the
third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Given the
uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the
future and other factors outside our control, we can give no
assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will
continue to monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential
liabilities in determining whether additional provisions may be
necessary. At the present time, however, we do not believe that
any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial
position.

                        Asbestos Reserve

"We are responsible for certain future liabilities relating to
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products. In accordance
with our accounting policy, our most recent actuarial study as of
August 31, 2011 estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement
payments, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from
insurance carriers, ranging from $27.5 million to $66.5 million
for the period through 2059.  As a result, in September 2011 an
incremental $1.3 million provision in our discontinued operation
was added to the asbestos accrual increasing the reserve to
approximately $27.5 million as of that date. Based on the
information contained in the actuarial study and all other
available information considered by us, we concluded that no
amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely
than any other and, therefore, recorded the low end of the range
as the liability associated with future settlement payments
through 2059 in our consolidated financial statements.  In
addition, according to the updated study, legal costs, which are
expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operation, are estimated to range from $26.2 million
to $63 million during the same period.  We will continue to
perform an annual actuarial analysis during the third quarter of
each year for the foreseeable future.  Based on this analysis and
all other available information, we will continue to reassess the
recorded liability and, if deemed necessary, record an adjustment
to the reserve, which will be reflected as a loss or gain from
discontinued operation.  The aforementioned estimated settlement
payments and legal costs do not reflect any limited coverage that
we may obtain pursuant to agreements with insurance carriers for
certain asbestos-related claims."

Standard Motor Products, Inc., manufactures and distributes
replacement parts for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket
industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chinese Carmaker Pulls Out 12,500 Units in Brazil
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Chinese automaker says it's
recalling nearly 12,500 cars sold in Brazil after asbestos was
found in engine and exhaust gaskets.

Chery International says in an emailed statement that it
investigated the asbestos problem after it was discovered last
month in vehicles sold in Australia.  Asbestos is a known
carcinogen.  A recall of 23,000 cars was made in that nation.

The automaker says in its Aug. 29 statement that the Brazil recall
is of its Tiggo and Cielo models, both hatchback and sedans.

Chery says the asbestos does not pose a risk to drivers during use
of vehicles.  But it warned owners to not replace the gaskets
themselves.

Chery is moving strongly into Brazil's auto market and is now
building a $400 million auto plant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marois Will Revoke Asbestos Loan If Elected
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dougherty of The Montreal Gazette reports that Pauline
Marois announced Aug. 29 that if she becomes Quebec premier after
the provincial election, Quebec will get out of the asbestos
mining and exporting business.

Marois indicated her mind is made up but said she would first hold
hearings before a Quebec national assembly committee to hear what
those affected have to say.

"I think it is important to hear the workers and their families,"
she told reporters.  She also wants to hear from entrepreneurs in
the Asbestos region who can expect government aid for
diversification projects to replace the last jobs.

She said she has "very great confidence" in local entrepreneurs,
who could draw on a $58-million loan of government money the
Charest government committed for the reopening of the underground
Jeffrey Mine in the town of Asbestos.

She plans to cancel that loan.

Late on a Friday afternoon, just before the July 1 weekend, in the
town of Asbestos, Yvon ValliŠres, intergovernmental affairs
minister and the outgoing Liberal MNA for Richmond riding,
announced the government was lending $58 million to reopen the
Jeffry Mine.

The promoters of the project, Baljit Chadha and Bernard Coulombe,
had sought without success private financing to reopen Quebec's
last asbestos mine.

The Charest government, which was to go into an election a month
later, had promised a loan guarantee but because no private bank
would put up the money, even with the government guarantee, the
government granted the $58-million loan by cabinet decree.

Marois said she would use other means to revoke the government's
commitment if the loan has been signed.

"I do not want to put public money into extracting asbestos," she
said, noting reports on the public health danger asbestos poses.
But before a definitive decision is made, "it is necessary that we
hold a parliamentary commission."

Marois did say it is not likely the hearings will change her mind
and that it is time for Quebec to get out of the asbestos business
and diversify the economy in a town that has depended for jobs on
asbestos extraction.

"There will be a decision," she said.  "Do we export or not?  Do
we mine or not?  The decision will be very clear."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bellingham Chief Restarts Fibro-Management Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Tota of The Milford Daily News reports that the state
Department of Labor Standards has told Bellingham schools to start
testing its buildings for the presence of asbestos, saying the
district has not followed its regulations.

Under the Asbestos-Containing Materials in School requirements,
enacted in 1986, schools have to develop an asbestos-management
plan and designate a person trained to handle it.  That person
must test for asbestos every three years following the plan's
implementation.

Maintenance Director Roger Oakley, who was hired this summer, said
he could not find evidence that the district had ever created a
plan or appointed someone to look for asbestos.

And he estimated that it has not tested for asbestos in nearly 20
years.

"On my third day on the job, the state showed up in my office and
said, 'What are you doing about this?'" he said.

A state department spokesman was not able to immediately comment.

Still, Oakley said parents shouldn't worry about their children's
safety, because the asbestos, if found, would be contained in
building materials.

"As soon as everybody hears asbestos, they think the worst,"
Oakley said, adding, "The important thing is to make people
understand that there is no present danger; there is none.  You
don't have anything floating around."

Asbestos -- a mineral fiber often present in building materials
like roofing shingles, ceiling and floor tiles, boiler insulation
and dry wall -- only poses a health risk if it is disturbed,
causing particles to get into the air, according to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Airborne asbestos can lead to lung cancer, mesothelioma, a cancer
occurring in the lungs, chest, abdomen, and heart, and asbestosis,
a disease of the lungs, according to the EPA.

Oakley said he has to develop the action plan, then he and his
staff have to undergo training to deal with asbestos.  "Most of my
guys are not trained to actually work with it," he said.  "They
are trained to recognize what products actually have it."

Asked why the school never created an action plan or tested for
asbestos, Oakley said he could only speculate.  "My opinion would
be that nobody saw it as a hazard because it's not floating
around," he said.  "I can't answer why my predecessors didn't do
anything about it."

Oakley said state officials from the Department of Labor Standards
Asbestos Program told him to assume every school building contains
traces of asbestos.  He now has to contract a company to test all
of the schools.

But the sections of the building where asbestos is found would
only have to be abated if they are set to undergo construction or
are near it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DSS Building Abatement Project May Cost $1.34MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Poole of The Palladium-Times reports that even the cheapest
option of abating asbestos in the county Department of Social
Services building in Mexico will cost more than $600,000.

The county Infrastructure and Facilities Committee and other
legislators listened to officials from project manager Tetra-Tech
Architects and Engineers outline options to remove asbestos laced-
tiles on Tuesday, Aug. 28, and learned that the cost of the
project could run from $660,000 to $1.34 million.

The state is covering 75% of the total project cost.

Asbestos levels aren't believed to be dangerous, but prior air
monitoring tests determined that moving the tiles to access cables
and anything overhead could cause additional asbestos fibers to be
released.  The asbestos was discovered earlier this year, but a
full survey of the building hasn't been completed.

County officials are considering using the asbestos situation to
make additional repairs in the building, including replacing
carpet, painting walls, creating a file room and other changes.

Doing repairs throughout the building, though, would approximately
double the cost of the project.

Just abating the asbestos would cost approximately $660,000, said
Tetra-Tech official Bill Hayes.  To abate the asbestos and make
the possible repairs in the 1973 wing of the building -- where
officials believe most of the asbestos is located -- would cost
approximately $899,739.  Including repairs in the 1988 section of
the building would boost the total bill up to $1,337,846.

The state will reimburse the county approximately 75% of the total
cost for the abatement and repairs.  If the county decides to
pursue the $1.34 million project, the state would pay
approximately $1.003 million.

Legislature Chairman Fred Beardsley, R-Hastings, said he walked
into the meeting Tuesday not wanting to get "carried away" with
the abatement project.

After touring the DSS building, Beardsley and Legislator Jake
Mulcahey, D- Oswego, felt the carpeting was in poor condition and
may need to be replaced.

"After taking the tour, I have to admit that one of the requests
was the carpeting, and it's pretty bad," said Beardsley.

Mulcahey said he didn't support the $1.3 million cost to do the
abatement and all the repairs, but that he might support replacing
the carpet.

"I definitely think (the abatement) needs to be done.  After
walking through the building, the carpet is in pretty rough
shape," he said.

While officials are determining whether to approve the repairs,
they also need to figure out what they'll do with the employees in
the building.

Moving the employees to Cayuga Community College, which has space
available until February, would likely speed up the abatement
project.  It would also cost the county to lease the location.

Keeping the employees in the building may save money in terms of
leasing space and keep services at the Mexico location, said
Hayes.  It could also mean moving employees to different sections
of the building multiple times as the abatement is conducted.

DSS Commissioner Gregg Heffner said there's been a "heightened
energy" with some of the staff since the asbestos was discovered,
and that the energy might increase if they're inside the building
during the abatement.

"The staff are going to respond with a lot more urgency if they
are in this building while the abatement is going on," he said.

Several county officials said they would need to decide soon on
whether to move the employees within the next few weeks.

"We need to move on this," said Beardsley.  "I think the project
is in front of us, and no matter how much we cringe, it's got to
be done.  It's just a matter of what extent that we're going to do
it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNZ House Demolition Plan Stopped by Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wright of The Press at stuff.co.nz reports that asbestos
has halted the demolition of an earthquake-damaged office building
in central Christchurch.

Work bringing down BNZ House in Cathedral Square started in
December but stopped a month ago when traces of the noxious
building material were found.

Engineers found the substance encased in some of the building's
concrete columns and isolated them while tests were done
elsewhere.

The results were clear, but work has yet to resume as the
discovery has forced a change in the demolition method.

BNZ House is a "high-reach" job, where massive excavators,
sometimes known as "nibblers", eat away the building, as was done
on the Christ Church Cathedral tower.

It will become a "cut-and-crane" job -- where large sections of
concrete are cut up and removed intact, similar to the Clarendon
Tower demolition in Oxford Tce -- once the process is designed and
approved.

"Those specific columns will have to be cut and craned out to keep
them encased and safe for easy disposal," a Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery Authority spokeswoman said.

Hawkins is the project manager on BNZ House, and March McGee the
demolition contractor.

Work is scheduled to finish in December.

The 13-storey building is set to be replaced with one of similar
dimensions.

Consortium owner Cristo Ltd said the new structure, designed by
Christchurch architects Warren and Mahoney, would be 50 meters
high and feature glass walls and the same green Welsh slate as the
old building.

It will include 11,000 square meters of floor space, including a
penthouse, and could be finished by 2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chery Automobile Calls Back Units In 5 Countries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg reported that Chery Automobile Co., China's biggest car
exporter, said it will widen a vehicle recall in Australia to five
more countries after finding potential cancer-causing asbestos
parts in some models.

Chery will recall a total of 18,875 vehicles in Brazil, Uruguay,
Chile, Argentina and Singapore, according to Huang Huaqiong, a
spokesman for the closely held Wuhu, China-based automaker.  The
carmaker and Great Wall Motor Co. (2333) on Aug. 16 recalled
23,000 vehicles in Australia after customs authorities detected
the banned material in engine and exhaust gaskets.

"The same supplier that provided the parts for the cars made for
Australia also mistakenly provided us parts containing asbestos
that went into these other cars," Huang said by telephone on Aug.
30, declining to name the supplier.

The widening call-back raises concern quality control may be
inadequate at Chinese automakers as they increase exports to
emerging markets and target expansion into developed countries
amid intensifying competition at home.  Vehicle exports from China
may rise about 50% this year, extending record shipments in 2011,
the official trade chamber estimates.

"The recalls may damp consumer confidence in China-made cars in
the short to medium term, but the impact won't be major," said
Jeff Chung, an analyst at Daiwa Capital Markets Hong Kong Ltd.
"Chinese automakers have been counting on cheap pricing as one of
their major edges in overseas markets and the recalls won't weaken
their advantages."

Chery, which sells to more than 80 countries and regions, said at
the time of the Australian announcement that workers had
mistakenly used a wrong batch of parts that wasn't meant for cars
to be exported to Australia.  The new round of recalls covers the
Tiggo sport utility vehicle and A3 compact cars sold in the five
countries, according to the company.

The carmaker sold a record 160,200 units overseas last year, a 73%
increase from 2010.  In the first six months of this year, the
company exported 94,494 units, on track to meet its full-year
target of 170,000 units, according to a statement on its website.

Great Wall, the biggest maker of SUVs and pick-up trucks in China,
hasn't announced further recalls for asbestos parts since
Australia.  No consumer had requested a change of vehicle because
of asbestos in Australia and exports haven't been affected, Xu
Hui, Great Wall secretary, said in Hong Kong on Aug. 27.

The company will issue recalls in line with the regulations and
laws of the markets where it sells its products, Shang Yugui, a
spokesman for Baoding, China-based Great Wall, said by telephone
Aug. 30.

The official Xinhua News Agency reported the Chery recall Aug. 29.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Dumped at Kadina Park Irks City Chief
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Appelkamp of the Northern Rivers Echo (Australia) reports
that a pile of asbestos dumped illegally in a popular park has put
the public at risk and angered Lismore City Council.

A family stumbled across 12 sheets of asbestos fencing in Kadina
Park's lower carpark while walking their dog on the afternoon of
Aug. 29.

The park is regularly used by families and Kadina High School is
situated across the road, prompting the NSW Department of
Education and Training to warn the school's students and their
parents to keep away from the site on Aug. 30.

Council has taped off the site and erected a warning sign to
notify the public while a contractor is arranged to dispose of the
asbestos properly.

Council's environmental health compliance officer Stuart Thomson
was angered by the illegal dumping.

"It looks like someone's renovated their fence and just dumped it
there," he said.

"Asbestos isn't an expensive product to dispose of, so I don't
know why they didn't just take it to the waste facility."  The
asbestos would have cost an estimated $40 to dispose of legally at
Wyrallah Rd Waste Facility.

Mr. Thomson said fragments of the fence had broken off in Kadina
Park carpark and put the public at risk.

"As we know, it only takes one little bit to get down into
someone's lungs to have a detrimental effect," he said.

"That park is a kid's play area, so there's the potential for them
to be exposed to it at that particular location."

In a separate incident, low levels of asbestos were recently found
in mulch produced by Tenterfield's Sunnyside Loop Waste Transfer
Waste Station.

Tenterfield Shire Council has told locals to keep mulch damp and
away from pets and children until an investigation is conducted.

Mr. Thomson urged anyone with information about the Kadina Park
incident to contact council on 1300-878-387.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Separatist Party Attracts Anti-Asbestos Voters
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Morden of the Sarnia Observer relates that Margaret Buist
says she will find herself doing something for the first time --
hoping a separatist party gets elected in Quebec.

It's because the Parti Quebecois (PQ) said last week that, if
elected, it will cancel a $58-million loan the Quebec's Liberal
government approved to help reopen the Jeffrey Mine -- one of
Canada's last asbestos mines.

"When I heard about it I could have cried," said Buist, a Victims
of Chemical Valley member, who's fought to end Canada's asbestos
industry since her husband Henry died in 1996 of mesothelioma -- a
lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure.

"I never thought I would be cheering for them," she said.

Recent polls have placed the PQ in the lead, in the days leading
up to the Sept. 4 Quebec election.

Asbestos opponent Stacy Cattran, who lost her father to
mesothelioma, said she's also conflicted about rooting for a
separatist party.

"They're the ones who have said they will pull the plug on the
$58-million loan," she said, "so, here I am hoping they get enough
seats to make that happen."

Cattran and her sister, Leah Nielson, are organizing the second
annual Walk to Remember Victims of Asbestos Sept. 29 in Sarnia's
Centennial Park.  It begins at 11 a.m. at the Dow People Place.

A candlelight vigil at the waterfront park is being held at 6 p.m.
the evening before by Victims of Chemical Valley.

"Along with commemorating the loss of our family members, and
members of the community, we would love to be celebrating the
demise of the asbestos industry," Cattran said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: LHA May Be Fined for Lead/Asbestos Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Moran of The Lowell Sun reports that the Lowell Housing
Authority's five board members either declined to comment in
detail or did not respond Aug. 29 to queries about a recent state
report identifying lead-paint and asbestos violations during the
rehabilitation of 132 units at North Common Village.

In an Aug. 15 letter to LHA Executive Director Gary Wallace, the
state Department of Labor Standards said LHA violated regulations
designed to protect workers and occupants of the dwellings worked
on from 2008 to 2011.

The state said employees performed renovations without the proper
lead-safety licenses and training for work in buildings
constructed before 1978, and it is unclear if they were given the
proper safety gear.

LHA also failed to test for asbestos before renovation/demolition
activities or to notify the state such work was set to take place,
according to the report.  The notification violations could lead
to a fine.

LHA Commissioner Michael Zaim acknowledged receiving the state's
letter highlighting the violations, but said he wanted to review
it in more detail before publicly commenting.

Zaim said if he does have concerns or questions, he plans to
address them to Wallace at the board's monthly meeting this month.

LHA Board Chairwoman Kristin Ross-Sitcawich and Commissioners
Walter "Buddy" Flynn, Tim Green and Rosaline Willie-Bonglo did not
return requests for comment.

Wallace is on vacation and could not be reached for comment.

Two leaders of unions representing workers at LHA acknowledged the
report and the shortcomings in how LHA approached the renovations.

Angelo Karabatsos, president of the union representing LHA
maintenance workers, said the findings about asbestos concerned
him, but were not surprising.  He says before The Sun's reporting
about renovation issues at North Common, LHA had a lax approach to
asbestos in all its facilities.

"I think it just fell by the wayside and nobody paid attention to
it," Karabatsos said.  "The workers were probably exposed to low
levels of asbestos during work in different buildings."

Karabatsos has told his members if they have any concerns about
exposure to hazardous materials such as asbestos while working,
they can get tested at LHA's expense.  His workers did not perform
the demolition work in the units, but have done maintenance work
at North Common.

Karabatsos said LHA is now following proper procedure for work
involving asbestos, including recently hiring a consultant to help
on all asbestos-related matters, including worker safety.

"With all the press, they are being held accountable now and they
are holding up their end of the bargain," Karabatsos said.

The business manager of the union that performed the demolition
work, Laborers Local 429, said until he read the report he assumed
LHA had tested for asbestos before beginning the work.

"The report says they did not check until after the work was
done," Local 429's David Purtell said.  "That is not the way it is
supposed to be done."

Purtell declined to comment further.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funded the
renovations.  HUD spokeswoman Rhonda Siciliano said HUD just
learned of the state's report Wednesday, Aug. 29 and will follow
up with LHA regarding the concerns in the letter.

LHA could still face a fine for its failure to file public
notifications of its renovation/demolition work as required by
law, said Ed Coletta, a spokesman for the Department of
Environmental Protection.  He says the matter is under review.

The renovation notifications provide the DEP the opportunity to
conduct inspections of work sites while the work is ongoing, said
Coletta.

"The notification is the cornerstone of the program as far as we
are concerned," Coletta said.

LHA will not face a fine for failing to test for asbestos before
the renovation work unless evidence turns up that they disturbed
asbestos-containing materials, according to the DEP.  The state
Department of Labor Standards said it is unclear if asbestos,
which can cause cancer, was present during the renovations.

LHA also could have faced fines ranging from $1,000 for each
unintentional violation and fines of no more than $2,500 for each
intentional violation of the "Deleading and Lead Safe Renovation
Regulation," known as the RRP rule.

Greg Freed, a spokesman for the Department of Labor Standards,
said the state "determined that the imposition of a civil penalty
to LHA so long after the work was completed would not further the
purpose and intent of the regulation, which is to ensure that
renovation, repair and painting work is performed in conformance
with the regulation."

"DLS will monitor future renovation and repair work by LHA to
ensure that any work is performed in compliance with the Deleading
and Lead Safe Renovation regulations," Freed said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Companies Cited for Exposing Workers to Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Stevenson of Slater & Gordon posts that two companies could
face industrial disease claims after it emerged they had put
workers in danger of contracting asbestos-related diseases.

Rilmac Insulation sent two of its employees to work on a
refurbishment project of a ward at St Mary's Hospital in Kettering
after being hired by main contractor Simons Construction to
conduct an asbestos survey there in December 2009.

The asbestos survey carried out by professionals from Rilmac
Insulation established that the potentially-lethal substance was
present in a coating on the underside of the ceilings in the
Martin Roth area of the hospital.

However, this analysis failed to identify the presence of some 200
square meters of asbestos insulation board that had been installed
above the surface.

As such, the two men were instructed to knock holes through the
ceilings because Rilmac was unaware that the asbestos paneling was
there, which resulted in the men disturbing the material.

Because of the fact the company knew about the asbestos coating on
the ceilings themselves, the employees were provided with mask for
the job, but this equipment was not suitable for the amount of the
substance present.

In addition, the pair did not wear overalls and, because of their
lack of knowledge of the dangers involved, did not work in a way
that would have contained and restricted the release of asbestos
fibers.

Consequently, asbestos landed on their clothing, meaning they are
likely to have breathed in dangerous particles and an
investigation conducted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
established that the duo had also not been provided with training
on how to identify the presence of asbestos.

Martin Giles, inspector at the HSE, observed: "Rilmac failed to
properly identify the full extent of asbestos in the ceiling,
while Simons, despite knowing from the survey that some was
present, failed to provide a safe system of work."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Ex-Swindon Railway Man Gets GBP70,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Bond of The Swindon Advertiser reports that British Rail has
paid GBP70,000 in compensation to the widow of a former Swindon
railway worker who died three years ago from undetected asbestos
related cancer.

Samuel Dean, who lived in Queensfield with wife Mavis, worked for
British Rail for 33 years as a general crane worker and for much
of that period was continuously exposed to asbestos.

The cranes at British Rail contained boilers which were lagged
with white asbestos and which were stripped for repair.  Mr. Dean
also worked in outstations, often sleeping in the guards' van for
weeks at a time.  Mr. Dean slept only feet away from the stove in
the van which was covered with asbestos and crumbling from age and
heat.

His solicitor, Brigitte Chandler -- brigitte.chandler@clmlaw.co.uk
-- a leading industrial disease lawyer and partner with Swindon
law firm, Charles Lucas & Marshall, who has represented many
hundreds of railway workers over the last 30 years, said Mr. Dean
suffered from breathing problems for the last 15 years of his life
before he died at the age of 81 in March, 2009.

"He was never given any diagnosis," she said.

"Finally, in 2009 he became much worse and collapsed and died.
The post mortem revealed he died from asbestosis.

"There are still many people in Swindon who worked in the railway
industry who are being affected by asbestos exposure.

"On a more positive note, British Rail is now well aware of the
problem and providing someone can show they worked there and were
exposed to asbestos, many claims are now generally settled out of
court, as was the case here."

Brigitte said that it often happens that asbestosis is not
diagnosed until a post-mortem.  Railway workers and anyone exposed
to asbestos need to be constantly vigilant -- particularly if they
start suffering from chest problems.

"Unfortunately, the area where Mr. Dean worked was notorious for
using large quantities of asbestos and there have been other
deaths from employees working in the same area.

"Claims against British Rail for asbestos exposure have been
running for over 30 years.  Even though the works were closed 25
years ago, cases are still arising because it can take up to 60
years for the illness to develop after exposure.

"Many people who worked there are still suffering from the legacy
of exposure to asbestos on locomotive trains."

The Swindon and South West Asbestos Group is a regional charity
which provides support groups and a free advice service to people
suffering from asbestos disease, and to their families.

They now offer home visits to sufferers in the Swindon area to
advise on benefits available.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stop Stowey Action Group Hangs On for Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
Somerset Guardian reports that a petition containing more than
4,000 signatures from people objecting to proposals to dump
asbestos and other waste at a quarry near Chew Valley Lake has
been handed to council chiefs.

Campaigners from the Stop Stowey Action Group who expected a
decision on the application for Stowey Quarry to be taken last
week said they have been frustrated that the report was not
included on the agenda for Bath and North East Somerset Council's
development control committee.

Members of the group said they will now face another month in
limbo waiting for the application, which has been opposed by
villagers living across the Chew Valley as well as Bristol Water
and the Environment Agency, to be decided.

Campaigner Vanessa Watson, from Stop Stowey Action Group, said:
"We are disappointed and frustrated and have been told that the
application was not on the agenda because a report is awaited from
the case officer.

"We are massively disappointed because so many people are waiting
for the result.  It does impact on people's lives, people want to
move on and with the application result delayed they cannot.

"We are now hoping that the application will be on the agenda for
the September meeting and there will be no more delays."

The petition was handed in to B&NES at the Guildhall in Bath by
North East Somerset MP Jacob Rees-Mogg on Friday, Aug. 24.

The application by the owner of Stowey Quarry, Matrix Movements
Ltd, was originally granted permission by the council in July 2011
but following challenges as to the legality of the permission the
decision was subsequently quashed with a pre-action letter,
highlighting a number of errors by B&NES.

The application was resubmitted in December 2011 and again a
robust campaign was mounted throughout the Chew Valley and
surrounding area to stop it.

As well as the petition there have been more than 1,400 letters of
objection sent to the council and other key organizations.

Independent expert analysis commissioned by Stop Stowey Quarry
Action Group highlighted errors in the application and clear
evidence that the quarry was an inappropriate site due to the risk
of land instability and the threat to Chew Valley Lake from
leachate generated by toxic waste.

There have also been objections to the plans from Mr. Rees-Mogg,
the leader of Bristol City Council Barbara Janke, the Green Party,
Bath MP Don Foster, Bristol MPs Kerry McCarthy and Dawn Primarolo,
and the Council for the Protection of Rural England.

A spokesman for B&NES said the application had never been
scheduled for the development control committee meeting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Allows Retrial on CPChem Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Mississippi Supreme Court
has let stand an order for a new trial in a workplace asbestos
exposure case in which a Jones County man was awarded $15.2
million.

The court on Thursday, Aug. 30 denied a request from Troy Lofton
to reconsider its June decision.

The Supreme Court didn't rule on the jury verdict.  Instead, the
court found that the trial judge erred in allowing Lofton's
attorney to read from drilling records that were not admitted into
evidence during the cross-examination of Conoco Phillips Corp.'s
medical expert.

In 2010, a Jones County jury ruled for Lofton in his lawsuit
against CPChem, a joint venture between Conoco Phillips Corp. and
Chevron Corp.  CPChem appealed the verdict.

Lofton alleged he inhaled asbestos for 20 years and is now on
oxygen 24 hours a day.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Fibro-Test at Old Gun Shop Turns Out Negative
------------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Ellen Rizzo of the Tracy Press reports that a second
environmental test for asbestos at the former 11th Street gun shop
has proven to be negative for airborne asbestos, according to city
officials.

At the request of building owner George Papadakis, a test was
conducted by Oakdale-based Bovee Environmental Management, Inc. on
Aug. 14 at 22 East 11th St.  The test report states the areas
examined for airborne asbestos were the building's flooring,
ceiling and various walls.

In areas chosen by the owner, air samples were taken for an hour
in the front and back of the building, according to the Bovee
report.  Those samples were then tested using a process called
transmission electron microscopy that counts asbestos airborne
fibers collected from the clearance samples to determine a
representative asbestos fiber concentration level of the regulated
area.

Bovee officials ruled in their report that no asbestos structures
were detected, and the building could be reoccupied.

The testing came in wake of the former tenant of the building,
Rick Hedrick of Tracy Shooting Supplies informing city officials
that he was told the building had airborne asbestos.

Hedrick said he hired Sierra Environmental Testing and Consulting,
Inc. of Woodbridge to test the building on June 8 and their tests
came back positive for asbestos inside the building.  The report
stated the company collected three samples of building materials
and found asbestos in the wallboard/joint taping compound and
ceiling tile texture.

Hedrick said he became suspicious after he developed breathing
problems and closed his shop in mid-June.  He said he thought the
problem might have been related to a roof leak from 2002, and he
said inspectors told him there was airborne asbestos in the
building.

City officials were notified of the alleged hazard by Hedrick, and
Tracy Code Enforcement Manager Ana Contreras said they had
considered a vacate order for the building in early August.  She
said that changed after she talked to testing officials at Sierra
who informed her that they never tested for airborne asbestos.

Contreras said on Thursday, Aug. 30, that the reports by Bovee and
Sierra speak for themselves and the city has closed their
investigation into the matter.

"No further action will be taken on the part of the city," she
said.  "However we have established internal control in the event
the property owners remodel or do construction within the building
that may prompt an asbestos concern."

Contreras said the building's owners will have to notify the city
with the normal permitting process prior to construction.  If they
do apply for city permits, she said they will also have to undergo
the permit process by the San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control
District to address any disposal requirements of materials with
asbestos content.

Hedrick said he had no comment regarding the latest testing
conducted on his former rental space.

After numerous attempts for an interview, the property owners' son
Nathaniel Papadakis stated in an e-mail to the Tracy Press on Aug.
29 that the family is declining to comment at this time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Avoniel Leisure Center Pool
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Press Association (UK) reports that asbestos has been found by
contractors repairing a public swimming pool in Belfast.

The material was discovered at the Avoniel Leisure Centre in the
east of the city.

Belfast City Council, which operates the facility, has insisted
there was a "minimal risk" to the public.

A spokesman said the asbestos was found in the part of the centre
which houses the pool in an area inaccessible to the public.

He said the area had been sealed off while it is being removed.
That process is expected to take a number of weeks.

"Given the nature and location of the material involved the
indications are that the risk is minimal," said the spokesman.

"However more detailed surveys and air tests are being conducted
as a precautionary measure.

"Air samples taken today show that it is safe to continue to use
other parts of the leisure centre.  All facilities other than the
pool will remain open for business as usual."

Any member of the public with any concerns should contact the
council's Environmental Health Service on 028-9027-0428.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lead Inspector's Death Closes Northampton Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Shortell of The Express-Times reports that the Environmental
Protection Agency has closed its investigation into Northampton
County's asbestos problems due to the death of its lead
investigator, meaning the county will avoid the costly fines
officials once feared.

EPA Spokeswoman Donna Heron said Aug. 30 that the federal agency
cannot proceed with its investigation after its lead inspector in
the case died earlier this year of cancer.

Without someone who oversaw the investigation first-hand, the
agency does not have enough evidence to move forward.

"It has become clear that trying to duplicate what was actually
observed by our inspector is impossible to do.  Without the
inspector's testimony to corroborate the files, there is
insufficient evidence to proceed with a formal complaint," she
wrote in an email.

County Executive John Stoffa welcomed the news, saying it was good
for the county and taxpayers.  The concerns over the public's
health have always been treated seriously, he said, and the lack
of a case is evidence the county was never a serious violator.

"I think this is a vindication," Stoffa said.  "If this had been
that serious, they would have had a supervisor watching over the
case."

The EPA's choice not to move forward with the case means the
agency will not officially state whether the county violated
health codes.  EPA officials investigated portions of Gracedale,
the Northampton County Courthouse and the Gov. Wolf building.

The county spent more than $390,000 cleaning and refurbishing the
law library in the courthouse and a portion of the basement in
Gracedale.  A storage area for the district attorney's office in
the courthouse's basement was also cleaned, but the cost was not
immediately available.

County Controller Stephen Barron and members of an employee safety
team first reported concerns over the air quality in county-owned
buildings to federal authorities in May 2011.  At the time, Stoffa
said fines from the federal government were likely as a result.
However, the investigation was sidelined for months after the
inspector handling the case became seriously ill.  He died in May,
according to Heron.

Barron said Thursday, Aug. 30 the county was fortunate to avoid
fines due to the inspector's untimely death.  However, he noted a
significant culture change within the administration since last
spring.  While in the past, the county has minimized exposure to
carcinogens, it is now taking appropriate measures to ensure areas
are not being contaminated, he said.

As proof, Barron pointed to the recently reopened law library.
When county employees were refurbishing the long-shuttered room
after it was remediated, they discovered a thin trail of
suspicious dust found on a shelf.  The substance was tested and
found to contain asbestos.  Rather than sweep it up without
concern like it may have in the past, the county instead brought
in its remediation experts to clean the library.

"We handled it immediately, did what they were supposed to do and
we resolved the situation," Barron said.  "I think there have been
some marked changes."

Barron continued to insist county employees who may have been
exposed to carcinogens in problem spots be provided medical
surveillance, a type of annual workplace physical, to ensure they
have not developed health problems as a result.

However, the matter has not been discussed publicly before
Northampton County Council in months, and Stoffa said concerned
employees should just go see their doctors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Subcommittee Assures Peebles Elementary Is Safe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth for The Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance reports that just a
month ago, the Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards issued
a stern written warning to the James F. Peebles Elementary School
in Bourne, Massachusetts, ordering the school to clean areas of
the building that contained asbestos before students returned from
summer vacation.  This is the second such warning issued to
Peebles in three years, reports an article in The Cape Cod Times.

According to the article, in accordance with the request from the
Labor Department, a crew of contracted workers has spent a week
cleaning the school while others removed tiles and other building
materials that contained hazardous asbestos.  Air quality testing
followed and school officials say the levels of asbestos found in
the air were more than acceptable, allowing the building to open
in time for the start of school.

"The problem was a combination of work not being done as required
and a lack of paperwork documenting what had been completed," said
Christopher Hyldburg, a member of the school committee.

However, problems remain and teachers have been warned about
potentially disturbing asbestos that remains in the building.  For
example, windows with asbestos-containing glazing were broken in
the cleaning process and have not yet been replaced.  Teachers
have been asked not to open the windows or otherwise manipulate
them until they've been replaced, for fear of spreading asbestos
dust around the classrooms.  Asbestos is a known carcinogen and
even a small amount of asbestos exposure can result in the
development of diseases such as mesothelioma cancer.

Nonetheless, teachers, staff, and parents are being told there's
nothing to be worried about.  Representatives of the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection have visited "at least four
times," stated Laura Scena, subcommittee chairwoman of the Bourne,
Massachusetts School District.  She's confident that it's now safe
to enter the building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stiff Sanctions Pushed for Ridgedale Violators
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chattanoogan.com reports that prosecutors are asking stiff
prison sentences and fines against defendants involved in
demolition of the old Standard Coosa Thatcher plant in Ridgedale
that resulted in "creating a Superfund site."

Prosecutors Todd Gleason of Washington, D.C., and Matthew Morris
of Knoxville are asking Federal Judge Curtis Collier to give a
six-level enhancement to the prison terms for Don Fillers, David
Wood and James Mathis.  The three defendants face up to five years
on asbestos charges and Fillers up to 20 years for obstruction of
justice.

In a 47-page sentencing memorandum, they asked the judge to "send
a clear message that our nation's laws that were intended to
protect human health and worker safety cannot be knowingly
sacrificed for personal avarice."

However, attorney Leslie Cory said the correct guideline range for
Fillers, a Missionary Ridge resident and owner of Chattanooga
Hardwoods, should be 15-21 months and he should get probation.

A hearing was set Sept. 5 regarding expert witnesses for the
sentencing hearing.  The hearing itself is Sept. 20.

The memorandum says Don Fillers and his brother, Gary Fillers,
formed Watkins Street Properties in July 2003 to acquire the old
plant, demolish it and salvage the items, and resell the cleared
property.

It says Don Fillers was given an estimate of $214,650 to properly
dispose of the large amount of asbestos at the plant.  It says SCI
Remediation gave a bid of $129,250, but Fillers rejected that and
got a bid for $28,900.

The memorandum says Wood was hired as site manager because he had
formerly worked at the plant and was familiar with it.  The Mathis
firm was hired for the demolition.

Prosecutors said much of the asbestos was not property removed,
and that Wood and a female were seen picking up asbestos material
by hand and putting it in garbage bags.  They said Mathis hired
day laborers, drug addicts and street people who were totally
untrained in asbestos handling to do much of the work.

The memorandum says the way the demolition was handled it sent
asbestos into the air in a large portion of the old plant and into
the neighborhood.

It says John Schultz, an inspector with the Chattanooga Hamilton
County Air Pollution Control Bureau, happened upon the site while
on a foot patrol on Sept. 8, 2005.  He said it "looked like a bomb
had gone off with debris (containing asbestos) strewn across the
site."

A team of inspectors from multiple agencies came to the site and
began a cleanup.

Prosecutors said asbestos is an extremely dangerous and deadly
substance and it is "highly likely" that within five to 30 years
that those involved in the demolition as well as some of those in
the nearby community will experience negative health effects.

A jury convicted the defendants of all charges except one minor
count against Mathis.

Prosecutors said Fillers and Mathis have a "relative lack of
criminal history," but that Wood is a convicted child molester.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Inspectors Flunk Students' Apartment
------------------------------------------------------------
John Zaremba of The Boston Herald reports that city building
inspectors say that during a walk-through of neighborhoods during
student move-in day, they found a host of longstanding problems in
an Allston apartment complex -- a discovery they say bolsters the
mayor's case for strict new regulations on landlords.

The 21-unit building at Ashford St. had spilled oil in the
basement boiler room, deteriorated asbestos, and evidence of rats
and roaches and bedbugs, along with broken smoke alarms and other
problems, Inspectional Services Department chief Brian Glascock
told the Herald.

"If you're sending your kid off to Boston and spending $40,000 to
$50,000 on tuition and $1,500 a month in rent, you might expect a
little more.  At a minimum, no bedbugs, no rats and no roaches.
That should be sort of a baseline," he said.  "And you assume the
smoke detectors and fire alarm system is working everywhere, and
you assume your kids aren't being exposed to asbestos or spilled
fuel."

The building -- mostly condos whose owners rent to students -- is
still inhabitable, he said, but city officials are working to
track down owners and managers to fix the most pressing problems.
The discovery comes as Mayor Thomas M. Menino is proposing a
series of rules that would require landlords to register
individual apartments and have each inspected at least every three
years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCTV Catches Fly-tipper Near Hythe Football Club
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A pile of asbestos piping was dumped near Hythe Town Football Club
as players trained.

Shepway District Council is appealing for information from anyone
who might have seen a white truck, which they believe was used to
transport the pipes.  The incident was reported to community
safety officer Andrzej Kluczynski, who secured CCTV footage of an
open-backed vehicle.

He said: "The club used to have problems in the past with fly-
tipping, but these stopped once gates were installed.  On Tuesday,
Aug. 15, the gates had been left open while the players were
training.  The pipes were not there when they went in, but were
when they came out.  The truck was seen driving past the road,
returning and then maneuvering into it.

"Someone went out of their way to find a quiet spot to dump their
waste illegally."

The truck, which had two cab doors on each side and may have had a
light on its roof.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Bidding for Henderson Power Plant Opens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Boyett of the Evansville Courier & Press reports that
Henderson Municipal Power & Light opened bid Aug. 31 for removal
of asbestos and other hazardous materials from the defunct
Station 1 power plant, but staff still have to look them over to
see which is the best one.

There was a wide variety in the six bids submitted, however.  In
the instance of just asbestos removal they ranged from a low of
$913,124 to a high of $3.5 million.  Removal of other hazardous
materials, such as lead-based paint, ranged from $14,535 to
$131,483.  The firms also bid on covering the coal ash and storage
areas with either two feet of soil or with pavement.

Hazex Construction Co. submitted a seventh bid, but it was for
only for covering the coal ash and storage areas around the power
plant, not for actual removal of asbestos and other hazardous
materials.  It bid $78,300 to cover the area with two feet of soil
or $186,300 to pave the same area with asphalt.

"It looks like we got some good bids and it looks like it's going
to be a good project," said Wayne Thompson, power production
director for HMP&L.  "We expect to have the evaluation done within
30 days."

He stressed, however, that the lowest price is not always the best
choice.  "It's the best evaluated bid price," he said.  "You can
see we got a wide range of vendors bidding the exact same thing.
There are a lot of reasons for that, and that's part of the
evaluation process."

Removal of the asbestos and lead-based paint, as well as covering
the coal storage and ash areas, are necessary before the power
plant can be redeveloped into some other use.  Simply by virtue of
seeking bids on that work the HMP&L board is indicating its
seriousness about moving forward.

"The utility commission asked us to put together (specifications)
for remediation of it," Thompson said.  "Hopefully, we've
accomplished that for them.  When the utility commission will act
on it, I don't know. We'll complete our evaluation and present it
to them and it's up to them as to what they want to do."

Here are the firms that bid and the amounts they bid:

Micah Group Energy and Environmental of Lexington bid $913,124 for
asbestos removal; $58,713 for removal of other hazardous material;
$71,280 for burying the coal ash area with two feet of soil; and
$99,900 for paving that area with asphalt.

Cardinal Industrial Insulation of Louisville bid $1,530,721 for
asbestos removal; $131,483 for removal of other hazardous
material; $315,900 for burying the coal ash area with two feet of
soil; and $214,920 for paving that area with asphalt.

NCM Demolition and Remediation of Cincinnati bid $1,617,376 for
asbestos removal; $49,799 for removal of other hazardous material;
$175,500 for burying the coal ash area with two feet of soil; and
$243,000 for paving that area with asphalt.

General Insulation of Henderson bid $1,746,641 for asbestos
removal and $14,535 for removal of other hazardous material. It
did not bid on other aspects of the contract.

Incorp of Evansville bid $2,832,840 for asbestos removal; $65,228
for removal of other hazardous material; $93,960 for burying the
coal ash area with two feet of soil; and $223,560 for paving that
area with asphalt.

Elite Environmental and Safety Services of Evansville bid
$3,558,586 for asbestos removal; $17,239 for removal of other
hazardous material; $86,400 for burying the coal ash area with two
feet of soil; and $132,300 for paving that area with asphalt.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Kohler Mira Worker's Family Gets Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gloucestershire Echo reports that factory worker Jeffrey Prewer,
who died as a result of being exposed to asbestos, has finally
found justice, his children said.

Mr. Prewer, known as Tony, of Clyde Crescent, Cheltenham, became
ill with asbestosis following his 37-year career at shower company
Walker Crossweller, which later became Mira.

He died, aged 77, on Jan. 11 at Cheltenham General Hospital.

Deputy Gloucestershire coroner David Dooley ruled at an inquest
that Mr. Prewer, a father-of-three, was a victim of industrial
disease.

The coroner's ruling came just days after his family had settled a
civil claim for compensation against the company.

His daughter, Julie Bridge, who attended the inquest with her
brother Anthony Prewer and sister Linda King, said: "Dad always
wanted justice to be done and we feel that it has been achieved
today."

The inquest heard a statement Mr. Prewer made to his solicitors as
part of his civil claim.

He started work for Walker Crosweller in 1961.  The firm later
became known as Kohler Mira.

In his statement, he described how he did maintenance and repair
work at the Cromwell Road site and had to remove and cut asbestos
sheeting.  He also used to sweep out gutters which were very
dusty.

He said he felt the worst asbestos exposure was when electric
furnaces were introduced to the foundry.  He had to cut and fit
numerous sheets of asbestos, he stated.

Mr. Prewer was warned in the 1970s that he should be using a mask,
but he had not been told that before then.

At some point in the 1980s the firm had him medically examined for
evidence of asbestos but he was assured nothing was found.

But in December 1997, when approaching retirement, he was first
told about a shadow on his lung which later resolved itself.

He began to suffer shortness of breath in 2008 and was sent for an
x-ray which revealed he had pleural thickening.  His health
deteriorated from then on.

The inquest heard statements from three colleagues at the factory
who all supported his evidence about exposure to asbestos.  One of
them, Colin Hyde, had to retire in 1996 because he had developed
asbestosis.

Consultant chest physician Dr. Richard Buckland examined Mr.
Prewer in September 2010 and found extensive asbestosis.

Mr. Prewer was admitted to Cheltenham General Hospital on
January 7 this year with increased breathlessness.  He was treated
with antibiotics, but died three days later.

The deputy coroner said he was satisfied Mr. Prewer died from
occupational exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recall Won't Impact Great Wall Motor Exports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg reports that Great Wall Motor Co., China's biggest maker
of sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks, said it expects to
meet its target for exports this year even after recalling
vehicles in Australia for asbestos-tainted parts.

"The recall will have certain impact on us but it won't be
anything major," Zhang Gengshen, assistant to the general manager
for international sales at Great Wall, said in a Sept. 1 interview
in Tianjin, China.  "There's definitely no problem meeting our
goal of exporting 100,000 units this year."

Great Wall and Chery Automobile Co. last month recalled 23,000 of
their vehicles sold in Australia after authorities found banned
asbestos in some models.  Chery later widened the call-back to
five more countries including Brazil and Singapore.

Shares of Baoding, China-based Great Wall have rebounded in Hong
Kong trading and are up 55 per cent this year, after slumping by
the most in six weeks on Aug. 15 following the findings by the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

The automaker reported a 30 per cent jump in first-half profit on
Aug. 24.  Company Secretary Xu Hui said at a briefing in Hong Kong
the following week that no consumer had requested a change of
vehicle because of asbestos, a known carcinogen that's banned in
many countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Royal Navy Ex-Engineer's Family Seeks Justice
--------------------------------------------------------------
An elderly man from Whitwell died from pneumonia after years of
suffering from asbestosis, an inquest heard.

Michael Ward, 69, from Butt Hill Close in Whitwell, died at
Doncaster Royal Infirmary on July 28, 2012.

An inquest at Doncaster Coroner's Court heard that the retired
lorry driver was an engineer in the Royal Navy from 1955 until
1963, where he was likely to have been exposed to asbestos whilst
working aboard the HMS Ark Royal R09.

Mr. Ward spent the later years of his life wheelchair-bound and on
24-hour oxygen therapy.

The coroner concluded that Mr. Ward's asbestosis "must have
inhibited the function of his lungs to a great extent and
increased the chance of an infection such as pneumonia."

The inquest also heard that the family were "extremely distressed"
that they were not informed of the cause of their father's death
until weeks later.

The coroner recorded the official cause of death as an industrial
disease.

After the inquest, the Ward family told the Guardian that they
plan to launch an official complaint with Bassetlaw and Doncaster
Hospitals about this "gross miscommunication" and they will also
be "fighting the Royal Navy for justice."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSI Investigates Four Exposure Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
Thisisjersey.com reports that four serious investigations are
being carried out after workmen were exposed to potentially deadly
asbestos while refurbishing homes and workplaces, the Health and
Safety Inspectorate has confirmed.

Ten workmen may have inhaled poisonous asbestos, but it could be
decades before they develop any health problems, if at all.

The health problems related to asbestos exposure range from
breathing difficulties to incurable lung cancers, but the most
serious cases only develop 15 to 40 years after exposure.  All
four cases are being investigated and could lead to criminal
charges against employers.

Health and Safety director Colin Myers says that he is concerned
that employers and workmen are not taking the simple steps
necessary to protect themselves from the cancer-causing material.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Initiates Cleanup of Abandoned Lockport Site
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Prohaska of The Buffalo News reports that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has installed fences around a
ruined building and a Dumpster on Mill Street in Lockport, a first
step toward testing and eventual cleanup of the site.

The agency obtained legal access to the property and erected
chain-link fences around the building and the Dumpster, EPA
spokesman Michael Basile said.  The fences are posted with signs
warning of asbestos.

The state Labor Department shut down the owner's effort to
demolish the building and clean up the site in 2010, as the
department demanded an asbestos survey.

The owner, Liberty Plant Maintenance of Dayton, Texas, is a
company controlled by Dunkirk native Scott J. Krzyzanowski, who
now lives in Texas.

The firm has been convicted in Lockport City Court of violating
city building codes by leaving the Dumpster unattended since the
fall of 2010.  However, with the EPA moving into the situation,
sentencing has been postponed until at least Oct. 4.

The 16,000-square-foot building was a power plant for a long-
defunct paper mill.  The building is almost roofless and is
missing much of the exterior walls.

The EPA team has sprayed "erosion control products" on the ground
to prevent any spread of asbestos through runoff, Basile said.

There are clear signs of asbestos in the building, and there is
believed to be some in the Dumpster.  Liberty Plant's attorney,
James P. Milbrand of Buffalo, has said someone in the neighborhood
has placed asbestos-bearing floor tiles from another location in
the Dumpster.

Basile said the EPA will get things moving with a check of the
building's structural integrity on Aug. 28 and 29.  Debris will
then be tested to determine whether surfaces need to be
decontaminated before cleanup.

The cost of the effort is to be billed to Liberty Plant, Milbrand
said at his last City Court appearance Aug. 9.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Poll Shows Majority Wants Fibro-Free Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that two-thirds of
Australians want the federal government to ensure all asbestos is
removed from homes, workplaces, hospitals and schools by 2030,
according to a new poll commissioned by the ACTU.

The Auspoll survey, released on Monday, Sept. 3, found two-thirds
of people believe asbestos remains a big health problem.

Almost 90 per cent of people say the presence of asbestos would
influence their decision whether to buy a house or not.

"Asbestos is a silent killer and a plan needs to be put in place
to remove it from the built environment completely," ACTU
president Ged Kearney said in a statement on Monday, Sept. 3.

"The results of this poll show there is strong community support
for government action to remove asbestos in Australia by 2030."

Unions was scheduled to discuss plans for asbestos removal at a
meeting in Sydney on Sept. 4.

The summit was to be addressed by Workplace Relations Minister
Bill Shorten.

Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos-related
diseases in the world mainly due to the extensive use of the
building material between the end of World War II and the 1980s.

Every third domestic dwelling built before 1982 is thought to
contain asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESB Vows to Pursue Coolcower Toxic Violator
------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Riegel of The Irish Independent reports that an illegal dump
which was found to contain large quantities of asbestos could cost
EUR1.5 million to clean up.

The dump -- discovered by ESB workers at Coolcower on the N22 road
outside Macroom, Co Cork -- contains large quantities of
construction debris and asbestos.

The ESB has insisted the material has nothing to do with the semi-
state body and has vowed to trace whoever was responsible and to
pursue them for the clean-up costs.

Given the quantity of concrete debris present, it is suspected the
material was dumped at the site following the demolition or
renovation of a large house or commercial premises.

The asbestos involved includes pipes, cladding and roof sheeting
and is believed to date back to the 1950s or 60s.

ESB workers discovered the dump three months ago as they examined
a site adjacent to the Carrigadrohid Reservoir.

Although the facility provides water for parts of Cork City,
health officials say there is no indication that the asbestos came
in contact with reservoir water or ground water.

They say it has been successfully sealed and poses no public
health risk.

The site has been examined by ESB officials, the Health and Safety
Authority (HSA) and Cork Co Council.

Experts are now supervising the clean-up of the site and the
asbestos involved is being sealed in plastic and shipped to
Germany for safe disposal.

State agencies have declined to comment on the total clean-up
cost.  However, the Irish Independent understands that the cost of
fully restoring the site could run to as much as EUR1.5 million.

The ESB has vowed to pursue anyone identified as having dumped the
material at the site for the full clean-up costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia to Set Up Agency to Oversee Cleanup
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that 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 scheduled 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, leukemia, 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
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: Study Could Add Up Cases v. Wittenoom Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that operators of the
former WA asbestos mine in Wittenoom could be liable for a wider
range of deadly illnesses following new research about the effects
on children who grew up there.

The Australian research, released on Sept. 4, found children from
Wittenoom are developing a range of cancers and dying sooner than
the general population.

The town was the site of a blue asbestos mine between 1943 and
1966.  The asbestos tailings were used throughout the town in
roads, pavements, car parks, the racecourse, school playgrounds
and backyard sandpits.

The two children were just four-years-old when their photo was
taken in 1953.  Philip Noble grew up to be a keen footballer
before dying from mesothelioma at age 36.  Ross Munroe became a
high school principal and died from mesothelioma at 38.

The pair were captured in a photo playing in an asbestos sandpit
in a residential backyard in Wittenoom.

Residents bought the deadly asbestos tailings, which were commonly
used as sandpits for children to play in, and also to reduce dust
around the house.

WA Institute of Medical Research Associate Professor Alison Reid,
who has carried out a study on Wittenoom kids who spent their
childhoods exposed to asbestos in the town, and the range of
cancers that had been developed among the group.

Her study found that girls up to the age of 15 who lived in the
town have been more likely to develop mesothelioma, ovarian and
brain cancers and have had increased death rates.

The results were similar for boys of the same age group, with
elevated rates of mesothelioma, leukemia, prostate, brain and
colorectal cancer, diseases of the circulatory and nervous system
and excessive death rates.

The study found that 2640 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 three.

Of the people studied, 63% were either born in Wittenoom or had
moved to the mining town by the time they were 5 years old.  The
vast majority (93.5%) left Wittenoom by the time they were 16, so
were only exposed to asbestos during their childhoods.

To the end of 2007, 228 of the former residents had died of a
range of causes and to 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% greater risk of dying
from any cause, while boys have had a 50-83% 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," said Associate Professor Alison Reid.

Slater & Gordon asbestos lawyer Simon Millman said the courts had
already determined that the Wittenoom mine owners and operators
could be liable for sufferers of asbestos-related cancer, such as
lung cancer and mesothelioma.

"In light of this new research, the next question for the courts
will be whether those same owners and operators are also liable
for a much wider range of deadly illnesses," Mr. Millman said in a
statement.

"We're hopeful it will help in putting together a clearer picture
of the extent of the pain and suffering that has been caused by
this deadly substance."

The study has been published in the American Journal of Industrial
Medicine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wofford Students Return To Cleaned Up Marsh Hall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
wyff4.com reports that more than 200 Wofford College students
moved into Marsh Hall Monday, 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 Aug. 29, but were able to move in Sept. 3
afternoon.

"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.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia's Fibro-Free Plan Eyed to Cost Billions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Bolton of ABC News Online reports that there are fears the
cost of removing deadly asbestos fibers from millions of homes and
buildings will be deemed too high by the (Australian) Government.

A Federal Government review has been grappling with how to remove
the building material from factories, schools and houses.

The Government was due to announce its response to the review
Sept. 4.

Decades after asbestos began to be phased out, more than 600
Australians are diagnosed with asbestos-related disease every
year.

"We've got a once in a generation opportunity for all parties to
cooperate and put in place a national strategic plan that once and
for all will deal with the blight of asbestos in Australia,"
review chairman Geoff Fary said.

The review recommends removing asbestos from all Government and
commercial buildings by 2030.

It also wants every house built before 1987 to be inspected before
sale, lease or renovation, with any asbestos found then removed by
someone licensed to do it.

"They're perfectly safe to live in unless you disturb them --
that's when the problem can happen," said Terry Miller, who used
to work for James Hardie.

"But to get rid of all these places it would cost billions of
dollars to get rid of this stuff."

Manufacturer James Hardie has moved offshore so it will not be
footing the bill for any removals.

Because asbestos is in older homes and buildings -- generally
owned by people with less money -- the review wants the Federal
Government to help with the cost.

But Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten has given no hint on
where the asbestos money will come from.

"There's no way that you could predict fully the cost of
rectification but what we also know is that there are 650 plus
people dying each year at the moment and that is too great a cost
to pay," he said.

The review members believe any delay would be deadly.

"If we were to do that we would be we are leaving a time bomb for
future generations," Mr. Fary said.

Increasingly, it is home renovators who are getting sick.

Carol Klintfalt is living with mesothelioma after being exposed to
asbestos fibers while renovating.

"Part of the capacity of my lung I have lost.  I find it very hard
to walk up stairs.  At times it feels like you're suffocating,"
she said.

Queensland asbestos inspector Brian Sketcher has been checking
homes and offices for decades, and says many people forget
asbestos is in their homes.  He cannot believe how often people
now are sending potentially deadly fibers airborne.

"[One] family had watched a renovation show and they'd ripped up
the vinyl and then sanded the floors," he said.

"But of course the asbestos had stuck to the floor and of course
they had sanded the floor, and they'd been sleeping in it for a
week with their family."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos, Among Others Deters Globosat Project
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Miramar-Garcia at Rapidtvnews.com reports that Brazilian
TV giant Globosat has released details of building the London
broadcast facilities to support subsidiary SporTV's coverage of
the London 2012 Olympics, in the 19th floor of Lund Point, a block
of 1960s council flats situated just outside the Olympic Park.

This is the same building in which the BBC set up one of its main
Olympic broadcast studios.  TSL, the leading systems integrator,
said that it and Globosat met with some unique challenges.

"Physical limitations, asbestos, structural floor loading, fire
proofing, power and zero tolerance deadlines were just some of the
issues we had to overcome," explained Nigel England, TSL Project
Manager.

Following a pre-build of the facility at TSL's headquarters in
Maidenhead U.K., the integrator had just 6 weeks to install the
facility on location, which included a full-spec HD/SD gallery and
control room housing nine operators, three Final Cut Pro edit
suites and a three-camera 'glass' studio.

Globosat's seven-venue production systems were also installed by
TSL to enable SporTV to record its own material from the various
Olympic sites, namely Earls Court, North Greenwich, Horse Guard
Parade, Wembley Stadium, Crystal Palace, the Aquatics Centre and
the Olympic Stadium itself.

SporTV, Brazil's most popular sports channel, covers more than
4,000 events, transmitting more than 30 live sports categories
each 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  * * *