---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, October 26, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 213

                               Headlines

AES CORP: Amended Class Action Petition Will Delay Trial Process
ANDATEE CHINA: Continues to Defend Going Private Proposal Suits
ASPEN DENTAL: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
AXA EQUITABLE: Plea to Dismiss "Sivolella" Suit Remains Pending
BAC FIELD SERVICES: Foreclosed Home Caretakers File Class Action

BEDFORD COUNTY, TN: July 2013 Trial Set for Class Action
BIG BROTHER: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Bible Scene
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Texts
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend California Suit
CAMDEN, NJ: Judge to Rule on Parents' Bid to Transfer Students

CAPITAL ONE: Sued Over Deceptive "0%" Balance Transfer Offer
CEVA LOGISTICS: Awaits Final Okay of Antitrust Suit vs. Units
CNOOC LTD: Sued for Misleading Shareholders
DIRECTV: Appeal in Suits Over Cancellation Fees Remains Pending
DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls Eddie Bauer Rocking Wood Bassinets

DPL INC: Acquisition-Related Class Suit Remains Pending in Ohio
GOLDMAN SACHS: Must Face Australian Hedge Fund Class Action
GREAT WOLF: December 18 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
HIGA MEAT: Recalls 4,100 Pounds of Ground Beef Products
JELD-WEN INC: Recalls 170,800 Bifold Doors Due to Impact Hazard

JOS. A. BANK: Defends "Holmes" Wage and Hour Suit in California
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Dismisses Bulk of Repossessed Cars Suit
KISSMETRICS: Settles Class Action Over ETags
KOSS CORP: "Puskala" Securities Class Suit Dismissed in July
LOS ANGELES, CA: Cty. Faces Class Action Over "Immigration Holds"

NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Mail-Order Pharmacy Mandate
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
PARAMOUNT INVESTMENTS: Jensen Shawa Commences Class Action
PATH INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Privacy Class Action

ROBERT HALF: $19MM Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
SAMSUNG SDI: Accused of Fixing Prices of Lithium-ion Batteries
SOVEREIGN GRACE: Faces Class Action Over Child Sexual Abuses
SP AUSNET: Gov't. May Join Black Saturday Bushfire Class Action
STATE STREET: Sued for Allegedly Overcharging Forex Trades

SUMMIT TREESTANDS: Recalls 2,900 Crush Tree Stands for Hunters
SUNRISE SENIOR: Being Sold to Health Care REIT for Too Little
VANGUARD HEALTH: Units Continue to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
VISA: Seeks Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
WAL-MART: Faces Overtime Class Action

WET SEAL: Appeal From Class Cert. Denial in Calif. Suit Pending
WET SEAL: Appeals in California Employees' Suit Still Pending
WET SEAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration Granted in Employees' Suit
WET SEAL: Faces Suit Alleging African American Discrimination
WET SEAL: Plaintiff in Calif. Suit Seeks to Amend Complaint

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Closed in Millsaps v. Alcoa Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Junks Strict Liability Claims v. GE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmate Barred From Filing Class Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Still Party to Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $142MM Liability at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Had $2.45B Net Reserves End Sept.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals in Direct Action Suit vs. TPC Remain
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Defends NARCO & Bendix-Related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Diagnosis to Rise 5%-10% by 2020
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton, Dravo & 84 Others Face Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oswego County Legislators OKs DSS Abatement Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec, Ottawa End Official Support for Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McGill Professor Cleared of Scientific Misconduct
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland to Push For More Legal Dumping Sites
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brown Apologizes for Remark to Campaign Ad People

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utica Federal Jury Finds Landlord, NJ Firm Guilty
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Private Test Says Fibro From Shamokin Is Friable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadians Push for National Asbestos Registry
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pauline Marois Cuts Off Jeffrey Mine Lifeline
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialist Advices Cwmcarn High School Demolition

ASBESTOS UPDATE: UCATT Slams Council's Statement Demands Apology
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woodsreef Mine Rehab Delayed to Protect Rare Bats
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Locals Rally To Oppose Surrey Hazmat Station Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Agnico-Eagle Miners Gear Up After Toxic NOA Found
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board Mulls Abatement of Discarded Denmark School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sri Lanka Boosts Asbestos Sheets Production
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nakasuk School to Monitor Fibro During Repairs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Claimants' Lawyers Eye "Global Resolution"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Darwin Gardens Abatement Yield 10Kg of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Issues at Old National Guard Armory Probed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Singapore to Step Up On Safe Fibro Management
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kin Calls Meso Victim's Former Peers for Info
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unusual Amount of Fibro Found at WI Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cwmcarn High School Relocation Proposal Approved
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doctors, Advocates Slams McGill U's Report

ASBESTOS UPDATE: B&B Discuss $48MM Verdict v. Union Carbide, et al
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Reverses $25K Sanction on Asbestos Attorney
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement to Close Westlake High in April 2013
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swansea Crusader Takes ARD Payout Drive to Senedd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Says 10% of Bundaberg Houses Have Fibro


                          *********

AES CORP: Amended Class Action Petition Will Delay Trial Process
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary L. Crider, writing for Times Record, reports that six Bokoshe
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit filed a year ago against
energy giant AES Corp. and the businesses serving its nearby AES
Shady Point plant filed an amended petition this month, adding 48
defendants that use the same disposal pit site.

Summons were issued to the new defendants on Oct. 10, according to
court records.  The additions will delay the trial process.  A
jury trial had been set for Nov. 29.

The original filing by Bokoshe residents William and Diane Reese,
Herman Tolbert, Tim Tanksley, Susan Holmes and Charles Tackett
alleged improper actions and omissions by 24 defendants, people
and businesses, associated with the waste disposal operation,
leading to injuries and damages, including fear, mental distress
and physical harm, including death from illnesses, loss of
property and business value, contaminated air, atmosphere, soil
and water.  A few of the original defendants were later dismissed
from the lawsuit.

That petition primarily alleged fly ash, the waste product from
coal burned to generate electricity, contains harmful pollutants,
including aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, tin,
titanium and zinc.

Among others, the amended petition adds oil and gas producers who
also use the MMHF, aka Making Money Having Fun, Clean Hydro
Reclamation and Clean Hydro Evacuation disposal pit site to
dispose of their produced fluids, including saltwater and other
contaminants, from oil and gas well drill sites and production
sites.

The amended petition alleges the transport of the produced fluids
to the disposal pit has resulted in the release of hundreds of
millions of gallons of contaminants into creeks, streams, rivers
and other surface water drainages and impoundments, and
specifically onto and under the homes, businesses and properties
of the plaintiffs and their fellow class members.

The lawsuit contends more than 450 residents in and around Bokoshe
have been affected by the businesses' actions.  It asks for
compensatory damages for each in excess of $75,000, for punitive
damages for each in excess of $75,000, for a permanent prohibition
against further coal waste or produced fluid disposal at the MMHF
facility, a mandatory cleanup of the allegedly contaminated air,
soil and water, ongoing monitoring of the allegedly contaminated
site, a fund to pay for ongoing medical treatment and monitoring
of the class members, and attorneys fees and associated court
costs.

Twelve attorneys attended a pretrial conference on Oct. 18 in
LeFlore County District Court, primarily attorneys for some of the
original defendants.

Plaintiffs' attorney Montgomery L. "Monty" Lair of Tulsa asked
District Judge Jon Sullivan to set a mid-March hearing.
But several of the defendants' attorneys objected that would be
too soon as the attorneys for the newly added defendants had not
yet had time to enter appearances in the case or to familiarize
themselves with it.  Several said they had yet to receive their
requested discovery of the plaintiffs' evidence or answers to
questions they'd submitted.

Noting that deadlines will help move the case along, Judge
Sullivan said he will file an amended schedule, including a
springtime hearing.


ANDATEE CHINA: Continues to Defend Going Private Proposal Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andatee China Marine Fuel Services Corporation continues to defend
itself from class action lawsuits arising from a going private
transaction proposal by the Company's chief executive officer and
majority shareholder, according to the Company's August 29, 2012,
Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, a number of class action
lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by or on behalf of current shareholders against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Individual
Defendants") in connection with a contemplated "going private"
proposal by the Company's Chief Executive Officer and majority
shareholder, An Fengbin (the "Proposed Transaction").  These
lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Company and certain
of its officers and directors violated fiduciary duties by failing
to take steps to maximize the value of the Company to its public
shareholders in a change of control transactions.  The plaintiffs
seek, among other things, unspecified damages and other relief,
including, without limitation, to enjoin the Individual Defendants
from consummating the Proposed Transaction.

The lawsuits are in the early stages of their respective
proceedings.  The Company anticipates that actions similar to the
actions may be filed in the future.

The Individual Defendants are contesting each of the lawsuits
vigorously, however are not in a position to predict the outcome
or impact of the lawsuits.

Andatee China Marine Fuel Services Corporation --
http://www.andatee.com-- through its subsidiaries, engages in
production, storage, distribution, and trading of blended marine
fuel oil for cargo and fishing vessels in the Peoples Republic of
China.  The Company also produces blended marine fuel according to
customer specifications.  Its blend of marine diesel oil is used
as substitute for the traditional diesel oil.  The Company is
based in Shanghai City, People's Republic of China.


ASPEN DENTAL: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Ann S. Kim, writing for Kennebec Journal, reports that a South
Portland woman is one of 11 named plaintiffs in a class-action
lawsuit against Aspen Dental Management and its majority
shareholder about alleged "sham" owners and deceptive practices.

Aspen Dental has seven locations in Maine that opened from 2006 to
2008.  Thousands of Mainers could be part of the class, said Brian
Cohen, one of the New York lawyers for the plaintiffs.

"We're fighting for thousands of aggrieved patients of Aspen, and
hopefully we're going to right the many wrongs that were committed
against them," Mr. Cohen said on Oct. 19.

Named as defendants are Robert Fontana, president and CEO of Aspen
Dental Management; and Leonard Green & Partners, the private
equity firm that has majority ownership of the company.

Isabelle Reali, 59, a certified nursing assistant, went to the
Aspen Dental location in South Portland in July 2010 because her
dental insurance was accepted there and because of advertisements
for free examinations and X-rays, according to the complaint filed
in the Northern District of New York on Oct. 18.

After a brief examination, she was "whisked" into a business
office where an office manager persuaded her to commit to a
treatment plan that included full extractions and dentures before
encouraging her to sign up for a health care credit card for the
amount her insurance would not cover, according to the complaint.
Ms. Reali's insurance was "maxed out" and the credit card was
charged before she had any procedures.

The complaint says that Aspen Dental clinics, including the one in
South Portland, are not owned and operated by the licensed
dentists who provide the care, as they claim.  The complaint
accuses the defendants of practicing dentistry unlawfully.

In a prepared statement, Aspen Dental Management said the
allegations in the lawsuit "are entirely without merit."

Company spokeswoman Kasey Pickett said doctors own the clinics and
Aspen Dental Management provides support services such as
marketing, accounting and other administrative functions.  She
said the crux of the business model is freeing up doctors so they
can focus on care.

The company said it provides support to more than 350 dentist-
owned practices in 22 states.  Its Maine locations are in
Biddeford, South Portland, Portland, Topsham, Waterville, Bangor
and Augusta.

Further details about Ms. Reali's experience with Aspen Dental --
including the cost of the treatment and whether she followed
through with the plan -- are not in the complaint.  Ms. Reali
could not be reached for comment on Oct. 19.

Mr. Cohen said that because of the pending litigation, he would
not allow plaintiffs to speak to the media and would not provide
additional information about their experiences with Aspen Dental.

The lawsuit is on behalf of 11 people in 11 states.  The
Associated Press reported that their lawyers are seeking class-
action status that could cover tens of thousands of current and
former patients.

The allegations in the lawsuit struck a chord with Mark Malm, a
retiree who lives in Biddeford.

Mr. Malm, 69, said he went to Aspen Dental in Biddeford because
his regular dentist didn't take his insurance.  He said he paid
about $3,500 out of pocket for treatments he received during three
visits in 2010.

He and his wife, Diane, became suspicious when the prices
increased in successive visits and they sought a second opinion
from his regular dentist.

Mr. Malm's regular dentist now is treating his periodontal disease
for $125 a visit, three times a year, Mr. Malm said.  One big
difference is how many pockets of receding gums are injected, he
said.

His regular dentist does the injections on only four or five
pockets, while he had 29 treated at Aspen Dental, he said.

"Scare tactics is basically what it was.  'I'm going to lose my
teeth if I don't get this done,'" he said.

Greg Hebert, 53, of Biddeford, said he went to Aspen Dental
several years ago, when he didn't have insurance.  Mr. Hebert, who
said he has bone loss in his jaw that causes his teeth to fall
out, knocked out several teeth in an accident.

Mr. Hebert, who works in construction, said he was surprised by
how much the work cost, about $5,400.  He said it included
fillings, deep cleaning and partial dentures.

He said he lost the partial dentures, which he believed cost about
$3,500, and got new ones from a denturist.  The replacements cost
about $1,900, he said.

"Maybe I was right when I was questioning how much it cost," he
said.

Representatives for Aspen Dental could not be reached to respond
to the accounts of Messrs. Malm and Hebert.

The Maine Attorney General's Office has one consumer complaint
filed against Aspen Dental within the past year.  A representative
said the case is unresolved, which could indicate that it is still
in process or that mediation failed. She said she could not
provide additional information.

The Maine Board of Dental Examiners handles complaints related to
care.  The person with access to those records was not available
Friday, and the information cannot be located until early next
week, said Doug Dunbar, a spokesman for the Department of
Professional and Financial Regulation, which includes the board.

In 2010, Aspen Dental reached a $175,000 settlement with the
Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office about misleading
information about discounts, consultations, financing and other
promotions.


AXA EQUITABLE: Plea to Dismiss "Sivolella" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit against AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company remains pending, according to the
Company's August 29, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the
District of New Jersey in July 2011, entitled Mary Ann Sivolella
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds
Management Group, LLC ("FMG LLC").  The lawsuit was filed
derivatively on behalf of eight funds.  The lawsuit seeks recovery
under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as
amended (the "Investment Company Act"), for alleged excessive fees
paid to  AXA Equitable and FMG LLC for investment management
services. In November 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding claims under Sections 47(b) and 26(f) of the Investment
Company Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.  In
addition, plaintiff purports to file the lawsuit as a class action
in addition to a derivative action.  In December 2011, AXA
Equitable and FMG LLC filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Plaintiff seeks recovery of the alleged overpayments,
or alternatively, rescission of the contracts and restitution of
substantially all fees paid.


BAC FIELD SERVICES: Foreclosed Home Caretakers File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a Bank of
America subsidiary cheats workers of overtime and regular wages
after hiring them to maintain foreclosed homes, a class action
claims in Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Chris Weseman sued BAC Field Services Corp.,
alleging Labor Code violations and unfair competition.

"BAC operates as a subsidiary of Bank of America, providing
maintenance an preservation services for Bank of America's
foreclosed properties," the complaint states.

Bank of America, however, is not a party to the complaint.
"BAC subcontracts the hiring process and job placement functions
to other hiring agents as part of the scheme to attempt to
circumvent responsibility for protections afforded to employees
under federal and California law," the complaint states.

Mr. Weseman claims that BAC misclassifies its employees as
independent contractors to duck the Labor Code.  BAC laborers mow
lawns, board up windows, change locks, clean, and take pictures of
foreclosed properties, and work 40 hours a week or more for a flat
rate, according to the complaint.

BAC also ducks Social Security payments, taxes, unemployment
insurance and workers compensation insurance by misclassifying its
workers, Mr. Weseman says.

"After deducting all business related expenses, including but not
limited to tax payments, from the payments made by BAC to
plaintiff and the class members, the plaintiff and class members
as employees of BAC earn less than the minimum wage for all hours
on the job, causing BAC to be liable for this additional payment,"
according to the 37-page complaint.

Mr. Weseman says that BAC paid a "'trip charge'" to workers if
they could not complete work at foreclosed properties that were
not yet vacant.

"This 'trip charge' did not include any of the time spent driving
to the foreclosed property, performing any tasks necessary to
determine whether the property was in fact occupied, taking
pictures of the property and uploading the pictures upon returning
home to send to BAC," the complaint states.

Mr. Weseman claims he did manual labor for BAC from late 2010
until this year.  He claims he worked more than 40 hours a week
but was not paid overtime, worked more than 5 hours at time
without meal or rest breaks, and had to pay for new door locks out
of his wages.

"As a result of defendant's misclassification of plaintiff as an
independent contractor, plaintiff was not compensated by defendant
for his regular and overtime hours worked at the applicable
regular and overtime rates," the complaint states.

Mr. Weseman seeks wages due, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and
damages for Labor Code violations.  He is represented by Norman
Blumenthal, with Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Bank of America did not immediately respond to an emailed request
for comment.


BEDFORD COUNTY, TN: July 2013 Trial Set for Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mosely, writing for Shelbyville Times-Gazette, reports that
despite most of a federal lawsuit being dismissed, a trial date
has been set in the nearly two-year-old class action litigation
against the county.

U.S. District Judge Harry S. Mattice set July 16, 2013 for the
federal suit brought by Ricky Robertson.  The trial is expected to
last three days, court documents say, at the federal courthouse in
Chattanooga.

Mr. Robertson had claimed violations of the 4th, 8th and 14th
amendments to the U.S. Constitution, suing the county, Deputy
Kevin Roddy and "John Does," also saying that he was severely
beaten at the jail and that the rights of thousands of others have
been violated by the local bail bonding system.

Last month, Judge Mattice dismissed parts of the suit dealing with
the 8th and 14th amendment bail claims, also denying Robertson's
motion for class certification, and declaring other issues as
moot.

                          Arrest Claims

Mr. Robertson has been suing Bedford County since late 2010,
claiming that it operates a system of setting bail for those
arrested and presented to a judicial commissioner "that is not
based on the individualized assessment of that particular person's
likelihood to flee."

Judge Mattice ruled in September that Mr. Robertson has not
demonstrated a plausible claim to challenge the amount of his bail
and that he was not deprived of his liberty "because he was, in
fact, released on bail."

Mr. Robertson was arrested Nov. 28, 2009 for disorderly conduct
and public intoxication and was released on $1,500 bond.

He claims that during his arrest, Mr. Roddy and/or the unknown
deputies took him from a patrol car and forcefully pushed him into
jail by lifting his handcuffed hands high above his shoulders from
the back.

But officers say that Mr. Robertson was heavily intoxicated,
screamed threats at deputies and had to be placed in a restraint
chair due to his behavior.

Mr. Robertson is represented by Murfreesboro attorney Jerry
Gonzalez.


BIG BROTHER: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Bible Scene
----------------------------------------------------------
Arutz Sheva reports that the Jerusalem District Court dismissed,
on Oct. 18, a request for a class-action suit against a Channel 2
Television franchise holder and the producers of the reality show
"Big Brother", charging negligence and breach of statutory duty.
At issue was a segment, broadcast in December 2010, in which
participants argued over the intent of one of the participants to
read the Bible in the bathroom, which raised a mild public
protest.

Judge Gila Canfy-Steinitz accepted the defendant's argument that,
in this case, freedom of expression won over harming the
sensitivity of people who were offended by the idea. She explained
that the extent of the harm did not cross the permitted boundary
in giving the plaintiffs a course of action.  She added that the
segments were not so offensive as to be undefensible, concluding
"Even if we assume that the impact of the footage broadcast on the
emotions of the plaintiffs and feelings of the group they wish to
represent is certain, one cannot say that this harm is not within
the limits of tolerable in Israeli society as a democratic
society."


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Texts
----------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cashill, writing for Tampa Bay Business Journal, reports
that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Bloomin' Brands,
parent company of Outback Steakhouse, sent unsolicited advertising
via text.

The complaint, filed Oct. 19, alleges that Bloomin' Brands used an
automatic telephone dialing system to send text messages to
thousands of cell phone owners without their consent, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

It seeks a judgment of $2 million to $6 million.

The lead plaintiff, Nadine Weingarten, is a resident of
Connecticut.

A call to Bloomin' Brands seeking comment is pending response.
Bloomin' Brands, based in Tampa, is also the parent of Carrabba's
Italian Grill, Bonefish Grill, Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine
Bar and Roy's.


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend California Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
putative class action lawsuit pending in California, according to
the Company's August 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 27,
2012.

In August 2004, certain current and former hourly restaurant team
members filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company
in California Superior Court alleging violations of California
labor laws with respect to meal periods and rest breaks.  The
lawsuit sought penalties and attorney's fees and was certified as
a class action by the trial court in July 2006.  In July 2008, the
California Court of Appeal decertified the class action on all
claims with prejudice.  In October 2008, the California Supreme
Court granted a writ to review the decision of the Court of Appeal
and oral arguments were heard by the California Supreme Court on
November 8, 2011.  On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court
issued an opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and
remanding in part for further proceedings.  The California Supreme
Court's opinion resolved many of the legal standards for meal
periods and rest breaks in the Company's California restaurants
and the Company intends to vigorously defend its position on the
remaining issues upon remand to the trial court.  It is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss, if any.


CAMDEN, NJ: Judge to Rule on Parents' Bid to Transfer Students
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Vargas, writing for Philly.com, reports that a New Jersey
administrative law judge is expected to rule this week on a
request from three Camden parents to transfer their children from
failing to higher-performing schools at state expense.

The class-action petition filed last week argues that the Camden
school district has failed to meet the state's constitutional
requirement of providing a "thorough and efficient" education.  At
a hearing on Oct. 22 in the Offices of Administrative Law in
Mercerville, attorneys for the Camden parents asked for immediate
educational "relief" for Keanu Vargas, 12, a seventh grader at
Pyne Poynt Family School; Freddy Hernandez, 5, a first grader at
Davis Elementary School; and Emmanuel Roldan, 8, a fourth grader
at Dudley Elementary School.

Camden school board attorney Lester Taylor argued that the
parents' application did not meet the legal standards for relief,
including proving that the children would suffer irreparable harm
if they were not transferred.

"It is legally and procedurally inappropriate to grant the relief
the petitioners are seeking, which is essentially a voucher,"
Mr. Taylor said after the Oct. 22 hearing.

The question of whether Vargas, Hernandez, Roldan and other
students are receiving a "thorough and efficient" education in the
Camden district is beyond the need for immediate relief and will
be decided as the case moves forward, he said.

If Administrative Law Judge Edward Delanoy recommends the
children's transfer, the case will move forward with a request for
class action so that the rest of the district's 15,000 students
could have the same opportunity to transfer, petitioners' co-
counsel Julio Gomez said.

In a brief filed before the Oct. 22 hearing, the board argued that
the petitioners were relying on the district's "overall alleged
shortcomings, without providing any data specific to the academic
achievements of petitioners individually."

The school board's brief also made references to two of the
mothers previously noting to The Inquirer that their sons get
straight As as an argument against the petition's seeking
immediate transfer.

"They are trying to steer away focus on the district," Mr. Gomez
said, adding that he believes focusing on individual students is
an incorrect analysis of New Jersey's "thorough and efficient"
requirement.


CAPITAL ONE: Sued Over Deceptive "0%" Balance Transfer Offer
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Capital
One Bank dupes credit cardholders into accepting a "0% balance
transfer" offer that leaves people worse off than before, a class
action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Priscilla Barton accuses Capital One of "deceptive
representations and omissions surrounding its '0%' balance
transfer offers."

Under Capital One's standard credit card arrangement, customers
have 25 days after the close of each billing cycle to pay their
"new balance" without interest, Ms. Barton says.  The new balance
includes purchases made during that cycle, previous outstanding
balance and interest and fees.  Capital One calls the 25 days the
grace period.

"Numerous times every year, Cap One solicits its cardholder base
to take 0% balance transfers," the complaint states.  "Cap One
markets the balance transfers as a 'chance to save' -- a means for
the cardholder to pay off higher interest loans owed to other
creditors.  Cap One promises that these balance transfers will
carry 0% interest for six or twelve months.  To accept a balance
transfer offer, all a cardholder has to do is use one of the
'convenience checks' which come attached to the offer.  Cap One
promises that it will segregate the transferred balance from other
segments of the cardholder's account.  The balance transfer comes
at a cost: Cap One charges the cardholder a fee of 2%-3% of the
total balance transferred.

"Unbeknownst to plaintiff and classes, however, once a cardholder
accepts Cap One's '0% interest' balance transfer offer, Cap One
unilaterally, and in breach of the cardholder agreement,
eliminates the grace period and begins charging interest on all
new purchases from the date of the balance transfer forward.

"Cap One did not disclose that it would eliminate the grace period
for cardholders who accepted Cap One's 0% balance transfer offers
and subject them to high interest charges.  Cap One did not
disclose that the only way for these cardholders to avoid interest
charges on new purchases once they accepted the 0% balance
transfer offer was to pay the full amount of these purchases plus
the full amount of the balance transfer -- in the same month that
the cardholder accepted the balance transfer, even though the
promotional period on the 0% percent offer was for 6 or 12 months.
. . . Contrary to the simple 'chance to save' that Cap One
represented the balance transfer would provide, and that
cardholders paid for, many cardholders who accepted these offers
found themselves worse off than they were beforehand."

Ms. Barton seeks restitution, an injunction and compensatory and
statutory damages for breach of contract, breach of faith, unfair
competition, and violations of the federal Credit Card
Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD Act) and
the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shana Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          715 Hearst Ave.
          Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com


CEVA LOGISTICS: Awaits Final Okay of Antitrust Suit vs. Units
-------------------------------------------------------------
CEVA Logistics Inc., formerly known as CEVA Investments Ltd., is
awaiting final approval of its settlement of an antitrust class
action lawsuit involving its subsidiaries, according to the
Company's August 29, 2012, Form F-1/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Several CEVA subsidiaries and certain current and former employees
are or have been subject to, and cooperating with, investigations
by the European Commission ("EC") and the government of Brazil, as
well as an information request from the government of Switzerland,
for possible price-fixing and other improper collusive activity
with respect to certain accessorial and other charges, along with
several other entities in the freight forwarding industry.
Several other investigations (including by the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") and by authorities in Canada, Japan and New
Zealand) have been resolved.

The DOJ Investigation was resolved pursuant to a plea agreement
entered into between the DOJ and EGL, Inc., the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiary, in which EGL, Inc. pled guilty to two violations
of U.S. antitrust laws, will provide ongoing cooperation to the
DOJ, paid to the U.S. government a criminal fine of $4.5 million,
and for a two-year probationary period must comply with certain
reporting obligations related to its compliance program and any
federal criminal investigation, and major administrative
proceeding or civil litigation in the U.S.

CEVA has also reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs
in a putative class action lawsuit against EGL, Inc. and EGL Eagle
Global Logistics, LP, styled Precision Associates, Inc., et al. v.
Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, et al., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The
agreement remains subject to final court approval (the court
granted preliminary approval on September 23, 2011) and other
contingencies, such as the Company's rescission rights, and there
can be no assurance that it will result in final resolution of the
matter.


CNOOC LTD: Sued for Misleading Shareholders
-------------------------------------------
Yvonne Lee, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Cnooc Ltd. said on Oct. 22 the energy company and its senior
executives are facing a class action suit in the U.S. after an
investor alleged they made false and misleading statements last
year.

China's largest offshore oil and gas producer by capacity said in
a statement the investor, Sam Sinay, alleges that Cnooc and
certain directors issued materially false and misleading
statements between January and September 2011 on its business,
financial results and an oil spill at one of its fields.

"The company believes the allegations and the claims in the
complaint are without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously against such claims," Joint Company Secretary Zhong Hua
said in the statement.

The company didn't elaborate or give details on the investor.

Cnooc said last year it lost between 40,000 and 50,000 barrels a
day of output -- equivalent to about 6% of its total oil-and-gas
output last year -- after China's government halted production in
September 2011 at the Penglai 19-3 field in Bohai Bay because of
unsatisfactory progress in cleaning up several oil spills.

The field is operated by ConocoPhillips (COP) and is 51%-owned by
Cnooc.


DIRECTV: Appeal in Suits Over Cancellation Fees Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV's appeal from the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration as to claims seeking injunctive relief under
California statutes in putative class action lawsuits filed over
early cancellation fees remains pending, according to the
Company's August 27, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early
cancellation fees the Company assesses its customers when they do
not fulfill their programming commitments.  Several of these
lawsuits are pending, some in California state court purporting to
represent statewide classes, and some in federal courts purporting
to represent nationwide classes.  The lawsuits seek both monetary
and injunctive relief.  While the theories of liability vary, the
lawsuits generally challenge these fees under state consumer
protection laws as both unfair and inadequately disclosed to
customers.  The Company's motions to compel arbitration have been
granted in all of the federal cases, except as to claims seeking
injunctive relief under California statutes.  The denial of the
Company's motion as to those claims is currently on appeal.  The
Company believes that its early cancellation fees are adequately
disclosed, and represent reasonable estimates of the costs it
incurs when customers cancel service before fulfilling their
programming commitments.


DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls Eddie Bauer Rocking Wood Bassinets
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dorel Juvenile Group, of Columbus, Indiana, announced a voluntary
recall of about 97,000 Eddie Bauer Rocking Wood Bassinets.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The bottom locking mechanism can fail to lock properly if a spring
is not installed, allowing the bassinet to tip to one side and
cause infants to roll to the side of the bassinet.  This poses a
suffocation hazard to infants.

Dorel has received 17 reports of incidents with the recalled
bassinets involving infants primarily younger than three months
old.  In two of the incidents, infants were reported to have had
breathing difficulties after they rolled into the side of their
bassinets.

This recall involves Eddie Bauer Rocking Wood Bassinets.  The
bassinets have a dark brown wooden headboard and footboard and a
cotton bassinet that comes in a variety of colors and patterns.
"Eddie Bauer" is printed on a metal plate on the bassinet's
footboard.  These bassinets have a dial at the base of the
footboard that locks and unlocks the rocking motion of the
bassinet.  Recalled bassinets have the following model numbers:
10632, 10639, 10832, 10835, 10839 and BT021.  The model number is
located under the mattress, on the top surface of the mattress
support board or on the wash and care label.  A picture of the
recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13017.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Target, Toys R Us and Sears stores nationwide and online at Ebay
and other Web sites from December 2007 through January 2011 for
about $150.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bassinets and
contact Dorel to obtain a free repair kit, which includes a spring
and new instructions for assembly.  Dorel; toll-free at (877) 416-
0165, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday,
or http://www.djgusa.com/and click on Safety Notices for more
information.


DPL INC: Acquisition-Related Class Suit Remains Pending in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
An acquisition-related class action lawsuit filed by Payne Family
Trust against DPL Inc. remains pending in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, according to the Company's
August 24, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On November 28, 2011, The AES Corporation completed its
acquisition of DPL.  DPL became a wholly-owned subsidiary of AES.

On April 21, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL and each member of
DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants.
The lawsuit was a purported class action filed by Patricia A.
Heinmullter on behalf of herself and an alleged class of DPL
shareholders.  On March 22, 2012, the Court entered an order
dismissing this lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation
filed by the parties.  Plaintiff had alleged, among other things,
that DPL's directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving
the Merger of DPL and AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided
and abetted such breach.

On April 26, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division
(the "District Court"), naming each member of DPL's board of
directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants and naming DPL
as a nominal defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Stephen Kubiak is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of
DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger of DPL and
AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and abetted such
breach.

On April 27, 2011, another lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL, each member
of DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as
defendants.  The lawsuit filed by Laurence D. Paskowitz was a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders.  On March 21, 2012, the Court entered an
order dismissing this lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to a
stipulation filed by the parties.  Plaintiff had alleged, among
other things, that DPL's directors breached their fiduciary duties
in approving the Merger of DPL and AES and that DPL, AES and
Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and abetted such breach.

On April 28, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL and each member of
DPL's board of directors as defendants.  The lawsuit filed by
Payne Family Trust is a purported class action on behalf of
plaintiff and an alleged class of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Merger of DPL and AES.

On May 4, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the District Court naming
DPL, each member of DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. as defendants.  The lawsuit filed by Patrick Nichting is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of
DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger of DPL and
AES and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and abetted such
breach.

On May 20, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the District Court naming
DPL, each member of DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. as defendants.  The lawsuit filed by Ralph B. Holtmann and
Catherine P. Holtmann is a purported class action on behalf of
plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Merger of DPL and AES and that
DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and abetted such breach.

On May 24, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's board of
directors and AES as defendants and naming DPL as a nominal
defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Maxine Levy was a purported class
action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class of DPL
shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of DPL.
On March 22, 2012, the Court entered an order dismissing this
lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation filed by the
parties.  Plaintiff had alleged, among other things, that DPL's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger
of DPL and AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and
abetted such breach.

On June 13, 2011, the three actions in the District Court were
consolidated.  On June 14, 2011, the District Court granted
Plaintiff Nichting's motion to appoint lead and liaison counsel.
On June 30, 2011, plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action
filed an amended complaint that added claims based on alleged
omissions in the preliminary proxy statement that DPL filed on
June 22, 2011 (the "Preliminary Proxy Statement").  Plaintiffs, in
their individual capacity only, asserted a claim against DPL and
its directors under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") for purported omissions in the
Preliminary Proxy Statement and a claim against DPL's directors
for control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  In addition, plaintiffs purported to assert state law claims
directly on behalf of Plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL
shareholders and derivatively on behalf of DPL.  Plaintiffs
alleged, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement for the Merger
of DPL and AES and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and
abetted such breach.

On February 24, 2012, the District Court entered an order
approving a settlement between DPL, DPL's directors, AES and
Dolphin Sub, Inc. and the plaintiffs in the consolidated federal
action.  The settlement resolves all pending federal court
litigation related to the Merger, including the Kubiak, Holtmann
and Nichting actions, results in the release by the plaintiffs and
the proposed settlement class of all claims that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the Merger Agreement,
the Merger and any disclosures made in connection therewith and
provides for an immaterial award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and expenses.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Must Face Australian Hedge Fund Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Hutchens, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs will have to defend claims
that it deliberately sold toxic subprime mortgages to an
Australian hedge fund in 2007 as the US housing market began to
unravel.

The New York Supreme Court has denied Goldman Sachs' bid to
dismiss the AUD1.07 billion class action, which alleges fraud,
unjust enrichment and negligence in connection to its sale of
toxic mortgage-linked securities to Basis Yield Alpha Fund Master
(BYAFM) in 2007.

Basis has accused Goldman of making false and misleading
statements in connection with the sale of the toxic securities,
which led to losses for Australian investors of AUD320 million.

It claims Goldman sold the securities deliberately in the
knowledge that the securities would lose value, while
simultaneously betting that they would do so.

Goldman argues that the securities lost value because the US
housing market collapsed.

At the time, BYAFM was managed by Basis Capital Funds Management
in Sydney, which is now being wound down.

The case goes to the heart of the events leading up to the global
financial crisis, which culminated in the collapse of Lehman
Brothers in 2008. Complex financial instruments such as mortgage-
backed securities played a key role.

Nick Reeves, the director of Basis Yield Alpha Fund, said it was a
"very big win" for the fund, and would allow its $1.07 billion
lawsuit against Goldman to proceed.

"It positions us very well, it's a major hurdle whenever you sue
in the US getting past motions to dismiss, particularly on a fraud
claim," Mr. Reeves said.

"It allows us now to proceed with the case, to get into discovery,
to have a look at Goldman's documents, to depose their key
witnesses and then go to a trial before a jury."

Basis is suing for $1 billion of punitive damages after purchasing
the toxic mortgage-linked securities, called Point Pleasant and
Timberlake.  It is also seeking to recoup $67 million of losses
from the transactions.

Goldman lawyers argued before New York Supreme Court Justice
Shirley Kornreich that the investment bank was only expressing a
"non-actionable opinion" when it told Basis that the mortgage-
backed securities were sound, well priced, and that the market
appeared stable.

But Justice Kornreich disagreed, saying that New York law held
that "an opinion may still be actionable if the speaker does not
genuinely and reasonably believe it or if it is without basis in
fact".

"The false opinions that Goldman expressed to BYAFM may give rise
to a fraud claim because Goldman did not genuinely or reasonably
believe the opinions, yet expressed them to BYAFM for the purpose
of inducing it to purchase the securities with the anticipation
that BYAFM would suffer loss," Justice Kornreich said.

Goldman Sachs Australia, one of the parties being sued, has
claimed that New York's state court does not have jurisdiction
over it because it does not conduct business in New York.

But Justice Kornreich ruled that Basis was entitled to have
jurisdictional discovery against Goldman Sachs Australia to
determine if the investment bank conducted business in New York,
and if it could be subject to the state's jurisdiction.


GREAT WOLF: December 18 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky LLP on Oct. 19 issued a statement regarding In re
Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. Shareholders Litigation.

A Web site -- http://www.gwrshareholderslitigation.com-- has been
created to inform all common stockholders of Great Wolf Resorts,
Inc. from March 12, 2012 to May 4, 2012 about certain proceedings
and the proposed settlement of the matter In re Great Wolf
Resorts, Inc.  Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
7328-VCN, which is currently pending in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.

The proposed settlement in this matter relates to a merger between
Great Wolf and certain entities affiliated with Apollo Global
Management, LLC whereby affiliates of Apollo acquired Great Wolf
on or around May 4, 2012.  Through the Web site, potentially
impacted common stockholders can obtain copies of (1) the Notice
of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, Settlement
Hearing and Right to Appear and (2) the Order Preliminarily
Certifying Class Action and Providing for Notice entered by the
Court on October 16, 2012.

A Settlement Hearing on the proposed settlement is scheduled for
December 18, 2012.


HIGA MEAT: Recalls 4,100 Pounds of Ground Beef Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Higa Meat & Pork Market, a Honolulu, Hawaii establishment, is
recalling approximately 4,100 pounds of ground beef products that
may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 10-lb. bags of "HIGA MARKET-GROUND BEEF BULK" - 1 to 6 bags
     per carton/case.

Each case bears the establishment number "EST. 12457M" inside the
USDA mark of inspection, as well as the identifying case code
number: "291."  The products were produced on October 17, 2012,
and were distributed to restaurants in the Oahu, Hawaii area.

The problem was discovered by FSIS and occurred as a result of the
products testing positive for E. coli O157:H7 and being shipped
prior to the company receiving test results.  FSIS and the company
have received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption
of these products.  Individuals concerned about an illness should
contact a healthcare provider.

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

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

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

Consumers and media with questions regarding the recall should
contact the company's Vice President, Sheldon Wright, at (808)
531-3591.

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


JELD-WEN INC: Recalls 170,800 Bifold Doors Due to Impact Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
JELD-WEN, Inc., of Klamath Falls, Oregon, announced a voluntary
recall of about 170,800 JELD-WEN and Reliabilt Interior Bifold
Doors.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The lower pivot pin can break causing the door to disengage from
the overhead track, posing an impact hazard.

JELD-WEN is aware of twelve incidents of broken pivot pins causing
the bifold doors to disengage from the overhead track, including
three incidents involving minor injuries.

The recalled molded white panel and flush natural wood grain
bifold doors run on upper tracks and lower pivot pins.  The lower
pivot pin is a metal screw that fits into a white plastic sleeve
that is inserted into the bottom edge of the door during the
installation process.  Only doors with pivot pins that have 12
rectangular indentations in the collar at the end of the sleeve
are subject to the recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13016.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Home Depot, Lowe's and other building products
retailers between February 2011 and March 2012 for about $40 to
$80.

Consumers should stop using the doors and contact JELD-WEN for
assistance in identifying and obtaining free replacement hardware
and technical assistance.  JELD-WEN toll-free at (877) 228-4888
between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00. p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday, online at http://www.jeld-wen.com/or directly to the
product safety page at: http://www.jeld-wen.com/newhardware/for
more information.


JOS. A. BANK: Defends "Holmes" Wage and Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. is defending a wage and hour class
action lawsuit brought by a former employee, according to the
Company's August 29, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 28,
2012.

On March 16, 2012, Neil Holmes, a former employee of the Company,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, filed
a Complaint (the "Holmes Complaint") against the Company in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No.
112CV220780, alleging various violations of California wage and
labor laws.  The Holmes Complaint seeks, among other relief,
certification of the case as a class action, injunctive relief,
monetary damages, penalties, restitution, other equitable relief,
interest, attorney's fees and costs.  The Company says it intends
to defend this lawsuit vigorously.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Dismisses Bulk of Repossessed Cars Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean McLernon, writing for Law360, reports that a Maryland federal
court on Oct. 22 dismissed for failing to show damages the bulk of
a putative class action accusing JPMorgan Chase Bank NA of selling
repossessed cars without providing proper notice, and denied
certification on a remaining breach of contract claim because of
lack of commonality.

U.S. District Judge William M. Nickerson said named plaintiff
Donna Epps could not pursue Chase for allegedly violating the
Maryland Credit Grantor Close End Credit Provisions, or CLEC, by
not informing her the location of her repossessed vehicle.


KISSMETRICS: Settles Class Action Over ETags
--------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that analytics company
KISSmetrics has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit by
promising to avoid using ETags or other "supercookies" to track
people online without first notifying them and giving them a
choice.

The company also will pay $2,500 each to the consumers who sued --
John Kim and Dan Schutzman -- and around $500,000 to the attorneys
who brought the case, according to court papers filed on Thursday.

If approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler in San
Francisco, the settlement would resolve a dispute alleging that
KISSmetrics violated wiretap laws by using ETags (and other
supercookies) for tracking.  ETag technology is controversial
because it can be used to track people across the Web, even when
they try to protect their privacy by deleting traditional HTTP
cookies.

Kim and Schutzman filed suit last year, shortly after researchers
at UC Berkeley published a report detailing how KISSmetrics
allegedly used ETags to store information in Web users' browser
caches.  When those users deleted their cookies, they could be
recreated with information from the ETags.

Within days of the report's publication, KISSmetrics said it had
stopped using ETags.  Until the practice came to light last year,
the only way for users to avoid KISSmetrics' tracking was either
by clearing their browser caches between each Web site visit or by
installing the AdBlock Plus extension.

The proposed settlement calls for an injunction banning
KISSmetrics from using ETags (or other hard-to-delete cookies) to
"repopulate HTTP cookies or as an alternative method to HTTP
cookies for acquiring or storing information about a user's Web
browsing activity and history, without reasonable notice and
choice."  KISSmetrics isn't admitting liability as part of the
settlement agreement.

A separate lawsuit against both KISSmetrics and the video service
Hulu (which allegedly worked with KISSmetrics) is still pending.
In that case, Hulu is accused of violating a federal video privacy
law that prohibits movie providers from sharing information about
the films people watch without their consent.


KOSS CORP: "Puskala" Securities Class Suit Dismissed in July
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled David A. Puskala v. Koss
Corporation, et al., United States District Court, Eastern
District of Wisconsin, Case No. 2:2010cv00041, was dismissed in
July 2012, according to the Company's August 27, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended June 30, 2012.

On January 15, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in federal
court in Wisconsin against the Company, Michael Koss and Sujata
Sachdeva.  The lawsuit alleged violations of Section 10(b), Rule
10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act relating to the
unauthorized transactions and requested an award of compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.  An amended complaint
was filed on September 10, 2010, adding Grant Thornton LLP as a
defendant.  The Company and Grant Thornton filed separate Motions
to Dismiss the claims.  On July 28, 2011, the Court issued an
order that dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims
against Michael Koss and the claim against Grant Thornton, and
ruled that the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against Koss
Corporation and the Section 20(a) claim against Michael Koss
survived the motion to dismiss.  The Company and Michael Koss
entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with plaintiffs dated
March 6, 2012, that settled all claims against them.  The Court
approved the settlement and on July 10, 2012, entered a Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice that disposed of
the case.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Cty. Faces Class Action Over "Immigration Holds"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Los Angeles
County and its Sheriff Lee Baca unconstitutionally deny bail to
thousands of people who are placed on federal "immigration hold,"
a class action claims in Federal Court.

Five named plaintiffs, including filmmaker Duncan Roy, claim that
people eligible for bail are often detained on the hold for 48
hours or more, even after charges against them are dropped.

The defendants use immigration holds, aka immigration detainers or
ICE holds, (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to detain
thousands of people "beyond the time that state law mandates that
they be released," according to the complaint.

"Although these inmates are presumed to be innocent and are
eligible for bail, LASD has, until this week, forced them to
languish in jail while they await trial -- at the cost of their
jobs, their reputations, and their family and community ties," the
complaint states.  "This prolonged pretrial detention also coerces
many to take plea deals they would not otherwise accept because it
is the only way to secure their rapid release from jail."

The Sheriff's Department has said it did not intentionally deny
bail to inmates with immigration holds, and it would change its
policies to make it clear that those holds do not prevent inmates
from posting bail for charges in California, the complaint states
in a Page 1 footnote.

"LASD further agreed to 1) promulgate a policy that makes clear
that the existence of an ICE hold does not provide a basis to
prevent the posting of bail on any pending criminal charge, and 2)
notify LASD employees of this policy, and 3) review its database
systems to determine whether they could modify the 'no bail'
notation it places on the files of persons with immigration
holds," according to the footnote.

A "no bail" notation is put onto the record of any detainee with
an immigration hold, but the Sheriff's Department said it will
look into modifying the "no bail" notification on inmate files,
the complaint states.

More than 19,700 people have been unlawfully detained past their
release date, burdening an already overcrowded jail system,
according to the complaint.

The complaint estimates that 14 percent of the jail population are
inmates with immigration holds, and 43 percent of those inmates
were charged with minor offenses.

It costs $100 to $150 per night to keep an inmate in a county
jail, the complaint states.

"Even as pressures on the jail population mount, Sheriff Baca has
expressed his strong desire to stop housing inmates in Men's
Central Jail because it is an archaic and dangerous facility,"
according to the complaint.  "The past practice of keeping inmates
in jail who want to post bail, and the ongoing practice of holding
them for 48 hours or more after they are otherwise entitled to
release, is inconsistent with the County's efforts to manage its
jail population and close Men's Central Jail, and is a waste of
taxpayer money."

Lead plaintiff Duncan Roy, 52, a British film director, claims he
was detained for 89 days, spending part of the time in the "'gay
dorm'" of Men's Central Jail.

Though he suffers from prostate and colon cancer, Mr. Roy says,
the Sheriff's Department refused his request to monitor his
cancers.

According to the complaint: "On November 15, 2011, LASD arrested
Mr. Roy in Malibu, California on an extortion charge for
threatening to blog about an allegedly fraudulent real estate
deal.  LASD booked him into the custody of the Lost Hills Station
in Malibu.

"After booking, Mr. Roy was eligible for release on bail at
$35,000 according to the Los Angeles County bail schedule.  Within
hours of his arrest, a bail bondsman traveled to the Station and
attempted to post bail for him.  The jailer refused to accept the
bond, stating that Mr. Roy was going to have an immigration hold
lodged on him.  Hours later, ICE lodged an immigration hold. LASD
coded Mr. Roy's inmate information as 'no bail.'

"The bail bondsman again attempted to post the bail bond but the
jailer refused to accept it, stating that he could not post bail
because Mr. Roy had an ICE hold.

"At arraignment on the charge, a judge approved Mr. Roy's bail at
the $35,000 amount.  Afterwards, LASD transferred him to Men's
Central Jail.  The bail bondsman again attempted on multiple
occasions and over the course of multiple days to post bail for
Mr. Roy, but each time LASD personnel refused to allow him to post
bail for Mr. Roy.  LASD personnel stated that they could not
accept the bail bond because of the immigration hold lodged
against Mr. Roy.

"LASD also prevented the bail bondsman from meeting with Mr. Roy,
telling him that he was not permitted to visit with him because he
was not permitted to post bail for him.

"Mr. Roy hired a criminal defense attorney and an immigration
lawyer.  Neither of them was able to persuade LASD that it was
obligated to accept Mr. Roy's bail bond."

Mr. Roy says he lost the opportunity to work on a film project
that was due to shoot shortly after his arrest.

The plaintiffs seek an injunction, and compensatory and statutory
damages for constitutional violations, false imprisonment, and
negligence.

Their lead counsel is Jennifer Pasquarella with the ACLU
Foundation of Southern California.


NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Mail-Order Pharmacy Mandate
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Kennedy at Courthouse News Service reports that
Independent pharmacies sued New York State to stop the state from
steering Medicaid recipients to mail-order delivery of certain
drugs, which the state Pharmacists Society claims violates
patients' rights and threatens neighborhood drugstores.

The class action in Albany County Supreme Court claims the state
Department of Health compiled a list of expensive specialty drugs
that Medicaid managed-care providers likely would want filled by a
limited network of pharmacies, most likely mail-order ones.

The plaintiffs, the Pharmacists Society of New York, five
drugstores and two Medicaid patients claim the list was compiled
after "secret meetings" the state held with managed-care plans,
pharmacy benefit managers and large mail-order pharmacies.

"[T]hese ill-advised changes have already begun to endanger the
health and lives of many of New York's most vulnerable citizens
and in many cases effectively severed the longstanding
professional relationships that existed between pharmacists,
prescribers and their patients/customers," according to the
complaint.

"They further threaten the continued viability of community
pharmacy providers currently serving the Medicaid population."

Named as defendants are the State of New York, its Department of
Health, Health Commissioner Nirav Shah, and Janet Zachary-Elkind,
a deputy director in the department's Office of Health Insurance
Programs.

The plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin the state from going
forward with the plan, which they call "illegal, irrational,
arbitrary and capricious."

Medicaid is the joint federal-state program that pays for medical
services for the poor and disabled, "70 percent of whom are
minorities [and] suffer disproportionately from socioeconomic
challenges such as cultural, literacy and language barriers,
transience and limited transportation resources," according to the
lawsuit.

In 1997, New York began to shift medical care for Medicaid
recipients from a fee-for-service model to a managed-care one.
Under the former, recipients chose a doctor from among those
enrolled in New York's Medicaid provider network; with the latter,
they choose a doctor from a list of providers in a managed-care
network, generally a health maintenance organization, or HMO.

The shift was designed to expand health coverage to more low-
income New Yorkers, using savings generated through managed care,
which reimburses providers on a per-patient basis rather than
varying by complexity of the service.

Prescription drugs continued to be provided under the fee-for-
service model until October 2011, when they were "carved in" to
the managed-care model, the lawsuit states.  As with doctors under
managed care, Medicaid recipients would choose from pharmacies in
the network when filling prescriptions.

Federal law provides a "freedom of choice requirement" for
Medicaid recipients, meaning the list of doctors or pharmacies
offering services must be robust.  To underscore its commitment to
that standard, New York's Legislature amended state insurance law
in late 2011 "to prohibit insureds from being mandated to use a
mail-order pharmacy," according to the lawsuit.

Known as AMMO, for anti-mandatory mail order, the amendment
required that "any pharmacy" -- mail order or bricks-and-mortar
retail -- could be used by patients "as long as the pharmacy
offers the same pricing and terms."

"The AMMO bill thus leveled the pharmacy playing field by
requiring health insurers to provide patients with equal access to
retail Medicaid pharmacy providers as long as equivalent pricing
and terms are offered," the complaint states.

However, in March this year, the Legislature, while reaffirming
patient choice, amended state social services law "creating an
exception allowing managed-care Medicaid providers to 'limit'
their networks of pharmacies for so-called specialty drugs" based
on "clinical, professional or cost criteria," according to the
complaint.

Pharmacists assumed these drugs "would apply to rare drug classes
of limited distribution or those not traditionally available at
the retail level, and recognized to be not generally available via
community pharmacies," the plaintiffs say.

But through several drafts of qualifying criteria, groups such as
the New York State Board of Pharmacy (the licensing body for
pharmacies in the state), the Chain Pharmacy Association and the
plaintiff Pharmacists Society (the trade group for pharmacists)
expressed concern to the Department of Health that the list of
eligible drugs was too broad.

In the end, the list included nearly 350 drugs that are used to
treat complex, chronic or rare conditions; that require special
handling or storage; that warrant monitoring or administration by
a health care professional; and that cost at least $1,500 a month.

The plaintiffs claim the list was developed by the Department of
Health "through secret meetings with large PBMs" -- pharmacy-
benefit managers that oversee the managed-care plans' pharmacy
services -- "that have a vested interest in capturing the largest
possible share of the Medicaid drug market for their related mail-
order businesses.

"Forcing patients into mandatory mail order has been an open
secret among these plans and PBMs even before the specialty drugs
program was promulgated," the complaint claims.

The final drug list was issued Sept. 7 with an effective date of
Oct. 8.

"The list is extremely broad, containing many common medications
that have been filled reliably by community pharmacies for decades
for such widespread diseases as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid
arthritis, cancer and hepatitis C, among others, and represents a
dramatic incursion into the drug formularies traditionally served
by retail pharmacies representing a significant portion of the $5
billion Medicaid drug program serviced by the 4,000-plus
pharmacies currently in the Medicaid program," the pharmacies say.

The lawsuit expresses concern about the list's impact on patients'
health.

"In a mail-order scenario, patients -- many of whom are high risk
-- are required to use designated mail-order providers in a
setting in which there is no face-to-face contact with the
dispensing pharmacy, or its staff; no routine counseling provided
or required; and without the benefit of interpersonal contact that
can be critical to a patient's understanding of drug regimens,
interactions, side effects and other related factors," the
complaint states.

And, it contends, "In addition to harming patients in the short
run, the specialty drug program coupled with mandatory mail order
will drive many independent pharmacies out of business, resulting
in a significant increase in the concentration of market power
among the mostly out-of-state mail-order pharmacies associated
with PBMs.

"The new marketplace for pharmacy services, denuded of many
community pharmacies that have loyally served patients locally for
decades, will restrict patient choice and access even further."

The plaintiffs ask the court to find the defendants in violation
of the federal freedom-of-choice requirement, state and federal
antitrust laws, state insurance law's AMMO provisions, and New
York drug utilization record requirements, which mandate that
patient prescriptions be monitored to avoid harmful interaction.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda Clark, Esq.
          HISCOCK & BARCLAY
          Albany Office
          80 State Street
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 429-4241
          E-mail: lclark@hblaw.com


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
David M. Baruta, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. OCZ Technology Group, Inc., Ryan M.
Petersen, and Arthur F. Knapp, Jr., Case No. 3:12-cv-05296 (N.D.
Calif., October 12, 2012) is brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased
OCZ Technology securities between July 11, 2012, and October 11,
2012.

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, Mr. Baruta alleges.  Specifically, he argues, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose that (i) the Company was providing extraordinary customer
incentives to its customers, which impacted its revenue
recognition, (ii) the Company was improperly accounting for
customer incentive programs, and (iii) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls.

Mr. Baruta said he purchased OCZ Technology securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and has been
damaged thereby.

OCZ Technology is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place
of business located in San Jose, California.  OCZ Technology
designs, manufactures, and distributes enterprise and consumer
solid drives.  The Company also offers power management and memory
solutions utilized in computing, industrial, multimedia editing
and entertainment performance computing.  Mr. Petersen served as
the Company's President and CEO and a director on the Board of
Directors from 2002 until his resignation on September 17, 2012.
Mr. Knapp has served as the Company's Chief Financial Officer
since December 2010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Goldberg, 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: mgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS, LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS, LLP
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2225
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: eitan@bgandg.com


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against OCZ Technology Group, Inc. on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of the Company during the period from July 11, 2012 through
October 9, 2012.  The complaint brings forth claims for violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

OCZ designs, manufactures and distributes enterprise and consumer
solid state drives ("SSDs").  SSDs provide high-speed memory for
computers.  In addition to SSD technology, OCZ also offers other
components for computing devices and systems including enterprise
class power management products and industrial power accessories.
The Company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Company and certain of its executive officers made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and accounting practices, including the Company's
accounting for customer incentive programs.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: (i) that the Company's accounting for customer
incentive programs was improper and misleading; (ii) that the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (iii)
that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times and
positive statements about OCZ's business prospects lacked a
reasonable basis.

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased OCZ stock between July 11, 2012 and October 9,
2012, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Marc Grobler at
Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased OCZ common stock during the Class Period of July
11, 2012 through October 9, 2012, inclusive, and wish to apply to
be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must
be filed with the Court no later than December 10, 2012.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.

Contact:

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Marc Grobler, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  mgrobler@saxenawhite.com
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


PARAMOUNT INVESTMENTS: Jensen Shawa Commences Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP (aka "JSS Barristers") has
commenced a class action proceeding against Paramount Investments
Inc. (aka "Paramount Group of Companies"), Gateway Village II
Limited Partnership, 1334926 Alberta Ltd., Iron-Gate Acquisitions
Limited Partnership, Iron-Gate Acquisitions Inc., Adeeb Azizi,
Samir Sawhney and Brian Serbu (collectively, "the Defendants").

The class action proceeding was commenced by way of a Statement of
Claim filed with the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton.
The case involves the sale of limited partnership units associated
with real estate developments in Edmonton.

The Statement of Claim alleges that the units in question were
both marketed and sold, without a prospectus, to individuals who
did not qualify to purchase such investments.  The Statement of
Claim also alleges that some or all of the Defendants benefited by
earning commissions, fees, incentives or other rewards in
connection with the sale of the limited partnership units.

The action is advanced on behalf of all individuals who provided
funds to the Defendants to invest in the Gateway Village II and
Iron-Gate Acquisitions II Limited Partnerships, and who did not
qualify for an exemption permitting the sale of the units without
a prospectus.

The Statement of Claim seeks damages for losses suffered in the
amount of $5,000,000, and punitive damages in the amount of
$1,000,000, plus costs and interest.

JSS Barristers provides litigation services to both commercial and
individual clients.  The firm's lawyers appear at all levels of
Court in Alberta and Canada.

For further information:

         Carsten Jensen, Q.C.
         E-mail: jensenc@jssbarristers.ca
         Telephone: (403) 571-1526

         Gavin Price
         E-mail: priceg@jssbarristers.ca
         Telephone: (403) 571-0747


PATH INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge last week declined to dismiss outright a proposed class
action alleging social media app developer Path Inc. illegally
tracked, uploaded and stored consumers' personally identifiable
information through the downloaded Path app in violation of
wiretap and privacy laws.

Despite partly granting Path's motion to dismiss Oct. 17, U.S.
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers gave plaintiff Oscar
Hernandez leave to amend his 10-count complaint to more
sufficiently plead allegations that Path violated both the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act.


ROBERT HALF: $19MM Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Winnick, writing for Law360, reports that a Los Angeles judge
on Oct. 19 preliminarily approved Robert Half International Inc.'s
$19 million settlement with a class of 4,000 recruiters and other
professionals who claim the staffing company failed to pay
overtime and provide meal and rest breaks, among other labor law
violations.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mary H. Strobel's ruling marked
the beginning of the end of three related class actions raising
claims that Robert Half had since 2000 violated Golden State labor
laws in its treatment of thousands of workers.


SAMSUNG SDI: Accused of Fixing Prices of Lithium-ion Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nichole M. Gray, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; LG
Chem, Ltd.; LG Chem America, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation;
Panasonic Corporation of North America; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.;
Sanyo North America Corporation; Sony Corporation; Sony Energy
Devices Corporation; Sony Electronics, Inc.; Hitachi, Ltd.;
Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.; and Maxell Corporation of America, Case No.
4:12-cv-05274 (N.D. Calif., October 11, 2012) arises out of a
contact, combination and conspiracy among the Defendants and their
co-conspirators to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices
of Lithium-ion Rechargeable Batteries sold directly by the
Defendants and their affiliates during the period from
approximately January 1, 2002, through the present.

As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, she and the other
members of the Class paid artificially inflated prices for
Lithium-ion Rechargeable Batteries during the Class Period, Ms.
Gray contends.  She asserts that those prices exceeded the amount
they would have paid if the price for Lithium-ion Rechargeable
Batteries had been determined by a competitive market.

Ms. Gray is a resident of Louisiana.  During the Class Period, she
purchased Lithium-ion Rechargeable Batteries directly from one or
more of the named Defendants.

Samsung SDI is a Korean corporation based in Gyeonggi, South
Korea, and 20% owned by the Korean conglomerate Samsung
Electronics, Inc.  Samsung SDI America is a California corporation
based in San Jose, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Samsung SDI.  LG Chem is a Korean corporation based in Seoul,
South Korea.  LG Chem is an affiliate of Seoul-based conglomerate
LG Electronics.  LG Chem America is a New Jersey corporation based
in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
LG Chem.  Panasonic is a Japanese Corporation based in Osaka,
Japan.  Panasonic was formerly known as Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co.  Panasonic manufactures and sells Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries under the Panasonic name and also under the
name of Defendant and wholly owned subsidiary Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.  Panasonic Corporation of North America, formerly known as
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, is a Delaware
Corporation based in Secaucus, New Jersey, and a wholly owned and
controlled subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation.  Sanyo is a
Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan.  Sanyo North America
Corporation is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego,
California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.

Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan.
Sony Energy is a Japanese corporation based in Fukushima, Japan.
Sony Energy Devices Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.  Sony Electronics is a Delaware corporation
based in San Diego, California and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.  Hitachi Ltd. is a Japanese company based in
Tokyo, Japan.  Hitachi Maxell is a Japanese corporation based in
Tokyo, Japan, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd.
Maxell is a New Jersey corporation based in Woodland Park, New
Jersey.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries throughout the United States and the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          Geoffrey C. Rushing, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          David Y. Hwu, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
          E-mail: guido@saveri.com
                  rick@saveri.com
                  grushing@saveri.com
                  cadio@saveri.com
                  dhwu@saveri.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
          BONSIGNORE & BREWER
          193 Plummer Hill Road
          Belmont, NH 03220
          Telephone: (781) 856-7650

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  swilliams@cpmlegal.com


SOVEREIGN GRACE: Faces Class Action Over Child Sexual Abuses
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Schapiro and Barry Bowen, writing for Christian Post, report
that a class action lawsuit was filed against Sovereign Grace
Ministries on Oct. 17 accusing the church of habitually covering
up child sexual assault and abuse over an extended period of time.

The complaint, filed in Montgomery County, Md., claims the
ministry led by C.J. Mahaney "cared more about protecting its
financial and institutional standing than about protecting
children, its most vulnerable members."

Founded in 1982 in Gaithersburg, Md., Sovereign Grace Ministries
is a family of about 90 churches that are located primarily in the
United States, but also in Australia, eastern Asia, Africa,
Western Europe, Bolivia, Mexico and Canada.  Mr. Mahaney is named
as just one of the defendants in the lawsuit, along with other
church leaders including Gary Ricucci, David Hinders, Louis Gallo,
Frank Ecelbarger, John Loftness, Grant Layman and Lawrence
Tomczak.

As far back as 1987, the church allegedly failed to report or
discouraged others from reporting the sexual abuse of minors,
forced victims to "forgive" those who abused them and prevented
others from knowing how much abuse went on in the church, the suit
claims.

"Essentially what has happened is that there has been a fairly
widespread pattern on the part of this church of suppressing
information about sexual assaults amongst the community.  And the
pastors have stepped in and made misrepresentations to secular
authorities, to police, and have attempted to prevent parents and
others from reporting things to secular authorities," Susan L.
Burke, attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Christian Post on
Oct. 18.

The alleged abuse described in the suit happened during the 1980s
and 1990s in both Maryland and Virginia.  Ms. Burke says the goal
of the suit is to make sure no one else gets hurt.

"My clients are very concerned that it's still going on," she
said.

Pseudonyms are used in the complaint to protect the identities of
the plaintiffs (for the sake of clarity, these pseudonyms will
also be used in this article).  One of the women, Jane Doe,
alleges she was just 3 years old when she was sexually assaulted
and molested by a church member over the course of several months
at one of the ministry's churches in Virginia.

The mother of Ms. Doe's predator told church leaders her son
confessed to committing the crime, though church officials
allegedly told Ms. Doe's parents not to alert other church members
to the situation and allowed the perpetrator to continue
interacting with children in the church community without
supervision.  The church also allegedly interfered in the legal
process by falsely telling law enforcement officials that Doe's
parents did not want to participate in the court proceedings
surrounding their daughter's molestation.

The parents of Norma Noe, another plaintiff, found out that their
then 2-year-old daughter had allegedly been abused by someone who
served as a babysitter for one of the ministry's Home Groups in
Maryland.

They called the police the day after the incident.  They then
called Mr. Loftness, who allegedly told them, "Do not call the
police" and said it was an issue that should be handled by church
leadership.  The church also tried to arrange a meeting between
Ms. Noe and her predator so they could be "reconciled" to one
another, the complaint states, which further traumatized the girl.

The final of the three listed plaintiffs in the suit is Robin Roe,
whose adopted father -- named "Parental Pedophile" in the suit --
is still a member of the church.  He sexually abused Ms. Roe's
older sister for three and a half years, the complaint states, and
Ms. Roe's mother eventually reported him to Mays, who went on to
report the incident to Mr. Ricucci and later to Mr. Loftness.

"The Church did not report the matter to the police or any other
law enforcement authorities, as they were required to do," the
suit states.  "Instead, acting through Defendant Ricucci, the
Church directed Robin Roe's mother to let them 'take care of
everything.'"

Ms. Roe is a plaintiff in the suit because she was allegedly no
longer accepted by the church after she told a friend and fellow
church member about her sister's abuse.

As a result of being considered an outcast, the suit claims, Ms.
Roe was not cared for properly as a child, and eventually wound up
in a juvenile half-way house for young criminals. The church also
allegedly helped Ms. Roe's father with his legal issues, and told
Ms. Roe's mother to have sex with him more frequently to prevent
him from "being tempted."

Those who might be included in the class action suit are those who
were sexually assaulted or molested as a minor by Sovereign Grace
Ministries church members between 1987 and the present.  The
church's neglect of the situation has allegedly led to multiple
abuses over time.

According to a statement released on Oct. 17 by Tommy Hill,
Sovereign Grace's director of finance and administration, the
church had not yet been served with a lawsuit and only heard of it
through various media outlets.

"Sovereign Grace Ministries is not in a position to comment on the
allegations of the reported lawsuit," said Mr. Hill.  "Child abuse
in any context is reprehensible and criminal.  Sovereign Grace
Ministries takes seriously the Biblical commands to pursue the
protection and well being of all people, especially the most
vulnerable in its midst, little children."

The abuse and cover-up allegations are just part of a string of
issues Sovereign Grace Ministries has dealt with recently in view
of the public.

In the summer of 2011, for example, Mr. Mahaney took a leave of
absence as the church's leader after being accused by those in his
church, and by former pastors, of having character flaws including
"pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment, and hypocrisy."
He returned to his role as the ministry's president in January
after six months of leave.

The church has also dealt with a number of internal conflicts,
between the pastors at Covenant Life Church and the Sovereign
Grace Ministries Interim Board/Leadership Team, which have not yet
been resolved.


SP AUSNET: Gov't. May Join Black Saturday Bushfire Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that the federal
government is considering joining a Black Saturday bushfire class
action in a step that could dilute payments to victims, a court
has heard.

Electrical company SP AusNet is being sued over the February 2009
Kilmore East bushfire which killed 119 people and destroyed more
than 1,000 homes.

Some 1,500 victims who suffered loss or injury in the blaze are
seeking compensation.

The Victorian Supreme Court heard on Oct. 23 the federal
government could yet join the action in a bid to recoup the $450
million it spent responding to the fire.

But the barrister representing the 1,500 victims, Lachlan
Armstrong, said the government could eat into the compensation
paid to victims if it is allowed to join.

"We don't wish to act for commonwealth or state bodies,"
Mr. Armstrong told the court.

Jonathan Beach QC, for SP AusNet, said on Oct. 23 the company
needed to know whether the government was in or out so it could
determine whether it faced a potential separate suit from the
government.

Justice Jack Forrest has given the government until next month to
decide whether it plans to join.

The Kilmore East trial is expected to begin in January next year
but it may be delayed because there is not a court big enough to
house the case, Justice Forrest said in a hearing in August.

In a separate class action, hundreds of people affected by the
Marysville/Murrindindi bushfire, which killed 40 people and
destroyed over 500 homes, are also suing SP AusNet.

The start date for the Murrindindi trial is likely to be pushed
back to late 2013 while the Victorian coroner decides whether to
hold a fresh inquest into the 40 deaths, the court heard on
Tuesday.

SP AusNet has confirmed it will "vigorously defend" itself in both
class actions.

"SP AusNet will vigorously defend any claim made against it in
relation to the inspection and maintenance of its assets," the
company said in a statement.


STATE STREET: Sued for Allegedly Overcharging Forex Trades
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim McLaughlin, writing for 4-Traders, reports that a Boeing Co.
worker has filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against
State Street Corp. over currency trades in the airplane maker's
$34 billion retirement plan.

State Street is accused of overcharging on forex trades made by a
global index fund in the plan which is run by State Street's own
asset management arm.

The civil lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in
Boston, opens a new front in the forex litigation against the
Boston-based custody bank.  Previous forex lawsuits against State
Street have focused on trades executed for funds run by outside
money managers not by State Street Global Advisors, or SSGA, the
bank's own asset management arm.

State Street's pricing on foreign exchange trading is already the
subject of U.S. government investigations, including by the
Justice Department, the Department of Labor and the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  And pension funds in several states have
sued over trades State Street performed on their behalf.

In the latest lawsuit, The Andover Companies and James Pehoushek-
Stangeland, a Boeing worker in Seattle, accuse State Street of
self-dealing by allowing "its currency traders to pilfer plan
assets by improperly marking up and marking down foreign currency
trades."

Mr. Pehoushek-Stangeland participates in a Boeing retirement plan
whose investment options include an international index fund
managed by SSGA, according to the lawsuit.  At the end of last
year, Boeing's retirement plan had $1.86 billion invested in the
fund, or 5.5 percent of the plan's assets.

State Street on Oct. 19 reiterated it has done nothing wrong.  "As
we have previously stated, State Street continues to vigorously
defend the litigation that has been commenced against us regarding
our indirect FX services," the bank said.

The international index fund also appears as part of several other
investment options in the Boeing investment plan.  Boeing did not
return messages seeking comment.

For U.S.-based workers, investments in international funds and
companies are done in foreign currencies after their cash is
converted to euros from dollars, for example.  And when they earn
dividends from an investment in a European stock, the income is
converted to dollars from the foreign currency, a process called
repatriation.


SUMMIT TREESTANDS: Recalls 2,900 Crush Tree Stands for Hunters
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Summit Treestands, LLC, of Decatur, Alabama, announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,900 units of Crush Series: Perch, Stoop and
Ledge Treestands for hunters.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The tree stand's hanging strap assembly could dislodge from the
tree stand or fail to restrain or hold properly on the tree,
posing a fall hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled hunters' tree stands have the following names and
item numbers: Crush Series Perch, number 82069; Crush Series
Stoop, number 82070; and Crush Series Ledge number 82071.  The
tree stands include the main stand platform and seat with a green
cinch strap and a tan tree stand hanging strap assembly, which
consists of one nylon strap with a hook and an adjustment portion
with a metal buckle and a matching nylon tab and a hook.  This
hanging strap assembly has the recalled item numbers printed on
the safety label attached near the buckle.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13015.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
hunting stores and in catalogs such as Bass Pro Shops, Cabelas and
others nationwide from July 2012 through August 2012 for between
$70 to $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tree stands
and contact Summit Treestands to receive a free replacement
hanging strap assembly.  Summit Treestands, LLC, toll free at
(855)375-9808, anytime or Web site at http://www.summitstands.com/
click on the Recall icon for more information.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Being Sold to Health Care REIT for Too Little
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sunrise Senior Living is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Health
Care REIT, for $14.50 a share or $845 million, shareholders say in
a federal class action.


VANGUARD HEALTH: Units Continue to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.'s units continue to face antitrust
class action lawsuits pending in various states, according to the
Company's August 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30,
2012.

On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action lawsuit was
filed in San Antonio, Texas, against the Company's Baptist Health
System subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas, and two other large
hospital systems in San Antonio.  The lawsuit is captioned
Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist
Health Systems, et. al., Case No. 5:06cv00535 (United States
District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division,
filed June 20, 2006, and amended August 29, 2006).  In the
complaint, plaintiffs allege that the three hospital system
defendants conspired with each other and with other unidentified
San Antonio area hospitals to depress the compensation levels of
registered nurses employed at the conspiring hospitals within the
San Antonio area by engaging in certain activities that violated
the federal antitrust laws.  The complaint alleges two separate
claims.  The first count asserts that the defendant hospitals
violated Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act, which prohibits
agreements that unreasonably restrain competition, by conspiring
to depress nurses' compensation.  The second count alleges that
the defendant hospital systems also violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Act by participating in wage, salary and benefits surveys
for the purpose, and having the effect, of depressing registered
nurses' compensation or limiting competition for nurses based on
their compensation.  The class on whose behalf the plaintiffs
filed the complaint is alleged to comprise all registered nurses
employed by the defendant hospitals since June 20, 2002.  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, trebling of this damage amount
pursuant to federal law, interest, costs and attorneys fees.  From
2006 through April 2008, the Company and the plaintiffs worked on
producing documents to each other relating to, and supplying legal
briefs to the court in respect of, solely the issue of whether the
court will certify a class in this lawsuit, the court having
bifurcated the class and merit issues.  In April 2008, the case
was stayed by the judge pending his ruling on plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The Company believes that the
allegations contained within this putative class action lawsuit
are without merit, and it has vigorously worked to defeat class
certification.  If a class is certified, the Company will continue
to defend vigorously against the litigation.

On the same date in 2006 that this lawsuit was filed against the
Company in federal district court in San Antonio, the same
attorneys filed three other substantially similar putative class
action lawsuits in federal district courts in Chicago, Illinois,
Albany, New York and Memphis, Tennessee against some of the
hospitals or hospital systems in those cities (none of such
hospitals or hospital systems being owned by the Company).  The
attorneys representing the plaintiffs in all four of these cases
said in June 2006 that they may file similar complaints in other
jurisdictions and in December 2006 they brought a substantially
similar class action lawsuit against eight hospitals or hospital
systems in the Detroit, Michigan metropolitan area, one of which
systems was The Detroit Medical Center ("DMC"), a Company
subsidiary.  The lawsuit is captioned Cason-Merenda, et al. v.
Detroit Medical Center, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-15601-GER-DAS
(United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, filed December 15, 2006.  Since representatives
of the Service Employees International Union ("SEIU") joined
plaintiffs' attorneys in announcing the filing of all four
complaints on June 20, 2006, and as has been reported in the
media, the Company believes that SEIU's involvement in these
actions appears to be part of a corporate campaign to attempt to
organize nurses in these cities, including San Antonio and
Detroit.  The registered nurses in the Company's hospitals in San
Antonio and Detroit are currently not members of any union.  In
the lawsuit in Detroit against DMC, the court did not bifurcate
class and merits issues.

On March 22, 2012, the judge issued an opinion and order granting
in part and denying in part the defendants' motions for summary
judgment.  The defendants' motions were granted as to the count of
the complaint alleging wage fixing by defendants, but were denied
as to the count alleging that the defendants' sharing of wage
information allegedly resulted in the suppression of nurse wages.
The opinion, however, did not address plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and did not address defendants' challenge to the
opinion of plaintiffs' expert, but specifically reserved ruling on
those matters for a later date.

If the plaintiffs in the San Antonio and/or Detroit lawsuits (1)
are successful in obtaining class certification, and (2) are able
to prove both liability and substantial damages, which are then
trebled under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, such a result could
materially affect the Company's business, financial condition or
results of operations.  However, in the opinion of management, the
ultimate resolution of these matters is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or
results of operations.


VISA: Seeks Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. on Oct. 19 disclosed that
the merchant plaintiffs in In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1720
(JG)(JO) have asked a federal court in Brooklyn to preliminarily
approve their landmark class action settlement.  If preliminarily
approved, Court notice of the proposed settlement will be given to
merchant class members and a hearing to determine whether to grant
Final Approval of the settlement will be scheduled by the Court.
If finally approved, the settlement will resolve their long-
running antitrust litigation against Visa, MasterCard and their
largest member banks (including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America,
Citibank, and Wells Fargo among others) challenging the card
networks' interchange fees and merchant card acceptance rules.
The proposed settlement was announced on July 13, 2012.

The settlement, the largest ever of a private antitrust case,
provides an estimated $7.25 billion to a class of approximately
seven million merchants who accepted Visa and MasterCard credit-
and debit-cards in the United States since 2004.  One fund, in the
amount of $6.05 billion, represents compensation for alleged past
damages.  A second fund, based on the value to merchants of a
temporary reduction in interchange fees, is estimated to reach
$1.2 billion.  In addition, the settlement imposes significant
structural reforms to promote price transparency and eliminate
certain point-of-sale card acceptance restrictions.

"The meaningful structural reforms that could have been obtained
by merchants through further litigation were achieved.  These
important structural reforms will shift the balance of power from
the two dominant payment networks toward card-accepting merchants,
ultimately for the benefit of consumers," stated K. Craig
Wildfang, co-lead counsel for the merchants and partner at Robins,
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

Because of this litigation, and by virtue of this settlement, U.S.
merchants:  (1) will now be able to tell their customers how much
the use of a credit card adds to the overall cost of a
transaction; (2) will be able to influence payment choices by
offering price discounts for use of low-cost cards or other lower-
cost payment forms (e.g. cash), or by surcharging use of high-cost
cards; (3) merchants operating multiple stores under different
trade names will no longer be required to make an "all-or-nothing"
decision on whether to accept Visa or MasterCard credit cards; and
(4) merchants will now be able to form buying groups to negotiate
more favorable commercial terms with the card networks.  Moreover,
because of this litigation and the threat it posed to the banks
which operated both networks as joint ventures, the largest card-
issuing banks divested their sole ownership and control of Visa
and MasterCard and today independent boards of directors oversee
Visa and MasterCard, set interchange rates, and answer to public
shareholders.

Laddie Montague, co-lead counsel with Berger & Montague, P.C.,
noted, "This settlement is a package that allows merchants and
their customers to gain transparency of the cost for accepting
each type of credit card, gives tools to merchants to lower their
costs of acceptance and gives customers options to lower their
costs by selecting cheaper forms of payment such as cash or check
or a card with a lower fee.  This allows both merchants and
customers to put pressure on the networks to compete on
interchange fees."

In exchange for significant structural reforms and cash
compensation, the merchant class will give up the right to
continue this litigation, which could take many years to complete,
and their right to challenge through private litigation the future
effect of those existing rules and conduct challenged in this case
or modified by virtue of this settlement.  The specific reforms in
this settlement last until 2021, but if Visa or MasterCard engage
in new unrelated anticompetitive conduct or re-enact their old
rules modified by this settlement in the future, merchants may
challenge such conduct through private litigation.

Bonny Sweeney, co-lead counsel and partner with Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, added, "While this settlement represents a
significant step to enabling greater competition in the payment
card markets, it does not bar the Department of Justice or states'
attorneys general from pursuing additional reforms, nor does it
prevent Congress from passing legislation to further reform U.S.
payment card systems in a manner that is not available in private
litigation."

The co-lead counsel law firms that represent the merchant class
are Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Berger & Montague,
P.C. and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

More information regarding the settlement, including the Class
Settlement Agreement and Appendices, and other information
relating to the approval process can be found at:
http://www.rkmc.com


WAL-MART: Faces Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wal-Mart, Labor Ready Midwest
and QPS Employment Group cheat temps of overtime, make them work
off the clock and violate other labor laws, a class action claims
in Federal Court.


WET SEAL: Appeal From Class Cert. Denial in Calif. Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 29, 2008, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on
behalf of certain of The Wet Seal, Inc.'s current and former
employees who were employed and paid by the Company from September
29, 2004, through the present.  The Company was named as a
defendant.  The complaint alleges various violations under the
State of California Labor Code and the State of California
Business and Professions Code.  On August 16, 2011, the court
denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  Plaintiffs
have appealed.  The Company is vigorously defending this
litigation and is unable to predict the likely outcome and whether
such outcome may have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations or financial condition.  Accordingly, no
provision for a loss contingency has been accrued as of July 28,
2012.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 24, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 28, 2012.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a national
specialty retailer operating stores selling fashionable and
contemporary apparel and accessory items designed for female
customers from their early teens to 39 years old.  The Company
operates two nationwide, primarily mall-based, chains of retail
stores under the names "Wet Seal" and "Arden B."  At July 28,
2012, the Company had 550 retail stores in 47 states and Puerto
Rico.  Of the 550 stores, there were 468 Wet Seal stores and 82
Arden B stores.  The Company's merchandise can also be purchased
online through the respective Web sites of each of its operating
segments.  The Company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/. The Company is
headquartered in Foothill Ranch, California.


WET SEAL: Appeals in California Employees' Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On May 22, 2007, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange on behalf of
certain of The Wet Seal, Inc.'s current and former employees who
were employed and paid by it from May 22, 2003, through the
present.  The Company is named as a defendant.  The complaint
alleged various violations under the State of California Labor
Code, the State of California Business and Professions Code, and
Wage Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission.  On
December 17, 2010, the court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Motion For Leave to File An Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs have appealed both orders.  The Company is vigorously
defending this litigation and is unable to predict the likely
outcome and whether such outcome may have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations or financial
condition.  Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has
been accrued as of July 28, 2012.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 24, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 28, 2012.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a national
specialty retailer operating stores selling fashionable and
contemporary apparel and accessory items designed for female
customers from their early teens to 39 years old.  The Company
operates two nationwide, primarily mall-based, chains of retail
stores under the names "Wet Seal" and "Arden B."  At July 28,
2012, the Company had 550 retail stores in 47 states and Puerto
Rico.  Of the 550 stores, there were 468 Wet Seal stores and 82
Arden B stores.  The Company's merchandise can also be purchased
online through the respective Web sites of each of its operating
segments.  The Company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/. The Company is
headquartered in Foothill Ranch, California.


WET SEAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration Granted in Employees' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in the class
action lawsuit brought by current and former employees in
California was granted in July, according to the Company's August
24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 28, 2012.

On May 9, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Alameda on behalf of certain
of the Company's current and former employees who were employed
and paid by the Company from May 9, 2007, through the present.
The Company was named as a defendant.  The complaint alleges
various violations under the State of California Labor Code and
the State of California Business and Professions Code.  On
February 3, 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to
transfer venue to the County of Orange.  On July 13, 2012, the
Court granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration.

On July 18, 2012, the Company received notice that Plaintiffs
filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Board Act based on the
arbitration agreements Plaintiffs signed commencement with their
employment with the Company.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company's
arbitration agreements unlawfully compel employees to waive their
rights to participate in class or representative actions against
the Company.  The NLRB is investigating these charges, however,
the Court has already found that the arbitration agreements are
enforceable and declined to follow the NLRB's ruling in In re D.R.
Horton, Inc.  The Company is vigorously defending this litigation
and is unable to predict the likely outcome and whether such
outcome may have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations or financial condition.  Accordingly, no
provision for a loss contingency has been accrued as of July 28,
2012.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a national
specialty retailer operating stores selling fashionable and
contemporary apparel and accessory items designed for female
customers from their early teens to 39 years old.  The Company
operates two nationwide, primarily mall-based, chains of retail
stores under the names "Wet Seal" and "Arden B."  At July 28,
2012, the Company had 550 retail stores in 47 states and Puerto
Rico.  Of the 550 stores, there were 468 Wet Seal stores and 82
Arden B stores.  The Company's merchandise can also be purchased
online through the respective Web sites of each of its operating
segments.  The Company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/. The Company is
headquartered in Foothill Ranch, California.


WET SEAL: Faces Suit Alleging African American Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc. is facing a discrimination class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of its current and former African American
retail store employees, according to the Company's August 24,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 28, 2012.

On July 12, 2012, a complaint was filed in United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of certain
of the Company's current and former African American retail store
employees.  The Company was named as a defendant.  The complaint
alleges various violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, including
allegations that the Company engaged in disparate treatment
discrimination of those African American current and former
employees in promotion to management positions and against African
American store management employees with respect to compensation
and termination from 2008 through the present.  Plaintiffs are
also alleging retaliation.  Plaintiffs are seeking reinstatement
or instatement of Plaintiffs and class members to their alleged
rightful employment positions, lost pay and benefits allegedly
sustained by Plaintiffs and class members, compensatory damages
for emotional distress, front pay, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees, and interest.  The Company is vigorously defending this
litigation and is unable to predict the likely outcome and whether
such outcome may have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations or financial condition.  Accordingly, no provision for
a loss contingency has been accrued as of July 28, 2012.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a national
specialty retailer operating stores selling fashionable and
contemporary apparel and accessory items designed for female
customers from their early teens to 39 years old.  The Company
operates two nationwide, primarily mall-based, chains of retail
stores under the names "Wet Seal" and "Arden B."  At July 28,
2012, the Company had 550 retail stores in 47 states and Puerto
Rico.  Of the 550 stores, there were 468 Wet Seal stores and 82
Arden B stores.  The Company's merchandise can also be purchased
online through the respective Web sites of each of its operating
segments.  The Company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/. The Company is
headquartered in Foothill Ranch, California.


WET SEAL: Plaintiff in Calif. Suit Seeks to Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of The Wet
Seal, Inc.'s current and former employees in California filed a
stipulated motion to amend her complaint and agreed to dismiss
with prejudice all individual claims subject to arbitration,
according to the Company's August 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 28, 2012.

On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf
of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were
employed in California during the time period from October 27,
2007, through the present.  The Company says it named as a
defendant.  The complaint alleges various violations under the
State of California Labor Code and the State of California
Business and Professions Code.  On April 2, 2012, the court
granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration and to enforce
the class action waiver in the arbitration agreement between the
Plaintiff and the Company.  The Plaintiff filed a stipulated
motion to amend her complaint and agreed to dismiss with prejudice
all individual claims subject to arbitration.  The Company is
vigorously defending this litigation and is unable to predict the
likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or financial
condition.  Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has
been accrued as of July 28, 2012.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a national
specialty retailer operating stores selling fashionable and
contemporary apparel and accessory items designed for female
customers from their early teens to 39 years old.  The Company
operates two nationwide, primarily mall-based, chains of retail
stores under the names "Wet Seal" and "Arden B."  At July 28,
2012, the Company had 550 retail stores in 47 states and Puerto
Rico.  Of the 550 stores, there were 468 Wet Seal stores and 82
Arden B stores.  The Company's merchandise can also be purchased
online through the respective Web sites of each of its operating
segments.  The Company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/. The Company is
headquartered in Foothill Ranch, California.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Closed in Millsaps v. Alcoa Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell closed the discovery in the case
captioned ROBERT W. MILLSAPS, et al. v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF
AMERICA, et al., Consolidated Under MDL Docket No. 875, E.D. PA
No. 10-cv-84924 (E.D. Pa.) except for a follow-up deposition of
Jeff Shockey, after finding that both counsel have engaged in
conduct which has stalled the process and have taken positions
which are not consistent with the fair exchange of relevant
discovery.  A copy of Magistrate Judge Angell's Decision, dated
October 2, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/uAXFCxfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Junks Strict Liability Claims v. GE
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor
of the defendants in the case captioned JAMES MACK, Plaintiff, v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, MDL No. 875, No. 10-
03165, Civil Action No. 2:10-78940-ER (E.D. Pa.), with respect to
the Plaintiff's strict liability claims because, under maritime
law, a Navy ship is not a "product" for purposes of strict product
liability.

The Court concluded that, under maritime law, (1) a manufacturer
or supplier of a product has no duty to warn an end user who is
"sophisticated" regarding the hazards of the product, (2) the
sophistication of an intermediary (or employer) -- or the warning
of that intermediary (or employer) by a manufacturer or supplier -
- does not preclude potential liability of the manufacturer or
supplier, and (3) a Navy ship is not a "product" for purposes of
strict product liability.

Judge Robreno, however, denied summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants with respect to Plaintiff's negligent failure to warn
claims because no Defendant has identified evidence that Plaintiff
was a sophisticated user of the asbestos insulation for which
Plaintiff seeks to hold it liable.

A copy of Judge Robreno's Decision dated October 4, 2012, is
available at http://is.gd/xk0zpZfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmate Barred From Filing Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee White, a state prisoner, filed a complaint against the
State of California intending to bring a class action lawsuit
based on the presence of asbestos at California Medical Facility.
The Plaintiff claims that the air causes "patients to suffer from
numerous lung problems," including C.O.P.D., valley fever, and
heart conditions.  He also claims that "prison officials . . . are
aware of the asbestos problem, have done nothing to cure the
problem and are in violation the NESHAP and the Clean Air Act."
The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief on behalf of all
prisoners exposed to asbestos.

Judge Edmund Brennan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint but
granted him leave to file an amended complaint.  Judge Brennan
held that an inmate who is not a lawyer cannot represent other
inmates in court.

The case is DAVID LEE WHITE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant, No. 2:12-cv-1552 EFB P. (E.D. Pa.).  A copy of Judge
Brennan's Decision dated October 4, 2012, is available at
http://is.gd/d4ktHCfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Still Party to Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation continues to defend asbestos claims by current or
former employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 28, 2012.

Occupational claims arise from allegations of exposures to certain
materials in the workplace, such as solvents, soaps, chemicals
(collectively referred to as "irritants") and diesel fuels (like
exhaust fumes) or allegations of chronic physical injuries
resulting from work conditions, such as repetitive stress
injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing loss. The Company is
also party to a number of asbestos claims by current or former
employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace.

An analysis of occupational claims is performed quarterly by an
independent third-party actuarial firm and reviewed by management.
Management performs a quarterly review of asserted asbestos
claims, and an analysis is performed annually by an independent
third-party specialist and reviewed by management. The objective
of the occupational and asbestos claims analyses performed by the
third-party actuarial firm and specialist (the "third-party
specialists") is to determine the number of incurred but not
reported ("IBNR") claims.  The third-party specialists analyze
CSXT's historical claim filings, settlement amounts, and dismissal
rates to determine future anticipated claim filing rates and
average settlement values for occupational and asbestos claims
reserves. The potentially exposed population is estimated by using
CSX's employment records and industry data. From this analysis,
the third-party specialists provide an estimate of the IBNR claims
liability.

CSX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides rail-
based transportation services. It offers traditional rail service
and the transport of intermodal containers and trailers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $142MM Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation recorded an asbestos-related liability
of $142 million at September 30, 2012, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in
which current and former employees and other parties allege
exposure to asbestos.  We assess our potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future
defense and processing costs. Our liability for asbestos-related
claims is not discounted to present value due to the uncertainty
surrounding the timing of future payments.  Approximately 22% of
the recorded liability related to asserted claims and
approximately 78% related to unasserted claims at September 30,
2012.

"Our asbestos-related liability activity was:

                                         For the Nine Months
                                         Ended September 30,
                                         2012           2011
   (dollars in millions)                 -------------------
   Beginning balance                     $147           $162
   Accruals                                 -              -
   Payments                                (5)            (7)
   Ending balance at September 30        $142           $155
   Current portion,
      ending balance at September 30       $9            $11

"We have insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to
resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have recognized an asset
for estimated insurance recoveries at September 30, 2012, and
December 31, 2011.

"We believe that our estimates of liability for asbestos-related
claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and probable. The
amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related
insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts. However,
future events, such as the number of new claims filed each year,
average settlement costs, and insurance coverage issues, could
cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to be higher or
lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may vary in the
future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of asbestos
litigation materially change; federal and state laws governing
asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability or amount
of compensation of claimants; and there are material changes with
respect to payments made to claimants by other defendants."

Union Pacific Corporation, through its subsidiary, Union Pacific
Railroad Company, provides rail transportation services in North
America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Had $2.45B Net Reserves End Sept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves were
$2.45 billion at September 30, 2012, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond
the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company
continues to receive a significant number of asbestos claims from
the Company's policyholders (which includes others seeking
coverage under a policy).  Factors underlying these claim filings
include intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos
claimants and the focus by plaintiffs on previously peripheral
defendants.  The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years.  In addition to
contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy
proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses
by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by
significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by
insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
that remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions,
those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket. This trend of
prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along
with the focus on previously peripheral defendants, contributes to
the claims and claim adjustment expense payments experienced by
the Company.  The Company's asbestos-related claims and claim
adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by the
unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to
policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or
through the insolvency of other participating insurers.

The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-
occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims
against the policyholders.  Accordingly, although the Company has
seen a moderation in the overall risk associated with these
lawsuits, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of
these claims.

Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.  It
is possible that the filing of other direct actions against
insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future.  It
is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings,
including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these
actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of
liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain
jurisdictions.

Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company, had entered into settlement agreements, which are
subject to a number of contingencies, in connection with a number
of these direct action claims.

Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually.  Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

While the Company believes that over the past several years there
has been a reduction in the volatility associated with the
Company's overall asbestos exposure, there nonetheless remains a
high degree of uncertainty with respect to future exposure from
asbestos claims.

As in prior years, the annual claim review considered active
policyholders and litigation cases for potential product and "non-
product" liability.  The Home Office and Field Office categories,
which account for the vast majority of policyholders with active
asbestos-related claims, again experienced a slight reduction in
the number of policyholders with open asbestos claims compared
with the prior year period.  Asbestos-related payments in these
categories decreased slightly in the first nine months of 2012
compared with the same period in 2011.  Payments on behalf of
policyholders in these categories continue to be influenced by the
high level of litigation activity in a limited number of
jurisdictions where individuals alleging serious asbestos-related
injury continue to target previously peripheral defendants.

The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions.  The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries.  In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience,
year-by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.

The completion of these reviews and analyses in the third quarters
of 2012 and 2011 resulted in a $175 million increase in the
Company's net asbestos reserves in each period.  In both 2012 and
2011, the reserve increases were primarily driven by increases in
the Company's estimate of projected settlement and defense costs
related to a broad number of policyholders in the Home Office
category and by higher projected payments on assumed reinsurance
accounts.  The increase in the estimate of projected settlement
and defense costs resulted from payment trends that continue to be
moderately higher than previously anticipated due to the impact of
the current litigation environment. Notwithstanding these trends,
the Company's overall view of the underlying asbestos environment
is essentially unchanged from recent periods and there remains a
high degree of uncertainty with respect to future exposure to
asbestos claims.

Net asbestos paid losses in the first nine months of 2012 were
$167 million, compared with $190 million in the same period of
2011.  Net asbestos reserves were $2.45 billion at September 30,
2012, compared with $2.53 billion at September 30, 2011.

The Travelers Companies, Inc., is a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range of
commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products
and services to businesses, Government units, associations and
individuals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals in Direct Action Suit vs. TPC Remain
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the Asbestos Direct Action Litigation involving The
Travelers Companies, Inc., remain pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) and other insurers (not
including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court in
West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed in West
Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs allege that
the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in
violation of state statutes by inappropriately handling and
settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to reopen large
numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for
damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers.
Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of
asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state
courts.  These suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory
and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in
these suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy
of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation issued a
temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory
Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and an
additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and
Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further
lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations. Notwithstanding
the injunction, additional common law claims were filed against
TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.  This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC.  This settlement requires a payment
of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant
contingencies.  Among the contingencies for each of these
settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy court clarifying
that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related
claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by the
bankruptcy court ("the 1986 Orders").

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC ("the Clarifying
Order"). The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct
action claims that may be filed in the future.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all future
direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy
court before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.  On February 29, 2008, TPC and certain other
parties to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or
rehearing en banc, requesting reinstatement of the district
court's judgment, which were denied.  TPC and certain other
parties filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
decision, and on December 12, 2008, the Petitions were granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,
reversing the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008 decision,
finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are final and
generally bar the Statutory and Hawaii actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims against TPC.  Further, the Supreme Court
ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the
Clarifying Order.  However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled
on certain additional issues, principally related to procedural
matters and the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties,
the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for
further proceedings on those specific issues.  On October 21,
2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying Order
requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of the
order approving the settlement, and that request was granted.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC. On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit,
requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion, which was
denied on May 25, 2010.  On August 18, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking
review of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion, and a
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking an order from the Supreme
Court requiring the Second Circuit to comply with the Supreme
Court's June 18, 2009 ruling in TPC's favor. The Supreme Court
denied the Petitions on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy
court on September 2, 2010 and September 3, 2010, respectively,
arguing that all conditions precedent to the settlements have been
met and seeking to require TPC to pay the settlement amounts.  On
September 30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs'
Motions to Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to
the settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution
claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second
Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion.  On December 16, 2010, the
bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that
TPC was required to fund the settlements.

On January 20, 2011, the bankruptcy court entered judgment in
accordance with its December 16, 2010 ruling and ordered TPC to
pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment interest. On
January 21, 2011, TPC filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York from the bankruptcy court's
January 20, 2011 judgment.  On January 24, 2011, certain of the
plaintiffs in the Common Law Claims actions appealed that portion
of the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 judgment that denied
their request for an order of contempt and for sanctions.  On
March 1, 2012, the district court ruled in TPC's favor and
reversed the bankruptcy court, finding that the conditions to the
settlements had not been met, and that TPC is not obligated to pay
the settlement amounts. The district court also upheld the
bankruptcy court's order denying the plaintiffs' motion for an
order of contempt and for sanctions.  The district court further
ruled that, since TPC is not obligated to go forward with the
settlements, it was unnecessary to address the issue of pre-
judgment interest.  The plaintiffs appealed the district court's
March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and
those appeals are pending.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings
or the settlements, is a party to pending direct action cases in
Texas state court asserting common law claims.  All such cases
that are still pending and in which SPC has been served are
currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court.  If any of
those cases becomes active, SPC intends to litigate those cases
vigorously.  SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct
actions in Ohio state court. Those actions have all been dismissed
following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate courts.
From time to time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries have been named in
individual direct actions in other jurisdictions.

The Travelers Companies, Inc., is a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range of
commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products
and services to businesses, Government units, associations and
individuals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Defends NARCO & Bendix-Related Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. continues to defend asbestos-related
personal injury cases asserting claims based upon alleged exposure
to NARCO asbestos-containing products and maintain reserves to
cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.

The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies,
Honeywell is a defendant in personal injury actions related to
asbestos. We did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did we make or
sell insulation products or other construction materials that have
been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease
in the vast majority of claimants.

"Honeywell's predecessors owned North American Refractories
Company (NARCO) from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory
products (bricks and cement used in high temperature
applications). We sold the NARCO business in 1986 and agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined
in the sale agreement). NARCO retained all liability for all other
claims. NARCO and/or Honeywell are defendants in asbestos personal
injury cases asserting claims based upon alleged exposure to NARCO
asbestos-containing products. Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing
refractory products in an occupational setting. These claims, and
the filing of subsequent claims, have been stayed continuously
since January 4, 2002, the date on which NARCO sought bankruptcy
protection.

"Honeywell's Bendix friction materials (Bendix) business
manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile
asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from
either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who
performed brake replacements.

NARCO and Bendix's total asbestos-related liabilities at September
30, 2012, reached $1,768 million.

NARCO Products

"On January 4, 2002, NARCO filed a petition for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In connection with
the filing of NARCO's petition in 2002, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("the Bankruptcy Court")
issued an injunction staying the prosecution of NARCO-related
asbestos claims against the Company, which stay has continuously
remained in place. In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court
confirmed NARCO's Third Amended Plan of Reorganization (NARCO Plan
of Reorganization). All challenges to the NARCO Plan of
Reorganization were fully resolved in the third quarter of 2010.
The NARCO Plan of Reorganization cannot become effective, however,
until the Plan of Reorganization of certain NARCO affiliates,
which is pending in Bankruptcy Court, is confirmed and then
affirmed by the District Court. It is not possible to predict the
timing or outcome of the Bankruptcy and District Court proceedings
in the affiliates' case. We expect that the stay enjoining
litigation against NARCO and Honeywell will remain in effect until
the effective date of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization.

"In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, we agreed to
certain obligations which will be triggered upon the effective
date of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization. Honeywell will provide
NARCO with $20 million in financing and simultaneously forgive
such indebtedness. We will also pay $40 million to NARCO's former
parent company and $16 million to certain asbestos claimants whose
claims were resolved during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy
proceedings. These amounts have been classified as Accrued
Liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30,
2012.

"When the NARCO Plan of Reorganization becomes effective, in
connection with its implementation, a federally authorized 524(g)
trust ("NARCO Trust") will be established for the evaluation and
resolution of all existing and future NARCO asbestos claims. When
the NARCO Trust is established, both Honeywell and NARCO will be
entitled to a permanent channeling injunction barring all present
and future individual actions in state or federal courts and
requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO
products to be made against the Trust. The NARCO Trust will review
submitted claims and determine award amounts in accordance with
established Trust Distribution Procedures approved by the
Bankruptcy Court which set forth all criteria claimants must meet
to qualify for compensation including, among other things,
exposure and medical criteria that determine the award amount.

"Once the NARCO Trust is established and operational, Honeywell
will be obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to the
trust which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution
Procedures, subject to annual caps up to $150 million in any year,
provided, however, that the first $100 million of claims processed
through the NARCO Trust (the "Initial Claims Amount") will not
count against the first year annual cap and any unused portion of
the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until
fully utilized.

"Once the NARCO Trust is established and operational, Honeywell
will also be responsible for the following funding obligations
which are not subject to the annual cap: a) previously approved
payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements
reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings
which provide that a portion of these settlements is to be paid by
the NARCO Trust, which amounts are estimated at $130 million and
are expected to be paid during the first year of trust operations
and, b) payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement
agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy
proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the
NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the
settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures criteria,
which amounts are estimated at $150 million and are expected to be
paid during the first two years of trust operations.

"The range of estimated liability for future claims is $743 to
$961 million. We believe that no amount within this range is a
better estimate than any other amount and accordingly, we have
recorded the minimum amount in the range.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability
for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage
which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity
and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market. At
September 30, 2012, a significant portion of this coverage is with
insurance companies with whom we have agreements to pay full
policy limits. We conduct analyses to determine the amount of
insurance that we estimate is probable of recovery in relation to
payment of current and estimated future claims. While the
substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some
of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been
considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. We made
judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are
reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings with our
insurers, our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues
surrounding insurers and various judicial determinations relevant
to our insurance programs.

"In 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company ("Travelers")
filed a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court of New
York, County of New York against Honeywell and other insurance
carriers that provide coverage for NARCO asbestos claims, seeking
a declaration regarding coverage obligations for NARCO asbestos
claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers
and the other insurance carriers. The other insurance carriers
asserted cross claims against Honeywell seeking declarations
regarding their coverage obligations for NARCO asbestos claims
under high excess insurance coverage issued by them. Since then,
the Company has entered into settlement agreements resolving all
NARCO-related asbestos coverage issues with almost all of these
insurance carriers, including Travelers. Honeywell believes it is
entitled to the remaining coverage at issue. While Honeywell
expects to prevail in this matter, an adverse outcome is not
expected to have a material impact on our consolidated results of
operations, financial position or operating cash flows.

"Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that
could cause the NARCO related asbestos liabilities or assets to be
higher or lower than those projected and recorded. There is no
assurance that the plan of reorganization will become final, that
insurance recoveries will be timely or whether there will be any
NARCO related asbestos claims beyond 2018. Given the inherent
uncertainty in predicting future events, we review our estimates
periodically, and update them based on our experience and other
relevant factors. Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections
concerning our probable insurance recoveries in light of any
changes to the projected liability or other developments that may
impact insurance recoveries.

Friction Products

There were 23,237 Bendix Asbestos-Related Claims unresolved at
September 30, 2012, of which 5,615 were Mesothelioma and Other
Cancer Claims and 17,622 were Nonmalignant Claims.

"On a cumulative historical basis, Honeywell has recorded
insurance receivables equal to approximately 39% of the value of
the underlying asbestos claims recorded. However, because there
are gaps in our coverage due to insurance company insolvencies,
certain uninsured periods, and insurance settlements, this rate is
expected to decline for any future Bendix related asbestos
liabilities that may be recorded. Future recoverability rates may
also be impacted by numerous other factors, such as future
insurance settlements, insolvencies and judicial determinations
relevant to our coverage program, which are difficult to predict.
Assuming continued defense and indemnity spending at current
levels, we estimate that the cumulative recoverability rate could
decline over the next five years to approximately 33%.

"Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and
reserves to cover all pending Bendix related asbestos claims and
Bendix related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the
next five years."

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace
products and services, control, sensing and security technologies
for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive
products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials,
process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy
efficient products and solutions for homes, business and
transportation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Diagnosis to Rise 5%-10% by 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------
Healio.com reports that a novel blood-based proteomics assay
identified malignant pleural mesothelioma in individuals exposed
to asbestos, according to study findings published in PloS One.

"In the next 25 years, it is estimated that the diagnosis of
[malignant mesothelioma] will increase 5% to 10% each year until
2020 in most industrialized countries, at a cost of $200 billion
in the US and nearly $300 billion worldwide," Rachel M. Ostroff,
PhD, clinical research director at SomaLogic in Boulder, Colo.,
and colleagues wrote.  "The interval between asbestos exposure and
the development of [malignant mesothelioma] ranges from 25 to 71
years, yet this disease is often fatal within 1 year of diagnosis.
The large gap between asbestos exposure and disease lends itself
to surveillance in the high-risk population with the goal of
detecting early, treatable disease."

Recent studies have identified that blood-based biomarkers --
including mesothelin and its proteolysis' products, and
osteopontin -- could be used for differential diagnosis and
monitoring treatment response of malignant mesothelioma.

Mesothelin is reported to have low sensitivity for early disease,
but early detection may be improved with serial sampling in a
high-risk population.  Osteopontin has shown promise for early
detection, but serum protein instability has led to variable
results.

"Since malignant mesothelioma is a low-incidence disease even in
the asbestos-exposed population, a need still exists for a highly
specific test for risk surveillance and early detection while
avoiding false positive results and unnecessary invasive
procedures," Ostroff and colleagues wrote.

To improve surveillance and detection of malignant mesothelioma in
the high-risk population, the researchers conducted multicenter
case-control studies in serum from 117 malignant mesothelioma
cases and 142 asbestos-exposed control participants.

All malignant mesothelioma cases were pathologically confirmed by
cytology and/or resection by an expert in mesothelioma pathology,
and consenting patients were eligible for inclusion in the study
regardless of exhibited symptoms.

In addition, investigators collected blood samples from most cases
before treatment.  Control blood was obtained from study
participants with a history of asbestos exposure.  The control
group contained those with pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary plaques
and asbestosis, and it embodied the population most at risk for
malignant mesothelioma.

Biomarker discovery, confirmation and validation were performed
using Slow Off-rate Modified Aptamer (SOMAmer) proteomic
technology from SomaLogic, which simultaneously measures more than
1,000 proteins in unfractionated biologic samples.

Using univariate and multivariate approaches, the researchers
observed 64 candidate protein biomarkers and derived a 13-marker
random forest classifier with an area under the curve of 0.99 +/-
0.01 in training, 0.98 +/- 0.04 in independent masked
verification, and 0.95 +/- 0.04 in masked validation studies.  The
candidate biomarker panel consisted of both inflammatory and
proliferative proteins, processes strongly associated with
asbestos-induced malignancy.

Researchers who used the SOMAscan proteomic assay discovered and
validated a highly sensitive candidate 13-biomarker panel for the
detection of malignant mesothelioma in the asbestos-exposed
population, with an accuracy of 92% and detection of 88% of stage
I/II disease, according to study results.

"Our data suggest that the candidate markers and classifier
described in this series of discovery, verification, and
validation studies have the potential to improve [malignant
mesothelioma] surveillance and early detection, leading to more
effective treatment and the potential for prolonged survival,"
Ostroff and colleagues wrote.  "The high specificity reduces
unnecessary treatment for this rare disease, thus saving cost and
reducing patient anxiety.  Based on the discoveries reported here,
we have initiated further validation studies in high-risk
individuals for both screening and diagnosis."

According to Trever G. Bivona, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor,
hematology/oncology at The Helen Diller Comprehensive Cancer
Center in The University of California, malignant mesothelioma is
caused by exposure to asbestos fibers and is a highly lethal
disease because it is diagnosed at a clinically advanced stage in
most patients.  Improving outcomes for patients with malignant
mesothelioma will require early diagnosis of the disease in people
at risk because of occupational and other exposure to asbestos.
Yet, current methods to diagnose malignant mesothelioma involve
expensive imaging tests, and invasive sampling of pleural tissue
and fluid obtained from patients.

In their report in PLoS One, the authors describe the development
of a novel blood-based proteomics assay that can identify
malignant mesothelioma in asbestos-exposed individuals.  The assay
consists of a 13-protein biomarker test that uses Slow Off-rate
Modified Aptamers (SOMAmers) to selectively quantify protein
biomarkers in serum samples.  The SOMAmer assay offers several
technical advantages over conventional proteomics assays.  The
authors showed that the SOMAmer biomarker panel for malignant
mesothelioma is high-throughput, accurate and reliable, using
several patient cohorts and blinded analyses.  The biomarker panel
consists of proteins involved in inflammation and proliferation,
biological processes important in the biology of malignant
mesothelioma.

The SOMAmer assay was superior to another reported proteomic
biomarker used for malignant mesothelioma detection in at-risk
individuals (mesothelin).  Although widespread clinical use of the
SOMAmer assay will require further validation studies in
additional clinical cohorts, the new findings are an exciting and
important step forward for the field of cancer diagnostics.  The
findings provide immediate rationale for clinical testing of the
SOMAmer assay as a screening tool for asbestos-exposed
individuals.  This study also offers renewed hope for patients and
oncologists in our shared quest to overcome this deadly disease
through improved early detection and treatment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton, Dravo & 84 Others Face Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Patrick O'Shea of Timesonline.com reports that a South Beaver
Township couple filed a civil lawsuit last month in West Virginia
against 86 companies, including two with local headquarters,
alleging that they were responsible for exposing the husband to
hazardous levels of cancer-causing asbestos.

In the lawsuit, filed Sept. 14, in Kanawaha County Circuit Court,
Roscoe H. and Mary J. Peters requested a jury trial on allegations
the companies were responsible either as premise owners or
employers for Roscoe Peters, who worked as a laborer/electrician
with Weirton Steel from 1950 to 1983, becoming ill.

The couple claims Roscoe Peters, 80, has been diagnosed with
mesothelioma, a rare cancer that usually attacks the lungs,
because of his exposure to asbestos, a silicate that once widely
was used in insulation, while with Weirton Steel.

The lawsuit notes that Roscoe Peters smoked a pack of cigarettes a
day from 1951 to 1964, but that he has not smoked since then.

The lawsuit alleges negligence on the part of the companies in not
protecting Peters from contaminated buildings and not warning him
of the dangers.

Among the companies named in the lawsuit are the former Dravo
Corp., which had a ship-building yard in Neville Township, and
Eaton Corp. in Vanport Township.  An Eaton spokesman did not
return a call for comment.

The 86 companies named in the civil lawsuit are:  3M Co.; A.W.
Chesterton Co.; Air & Liquid Systems Corp.; Ajax Magnethermic
Corp.; Allied Corp.; Allied Mineral Products Inc.; Aurora Pump
Co.; Beazer East Inc.; Caterpillar Inc.; CBS Corp.; Certainteed
Corp.; Cleaver-Brooks Co. Inc.; Columbus McKinnon Corp.; Copes-
Vulcan Inc.; Crane Co.; Dezurik Inc.; Dravo Corp.; Eaton Corp.;
F.B. Wright Co. of Pittsburgh; Fairmont Supply Co.; Flowserve U.S.
Inc., successor in interest to Durametallic Corp.; Flowserve U.S.
Inc. formerly known as Durco International Inc.; FMC Corp.; Foseco
Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy Corp.; General Electric Co.; Georgia-
Pacific LLC; George V. Hamilton Inc.; Goulds Pumps Inc.; Grinnell
LLC; Hedman Resources Limited; Hercules Inc.; Honeywell
International Inc.; Howden North America Inc.; IU North America
Inc.; IMO Industries Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corp.; Ingersoll-
Rand Co.; Insul Co. Inc.; ITT Corp.; J.H. France  Refractories;
Joy Technologies Inc.; Lockheed Martin Corp.; Mallinckrodt U.S.
LLC; Manitowoc Cranes; McCann Shields Paint Co.; McJunkin Corp.;
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.; Milwaukee Valve Co.; Morgan
Engineering Systems Inc.; Nagle Pumps Inc.; Nitro Industrial
Coverings Inc.; Oakfabco Inc.; Oglebay Norton Co.; Ohio Valley
Insulating Co. Inc.; Owens-Illinois Inc.; P&H Mining Equipment
Inc.; Pettibone Traverse Lift LLC; Pneumo Abex Corp.; Power Piping
Co.; Premier Refractories Inc.; Rapid American Corp.; Reading
Crane and Engineering Co.; Riley Stoker Corp.; Rockwell
Automations Inc.; Rust Constructors Inc.; Rust Engineering &
Construction Inc.; Rust International Inc.; Schneider Electric USA
Inc.; Sterling Fluid Systems USA LLC; Tasco Insulations Inc.; The
Alliance Machine Co.; The Gage Co.; The Sager Corp.; The William
Powell Co.; Thiem Corp.; Treco Construction Services Inc.; UB West
Virginia Inc.; Union Carbide Corp.; Uniroyal Inc.; United
Engineers & Constructors and Washington Group International;
Viking Pump Inc.; Vimasco Corp.; Warren Pumps Inc.; Yale Material
Handling Co.; and Zurn Industries LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oswego County Legislators OKs DSS Abatement Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
How much is too much?  That was the question that sparked a
lengthy debate during a meeting of the Oswego County Legislature,
according to Carol Thompson of The Valley News Online.

In the end, legislators approved spending up to $1,566,341 for
asbestos abatement and building renovations at the county's
Department of Social Services, located in Mexico.

The vote was not unanimous as eight legislators opposed spending
tax dollars on items that are not considered a necessity in
completing the asbestos abatement.

Legislator Jake Mulcahey asked if the project could be done for
less money, noting that the legislature is looking to cut $3
million from the preliminary 2013 budget to avoid a property tax
increase.

Mulcahey said he is very concerned about the safety of the
employees, however, noted that the scope of the project has grown
and may continue to grow.

Majority Leader Jack Proud said the legislature needed to take
into consideration the age of the building.

"We are looking at a 30-year-old building, to which no major
improvements have been made over the course of those years," he
said.

The state may pay up to 75% of the project cost, leaving local tax
dollars to pay nearly $400,000.

As Proud reminded his colleagues that the state will pay up to
75%, Malone reminded him that local residents pay state taxes as
well.

Minority Leader Mike Kunzwiler said he appreciates the urgency but
cautioned that the county is currently in hard financial times.

He said that the county does need to address the asbestos,
however, like other legislators, Kunzwiler questioned the need for
the additional expenses, including new carpeting and painting.

The county originally authorized $30,000 for the asbestos testing
and later approved an additional $70,000 for an abatement plan.

Legislator Shawn Doyle said that the project is a necessary evil
that needs to be done.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec, Ottawa End Official Support for Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Lak of Al Jazeera relates that a sign along Quebec's
Highway 256 -- about 170km east of Montreal -- leaves little doubt
about the local economy.  "Bienvenue a Asbestos," it says in
French.  Welcome to Asbestos, Quebec.

This was Canada's first asbestos mine. Now it's the last.

After decades of international controversy, governments in Quebec
and Ottawa have ended official support for production of the
fibrous, inflammable mineral that's known to cause lung disease
and cancer.

Quebec's new government -- elected on Sept. 4, 2012 -- quickly
cancelled a public loan to the mining company in Asbestos.  And
the federal authorities in Ottawa say they'll no longer fight
international efforts to have Chrysotile -- the type of asbestos
found in Quebec -- declared a hazardous substance.

Until 2010, Canada exported hundreds of thousands of tons of
asbestos every year, mostly to India, Vietnam and other developing
countries.

Opinion polls showed strong public opposition to the trade,
largely fuelled by gruesome television documentaries showing
Indian workers surrounded by swirling asbestos fibers, and cancer
victims in nearby clinics coughing and breathing their last
breaths.

Yet hundreds of jobs in eastern Quebec depended on mining a
substance that's barely used anymore in Canada and the United
States, and local politicians were champions of a mineral that
most of the world abhorred.

Canada's position -- which it has not yet explicitly renounced --
has long been that Chrysotile asbestos can be used safely under
the right conditions.

'Fatal policy'

Montreal toxicologist Daniel Green has been tracking asbestos use
in Quebec for years.  He says the industry has cost lives at home
and abroad.

"If there was a place where one could answer the question: can
asbestos be used safely, it's here in Quebec," he says.  "But
looking at medical records, looking at epidemiology, looking at
diseases, the answer is we have failed to use asbestos safely.

"Asbestos has killed and is still killing Quebeckers.  It should
not leave the ground and kill people in other countries."

In the town of Asbestos, where a gaping 600-meter-deep pit shows
the long history of digging the mineral from the earth, there is
overwhelming disbelief in the research that Green talks about.
People simply don't accept that they've been part of a trade that
kills people.

"This is a malevolent campaign," says a woman who gives her name
only as Marie.  "My father, my uncle, my grandfather, all worked
in the mine and they're alive and well."

Bernard Coulombe agrees.  A pugnacious mining engineer in his
early 70s, Coulombe has been president of the Jeffrey Mine in
Asbestos since 1991.  He's fought attempts to curtail asbestos
production for decades and dismisses concerns about the impacts of
Quebec's Chrysotile asbestos.

"People say it's a carcinogen," he says in an interview with Al
Jazeera at his office at the brink of the giant open pit mine.  "I
just put gasoline in my car.  That's a carcinogen too.  It's how
you use it, how you protect yourself."

Coulombe rejects the notion that his former foreign customers did
not enforce safety rules on the use of asbestos.

"We've gone over there to see for ourselves," he says, "and I've
stopped two [companies] in Vietnam from receiving our product
because they were unsafe.  It can be done properly."

Yet he admits he's probably arguing against the tide of history,
that an industry that he's been part of for 43 years is almost
certainly going to disappear in Canada.

"I'm a fighter, but every fighter is sometime defeated so I'm
preparing for that.  I just wish that I were fighting against
scientific fact.  But I'm not.  I'm fighting perceptions and
(those perceptions) are wrong."

Thousands of victims

Acknowledging that the loss of the government loan has dealt them
a potentially fatal blow, Coulombe and his business associates say
they'll keep looking for new investment, but just for a few more
months.  Given the industry's precipitous decline -- Canada has
gone from the world's leading producer of asbestos to zero
production in two decades -- and huge health risks associated with
the mineral, new investors aren't likely to be tempted.

Canadian records on the number of people killed or made ill by
asbestos exposure aren't complete, in part because the country's
provincial governments keep health records and have different
policies on workplace safety.

But it's clear that thousands, probably tens of thousands of
Canadians, have fallen victim to a mineral that was once
ubiquitous in industry, offices and homes.

The country has spent millions of dollars removing asbestos
insulation from the stately parliament building in Ottawa.

In her simple townhouse in the city of Trois Riviere, Quebec,
Sophia Beaulieu fights a quiet battle to force her provincial
government to acknowledge that her father's death years ago was
related to asbestos exposure.

An economist who worked in a government office building known to
have asbestos paneling, her father fell ill and died within weeks.

The diagnosis was mesothelioma -- a rare form of lung cancer
almost always associated with asbestos.

"The disease was very aggressive," Beaulieu says.  "One week he
was alive and then the next he was dead.  Why won't our government
accept this?  Why have they supported this mining?  It's wrong, so
wrong."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McGill Professor Cleared of Scientific Misconduct
------------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News Montreal reports that McGill University has cleared one
of its former professors of wrongdoing, saying the scientist did
not collude with the asbestos industry or doctor any data in
decades of research into the safety of the substance.

John Corbett McDonald, an expert in occupational health, studied
the medical effects of asbestos on Quebec miners and mill workers
from 1966 until the late 1990s.

McDonald and his team published a series of studies between 1971
to 1998, the centerpiece of which was used by an asbestos lobby
group to promote use of the mineral overseas and had been cited by
the federal government in its previously pro-industry stance.

McDonald affirmed that the chrysotile form of asbestos, which was
mined in Quebec until recently, is "essentially innocuous" at
certain levels, and advocated for its export to the Third World.

The studies were partly funded by the Quebec Asbestos Mining
Association, from which McDonald and other researchers at the
McGill School of Occupational Health received payments totaling
almost a million dollars from 1966 to 1972.

A CBC News investigation earlier this year disclosed the funding,
prompting calls for an investigation into McDonald's work.

'Data was collected in a proper way'

McGill has always maintained that McDonald acknowledged the
financial support, but the university nonetheless launched an
internal review.

John Corbett McDonald's asbestos research findings from studies
conducted last century at McGill University were thrown into
question earlier this year.

On Wednesday, Oct. 17, dean of medicine David Eidelman said the
six-month probe by the Montreal university's research integrity
officer found no evidence of scientific misconduct, including
rigged data analyses or conclusions.

"We're not here to discuss Dr. McDonald's opinions, but rather
whether the data he collected was collected in a proper way.  In
fact, his data was collected in a proper way, and he was quite
open about the fact that he accepted money from asbestos
companies, as did all researchers at the time," Eidelman said.

McDonald has also testified against bans and stricter regulations
on asbestos at various government hearings around the world, and
once worked for Imperial Tobacco while at McGill -- even trying to
hide it.  Eidelman said McGill's review did not consider those
actions.

The 17-page report was written by former dean of medicine Abe
Fuks.  Critics had been wary of the review process since it began,
saying there were too many possible links between the people
involved and McDonald, who retired from McGill in the late 1980s
but was still an emeritus professor.

A CBC News documentary also pointed to the long-standing ties
between McGill and the asbestos industry, citing claims that the
industry sought to use the public university to burnish its image.

In a statement on its website, McGill says "Prof. Fuks also
concludes that his review of relevant information 'lends no
credence' to allegations that McGill colluded with the asbestos
industry in promoting the use of asbestos."

Canadian Industry Dead

More than 50 countries ban the mining and use of asbestos because
it causes cancer, in particular a form of malignancy known as
mesothelioma.

The World Health Organization says 107,000 people around the world
die annually from ongoing workplace exposure to asbestos.  It is
still used in many developing countries in everything from roofing
tiles to cement pipes and boiler insulation, and even Canada
imported $2.6 million worth of asbestos brake pads last year.

As recently as 2010, Canada was producing 150,000 tons of asbestos
annually, all of it in Quebec, and exporting 90 per cent -- worth
about $90 million -- to developing countries.

The domestic industry is all but dead now, however, following the
Quebec government's decision to cancel a loan to the country's
last remaining mine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland to Push For More Legal Dumping Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ava Benny-Morrison of The Fraser Coast Chronicle reports that
every six days one Queenslander is diagnosed with terminal cancer
because of asbestos exposure.

In an attempt to battle this alarming figure, which is tipped to
rise, the Queensland Government is working towards setting up an
asbestos register mapping out legal dumping reserves.

The Government has also sourced AU$1.5 million to fix high risk
asbestos -- about 6% of the state's total -- in state-owned
buildings, particularly schools.

Currently, local governments and the State Government spend tens
of millions of dollars per year cleaning up illegally dumped
asbestos.

On top of that, the Government spent AU$26 million last year on
asbestos works, including removal projects and audits throughout
government buildings.

Public Works and Housing Minister Bruce Flegg said Queensland had
two million cubic meters of asbestos in public buildings.

"Currently, in Queensland, a new terminally ill asbestos patient
is diagnosed every six days and that is increasing and will
continue to increase in frequency for over a decade," he said.

"That is the nature of this dangerous and insidious substance.

"We have also seen over recent years the number of incidents in
government buildings has increase significantly.  We now have over
400 incidents -- that is more than one every single day of the
year."

Dr. Flegg said a majority of works was completed at schools, a
scary prospect for parents.

"Asbestos exposure in schools has been going on for some time and
it is really frightening because there is no way of telling
whether your child, teacher or workman, if they have inhaled
asbestos fibers if . . . they may become airborne," he said.

"This is the great challenge for us with asbestos."

The State Government is also investigating placing labels on
asbestos material in schools.

Dr. Flegg said any asbestos removal program would increase the
demand for legal dumps and prompted the urgency for a register.

". . . as many of these asbestos buildings are getting old there
is a rapidly growing need to be able to dump asbestos waste," he
said.

"And let me tell you no one particularly wants to be the recipient
of asbestos waste.

"One of the initiatives we want to get up is a register of the
asbestos dumps and we need to increase the capacity of those dumps
as I mentioned, we have millions of cubic meters of this toxic
substance.

Local Government Association of Queensland chief executive Greg
Hallam said the issue was particularly pertinent in rural and
remote communities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brown Apologizes for Remark to Campaign Ad People
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Larocque of The Taunton Gazette reports that U.S. Sen. Scott
Brown suggested Wednesday, Oct. 17, that his Democratic opponent
Elizabeth Warren used actors in her advertisements defending the
legal work she did on asbestos-related lawsuits.

But three of the people in the advertisements have said that's not
the case.

Brown made the statement during a campaign stop at the Taunton
Fire Department's central station on Wednesday morning.

During a question and answer session, one firefighter commented
that both campaigns are publishing advertisements featuring family
members of victims of asbestos-related illness.  He asked Brown
how Warren gets the victims' family members to go on her
commercial.

"A lot of them are paid," Brown said.  "We hear that maybe they
pay actors.  Listen, you can get surrogates and go out and say
your thing.  We have regular people in our commercials.  No one is
paid.  They are regular folks that reach out to us and say she is
full of it."

One of the ads, titled "Ashamed," features Kingston resident Ginny
Jackson, whose husband died of mesothelioma after working at a
Quincy shipyard that was filled with asbestos.

Reached through the Warren campaign, Jackson responded to Brown's
comments, calling them offensive.

"What Scott Brown said today (Oct. 17) is so offensive to me and
my family after what we went through," Jackson said.  "He's sunk
to a new low."

Jackson said going through her husband Sam's sickness and death
from mesothelioma was one of the most difficult situations she
ever endured.

"Sam and I were childhood sweethearts and we had been together
since I was 15 years old," Jackson said.  "I came forward in this
campaign because Massachusetts voters need to know the truth about
what Elizabeth Warren did to help families like mine who were
affected by asbestos poisoning, rather than Sen. Brown's
misleading attacks."

Brown  pointed to legal work the Harvard professor was involved
with, on behalf of Dow Chemical, related to silicone breast
implant safety problems and LTV Steel, involving employee health
benefits.

Brown's message is that Warren says she is working on behalf of
the little guy, but that in reality she really is not.

John F. English, who appeared in another one of Warren's ads
talking about his father who died from mesothelioma, was more
direct in his response to Brown's "actor" comment.

"Let Scott Brown tell me to my face that I am nothing but a paid
actor, and I'll set him straight on what it was like to watch my
father suffocate to death," English said.

Another victim's family member who appeared in a Warren
advertisement about the asbestos controversy spoke out about
Brown's comments as well.  Steven Yapp said that Brown's actor
comments were cruel.

"To dismiss what my family went through by calling me a paid actor
isn't just disrespectful, but it's cruel," Yapp said.  "He's
attacking people who lost loved ones to asbestos poisoning, just
because we stepped forward to tell the truth about Elizabeth
Warren.  Sen. Brown showed his true colors today.  He's a
politician who will say anything and attack anyone that gets in
his way."

On the evening of Oct. 17, Brown's campaign issued an apology from
the Senator about his comments.

"It was wrong for me to have jumped to those conclusions and I
apologize to those I offended," Brown said, according to the
apology statement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utica Federal Jury Finds Landlord, NJ Firm Guilty
------------------------------------------------------------------
The North Country Gazette reports that the owner of a 28-acre
piece of property on the Mohawk River and the owner of a New
Jersey solid waste management company were found guilty by a
federal jury in Utica Tuesday, Oct. 16, of charges that they
conspired to defraud the United States and violate the Clean Water
Act by illegally dumping thousands of tons of asbestos-
contaminated construction debris on the property in upstate New
York.

The defendants, Cross Nicastro, owner of the property in Frankfort
along with Mazza & Sons Inc., and its owner, Dominick Mazza, were
found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States, as well
as violate the Clean Water Act and Superfund laws.

In addition, Nicastro, Dominick Mazza and Mazza & Sons Inc. were
convicted of violating the Superfund law's requirement to report
the release of toxic materials and obstructing justice.

Dominick Mazza was also convicted of making false statements to
EPA special agents.

According to evidence presented during the 10-day trial, the
defendants engaged in the illegal dumping of thousands of tons of
construction and demolition debris, much of which was contaminated
with asbestos, at Nicastro's property, which contained federally-
regulated wetlands.   The dumping occurred without a permit.

Evidence demonstrated that the defendants, along with co-
conspirators, concealed the illegal dumping by fabricating a New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) permit
and forging the name of a DEC official on the fraudulent permit.

In addition, the evidence demonstrated that Mazza & Sons, Inc.
obstructed justice by destroying and concealing documents
responsive to a grand jury subpoena.

The conspiracy, substantive Superfund and false statement counts
each carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a fine of
either $250,000, twice the gross gain to the defendants, or twice
the gross loss to a victim, whichever is determined to be greater.
The obstruction of justice count carries a maximum penalty of 20
years in prison and similar fines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Private Test Says Fibro From Shamokin Is Friable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Scicchitano at The News Item reports that samples of building
debris from a demolition site on North Shamokin Street were
collected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Wednesday,
Oct. 17, to be tested for asbestos.

Two agency employees were at the site in the 700 block, one
collecting samples and bagging them and the other assisting.

Suspect samples were shared with the city code enforcement officer
so that both the EPA and the city can commission separate
independent laboratory analyses, said City Clerk Steve Bartos.

Bartos said that Madonna Enterprises, Port Carbon, is expected to
mobilize equipment at the site this week to remove the debris.
All of it will be treated as if it's contaminated with asbestos,
he said, and will be disposed of at a landfill permitted to accept
such material.

Donna Heron, an EPA spokesperson, said Oct. 17 that the agency
learned of the demolition of the former Shamokin Health Spa and an
adjacent building when contacted Oct. 15 by The News-Item, which
has been doing interviews related to the situation.

"It seemed prudent for us to send an inspector out," she said.

No Great Concern

Long-term exposure to asbestos can pose serious health risks.
However, Heron said city residents, even those living in the
vicinity of the demolition site, should not be overly concerned.

"All of the health risks that we know of all have to do with long-
term exposure," meaning over the course of many years, she said.

"It's not something that residents really should be concerned
about, but at the same time, it is potentially a health risk that
we want to make sure is properly taken care of."

Heron said it is not known if debris removal is permitted while
testing of EPA's samples occurs, and she did not have a timetable
for return of the test results.

Demolition had begun in mid-June under emergency order after a
partial building collapse, but Heron said both the state
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the EPA must be
notified of such a project at least 10 days prior or, in the event
of an emergency, no later than the following work day.

While DEP was notified of the demolition, according to the
department's north central region director, Heron said EPA was
not.

City Contracts For Removal

The demolition project was officially ordered stopped July 3 when
the city and Robert Gusick Demolition, Shamokin, became embroiled
in a dispute regarding a $98,500 invoice submitted by the
contractor.  Work at the site has remained dormant ever since, and
the invoice dispute remains unsettled.

Requirements for advertising and seeking contract bids for the
work were negated since the situation was under emergency order,
Theresa Elliot, deputy press secretary, Department of Community
and Economic Development (DCED), told The News-Item in August.

Municipal entities are required to seek bids for work exceeding
$18,500 under legislation signed into law in November 2011.  The
threshold had been $10,000 prior to that.

Madonna is performing debris removal at an approximate cost of
$8,900, Bartos said.  It was the lowest of two estimates, the
second coming from Northeast Industrial Services Corp., Shamokin,
which estimated the work would cost $33,440, he said.

Those estimates were received by the city Sept. 10, after which
council acted to employ Madonna, he said.

City officials previously reported the building was owned by the
William G. Porto estate before being turned over for back taxes to
the county tax claims bureau.  City council is now seeking to
acquire ownership of the land.

Citizen Takes Samples

Matt Stevens, of Shamokin, who works for a company that has
performed asbestos abatement services at other city demolition
projects, on Friday, Oct. 12, provided a certified laboratory
analysis of a sample he says he recovered from the demolition site
following an August meeting of city council.  He alleged during
the meeting that asbestos was at the site, but Bartos said he had
no solid proof.

Stevens says he left the meeting, went to the site and took a
piece of insulation wrapped around a water pipe, placed it in a
cellophane wrapper and had it tested.

An Aug. 31 report from a federally accredited testing laboratory
showed that one of three samples had a 70-percent makeup of
asbestos.  Stevens said the material is "friable," which means
asbestos fibers can be spread by wind.

Bartos said results of the analysis were never shared with the
city.  He also questioned if the sample was authentic and said,
even if it is, there is no documented "chain of custody" to prove
as much.

Stevens is employed by Forrester Environmental Inc., an asbestos
abatement company in Bloomsburg.  He says he is experienced in
asbestos abatement through his job, and that he purchased the
analysis through his firm as any customer could.

His father, Robert Gilligbauer, has been at odds with the city for
years over operations at his city garage.  Stevens said his
father's history with city officials should have no bearing on the
matter that asbestos may exist at the demolition site, but Bartos
contends the relationship is the driving force behind Stevens
seeking a laboratory analysis.  He said it was done to antagonize
city officials and not out of concern for city residents.

Dep Suspected Asbestos

Marcus Kohl, DEP northcentral region director, said in an
interview Monday, Oct. 15, that a waste inspector visited the
dormant demolition site in late summer after receiving complaints
from residents about potential health risks.

The inspector, he said, discovered material at the site he
believed to contain asbestos.  A sample wasn't analyzed in a
laboratory, he said; rather, it was a visual assessment by the
inspector based on his ample experience, Kohl said.

After the site visit by DEP, which Kohl believed to have occurred
in late August or early September, he said the city was told to
clean up the debris immediately.  That's when the city moved on
getting estimates for the removal.

DEP officials returned to the site Tuesday, Oct. 16, and provided
the city written instructions on the proper removal of asbestos.

Kohl said there is no indication the city was aware there was
asbestos at the site when the demolition occurred.  Also, he said
they are "not in violation" because of the pile.

Of the demolition project, he said, requirements for dealing with
asbestos were initially forestalled since the building posed a
risk of collapsing into North Shamokin Street.

"The demolition itself followed protocol for emergency
situations," he said.

He provided an asbestos abatement and demolition/renovation
notification form submitted to DEP by Robert Gusick Demolition on
June 20.  While DEP was notified, it came after the demolition
began and was not within the required 10-day window or, as
referenced by EPA's Heron since it was an emergency, on the next
work day.

An asbestos abatement professional was not on hand during
demolition, Rick Bozza, city code officer said, but the area was
being sprayed with water by Liberty Hose Co. personnel to prevent
dust from spreading.  Such a maneuver would also prevent asbestos
that could become airborne, if it were at the site, from spreading
through the air, as well.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadians Push for National Asbestos Registry
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carly Weeks of The Globe and Mail reports that the Canadian Cancer
Society and the Canadian Medical Association are urging the
creation of a national registry so that Canadians can easily find
out if their homes, offices, children's schools, community centers
or other buildings they frequent were constructed using asbestos.

The organizations commissioned a survey, which found that 82% of
Canadians support the creation of such a registry.

Would this registry even do any good?  After all, asbestos is only
a risk when it is present in the air.

But consider that it's not easy to identify which materials
contain asbestos just by looking at them.  The concern is that
homeowners or construction workers could be inadvertently exposed
to asbestos during a renovation project because they simply don't
know what they're dealing with.

It's a significant concern, considering that about 240,000 homes
across Canada were insulated with materials that might contain
asbestos over a period that stretched from the 1920s to the 1990s,
according to the Canadian Cancer Society.

Protecting yourself from asbestos exposure requires careful
measures and help from professionals who are trained to handle its
safe removal.

The federal government is currently spending millions to remove
asbestos from a number of Parliament buildings.

Despite the link between asbestos and cancer and a painstaking
process to carefully remove it from Parliament Hill, Canada has
been exporting asbestos to less-developed countries for years.
The federal government spent years fighting worldwide efforts to
list asbestos as a dangerous substance.  It reversed that position
last month after the Parti Quebecois cancelled a loan promised by
the previous Liberal government to reopen one of the province's
asbestos mine's.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pauline Marois Cuts Off Jeffrey Mine Lifeline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Montreal Gazette reports that Pauline Marois's government made
a campaign promise during the most recent provincial election to
cancel the $58 million loan proposed by Premier Charest in aid of
the Jeffrey asbestos mine in Asbestos.  Mme. Marois and her Parti
Quebecois have recently announced they will make good on their
promise and will not be offering any financial assistance to the
failing mine, which suspended production in 2011.

Despite the impact on job creation -- resuming production would
have created 400 direct jobs and 1,000 indirect ones -- the
decision should still be viewed as a good one.

Quebec was the only Canadian province that was still exploiting
the mineral, leaving our country as one of just a handful in the
world to continue to export asbestos.  Many countries have banned
the use of asbestos, and even Health Canada warned our government
of its health risks and recommended chrysotile (the form of
asbestos found in Quebec) be added to the Rotterdam Convention.

Canada had opposed its inclusion all the while spending millions
of dollars removing asbestos from Parliament Hill and other
government buildings.  The federal government had stated that
inclusion in the Rotterdam Convention would be seen as a first
step toward a full ban of the substance and would not put Canadian
industry "in a position where it is discriminated against in a
market where sale is permitted."

Most of the countries who continue to import asbestos are
developing nations, and to continue to sell and market a product
to these countries as safe, while no longer installing and even
removing the substance in Canad due health concerns was creating a
black mark on Canada's reputation.

However, Industry Minister Christian Paradis recently announced
that Canada will no longer veto the inclusion of chrysolite
asbestos in the Rotterdam Convention.  This move, along Quebec's
decision on the loan, seem to signal the end of the asbestos
industry in Canada, which can only be a good thing for our
country's international reputation and national conscience.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialist Advices Cwmcarn High School Demolition
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News South East Wales reports that a specialist contractor has
advised Caerphilly council to consider demolishing a school that
closed because of asbestos, it has emerged.

The 900-pupil Cwmcarn High School shut last Friday, Oct. 12, after
workmen spotted the potentially hazardous material.

It partially reopened on Friday, Oct. 19, with sixthformers
reporting to the performing arts centre in the morning.

Year 11 pupils are set to return on Monday, Oct. 22, and Year 10
pupils on Tuesday, Oct. 23.  Lessons for other pupils are set to
resume on Nov. 5.

The locations for the remaining pupils' lessons are still to be
confirmed.

Caerphilly council has defended its actions in closing the school
immediately on receipt of a structural report which identified
asbestos.

The report recommended an immediate notice of prohibited access,
although the risk to students and staff from fibers of damaged
asbestos was said to be low.

The council has also revealed that the specialist contractors who
wrote the report also advised it to "look at the abatement /
demolition of Cwmcarn High School, due to the implicated costs of
continuing to operate without further risk of exposure".

The council estimates it would cost millions to remove the
asbestos, but says it is considering all options.

The authority will hold a series of meetings with parents to
provide a further update situation, including arrangements for
pupils returning next month after the half-term break.

Officials and the school's governing body are investigating a
range of options for the children's return to lessons, but it is
not clear what the arrangements are.

A statement on Friday, Oct. 19 from the school's governing body
and Caerphilly council said more than 100 sixthformers had
attended lessons in the performing arts block in the morning.

It said: "Year 11 will return on Monday 22nd October and should
report to the Performing Arts block at 8.30am.

"Year 10 pupils will be able to return to lessons at Cwmcarn High
School on Tuesday 23rd October and should report to the Performing
Arts block at 8.30am."

A special meeting of the council will take place on Oct. 23 to
discuss the issues.

The local authority has also provided guidance about the health
issues relating to asbestos.

It said breathing it in may take some fibers into the lungs and
breathing out will remove some, but a few fibers may be left in
the lungs and, over time, as more fibers gather, this will
increase the possibility that they may cause harm.

For these reasons, short term exposure to asbestos is not
considered to be harmful, but there may be harmful effects of very
long term exposure, the council said.

Parent Sally Yamamoto, whose daughter Nadia attends the school,
said: "They haven't really addressed the problem -- there's still
lots of questions to be answered.

"But it's not the school, it's the local authority after all," she
added.

"The school have been really good at trying to get work out . . .
I think they've really done their best.

"I think the LEA [local education authority] have some questions
to answer."

Education Minister Leighton Andrews announced on Tuesday, Oct. 16
that all schools in Wales must deliver reports on their asbestos
levels by next week.

He described the situation at Cwmcarn "difficult" and said
councils had clear legal duties to do annual surveys.

The NASUWT teaching union said it was glad the matter was being
taken seriously.

But it warned of "massive issues" about raising funds to remove
the material at a time of education cuts.

Mr. Andrews said Public Health Wales was providing a health-based
risk assessment, and Caerphilly council was looking at a number of
options to accommodate pupils as a priority.

NASUWT Cymru has asked the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to
investigate the discovery of asbestos at Cwmcarn.

The union said it wanted the HSE to confirm that correct
procedures are adhered to.

The HSE has said it was looking to see whether there were grounds
for a full investigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UCATT Slams Council's Statement Demands Apology
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gwent News at SouthWalesArgus.co.uk reports that a union is
demanding that Caerphilly council retract and apologize for
providing misleading advice about the dangers of exposure to
asbestos.

Construction union UCATT say that following the closure of Cwmcarn
High School due to discovering high levels of brown asbestos, the
council has issued "highly misleading information about asbestos
safety" and that this advice has been repeated in the media.

The union added that Caerphilly Council gave misleading statements
when the council said: "Short term exposure to asbestos is not
considered to be harmful, but there may be harmful effects of very
long term exposure."

Steve Murphy, General Secretary of UCATT, said: "This is the most
outrageous thing I have seen regarding asbestos safety.  There is
no safe level of asbestos exposure.  Breathing in a single fiber
of asbestos could lead to the fatal and incurable cancer
mesothelioma."

UCATT have also contacted the local MP and Assembly Members and
the Health and Safety Executive to raise their concerns that the
wrong advice is being given to the local community.

Mr. Murphy, added: "Caerphilly Council must withdraw this
information immediately and apologize.  Not only is it endangering
everyone attending the school but anyone else reading the advice
would be given the totally wrong information about the safety of
asbestos."

UCATT, which has a significant number of members at Caerphilly
council, is advising them not to visit Cwmcarn High School until
the asbestos problem has been safely resolved.  The union will
also hold urgent talks with the council about their existing
asbestos policies, across all departments.

Nick Blundell, Regional Secretary for UCATT's Wales Region, said:
"Local UCATT members are outraged about this minding numbingly
ignorant advice.  The Council clearly have no knowledge of the
asbestos regulations."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woodsreef Mine Rehab Delayed to Protect Rare Bats
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Hasham of Stock & Land reports that state government
inaction over NSW's worst derelict asbestos mine is risking public
health and exposes shortcomings in asbestos management, a report
says.

The NSW Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, has described as "strange" a
decision to delay remediation at the toxic Woodsreef asbestos
mine, north of Tamworth, to avoid disturbing threatened large-
eared bats roosting in a derelict building at the site.

The site includes four open, unfenced mining pits, a 75-meter
mound of fine asbestos tailings and a decrepit eight-storey
building heavily contaminated with asbestos fibers.  A public road
divides the site and is regularly used by neighbors.

In 2010, the ombudsman said the community should be concerned
about the "failure . . . of relevant agencies and successive
governments to take effective action."  But a recent report says
remedial work is yet to begin at the site, which closed in 1983.

The NSW Trade and Investment website says the project is on hold,
subject to state and federal environmental approvals.

The ombudsman said: "While we can understand the importance of
protecting the habitat of endangered species, it would seem
strange to delay remedial works to protect the community from
potentially harmful exposure to asbestos."

NSW Trade and Investment said air-monitoring program was due to
start early next year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Locals Rally To Oppose Surrey Hazmat Station Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Surrey reports that residents fighting a planned asbestos
waste transfer station in Surrey have started a petition amid
claims the "deadly substance" will pose a danger.

Campaigner Bernie Spoor said local parents had serious concerns
about the plans for Windmill Road, Sunbury, a residential area
with five schools.

The firm behind the plans, European Asbestos Services (EAS), said
all asbestos work was strictly controlled.

It said there was no danger and no risk to the local population.

Mr. Spoor said: "Parents with children in local schools are
seriously concerned with any outfall of this deadly substance,
especially as the damage that could be caused would not be
identified for 20 or more years."

He said there were more than 1,000 homes within 0.6 miles (1km) of
the site.

The petition, signed by more than 100 residents, said the station
would hold damaged and degrading asbestos, a "hidden killer" that
could cause serious diseases and lung cancer.

Danny Spillane, operations director at EAS, based in Windmill
Road, said: "We are a licensed company working in a highly-
regulated industry."

He added: "It's not a case we are going to be doing anything
untoward or risk the local population.  We are based here
ourselves."

Mr. Spillane said the site would be used as a "storage area".

Surrey County Council, which decides waste and minerals plans
across the county, said: "It would be inappropriate for us to
comment further at this time, as this could be prejudicial to the
outcome."

EAS has applied to change the use of the site from light
industrial to an asbestos waste transfer station, which would
cover the importation, storage and transfer of asbestos and the
provision of two sealed, lockable containers.

The plans can be viewed on Spelthorne council's website.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Agnico-Eagle Miners Gear Up After Toxic NOA Found
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane George of Nunatsiaq News Online reports that although it's
business as usual at the Meadowbank gold mine near Baker Lake,
some of the 1,050 workers on site now wear special gear, such as
disposable outerwear and respirators, when they're on the job.

That's because this past January, Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd. found
naturally-occurring asbestos (NOA) fibers in the dust samples
taken from the secondary crusher building at its Meadowbank mine.
A second sample in March confirmed the presence of asbestos,
which, with prolonged exposure, is linked to a variety of lung
ailments and cancers.

Asbestos has been found at other gold deposits in Australia, but
"it was certainly something we weren't expecting," said Dale
Coffin, Agnico-Eagle's director of corporate communications.

"But with the sampling program we have, we were able to detect
it."

The company has since identified small concentrations of fibers in
the ore from some areas of the Goose and Portage open-pits where
Coffin says there are "very small amounts" of naturally-occurring
asbestos in thin bands.

There also seems to be an association between the presence of
asbestos and soapstone, he said.

The presence of asbestos was not revealed in earlier sampling of
the ore, Coffin said, but the company is now rechecking that
information.

Air sampling continues to provide results that aren't always
consistent about the levels of asbestos, he said.

But to reduce the amount of any asbestos that workers could be
exposed to, the company has changed work practices.

It's implemented personal hygiene measures such as disposable
coveralls and slippers over boots as well as training and measures
to control and prevent the spread of asbestos dust to non-affected
areas.

Workers in the mill and crusher plant must now take off that
protective gear before they leave those areas and are required to
use specialized vacuums to clean their work clothes.

Air sampling is also done regularly to monitor airborne asbestos
levels in the occupied areas across the mine site.

"We've implemented a standard [for asbestos] that's even more
stringent than the current ones that are required in the
[Canadian] mining act," Coffin said.

Changes have been made to the dust control ventilation system that
have "significantly decreased the amount of airborne dust in the
crusher plant," according to a Meadowbank bulletin on dust control
and asbestos.

"It's all about controlling the dust, and we are going to
implement measures where there's more dust," Coffin said.

Other systems to control asbestos include conveyor enclosures,
water and dust-suppressant sprays.

A full-time industrial hygienist is overseeing the asbestos
management program.

Agnico-Eagle has also hired an external asbestos expert, while a
third-party laboratory is carrying out the asbestos analysis.

Soon the mine will start processing ore from a new pit where no
asbestos has been detected, said Coffin, so the hazard from
asbestos is expected to diminish.

Fibrous asbestos can be hazardous because its tiny particles can
remain suspended in the air for long periods of time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board Mulls Abatement of Discarded Denmark School
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brennan Umthun at The Fort Madison Daily Democrat reports that the
Fort Madison School Board on Monday, Oct. 15 discussed
specifications for a Denmark Elementary School asbestos abatement,
after the district found no public or private interest in the
building.

Kevin Moon, Director of Operations for the FMCSD said that if the
district doesn't want to heat the building all winter long then it
must abate the asbestos.

Moon said getting rid of the asbestos would cost anywhere from
$70,000 to $90,000.  He added that it would cost another $19,000
for environmental monitoring, which would ensure the safe removal
of asbestos.

"If you choose to not heat the building minimally in the winter,
the building materials will degrade and fall apart, which is a
hazard," said Moon.

Board member Rob Hogan reminded the board that the old Jefferson
school sat empty for about four years before it was demolished.

Board president Judy Gerdes said that she hasn't heard from one
party interested in purchasing the Denmark building thus far.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sri Lanka Boosts Asbestos Sheets Production
------------------------------------------------------------
Nimal Wijesinghe at Sri Lanka's National Newspaper, Daily News,
reports that the government is encouraging private sector cement
and asbestos sheets production of both corrugated and flat type,
required for large scale on-going construction projects in the
country.  The requirement of these materials is on the rapid
increase, in view of the overall infrastructure development in the
country.

In 2011 the production of cement in the country had been 2,446,198
mt valued at Rs. 18,920 m. Cement production in 2012 was 1,737,365
mt valued at Rs. 1,999,832 m.  According to records available in
2011 Sri Lanka imported 2,576,495 mt of cement at a cost of Rs.
36,828 m.  Local cement production is only 48% of the country's
requirement.  In 2011 the consumption of cement in the country was
5.02 million mt which is an increase of 4.82% over the previous
year.

At present the factories in Puttalam, Galle and Trincomalee are
engaged in the manufacturing of cement.  In addition to the
locally available ingredients, clinker is imported on a large
scale for production requirements.  A sum of around Rs. 15,967 m
has been spent on purchasing 2,576,495 mt of clinker from abroad.

In the meantime, the production of asbestos in Sri Lanka in 2010
was 446,367 mt.  In 2011 it increased to 518,879 tons valued at
Rs. 15,156 m.

The total import of asbestos fiber from Belgium, Brazil, Canada,
Greece, Russia, South Africa and USA during 2011 was 61,094 tons.
This is a 27% increase in imports of asbestos fiber compared to
2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nakasuk School to Monitor Fibro During Repairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that officials at Nakasuk School in Iqaluit say
they're taking all precautions to make sure children aren't
exposed to asbestos during renovations.

Asbestos is a mineral that's been linked to respiratory diseases
and lung cancer.  It was often used in building insulation until
the mid-1970s because of its fire resistance.

Asbestos is in the original construction materials at Nakasuk and
the renovation work could stir up asbestos-tainted dust.

Beginning on Nov. 1, contractors will be in the school every night
fixing fire breaks in the walls.

"They'll set up a complete containment field in each classroom,
scrub the classroom down, clean it down, and then they do a
clearance test," said Barry Cornthwaite, manager of capital
planning for the Department of Education.

"So if the school says it's clear in the morning, then the school
opens up to the public, to the teachers and staff and kids.  If it
doesn't clear, then the school stays closed until it does pass a
clearance test."

Contractors will also insert a sticky spray inside the ceiling, to
contain the asbestos and install access doors so future repairs
are less onerous.

School officials say care will be taken to make sure asbestos-
tainted dust doesn't spread throughout the school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Claimants' Lawyers Eye "Global Resolution"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ynnette Hintze of The Daily Inter Lake reports that lawyers for
Libby asbestos victims are working toward settlements with W.R.
Grace & Co., BNSF Railway Co. and certain insurance companies in
what Grace has deemed a "global resolution."

The settlements would give victims varying amounts of financial
compensation for exposure to toxic asbestos dust linked to the
former Grace vermiculite mine near Libby.

Since the extent of the disease and death caused by asbestos
exposure came to light in late 1999, the Center for Asbestos
Related Diseases clinic in Libby has acquired a caseload of more
than 2,800 patients and has continued to add new patients.

Grace filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2001 in response to a
growing number of asbestos claims.  An Asbestos Personal Injury
Committee was set up as part of the reorganization.

Compensation for victims has been a long time coming, and there's
no indication of when the settlements will be finalized.

Negotiations have continued for years with Grace, the railroad and
related insurance companies. Because of the differences in
exposure dates and other factors, not all claimants are in all of
the forthcoming settlements.

The latest round of settlements is separate from a $43 million
payout from the state of Montana approved by the courts a year
ago.

The law firms of McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan & McGarvey in
Kalispell and Lewis, Slovak, Kovacich & Marr in Great Falls have
taken the lead in the settlement negotiations.  Those attorneys
say they are bound by confidentiality agreements with their
clients not to divulge the details of deals in the works.  They
also have advised their clients not to share confidential
information with anyone.

Paperwork filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware by Grace outlines some measure of detail in a four-part
"global deal."

The Grace portion of the global settlement deal involves Grace's
agreement to fund the Libby Medical Program with $19.5 million,
then terminate the medical program and transfer the money to a
local Libby Medical Plan Trust that will accept all current
members of the program.  That deal was announced in January.

Under the settlement, Libby claimants are obligated to withdraw
their objections to Grace's bankruptcy plan, according to
Bankruptcy Court documents.  Essentially this puts an end to the
litigation between Libby claimants and Grace.

An advisory board of local residents with asbestos disease will
assist Francis McGovern, who has been named the independent
trustee of the trust, court documents said.

Grace voluntarily created the Libby Medical Program in 2000 to
provide coverage for certain asbestos-related illnesses, and could
have terminated the program at any time.  The company currently
pays more than $2 million annually in health-care expenses for the
program, court documents said.

Once the trust is set up, one of the first steps will be to admit
into the new plan all of the clients with asbestos-related disease
diagnoses.

Separate from the transfer of the Libby Medical Program to the
trust, claimants will be eligible to receive distributions from
the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust that's being established
through the Grace plan of reorganization.

In the settlement of BNSF Railway Co.'s claims against Grace and
the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, including its claims for
contractual indemnity and in exchange for the railroad's release
of those claims, the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust will pay BNSF
the liquidated sum of $8 million, according to Bankruptcy Court
documents filed by Grace.

Like Grace, the railroad company has been the target of numerous
lawsuits brought by Libby residents for asbestos-related injuries
allegedly caused by the railroad's operations in the Libby area.
BNSF has asserted it is entitled to complete indemnity, court
documents stated.

According to information obtained by the Daily Inter Lake from an
asbestos claimant, BNSF has outlined a distribution grid itemizing
the estimated amount of money claimants with asbestos disease will
get in an initial distribution, depending on the severity of their
illness.

Victims with severe asbestos disease would get $49,600, while
those with mesothelioma -- a rare form of lung cancer linked to
asbestos exposure -- would get $67,392.  Those diagnosed with
"moderate" asbestos disease would get roughly $41,000, according
to the distribution grid.

A second distribution eventually would be made, but the last $5
million won't be delivered until the $2.9 billion Grace Asbestos
Bankruptcy Trust is funded, the distribution information
indicated.

A third prong of the global deal involves some of BNSF's insurers,
namely CNA, Maryland Casualty Co. and Arrowood Indemnity Co.  That
portion of the settlement resolves the Libby claimants' claims
against those insurance companies in return for settlement
payments.

Maryland Casualty serviced the Grace mine and mill from 1963 to
1973 and CNA from 1973 to 1994.

As part of the resolution, which is funded in part by CNA,
Maryland Casualty and Arrowood, the Libby claimants must withdraw
their appeals and objections to Grace's insurance settlements with
CNA and Arrowood.

The fourth piece of the deal involves the settlement among the
Libby claimants and certain Grace insurers "which resolves certain
so-called 'insurer wrong-doing claims,'" court documents said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Darwin Gardens Abatement Yield 10Kg of Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Rawlinson of ABC News Darwin reports that around 10 kilos of
asbestos has been removed from the Darwin Botanic Gardens during a
clean-up of the area.

The clean-up is part of an $86,000 government contract to remove
asbestos from the Gardens, after scraps were found by Gardens
staff earlier this year.

Staff had since banned mowing the lawns to avoid contact and to
leave the material undisturbed until removalists were employed.

Parks and Wildlife acting chief executive Andrew Bridges said the
Botanic Gardens may have been a dump site for asbestos after
Cyclone Tracy in 1974.

"Probably at that time people were interested in getting Darwin
back to a state of normality and to do that as quickly as
possible," he told 105.7 Breakfast.

"10 kilos spread over that area isn't a great loss but again it's
best to have it removed."

Air testing has found no threat to the air quality in the Botanic
Gardens and soil samples have returned safe readings as well.

Mr. Bridges said the removalists were only required to use gloves
and facemasks because the asbestos was non-friable, meaning it
does not crumble and emit toxic dusk.

"Generally things should be pretty safe but this just removes the
asbestos and I expect after the wet we might get a quick
inspection again to see if things have moved," Mr. Bridges said.

"If it has we might get an idea of if it is an ongoing problem.

"We've covered it pretty thoroughly but that doesn't mean there
isn't the risk of more turning up."

The asbestos is likely to be re-buried in an official dump site,
along with eight tons of asbestos-filled soil found at Bullocky
Point, not far from the Botanic Gardens.

Other asbestos clean-ups around Darwin, along the city's northern
beaches, have required fully-suited "emu picks", but Mr. Bridges
said the asbestos found in the Botanic gardens was not a risk to
humans.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Issues at Old National Guard Armory Probed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eve Byron of The Billings Gazette reports that an eerie red glow
from an exit sign in the lower level hallway of the old National
Guard Armory gave an air of mystery to the 70-year-old building,
where state employees for the past decade have complained about a
variety of maladies they think may be caused by working here.

The first two levels of the armory on Last Chance Gulch actually
are underground, dug into the earth in 1942.  Doug Olson, the
facility manager for the state's Department of Administration,
knows every nook and cranny and talks of the building's varied
history as he winds his way through the maze of offices, storage
rooms and even a movie theater.

It could be something down here that's causing irritable symptoms
for the state employees who have occupied the premises since the
Guard moved out to Fort Harrison in 2002.  Even though a different
state agency occupies the building now than did in 2003, their
complaints are similar.

One 2003 Department of Revenue employee wrote that she has "more
than usual colds, sore throats, headaches, severe fatigue since
moving to this location last June 2002."  Another complained of
"sneezing, congestion, headaches."  Another said his health "has
basically worsened and not improved" since moving into the
building and he had to seek the care of a pulmonologist.

David Bowers, a Department of Environmental Quality environmental
science specialist, said previously that his symptoms began
shortly after he moved into his second-floor office in the Armory
building in December 2003.  It started with chronic sinus
infections.  He sneezes frequently, especially when he first gets
to work in the morning.  He often gets headaches, and becomes
fatigued in the afternoon.  After being out of the office for
three or four days, the problems subside, but resume when he
returns to work.

Bowers said perhaps it's not the building but something else
affecting his health.  Still, he's pleased to be on a newly formed
committee to look into whether there's a problem with the building

Olson and others have been searching for the culprit down here for
years and haven't found the root of the complaints.  Yet concerns
by Bowers and others who now inhabit the building -- DEQ divisions
of Air Quality, Hazardous Waste and Remediation, among others --
as well as a state safety officer and industrial hygienists, has
prompted Olson to undertake a new investigation.

"On Aug. 31 we got an email from Lee Harper, the safety officer
for DEQ regarding concerns from the employees about lead residue"
from the old shooting range, Olson said.  "At that time we
contacted Ryan McGee to act as a consultant on that."

McGee specializes in asbestos, lead and mold cleanup.  After
meeting with employees, he also brought in Chris Nielson-Cerquone,
an environmental scientist in private practice.  In addition, the
state has worked with the Guard to unearth old documents to learn
more about previous cleanup efforts and Guard activities and hired
a toxicologist to go over old test results.

"We are still in the process of trying to investigate this initial
report about lead, then have further expanded our investigation
with the additional consultants, but we haven't had the chance yet
to formulate a plan or the scope of work," said Sheryl Olson,
deputy director for the Department of Administration.  (She's not
related to Doug Olson).

"A DEQ committee will be part of that discussion and we'll meet
with them next week and find out what their anticipation is and
what they want us to look at and test."

It could be a big job.

On Thursday, Oct. 18, Doug Olson opened the door to what's known
as the "earth room" in the lowest level of the Armory.  The room
has concrete walls, but a dirt floor that slopes upward until it
turns into a stretch of five feet of small boulders that finally
hit the ceiling.  A large, circular part of a methane monitoring
system sits in one corner; the building is either on or adjacent
to an old city landfill, raising concerns that the explosive gas
could build up here.  So far, that hasn't been a problem.

The room also was tested extensively for radon, a naturally
occurring gas that also is a known carcinogen.  Those results were
negative.

"About one-third of level one is dirt," Olson notes. "People used
to dig in it and find old bottles.  They can't do that anymore."

He closes the door and walks down the narrow hallway, covered with
faded green carpeting.  Olson takes a left and turns on the lights
in a conference room.  It's been fairly recently remodeled, but
used to be part of the National Guard's maintenance shop. Drains
that remain in the hall floors testify to where gas, oil and other
liquids that spilled from vehicles was washed into.  In recent
years, those were sealed to prevent gases from possible Volatile
Organic Compounds, or VOCs, from floating into the building.

This floor is vacant now, although walls filled with bookshelves
show where the offices used to be.

"Highway patrol dispatch used to be in here," Olson said. "They
had 50 people down here at one time."

Level two is a little lighter, with new windows near a new
elevator that let in some daylight.  It's near the elevator where
water seeped into the building during heavy rains.  A 2006 report
from Judy Murphy, a state industrial hygienist, noted that the
landing between Level One and Two had standing water on a regular
basis, with visible mold on portions of the wallboard.

"The airborne mold levels in the entryway were quite high . . . "
Murphy wrote, adding that there's hundreds of species of the type
of mold that was found.  "Most are allergenic, and some can
produce toxins as well."

A portion of the wall where the mold was found was removed, and
additional upgrades were done when the elevator was installed in
2008.

Olson walks down a wider hallway than the ones on Level One, and
eventually enters what's known as "The Vault Room."  Today it is
carpeted and holds hundreds of files and a few desks, but it used
to be where the National Guard kept its guns.

Murphy wrote that the room had a strong noxious odor, and
employees in 2006 complained of becoming ill when they were in the
room for more than a few minutes.  Murphy said that a toilet in
the bathroom directly above the vault had overflowed in 2003, with
contaminated water flooding down one of the vault's walls.  Stains
were visible then on the ceiling tiles.

According to Olson's office, the water did not contain fecal
material so while it was cleaned and dried, it wasn't replaced.
But Murphy countered that standards call for at a minimum removing
and discarding the carpet pad even if only gray water contaminates
it.

Olson said that eventually, they put in new carpet and repainted
the vault.  Today, after a $20,000 project to hook it into the
rest of the building's ventilation system, it no longer has a
strong smell and is used at times as a library.

He walks through another maze of hallways and offices crammed with
cubicles -- no one gets much of a window seat since they're still
underground -- until Olson pulls open a door to what looks like a
movie theater.  They call this the "Ramp Room" because it used to
be where the National Guard drove trucks into the underground
maintenance area.

Leaving the room, he continues down another hallway and opens a
door to yet another storage area.  This one is 100-feet-long and
21-feet-wide, with high ceilings.  It used to be the firing range.

It was here that the concerns about lead left over from bullets
first arose.  McGee said the National Guard gave him a 1994 report
showing there were high lead levels here, ranging from 6
micrograms per square foot to 8,760 micrograms per square foot.
The ceiling tiles also contained asbestos.

The report says they removed 40 pounds of hazardous waste from the
range and that "wipe tests" of the walls after the remediation
effort were clean.  But the report doesn't say what exactly was
done, other than the walls were painted after the cleanup.

"The Guard hasn't been able to find the lab reports," McGee said.
"So we're looking for the project specs that were used to bid the
work, and we want the lab report to verify the results."

He doesn't think that's where the problem lies, but added that
he's keeping an open mind as they go through this initial
investigation just in case.

Another issue raised in 2009 by Lee Harbour, a state safety
officer, involved the ductwork for Level One and Two.  His report
says that due to the design, they weren't able to see more than a
few feet into the ductwork in most places.  But he didn't like
what they saw.

"In general, there was a thick layer of dust found at each of the
five areas that were inspected and when the ductwork was bumped,
dust was seen flying past the camera," Harbour wrote.  He
recommended a thorough cleaning.

No one knows if the lead, asbestos, mold or other contaminants
have migrated into the ductwork since an analysis of the dust's
makeup hasn't been done.  Olson disputes the amount of dust in the
ducts, but said dealing with it might be part of their effort to
ensure safe working conditions.

Olson's tour ends on Level Three, which actually is the first
floor that visitors enter.  It's much more airy, with a little
more space and a few actual offices.  A narrow stairway leads to
the fourth floor.  While these floors have windows, some of them
didn't open and others didn't have screens.

Olson said that he knows this isn't the best office building in
town, and readily concedes that it's had issues in the past.  But
they've tested the air, the surfaces and replaced or at least
tried to fix any problems to make it a safe place to work.

Still, even after the dozens of results that came back without
showing elevated levels of VOCs, benzene, asbestos, lead,
formaldehyde, methane, radon, carbon monoxide, or carbon dioxide,
Olson, McGee and the rest of the team they've assembled are
willing to take another look at the test results and probably do
some new ones to try to put the issue to rest.

"We've tested the air quality alone 11 different times and brought
in consultants because people raised concerns," Olson said.
"Every time we get contacted by someone with a concern about our
buildings we respond to it."

Sheryl Olson said the symptoms being experienced by employees
could just be the result of low humidity, adding that they've had
similar complaints from some of the other 6,000 state employees
for whom her division provides work spaces.

"Are people happy at all our buildings?  No.  But we are
constantly trying to make a better work environment," she said.
"We certainly try to ferret out problems, bringing in outside
experts to help us when we know there are valid concerns that we
want to address."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Singapore to Step Up On Safe Fibro Management
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Straits Times Singapore reports that the Manpower Ministry is
reviewing guidelines to improve the way asbestos is handled in
Singapore.  It will take a close look at how to implement safer
ways of removing asbestos from buildings, and engage competent
contractors to do such work.  The review is expected to be ready
for public consultation by early next year.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) revealed this to The Straits Times
when asked about a study on preventive measures to eliminate
asbestos-related diseases (ARD) in Singapore.  The study found
that the incidence of asbestos-related diseases has increased in
the last four decades.

Before it was banned in 1989, asbestos was commonly used in
buildings because of its good insulation properties and high
tensile strength.  It can be found in roofing sheets, ceiling
boards and floor tiles.  It was also used for brake linings in
cars.

Though useful, the fibrous material is hazardous and inhaling it
can cause a lung disease known as asbestosis.  In the worst cases,
malignant mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lining of the lungs,
abdomen or heart -- can occur.  Because of the health threat,
asbestos is banned in more than 50 countries.  Singapore banned
the use of raw asbestos in building materials in 1989, and in cars
in 1995.

Useful But Hazardous Material

     -- Asbestos was commonly used in buildings because of its
good insulation properties and high tensile strength.  It can be
found in roofing sheets, ceiling boards and floor tiles.  It can
also be used for brake linings in cars.

     -- Inhaling it can cause a lung disease known as asbestosis.
In the worst cases, malignant mesothelioma -- a cancer of the
lining of the lungs, abdomen or heart -- can occur.

     -- Because of the health threat, asbestos is banned in more
than 50 countries.

     -- Singapore banned the use of raw asbestos in building
materials in 1989, and in cars in 1995.  Despite that, workers who
demolish or renovate buildings constructed before 1989 would still
be at risk of being exposed to the material.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kin Calls Meso Victim's Former Peers for Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frazer Ansell of The Watford Observer reports that the family of a
former Watford joiner, who died of an asbestos-related cancer, are
fighting for justice for their father by asking former colleagues
to come forward with further information.

Grandfather-of-eight Michael Wareham, who lived in Rickmansworth,
died of mesothelioma, a cancer in the lining of the lungs caused
by inhaling asbestos dust, in May 2010, aged 73.

He claimed he was regularly exposed to the dust when he worked at
the Watford Timber Co Ltd in the 1950s and 1960s as a joiner and
machinist, cutting asbestos sheets.  Years later, when he learned
of the dangers of the material, he told his family he hoped he
would be one of the lucky ones, but unfortunately they were left
heartbroken.

Before his death, Michael instructed industrial illness experts at
Irwin Mitchell, and his family are continuing the battle for
justice.  The firm is appealing to Michael's former colleagues at
the Watford Timber Co Ltd to get in touch as they may hold further
information about the use of asbestos and working conditions
there.

Shaheen Mosquera -- Shaheen.mosquera@irwinmitchell.com -- an
asbestos expert at Irwin Mitchell's London office, said:
"Michael's family have been left devastated by his death.  Michael
worked at the Watford Timber Company from 1951 to 1955, had a two-
year break while he did his national service, and then returned in
1956 where he remained until 1963.

"We'd like to hear from any of his former colleagues, as they may
have further details about the company's working practices.

"Mesothelioma is an aggressive disease for which there is sadly no
cure.  It devastates families and companies have been aware of the
dangers since the 50s and 60s so there's no excuse for not warning
employees of the dangers, and protecting them."

Michael developed breathlessness in April 2009 and a couple of
months later doctors gave him the devastating news he was
suffering from mesothelioma.  He died just over a year later and a
coroner recorded a verdict of industrial disease, death caused by
malignant mesothelioma, at an inquest in June 2010.

His son, Carl, 50, from Rickmansworth, said: "My dad was a very
active man who was massively into sport until he became so ill.
It was so hard to watch him struggle in the months before his
death.  He always lived life to the full and became a shadow of
his former self.

"He knew he had been exposed to asbestos when he worked at the
Watford Timber Co and years later, when he learned how dangerous
the material can be, he said he just hoped he would be one of the
lucky ones.  We were all devastated that he wasn't."

Carl continued: "He was such a good father and grandfather but
until we have answers we can't come to terms with his death.  I
just hope anyone who remembers working with my dad gets in touch."

Anyone who thinks they can help should contact Shaheen Mosquera on
0870 1500 100 or e-mail Shaheen.mosquera@irwinmitchell.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unusual Amount of Fibro Found at WI Project
------------------------------------------------------------
Don Behm of the Journal Sentinel reports that nine houses will be
demolished before the end of the year along the Kinnickinnic River
on Milwaukee's south side as part of a $60.6 million flood-control
project, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District officials said
Monday, Oct. 22.

The houses were acquired by the district this year.  The push to
take them down by late December is in response to complaints from
neighbors about the length of time -- between six and eight months
-- they have been vacant, according to Mike Martin, the district's
technical services director.  Boards cover first-floor windows.

Some of the buildings have been vandalized after residents moved
out and at least one of the houses "has been broken into multiple
times," Martin told district commissioners.

Delays occur in removing houses if inspectors encounter large
quantities of asbestos in the buildings requiring special removal
and disposal measures.

The proposed demolition of nine houses will boost the total number
of structures removed from the river's floodplain to 47 since
January 2011.

Once work is completed, the district will be more than halfway to
its goal of acquiring and removing 82 houses and one commercial
building along the river between S. 6th and S. 16th streets.

After the 83 buildings are removed, the concrete bed in that
stretch of the river will be taken out and the stream will be
widened to contain greater flood flows.

On Monday, the district's commission approved spending no more
than $55,000 to remove two houses, at 2610 S. 9th St. and 2622 S.
10th St.  The work will be done by Cream City Wrecking and
Dismantling LLC of Menomonee Falls.  The work is estimated to cost
$49,081.

The commission also authorized MMSD Executive Director Kevin
Shafer to add seven houses to existing demolition contracts.

Two houses will be taken down by Ray Hintz Inc. of Caledonia at an
estimated cost of $57,664.  The houses are at 2656 S. 8th St. and
1401 W. Harrison Ave.

Four other houses will be removed by Cream City at an estimated
cost of $117,850. Those houses are at 1331 W. Harrison Ave., 2604
S. 12th St., 2607 S. 13th St. and 1439 W. Harrison Ave.

Jaramillo Contractors Inc. of Franksville will demolish one house
at an estimated cost of $43,011.  The cost of removal soared after
initial inspections found an unusually large quantity of asbestos
material in the house at 2617 S. 8th St.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cwmcarn High School Relocation Proposal Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News South East Wales reports that plans to move all 900
pupils from a high school have been approved after asbestos was
discovered by workmen.

The decision was taken at a special meeting of Caerphilly
councillors a week after problems came to light at Cwmcarn High
School.

The children will be educated at Coleg Gwent's campus in Ebbw Vale
as a temporary measure from Monday, Nov. 5.

The packed meeting held in public heard that the move will cost
GBP1.4m.

Earlier, the head teacher, Jacqui Peplinski said she wanted to
relocate all the pupils and staff to another site.

In a message on its website, she said moving would keep "the
school's ethos and identity."

The school was shut on Friday, Oct. 15, after a structural report
identified asbestos in the main block.

Year 11, 12 and 13 pupils have since had lessons in the school's
performing arts block.

Year 10 pupils were asked to report to the performing arts block
on Tuesday morning, Oct. 23.

Following the meeting, Ystrad Mynach councillor Rhianon Passmore
said the authority had been working closely with the school and
governing body to enable the pupils and staff to return to classes
as quickly as possible.

"We have approved almost GBP1.5m in funding to support the move
and this clearly demonstrates our commitment to resolve this issue
and reduce the disruption to the school community," said
councillor Passmore, Caerphilly council's cabinet member for
education.

She said the move addresses the "short-term" needs of the school
for the rest of the academic year.

"But we now need to look to the future and how we resolve the
situation in the longer term," she added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doctors, Advocates Slams McGill U's Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
Monique Beaudin of The Montreal Gazette reports that the
investigation into misconduct charges aimed at a former McGill
University professor's asbestos research was biased and a
"whitewash," a group of doctors and anti-asbestos activists say.

McGill's report, released last Wednesday, Oct. 17, cleared retired
Professor John Corbett McDonald of allegations of misconduct
related to his research on into the health of Quebec asbestos
workers.

McGill Research Integrity Officer Abraham Fuks said McDonald
acknowledged he received financial support from the asbestos
industry.  In his report, Fuks said McDonald's research was
replicated by other groups and that its "robustness has endured
many critical analyses and legal inquiries."

Fuks also found there were no grounds to allegations the
university colluded with the asbestos industry to promote asbestos
use.  Fuks also said he found no reason to further investigate the
allegations against McDonald.

But the anti-asbestos activists say Fuks's conclusions were wrong
and that he didn't take into account all the evidence provided to
the university.

"When the McGill report says that McDonald's research was robust
and has been replicated by other scientists, and there is much
controversy in the world about the safety of chrysotile asbestos,
that's just patently wrong," said Dr. Colin Soskolne, a professor
of epidemiology at the University of Alberta's School of Public
Health, and one of four doctors to publicly criticize Fuks'
report.

"No one, to my knowledge, has been able to replicate the findings
other than if they were funded by the asbestos industry."

By the standards of the time, McDonald's research may not have
violated any rules, Soskolne said, but McGill should have
acknowledged that by 2012 standards of integrity and research, he
made "grievous offences."

In his report, Fuks said McDonald's research generated information
that led to "the near complete disappearance of the asbestos
industry in the developed world and the universal recognition of
the toxicity of the product."

In fact, Soskolne said, McDonald's research is being used in legal
proceedings in the United States to downplay the risks of asbestos
exposure.

The activists say McGill's review was "self-serving and without
transparency."  They said McGill refused to disclose the terms of
reference of the review, rejected concerns that the review process
was flawed and excluded "crucial damning information."

McGill should have an independent panel conduct an investigation,
said Kathleen Ruff, a senior adviser with the Ottawa-based Rideau
Institute.

"This has been a public-relations operation, not a credible
investigation, and it brings dishonor on McGill," Ruff said.  "If
McGill is confident about the quality of McDonald's research, an
independent panel will be helpful to them.  However it is clear
that they can't handle the truth."

A spokesperson for McGill said Tuesday, Oct. 23, the university
would not comment on the issues raised by the doctors.

Fuks began work on the report in March, after the university
received a formal complaint from dozens of academics, researchers
and physicians who said McDonald's research is still being used
today as evidence that asbestos use causes no harm to human
health.

McGill will follow one of the recommendations of Fuks's report,
which was that the university organize an academic conference to
review the current evidence on asbestos, look at safe
alternatives, particularly in the developing world, and the
engineering challenges of dealing with it in old buildings.

Two weeks ago, the owner of Quebec's last asbestos mine, the
Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos, announced it would not reopen.  Quebec
Premier Pauline Marois cancelled a $58-million loan the previous
Liberal government had given the mine to reopen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: B&B Discuss $48MM Verdict v. Union Carbide, et al
------------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide, a Dow Chemical subsidiary, and several other
asbestos companies were forced to pay a $48 million verdict to the
family of a mesothelioma patient.  The Los Angeles Superior Court
jury awarded the verdict after finding Union Carbide and others
responsible for the client's asbestos exposure and subsequent
mesothelioma diagnosis.  The mesothelioma verdict is one of the
largest of its kind in the nation in 2012.  Baron and Budd
represented the patient's family at trial.

Union Carbide brought up multiple paid expert witnesses who
claimed that the company's asbestos product, "Calidria asbestos,"
was not responsible for the mesothelioma patient's diagnosis.  But
several confidential internal memos revealed that Union Carbide
staff physicians called for the company to cease the marketing and
sales of its asbestos and criticized the company for claiming that
the product did not cause disease.

Baron and Budd mesothelioma attorneys Christine Tamer --
ctamer@baronbudd.com -- and John Langdoc -- jlangdoc@baronbudd.com
-- represented the family in the case.

"The asbestos companies despondently refused to acknowledge that
their products caused cancer," said mesothelioma attorney John
Langdoc.  "But we discovered that not only are their products
causing cancer, but that they also spent millions trying to hide
it."

Riverside Cement and CalPortland, two other asbestos companies
cited in the case, also brought forth paid expert witnesses to
attest that the amount of asbestos released from their products
was inconsequential.  But evidence revealed that the bags that
held their construction products were scientifically shown to
contain quadrillions of fibers of asbestos.

While the jury found all defendants responsible in the case, they
asked for $18 million in additional punitive damages from Union
Carbide for its corporate cover-up of asbestos dangers.

"The jury awarded punitive damages from Union Carbide in the
amount of $1 million for each year that the company continued to
distribute asbestos after a 1967 internal memo where the company
admitted that asbestos caused cancers, even after brief
exposures," said Langdoc.

Baron and Budd was one of the first mesothelioma law firms to take
on the asbestos industry and continues to fight today.  The law
firm has been pursuing important consumer litigation for almost 35
years.  Baron and Budd has a proven track record of significant
mesothelioma verdicts, including a $55 million verdict in El Paso,
TX; $20 million in San Francisco, CA; $17 million in Philadelphia,
PA; $11 million in Dallas, TX; and numerous others throughout the
nation.

To learn more about the mesothelioma lawyers at Baron and Budd,
call 1.866.855.1229 or visit the firm's dedicated mesothelioma
website Mesothelioma News.

                  About Baron & Budd, P.C.

The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. --
http://baronandbudd.com/-- has been "Protecting What's Right" for
asbestos sufferers and their families for nearly 40 years.  As one
of the first law firms to successfully litigate an asbestos
lawsuit, Baron & Budd continues to actively represent veterans,
industry workers and others who are suffering as a result of
exposure to asbestos.  Contact Baron and Budd at 1.866.855.1229
for additional information on mesothelioma treatments,
mesothelioma cancer doctors and treatment centers and mesothelioma
attorneys.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Reverses $25K Sanction on Asbestos Attorney
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reports that The Delaware Supreme
Court has overturned the sanctions imposed on an asbestos attorney
by a Superior Court judge frustrated with the size of the asbestos
docket.

Judge Peggy Ableman sanctioned Wilmington attorney Thomas Crumplar
of Jacobs & Crumplar in October 2011, imposing a $25,000 penalty
while complaining that lawsuits from out-of-state plaintiffs were
clogging the superior court in New Castle.

Crumplar had written that arguments made in a defendant's motion
for summary judgment were already denied in another case, but that
case had actually been settled before a decision had ever been
made on those arguments.

Ableman said she was too busy with an approximately 500-case
asbestos docket to tolerate the mistake, to which Crumplar
admitted but argued he committed in good faith.

"The Superior Court judge, although motivated by understandable
frustration compounded by the demands of a large docket,
sanctioned an attorney on her own initiative supported only by
'cold' papers, and imposed a large fine without inquiring into the
attorney's ability to pay," the state Supreme Court wrote Monday,
Oct. 22.

"These procedural shortcomings did not provide Crumplar with the
'reasonable opportunity to respond,' to which he was entitled."

The case Crumplar mistakenly cited was McNulty v. Anchor Packing
Co.  It was done in response to a motion for summary judgment
filed by County Insulation.

He said his firm has filed at least 131 cases against County
Insulation and that McNulty "seemed to be the most likely case."

Two days later, Crumplar wrote the court to inform it that he
found the intended case -- Opalczynski v. County Insulation.  He
did so after having a conversation with defense counsel.

"In essence, plaintiffs' counsel's response to the order to show
case asks this court to excuse his conduct because, in a nutshell,
he's done it before, apparently without consequences," Ableman
wrote.  "The court need not belabor the inappropriateness of this
argument.

"Even if the court takes plaintiffs' counsel at his word -- that
he did not intentionally misrepresent the result of the McNulty
case -- there is no place in this complex and demanding litigation
for any attorney to file papers without confirming the accuracy of
authority upon which an attorney clearly intends the court to
rely.

"At best, it demonstrates an unjustifiable laziness in carrying
out the duties of an attorney.  At worst, counsel's actions
evidence an intent to mislead the court in the hopes that it would
indeed be misled and thereby rule in his favor."

The ease with which Crumplar discovered the correct case -- "after
only an afternoon's worth of work" -- shows that he made no
initial effort, Ableman said.

"While ($25,000) may, at first blush, appear arbitrarily
excessive, it is not when compared to the relatively high verdicts
and settlements that are customary in these lawsuits," Ableman
wrote.

The state Supreme Court also said Ableman's sanctions appeared to
be based on her concern that Crumplar's behavior would cause her
problems in future cases.

"Crumplar's incorrect case citation for an otherwise accurate
statement, in a single paragraph of a response to a motion he
nevertheless lost, did not adversely affect the integrity of the
proceeding," it said.

"The record does not support the judge's finding that it 'tainted
the fairness and efficiency of the adversarial process.'"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement to Close Westlake High in April 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Hebert of Westlake Patch reports that the music rooms and
main gym at Westlake High School may be closed as early as April
to begin removing asbestos, it was revealed at Monday's (Oct. 22)
Board of Education meeting.

Dave Puffer, supervisor for construction projects for Westlake
City Schools, said  environmental regulations for removing
asbestos made getting started earlier key to finishing the
demolition of the high school on schedule.

Asbestos is made up of fibrous minerals that, because of their
strength and resistance to heat and chemicals, were used in a
variety of products, including ceiling tiles.  Asbestos is
connected with lung diseases such as lung cancer and mesothelioma.

The music rooms would be closed on April 15, with work done there
around May 3, Puffer said.  The main gym would be closed May 13,
with work expected to be done by May 31.

Board member Tony Falcone said that parents would have concerns
about removing asbestos while their children were in the building.

The removal would be very much like it was at the old Red Brick
School before it was torn down in 2010, Puffer said.  "The areas
would be pretty much hermetically sealed," he said.

Once work begins, no one can go into the area except for asbestos
removal workers, he added.  That means that anything left in those
areas is gone for good.

"We'll do final walk-throughs before work begins to give the go-
ahead," Puffer said.

Puffer said that anyone with questions about the asbestos removal
can contact him at Puffer@Wlake.org or by phone at 440-250-1299.

Superintendant Dan Keenan asked about access to the Performing
Arts Center, with events like Music a la Mode happening after work
begins.  Puffer said access would be through the WHBS-TV studios.

Puffer is scheduled to discuss the project with the district's
asbestos consultant, Emerald Environmental, on Thursday, Oct. 25.
Cost will also be discussed.

If the plans work for the project, Puffer said the bid for the
asbestos removal contract would be advertised on Feb. 7, 2013,
with bids being accepted on Feb. 28.  The Board of Education would
have a special meeting sometime in early March to award the
contract.

Asbestos removal can start in the rest of the school as soon as
school ends, Puffer said, which is currently set for May 31,
barring snow days.  The district will have about three months to
demolish the current high school before the new high school opens
for the 2013-14 school year on Sept. 3, 2013.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swansea Crusader Takes ARD Payout Drive to Senedd
------------------------------------------------------------------
South Wales Evening Post reports that a Swansea pensioner who is
fighting for compensation for people suffering from an asbestos-
related illness (ARD) is set to take his battle to the Welsh
Assembly Oct. 24.

Llangyfelach resident Brian Legg has been at the forefront of the
fight to get sufferers from pleural plaques -- a condition which
causes calcification of the lungs -- compensation for their
illness.

The Swansea Lung Foundation, which Mr. Legg is deputy chairman of,
is scheduled to visit the Senedd on Oct. 24 and the 78-year-old
will use it as a chance to explain the campaign.

He said: "I want people to recognize that people are suffering
from an industrial condition.

"We will be going along to meet some of the Assembly Members to
ask questions on lung disease.

"I will be asking about pleural plaques and how they can help."

In 2007 the House of Lords ruled sufferers would no longer qualify
for compensation after insurance companies challenged workers'
rights to claim pay-outs.

But last year, following a ruling by the Scottish Government and
the UK Supreme Court, it was announced those in Scotland would be
able to claim.

Mr. Legg added: "I was one of the lucky ones, I had my GBP5,000.

"But what about those who went down with the condition since the
House of Lords decision?

"That is the reason why I am campaigning, they are entitled to it.

"My chest is not right at all now.  I cough a lot and am
breathless," he added.

Mr. Legg has received the support of Swansea West MP Geraint
Davies, who put forward an Early Day Motion (EDM) in the House of
Commons, which asked the Government to provide a new compensation
package for those diagnosed with the condition.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Says 10% of Bundaberg Houses Have Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bundaberg News Mail reports that houses built in Bundaberg, in
Queensland, Australia, before 1985 would probably have asbestos in
them, according to a roofing specialist.

Charlie Walker runs Rum City Roofing, and part of his business
used to be getting rid of the asbestos in houses.

He was commenting on the announcement of a $1.5 million State
Government program to remove some of the most dangerous forms of
asbestos from government buildings.

Housing and Public Works Minister Bruce Flegg said the initiative
was part of the Government's broader long-term asbestos management
strategy.

"I am particularly concerned about high risk products like low
density asbestos fiber board and asbestos backed vinyl floor
sheeting, both of which are highly prone to releasing fibers into
the air when disturbed," Dr. Flegg said.

"I have instructed the department to identify projects where these
materials, particularly in schools, can be removed as a priority."

Mr. Walker said as far as he knew all the roofs in Bundaberg
region schools had been cleared of asbestos.

But he said more than 10% of the houses in Bundaberg would still
contain asbestos.

"Those would mostly be houses built in the 1950s or 1960s," he
said.

Mr. Walker, who said he had been an asbestos remover for about
eight years, stopped doing it at the beginning of the year.

"It's hard because they keep bringing in new rules and
regulations," he said.

Mr. Walker said the State Government had brought in new rules in
line with the more stringent federal laws.

He said the ceiling area had to be vacuumed after asbestos was
removed.

Any asbestos was supposed to be kept wet when it was removed,
which made it difficult because sometimes it started to break
down.

"You also have to wear throwaway suits," he said.

"It's almost intolerable to wear those.

"I've seen blokes pass out in Sydney in winter because they're
wearing those suits."

Dr. Flegg said any asbestos removal programs would increase the
demand for waste disposal facilities around the state that
accepted asbestos waste.

"Presently, asbestos can be safely disposed of at either a
licensed council-managed, or privately-owned facility."


                           *********

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  * * *