CAR_Public/130118.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, January 18, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 13

                             Headlines



ADVANCE AMERICA: Sued For Sending Misleading Collection Letters
ALLEGHENY COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over Property Assessment
ASSOCIATED CUT: Did Not Pay Employees' Overtime Wages, Suit Says
BABU FOODS: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations in New York
BASF CATALYSTS: N.J. Court Dismisses Asbestos Class Action Suit

BUGABOO INT'L: Recalls 50,740 Strollers Due Fall & Choking Risks
CHINA-BIOTICS: "Hill" and "Casper" Suits Consolidated in October
CLEAN HARBORS: Class Cert. Hearing in Alabama Suit This Month
CLEAN HARBORS: In Talks to Settle "Smith" and "Brooks" Claims
CLEAN HARBORS: Trial in Calif. Wage and Hour Suit Set for Feb.

CONAGRA FOODS: Final Hearing on $4.4-MM Settlement on March 26
DENTON COUNTY, TX: Faces FLSA Violation Class Action Suit
ENERGYSOLUTIONS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Energy Capital
EPOCRATES: Being Sold to Athenahealth for Too Little, Suit Claims
FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Appellate Court Decision in "Scott" Suit

FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits
GLENN'S MARKET: Recalls 2,532 Pounds of Raw Ground Beef Products
HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
KPMG LLP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
KTM NORTH: Recalls 1,300 Enduro Motorcycles Over Fuel Leak Hazard

MATCH.COM: Faces Class Suit For Sending Spam E-mails
MCMORAN EXPLORATION: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Delaware
MILO'S KITCHEN: Recalls Chicken Jerky and Grillers Dog Treats
MOSAIC CO: Petition for Review in Potash Antitrust Suit Pending
PENSION PLAN: Sued for Violating ERISA's Anti-Cutback Provision

SAMSUNG SDI: Faces Another Antitrust Class Suit in California
SILVERCORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
STANDARD FIRE: Sup. Ct. Considers Monetary Limits on Class Actions
STAPLES THE OFFICE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
STRUCTURAL PROTECTION: Painter Files Overtime Suit in New Orleans

TARGET CORP: Recalls 42,000 Girls' Circo Fleece Blanket Sleepers
TARGET CORP: Recalls 560,000 Children's Two-Piece Pajama Sets
WELLS FARGO: Wachovia Suit Settlement Class Members File Suit
WEST COVINA AUTO: FAA Preempts Prohibition Against Class Waivers

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has 2,500 Pending Asbestos Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ecology Unit Still Faces Draft Consent Order
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Esterline Still Subject to Potential Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Still Subject to Asbestos Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Piedmont Natural Gas Center Still Has Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Still a Defendant in "Scott" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Ongoing in "Jansen" Suit in Wisconsin
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BlueLinx Still Potentially Liable for Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hickok Still Pursuing Dismissal of Becker Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Grants Owners Insurance' Summary Judgment Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Dismisses Class Suit v. BASF, Cahill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Death Ends Atty.-Client Relationship
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Bid to Dismiss Ex-Mechanic's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Awards $22,600 in Fees to Lockheed, et al.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AHL Dropped as Defendant in Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Affirms Judgment Favoring Thomas Dee
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 59 Cases Consolidated With Inmates' Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote Plan Confirmed, ITCAN Objection Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TIG Insurance's Bid for Setoff Declaration Junked

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Allows Legal Malpractice Claims v. 2 Firms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Ct. Affirms Ruling in Legal Malpractice Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Whistleblower Suit v. Ysleta ISD Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Forum Ruling v. Illinois Central
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Successor's Summary Judgment Bid

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Clean Air Act Offense Conviction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Retains Jurisdiction Over Successor Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Grants Inmates' Request for Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. High Ct. Pens Ruling on Limitations Statute
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canterbury Health Boss Questions Fibro Encasement

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Widow Gets GBP145K From British Rail
ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Cheam Firm Cited for Fibro Law Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Cost May Derail "Moving Ohio" Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bondex's Lung Expert Defends Bias Allegations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio School Cited For Exposing Kids to Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,563 Madison Fibro Exposure Cases Filed in 2012
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants, Debtors Are Worlds Apart On Estimates
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Need Halts Davis County Library Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borg-Warner Corp, 123 Others Face Meso Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lowell Housing Sponsors Workers' Fibro Tests

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swansea Firm, Contractor Cited for HSE Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chevron USA, Owens-IL Case Moved to Houston MDL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brown U Professor Tells McGill U to Retract Study
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbia Loses Appeal Over $4MM Integrity Accord


                          *********



ADVANCE AMERICA: Sued For Sending Misleading Collection Letters
---------------------------------------------------------------
Addie Caine, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Advance America Cash Advance Centers of California,
LLC, d/b/a Advance America Cash Advance, and Does 1-10, Case No.
1-12-CV-237376 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., December 7,
2012) seeks redress for the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt
collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair
practices.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's collection letter sent
to her made false, deceptive and misleading statements in an
attempt to collect a debt or collect payment on a debt.  She adds
that the Defendant created a false sense of urgency.

Ms. Caine was a resident of the city of San Jose, County of Santa
Clara, California at the time the collection letters were sent.

Advance America is a Delaware corporation based in Spartanburg,
South Carolina.  The Defendant regularly engages in the business
of collecting debts on behalf of itself in California.  The Doe
Defendants are persons or entities whose true names and capacities
are presently unknown to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald Wilcox, Esq.
          1900 The Alameda, Suite 530
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 296-0400
          Facsimile: (408) 296-0486
          E-mail: ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu


ALLEGHENY COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over Property Assessment
-------------------------------------------------------------
KDKA reports that some Allegheny County property owners who are
upset they lost their assessment appeal are seeking to join a
class-action lawsuit.

They say they paid hundreds of dollars to have their home
appraised, only to have the appraisal rejected.

A lawsuit filed by Joseph Stivorich and 10 others contends that
Allegheny County and its Property Assessment Appeals Board ignores
the property values certified by state-approved real estate
appraisers.

"I didn't accomplish anything by going through all the -- monies I
spent, the trip into town, nothing.  I have nothing to show for
it, and I'm very disappointed," Mr. Stivorich told KDKA money
editor Jon Delano.

Mr. Stivorich spent nearly $200 for an appraisal -- that valued
his Shaler home thirty-thousand dollars less than the county did
-- but that value was ignored by hearing officers.

He's not alone.

"They made no changes at all.  It was the same, which I was
appalled," said Melaine Kachmar of Reserve.

After her home was reassessed from $47,000 to $127,000, Ms.
Kachmar hired an appraiser.

"She appraised the property at $55,000, which I thought was fair,"
she said.

But with no other evidence to the contrary, the hearing office
rejected the appraiser's value.

When homeowners are hit with higher-than-expected reassessment
values on their homes, it's only natural that they would go out
and hire a state-certified appraiser to get a real value for their
home.

But what really irks them is that when hearing officials reject
that number, they give no explanation of why.

"Sometimes they just pick a number out of the air from what we can
tell because there doesn't seem to be any basis for the hearing
officer to determine another value," noted attorney David Huntley,
who filed the lawsuit.

The county says they have the right to reject an appraisal.

But Mr. Huntley says, ironically, many of the appraisers hired by
property owners are recommended by the county.

"How is the citizenry going to have any confidence in the fairness
of the system when this sort of thing goes on," he added.


ASSOCIATED CUT: Did Not Pay Employees' Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Olivares, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Associated Cut Flower Co., Inc. and John Kantakis,
Case No. 1:12-cv-08914-RA (S.D.N.Y., December 7, 2012) seeks
recovery of (i) unpaid overtime, (ii) liquidated damages, and
(iii) attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Olivares contends that at all relevant times, the Defendants
knowingly and willfully failed to pay him his lawfully earned
overtime wages in direct contravention of the FLSA and the New
York Labor Law.  He adds that the Defendants also knowingly and
willfully failed to pay him his lawfully earned "spread of hours"
premium in direct contravention of the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Olivares is a resident of Queens County, New York.

Associated Cut Flower is a New York domestic business corporation.
Mr. Kantakis is the chairman or chief executive officer of the
Company.  He exercised control over the terms and conditions of
Plaintiff's employment and those of similarly situated employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-mail: info@wagecases.com


BABU FOODS: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Victor Maldonado, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Babu Foods Inc. d/b/a Hudson Diner, Rajiv Chowdhury,
and Humayan Sorker, Case No. 1:12-cv-08895 (S.D.N.Y., December 7,
2012) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Mr.
Maldonado is entitled to recover from the Defendants:

   (1) unpaid minimum wages;
   (2) unpaid overtime compensation;
   (3) liquidated damages;
   (4) pre- and post-judgment interests; and
   (5) attorneys' fees and costs.

Mr. Maldonado alleges that during the relevant six year
limitations period beginning in December 2006 and continuing
through approximately November 2007, he was not paid proper
minimum wages or overtime compensation.

Mr. Maldonado is a resident of Bronx County, New York.  He was
previously employed by the Defendants.

Hudson Diner is a domestic business corporation in New York.  The
Individual Defendants are owners, officers and directors of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


BASF CATALYSTS: N.J. Court Dismisses Asbestos Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants BASF Catalysts LLC, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Howard
G. Sloane, Ira J. Dembrow and Scott A. Martin, Thomas D. Halket,
Arthur A. Dornbusch II, and Glen Hemstock filed several motions to
dismiss an amended class action complaint filed in a putative
class action, which seeks nationwide relief for the alleged
misconduct of BASF and its then-counsel, Cahill, in connection
with thousands of asbestos exposure lawsuits filed by individuals
primarily in state courts throughout the United States over a
period of more than 25 years.

In a Dec. 12, 2012, decision, Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the entire
Amended Complaint as barred by the Anti-Injunction Act and for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Judge Chesler held that, first, there is no indication that
Plaintiffs could cure the various impediments and deficiencies
preventing the claims in the Amended Complaint from surmounting
the Defendants' motion to dismiss; and, second, the Amended
Complaint was in fact filed in response to the Defendants' initial
round of motions to dismiss in an attempt to address those
challenges.

Plaintiffs, in short, have already explored revising their claims
and nevertheless, have failed to construct a legally sufficient
pleading, Judge Chesler ruled.

The case is KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BASF
CATALYSTS LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-1754
(SRC)(D. N.J.).  A copy of Judge Chesler's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/WCBQNUfrom Leagle.com.


BUGABOO INT'L: Recalls 50,740 Strollers Due Fall & Choking Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Bugaboo Americas, of El Segundo,
California, and manufacturer, Bugaboo International B.V., of
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, announced a voluntary recall of about
46,300 Bugaboo Cameleon and Bugaboo Donkey Model Strollers in the
United States of America and 4,440 in Canada.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

A button on the stroller's carrycot/seat carry handle can become
disengaged and cause the handle to detach, posing fall and choking
hazards to young children.

Bugaboo has received 58 reports of carry handles detaching.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the carry handles on Bugaboo Cameleon and
Bugaboo Donkey model strollers with detachable carrycots/seats.
The strollers were sold with a base, sun canopy and other
accessories in various colors.  A fabric tag on the side of the
sun canopy has Bugaboo and the model name.  Strollers included in
the recall have a serial number that falls within the range listed
below.  Serial numbers are printed on the stroller's chassis,
located under the carrycot/seat.

   Bugaboo Cameleon
   * Serial Number 04011090900001 to 04031101009999
   * Serial Number 08011090900001 to 08021100800386
   * Serial Number 140100093600531 to 140103123350418

   Bugaboo Donkey
   * Serial Number 170101105300001 to 170104130900500

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13092.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Buy
Buy Baby, Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, Toys R Us and other baby
product stores nationwide, online at Bugaboo.com and other online
retailers.  The Bugaboo Cameleon was sold between September 2009
and June 2012 for about $980.  The Bugaboo Donkey was sold from
January 2011 through December 2012 for between $1,200 and $1,600.

Consumers should immediately remove the carry handle from the
strollers and contact Bugaboo for a free replacement handle.
Consumers can continue to use the strollers while awaiting the
replacement handle.  Bugaboo International may be reached at (800)
460-2922, from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through
Friday, or online at http://www.bugaboo.com/and click on
"Important Quality Initiative" for more information.  Consumers
can e-mail the firm at serviceus@bugaboo.com


CHINA-BIOTICS: "Hill" and "Casper" Suits Consolidated in October
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two shareholder class action lawsuits pending in California were
consolidated last October, according to China-Biotics, Inc.'s
January 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in three putative
shareholder class action lawsuits, one in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Mohapatra
v. China-Biotics, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-6954 (C.D. Cal.), the
"Mohapatra case"), and two in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Hill v. China-Biotics, Inc., et
al., No. 10-cv-7838 (S.D.N.Y.), the "Hill case", and Casper v.
Jinan, et al, No. 12-cv-4202 (S.D.N.Y), the "Casper case").  After
certain shareholders filed motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff, the plaintiff in the Mohapatra case voluntarily
dismissed its case and the plaintiff in the Hill case, together
with another shareholder, were appointed as lead plaintiffs.  The
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they allege
that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements
or failing to disclose certain material information regarding,
among other things, the Company's financial condition, operations,
and future business prospects, and the quality, nature, and
quantity of the Company's retail outlets.  The lead plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of shareholders who bought the Company's
securities between July 10, 2008, and August 27, 2010.

On August 18, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lead
plaintiffs' amended complaint.  The court dismissed the lead
plaintiffs' Section 11 claim, but gave them leave to replead.  The
court did not rule on the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b)
claim.  On January 9, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint that included a new named plaintiff and new
allegations for the Section 11 claim.  On February 27, 2012, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended Section 11 claim.
Both that motion and the original motion to dismiss the Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) claims are currently pending before the
court.  The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

In the Casper case, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making material misstatements and seeks to represent a
class of stockholders who bought the Company's securities between
February 9, 2011, and July 1, 2011.  On October 18, 2012, the Hill
case and the Casper case were consolidated, but no consolidated
amended complaint has yet been filed.  The Company says it intends
to defend this action vigorously.


CLEAN HARBORS: Class Cert. Hearing in Alabama Suit This Month
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the request for class certification in the lawsuit in
Alabama involving a subsidiary of Clean Harbors, Inc., is set for
January 2013, according to the Company's January 4, 2013, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 28, 2012, Clean Harbors, Inc. ("Clean Harbors")
completed its previously announced proposed acquisition of Safety-
Kleen, Inc. ("Safety-Kleen") through a merger of CH Merger Sub,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Clean Harbors, into Safety-
Kleen, with Safety-Kleen surviving such merger as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Clean Harbors.  Safety-Kleen, a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Richardson, Texas, is a leading provider of parts
cleaning and environmental services and the largest re-refiner and
recycler of used oil in North America.  The acquisition was
completed in accordance with the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of October 26, 2012 (the "Merger Agreement") among
Safety-Kleen, Clean Harbors and Merger Sub, which was an exhibit
to Clean Harbors' Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on October 31, 2012, and which is
incorporated into this report by reference.

Under the Merger Agreement, Clean Harbors paid an all-cash
purchase price for Safety-Kleen of approximately $1.25 billion,
plus an adjustment of $7.3 million for the amount by which Safety-
Kleen's working capital (excluding cash) on the closing date
exceeded $50.0 million as of December 28, 2012.  Clean Harbors
financed such purchase through a combination of $300 million of
existing cash, $368 million in net proceeds from Clean Harbors'
recently completed public offering of 6.9 million shares of Clean
Harbors common stock, and $589 million in net proceeds from Clean
Harbors' recently completed private debt offering of $600 million
of 5.125% senior unsecured notes due 2021.

In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of
Alabama, in state court in Alabama alleging that Safety-Kleen
improperly assessed fuel surcharges and extended area service
fees.  Safety-Kleen disputes the basis of the claims on numerous
grounds, including that Safety-Kleen has contracts with numerous
customers authorizing the assessment of such fees and that in
cases where no contract exists Safety-Kleen provides customers
with a document at the time of service reflecting the assessment
of the fee, followed by an invoice itemizing the fee.  It is
Safety-Kleen's position that it had the right to assess fuel
surcharges, that the customers consented to the charges and that
the surcharges were voluntarily paid by the customers when
presented with an invoice.  The lawsuit is still in its initial
stages of discovery.  A hearing on the request for class
certification is set for January 2013.  In late June 2012, a
nearly identical lawsuit was filed by the same law firm on behalf
of a California-based customer.  The lawsuit contends, under
various state law theories, that Safety-Kleen impermissibly
assessed fuel surcharges and late payment fees, and seeks
certification of a class of California customers only.  Safety-
Kleen will assert the same defenses as in the Alabama litigation.
Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount
of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these
matters as of December 31, 2011.


CLEAN HARBORS: In Talks to Settle "Smith" and "Brooks" Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, Inc. disclosed in its January 4, 2013, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is
in negotiations to resolve wage and hour claims in the "Smith" and
"Brooks" suits filed against its unit.

On December 28, 2012, Clean Harbors, Inc. ("Clean Harbors")
completed its previously announced proposed acquisition of Safety-
Kleen, Inc. ("Safety-Kleen") through a merger of CH Merger Sub,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Clean Harbors, into Safety-
Kleen, with Safety-Kleen surviving such merger as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Clean Harbors.  Safety-Kleen, a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Richardson, Texas, is a leading provider of parts
cleaning and environmental services and the largest re-refiner and
recycler of used oil in North America.  The acquisition was
completed in accordance with the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of October 26, 2012 (the "Merger Agreement") among
Safety-Kleen, Clean Harbors and Merger Sub, which was an exhibit
to Clean Harbors' Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on October 31, 2012, and which is
incorporated into this report by reference.

Under the Merger Agreement, Clean Harbors paid an all-cash
purchase price for Safety-Kleen of approximately $1.25 billion,
plus an adjustment of $7.3 million for the amount by which Safety-
Kleen's working capital (excluding cash) on the closing date
exceeded $50.0 million as of December 28, 2012.  Clean Harbors
financed such purchase through a combination of $300 million of
existing cash, $368 million in net proceeds from Clean Harbors'
recently completed public offering of 6.9 million shares of Clean
Harbors common stock, and $589 million in net proceeds from Clean
Harbors' recently completed private debt offering of $600 million
of 5.125% senior unsecured notes due 2021.

In October 2010, a then current employee (Smith) filed a
complaint, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees of Safety-Kleen located at the Dolton Recycle Center, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Illinois alleging that Safety-Kleen violated wage and hour laws by
failing to pay employees for periods when they were donning and
doffing work uniforms and personal protective equipment ("PPE"),
walking between the employee locker room and time clock and
showering.  The plaintiffs contend that when unpaid time is added
to their weekly schedule, they worked unpaid overtime hours.
Safety-Kleen disputed that this time is legally compensable but,
in any event, pays the employees an additional quarter hour per
day beyond their timecard and provides a 30-minute paid lunch
period that Safety-Kleen is not legally required to pay.
Together, these voluntary payments and credits far exceed the
amount of time the employees claim they are entitled to for
donning and doffing of PPE, walking between the locker room and
time clock and showering.  Safety-Kleen opposed the plaintiffs'
request to certify a class but the Court conditionally granted
certification.  After notice to all potential class members, only
12 individuals joined the lawsuit as class members.  Following
extensive discovery, Safety-Kleen moved to dismiss the case as not
legally supportable and to decertify the class.

In January 2012, the Court denied Safety-Kleen's motion to dismiss
but granted Safety-Kleen's motion to decertify the class, allowing
the original plaintiff to proceed individually and requiring the
former class members to file individual lawsuits if they wanted to
proceed.  Ten of the 12 dismissed class members filed individual
lawsuits following dismissal of the class, while two former class
members opted not to proceed with the lawsuit.  Trial of the
originally filed claim was held between July 9 and July 11, 2012,
with the jury finding for the plaintiff and awarding him $1,528.
A request for attorney's fees will be made and Safety-Kleen is in
negotiations to resolve that aspect of the claim as well as the
individual claims filed by the former class members after
decertification.  In October 2011, a second class lawsuit (Brooks)
involving a broader potential class was filed by the same law firm
and alleging the same violations as the Smith case.  Safety-Kleen
continues to dispute the merits of this second class action but is
in negotiations to resolve this matter with the other cases.
Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount
of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these
matters as of December 31, 2011.


CLEAN HARBORS: Trial in Calif. Wage and Hour Suit Set for Feb.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial of an individual wage and hour claim in California against a
subsidiary of Clean Harbors, Inc. has been set for February 2013,
according to the Company's January 4, 2013, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 28, 2012, Clean Harbors, Inc. ("Clean Harbors")
completed its previously announced proposed acquisition of Safety-
Kleen, Inc. ("Safety-Kleen") through a merger of CH Merger Sub,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Clean Harbors, into Safety-
Kleen, with Safety-Kleen surviving such merger as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Clean Harbors.  Safety-Kleen, a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Richardson, Texas, is a leading provider of parts
cleaning and environmental services and the largest re-refiner and
recycler of used oil in North America.  The acquisition was
completed in accordance with the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of October 26, 2012 (the "Merger Agreement") among
Safety-Kleen, Clean Harbors and Merger Sub, which was an exhibit
to Clean Harbors' Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on October 31, 2012, and which is
incorporated into this report by reference.

Under the Merger Agreement, Clean Harbors paid an all-cash
purchase price for Safety-Kleen of approximately $1.25 billion,
plus an adjustment of $7.3 million for the amount by which Safety-
Kleen's working capital (excluding cash) on the closing date
exceeded $50.0 million as of December 28, 2012.  Clean Harbors
financed such purchase through a combination of $300 million of
existing cash, $368 million in net proceeds from Clean Harbors'
recently completed public offering of 6.9 million shares of Clean
Harbors common stock, and $589 million in net proceeds from Clean
Harbors' recently completed private debt offering of $600 million
of 5.125% senior unsecured notes due 2021.

Three separate class action lawsuits have been filed in California
courts against Safety-Kleen since November 2005 alleging unpaid
overtime, wages for break and meal periods, violations of state
wage statement requirements or similar claims.  The named
plaintiffs are former customer service representatives ("CSRs") of
Safety-Kleen and the putative classes appear to include all CSRs
and "Tanker Truck Drivers" employed by Safety-Kleen in California
since November 2002.  The two later-filed cases originally filed
in Southern California, were transferred to the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, before the same
judge as the first filed case.  In July 2008, Safety-Kleen was
granted summary judgment in the first case on the primary claims
(meal and rest break violations) and subsequently settled the
remaining claims related to the form of Safety-Kleen's wage
statement for California employees for $210 thousand, of which
$113 thousand was refunded in April 2010 due to a lower than
anticipated participation by potential class members.  In March
2010, the Court granted plaintiffs' request for statutory
attorneys' fees, awarding the plaintiffs $320 thousand.  Safety-
Kleen appealed this ruling, but the ruling was sustained in August
2011.  Safety-Kleen satisfied the attorneys' fee award, plus
interest and attorneys' fees on appeal, by paying $359 thousand in
September 2011.  The second filed case was dismissed with
prejudice in 2007.  The third case involves the failure to pay
overtime to certain employees based on their classification.
Safety-Kleen disputes that there was an improper classification
and contends that the employees were exempt from overtime under
both federal and state exemptions.  In December 2010, the Court,
which had previously conditionally certified a class action,
decertified the case as a class action, allowing one plaintiff to
proceed individually (with the possibility, if he is successful,
of employing California's Private Attorney General Act on behalf
of a class).  The trial of this individual claim has been set for
February 2013.  California law is not clear on the issues
remaining in the individual case, and Safety-Kleen is unable to
ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or
financial impact with respect to the remaining matters as of
December 31, 2011.


CONAGRA FOODS: Final Hearing on $4.4-MM Settlement on March 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on the final approval of Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.'s $4.4
million settlement of three class action lawsuits involving its
subsidiaries has been set for March 26, 2013, according to ConAgra
Foods, Inc.'s January 3, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On November 26, 2012, ConAgra Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., a Missouri corporation
("Ralcorp"), and Phoenix Acquisition Sub Inc., a Missouri
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger
Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and
into Ralcorp (the "Acquisition"), with Ralcorp surviving as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, as described in the
Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company on November 27,
2012.  The parties' obligations to complete the Acquisition are
conditioned upon (i) the receipt of regulatory approvals in the
United States and Canada, (ii) approval of the Merger Agreement by
the holders of two-thirds of the outstanding shares of Ralcorp
common stock and (iii) certain other customary closing conditions.
Consummation of the Acquisition is not subject to a financing
condition.  On December 28, 2012, Ralcorp began mailing its
definitive proxy statement to its shareholders in connection with
the special meeting of shareholders called to vote on the approval
of the Acquisition, which is scheduled to be held on January 29,
2013.

Two of Ralcorp's subsidiaries are subject to three lawsuits
brought by former employees currently pending in separate
California state courts alleging, among other things, that
employees did not receive statutorily mandated meal breaks
resulting in incorrect payment of wages, inaccurate wage
statements, unpaid overtime and incorrect payments to terminated
employees.  Each of these lawsuits was filed as a class action and
seeks to include in the class certain current and former employees
of the respective subsidiary involved.  In each case, the
plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees,
compensatory and other monetary damages, statutory penalties, and
injunctive relief.  No determination has been made by any court
regarding class certification.  In April 2012, Ralcorp agreed with
the plaintiffs and a third party staffing agency formerly used by
Ralcorp to the terms of a proposed settlement with respect to
these lawsuits, and in September 2012, the parties entered into a
global settlement with respect to these claims.  Under the terms
of the settlement, Ralcorp has agreed to pay $4.4 million in order
to resolve these claims.  Ralcorp accrued $4.4 million related to
the settlement during the quarter ended March 31, 2012.  Under the
terms of the settlement, however, it is possible that up to $1.5
million could be returned to Ralcorp depending upon the number of
current and former employees who participate in the settlement.
On October 22, 2012, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement, and the final approval has been set for March 26,
2013, at which time the case is expected to be dismissed.


DENTON COUNTY, TX: Faces FLSA Violation Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
that a Denton County law enforcement officer has filed a class
action lawsuit claiming that the county is violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act by compensating some employees for their
overtime hours with compensatory time credit instead of pay.

Taylor White, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed suit against Denton County and Denton
County Sheriff's Department on Jan. 10 in the Eastern District of
Texas, Sherman Division.

Mr. White is bringing the lawsuit on behalf of all non-exempt law
enforcement employees, who were, are or will be employed by the
defendant during the period of three years prior to the filing of
the lawsuit and who have worked more than 86 hours during a 14-day
work period.

According to the lawsuit, Denton County has a policy which
provides that hours worked from 81 through 86 during a 14 day work
period are compensated on a straight-time basis and hours worked
in excess of 86 hours are compensated on a time-and-a-half basis.

However, with regard to non-exempt law enforcement personnel,
Denton County pays overtime hours worked in the form of granting
compensatory time as opposed to cash, the suit states.

Mr. White claims in those weeks that comp time is granted, Denton
County fails to pay employees cash for the hours worked between 81
and 86 hours, but instead grants compensatory time on a straight
time basis.

The defendant is accused of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
by forced compensatory time in lieu of straight time, by forced
compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay, and for failing to
timely pay both straight time and overtime.

Mr. White is seeking an award of damages for unpaid straight time
compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, lost wages, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, court costs, and interest.

The plaintiff is represented by John F. Melton of Melton & Kumler
LLP in Austin.  A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Richard A. Schell is assigned to the case.

Case No. 4:13-cv-00013


ENERGYSOLUTIONS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Energy Capital
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that EnergySolutions is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Energy Capital
Partners II, for $3.75 a share or $1.1 billion, shareholders claim
in Chancery Court.


EPOCRATES: Being Sold to Athenahealth for Too Little, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Epocrates, an electronic
source for doctors, is selling itself too cheaply through an
unfair process to Athenahealth, for $11.25 a share, shareholders
claim in San Mateo County Court.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Appellate Court Decision in "Scott" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. is awaiting an appellate court decision
in the class action lawsuit filed by Scott, et al., according to
the Company's January 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November
24, 2012.

On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama, captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female store managers.  This case was
pled as a putative class action or collective action under
applicable statutes on behalf of all current and former female
store managers.  The plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay,
compensatory and punitive damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and
equitable relief.  The case was transferred to the N.C. Federal
Court.  On January 13, 2012, the N.C. Federal Court ruled in the
Company's favor, striking the plaintiffs' class claims and denying
plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint.  The plaintiffs filed
a petition to appeal this decision to the Fourth Circuit.  The
appellate briefing on this issue concluded, and the Fourth Circuit
decision is pending.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to predict
whether the Fourth Circuit will affirm the N.C. Federal Court's
decision striking the class allegations.  Although the Company
intends to vigorously defend the action, no assurances can be
given that the Company will be successful in the defense on the
merits or otherwise.  For these reasons, the Company is unable to
estimate any potential loss or range of loss.  The Company has
tendered the matter to its Employment Practices Liability
Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI policy.  At
this time, the Company expects that the EPLI carrier will
participate in any potential resolution of some or all of the
plaintiffs' claims.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits alleging wage and hour law violations,
according to the Company's January 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 24, 2012.

Since 2004, certain individuals who held the position of store
manager for the Company have filed lawsuits alleging that the
Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and/or
similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who
are not entitled to overtime compensation.  Some of the plaintiffs
also seek to proceed as collective actions under the FLSA or as
class actions under state laws.  Plaintiffs seek recovery of
overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.

                    Multi-District Litigation

Many of the cases asserting claims under the FLSA were
consolidated in a Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") proceeding
pending in the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
Division (the "N.C. Federal Court").  There are presently twelve
cases in the MDL proceeding in which plaintiffs are asserting
individual, class and/or collective action status.  In total,
following certain dismissals and summary dispositions, 32
individually named plaintiffs currently have cases pending in the
MDL proceeding.

In two of the cases, Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward
v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., the N.C. Federal Court determined
that the plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore,
that neither nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the
FLSA was appropriate.  The N.C. Federal Court also granted summary
judgment against Irene Grace on the merits of her
misclassification claim under the FLSA.  The plaintiffs appealed
certain rulings of the N.C. Federal Court to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the "Fourth Circuit").
On March 22, 2011, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the N.C. Federal
Court's decision finding that Ms. Grace was exempt from overtime
compensation under the FLSA.  The Fourth Circuit did not address
the class certification finding the issue was moot given that the
claims had been dismissed on the merits.

In addition to the Grace decision, the N. C. Federal Court has
repeatedly ruled in favor of the Company and granted summary
judgment, finding that the plaintiffs were properly classified as
exempt from overtime pay.  Thirty-four individuals have filed
notices of appeal of these dismissals to the Fourth Circuit.

All putative class action cases based solely on state law have
been dismissed from the MDL and were transferred to the
appropriate state court jurisdiction.

                     State Law Class Actions

The Company is a defendant in seven class action lawsuits in seven
states alleging that store managers should be non-exempt employees
under various state laws.  The plaintiffs in these cases seek
recovery of overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
court costs. The states and cases are:

   * Colorado -- Julie Farley v. Family Dollar Stores of
     Colorado, Inc., was filed on February 7, 2012, in the United
     States District Court for the District of Colorado seeking
     unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Colorado
     store managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly
     classified as exempt from overtime pay under Colorado law.
     On June 4, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
     certain of plaintiff's state law claims.  The Magistrate
     submitted recommendations that those common law claims be
     dismissed.  Plaintiff opposed the Magistrate's
     recommendation and the decision is currently pending before
     the district court.  Class discovery has begun.

   * Connecticut -- Cook, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
     Connecticut, Inc., was filed on October 5, 2011, in the
     Superior Court of the State of Connecticut seeking unpaid
     overtime pay for a class of current and former Connecticut
     store managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly
     classified as exempt from overtime under Connecticut law.
     The parties have concluded class discovery.  The Company has
     filed summary judgment seeking dismissal of one of the named
     plaintiffs' claims, Cook.  Plaintiff has filed a motion
     seeking class certification.  A hearing is scheduled on the
     class certification motion on January 7, 2013.

   * Kentucky -- Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., was filed on
     February 17, 2010, in Circuit Court in Jefferson County,
     Kentucky seeking unpaid overtime, compensation for unpaid
     breaks and for seventh day work under Kentucky law for a
     class of current and former Kentucky store managers.  The
     Company removed this matter to the United States District
     Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  The parties
     filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  On October 25,
     2012, the district court granted the Company's motion for
     summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion.  On
     November 26, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
     the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The parties are
     scheduled to participate in court-ordered mediation in
     January 2013.

   * Missouri -- Twila Walters et. al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
     Missouri, Inc., was filed on January 26, 2010, seeking
     unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Missouri
     store managers who presently reside in Missouri and whom
     plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
     overtime under Missouri law.  This matter is pending in the
     Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (the "Jackson
     County Circuit Court").  On May 10, 2011, the Jackson County
     Circuit Court certified the class under Missouri law.  The
     parties are engaged in merits discovery.  The trial has been
     continued to November 2013.  The parties are scheduled to
     participate in mediation in February 2013.

   * New Jersey -- Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed
     in the United States District Court for the District of New
     Jersey on March 3, 2011, seeking unpaid overtime pay for a
     class of current and former New Jersey store managers whom
     plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
     overtime pay under New Jersey law.  This matter has been
     administratively dismissed by the district court.

   * New York -- Youngblood, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
     New York, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States
     District Court for the Southern District of New York on
     April 2, 2009.  Rancharan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was
     filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens
     County on March 4, 2009.  Rancharan was removed to the
     United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
     York on May 6, 2009, and was transferred to the Southern
     District of New York where the case has been consolidated
     with Youngblood.  The parties have a preliminary agreement
     to resolve this matter for a maximum payment of $14 million.
     The Company believes the liability recorded associated with
     this action is appropriate based on its estimate of the most
     likely payout under the preliminary settlement agreement.
     The motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was
     filed on November 14, 2012.

   * Pennsylvania -- Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., which
     was formerly pending in the N.C. Federal Court, was remanded
     back to the United States District Court for the Eastern
     District of Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012.  In Itterly,
     plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of
     current and former Pennsylvania store managers whom
     plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
     overtime pay under Pennsylvania law.  Discovery closed in
     June 2012.  The Company has filed summary judgment seeking
     dismissal of Itterly's claims in their entirety, which is
     pending before the court.

In general, the Company continues to believe that its store
managers relevant to this litigation are "exempt" employees under
the FLSA and have been and are being properly compensated under
both federal and state laws.  The Company further believes that
these actions are not appropriate for collective or class action
treatment.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims in
these actions.  No assurances can be given that the Company will
be successful in the defense of these actions, on the merits or
otherwise.  The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of loss that may result from these actions, with the
exception of the preliminary settlement of the
Rancharan/Youngblood case.


GLENN'S MARKET: Recalls 2,532 Pounds of Raw Ground Beef Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn's Market and Catering, a Watertown, Wisconsin establishment,
is recalling approximately 2,532 pounds of raw 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 products subject to recall are:

   * Various size packages of Glenn's Market ground round,
     ground chuck and ground beef sold between December 22, 2012,
     and January 4, 2013.

The products subject to recall were sold only at Glenn's Market
and Catering in Watertown, WI from the retail meat case.

FSIS was notified of an investigation of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses
by the Wisconsin Division of Public Health on January 10, 2013.
Working in conjunction with the Wisconsin Division of Public
Health, three case-patients with the outbreak strain have been
identified in the state with illness onset dates ranging from Dec.
29, 2012 to Jan. 1, 2013.  Among the three case-patients with
available information, all three reported consuming raw ground
round; two consumed product ground and purchased on Dec. 24, 2012;
the third consumed product ground and purchased on Dec. 30, 2012
prior to illness onset.  FSIS is continuing to work with the
Watertown Department of Public Health, the Wisconsin Division of
Public Health, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention on this investigation.

FSIS and the establishment are concerned that some product may be
frozen and in shoppers' freezers.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web site at:

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

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4
days, on average) after exposure to the organism.  While most
people recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney
failure called HUS.  This condition can occur among persons of any
age but is most common in children under 5-years old and older
adults.  Symptoms of HUS may include fever, abdominal pain, pale
skin tone, fatigue and irritability, small, unexplained bruises or
bleeding from the nose and mouth, decreased urination, and
swelling.  Persons who experience these symptoms should seek
emergency medical care immediately.

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, Jeff Roberts, at (920) 261-
2226.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at 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.  The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring
System can be accessed 24 hours a day at:

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


HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hewlett Packard stiffed tech
support workers and engineers for overtime, a class action claims
in Federal Court.


KPMG LLP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Jan. 15 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of TierOne stock between
March 13, 2009 and May 14, 2010.  The complaint charges TierOne's
former auditor KPMG LLP and certain of KPMG's audit partners with
violating the federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go to the Web site at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-
767-3653 or e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska.

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

The complaint charges that KPMG and certain of its audit partners
violated the federal securities laws by issuing a false and
misleading "clean" audit opinion for TierOne's fiscal year 2008
financial statements and its internal controls.  The complaint
asserts that KPMG fraudulently disregarded audit procedures and
tests that, if conducted, would have revealed the financial fraud
at TierOne.  When news of the fraud was revealed, the price of
TierOne's stock dropped and ultimately the bank failed -- causing
investors substantial losses.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of TierOne
shareholders.  If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must
move the Court no later than March 18, 2013.  If you wish to join
the litigation or to discuss your rights or interests regarding
this class action, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Phillip
Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via
e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- focuses on
prosecuting securities class action litigation and actions
involving financial fraud. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors
throughout the globe concentrating its practice in securities
class actions.


KTM NORTH: Recalls 1,300 Enduro Motorcycles Over Fuel Leak Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, KTM North America, Inc., of Amherst, Ohio, and
manufacturer, KTM-Sportmotorcycle AG, of Mattighofen, Austria,
announced a voluntary recall of about 1,300 Enduro motorcycles.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

During use, the pre-formed fuel hose can develop small holes or
cracks at the ends of the hose, allowing fuel to leak.  This poses
a fire and crash hazard to the rider and/or others.  KTM has
received 13 reports of fuel leaks.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recall includes seven 2013 and one 2012 model off-road and
closed-course motorcycle.  Model numbers included are: 2013 KTM
Motorcycles: 250 XC-F, 250 XCF-W, 350 XC-F, 350 XCF-W, 450 XC-F,
450 XC-W, 500 XC-W and MY 2012 KTM 350 XCF-W.  The model number is
printed on the rear fender on both sides of the motorcycle just
below the tail end of the seat.  These two-wheeled motorcycles are
black and orange.  KTM is printed on the front number
plate/headlight mask and on both sides of the shrouds covering the
fuel tank.  A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13094.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Austria and sold at
authorized KTM dealers nationwide from October 2011 through
September 2012 for between $8,500 and $9,600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled KTM
motorcycles and contact a KTM authorized dealer to schedule a free
repair.  KTM North America Inc. may be reached toll-free at (888)
985-6090 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or online at http://www.ktmusa.com/and click on Dealer
and Service for more information.


MATCH.COM: Faces Class Suit For Sending Spam E-mails
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Match.com sends illegal, spam
e-mails with bogus subject lines, a class action claims in
Superior Court.


MCMORAN EXPLORATION: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Krieger, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. McMoRan Exploration Co., Gerald J. Ford, William P.
Carmichael, Richard C. Adkerson, James R. Moffett, James C.
Flores, Robert Addison Day, H. Devon Graham Jr., John F. Wombwell,
Suzanne T. Mestayer, A. Peyton Bush III, Freeport-McMoRan Copper &
Gold Inc., Invan Corp., and Plains Exploration & Production
Company, Case No. 8091- (Del. Ch. Ct., December 11, 2012) seeks to
enjoin the acquisition of publicly owned shares of MMR common
stock by FCX through its wholly-owned subsidiary Invan Corp.
("Merger Sub").

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of MMR will
receive $14.75 in cash and 1.15 units of a royalty trust, which
will hold a 5% overriding royalty interest in future production
from MMR's existing ultra-deep exploration properties, Mr. Krieger
says.  He argues that the Proposed Buyout is unfair, undervalued
and brought by a shareholder, who will retain its ownership in the
Company after the Proposed Buyout closes.  He adds that the
process by which the Defendants propose to consummate the Proposed
Buyout is fundamentally unfair to him and the other public
shareholders of the Company.

Mr. Krieger is a holder of MMR common stock.

MMR is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New Orleans,
Louisiana.  MMR is an independent public company engaged in the
exploration, development and production of natural gas and oil.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.  FCX is a leading international mining company with
headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona.  FCX operates large, long-lived,
geographically diverse assets with significant proven and probable
reserves of copper, gold and molybdenum.  The Merger Sub is a
Delaware Corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of FCX formed to
effectuate the Proposed Buyout.  PXP is headquartered in Houston,
Texas, and is an independent oil and gas company primarily engaged
in the activities of acquiring, developing, exploring and
producing oil and gas in California, Texas, Louisiana, and the
Deepwater Gulf of Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James P. McEvilly, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          Facsimile: (302) 482-3612

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


MILO'S KITCHEN: Recalls Chicken Jerky and Grillers Dog Treats
-------------------------------------------------------------
Milo's Kitchen(R) announced that it is voluntarily recalling its
Chicken Jerky and Chicken Grillers home-style dog treats from
retailer shelves nationally.  No other Milo's Kitchen(R) products
are affected.

On Monday, January 14, 2013, New York State's Department of
Agriculture informed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
and the Company that trace amounts of residual antibiotics had
been found in several lots of Milo's Kitchen(R) Chicken Jerky.
After consultation with the New York Department of Agriculture and
FDA, the company decided to voluntarily recall Milo's Kitchen(R)
Chicken Jerky and Chicken Grillers, which are both sourced from
the same chicken suppliers.

The use of antibiotics to keep chickens healthy and disease-free
while raising them is standard practice in poultry production for
both human and pet food.  However, the antibiotics found in the
products were unapproved and should not be present in the final
food product.

Milo's Kitchen(R) has a comprehensive safety testing program in
place for its products from procurement through manufacturing and
distribution.  Part of that program involves extensive testing for
a wide range of substances commonly used to ensure the health of
chickens.  However, Milo's Kitchen(R) did not test for all of the
specific antibiotics found by the New York Department of
Agriculture.

"Pet safety and consumer confidence in our products are our top
priorities," said Rob Leibowitz, general manager, Pet Products.
"While there is no known health risk, the presence of even trace
amounts of these antibiotics does not meet our high quality
standards.  Therefore, today we decided to recall both products
and asked retailers to remove the products from their shelves.

"Consumers who discard the treats will receive a full refund,"
said Mr. Leibowitz.  "We are committed to Milo's Kitchen(R) and
stand by our guarantee of complete consumer satisfaction."

Consumers with questions about Milo's Kitchen products can get
further information at 1-877-228-6493.


MOSAIC CO: Petition for Review in Potash Antitrust Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking
review of an appellate court decision affirming the denial of its
motion to dismiss claims in the Potash Antitrust Litigation
remains pending, according to the Company's January 4, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended November 30, 2012.

On September 11, 2008, separate complaints (together, the
"September 11, 2008 Cases") were filed in the United States
District Courts for the District of Minnesota (the "Minn-Chem
Case") and the Northern District of Illinois (the "Gage's
Fertilizer Case"), on October 2, 2008, another complaint (the
"October 2, 2008 Case") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on November 10,
2008, and November 12, 2008, two additional complaints (together,
the "November 2008 Cases" and collectively with the September 11,
2008 Cases and the October 2, 2008 Case, the "Direct Purchaser
Cases") were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Northern Illinois District
Court") by Minn-Chem, Inc., Gage's Fertilizer & Grain, Inc., Kraft
Chemical Company, Westside Forestry Services, Inc. d/b/a Signature
Lawn Care, and Shannon D. Flinn, respectively, against The Mosaic
Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition, LLC and a number of unrelated
defendants that allegedly sold and distributed potash throughout
the United States.  On November 13, 2008, the plaintiffs in the
cases in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois filed a consolidated class action complaint
against the defendants, and on December 2, 2008, the Minn-Chem
Case was consolidated with the Gage's Fertilizer Case.  On April
3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed
on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases.  The
amended consolidated complaint added Thomasville Feed and Seed,
Inc. as a named plaintiff, and was filed on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who purchased
potash in the United States directly from the defendants during
the period July 1, 2003, through the date of the amended
consolidated complaint ("Class Period").  The amended consolidated
complaint generally alleges, among other matters, that the
defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which potash was sold in the United States; exchanged
information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand;
allocated market shares, customers and volumes to be sold;
coordinated on output, including the limitation of production; and
fraudulently concealed their anticompetitive conduct.  The
plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases generally seek injunctive
relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including
treble damages, arising from defendants' alleged combination or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The plaintiffs also
seek costs of lawsuit, reasonable attorneys' fees and pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest.

On September 15, 2008, separate complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
by Gordon Tillman (the "Tillman Case"); Feyh Farm Co. and William
H. Coaker Jr. (the "Feyh Farm Case"); and Kevin Gillespie (the
"Gillespie Case;" the Tillman Case and the Feyh Farm Case together
with the Gillespie case being collectively referred to as the
"Indirect Purchaser Cases;" and the Direct Purchaser Cases
together with the Indirect Purchaser Cases being collectively
referred to as the "Potash Antitrust Cases").  The defendants in
the Indirect Purchaser Cases are generally the same as those in
the Direct Purchaser Cases.  On November 13, 2008, the initial
plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchaser Cases and David Baier, an
additional named plaintiff, filed a consolidated class action
complaint.  On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action
complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Indirect
Purchaser Cases.  The factual allegations in the amended
consolidated complaint are substantially identical to those
summarized above with respect to the Direct Purchaser Cases.  The
amended consolidated complaint in the Indirect Purchaser Cases was
filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a purported class of
all persons who indirectly purchased potash products for end use
during the Class Period in the United States, any of 20 specified
states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated
complaint as "Indirect Purchaser States," any of 22 specified
states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated
complaint as "Consumer Fraud States", and/or 48 states and the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico defined in the consolidated
complaint as "Unjust Enrichment States."  The plaintiffs generally
sought injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of
damages, including treble damages for violations of the antitrust
laws of the Indirect Purchaser States where allowed by law,
arising from defendants' alleged continuing agreement,
understanding, contract, combination and conspiracy in restraint
of trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Act, the antitrust, or unfair
competition laws of the Indirect Purchaser States and the consumer
protection and unfair competition laws of the Consumer Fraud
States, as well as restitution or disgorgement of profits, for
unjust enrichment under the common law of the Unjust Enrichment
States, and any penalties, punitive or exemplary damages and/or
full consideration where permitted by applicable state law.  The
plaintiffs also seek costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees
where allowed by law and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On June 15, 2009, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaints in the Potash Antitrust Cases.
On November 3, 2009, the court granted our motions to dismiss the
complaints in the Indirect Purchaser Cases except (a) for
plaintiffs residing in Michigan and Kansas, claims for alleged
violations of the antitrust or unfair competition laws of Michigan
and Kansas, respectively, and (b) for plaintiffs residing in Iowa,
claims for alleged unjust enrichment under Iowa common law.  The
court denied our and the other defendants' other motions to
dismiss the Potash Antitrust Cases, including the defendants'
motions to dismiss the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
for failure to plead evidentiary facts which, if true, would state
a claim for relief under that section.  The court, however, stated
that it recognized that the facts of the Potash Antitrust Cases
present a difficult question under the pleading standards
enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court for claims under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, and that it would consider, if requested by the
defendants, certifying the issue for interlocutory appeal.  On
January 13, 2010, at the request of the defendants, the court
issued an order certifying for interlocutory appeal the issues of
(i) whether an international antitrust complaint states a
plausible cause of action where it alleges parallel market
behavior and opportunities to conspire; and (ii) whether a
defendant that sold product in the United States with a price that
was allegedly artificially inflated through anti-competitive
activity involving foreign markets, engaged in 'conduct involving
import trade or import commerce' under applicable law.  On
September 23, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit (the "Seventh Circuit") vacated the district
court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss and
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
dismiss the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims.  On December 2, 2011,
the Seventh Circuit vacated its September 23, 2011 order and on
June 27, 2012, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the order of the
Northern Illinois District Court to deny the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.  The decision is not a ruling on
the merits of the case, but the Seventh Circuit's decision allows
pretrial discovery to proceed in this matter, and the Northern
Illinois District Court has scheduled trial to begin February 10,
2014.  The Company is seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the
Seventh Circuit's decision.

The Company believes that the allegations in the Potash Antitrust
Cases are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against
them.  At this stage of the proceedings, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this litigation, estimate the potential
amount or range of loss or determine whether it will have a
material effect on the Company's results of operations, liquidity
or capital resources.


PENSION PLAN: Sued for Violating ERISA's Anti-Cutback Provision
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laurence J. Skelly, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Pension Plan for Insurance
Organizations; and The named Fiduciaries of The Pension Plan for
Insurance Organizations, as Plan Administrator; and Kenneth
Geraghty, individually, as Managing Fiduciary of the Plan and as
the former Chief Financial Officer of Insurance Services Office,
Inc., Case 1:12-cv-08889 (S.D.N.Y., December 7, 2012) is brought
for alleged violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

The Plaintiff is asking the Court to declare that a certain
amendment to the Plan, effective as of December 31, 2001, violated
the anti-cutback provisions of the ERISA.  The amendment
terminated their right to calculate and define the value of their
retirement.

The Plaintiff is a resident of East Meadow, New York, and a
participant of the Plan.

The Plan is an "employee pension benefit plan" within the meaning
of the ERISA.  Defendant Administrator, the named fiduciaries of
the Plan, is the "plan administrator" of the Plan within the
meaning of the ERISA.  Mr. Geraghty is the "managing fiduciary" of
the Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard S. Meisner, Esq.
          JARDIM, MEISNER & SUSSER, PC
          30B Vreeland Road, Suite 201
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 845-7643
          E-mail: rich@jmslawyers.com


SAMSUNG SDI: Faces Another Antitrust Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Wilson, on behalf of himself 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.
3:12-cv-06210 (N.D. Calif., December 7, 2012) arises out of an
alleged 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.

During the Class Period, the Defendants conspired, combined and
contracted to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices at
which Lithium-ion Rechargeable Batteries were sold in the United
States, Mr. Wilson alleges.  As a result of the Defendants'
unlawful conduct, Mr. Wilson says he and the other members of the
Class paid artificially inflated prices for Lithium-ion
Rechargeable Batteries during the Class Period.

Mr. Wilson is a resident of the state of Texas.  During the Class
Period, he purchased Lithium-ion Rechargeable Batteries directly
from one or more of the 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 Irvine, 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 Delaware corporation based in Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, and a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Chem.

Panasonic Corp. is a Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan.
Panasonic Corp. 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 Defendants collectively controlled approximately two-thirds or
more of the worldwide market for Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries throughout this period, and over 80 percent of the
market in the early part of this period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          Sarah Crowley, Esq.
          GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 3670
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
          E-mail: terry@gba-law.com
                  adam@gba-law.com
                  sarah@gba-law.com

               - and -

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          R. Alexander Saveri, 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

               - and -

          Randy Renick, Esq.
          Cornelia Dai, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER RICHARDSON & RENICK LLP
          128 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 204
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (866) 457-2590
          Facsimile: (626) 577-7079


SILVERCORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Silvercorp inflated its share
price by exaggerating its silver and lead production by 306
percent, shareholders claim in a federal class action.


STANDARD FIRE: Sup. Ct. Considers Monetary Limits on Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
Supreme Court on Jan. 14 considered efforts by lawyers to place
monetary limits on class actions in an effort to keep the class
actions in "hellhole" or plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions.

The central argument is whether plaintiff lawyers can provide a
legally binding stipulation that prevents the plaintiff, and the
class of unnamed people they hope to represent, from receiving
more than $5 million, the requisite amount of monies necessary for
federal court jurisdiction.

Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, a class action that
is asking for $5 million or more belongs in federal court.

In the case heard on Jan. 14, Standard Fire Insurance Co. v.
Knowles, the plaintiff Greg Knowles filed a stipulation with the
complaint stating he would not seek more than $5 million.

Ms. Knowles filed the original lawsuit on April 13, 2011, in the
Circuit Court of Miller County in Arkansas against Standard Fire
Insurance Co.  The lawsuit claims that Standard Fire breached its
contract by systematically underpaying claims of loss or property
damage made under a homeowner's insurance policy.

Specifically, plaintiff Ms. Knowles claims that the insurance
company did not pay for general contractors' overhead and profit
charges associated with damage to his home caused by hail on March
10, 2010.

Although in Arkansas the lawsuit could include class members with
claims going back for five years, lawyers decided to limit
potential class members as those with claims going back for only
two years throughout the state of Arkansas.

In addition to this limit on class members, Ms. Knowles filed a
stipulation stating that he would not seek more than $5 million
and waived his right to certain damages.

Defendant Standard Fire removed the case to federal court in May
2011, arguing that plaintiff fraudulently defined the purported
class in an effort to avoid federal court jurisdiction.  However,
the case was remanded back to state court based on the plaintiff's
stipulation to limit his recovery to under $75,000 and limit
unnamed class members' recovery to under $5 million.

Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out that this use of a stipulation
was a procedural loophole and it "swallows up" the Congressional
intent of the Class Action Fairness Act.

Justice Breyer and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. made comments
to Ms. Knowles' lawyer David Frederick on ways lawyers are
breaking up class actions by filing the same lawsuit in different
localities, each seeking less than $5 million.

"All that is required is a few extra pieces of paper that will
soon become standardized, and a lot of postage stamps," Justice
Breyer said.

Mr. Frederick argued that the move was strategic and returned to
the argument that Ms. Knowles would not seek $5 million.  If Ms.
Knowles was deemed an unfit class representative at class
certification, Standard Fire could remove the case to federal
court at that time, he argued.

Standard Fire's lawyers argued that class certification is not
likely to occur in Judge Kirk Johnson's Miller County Circuit
Court and that the stipulation was not binding on absent class
members.

Justice Elena Kagan agreed and clarified, "It's binding if the
class is certified and a case proceeds to judgment.  It's not
binding on absent class members prior to certification and prior
to judgment."

Justice Roberts asked Standard Fire's lawyer Theodore Boutrous why
state court was bad and why it was bad for the claims to be
limited.

Justice Roberts stated, "Well, you're assuming that it's a bad
thing for the class members to have their claims limited. But it
may well by a good thing for them to have their claims limited if
that gets them into what would reasonably be regarded as a more
sympathetic forum."

Standard Fire avoided Justice Roberts' comments and pointed out
that it was undisputed that the claims exceeded $5 million.

The Justices agreed the case was worth a lot of money and noted
that it could be beneficial for the state court.

Justice Antonion Scalia stated, "The state court could find, and I
suspect this state court would find, that it's worth the money to
be in state court."

Toward the end of the arguments, Chief Justice Roberts seemed to
agree, noting that if the case went to trial it would be worth "a
lot more than $5 million."


STAPLES THE OFFICE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Jan. 15 disclosed that on
December 21, 2012 the San Francisco labor lawyers at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action complaint against
Staples The Office Superstore, LLC for allegedly shorting non-
exempt employees paid on an hourly basis all the overtime that was
due to them.  Rodriguez, et al. vs. Staples The Office Superstore,
LLC., Case No. CIV-1205714 is currently pending in the Marin
County Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the class action complaint filed against Staples, the
employees received commission wages which Staples failed to
include in the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating
overtime pay.  The failure to include the commission monies in the
regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, according to the
complaint, "has resulted in a systematic underpayment of overtime
compensation" to Staples' employees.

Norman B. Blumenthal, founding and managing partner of Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik declared "commission wages that must be
included as a part of the regular rate of pay can increase
overtime pay liability."

Another attorney at Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Nicholas De
Blouw, stated "improperly failing to include commission wages can
cost an organization considerably more in damages and litigation
expenses."

If you are having trouble collecting unpaid wages call an
experienced California employment attorney today at (866) 771-
7099.

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


STRUCTURAL PROTECTION: Painter Files Overtime Suit in New Orleans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
painter has filed a collective lawsuit against a Louisiana
industrial painting company claiming that workers were only paid
straight time and were not paid any overtime wages.

Juan Ortiz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
filed suit against Structural Protection Services and Dale P.
Abreo on Dec. 21 in federal court in New Orleans.

The defendant is accused of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
by only paying straight time and not paying overtime wages.

While working as a painter, sandblaster, and welder, Mr. Ortiz
claims he worked over 60 hours per week, but did not receive
overtime pay for hours he worked over 40 per week.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiff's coworkers were also denied
overtime pay under the same payroll policy.  The collective
lawsuit will include all of defendant's employees who were paid
straight time for overtime in any workweek during the past three
years.

The plaintiff is seeking an award of damages for unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and
interest.

Mr. Ortiz is represented by Derrick G. Earles of Brian Caubarreaux
& Associates in Marksville and David I. Moulton of Bruckner Burch
PLLC in Houston.  A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Lance M. Africk is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:12-cv-03029


TARGET CORP: Recalls 42,000 Girls' Circo Fleece Blanket Sleepers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target Corp., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a voluntary
recall of about 42,000 Girls' Circo Fleece Blanket Sleepers.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The pajamas fail to meet the federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled one-piece feet pajamas are fleece and were sold in
sizes 12 months, 18 months, 2T, 3T, 4T, XS, S, M, L and XL.  They
come in three prints: purple owl, pink leopard, and blue doodle.
There are several tags sewn into the neckline. "Circo Sleepwear"
is printed on the top tag.  "Target" and an identification number
appear on a third tag.  The below identification numbers are
included:

   Purple Owl:
   * 075084972, 075084973, 075084974, 075084975, 075084976
   * 243271104, 243271105, 243271062, 243271063, 243271064

   Pink Leopard:
   * 075085338, 075085339, 075085340, 075085341, 075085342
   * 243271052, 243271065, 243271066, 243271067, 243271068

   Blue Doodle:
   * 075085388, 075085389, 075085390, 075085391, 075085392
   * 243271047, 243271048, 243271049, 243271050, 243271053

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13095.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target and Target.com nationwide from August 2012
to October 2012 for about $13.

Consumers should immediately stop using the pajamas and return
them to any Target store to receive a full refund.  Target may be
reached at (800) 440-0680 from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Central Time
Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.target.com/ and
click on the Product Recalls at the bottom of the page and then
Children's and Baby Products.


TARGET CORP: Recalls 560,000 Children's Two-Piece Pajama Sets
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Target Corp., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and
manufacturer, Makalot Garments Co. Ltd., of Taiwan, announced a
voluntary recall of about 560,000 Children's two-piece pajama
sets.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The children's cotton or cotton/fleece pajamas sets fail to meet
the federal flammability standards for children's sleepwear,
because they do not meet the tight-fitting sizing requirements.
This poses a burn hazard to children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Target Circo and Xhilaration children's
cotton or cotton/fleece two-piece pajama sets.  They were sold in
infant and toddler sizes 12M, 2T, 3T, 4T and 5T, and in girls and
boys sizes XS, S, M, L and XL.  There are a variety of colors and
designs, including stars, dots, skulls, peace signs, cats, owls,
footballs and camouflage.  To see a complete list of item numbers
included in this recall, visit the firm's Web site.  The item
number is located on a tag on the shirt's side seam and on the
pants at the waist.  A tag printed on the neck of the pajamas
states "Circo" or "Xhilaration", "Wear snug-fitting not flame
resistant" and the item number.  The pajamas were also sold with a
yellow hangtag that states, "For child's safety, garment should
fit snugly.  This garment is not flame resistant.  Loose-fitting
garment is more likely to catch fire."  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13093.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and Cambodia,
and sold exclusively at Target stores nationwide and online at
target.com from August 2012 through November 2012 for between $8
and $13.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pajamas away from
children and return them to any Target for a full refund.  Target
may be reached at (800) 440-0680, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Central Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.target.com/and click on Product Recalls at the bottom
of the page for more information.


WELLS FARGO: Wachovia Suit Settlement Class Members File Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Murphy; Richard D'Alessio; Chan C. Pharn; Christina Zako;
Paul McDermed; Julie McDermed; Thomas Geremia; Linda Geremia;
Julie A. Young; David W. Young; Michael Lerner; Kathy Lerner; Omar
F. Bishr; Ruth Bishr; Jeffrey Cory; Jose Cruz; Cynthia Biggs;
George Biggs; Jason Fisher; Catherine Marsh; Walter Falkowski;
Mary Slade; Greg Slade; Joseph Midgette; Nathan Ranger; Sherri
Goldfinch; Carrie Rosillo; John Burkett; Diana Burkett; Carlton
Hinkle; and Katheryn Hinkle, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage; Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A.; World Savings, Inc.; World Savings Bank, FSB;
Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, now known as Wachovia Mortgage, a division
of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Wachovia Corporation; Golden West
Financial Corporation; Wachovia Bank, FSB, formerly known as World
Savings Bank, FSB TX; and Wachovia Mortgage Corporation, Case No.
5:12-cv-06228 (N.D. Calif., December 7, 2012) is a complaint for
breach of the class action settlement agreement in the lawsuit
captioned In re: Wachovia Corp. "Pick-A-Paymeni" Mortgage
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (N.D. Cal. Case No. M:09-
CV-2015-JF).

The Plaintiffs also bring claims for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, for relief under the All Writs Act and
pursuant to the Court's equitable powers to enforce the class
action settlement agreement that it finally approved.  The
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants willfully failed to abide
by the terms of the Agreement and Stipulation of Settlement of
Class Action in the Wachovia Class Action, which was finally
approved by an order of the Court on May 17, 2011.

The Plaintiffs are members of the class in the Wachovia
litigation.

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage is a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
and is based in South Dakota.  Wells Fargo Bank is a national
banking association licensed to do business and doing business in
California, and is also based in South Dakota.  World Savings Inc.
is a California corporation that originated some of the Pick-a-
Payment mortgage loans that were the subject of the Wachovia Class
Action.  World Savings Bank, FSB, is a federal savings bank that
originated some of the Pick-a-Payment mortgage loans that were the
subject of the Wachovia Class Action.

Wachovia Corporation is a North Carolina corporation, and the
parent corporation of Wachovia Bank and Wachovia Mortgage.
Wachovia Mortgage is a division of Wells Fargo Bank.  Golden West
is a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of Wachovia Corp.
Wachovia Bank is a federal savings bank.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          BERNS WEISS LLP
          20700 Ventura Blvd., Suite
          140 Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (818) 961-2000
          Facsimile: (818) 999-1500
          E-mail: jberns@law111.com

               - and -

          Lee A. Weiss, Esq.
          BERNS WEISS LLP
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556
          Telephone: (516) 222-2900
          Facsimile: (818) 999-1500
          E-mail: lweiss@bernsweiss.com


WEST COVINA AUTO: FAA Preempts Prohibition Against Class Waivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Fuchs, writing for Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reports
that a woman and her father who signed a form automobile purchase
agreement waived their right to initiate a class action, a
district Court of Appeal ruled on Jan. 11.

Div. Eight held that under the terms of the agreement, the Federal
Arbitration Act preempted the California law, including the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act's prohibition against class waivers.

Andrea Naasz purchased a previously owned vehicle from West Covina
Toyota.  Her father, Israel Flores, cosigned the preprinted form
contract.

That agreement contained a clause allowing either party to request
arbitration of disputes.  It further provided that if a dispute
was arbitrated, the purchaser gave up his or her right to initiate
or participate in class actions.

The contract provided that it would be governed by both federal
and California law, and the arbitration clause specified that any
arbitration would be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and
not by any state law concerning arbitration.

                         Vehicle Problems

After the purchase, Ms. Naasz allegedly experienced a number of
problems with her vehicle which the defendants were unable to
repair.  She and Mr. Flores filed suit, alleging individual claims
as well as class claims for violations of the CLRA.

After months of discovery, the dealership filed a motion to compel
arbitration and stay the action, which Los Angeles Superior Court
Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis granted.  Plaintiffs appealed under the
"death knell" doctrine, which provides that an order effectively
terminating class claims while allowing individual claims to
proceed is immediately appealable.

Justice Madeleine Flier, writing for the panel, agreed that the
appellate court could review the order, even though an order
compelling arbitration is not ordinarily appealable and may be
reviewed only after the parties complete arbitration and appeal
from the judgment.

Given the class arbitration waiver in defendant's form contract,
Justice Flier said, the order compelling arbitration effectively
rang the death knell for the class claims.  The panel, therefore,
had jurisdiction to rule on Duffy-Lewis' order.

Justice Flier noted that the sales contract contained a general
choice of law provision, which stated that both federal law and
California law applied to the contract.  To the extent the two
conflicted, the panel said, the Supremacy Clause mandated that
federal law preempt state law.

                            Case Cited

In addition, Justice Flier noted, Sec. 2 of the FAA provides that
the FAA preempts state laws inconsistent with its provisions and
objectives, and under AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 131
S.Ct. 1740, FAA preemption extends to state laws standing "as an
obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes
and objectives" of the FAA.

Thus, she said, the arbitration clause was enforceable,
notwithstanding a provision in the CLRA which states that "[a]ny
waiver by a consumer of the provisions of [the CLRA] is contrary
to public policy and shall be unenforceable and void."

Justice Flier emphasized that the panel's holding did not
invalidate the CLRA's antiwaiver provision altogether, only that
it is preempted by the FAA.

The justice rejected the plaintiffs' argument that applying
preemption "would mean any number of illegal terms placed in
arbitration clauses could be enforceable because the state laws
making them illegal would be preempted by the FAA."  They cited as
examples a hypothetical provision forcing plaintiffs to hand over
their first-born children at the beginning of the arbitration, or
a term permitting the defendant to take a free punch at the
plaintiff to commence the arbitration.

Justice Flier responded:

"Our holding does not lead to such absurd results . . . the
defense of unconscionability to terms other than class arbitration
waivers survives Concepcion . . . We cannot imagine how such terms
would survive an unconscionability challenge."

                             No Waiver

The panel also refuted the plaintiffs' claims that defendant
waived its right to arbitrate by engaging in discovery and
pretrial motions without any mention of arbitration for months.

Justice Flier said that defendant had no choice but to engage in
the litigation process, since its arbitration clause was
unenforceable prior to Concepion.

The panel also made short work of plaintiffs' claims that the
contract was unenforceable as a contract of adhesion, nothing that
arbitration is a common and expected means of dispute resolution
"in this day and age."

In addition, Justice Flier said, the arbitration clause was in
boldface and capital letters, and Ms. Naasz acknowledged that she
had the opportunity to thoroughly read the contract before signing
it.  As a result, the clause was not unconscionable.

Presiding Justice Elizabeth Grimes and Justice Laurence Rubin
concurred in the opinion.

Hallen Rosner, Christopher Barry and Angela Smith of Rosner, Barry
& Babbitt were counsel for the plaintiffs.  Robert Thompson,
Charles Russell and George Koumbis of Callahan, Thompson, Sherman
& Caudill represented the defendant.

The case is Flores v. West Covina Auto Group, B238265.

                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has 2,500 Pending Asbestos Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc., in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 26,
2012, stated: "We and our subsidiaries are involved in various
unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course of
operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including approximately 2,500 asbestos and silica-
related cases), employment, and commercial matters."

Joy Global Inc. is a manufacturer and servicer of high
productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other
minerals and ores. The Company's equipment is used in mining
regions throughout the world to mine coal, copper, iron ore, oil
sands, and other minerals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2012, stated: "Along with other vehicle
manufacturers, we have been subject to an increase in the number
of asbestos-related claims in recent years. In general, these
claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos
exposure from component parts found in older vehicles, although
some cases relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our
facilities. In these claims we are not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have
strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to
defend against them vigorously. It is possible that the number of
these claims will continue to grow, and that the costs for
resolving asbestos related claims could become more significant in
the future."

Navistar International Corporation is a holding company, whose
principal operating subsidiaries are Navistar, Inc. and Navistar
Financial Corporation. The Company is a manufacturer of
International brand commercial and military trucks, IC Bus brand
buses, MaxxForce brand diesel engines, Workhorse Custom Chassis
brand chassis for motor homes and step vans, and Monaco RV
recreational vehicles (RV), as well as a provider of service parts
for all makes of trucks and trailers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ecology Unit Still Faces Draft Consent Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
On September 21, 2012 the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment issued a proposed Compliance Order on Consent to the
City and County of Denver and to Walsh.  Walsh is a majority-owned
subsidiary of Ecology and Environment, Inc.  The proposed Consent
Order concerns construction improvement activities of certain
property owned by Denver which was the subject of asbestos
remediation.  Denver had entered into a contract with Walsh for
Walsh to provide certain environmental consulting services
(asbestos monitoring services) in connection with the asbestos
containment and/or removal performed by other contractors at
Denver's real property.  The Consent Order, among other
provisions, proposes a violation penalty of $216,000, jointly and
severally to be paid by Denver and Walsh.  Under Walsh's
environmental consulting contract with Denver, Walsh has agreed to
indemnify Denver for certain liabilities which would include the
imposition of this proposed penalty.  Walsh has put its
professional liability carrier on notice of this claimed penalty.
At this time, neither Walsh nor Denver has filed a response to the
September 21, 2012 draft Consent Order.  It is the position of
Walsh that it has fully complied with all applicable Colorado
laws, regulations and statutes in connection with its role as an
environmental consultant to Denver and the claimed violations are
not applicable to the activities of Walsh in connection with its
environmental consulting contract with Denver.  The Company
believes that this administrative proceeding involving Walsh will
not have an adverse material effect upon the operations of the
Company.

No further updates were reported in Ecology And Environment,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2012.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., an environmental consulting firm,
provides professional services to the government and private
sectors worldwide. It offers a range of environmental consulting
services, including critical feature/fatal flaw analyses;
environmental impact assessments; feasibility and siting studies;
and permitting and due diligence audits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Esterline Still Subject to Potential Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Esterline Technologies Corporation remains subject to potential
liabilities relating to certain products its manufactured
containing asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended October 26, 2012.

The Company states: "To date, our insurance has covered claims
against us relating to those products. Commencing November 1,
2003, insurance coverage for asbestos claims has been unavailable.
However, we continue to have some insurance coverage for exposure
to asbestos contained in our products prior to that date.

"As a result of the termination of the NASA Space Shuttle program,
manufacturing of rocket engine insulation material containing
asbestos ceased in July 2010. In December 2011, we dismantled our
facility used to manufacture the asbestos-based insulation for the
Space Shuttle program. We have an agreement with the customer for
indemnification for certain losses we may incur as a result of
asbestos claims relating to a product we previously manufactured,
but we cannot assure that this indemnification agreement will
fully protect us from losses arising from asbestos claims.

"To the extent we are not insured or indemnified for losses from
asbestos claims relating to our products, asbestos claims could
adversely affect our operating results and our financial
condition."

Esterline Technologies Corporation is a manufacturing company
serving aerospace and defense customers. The Company designs,
manufactures and markets engineered products and systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Still Subject to Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company is subject to litigation and administrative and
judicial proceedings with respect to claims involving asbestos and
the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment. Some
of these claims assert damages and liability for personal injury,
remedial investigations or clean-up and other costs and damages.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2012.

The Toro Company designs, manufactures, and markets professional
turf maintenance equipment and services, turf irrigation systems,
agricultural micro-irrigation systems, landscaping equipment and
lighting, and residential yard and snow removal products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Piedmont Natural Gas Center Still Has Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc.'s resource centers has
coatings containing asbestos on some of their pipelines. "We have
educated our employees on the hazards of asbestos and implemented
procedures for removing these coatings from our pipelines when we
must excavate and expose portions of the pipeline, which generally
occur only in small increments," the Company stated in its Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2012.

Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc., an energy services company,
engages in the distribution of natural gas to residential,
commercial, industrial, and power generation customers in portions
of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Still a Defendant in "Scott" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corporation is one of over 100 defendants in a lawsuit
pending in Ohio which alleges personal injury from exposure to
asbestos contained in certain Chase products.  The case is
captioned Marie Lou Scott, Executrix of the Estate of James T.
Scott v. A-Best Products, et al., No. 312901 in the Court of
Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  The plaintiff in the case
issued discovery requests to Chase in August 2005, to which Chase
timely responded in September 2005.  The trial had initially been
scheduled to begin on April 30, 2007.  However, that date had been
postponed and no new trial date has been set.  As of November 30,
2012, there have been no new developments as this Ohio lawsuit has
been inactive with respect to Chase, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2012.

Chase Corporation, through its subsidiaries, is a global
manufacturer of tapes, laminates, sealants, and coatings for high
reliability applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Ongoing in "Jansen" Suit in Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corporation was named as one of the defendants in a
complaint filed on June 25, 2009, in a lawsuit captioned Lois
Jansen, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of
Thomas Jansen v. Beazer East, Inc., et al., No: 09-CV-6248 in the
Milwaukee County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court.  The plaintiff sued a
number of alleged manufacturers or distributors of asbestos-
containing products, including Royston Laboratories (formerly an
independent company and now owned by Chase Corporation), alleging
that her husband died from workplace exposure.  The other
defendants have either settled or had the complaint against them
dismissed.  Chase has filed an answer to the claim denying the
material allegations in the complaint.  The parties are currently
engaged in discovery and motion practice, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2012.

Chase Corporation, through its subsidiaries, is a global
manufacturer of tapes, laminates, sealants, and coatings for high
reliability applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BlueLinx Still Potentially Liable for Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
BlueLinx Holdings Inc. related in its Form S-1 filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that Georgia-Pacific is a
defendant in suits brought in various courts around the nation by
plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a
result of exposure to products containing asbestos. These suits
allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on alleged
exposure to products previously manufactured by Georgia-Pacific.
"Although the terms of the asset purchase agreement provide that
Georgia-Pacific will indemnify us against all obligations and
liabilities arising out of, relating to or otherwise in any way in
respect of any product liability claims (including, without
limitation, claims, obligations or liabilities relating to the
presence or alleged presence of asbestos-containing materials)
with respect to products purchased, sold, marketed, stored,
delivered, distributed or transported by Georgia-Pacific and its
affiliates, including the Division prior to the acquisition, it
could be possible that circumstances may arise under which
asbestos-related claims against Georgia-Pacific could cause us to
incur substantial costs.

"For example, in the event that Georgia-Pacific is financially
unable to respond to an asbestos product liability claim,
plaintiffs' lawyers may, in order to obtain recovery, attempt to
sue us, in our capacity as owner of assets sold by Georgia-
Pacific, despite the fact that the assets sold to us did not
contain asbestos. Asbestos litigation has, over the years, proved
unpredictable, as the aggressive and well-financed asbestos
plaintiffs' bar has been creative, and often successful, in
bringing claims based on novel legal theories and on expansive
interpretations of existing legal theories. These claims have
included claims against companies that did not manufacture
asbestos products. As a result of these factors, a number of
companies have been held liable for amounts far in excess of their
perceived exposure. Although we believe, based on our
understanding of the law as currently interpreted, that we should
not be held liable for any of Georgia-Pacific's asbestos-related
claims, and, to the contrary, that we would prevail on summary
judgment on any such claims, there is nevertheless a possibility
that new theories could be developed, or that the application of
existing theories could be expanded, in a manner that would result
in liability for us. Any such liability ultimately could be borne
by us if Georgia-Pacific is unable to fulfill its indemnity
obligation under the asset purchase agreement with us."

BlueLinx Holdings Inc., through its subsidiary, BlueLinx
Corporation, engages in the distribution of building products in
North America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hickok Still Pursuing Dismissal of Becker Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hickok Incorporated is a named defendant along with numerous other
companies in a suit in Wayne County Circuit Court in the State of
Michigan regarding asbestos harm to the plaintiff (Becker v.
Hickok Incorporated). The Company has engaged a Michigan attorney
to provide representation. The Company believes the suit is
without merit and is pursuing dismissal of the case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2012.

The Company was also a named defendant along with numerous other
companies in a suit in the Eighth  Judicial District of the
Supreme Court of the State of New York regarding asbestos harm to
the plaintiff (Hake v. Hickok Incorporated). The Company was
dismissed from the suit in July 2012.

Hickok Incorporated, together with its subsidiaries, designs and
manufactures diagnostic tools for automotive diagnostics and
testing in United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Grants Owners Insurance' Summary Judgment Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Hugh Lawson, Senior Judge at the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division, in a decision
dated Dec. 11, 2012, granted the motion for summary judgment filed
by Plaintiffs Owners Insurance Company and Auto-Owners Insurance
Company by virtue of the Defendant's failure in answering the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Demott Tractor Co. seeking
a declaration that no insurance coverage is afforded under certain
policies that they issued to Demott for claims asserted against it
in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by a certain
Jeffery Daniel as Executor of the Estate of Virgieline Daniel.  In
that case, Daniel claims that Decedent Virgieline Daniel was
exposed to asbestos from products manufactured, sold, or
distributed by Demott.  Demott then seeks defense and indemnity
for the claims asserted against it under insurance policies issued
to Demott by Plaintiffs.

Judge Lawson held that because Demott failed to file an answer to
the complaint, the Clerk of Court entered a default against it on
April 25, 2012.  As a result of his default, Demott admits the
Plaintiffs' allegations of fact, including the Plaintiffs'
assertions about coverage.  In addition, Daniel also filed a
stipulation in September 2012 in which he states that that "he
does not contest any coverage issues raised in this declaratory
judgment action."

The case is OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY and AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERY DANIEL, as Executor of the Estate
of VIRGIELINE DANIEL, and DEMOTT TRACTOR CO., INC., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-27 (HL) (M.D. Ga.).  A copy of Judge
Lawson's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Hs5YYsfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Dismisses Class Suit v. BASF, Cahill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants BASF Catalysts LLC, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Howard
G. Sloane, Ira J. Dembrow and Scott A. Martin, Thomas D. Halket,
Arthur A. Dornbusch II, and Glen Hemstock filed several motions to
dismiss an amended class action complaint filed in a putative
class action, which seeks nationwide relief for the alleged
misconduct of BASF and its then-counsel, Cahill, in connection
with thousands of asbestos exposure lawsuits filed by individuals
primarily in state courts throughout the United States over a
period of more than 25 years.

In a Dec. 12, 2012, decision, Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the entire
Amended Complaint as barred by the Anti-Injunction Act and for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Judge Chesler held that, first, there is no indication that
Plaintiffs could cure the various impediments and deficiencies
preventing the claims in the Amended Complaint from surmounting
the Defendants' motion to dismiss; and, second, the Amended
Complaint was in fact filed in response to the Defendants' initial
round of motions to dismiss in an attempt to address those
challenges.

Plaintiffs, in short, have already explored revising their claims
and nevertheless, have failed to construct a legally sufficient
pleading, Judge Chesler ruled.

The case is KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BASF
CATALYSTS LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-1754
(SRC)(D. N.J.).  A copy of Judge Chesler's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/WCBQNUfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Death Ends Atty.-Client Relationship
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ted Stewart of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah, Central Division, granted a motion to strike filed by
Defendant General Electric Company and denied a motion to stay
filed by the law firm Brayton Purcell, LLP, in a lawsuit filed by
Aaron Anderson, who alleged that he had sustained asbestos-related
lung injuries as a result of his inhalation of asbestos fibers
through his occupational exposure to asbestos."  The Plaintiff
passed away on Oct. 31, 2012.

Bryan Purcell, who represents the Plaintiff, filed the motion for
stay so that a personal representative can be appointed and the
Complaint be amended to allege wrongful death.  General Electric
opposed the Motion to Stay and filed the Motion to Strike.

In granting the Motion to Strike, Judge Stewart agreed with
General Electric, which argued that Brayton Purcell does not
represent a party in the case.  Judge Stewart explained that as an
agency relationship, the attorney-client relationship terminates
upon the death of the client.  Thus, as a result of the
Plaintiff's death, Brayton Purcell does not represent any party to
the action.  Judge Stewart denied Brayton Purcell's Motion to Stay
noting that it is no longer necessary as General Electric has
suggested that, with Plaintiff's death, all discovery deadlines
are moot and, should a new plaintiff be added and a new complaint
filed, discovery will need to be reopened.

The case is AARON ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. EATON CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:10-CV-905 TS (D. Utah).  A copy of
Judge Stewart's Decision dated Dec. 13, 2012, is available at
http://is.gd/vkE8Tbfrom Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Bid to Dismiss Ex-Mechanic's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied the summary judgment motion filed by The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company seeking to dismiss an asbestos-related personal
injury action filed by John Chilarski who was diagnosed with
mesothelioma and who died in March 2011.  Prior to his death, Mr.
Chilarski testified that he worked with a myriad of asbestos-
containing products over the course of his career as aircraft
mechanic.

In denying the summary judgment motion, Judge Heitler found
Goodyear's arguments to be without merit.  Judge Heitler noted
that Mr. Chilarski identified Goodyear as the manufacturer of the
braking systems on the Boeing 747 and Douglas DC-8 aircraft while
he worked for Pan American Airlines at the Idlewild International
Airport and Goodyear does not dispute that Goodyear Aerospace
Corporation manufactured asbestos-containing braking systems for
installation on DC-4, DC-6, and Boeing 707 aircrafts.  GAC was
formerly a wholly owned subsidiary of Goodyear.  Judge Heitler
also noted that the Plaintiffs have provided unrefuted documentary
evidence which demonstrates that GAC's DC-6 compatible brakes
assemblies contained asbestos-containing parts.

The case is HELEN CHILARSKI and MICHAEL CHILARSKI, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of JOHN CHILARSKI, deceased,
Plaintiffs, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Docket
No. 190391/10, Motion Seq. 008 (N.Y.).  A copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision dated Dec. 12, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/wyDZaR
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Awards $22,600 in Fees to Lockheed, et al.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermwell Products, Inc., which distributed products called "Frost
King Rope Caulk" filed a third-party indemnification action
against Defendants Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., Lockheed
Martin Corporation, Nitto Denko America, Inc., Nitto Denko
Automotive, Inc., and Permacel Kansas City, Inc., alleging these
defendants manufactured and owned the trademark for the product.

In a recommendation dated May 22, 2012, Special Referee Gammerman
recommended that Martin Marietta, Nitto Denko, and Lockheed be
awarded attorneys' fees in the amounts of $10,000, $7,000, and
$5,600, respectively.  Lockheed moved to confirm the Report while
Thermwell opposed the motion, arguing that the Defendants have not
shown that their costs and fees were reasonable and that they
submitted invoices for costs and fees beyond those permitted by an
April 5, 2012 order.

The indemnification action is related to claims brought by Roberta
and Stuart Friedman in which Mrs. Friedman alleged that she was
exposed to asbestos from "Frost King Rope Caulk."

In a decision dated Dec. 13, 2012, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of
the Supreme Court, New York County, confirmed Referee Gammerman's
recommendation after finding that the recommendation is
substantially supported by the record.  Contrary to Thermwell's
contentions, Referee Gammerman plainly accounted for Thermwell's
concerns regarding the prevailing rates in asbestos litigation and
that some of the requested fees were not at issue in light of
prior motion practice between the parties.  Upon full review of
the evidence, Judge Heitler declined Thermwell's contention that
the recommended fees were based upon submitted invoices for costs
and fees beyond those permitted by the April 5, 2012 order.

The case is THERMWELL PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. NITTO DENKO
AMERICA, INC., NITTO DENKO AUTOMOTIVE, INC., PERMACEL KANSAS CITY,
INC., MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION, Defendants, Docket No. 112195/11, Motion Seq. No. 005
(N.Y.).  A copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/ubV9sIfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AHL Dropped as Defendant in Exposure Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joseph Blando, a citizen and resident of Missouri,
worked as an operating engineer in a building that was formerly
owned by Business Men's Assurance Company of America.  The
Plaintiff alleges that, during the construction of the BMA Tower,
he was subjected to sprayed limpet asbestos.  The Plaintiff
alleges that as a result of his exposure to the asbestos, he
developed pleural thickening, a calcified granuloma, and other
asbestos-related diseases.  In December 2009, the plaintiff, along
with his wife, filed suit against BMA, Liberty Life Insurance
Company, and Harry Mosby in Missouri state court, alleging claims
for premises liability, negligence, and false representations.
The Plaintiff then added Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company,
as successor to BMA and Liberty, and Athene Holding Ltd., as
successor to Athene annuity, as defendants.

The Hon. Scott O. Wright, Senior District Judge, of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District Missouri, Western
Division, in a decision dated Dec. 19, 2012, granted AHL's
Combined Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction,
Failure to State a Claim, and Lack of Valid Service.

Judge Wright ruled that, in this case, AHL, as the parent
corporation, is not subject to the Court's general jurisdiction.
In this case, the Plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence
suggesting AHL "controlled and dominated the affairs" of Liberty,
thus the Court concluded AHL was not acting as Liberty/Athene
Annuity's alter ego.  Further, citing an Eighth Circuit ruling,
Judge Wright held that, a parent corporation is not present in a
state of one of its subsidiary simply because the subsidiary
resides there.

Lastly, Judge Wright noted that the Plaintiff has failed to meet
his burden of proving jurisdiction by submitting any affidavits,
testimony, or other documents in response to AHL's challenge to
jurisdiction.  Rather, the Plaintiff rests on the conclusory
allegations in his brief and in his complaint to establish minimum
contacts.

The case is JOSEPH A. BLANDO, Plaintiff, v. BUSINESS MEN'S
ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
12-0559-CV-W-SOW (W.D. Mo.). A copy of Judge Wright's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/n2ZnNmfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Affirms Judgment Favoring Thomas Dee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David J. Palomares appeals from a trial court's grant of
summary judgment to defendant Thomas Dee Engineering Company and
the resulting judgment.  The parties raise numerous issues in the
case, which involves a claim by the Plaintiff that several decades
ago, he was exposed as an industrial laundry worker to asbestos
that came from clothing of the Defendant, a customer of Sequoia
Laundry, and that this was a substantial factor in his development
of mesothelioma.

In a decision dated Dec. 20, 2012, the Court of Appeals of
California, First District, Division Two, affirmed the trial
court's judgment holding that the Plaintiff has not cited anything
in the record that allows it to draw reasonable inferences that
establish a triable issue of material fact regarding causation.
The Court of Appeals noted that the Plaintiff does not provide any
evidence from which it can be reasonably inferred that he was
exposed to asbestos-containing laundry at Sequoia that came from
the Defendant during the approximately one year plaintiff worked
there, or at any other time.  The Defendant, the Court of Appeals
further noted, is a refractory subcontractor and not an asbestos
manufacturer.

The case is DAVID J. PALOMARES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THOMAS
DEE ENGINEERING COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, No. A131745
(Calif.).  A copy of the Court of Appeal's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/hWD2avfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 59 Cases Consolidated With Inmates' Exposure Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joanna Seybert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, in an order dated Dec. 20, 2012, directed
59 actions to be consolidated for all purposes to proceed under
the lead case, Butler, et al. v. DeMarco, et al., 11-CV-2602
(JS)(GRB).  Shearman & Sterling LLP is appointed pro bono counsel
to the Plaintiffs in 11-CV-2602.

The case arises from allegations that men detained in the Suffolk
County Correctional Facilities, the majority of whom have not been
convicted of any crime, are subjected to inhumane conditions that
pose unreasonable and substantial risks to their health.  The men,
according to the complaint, are forced to live in overcrowded
conditions, amidst filth, overflowing sewage, and pervasive mold,
rust, and vermin.

The men are also at risk of exposure to asbestos from the leaking
pipes, which are lined with insulation believed to contain
asbestos.  The leaking water has caused floor tiles in the
facility to turn upward, exposing the glue underneath them, also
believed to contain asbestos.

The case is TOMMIE MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. VINCENT F. DeMARCO,
County Sheriff, Defendant, No. 12-CV-5789) (JS)(GRB) (E.D.N.Y.).
A copy of Judge Seybert's Order is available at
http://is.gd/XX7Zs6from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Daniel Hector Rees LaGuardia, Esq.
         Edward Garth Timlin, Esq.
         Melissa Jane Godwin, Esq.
         SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
         599 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10022-6069
         Tel: (212) 848-4000
         Fax: (212) 848-7179
         Email: daniel.laguardia@shearman.com
                edward.timlin@shearman.com
                melissa.godwin@shearman.com

The Defendants are represented by Arlene S. Zwilling, Esq., Office
of the Suffolk County Attorney, in Hauppauge, New York.

The New York Civil Liberties Union is represented by Corey
Stoughton, Esq. -- cstoughton@nyclu.org


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote Plan Confirmed, ITCAN Objection Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Fitzgerald of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware confirmed the Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization of The Flintkote Company and Flintkote Mines
Limited, supported by the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants and the Future Claimants' Representative, after
having found that the Plan complies with Sections 1129 and 524(g)
in all respects.  Judge Fitzgerald also recommended that the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware affirm confirmation of
the Plan and the Sec. 524(g) injunction.

Confirmation hearings were held on October 25 and 26, 2010, and
continued on September 12, 13, and 19, 2011.  Post-trial briefing
was completed on January 20, 2012.  The Court heard closing
arguments on March 28, 2012, after which it accepted supplemental
briefing on the issue of whether Flintkote may formally abandon
its alter ego claim in the Plan.  The supplemental briefing was
completed on May 15, 2012, making the matter ripe for disposition.
The only unresolved objections to Plan confirmation are lodged by
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited.

From 1917 until 1987, Flintkote was primarily in the business of
manufacturing, processing, and distributing building materials.
Between the 1930s and the 1980s, a wide variety of those materials
contained asbestos.  Flintkote was acquired by Genstar Corporation
in 1979.  In 1986, Genstar was acquired by ITCAN.  Flintkote
remained an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of ITCAN until 2003,
when ITCAN transferred Flintkote's stock to a charitable trust.

ITCAN argues first that it is a creditor, and thus by definition a
"party in interest" with standing to object to confirmation.
Secondly, ITCAN argues that even if it is not a creditor of the
estate it is still a "party in interest" because the Plan impairs
various rights and defenses it has with respect to both Flintkote
and individual asbestos plaintiffs in the Dividend Recovery
Litigation, which was filed by Flintkote against ITCAN for
fraudulent conveyance, wrongful dividen, breach of fiduciary duty,
recission and other related theories, arising in connection with
ITCAN's alleged hostile takeover of Flintkote.

Judge Fitzgerald, in a memorandum dated Dec. 21, 2012, made these
rulings:

   (a) To the extent that ITCAN may have a claim in the future
       against Flintkote related to alter ego liability, that
       claim is speculative and cannot confer "party in interest"
       standing to object to plan confirmation.  The the injury in
       fact must be "actual and imminent," and here the injury is
       far from imminent.

   (b) ITCAN has denied throughout the entire bankruptcy case that
       it is Flintkote's alter ego and has stated several times
       that even if it is found to be Flintkote's alter ego, it
       will not pay anything to asbestos victims because, as a
       Canadian company with its assets in Canada, no judgment
       would be enforceable against it.  The mere unlikely
       possibility of ITCAN holding a claim against Flintkote by
       virtue of eventually compensating an asbestos plaintiff for
       Flintkote's actions on an alter ego theory is too remote to
       constitute an "injury in fact" for purposes of
       constitutional standing and/or "party in interest" standing
       under Sec. 1109(b).

   (c) Nothing in the Plan imposes tort liability on ITCAN.
       Regardless of whether or not the Plan is confirmed,
       individual asbestos victims may still bring alter ego
       claims against ITCAN in the tort system as Sec. 524(g) does
       not protect non-debtor entities unless, pursuant to Sec.
       524(g)(4), those entities qualify and contribute to the
       funding of the trust, which ITCAN elected not to do in the
       case.

   (d) With respect to ITCAN's objections that its rights are
       impaired by the Plan because Flintkote shares certain
       insurance assets with ITCAN's subsidiary, Genstar, the TDP
       under the Plan is not the source of insurance depletion.

A copy of Judge Fitzgerald's Memorandum is available at
http://is.gd/L3XvOVfrom Leagle.com.

                    About The Flintkote Company

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, The Flintkote Company
is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing and
distributing building materials.  Flintkote Mines Limited is a
subsidiary of Flintkote Company and is engaged in the mining of
base-precious metals.  The Flintkote Company filed for Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 04-11300) on April 30, 2004.
Flintkote Mines Limited filed for Chapter 11 relief (Bankr. D.
Del. Case No. 04-12440) on Aug. 25, 2004.  Kevin T. Lantry, Esq.,
Jeffrey E. Bjork, Esq., Dennis M. Twomey, Esq., Jeremy E.
Rosenthal, Esq., and Christina M. Craige, Esq., at Sidley Austin,
LLP, in Los Angeles; James E. O'Neill, Esq., and Laura Davis
Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, in Wilmington,
Del., represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  Elihu
Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New York,
N.Y.; Peter Van N. Lockwood, Esq., Ronald E. Reinsel, Esq., at
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in Washington, D.C.; and Philip E.
Milch, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, in Wilmington, Del.,
represent the Asbestos Claimants Committee as counsel.

When Flintkote Company filed for protection from its creditors, it
estimated more than $100 million each in assets and debts.  When
Flintkote Mines Limited filed for protection from its creditors,
it estimated assets of $1 million to $50 million, and debts of
more than $100 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TIG Insurance's Bid for Setoff Declaration Junked
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIG Insurance Company appeals the Circuit Court for Washington
County's grant of Appellees Allegheny Energy, Inc., Monongahela
Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, West Penn Power
Company, and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC's motion for
partial summary judgment.  TIG raised these issues: Whether the
Circuit Court (I) erred by entering summary judgment declaring
that Pennsylvania law applies to the interpretation and
application of the terms of the insurance policies at issue; and
(II), erred by failing to enter summary judgment for TIG on the
grounds that TIG is entitled to a set-off against the Appellees'
loss which reflects the settling insurers' proportionate shares of
coverage responsibility for the loss?

Allegheny, the holding company of Monongahela Power, Potomac
Edison, West Penn Power and Allegheny Energy, demanded insurers to
indemnify it for costs related to the settlement of thousands of
asbestos-related exposure suits.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, in a decision dated
Dec. 21, 2012, affirmed the Circuit Court's ruling agreeing with
the Circuit Court that it still needs to be aware of the amount
owed by TIG and the settling insurers' apportioned share of
liability and not, presently, it is presently not possible to
determine the pro rata shares of all settling insurers because
there is no way of knowing how many settling insurers there will
be when subject insurance policy is triggered or the total
liability for which the settling insurers will be responsible.
Thus, a declaration that TIG is entitled to a set-off is not
possible for a myriad of reasons.

The case is TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, v. MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY,
ET AL., No. 2842, September Term, 2010 (Md. App. Ct.).  A copy of
the Court of Special Appeals' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/vxkGCFfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Allows Legal Malpractice Claims v. 2 Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph M. Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, denied Motley
Rice, LLC, and Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP's motion to dismiss
the legal malpractice claims filed by Donna Bruszewski, on behalf
of her husband, Thomas Bruszweski, asserting that the Defendants
negligently failed to file their asbestos-related exposure suit
before the applicable statute of limitations expired.

Judge Hood found that the arbitration clauses found in the
agreements between the Bruszweskis and Provost Umphrey and between
Provost Umphrey and Motley Rice are oppressive to the Plaintiff,
are directly contradictory with each other, and are
unconscionable.  Judge Hood also ruled that there was attorney-
client relationship between the Bruszweskis, on the one hand, and
Provost Umphrey and Motley Rice, on the other hand, and that the
law firms are clearly responsible for filing the Bruszweskis'
lawsuit and defending claims on their behalf.

The case is DONNA BRUSZEWSKI, Personally and as the Executrix of
the Estate of Thomas Bruszewski, Plaintiff, v. MOTLEY RICE, LLC,
and PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, LLP, Defendants, No. 5:12-cv-46-JMH
(E.D. Ky.).  A copy of Judge Hood's Decision dated Dec. 21, 2012,
is available at http://is.gd/XAzPhdfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Ct. Affirms Ruling in Legal Malpractice Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Appellant Charlotte Hearn challenges a trial court's entry of a
final summary judgment on her legal malpractice claims against
Kathryn Snapka.  In a decision dated Dec. 28, 2012, the Court of
Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi, Edinburg,
affirmed the trial court's decision.

Hearn, who was diagnosed with well-differentiated papillary
mesothelioma, retained Snapka to represent her with respect to
personal injury claims arising from her WDPM.  Snapka then filed a
lawsuit on behalf of Hearn against Hearn's former employer, Alcoa,
alleging claims for negligence, strict liability, and premises
liability.  While the suit was still pending in federal court,
Hearn sued Snapka for legal malpractice alleging that Snapka
negligently failed to sue or otherwise pursue products liability
claims against other defendants who manufacture asbestos products
to which she was exposed.

The Court of Appeals held that (1) the trial court did not abuse
its discretion when it struck the affidavits of three persons
offered by Hearn from evidence because Hearn failed to
affirmatively establish the reliability of the opinions contained
in each affidavit; and (2) the trial court did not err when it
entered the final summary judgment because Hearn failed to raise a
fact issue on the "suit-within-a-suit" requirement and the amount
of damages that would have been recoverable and collectible had
the other suit been properly prosecuted.

The case is CHARLOTTE HEARN, Appellant, v. KATHRYN SNAPKA,
Appellee, No. 13-11-00332-CV (Tex. App. Ct.).  A copy of the Court
of Appeals' Decision is available at http://is.gd/WajuiDfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Whistleblower Suit v. Ysleta ISD Junked
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a whistleblower case, the Ysleta Independent School District
appeals the trial court's order denying its plea to the
jurisdiction.  The District contends that the trial court erred
because Marcelino Franco failed to report a violation of law to an
"appropriate law enforcement authority" as required by the
Whistleblower Act.  Franco was employed as a principal of a pre-
kindergarten school when he reported asbestos hazards in his
school to District officials.  Slightly more than two months after
reporting the hazards, Franco was suspended.  Franco then sued the
District pursuant to the Whistleblower Act.

In an opinion dated Dec. 27, 2012, the Court of Appeals of Texas,
Eighth District, El Paso, affirmed the trial court's decision.

As defined by the Whistleblower Act, a report is made to an
appropriate law enforcement authority if the authority is "a part
of a state or local governmental entity or of the federal
government that the employee in good faith believes is authorized
to: (1) regulate under or enforce the law alleged to be violated
in the report; or (2) investigate or prosecute a violation of
criminal law."

The Court of Appeals pointed out that the evidence establishes
that Franco subjectively believed that the superintendent and
trustees were authorized to regulate under or enforce the Asbestos
Act.  In particular, Franco's deposition, reveals his subjective
belief.  Franco testified that he reported a violation of the
Asbestos Act to the District, which he contended was a law
enforcement authority.  In light of the foregoing and indulging
all reasonable inferences in favor of Franco, the Court of Appeals
concluded that Franco produced sufficient evidence of his good
faith belief that the District's superintendent and trustees were
authorized to regulate under or enforce the Asbestos Act and that
his belief was reasonable in light of his training and experience.

The case is YSLETA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, v.
MARCELINO FRANCO, Appellee, No. 08-12-00061-CV (Texas).  A copy of
the Court of Appeals' Decision is available at http://is.gd/rPTHEI
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Forum Ruling v. Illinois Central
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an opinion dated Dec. 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of Illinois
reversed the judgment of an appellate court and the order of the
circuit court of St. Clair County denying the motion of Defendant
Illinois Central Railroad Company to dismiss a personal injury
lawsuit of William Fennell based on interstate forum non
conveniens.  The Supreme Court also remanded the case to the
circuit court with directions to dismiss the action.

In October 2002, the Plaintiff, with more than 80 additional named
plaintiffs, brought an action under the Federal Employers'
Liability Act against Illinois Central.  The Plaintiffs sought
recovery for personal injuries they allegedly sustained as a
result of exposure to "asbestos and asbestos-containing products"
while employed by the Defendant.

The Illinois Supreme Court held that the circuit court failed to
recognize several private and public interest factors in its
analysis and thus concluded that the circuit court abused its
discretion in denying the Defendant's forum non conveniens motion
to dismiss.

The Illinois Supreme Court pointed out that:

   -- The circuit court failed to recognize that the Plaintiff
      originally filed his action in a Mississippi circuit court,
      and the action was dismissed without prejudice.  However,
      instead of refiling in his first choice of forum, the
      Plaintiff refiled in an Illinois court despite the record
      showing nothing that would suggest that the parties' ability
      to conduct discovery and engage in other pretrial matters
      was unduly hampered by proceeding in the Mississippi circuit
      court.

   -- The Plaintiff does not reside in Illinois, and the cause of
      action did not arise in Illinois.

   -- The Plaintiff resides in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, and the
      Defendant maintains offices in Memphis, Tennessee, and the
      Defendant correctly observed that the Plaintiff lives less
      than 25 miles from the circuit court of Copiah County,
      Mississippi, but is more than 530 miles from the circuit
      court of St. Clair County, located in Belleville, Illinois.

   -- With respect to the ease of access to testimonial,
      documentary, and other evidence, potential witnesses reside
      in Mississippi.  Indeed, almost no one connected with
      Plaintiff's side of the case resides in Illinois.

   -- If the case were tried in St. Clair County, and the
      circuit court determines that viewing the premises is
      appropriate or necessary, it would be irrational for a jury
      composed of St. Clair County residents to travel to
      Mississippi or Louisiana to view the premises, when that
      viewing could be accomplished more expeditiously if this
      case were tried in Mississippi.

The case is WALTER FENNELL, Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY, Appellant, No. 113812 (Ill.).  A copy of the Supreme
Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Vm4AtNfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Successor's Summary Judgment Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lola Bouchard claims that she was exposed to asbestos
brought home by her father and husband when they worked for
Northwestern Glass Company at the East Marginal Way Facility in
Seattle, and that these exposures to asbestos were substantial
contributing factors in the development of her malignant pleural
mesothelioma.  SGC was named defendant as successor-in-interest to
the Facility.

In a decision dated Dec. 27, 2012, Judge Richard A. Jones of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, granted SGC's motion for summary judgment holding that a
reading into the agreement between SGC and the former owner of the
Facility would show that SGC did not assume the liability for Ms.
Bouchard's exposure to asbestos.

The case is LOLA and MICHAEL BOUCHARD, Plaintiffs, v. CBS
CORPORATION, et al. Defendants, Case No. C11-458RAJ (W.D. Wash.).
A copy of Judge Jones' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/oX0QuQfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Clean Air Act Offense Conviction
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in an opinion
dated Jan. 2, 2013, affirmed a district court's ruling and denied
Charles Yi's appeal from his conviction and sentence, assigning
error to a jury instruction, and to his custodial sentence for
conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act.

The Ninth Circuit noted that the district court calculated Yi's
total offense level as 31 under the Guidelines.  In reaching that
level, the court applied, and Yi now challenges, two enhancements:
a nine-level enhancement for committing an environmental offense
that "resulted in a substantial likelihood of death or serious
bodily injury;" and a four-level enhancement for being "an
organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or
more participants."

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court's application of
the nine-level increase for an offense resulting in a substantial
likelihood of death or serious bodily injury was supported by
clear and convincing evidence.  The Ninth Circuit pointed out that
evidence presented at trial showed that the work crew removing the
Forest Glen ceilings did not wear proper respirators, were exposed
to dry ceiling material, and that onsite dust far exceeded
industry-recommended levels of asbestos.  The Ninth Circuit added
that the evidence at sentencing, aside from the actual on-site
conduct, came primarily from a letter from the Environmental
Protection Agency discussing chrysotile -- the form of asbestos
present at Forest Glen.

The Ninth Circuit also held that the district court rightfully
found that Yi fit the role of an organizer or leader calling for a
four-level increase.  The Ninth Circuit pointed out that Yi knew
the ceilings contained asbestos and that he was heavily involved
in decision-making with regard to Forest Glen, particularly given
the inexperience of his project managers.  Further evidence showed
that Yi earlier instructed one of his project managers to seek
bids for asbestos abatement; Yi rejected the abatement bids;
Millennium employees awaited Yi's ultimate approval prior to
removal; and Yi instructed his project manager to draw up the
contract for ceiling scraping.  These facts support a permissible
inference that Yi directed the ceilings be scraped, approving both
the expenditure and the work itself, rather than simply placing
his signature on a check made out to the contractor, the Ninth
Circuit further pointed out.

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
CHARLES YI, AKA Jang Ho Yi, Defendant-Appellant, No. 11-50234 (9th
Circ.).  A full-text copy of the 9th Circuit's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/lgmO3ufrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Retains Jurisdiction Over Successor Co.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos exposure action action was commenced in April 2011 by
Arthur Herlihy and his wife Gail Herlihy to recover for personal
injuries allegedly caused by Mr. Herlihy's exposure to asbestos-
containing products while working for the Brooklyn Boiler Repair
Company of Brooklyn, New York, from 1962 to 1991.  In Mr.
Herlihy's answers to interrogatories and at his deposition, he
testified he was exposed to asbestos from products manufactured by
Munaco NY.

Munaco Packing & Rubber Co., Inc., a South Carolina corporation,
moves to dismiss the complaint and all cross-claims asserted
against it for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs oppose,
arguing that the Supreme Court, New York County, has jurisdiction
over Munaco SC because it is the successor-in-interest to Munaco
Packing and Rubber Co., Inc., a now dissolved New York
corporation, which manufactured asbestos-containing products and
which is alleged to have caused Mr. Herlihy's asbestos-related
injuries.

In a decision dated Jan. 2, 2013, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler
denied the Defendant's motion after concluding that the totality
of facts presented in the case strongly suggest that Munaco SC was
a mere continuation of Munaco NY, the only difference between the
two being a change of location.  In support of her decision, Judge
Heitler pointed out that:

   -- Munaco SC manufactured, distributed, and sold the same goods
      and products as Munaco NY to its same primary customer;

   -- Munaco SC employed six of Munaco NY's eight employees;

   -- utilized most of Munaco NY's equipment, including gasket
      presses, a cutting table, steel tables, and desks;

   -- Dennis Cullen, the sole owner of Munaco NY, was also the
      sole owner of Munaco SC until he passed away in or about
      2004;

   -- it was Dennis Cullen, not Denton Taylor, who signed
      dissolution papers for Munaco NY in January of 1997,
      evidencing that Munaco NY was not, as defendant urges, sold
      to Mr. Taylor, but rather that Mr. Cullen simply continued
      his operation in South Carolina; and

   -- Munaco SC took with it to South Carolina Munaco NY's
      accounts receivable, accounts payable, and pension funds.

The case is GAIL HERLIHY, Individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of ARTHUR HERLIHY, Plaintiffs, v. A.F. SUPPLY CORP., et
al., Defendants, Docket No. 190149/11, Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y.).
A copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/b2K7XTfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Grants Inmates' Request for Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In an order dated Jan. 7, 2013, Magistrate Judge Mark A. Abel of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, granted plaintiffs William L. Ridenour and
Tommy Lee Brown's motion to compel discovery of all non-privileged
information relevant to their claims for declaratory relief and
nominal, compensatory and punitive damages.

The Plaintiffs have propounded interrogatories and document
requests to the individual defendants in an effort to discover (1)
whether the individual defendants were employed at Chillicothe
correctional Institution (CCI), where both Plaintiffs were held,
between May 14, 1984 and April 26, 2012 and what their respective
job responsibilities were; (2) when and under what circumstances
the individual defendants first became aware of the presence of
asbestos at CCI; (3) what protective measures were taken to
protect the health and safety of inmates and to minimize the risk
of exposure to friable asbestos particles; and (4) with whom did
defendants communicate, report to, instruct or direct in their
personal efforts to protect the health and safety of inmates from
exposure to friable asbestos particles. Plaintiffs indicate that
these questions are merely examples of the actual interrogatories
submitted by plaintiffs.

The case is William L. Ridenour and Tommy Lee Brown, Plaintiffs,
v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00493 (S.D. Ohio).  A full-
text copy of Magistrate Judge Abel's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/42TcSGfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. High Ct. Pens Ruling on Limitations Statute
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered
an order of certification requesting that the Supreme Court of
Virginia exercise jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, Section 1
of the Constitution of Virginia and Rule 5:40, and answer the
following question of law:

   Whether, under Va. Code Sec. 8.01-249(4), a plaintiff's cause
   of action for damages due to latent mesothelioma is deemed to
   accrue [I] at the time of the mesothelioma diagnosis or [II]
   decades earlier, when the plaintiff was diagnosed with an
   independent, non-malignant asbestos-related disease.

In a Jan. 10, 2013 ruling by Chief Justice Cynthia D. Kinser, the
Supreme Court held that when enacting Code Sec. 8.01-249(4), the
General Assembly did not abrogate the common law indivisible cause
of action principle and that a cause of action for personal injury
based on exposure to asbestos accrues upon the first communication
of a diagnosis of an asbestos-related injury or disease by a
physician.

The case arises from a wrongful death action filed by Phyllis
Kiser, wife and executrix of the estate of Orvin Kiser, who died
as a result of mesothelioma.  Mr. Kiser worked at a "DuPont" plant
in Waynesboro, Virginia, from 1957 to 1985, during which time he
was exposed to asbestos.  After being diagnosed with nonmalignant
pleural thickening and asbestosis in 1988, he filed a timely suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in
1990 against numerous asbestos manufacturers, sellers, and
distributors, seeking damages for his employment-related exposure
and resulting medical condition.  In 2010, that action was
voluntarily dismissed.

The wrongful death action was filed against 21 defendants, none of
which were parties to the personal injury action.  The various
defendants in the wrongful death action filed motions to dismiss,
asserting that the applicable statute of limitations barred the
Executrix's action.

In her opinion, Justice Kinser pointed out that, in Virginia,
remedying policy-related problems is the role of the General
Assembly, not the courts.  The indivisible cause of action rule
has existed in the Commonwealth for decades, and a decision that
causes of action for asbestos exposure are not subject to the rule
must come from the General Assembly, not the Court, she
emphasized.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court answered the question in the
negative with respect to whether, under Va. Code Sec. 8.01-249(4),
a plaintiff's cause of action for damages due to latent
mesothelioma is deemed to accrue at the time of the mesothelioma
diagnosis, and in the affirmative with respect to whether, under
Va. Code Sec. 8.01-249(4), a plaintiff's cause of action for
damages due to latent mesothelioma is deemed to accrue decades
earlier, when the plaintiff was diagnosed with an independent,
non-malignant asbestos-related disease.

The case is PHYLLIS H. KISER, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ORVIN H.
KISER, SR., DECEASED v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO., ET AL., Record No.
120698 (Va.).  A copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/50rdDxfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canterbury Health Boss Questions Fibro Encasement
------------------------------------------------------------------
NZ News reports that asbestos in the ceilings of more than 4,000
earthquake-damaged homes will be left encased behind plasterboard
-- a situation Canterbury's leading medical adviser says is a
health "landmine."

The Earthquake Commission (EQC) estimates 43,000 Christchurch
homes due for quake repairs could contain asbestos.  In about 10
percent of cases, asbestos in ceilings has been "encased" behind
plasterboard instead of being removed.

Homeowners will be told if this is done in their house, but there
are concerns encasement may encourage them to hide the
information.

Canterbury District Health Board medical officer of health
Alistair Humphrey says the practice is a serious health risk.

"I personally feel encasement is not a good thing to do under any
circumstances," he said.

"It disguises the fact that it is there.

"We have an opportunity to make sure houses are safe.  They should
just take it all out.

"It is a landmine sitting there which we won't know about."

Asbestos was once used in construction and can be dangerous if it
is disturbed.

Health experts say it is most harmful if a person is exposed to
high levels of the material for a long period.

Prolonged, chronic exposure can cause various lung diseases,
including cancer, but can take decades to develop.

Humphrey said the encasement policy would leave "a very
unfortunate legacy" for Christchurch, and he has told EQC of his
concerns.

"In the future, no one will know asbestos is there.  It is covered
over.  At the moment, you can look and see straight away it is
there," he said.

"Ten years down the track, someone could decide to put downlights
in a room.  They drill into [the asbestos] and put themselves at
risk.

"You could have a little baby crawling around on a carpet for six
months with asbestos in it.  [Adverse health effects] would emerge
only when they were in their 20s, and they will not know the
source.  It is a very unfortunate legacy."

EQC home repair program manager Reid Stiven defended the policy.

Asbestos ceilings were encased only when they were not damaged or
deteriorating, Stiven said, and homeowners were informed if
asbestos was found in a property and if it would be encased.

"EQC always tests for the presence of asbestos where it is
suspected," he said.

Humphrey said landlords would be reluctant to put asbestos on the
official information record for their home, known as a land
information memorandum (LIM).

"If you have a severely damaged house that has asbestos in the
ceiling and they encase that, do you think landlords will put that
on the LIM?  If they do, it devalues their house.  Nobody will put
asbestos on the LIM," he said.

Stiven said the encasement policy followed health guidelines.

"Enclosing is a reliable method for ensuring asbestos is safely
contained," he said.

"We are following the relevant national guidelines and the
recommended practice of Canterbury Public Health.  Asbestos is
only a health risk where it is damaged or deteriorating, and in
those cases it is removed.

"All of our EQC field staff and Fletcher EQR supervisors have been
given training in the correct identification of asbestos.

"If they suspect asbestos is present, then a sample is taken and
sent to testing.  This is completed by an independent specialist."

The working group that developed the EQC asbestos policy was
chaired by an independent health and safety consultant, he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Widow Gets GBP145K From British Rail
------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Layton of The Swindon Adertiser (UK) reports that a woman has
received GBP145,000 in compensation from British Rail following
the death of her husband from asbestos exposure.

Sheila Simpson, of Wroughton, brought the case after a post-mortem
examination showed her husband, Robin, died from mesothelioma --
less than a year after he started to feel unwell.

The settlement was reached out of court, with British Rail also
agreeing to pay all legal costs.

Mrs. Simpson was represented by Brigitte Chandler --
brigitte.chandler@clmlaw.co.uk -- a leading industrial disease
lawyer and partner with Swindon law firm, Charles Lucas &
Marshall, who has represented many hundreds of railway workers
over the last 30 years.

Ms. Chandler said Mr. Simpson's condition was only diagnosed after
his death and the case showed how long it can take for asbestos
disease to develop.

Mr. Simpson joined British Rail at the age of 15 and became a
coach builder.  He worked in a number of railway shops where he
was extensively exposed to asbestos.

"A number of coach builders have died from asbestos exposure at
the Swindon railway works," said Ms. Chandler.

"British Rail is now well aware of the extent of this problem and
the fact that so many people who worked there have become ill.

"Mr. Simpson would first have been exposed at British Rail in 1950
so it has typically taken 60 years for the disease to develop.

"The figures are likely to continue rising over the next 10
years."

Dozens of men and women are dying every year from what has been
labeled the 'Swindon Disease' as the deadly legacy of workplace
exposure to asbestos continues to takes its toll.

The region is part of a wider timebomb which, under the worst-case
scenario, could claim 2,100 lives nationally at its peak in 2016.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Cheam Firm Cited for Fibro Law Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bournemouth Echo reports that workers were exposed to asbestos as
they refurbished an office block in Poole, a court was told.

The 18 workers were put "at risk" as they worked at Sentinel House
on the Nuffield Industrial Estate and the company they were
working for has admitted three breaches of control of asbestos
regulations.

Dale Collins, prosecuting for the Health and Safety Executive,
told Bournemouth Magistrates' Court that employers MJC Decorating
and Refurbishing Ltd were given the results of a survey indicating
asbestos was present.

An asbestos specialist noticed "widespread" contamination where
the staff were working and in July 2009 the site was closed, the
court heard.

Mr. Collins said one worker described how it had been "difficult
to breathe" and they had not been wearing suitable safety masks.

James Ageros, in mitigation, said the company owners, the couple
Witold and Agnieszka Gamski, had not health and safety breaches in
the history of the firm, based at North Cheam in Sutton, Surrey.

Mr. Ageros said having to pay the fine would affect the company
but Mr. Collins responded that the company accounts show the
ownership of a GBP200,000 car "for no other reason than its
prestigious."

The three charges related to breaches of the identification of
asbestos, the prevention or reduction of exposure to asbestos and
the duty to prevent or reduce the spread of asbestos.

District Judge Roger House ordered the case to be sentenced at
crown court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Cost May Derail "Moving Ohio" Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Gadd of The Lancaster Eagle Gazette reports that aging
houses built before 1980 often contain cancer-causing asbestos
fibers used in some insulation, paints, plasters and joint
compounds.

In addition to the health risk, the houses also are giving local
officials a headache when it comes to paying to have the dangerous
substance removed from homes slated for the wrecking ball.

The cost of demolition work, particularly asbestos abatement
activities, could derail plans to bring down as many as 40 area
homes this year under the state's Moving Ohio Forward Demolition
grant program, officials said Tuesday, Jan. 8.

Muskingum County received a $445,425 grant commitment from the
Ohio Attorney General's Office in 2012 and is sharing the funds
with the city.

Eight houses across the city have been brought down so far and
County Community Development Coordinator Sheila Samson, who is
overseeing the local efforts, said she has filed paperwork for
grant reimbursement for the first six projects.  Zanesville Chief
Code Enforcement Officer Tim Smith has filed paperwork for two
more.

"But what we're finding is that the asbestos abatement is very
expensive and we fear we will be short of our goal of 40 home
demolitions," Samson said, noting the average price of demolition
and abatement for the first batch of homes was $9,454 per
structure.

Smith said while estimates originally called for 35 to 40
demolitions, that number might be reduced to 15 to 20.

The average cost to remove asbestos from aging structures he
typically deals with before they are demolished is about $15,000,
Smith said.  One of the projects cost $21,400 because of more
asbestos than expected.  He has four more homes slated for
demolition that are on hold because of higher-than-average costs.

"When the cost is that much, that's like three or four homes we
won't be able to do," Smith said.  "It's severely cutting into
what we'll be able to do."

He also has been checking on the possibility that several of the
proposed demolitions could be eligible for residential exemptions
from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, which requires a
500-foot buffer between an asbestos removal site and other
residences.

"Most of our houses are within that (buffer), so we wouldn't be
able to do as many," he said, noting he has yet to receive a
ruling from the OEPA on the matter.

Smith said it wouldn't be a problem for some targeted homes in the
county because of more clearance between structures.

Samson said she still hasn't secured the first release from
homeowners for county properties but is hopeful the first
structure out in the county will be coming down in the next couple
of months.

After discussions with state officials, Ohio Attorney General Mike
DeWine earmarked $75 million out of the $93 million his office
received from a multistate lawsuit settlement with mortgage
servicing companies to help Ohio municipalities remedy damage
caused by the foreclosure crisis.  That includes eliminating slums
and blight through targeted demolitions of vacant and dilapidated
structures.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bondex's Lung Expert Defends Bias Allegations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi of Legal Newsline reports that highlighting the second
day of an asbestos estimation trial was a testy exchange between
an attorney representing the claimants and one of the debtors'
witnesses regarding the nature of a specific form of asbestos, and
how it relates, or doesn't relate, to a mesothelioma diagnosis.

Dr. Allan Feingold, a lung specialist who originally hails from
Canada, and is currently based in Miami, took the stand for the
debtors -- a consortium of companies that formerly dealt in
asbestos-containing products who are presently in a state of
Chapter 11 bankruptcies.

The companies, Bondex International Inc., Specialty Products
Holding Corp., and RPM International Inc., had thousands of
asbestos injury claims pending against them in the tort system
prior to their respective bankruptcy petitions.

The weeklong estimation trial took place in U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Judith Fitzgerald's 54th floor courtroom.

Claimant attorneys attempted to pick apart the testimony of
Feingold, a medical doctor and expert in epidemiology, over the
causation of mesothelioma -- a type of cancer which affects the
lining of lungs, is most often attributed to asbestos exposure and
is almost always fatal.

Chrysotile asbestos, the form of asbestos found in debtor Bondex's
joint compound, which is the primary subject of the proceedings,
is "much less likely" to stay in the mesothelium, or the lining of
the lungs, than other forms of asbestos, such as amphibole
asbestos, Feingold testified.

He said that Chrysotile asbestos, in most cases, in and of itself
doesn't lead to mesothelioma, or at least hardly ever leads to
mesothelioma deaths.

Other forms of asbestos inhalation, however, such as amphibole,
typically account for the mesothelioma diagnoses that are usually
seen, Feingold said from the witness stand.

Feingold, who was retained by the debtors to review a sampling of
the claimants who had filed asbestos injury cases, stressed that
he was never given access to the actual lung samples of those
claimants who had had surgeries performed by medical doctors given
their respective lung cancer diagnoses.

If he had actually viewed the tissues under a microscope, the
doctor said, he most likely would have found that the patients had
more than simply Chrysotile asbestos in their systems.

Instead, Feingold said, all he had to go by was the information he
was given.

Out of the 2,765 mesothelioma victims who brought claims against
the debtors, Feingold created a sample group of 229, and only
about 25 of those people had what is known as pleural mesothelioma
and had had exposure to the joint compound manufactured by Bondex,
he said.

The joint compound, which is at the center of the case, was namely
designed for do-it-yourself use in small home renovation projects,
the debtors' attorneys had previously stated.

By contrast, most known mesothelioma victims are thought to have
contracted the disease during their years working in commercial
settings.

While Feingold was adamant that Chrysotile asbestos, in and of
itself, really wouldn't lead to a mesothelioma diagnosis without a
patient having had been exposed to other forms of asbestos fibers,
the attorneys representing the claimants, and possible future
claimants, stressed that some published research shows otherwise.

One claimants' attorney sought to outline Feingold's history of
being paid by asbestos companies to testify in proceedings such as
the one currently going on in downtown Pittsburgh as serving as an
example of the doctor's alleged bias.

Feingold, however, reiterated that his medical and scientific
opinions were formulated over 30 years' worth of practical
applicability, regardless of the fact that he was never a
published academic.

The claimants' attorney made mention of the other supposed experts
who would be participating in the trial later on.

Feingold, however, sought to dispel this contention, saying that
academics who publish research could be wrong as well.

"You think if someone is more famous they are more important,"
Feingold said from the stand.  "No.  The facts are important.  And
the facts don't fly."

When the claimants' attorney referenced the jury verdicts that
came out in favor of asbestos injury plaintiffs following cases
that were taken all the way through trial, Feingold retorted, "I
think the juries get things correct most of the time, but not
always.

"This is not about viewpoints," Feingold said.  "This is about
facts.  Show me a cause and effect relationship," between
Chrysotile asbestos only and a mesothelioma diagnosis.

When accused of molding his opinion to align with a certain bias,
Feingold shot back by saying that his viewpoints may have changed,
but only with the course of changing research in the field.

Feingold was not the only one on the witness stand on Tuesday,
Jan. 8.

Charles Mullin, an economic consultant with the Washington, D.C.-
based firm Bates-White, continued his testimony, which had been
cut short the prior day because of time constraints.

Mullin, who had also been retained by the debtors, talked about
the reason why many asbestos defendants would choose to engage in
settlements with plaintiffs rather than take a case to a jury.

It is much more costly for an asbestos defendant to see a case
through to a jury verdict rather than to go the settlement route.

The defense costs in a jury case could be upward of $300,000 on
average, Mullin testified, in comparison to an average settlement
of $200,000.

At the end of the day, Mullin said, it's cheaper and less risky
for a defendant to offer up a settlement than it is for that
defendant to take a case to trial.

"It's going to be cost prohibitive for them to try a case," he
said.

The other debtors' witness to testify on the concept of risk was
Timothy Coleman, an employee of Blackstone, a New York-based
global investment and advisory firm.

Coleman was charged at looking at discount rates as they applied
to asbestos claims.

"The discount rate is all about risk," Coleman said.  "This is a
very long, 30-plus year type claim."

Coleman's testimony went to the heart of the case playing out in
Fitzgerald's courtroom.

Companies that dealt in asbestos-containing products often choose
Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a way of halting future injury claims
against them, since businesses that go that route obtain immediate
immunity from civil suit.

The reason why the two parties are in court in Pittsburgh is
because they differ greatly on the dollar figure estimations with
regard to future asbestos claims.

The claimants, which include the Official Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants and the Future Claimants'
Representative, Eric D. Green, contend that the amount of
enforceable, settled but unpaid asbestos claims is somewhere
around $55 million, while the debtors maintain that the figure is
closer to $30 million.

Under questioning by attorneys for both sides, Coleman stressed
that future estimations are pure guesswork.

"At the end of the day . . . these are all estimations," he
testified.

Coleman went on to say that when it comes to dealing with the
concept of risk, nothing is set in stone.

"There's no question that there's risk in this world," Coleman
testified.  "I think there are lots of risk to the estimations."

Under cross-examination by claimants' attorney John Dorsey, of the
firm Young Conway, Coleman talked about how things like healthcare
costs, a possible future cure for mesothelioma, and other factors,
could affect the amount of money paid to asbestos claimants down
the line.

"Obviously the experts have a very big range of difference between
them," Coleman said.  "It means there are risks.

"Estimates are estimates," Coleman continued.  "They have risks
associated with them."

The proceedings were expected to continue on Wednesday, Jan. 9.

Each side was afforded by the court 17-and-one-half hours by which
to present their respective sides, for a total of 35 hours in the
courtroom for the week.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio School Cited For Exposing Kids to Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Jauregui of The Huffington Post reports that an Ohio school
is under criminal investigation after it allegedly had volunteers,
including students as young as 13, remove debris from an asbestos-
contaminated building over several weekends, WKYC reports.

Darren Clink, who lives next to the building in question, filmed
people working amid clouds of what he claims was carcinogenic
dust.  Some of the workers may have been students at the nearby
Buckeye Education School.

"The entire site was contaminated with asbestos and the people who
were doing it were all children," Clink said.  "The kids were
loaded with it."

State environmental protection agency analysis of debris from the
site would confirm his suspicions, concluding that "floor tiles,
pipes and duct fabric were all filled with asbestos."

The building is the site of a former YWCA that the school hopes to
expand into.  Ohio state law requires removal of asbestos by
special contractors.

According to Ohio EPA literature, "all facilities are required to
complete a thorough asbestos survey before renovation or
demolition."

In an email to WKYC, a representative of the school said that they
have now "engaged the services of a certified asbestos remediation
company" and are cooperating with the state EPA.  School officials
have not named who is responsible for organizing the volunteer
effort.

Once commonly used as a building and insulation material, asbestos
has been linked to serious illness after long-term inhalation of
dust and fibers.  Its removal continues to be a pressing
environmental and public health concern, particularly where older
structures are concerned.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy last year, some experts were
concerned that the extensive damage to homes and buildings along
the U.S. Eastern Seaboard might increase exposure to environmental
toxins, including asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,563 Madison Fibro Exposure Cases Filed in 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Horrel of The Edwardsville Intelligencer reports that the
number of asbestos cases filed in Madison County last year was up
by 610 from the 2011 total, according to end-of-the-year records
released by the Madison County Circuit Clerk's office.  In all,
1,563 asbestos cases were filed in Madison County in 2012.

Class action lawsuits, on the other hand, took a tumble from the
11 filed in 2011 to 4 last year.

Medical malpractice cases increased from 19 in 2011 to 26 in 2012.

But in recent years it has been the rise in asbestos filings that
has garnered the most publicity and angered local tort reform
groups such as Illinois Lawsuit Abuse and national groups like the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

A local group calling itself The Integrity of Madison County's
Court System called such attacks partisan and pointed out that
only four asbestos cases have gone to trial in the last five
years, and in every case jurors returned with defense verdicts.

The last year brought a change to the asbestos docket.  In March,
Associate Judge Clarence Harrison entered an order that eliminated
the court's asbestos advance docket for 2013.

That followed on the heels of a recommendation by attorney Robert
Schultz to eliminate a reservation system for preferred plaintiffs
that pro-business groups felt made Madison County a magnet for
asbestos-related lawsuits.

Schultz represented 61 corporations and defense attorneys, while
other attorneys represented asbestos victims.  Each side argued
their case before Harrison.

The arguments had to do with whether to revise a Dec. 1
preliminary order, signed by Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder, that
set nearly 500 trial slots.

Harrison said that a standard jury week will be used for the
asbestos docket, effective immediately.  Cases will be heard on a
motion-by-motion basis.  The court may group cases for efficiency.

The elderly and dying shall receive preference in trial settings,
Harrison also wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants, Debtors Are Worlds Apart On Estimates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The legal proceeding that played out last week was because lawyers
representing asbestos injury claimants and attorneys retained by
the bankrupt companies are worlds apart on their respective
estimations of the amount of cash available to parties who have
been stricken ill because of asbestos exposure, Jon Campisi of
Legal Newsline reports.

Known as an "estimation hearing," the proceeding, which is being
overseen by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald, was necessary
to help resolve the differences among the sides regarding the
monetary value of future claims are concerned.

"The merits of the claims are not to be ignored," Gregory Gordon
-- gmgordon@jonesday.com -- an attorney from the firm Jones Day
who is working for the debtors, said in court.  "What is the
debtors' responsibilities . . . ," is the ultimate question for
the court, he said.

The focus on the monetary estimation is on the debtors' several
share, Gordon said, while liability has to be estimated separately
because there are separate debtor entities.

The estimation hearing is grounded in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy
petition filed in May 2010 by three companies: Bondex
International, Specialty Products Holding Corp., and RPM
International Inc.

The companies, which specialized in the manufacture of asbestos-
containing joint compound designed for do-it-yourself home
renovation projects, were defendants in about 15,000 pending
asbestos-related injury claims prior to their filing for
bankruptcy, a process that gives companies immediate immunity from
civil litigation.

Out of the 15,000 lawsuits, 2,800 of them were mesothelioma
claims.

When a company files for bankruptcy, it must create what is known
as a 524(g) trust, which is ultimately responsible for
compensating present and future claimants.

According to the American Bar Association, as of 2011, 56 trusts
have been confirmed on behalf of asbestos defendants that declared
bankruptcy, and payments from those trusts have increased
exponentially.

As of 2008, the ABA reported, the largest 26 trusts had paid $10.9
billion on 2.4 million claims.

The current combined total assets of the trusts is estimated to be
between $35 billion and $60 billion, according to the ABA.

In the present case, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware approved economic consulting firm Bates-White to be the
estimation expert for the debtors.

Meanwhile, the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants and the Future Claimants' Representative, Eric D. Green,
retained their own experts to calculate what they believe will be
the money owed to victims down the road.  So far during the
estimation hearing, both sides have been presenting expert
witnesses who have been testifying on how they arrived at their
respective estimations.

Medical experts have also been put on the stand to address
asbestos-related injuries themselves, the big one being
mesothelioma, which is a type of cancer that affects the lining of
the lungs called the mesothelium.

The debtors in this case claim that they suffered a substantial
spike in claims in the early 2000s due to a large number of
bankruptcy filings by other defendants who were facing numerous
lawsuits in the tort system.

The same debtors claim that while still in the tort system, they
had to shuck out money to pay for the several liability of other
companies in judicial jurisdictions that employ the method known
as joint and several liability.

Basically, the debtors claim they were on the hook for others'
liability, hence the decision to file for bankruptcy.

The debtors claim that the form of asbestos they dealt in, known
as Chrysotile asbestos, is much less toxic than amphibole
asbestos, and they question why more claims were being filed
against them recently by people allegedly injured by their
product.

The debtors assert that the do-it-yourself nature of their
products and the debtors' limited market share make it
statistically improbable that their products were a contributing
cause of more than 50 percent of the mesothelioma cases filed
across the country, according to background information on the
case contained within the pre-trial order.

The debtors also claim that a review of epidemiological research
indicates that drywall workers don't have an increased incidence
of mesothelioma, since the ailment is a "dose-responsive" disease,
and in the normal use of their products, exposure would not be a
"substantial" contributing factor to a plaintiff's mesothelioma
diagnosis, the pre-trial order states.

Allan Feingold, a medical doctor who has testified for other
defendants in asbestos cases, said as much while on the stand this
week.

Feingold was challenged by claimants' attorneys, however, who
suggested people still could contract mesothelioma from exposure
to Chrysotile asbestos alone, citing the disparity in the research
that is in existence.

As for the future claims, Gordon, one of the lawyers working with
the debtors, asserted that the debtors had less than one percent
of the asbestos-containing joint compound on the market with sales
of no more than $6 million annually, yet it is claimed that the
debtors owe close to a billion dollars and cause half or more of
annual mesothelioma claims in the United States.

Common sense dictates that "this can't be right," Gordon said in
court, something that was reiterated by Charles Mullin, an
economic consultant doing work for the debtors.

Bondex was hit with its first asbestos injury suit back in 1980,
Gordon said, while Specialty Products Holding Corp.  faced its
first claim two years later.

Between 1980 and 1999, the two companies were named in only 107
cases.

"Why the avalanche of the meso cases against the debtors," Gordon
asked.

What changed, he surmises, is that a number of the "truly
responsible" companies filed for bankruptcy and left others to
take the fall.

It's relatively cheap for plaintiffs' attorneys to file mass tort
claims such as asbestos lawsuits, Gordon said.

By contrast, however, it's very expensive for companies to defend
against the claims, with about $300,000 typically needed to defend
against an asbestos suit.

Gordon said as the volume of claims increased, and insurance money
disappeared, "the debtors had to change their approach."

Namely, the debtors realized it would be cheaper to settle the
claims out of court rather than to take a case to trial.

During the course of the estimation hearing, the debtors mentioned
Madison County, Ill., as being among the worst jurisdictions in
the country as far as asbestos litigation is concerned, primarily
because of the nature of the docket system in that jurisdiction.

During opening arguments on Monday, Jan. 7, Natalie Ramsey --
nramsey@mmwr.com -- an attorney with Montgomery, McCracken, Walker
& Rhoads, which is representing the Official Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants, disagreed with the debtors' contention
that Bondex, which became a subsidiary of Specialty Products
Holding Corp. in the early 1970s, was a "small player."

Bondex, Ramsey said, continued to put into the stream of commerce
asbestos-containing products even after a ban was put into effect,
which demonstrated the company simply didn't care about those who
got hurt from its products.

"There were some other things going on," Ramsey said in court.

Ramsey said throughout the course of the estimation trial, the
court would see a "repeated theme" on the part of the debtors.

"It's not as small a player as the debtors will have you believe,"
Ramsey said of Bondex.  "The debtors have a robust history of
resolving asbestos claims."

Ramsey said the plan for her team is to see to it that the debtors
are ultimately returned to the tort system.

"Bankruptcy's not a . . . do-over for the debtors," she said.

The attorney representing the Future Claimants' Representative
also made an opening statement in which he stressed that "the
debtors are not the victims here."

"The claimants are the victims your honor," said the lawyer, Edwin
J. Harron -- eharron@ycst.com -- of the firm Young, Conway,
Stargatt & Taylor.

Harron said testimony by his expert witnesses during the hearing
will show that $1.1 billion is a "reasonable estimate" on his
future claims.

Meanwhile, Harron called the used methodology used by Mullin, the
economic consultant retained by the debtors, to come up with the
debtors' figures "radical" and "severely flawed."

Ramsey, the lawyer representing the claimants' committee, had
earlier moved to have Mullin's testimony stricken, although the
judge allowed Mullin to move forward with his testimony.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Need Halts Davis County Library Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryon Saxton of The Standard-Examiner reports that asbestos has to
be removed before an old library can come down and a parking lot
go in.

On Tuesday, Jan. 8, the Davis County Commission received five bids
from Utah companies to abate the asbestos in the county's old
headquarters library.

The old library, built in 1964, is directly east of the Memorial
County Courthouse at 45 E. State St., Farmington.

The bids the county received for the work ranged from a high of
$104,000, to an apparent low bid of $39,878 submitted by Above the
Rest Abatement based in Riverton.

The bids will be further reviewed before an award is made.

The county had budgeted $100,000 for the asbestos abatement work,
Davis County Director of Planning Barry Burton said.

Burton is serving as the county's manager on the project.

The asbestos removal should take place in February, Burton said,
with the building set to be razed sometime in March.

It is the intent of county officials to have the old building
removed from the campus and a new parking lot in its place by the
end of spring, officials said.

Asbestos in the old library has to be removed before the county is
allowed to raze the building, Davis County Commissioner John
Petroff, Jr., said.

Once the old library is razed, it will open up additional space
for parking on the county campus.

The county campus consists of the new $1.8 million Children's
Justice Center, the $15.7 million Davis County Administrative
Offices and the new $4.6 million Davis County Main Branch Library.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borg-Warner Corp, 123 Others Face Meso Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that an Owensboro,
Ky., couple is suing 124 companies they claim are responsible for
lung injuries.

Clarence Robert Nelson was diagnosed with asbestosis and
mesothelioma, according to a complaint filed Jan. 3 in Kanawha
Circuit Court.

Nelson and his wife, Isabell S. Nelson, claim the defendants are
responsible for the diagnoses.

The defendants failed to warn the Nelsons of the dangers of
asbestos products and failed to exercise reasonable care to warn
Clarence Nelson of the dangers of being exposed to asbestos-
containing products, according to the suit.

The Nelsons claim the defendants also failed to test the asbestos-
containing products in order to ascertain the dangers involved and
failed to test the other ingredients of their products to
ascertain the dangers involved.

As a result of the defendants' negligence, Clarence Nelson has
suffered damages from medical treatment, drugs and other unknown
medical measures; great pain of body and mind; embarrassment and
inconvenience; loss of earning capacity; loss of enjoyment of
life; and shortening of his life expectancy, according to the
suit.

The Nelsons are seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved.  They are being represented by David P. Chervenick,
Bruce E. Mattock and Scott S. Segal.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 124 defendants named in the suit are Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation; Ajax Magnethermic Corporation; Allied Glove
Corporation; American Biltrite, Inc.; Ametek, Inc.; Armstrong
International, Inc.; Armstrong Pumps, Inc.; Aurora Pump Company;
Baltimore Aircoil Company; Borg-Warner Corporation; Brand
Insulations, Inc.; Cameron International Corporation; Carver Pump
Company; Cashco, Inc.; Catalytic Construction Company; CBS
Corporation; Certainteed Corporation; Chevron U.S.A., Inc.;
Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.; Columbia Paint Corp.; Columbus McKinnon
Corporation; Cooper Industries, Inc.; Copes-Vulcan, Inc.; Crane
Company, Inc.; Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc.; CSR, Inc.; Dana
Corporation; Dezurik, Inc.; Dravo Corporation; Eaton Corporation;
Eichleay Corporation; F.B. Wright Company of Pittsburgh; the
Fairbanks Company; Fairmont Supply Company; Flowserve U.S., Inc.
and its Byron Jackson Pump Division; Flowserve U.S., Inc., f/k/a
Flowserve FSD Corporation; Flowserve U.S., Inc., f/k/a Flowserve
FSD Corporation, as successor to Durco International and the
Duriron Company; Flowserve U.S., Inc., f/k/a Flowserve FSD
Corporation, as successor to Valtek International; Fluor
Constructors International a/k/a Fluor Corporation; Fluor
Constructors International, Inc.; Fluor Corporation; Fluor
Enterprises, Inc.; FMC Corporation; Foster Wheeler, LLC; the Gage
Company; Gardner Denver, Inc.; General Electric Company; General
Refractories Company; Gentex Corporation; Georgia-Pacific
Corporation; the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company; Goulds Pumps,
Inc.; Greene Tweed & Co.; Grinnell, LLC; Hinchliffe & Keener,
Inc.; Honeywell International, Inc.; Howden North America, Inc.;
IU North America, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.; Inductotherm Corp.;
Industrial Holdings Corporation; Industrial Rubber Products;
Ingersoll-Rand Company; ITT Corporation; J.H. France Refractories
Company; J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Jacobs Engineering
Group, Inc.; Joy Technologies, Inc.; Joy Technologies, Inc. a/k/a
and as successor-in-interest to Joy Mining Machinery; Lennox
Industries, Inc.; Lindberg; Louden Crane Corporation; M.S. Jacobs
& Associates, Inc.; Magnetek, Inc.; McJunkin Redman Corporation;
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Minnotte Contracting
Corporation; Morgan Engineering Systems, Inc.; Mueller Steam
Specialty; Nagle Pumps, Inc.; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.;
Owens-Illinois, Inc.; P&H Mining Equipment, Inc.; Pecora
Corporation; Pneumo Abex Corporation; Power Piping Company;
Premier Refractories, Inc.; Reading Crane; Riley Power, Inc.;
Robinson Fans, Inc.; Rockwell Automation, Inc.; Rust Engineering &
Construction, Inc.; Rust International Corp.; Safety First
Industries, Inc.; the Sager Corporation; Saint-Gobain Abrasives,
Inc.; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.; Seco/Warwick Corporation;
Spirax Sarco, Inc.; SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc.; State Electric
Supply Company; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC; Sullair
Corporation; Sunbeam Products, Inc.; Sundyne Corporation; Surface
Combustion; SVI Corporation; Swindell-Dressler International
Company; Tasco Insulation, Inc.; Textron, Inc.; Trane U.S., Inc.;
UB West Virginia, Inc.; Union Carbide Corporation; Velan Valve
Corporation; Viking Pump, Inc.; Vimasco Corporation; Warren Pumps,
Inc.; Washington Group International; Weil McLain Company; Welco
Manufacturing Company; West Virginia Electric Supply Company; the
William Powell Company; Yarway Corporation; and Zurn Industries,
LLC.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-6.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lowell Housing Sponsors Workers' Fibro Tests
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Moran of The Lowell Sun reports that several months after
questions were raised about the Lowell Housing Authority's
possible improper handling of asbestos during a major renovation
project, the agency has agreed to pay for and promote the
opportunity for its maintenance employees to get tested for
asbestos poisoning.

LHA Executive Director Gary Wallace said Wednesday, Jan. 9, he has
consented to the request put forth by the union representing the
maintenance employees because he wants to allay any concerns LHA
workers may have about exposure to asbestos.

"It makes sense for some of the older people who might have
worries," Wallace told The Sun.  "We also want to put the issue to
rest."

Angelo Karabatsos, president of the union representing the LHA's
maintenance workers, said the idea of employees receiving asbestos
testing first emerged last year after the LHA decided to bring on
a environmental consultant to determine how much asbestos is
present at all of its major developments.

The decision to hire a consultant came in the months following the
City Council's call for an investigation into whether asbestos was
handled improperly during the LHA's renovations at North Common
Village from 2008 to 2011.  The Inspector General's Office
released a report in October saying there was no evidence asbestos
was removed during the project, but two other state agencies
determined that proper testing was not done prior to the work.

Also, the LHA's consultant found asbestos in the second layer of
floor tile and associated mastic of the only North Common unit it
tested over the summer.

Karabatsos said he put forward the testing proposal so his members
who want the testing because of concerns have access to it.  He is
strongly encouraging his members who have been at the LHA the
longest to get tested because many of the old buildings at the LHA
used to be full of asbestos and some still remains.

"The guys who have been there many years would be wise to get
tested to put their minds at ease," Karabatsos said.  "There is no
doubt in my mind some of them were interacting with asbestos for
years."

Karabatsos praised the LHA for agreeing to set a specific date,
time and place for the testing and make sure LHA employees are
aware of it.

Workers can also get tested for unhealthy exposure to lead, added
Karabatsos.  He estimates close to 50 LHA employees would be
eligible to receive the testing.

"The housing authority is living up to their responsibility to
their workers," Karabatsos said.

Both Wallace and Karabatsos said they expect the testing to be
scheduled for some time in the coming weeks.

The health consequences for exposure to asbestos fibers and lead
paint can be very severe.

Exposure to asbestos fibers can lead to tissue scarring, lung
diseases and mesothelioma.

Meanwhile, unhealthy exposure to lead can cause lead poisoning,
which has a variety of symptoms, including a decline in mental
functioning.

Also Wednesday, the LHA's board of commissioners took action to
prevent exposure to asbestos in one place it was recently
identified: the crawl spaces of two developments where the steam
pipes go underground from one building to the next.

The board voted 3-0 to award Dec-Tam Corp. of North Reading a
$57,600 contract to seal the pipe openings at North Common Village
and the George Flanagan Development.

The board members present for the meeting were Chairwoman Kristin
Ross-Sitcawich, Michael Zaim and Walter "Buddy" Flynn.

The consultant that is overseeing the asbestos survey project is
Cardno ATC of Woburn.

David Mitchell, project manager for the Cardno ATC's LHA work,
told the board that the asbestos surveying of the LHA's 10 major
developments is 80 percent complete.

He praised the LHA for seeing it through.

"You are doing a great job seeking data for every site and getting
training for the staff," he said.  "You are really going above and
beyond what most people do."

Mitchell also reported to the board that some renovated units at
North Common Village had traces of asbestos in their residual
mastic.

Mastic is an adhesive often made of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swansea Firm, Contractor Cited for HSE Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Workers were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers following a
catalogue of errors by an engineering company and a building firm
during a demolition and refurbishment project in Swansea, a court
has heard.

The project was badly managed, with untrained staff put in charge
of the operation, and was underpinned by inadequate surveys for
the presence of asbestos and poor planning throughout.

Neath Magistrates' Court was told on Jan. 10 that Wall Colmonoy
Ltd had contracted Oaktree Construction to renovate a building
opposite its premises in Pontardawe, Swansea, in December 2010 in
order to expand its operations.

The engineering firm had two asbestos management surveys for the
site, which, although later deemed to be inadequate, identified
the presence of asbestos material and highlighted other areas,
such as the ceiling voids, which were presumed to contain
asbestos.

Despite this, work was allowed to begin in the building, even
though Trebanos-based Oaktree had been advised by the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) that a separate 'Refurbishment and
Demolition Survey' was also required before any activity
commenced.

During the demolition works an asbestos insulation board (AIB)
covering a steel column was damaged, and a Wall Colmonoy employee
was told to tape plastic bags around it.  Work continued in the
building for several months with the AIB debris left lying on the
floor until an unannounced visit was carried out by an HSE
inspector.

A subsequent HSE investigation found that Wall Colmonoy failed to
appoint a competent Construction, Design and Management
coordinator and principal contractor to plan and manage the
construction work, and ignored advice from its own health and
safety manager to notify HSE of the demolition phase of the
project, as is required by law.

Wall Colmonoy also failed to provide a proper assessment of the
presence of asbestos and its condition in the building before work
started.  The surveys they held were poor, as a licensed asbestos
removal contractor had warned in advising the company that the
information they contained was inadequate.

No-one involved in the management of the project had the skills,
training or experience to address health and safety issues,
including the risk of asbestos exposure.  The company made no
efforts to remove or control the risks from the asbestos materials
that had been identified in the reports.

The HSE investigation also found that Oaktree failed to prevent
the exposure of its employees to asbestos, and failed to control
its spread once it had been damaged.

The company failed to provide a 'Refurbishment and Demolition
Survey' and its own risk assessment was inadequate because it
failed to identify the risks from asbestos.

Furthermore, Oaktree did not carry out a structural assessment of
the building and did not provide its staff with asbestos awareness
training, despite a recommendation by the HSE in September 2010.

Wall Colomony, of Alloy Industrial Estate, Pontardawe, was fined a
total of GBP16,000 and ordered to pay GBP3,287 in costs after
pleading guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health
and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Oaktree Construction (Wales) Ltd, of Pheasant Road, Trebanos, was
fined GBP8,000 with costs of GBP2,000 after pleading guilty to
breaching Regulations 16 and 11(1) (a) of the of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2006.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector, Anne Marie Orrells
said:

"Both companies involved in this case demonstrated significant
failings throughout the management of the project, which put the
lives of their respective workers at risk.

"Demolition and refurbishment work must be properly planned and
managed by competent personnel with the right training and
experience.

"Proper structural and asbestos surveys must be made and a full
risk assessment carried out for all the work to be undertaken.

"Had a Refurbishment and Demolition survey been undertaken, and
had a licensed asbestos contractor been used to removal all
asbestos materials prior to the work starting, then the risk would
have been eliminated.

"Instead this inadequate response left workers exposed to asbestos
fibers, which can cause potentially fatal lung disease.  The
health and safety of workers must not be left to chance."

Further information on managing asbestos risks can be found on the
HSE website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos

The Health and Safety Executive is Britain's national regulator
for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related
death, injury and ill health.  It does so through research,
information and advice; promoting training; new or revised
regulations and codes of practice; and working with local
authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement.

Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states:
It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is
reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of
all his employees.

Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states:
It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking
in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable,
that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are
not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

Regulation 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 states:
Every employer shall prevent or, where this is not reasonably
practicable, reduce to the lowest level reasonably practicable the
spread of asbestos from any place where work under his control is
carried out.

Regulation 11(1) (a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006
states: Every employer shall prevent the exposure of his employees
to asbestos so far as is reasonably practicable.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chevron USA, Owens-IL Case Moved to Houston MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates of The Southeast Texas Record reports that a suit
alleging a woman was routinely exposed to asbestos due to her
father's employment at area facilities was been transferred to the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel in Houston.

Roger Young, representing the estate of Melissa Young, filed suit
against Chevron USA and Owens-Illinois on April 24 in Jefferson
County District Court.

Court records show a notice of transfer under Rule 13 as a tag-
along case was filed on June 14.

The notice states the case has been transferred to the asbestos
MDL pre-trial Judge Mark Davidson in Harris County.

The lawsuit alleges Melissa's father worked as welder at the
Chevron refinery, where he was exposed to asbestos.  He then
brought the asbestos home on his work clothes, exposing his
daughter.

The suit alleges Chevron was negligent in exposing workers to
asbestos and failing to warn them of the health dangers.

The suit also faults Owens-Illinois for negligently manufacturing
and selling asbestos products.

Roger alleges the defendants acted with malice, entitling him to
exemplary damages.

Attorney Aaryn Giblin of the Beaumont law firm Provost Umphrey
represents him.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, will preside over the
litigation if the case is transferred back to Jefferson County.

Case No. B192-359.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brown U Professor Tells McGill U to Retract Study
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Andrew-Gee of The McGill Daily reports that the ongoing
debate over McGill's role in producing flawed, industry-funded
asbestos research erupted in a shouting match between McGill
faculty and an American researcher at the Faculty Club on Monday,
Jan. 7.

The dispute centered on the research of retired McGill professor
J. Corbett MacDonald, conducted with nearly a million dollars from
the asbestos industry, about the health effects of asbestos
extraction in Quebec.  A CBC documentary last year suggested that
MacDonald tailored his results to suit industry interests.  In a
landmark paper published in 1998 after decades of research,
MacDonald concluded that the kind of asbestos primarily mined in
Quebec -- chrysotile -- was "innocuous" at certain exposure
levels.

Under the chandeliers of the Faculty Club's Gold Room, Brown
University associate professor David Egilman called on McGill to
retract MacDonald's paper.  Egilman, who booked the room himself,
called MacDonald's paper "garbage" and said it used outdated
measurement methods and relied on manipulated data.

Egilman also objected to the fact that data on the location of
mines containing differing levels of tremolite -- a form of
asbestos universally recognized to cause cancer of the lung lining
-- in the Thetford Mines area has not been made public.
MacDonald's conclusions about chrysotile hinge on the existence of
these high- and low-density tremolite mines.

Egilman has been attacking McGill's asbestos research for over a
decade; in 2003 he wrote a long study, "Exposing the 'Myth' of
ABC, 'Anything But Chrysotile': A critique of the Canadian
asbestos mining industry and McGill University chrysotile
studies."

Egilman noted that MacDonald's paper is being used by the asbestos
industry in Brazil and Canada to downplay the health effects of
chrysotile exposure.

"I'm not here because I care that he cheated on his research.  I'm
here because the research is being used in a way that is
counterproductive from a health perspective," Egilman said.  "If
McGill withdraws the paper, it's over.  It's over."

The Harper government has cited MacDonald's research to oppose the
inclusion of chrysotile in the Rotterdam Convention, the UN's
treaty on dangerous substances.  The government abandoned the
position last September.

Based on MacDonald's research, the official position of the
Brazilian government has long been that the controlled use of
chrysotile is safe.

Last semester, an internal investigation conducted by McGill's own
Research Integrity Officer Abraham Fuks cleared MacDonald of any
research misconduct.  Egilman has called the review "a shameful
cover-up."

During his presentation, Egilman referred to Fuks as Inspector Fox
and included a cartoon in his slideshow of a henhouse guarded by a
grinning fox.

"Fuks, by the way, is German for Fox," Egilman said.

"I extremely resent that," said Eduardo Franco, Interim Chair of
Oncolgy at McGill, interrupting.  "Dr. Fuks is one of the most
distinguished scientists we have at McGill.  You could have made
your point without that."

"I could have, but it's funny," said Egilman.

Wayne Wood, an Occupational Health lecturer at McGill, also called
Egilman's presentation "flawed" and "dishonest" in an emotional
exchange during the question period.  He said Egilman should not
have attributed the view that chrysotile was "safe" to MacDonald,
as MacDonald did not use the word himself.

Egilman's talk was in response to a lecture earlier that afternoon
by Bruce Case, an asbestos researcher at McGill currently on
sabbatical.  A long time colleague and backer of MacDonald, Case
defended the reputations of several asbestos researchers he feels
have been unfairly maligned, MacDonald among them.  Case called on
the audience to "remember them as the not-always-perfect heroes
they are" for pioneering the study of asbestos's health effects.

At the end of Case's presentation, held at Purvis Hall, Egilman
stood up at the back of the room and invited the audience to his
talk.

Egilman and Case have a long history of sparring over asbestos
research.  In 2005, while Case gave a deposition in Dallas, Texas
as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in a case about chrysotile
exposure -- arguing that chrysotile had not been proven to cause
mesothelioma, a cancer usually associated with asbestos exposure
-- Egilman entered the courtroom wearing a "flamboyant" orange
t-shirt bearing a moose and a McGill "M," according to court
documents.  One of the defendants' lawyers accused Egilman of
trying to "provoke" Case.

In last year's CBC documentary about McGill's asbestos studies,
Case said, "I wouldn't give Dr. Egilman the time of day . . .
because he's not an honorable person."

Six scientists who signed a letter to McGill in December
requesting that Egilman be invited to speak alongside Case cited
Case's attacks in the CBC documentary as a reason for their
"concerns" with the McGill scientist's lecture.

Egilman called on the press to weigh his claims against those of
MacDonald's defenders, such as Case and Fuks.  "One of us is an
asshole," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbia Loses Appeal Over $4MM Integrity Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John W. Darrah tossed out an appeal taken by
Columbia Casualty Company from a Bankruptcy Court order granting
C.P. Hall Co.'s motion to approve a settlement agreement with
Integrity Insurance.  The District Judge said there is no clear
error in the Bankruptcy Court's ruling.  Columbia has no direct
interest in the Integrity Settlement.  Columbia's sole interest
with respect to the Debtor is its potential liability to the
Debtor as an insurer.

C.P. Hall Co. was a former distributor of Johns Manville raw
asbestos.  The Debtor terminated its operations in 1986.  Since
the late 1980s, the Debtor has been named as a defendant in
thousands of underlying asbestos claims in Illinois and elsewhere.
The Debtor had primary and excess liability coverage that paid for
its defense and indemnity of these claims.  Columbia issued the
Debtor a single second-layer excess liability insurance policy in
effect from Oct. 1, 1984 to Oct. 1, 1985.  The Columbia insurance
policy has aggregate limits of $6 million, which remains unpaid,
in excess of two underlying policies with limits of at least $5
million.

Since 2005, the Debtor has submitted asbestos claims to Integrity,
an insurance company in liquidation in New Jersey.  The Debtor has
received over $25 million in payments from Integrity for covered
claims and alleges that it has proven up and identified roughly
$10 million in remaining coverage under the Integrity policy.  But
the recovery of the $10 million in claims is possible if the
Debtor is successful on its appeal in New Jersey state court,
contending that the liquidator for the Integrity Estate should
have applied state law other than New Jersey in allocating
asbestos claims.  Other policyholders that are further along in
the appeals process have not been successful with this argument.
In light of the uncertainty of litigation, the Debtor negotiated a
settlement with Integrity for $4.125 million.

The case before the District Court is, COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY,
Appellant, v. C.P. HALL CO., Appellee, Case No. 12 C 2978 (N.D.
Ill.).  A copy of the District Court's Jan. 10, 2013 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/eUqsMCfrom
Leagle.com.

                    Appellate Standing Rules

Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah from Chicago ruled
in a Jan. 10 opinion that the "direct pecuniary interest standard"
governing standing to take an appeal was properly applied to
decide if someone has standing to object to a settlement in
bankruptcy court.

The report discloses that on appeal, Judge Darrah rejected the
argument that the appellate standing threshold of direct pecuniary
interest was being applied improperly to proceedings in bankruptcy
court.  Judge Darrah said that being a party in interest isn't
sufficient.

Judge Darrah, the report adds, relied on a 2012 opinion from the
U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago in a case called Holly Marine
Towing.  Holly Marine applied the direct interest test to decide
if there was standing to appeal, not standing in bankruptcy court
in the first place.  Judge Darrah also cited a 1996 bankruptcy
court decision from North Dakota holding that the right to appear
and be heard is not the same as standing.

C.P. Hall Co. filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case
No. 11-26443) on June 24, 2011, listing under $1 million in both
assets and debts.  A copy of the petition is available at
http://bankrupt.com/misc/ilnb11-26443.pdf


                           *********

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., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2013. 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 $775 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 A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *