CAR_Public/130208.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 8, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 28

                             Headlines



120 EAST: Faces Suit Over Hurricane Sandy Devastation
24 HOUR FITNESS: Fitness Instructors File Overtime Class Action
CASH STORE: Appeal in "Meeking" Class Suit Remains Pending
CASH STORE: Continues to Defend "Efthimiou" Suit in Alberta
CASH STORE: Continues to Defend "Ironbow" Suit in Saskatchewan

CASH STORE: Alberta Class Action Suit Remains Pending
CASH STORE: Defends "Rehill" Class Action Suit in Manitoba
CASH STORE: Defends "Stewart" Class Suit in British Columbia
CASH STORE: Defends "Yeoman" Class Action Suit in Ontario
CFI SALES: Seeks Settlement of Myrtle Beach Agents' Class Action

CLUB CAR: Recalls 950 Gas-Powered Golf & Transport Vehicles
CNO FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Ruderman" Suit Pending Before Sup. Ct.
CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in Lifetrend MDL to Commence March 25
CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Judgment Motion in "Rowe" Suit
CNO FINANCIAL: Defends "Burnett" Class Suit in California

CNO FINANCIAL: "Glick" Suit vs. Unit Pending in Massachusetts
CNO FINANCIAL: Talks in "Yue" Class Suits Ongoing
CNO FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Okay of "Nicholas" Suit Settlement
CONNAUGHT GROUP: WARN Plaintiffs Face Sanctions for Delay
CONRAIL: Faces Class Action Over Nov. 30 Train Derailment

FACEBOOK INC: Users Get "Sponsored Story" Settlement Notices
FACEBOOK INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Lawsuits
FORD MOTOR: Two Law Firms File Privacy Breach Suit in Canada
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Alleged Debt Collection Scheme
KERYX BIOPHARMA: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in New York

METLIFE INC: Gets Final Approval of "Cerami" Suit Settlement
NBTY INC: In Talks to Settle Glucosamine-Based Supplements Suits
NBTY INC: Expects OK of "Hutchins" Suit Settlement This Quarter
NISSAN: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Timing Chains Systems
OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: New York Judge Consolidates 3 Class Suits

PERRIGO CO: Gets Prelim. Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
PERRIGO CO: Class Cert. Bid Hearing in Eltroxin Suit This Month
PFIZER INC: FDA Demands Changes in Zoloft Package Labeling
SILVERCORP METALS: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Looms
SOMAXON PHARMACEUTICALS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit

TESORO REFINING: Delagarza Case Mgmt. Conference Moved to March 7
TRICOR AMERICA: Drivers File Class Action For Unpaid Overtime
VOYAGER: Veterans File Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in California

* Class Actions May Lose Attraction for Small Indian Investors
* Two Lawyers in Dispute Over Share in LCD Class Action Fees

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace to Adjust Liability to $2.06BB From $1.7BB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 56,442 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defending Fibro-Related Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco International Had 5,700 Claims at Dec. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Had Total Net Reserves of $589M at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 66,000 Open Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Hercules Had 21K Open Claims End Dec.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Maremont Had $75MM Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's ArvinMeritor Had 2,500 Active Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Covidien's Unit Had 11,600 Cases at Dec. 28

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. 3M, et al. Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. Texaco Inc., et al., Remanded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cessna Must Answer Questions in Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated Building in Century Finally Razed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADFA Head Warns More Fibro-Releasing Disasters

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maltese Dock Workers Slam Government's Entreaty
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Ends Former Building Checker's Life
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Alert Up In Queensland Flood Aftermath
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Cries Paterson Bosses Put Workers in Danger
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Fibro Found in West Suffolk Garage Fire

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japan's Tsunami Leaves Behind Alarming Toxic Wake
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Workers File ARD Lawsuit v. Union Pacific
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Airborne Fibro Confirmed During Bike Shop Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Sealing Opposes Summary Judgment Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Lawyer to Appeal $17MM Verdict Reversal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Heights School Reopens After 'False Alarm'
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Won't Delay Portland Clubhouse Razing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Appeals to Husband's Former Peers for Info
ASBESTOS UPDATE: M&S in Violation of Fibro Laws Since 1998
ASBESTOS UPDATE: P McGuinness Firm, Salford Council Face Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: LCAVC Now Reaches Out to All US Navy Veterans
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diss to Spend GBP12,000 on Youth Centre Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Tops Shawano County Courthouse Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Locals to Decide on Fibro Disposal Facility Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Post-Trial Arguments Due in Bondex Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Closes Bexhill's Public Library
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Safe" Levels of Fibro Suspends Fort George Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Requires Disclosure of Fibro Trust Deals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County's High Number of Cases to Continue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Doubles Steelville Museum Project Cost

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso-Victim's Kin Calls to Former Peers for Info


                           *********



120 EAST: Faces Suit Over Hurricane Sandy Devastation
-----------------------------------------------------
Sara Menkin, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly
situated v. 120 East 34th Street Co. LLC, Algin Management Co.,
LLC, and Does 1-500, Case No. 650390/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February
4, 2013) arises from the devastation and injury to persons and
property brought by Hurricane Sandy when it struck the City and
State of New York on October 29, 2012.

In her complaint, Ms. Menkin notes that pursuant to a New York
legislation, every residential landlord and management company in
the State that accepted and retained rent payments for the period
when Hurricane Sandy rendered uninhabitable the residential
apartments, or cooperative units, of putative class members, must
return the funds.  By her lawsuit, Ms. Menkin seeks to ensure that
affected tenants and lessees recover those rents paid and retained
by their landlords and management companies covering the period
commencing on October 29, 2012, and continuing well into November
2012, and beyond.

Ms. Menkin currently resides at the Murray Park, a residential
building in New York owned and operated by 120 East 34th Street
and Algin.

120 East 34th Street is a New York limited liability company.
Algin is a New York limited liability company.  The Doe Defendants
are the owners and landlords of residential apartments, including
cooperative apartments, located in the state of New York where the
Plaintiff and the proposed members of the Plaintiff Class leased
residential apartment units.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
          Thomas Skelton, Esq.
          Scott V. Papp, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          White Plains Plaza
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: Bhart@lowey.com
                  Tskelton@lowey.com
                  spapp@lowey.com

               - and -

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HAROLD M. HOFFMAN
          1140 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1701
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 486-6322
          Facsimile: (212) 980 8746


24 HOUR FITNESS: Fitness Instructors File Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that 24 Hour Fitness stiffs its
fitness instructors for overtime, two women claim in a class
action in Santa Clara County Court.


CASH STORE: Appeal in "Meeking" Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. from a
Manitoba court decision in the class action lawsuit commenced by
Scott Meeking remains pending, according to the Company's February
1, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 30, 2012.

On April 23, 2010, an action under the Manitoba Class Proceedings
Act was commenced in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench by Scott
Meeking against Cash Store Financial and Instaloans Inc. proposing
that a class action be certified on his own behalf and on behalf
of all persons in Manitoba and others outside the province who
obtained a payday loan from The Cash Store Financial or Instaloans
Inc.  The action stems from the allegations that all payday loan
fees collected by the defendants constitute interest and therefore
violate s. 347 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

On February 22, 2012, the Manitoba Court determined that large
portions of the plaintiff's claim could not proceed as they have
already been resolved in a judgment and settlement approved by the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2008.  To the extent that
limited portions of the Ontario judgment were not enforced in
Manitoba, the Company has appealed the Manitoba decision.  The
Manitoba Court has not yet determined whether any remaining
portions of the plaintiff's claim should be certified as a class
proceeding.

To the extent any subject matter of the claim was not resolved by
the February 22, 2012 judgment, the Company believes that it has
conducted business in accordance with applicable laws and is
defending the action vigorously.  The likelihood of loss, if any,
is not determinable at this time.


CASH STORE: Continues to Defend "Efthimiou" Suit in Alberta
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. is defending a class action
lawsuit brought by Kostas Efthimiou in Alberta, Canada, according
to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended September
30, 2012.

On September 18, 2012, an action under the Alberta Class
Proceedings Act was commenced in the Alberta Court of Queen's
Bench by Kostas Efthimiou against Cash Store Financial and
Instaloans Inc. on behalf of all persons who, on or after
March 1, 2010, borrowed a loan from the Company that met the
definition of a "payday loan" proposing that the Company has
violated s. 11 and 12 of the Payday Loan Regulations in that all
amounts charged to and collected from the plaintiff and class
members by the Company in relation to the payday loans advanced in
excess of the loan principal are unlawful charges under the Payday
Loan Regulation and therefore seek restitution of damages for
unlawful charges paid by the plaintiff and class members,
repayment of unlawful charges paid by the plaintiff and class
members, damages, interest on all amounts found to be owing and
any such associated legal costs.

The Company believes that it has conducted business in accordance
with applicable laws and will defend the action vigorously. The
likelihood of loss, if any, is not determinable at this time.


CASH STORE: Continues to Defend "Ironbow" Suit in Saskatchewan
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. is defending itself against
a class action lawsuit filed by John Ironbow in Saskatchewan,
Canada, according to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended September 30, 2012.

On October 9, 2012, an action under the Saskatchewan Class Actions
Act was commenced in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench by
John Ironbow against Cash Store Financial and Instaloans Inc. on
behalf of all persons who, on or after January 1, 2012, borrowed a
loan from the Company that met the definition of a "payday loan"
proposing that the Company has violated s. 11 and 12 of the Payday
Loan Regulations in that all amounts charged to and collected from
the plaintiff and class members by the Company in relation to the
payday loans advanced in excess of the loan principal are unlawful
charges under the Payday Loan Regulation and therefore seek
restitution of damages for unlawful charges paid by the plaintiff
and class members, repayment of unlawful charges paid by the
plaintiff and class members, damages, interest on all amounts
found to be owing and any such associated legal costs.

The Company believes that it has conducted business in accordance
with applicable laws and will defend the action vigorously.  The
likelihood of loss, if any, is not determinable at this time.


CASH STORE: Alberta Class Action Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. continues to defend a class
action lawsuit in Alberta, Canada, according to the Company's
February 1, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
September 30, 2012.

The Company has been served in prior fiscal periods with a
Statement of Claim issued in Alberta alleging that it is in breach
of s. 347 of the Criminal Code of Canada (the interest rate
provision) and certain provincial consumer protection statutes.

On January 19, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Alberta action brought
forward an application to have a related subsidiary, as well as
certain third-party lenders, directors and officers added to the
claim.

The Company has agreed to a motion to certify the class proceeding
if the third-party lenders, officers and directors are removed as
defendants.  Class counsel has agreed to the Company's proposal.
Consequently, the certification motion was granted in November of
2011.

As at September 30, 2012, a total of $100 (September 30, 2011 -
$100) has been accrued related to this matter.  However, the
likelihood of loss, if any, is not determinable at this time.


CASH STORE: Defends "Rehill" Class Action Suit in Manitoba
----------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. is defending a class action
lawsuit initiated by Sheri Rehill in Manitoba, Canada, according
to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended September
30, 2012.

On November 1, 2012, an action was commenced in Manitoba under The
Class Proceedings Act by Sheri Rehill against The Cash Store
Financial Services Inc., The Cash Store Financial Inc., Instaloans
Inc. and other defendants, on behalf of all persons who, on or
after October 18, 2010, borrowed a loan from the Company in
Manitoba where that loan met the definition of a "payday loan" as
defined by the Payday Loans Act, S.S. 2007, c. P-4.3.  The action
alleges that the Company charged amounts in excess of the maximum
allowable limit on the total cost of credit permitted by the
Consumer Protection Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. C-200, as am., and the
Payday Loan Regulation, Man. Reg. 99/2007, as am.  The plaintiff
pleads for restitution and repayment of all amounts paid by
borrowers as a cost of credit for their payday loans, damages for
an alleged conspiracy, and interest on all amounts alleged to be
owing.

The Company believes that it has conducted business in accordance
with applicable laws and will defend the action vigorously.  The
likelihood of loss, if any, is not determinable at this time.


CASH STORE: Defends "Stewart" Class Suit in British Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. is defending a class action
lawsuit filed by Roberta Stewart in British Columbia, Canada,
according to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
September 30, 2012.

On September 11, 2012, an action under the British Columbia Class
Proceedings Act was commenced in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia by Roberta Stewart against Cash Store Financial and
Instaloans Inc. claiming on behalf of the plaintiff and class
members that the Company charged, required or accepted an amount
that is in excess of 23% of the principal which is contrary to s.
17(1) of the Payday Loans Regulation and s. 112.02(2) of the
Business Practices Consumer Protection Act ("BPCPA") and charged,
required or accepted an amount in relation to each cash card
issued to a class member which is contrary to s. 112.04(1)(f) of
the BPCPA; made the provision of each payday loan contingent on
class members purchasing a cash card and services related thereto,
contrary to s. 19(1) of the Payday Loans Regulation and s.
112.08(1)(m) of the BPCPA; and discounted the amount in the payday
loan agreement to be the loan amount borrowed, by deducting and
withholding from the loan advance an amount representing a portion
of the total costs of credit, contrary to s.112.08(1)(e) of the
BPCPA.

The class members, in an order pursuant to s. 112.10(2) and s.
172(3)(a) of the BPCPA are seeking that the Company refund all
monies paid in excess of the loan principal of each payday loan,
including the cash card fee amounts, the loan fees, and any other
fees or changes collected by the Company in relation to the payday
loan, damages and interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest
Act at the rate of 30% compounded annually, as set out in the
payday loan agreements or such other rate as the Supreme Court of
British Columbia considers appropriate.

The Company believes that it has conducted its business in
accordance with applicable laws and is defending the action
vigorously.  The likelihood of loss, if any, is not determinable
at this time.


CASH STORE: Defends "Yeoman" Class Action Suit in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. is defending itself against
a class action lawsuit initiated by Timothy Yeoman in Ontario,
Canada, according to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended September 30, 2012.

On August 1, 2012, an action under the Ontario Class Proceedings
Act was commenced in the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice by
Timothy Yeoman against Cash Store Financial and Instaloans Inc.
claiming on behalf of the plaintiff and class members who entered
into payday loan transactions with the Company in Ontario between
September 1, 2011, and the date of judgment, that the Company
operated an unlawful business model as the Company did not provide
borrowers with the option to take their payday loan in an
immediate liquid form and thereby misrepresenting the total cost
of borrowing as the cost of additional services and devices should
have been included.

The class members plead entitlement to damages and costs of
investigation and prosecution pursuant to s. 36 of the Competition
Act inclusive of the fees, interest and other amounts that the
Company charged to the class members.

The Company believes that it has conducted business in accordance
with applicable laws and will defend the action vigorously.  The
likelihood of loss, if any, is not determinable at this time.


CFI SALES: Seeks Settlement of Myrtle Beach Agents' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
MyrtleBeachOnline.com reports that David Siegel, the self-
professed timeshare king whose company failed to pay hundreds of
Myrtle Beach sales agents their commissions, wants to settle a
class-action lawsuit filed more than five years ago on behalf of
those workers.

CFI Sales & Marketing Ltd., the company Mr. Siegel formed to sell
timeshares at the oceanfront Westgate resort here, filed court
papers on Feb. 1 proposing a settlement in which the company would
pay $500,000 to be shared by about 300 sales agents.  Those sales
agents previously obtained a judgment against Mr. Siegel and CFI
for $650,000.

The case was supposed to go to trial on Feb. 4 in Conway, but the
trial could be over before it begins if the sales agents agree to
the settlement offer and Judge Michael Baxley approves it.
Lawyers for both sides could not be reached for comment.

This would be the second settlement agreement in the case.  The
sales agents agreed in January 2010 to accept $650,000 in payments
from CFI, but Mr. Siegel's company defaulted on the agreement
after making just two payments totaling $50,000.  CFI's lawyers
said during a court hearing later that year that the company had
only agreed to have a judgment entered against it, but hadn't
promised to make all of the payments.  Judge Baxley then ruled
that if CFI wasn't willing to pay the debt, the sales agents could
pursue payment from Mr. Siegel, other company executives and
Mr. Siegel's other businesses.

Judith Parker, a former Westgate sales agent and the lead
plaintiff in the case, said at the time that she expected
Mr. Siegel's company to "pull out every dirty trick in the book to
keep from paying."  Ms. Parker is owed $6,000 in commissions.

It has taken more than two years since Baxley's ruling to bring
Mr. Siegel to trial.  That effort picked up steam last year after
Mr. Siegel -- a flamboyant businessman who claims to be building
America's most opulent home in Orlando, Fla. -- appeared on
national television shows boasting about his wealth.

Surfside Beach lawyer Gene Connell told The Sun News in October
that Mr. Siegel's statements -- including a vow to complete his
90,000-square-foot home, nicknamed Versailles -- indicate the
Westgate founder has plenty of money to pay his workers.  In an
ABC News appearance in July, for example, Mr. Siegel said that
while the nation's economic collapse forced his family to cut back
on their number of servants it did not impact his wife's caviar
purchases or her taste for Gucci, Valentino and Versace.

CFI lawyer John Wilkerson III said at the time that Mr. Siegel's
personal fortune has nothing to do with debts his companies might
owe.

Mr. Siegel was supposed to appear in court last year to detail his
finances but the hearing was canceled at the last minute after his
lawyers told Judge Baxley that the corporate jet was broke and
they could not make the trip from Florida.

Mr. Siegel, who also is Westgate's president and chief operating
officer, sent mixed signals last year about his company's
financial health.  In a September news release, Mr. Siegel said:
"Westgate is operating at the highest profit levels in the history
of the company."  Westgate raised more than $440 million in 2012
to pay down debt and provide extra liquidity for project
development and acquisitions.

However, in a September e-mail to Westgate employees, Mr. Siegel
said the economic climate remains so shaky that he will start
firing employees if President Barack Obama is re-elected.

"If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the
beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry
about," Mr. Siegel said in the e-mail.

Westgate continues to operate despite Obama's re-election.

The local sales agents were paid an hourly wage but not the
commissions CFI had promised for generating sales at the Westgate
resort at 415 S. Ocean Boulevard.  Westgate, which was founded by
Mr. Siegel in 1982, operates 27 resorts in destinations including
Las Vegas, Miami, Orlando, Fla., Branson, Mo., and Gatlinburg,
Tenn.


CLUB CAR: Recalls 950 Gas-Powered Golf & Transport Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Club Car, LLC, of Augusta, Georgia, announced a voluntary recall
of about 950 Precedent i2 and Signature gas golf and transport
vehicles.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The fuel hose could separate from the fuel tank, posing a fire
hazard.

Club Car has received three reports of a fuel hose separating from
the tank.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled vehicles are model year 2013 gas-powered golf and
transport vehicles used for short-distance transportation.  The
vehicles come in five models and colors and can be identified by
model and serial number, which can be found on a plate above and
to the right of the accelerator pedal.  The model names appear in
the product literature.  Recalled models and serial numbers
include:

                               Model
Model                          No.    Serial No. Range
-----                         -----   ----------------
Prec i2 Signature 4 Pass Gas   PW     1307-346775
Prec i2 Signature Gas          PY     1307-346310 to 1307-346312
Precedent i2 4 Pass Gas        PF     1307-345436 to 1311-352118
Precedent i2 Gas               PR     1306-344140 to 1311-352109
Precedent i2L Gas              CF     1307-345914 to 1310-349283

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/H69GzP

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at authorized Club Car dealers nationwide in
October 2012 for between $5,000 and $8,000.

Consumers should contact any Club Car dealer for a free inspection
and repair of the fuel hose system.  The firm is contacting
consumers directly.  Club Car may be reached at (800) 227-0739,
ext. 3831, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or online at http://www.clubcar.com/,click on Safety Info
for more information.


CNO FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Ruderman" Suit Pending Before Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 8, 2008, a purported Florida state class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case
No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer.  The plaintiff alleges that the
inflation escalation rider on her policy of long-term care
insurance operates to increase the policy's lifetime maximum
benefit, and that Washington National Insurance Company, a
subsidiary of CNO Financial Group, Inc., breached the contract by
stopping her benefits when they reached the lifetime maximum.  The
Company takes the position that the inflation escalator only
affects the per day maximum benefit.  The Plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification, and the motion has been fully briefed by
both sides.  The court has not yet ruled on the motion or set it
for hearing.  Additional parties have asked the court to allow
them to intervene in the action, and on January 5, 2010, the court
granted the motion to intervene and granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification.  The court certified a (B) (3) Florida
state class alleging damages and a (B) (2) Florida state class
alleging injunctive relief.  The parties reached a settlement of
the (B) (3) class in 2010, which has been implemented.  The amount
recognized in 2010 related to the settlement in principle was not
significant to the Company's consolidated financial condition,
cash flows or results of operations.  The plaintiff filed a motion
for summary judgment as to the (B) (2) class, which was granted by
the court on
September 8, 2010.  The Company has appealed the court's decision
and the appeal is pending.  On February 17, 2012, the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals referred the case to the Florida Supreme
Court, which accepted jurisdiction of the case.

The Company believes this case is without merit, and intends to
defend it vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 1,
2013, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in Lifetrend MDL to Commence March 25
----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a multidistrict litigation involving CNO Financial Group,
Inc.'s subsidiary is set for March 25, 2013, according to the
Company's February 1, 2013, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

                           Brady Case

On December 24, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Cedric Brady, et. al. individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance
Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746.  The plaintiffs allege that
Conseco Life and Conseco, Inc. committed breach of contract and
insurance bad faith and violated various consumer protection
statutes in the administration of various interest sensitive whole
life products sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend" by
requiring the payment of additional cash amounts to maintain the
policies in force and by making changes to certain non-guaranteed
elements ("NGEs") in their policies.  On April 23, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the additional counts
of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
conversion and declaratory relief.  On May 29, 2009, Conseco, Inc.
and Conseco Life filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On July 29, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss.  The court dismissed the allegations that
Conseco Life violated various consumer protection statutes, the
breach of fiduciary duty count, and dismissed Conseco, Inc. for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

                         McFarland Case

On July 2, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Bill W.
McFarland, and all those similarly situated v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR.  The plaintiff
alleges that Conseco Life committed breach of contract and has
been unjustly enriched in the administration, including changes to
certain NGEs, of various interest sensitive whole life products
sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend."  The plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages and attorney fees.

Conseco Life filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"), seeking the establishment of an
MDL proceeding consolidating the Brady case and the McFarland case
into a single action.  On February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on
MDL ordered these cases be consolidated for pretrial proceedings
in the Northern District of California Federal Court.  On July 7,
2010, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification
of a nationwide class and a California state class.  On October 6,
2010, the court granted the motion for certification of a
nationwide class and denied the motion for certification of a
California state class.  Conseco Life filed a motion to decertify
the nationwide class on July 1, 2011.  On December 20, 2011, the
court issued an order denying Conseco Life's motion to decertify
the class as to current policyholders, but granted the motion to
decertify as to former policyholders.  On March 5, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting
that the court enjoin Conseco Life from imposing increased cost of
insurance charges until trial with regard to 157 members of the
class, and on July 17, 2012, the court granted a preliminary
injunction as to 100 members of the class and denied the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as to the other 57
members.  On September 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
partial summary judgment on their breach of contract claim.  On
October 19, 2012, Conseco Life filed a motion to decertify the
nationwide class, and on October 30, 2012, Conseco Life filed its
motion for summary judgment.

Trial in the MDL proceeding has been set for March 25, 2013.  The
Company believes these cases are without merit and intends to
defend them vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Judgment Motion in "Rowe" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
subsidiary's motion for summary judgment in the class action
lawsuit initiated by Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe in Illinois,
according to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 10-Q/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

On January 26, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe, individually and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bankers Life &
Casualty Company and Bankers Life Insurance Company of Illinois,
Case No. 09CV491.  The plaintiffs are alleging violation of
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.
and 17500 et seq., breach of common law fiduciary duty, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of
California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 on behalf
of the proposed national class and seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees.  The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants used an improper and
misleading sales and marketing approach to seniors that fails to
disclose all facts, misuses consumers' confidential financial
information, uses misleading sales and marketing materials,
promotes deferred annuities that are fundamentally inferior and
less valuable than readily available alternative investment
products and fails to adequately disclose other principal risks
including maturity dates, surrender penalties and other
restrictions which limit access to annuity proceeds to a date
beyond the applicant's actuarial life expectancy.  Plaintiffs have
amended their complaint attempting to convert this from a
California only class action to a national class action. In
addition, the amended complaint adds causes of action under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"); aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and for unjust enrichment.
On September 13, 2010, the court dismissed the plaintiff's RICO
claims.  On October 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint re-alleging their RICO claims.  On March 29,
2012, the court denied plaintiff's motion for certification of a
nationwide class and denied plaintiff's motion for certification
of a California class.  The court allowed the plaintiff the
opportunity to file a renewed motion for a California class, which
the plaintiff did on May 21, 2012.  On July 24, 2012, Bankers Life
filed a motion for summary judgment.  The Company believes this
case is without merit, and intends to defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Defends "Burnett" Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit
brought by William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp in California,
according to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 10-Q/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

On October 25, 2012, a purported nationwide class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, CNO Financial Group, Inc., CDOC, Inc. and
CNO Services, LLC, Case No. EDCV12-01715VAPSPX.  The plaintiffs
bring this action under Rule 23(B)(3) on behalf of various
Lifetrend policyholders who since October 2008 have surrendered
their policies or had them lapse.  Such policyholders are no
longer members of the class covered by the MDL litigation
described in the previous paragraph after the court in the MDL
litigation granted Conseco Life's motion to decertify as to former
policyholders.  Additionally, plaintiffs seek certification of a
subclass of various Lifetrend policyholders who accepted optional
benefits and signed a release pursuant to the regulatory
settlement agreement under the caption entitled "Regulatory
Examinations and Fines."  The plaintiffs allege breach of contract
and seek declaratory relief, compensatory damages, attorney fees
and costs.  The Company believes this case is without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: "Glick" Suit vs. Unit Pending in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend a class
action lawsuit commenced by Fay Glick in Massachusetts, according
to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 10-Q/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On August 23, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston), Fay Glick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company, Case No. 1:12-cv-
11579.  The plaintiff is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief
and damages arising from Bankers' alleged systematic business
practices of delaying and/or denying the payment of claims for
benefits provided for under its healthcare insurance policies and
recovery of undisclosed interest that Bankers has charged on any
policyholders who paid premiums on a monthly or "modal" basis (as
opposed to paying premiums on an annual basis).  The Company
believes this case is without merit and intends to defend it
vigorously.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Talks in "Yue" Class Suits Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuits filed by Celedonia X. Yue
continue to negotiate settlement terms, according to CNO Financial
Group, Inc.'s February 1, 2013, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On March 4, 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Celedonia
X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance
Company and formerly known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance
Company, Cause No. CV08-01506 CAS.  Plaintiff in this putative
class action owns a Valulife universal life policy insuring the
life of Ruth S. Yue originally issued by Massachusetts General
Life Insurance Company in 1995.  Plaintiff is claiming breach of
contract on behalf of the proposed national class and seeks
injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and declaratory relief.
The putative class consists of all owners of Valulife and Valuterm
universal life insurance policies issued by either Massachusetts
General or Philadelphia Life and that were later acquired and
serviced by Conseco Life.  Plaintiff alleges that members of the
class will be damaged by increases in the cost of insurance (a
non-guaranteed element ("NGE")) that are set to take place in the
twenty first policy year of Valulife and Valuterm policies.  No
such increases had yet been applied to the subject policies.
During 2010, Conseco Life voluntarily agreed not to implement the
cost of insurance rate increase at issue in this litigation and is
following a process with respect to any future cost of insurance
rate increases as set forth in the regulatory settlement agreement
under the caption entitled "Regulatory Examinations and Fines."
Plaintiff filed a motion for certification of a nationwide class
and a California state class.  On December 7, 2009, the court
granted that motion.  On October 8, 2010, the court dismissed the
causes of actions alleged in the California state class.  On
January 19, 2011, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment as to the declaratory relief claim and on
February 2, 2011, the court issued an advisory opinion, in the
form of a declaratory judgment, as to what, in its view, Conseco
Life could consider in implementing future cost of insurance rate
increases related to its Valulife and Valuterm block of policies.
Conseco Life is appealing the court's January 19, 2011 decision
and the plaintiff is appealing the court's decision to dismiss the
California causes of action.  These appeals are pending.  The
Company believes this case is without merit, and intends to defend
it vigorously.

On November 15, 2011, a second complaint was filed by Dr. Yue in
the United States District Court for the Central District on
California, Celedonia X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public v.
Conseco Life Insurance Company, Cause No. CV11-9506 AHM (SHx),
involving the same Valulife universal life policy described in the
preceding paragraph.  Plaintiff, for herself and on behalf of
proposed members of a national class and a California class is
claiming breach of contract, injunctive and restitutionary relief
pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17200,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory
relief, and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive
relief.  The putative class consists of all owners and former
owners of Valulife and Valuterm universal life insurance policies
issued by either Massachusetts General or Philadelphia Life and
that were later acquired and serviced by Conseco Life.  Plaintiff
alleges that members of the classes will be damaged by increases
in the cost of insurance (a non-guaranteed element ("NGE")) that
took place on or about November 1, 2011.  Plaintiff filed a motion
for a preliminary injunction and a motion for certification of a
California class.  On April 2, 2012, the court granted the
plaintiff's motions, which Conseco Life is appealing.  Pending the
outcome of that appeal, Conseco Life is preliminarily enjoined
from imposing the 2011 increase in the cost of insurance on the
members of the California class.  Plaintiff also filed a motion on
March 20, 2012, for certification of a nationwide class.  The
court has stated that it will not issue a ruling before a certain
date on plaintiff's motion for certification of a nationwide
class.

Conseco Life has reached a tentative agreement with the plaintiff
in the two litigations regarding the material economic terms of a
settlement, which would upon completion and court approval,
resolve those cases as well as the Nicholas litigation.  The
parties are continuing to negotiate additional non-economic
settlement terms.  The settlement is expected to include a
reduction in the cost of insurance increase implemented by Conseco
Life in November 2011 and certain policy benefit enhancements.
Any final settlement would be subject to a court fairness hearing
after notice to the policyholders covered by the settlement, as
well as other conditions.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Okay of "Nicholas" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiary is still awaiting
preliminary approval of a settlement of a class  action lawsuit
commenced by Daniel Nicholas, according to the Company's February
1, 2013, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On February 6, 2012, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Daniel B.
Nicholas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 12cv845.  Plaintiff
in this putative class action owns a Valulife universal life
policy insuring Plaintiff's life originally issued by
Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company (now Conseco Life
Insurance Company) in 1991.  Plaintiff is claiming breach of
contract on behalf of the proposed national class and seeks
declaratory, injunctive, and supplemental relief.  The putative
class consists of all persons who own or have owned one or more
universal life policies issued by Conseco Life which provide that
the cost of insurance rates will be determined based upon
expectations as to future mortality experience and who have
experienced an increase in the cost of insurance rates.  Plaintiff
alleges that members of the class will be damaged by cost of
insurance charges that were increased due to general economic
downturn, Conseco Life's diminished investment yields, and
mounting policy losses.

On April 20, 2012, the Company announced that Conseco Life had
reached a tentative settlement in the Nicholas case.  On May 17,
2012, the court granted the motion to intervene which had been
filed by the Plaintiff in the Yue litigation and venue has been
transferred to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The plaintiff in the Nicholas case has
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

In connection with the tentative settlement in the Nicholas
litigation, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately
$20 million in its Other CNO Business segment for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.  The Company recorded an additional pre-tax
charge of $21 million in its Other CNO Business segment for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, relating to the tentative
agreement in the Yue litigation.  The liability the Company has
established related to the tentative settlement of these cases
includes its best estimates of the costs of implementing the
tentative settlement, if finalized and approved by the court.
While the Company believes its estimates are adequate to cover
these costs, the estimates are subject to significant judgment and
it is possible that the estimates will prove insufficient to cover
the actual costs.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  CNO became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the entity's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries include Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington
National Insurance Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company.


CONNAUGHT GROUP: WARN Plaintiffs Face Sanctions for Delay
---------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein granted the request of The
Connaught Group, Ltd., for sanctions against plaintiff in a
purported class action lawsuit for the plaintiff's failure to
timely file a motion for class certification in accordance with a
scheduling order.  Judge Bernstein directed the plaintiff's
counsel to pay the defendant's reasonable expenses, including
attorneys' fees and costs.  However, the judge declined Connaught
Group's request to have the lawsuit dismissed as a form of
punishment.  The judge said dismissal of the adversary proceeding
or even the denial of the motion to certify the class "would be
too drastic."

MARTINA SCHUMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. THE CONNAUGHT GROUP, LTD., Defendant, Adv.
Proc. No. 12-01051 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under the
Federal Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the
New York State WARN Act.  The Court entered a scheduling order
that, among other things, required the plaintiff to make her class
certification motion by Oct. 12, 2012.  The plaintiff failed to
make a motion by the deadline, and the defendant filed the motion
for sanctions on Nov. 7, 2012.  One month later, on Dec. 6, 2012,
the plaintiff filed her motion to certify the class.

Connaught Group confirmed their plan on Oct. 10, 2012.  The plan
established a liquidating trust, and the Trust was deemed to be
substituted for the Debtor as defendant in the adversary
proceeding.  Committee counsel assumed the defense of the
adversary proceeding, although a formal substitution was not filed
until Nov. 1, 2012.

Jack A. Raisner, Esq., and Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. --
jar@outtengolden.com and rsr@outtengolden.com -- at Outten &
Golden LLP, represent the Plaintiff.

Bruce Buechler, Esq., and Shirley Dai, Esq. --
bbuechler@lowenstein.com and sdai@lowenstein.com -- at Lowenstein
Sandler PC, argue for the Defendant.

A copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2013 Memorandum Decision and Order
is available at http://is.gd/ZJ91Shfrom Leagle.com.

                       About Connaught Group

The Connaught Group, Ltd. and four of its affiliates, Limited
Editions for Her of Nevada LLC; Limited Editions for Her of
Branson LLC; Limited Editions for Her LLC; and WDR Retail Corp.
filed separate Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Lead Case No. 12-10512) on Feb. 9, 2012.

New York-based Connaught Group designs and has manufactured high-
end women's wear and then sells the finished clothing through an
innovative sales system outside the normal retail chain originally
created in 1981 by the Debtors' founder and iconic designer,
William D. Rondina.  The Company's sales are made primarily
through independent contractors who sell the clothing to their own
clients in private showings.  Through the Wardrobe Consultants,
the Debtors are able to offer the personalized service and
attention to detail absent from the conventional shopping
experience.  As of the Petition Date, the Debtors are affiliated
with more than 1,300 Wardrobe Consultants.  The Debtors also
operate 10 outlet stores throughout the country, but the Debtors
primarily only sell last season's clothing and other merchandise
to be liquidated at these stores.

A non-debtor Canadian subsidiary, The Connaught Group ULC, sells
the Debtors' clothing in eight outlet stores in Canada.  Three of
the Canadian stores are leased by The Connaught Group, Ltd.

Judge Stuart M. Bernstein presides over the case.  David L.
Barrack, Esq., Paul Jacobs, Esq., and Warren J. Nimetz, Esq., at
Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., serve as the Debtors' counsel.  Maury
Satin at Zygote Associates serves as the CRO.  Richter Consulting
acts as financial advisor and Consensus Advisory Services and
Consensus Securities LLC serve as financial advisors, consultants
and investment bankers.  Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC serves as
administrative agent, and claims and noticing agent.

JPMorgan Chase is represented in the case by Andrew C. Gold, Esq.,
at Herrick, Feinstein LL.  Citibank is represented by Boris I.
Mankovetskiy, Esq., at Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors is represented by
Lowenstein Sandler, PC.

The Connaught Group disclosed $50,644,694 in assets and
$61,303,340 in liabilities.  Limited Editions for Her LLC
disclosed $3,339,174 in assets and $15,888,714 in liabilities.
Limited Editions for Her of Nevada LLC disclosed $979,926 in
assets and $12,395,949 in liabilities.  Limited Editions for Her
of Branson LLC disclosed $3,339,174 in assets and $15,888,714 in
liabilities.  WDR Retail Corp. disclosed $0 in assets and
$12,395,949 in liabilities.  Connaught Group Limited was the 100%
shareholder of each of LEFH Nevada, LEFH Branson, LEFH, and WDR.

On Oct. 10, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors'
Chapter 11 plan, which would pay unsecured creditors as much as
64%.  Unsecured claims were projected to total as much as $20
million.  A joint venture between Royal Spirit Group and Tom James
Co. acquired the Debtors' business in April for $20 million in
cash and assumed the lease for the Debtors' Manhattan
headquarters.  Royal Spirit, a non-insider with the largest claim,
waived a $5.4 million claim.  Secured claims were paid when
the sale was completed.


CONRAIL: Faces Class Action Over Nov. 30 Train Derailment
---------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Forand, writing for South Jersey Times, reports that a
class action lawsuit on behalf of Owen Haynes and other business
owners in Paulsboro has been filed against Conrail and connected
companies in regards to the Nov. 30 train derailment and chemical
spill.

The suit, filed by the Turnersville-based law firm of Trimble and
Armano, claims significant financial damages were suffered by
Paulsboro's businesses and individuals who lost revenue or income
due to the accident.

Mr. Haynes is the owner of Owen's Riverside Inn bar and grill.

Seven train cars derailed over the Jefferson Street Bridge
Nov. 30, sending four of those cars into the water and leaking the
dangerous chemical vinyl chloride into the air.

More than 200 homes were evacuated for nearly two weeks and many
businesses closed down while the accident was cleaned up.


FACEBOOK INC: Users Get "Sponsored Story" Settlement Notices
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Kovach, writing for Business Insider, reports that many
Facebook users received an e-mail notice on Feb. 1 about a pending
settlement in a class action lawsuit against the company.

This is the same e-mail that previously went out to some Facebook
users, but Business Insider wanted to mention it again in case
there was any confusion.

The suit says Facebook used users' photos and other information
without their permission to display sponsored stories, a form of
advertising in your News Feed.  That's a big no-no, according to
the suit.

Here's an excerpt of the e-mail some Facebook users got on Feb. 1:

The Action claims that Facebook unlawfully used the names, profile
pictures, photographs, likenesses, and identities of Facebook
users in the United States to advertise or sell products and
services through Sponsored Stories without obtaining those users'
consent.  Facebook denies any wrongdoing and any liability
whatsoever.  No court or other entity has made any judgment or
other determination of any liability.

If you got the e-mail, it's likely your profile information was
used in a sponsored story.

So here's what you can do to get your payday.  Go to the Facebook
settlement page and fill out a claim form.  If the suit is
successful, you can get as much as $10.

Filling out the form is no guarantee you'll see the cash.  The
entire settlement is for $20 million, and if too many people file
a claim, all that money will go to charity instead.


FACEBOOK INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc., continues to defend lawsuits related to its May
2012 initial public offering, according to the Company's February
1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Beginning on May 22, 2012, multiple putative class actions,
derivative actions, and individual actions were filed in state and
federal courts in the United States and in other jurisdictions
against the Company, its directors, and/or certain of its officers
alleging violation of securities laws or breach of fiduciary
duties in connection with the Company's initial public offering
and seeking unspecified damages.  The Company believes these
lawsuits are without merit, and it intends to continue to
vigorously defend them.

On October 4, 2012, on the Company's motion, the vast majority of
the cases in the United States, along with multiple cases filed
against The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(collectively referred to herein as NASDAQ) alleging technical and
other trading-related errors by NASDAQ in connection with the
Company's IPO, were ordered centralized for coordinated or
consolidated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In addition, the events surrounding the Company's IPO have become
the subject of various government inquiries, and the Company is
cooperating with those inquiries.  The Company says any such
inquiries could subject it to substantial costs, divert resources
and the attention of management from its business, and adversely
affect its business.


FORD MOTOR: Two Law Firms File Privacy Breach Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Windsor reports that two law firms have launched a class
action lawsuit on behalf of up to 10,000 current and former Ford
Motor Company of Canada Ltd. employees.

The statement of claim says some of their personal information was
uploaded onto an unsecured Web site.

Law firms Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Falconer Charney LLP filed the
suit on Jan. 31.  It still has to be certified by the court.

Letters were sent out to individual Ford workers advising them
that their names addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth and Ford
seniority dates were posted online for an unknown period of time.

In the letter, Ford claims the information was removed and says
there is no evidence there has been any misuse of this
information.

Sharon Strosberg says her firm has already received 100 calls from
people looking to join.  She says the plaintiffs proposed this
action be tried in Windsor.

Ms. Strosberg says with identity theft so prevalent, her clients
should be eligible for compensation to cover the cost of
precautionary measures like credit checks.

According to Blackburn News, lawyer David Robins says these people
are entitled to compensation because of the risk of identity
fraud.  "It deals with the potential for damages relating to the
risk of future identity theft, damage to credit reputation, the
costs incurred in preventing identity theft and then of course the
inconvenience, frustration, anxiety associated with having to take
those steps."

There is no evidence at this point that the information has been
used in any negative ways but Mr. Robins says the threat is still
very real.

For more information about the proposed lawsuit people can visit
http://www.fordprivacyclassaction.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Alleged Debt Collection Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that JPMorgan Chase &
Co., a law firm and a debt collection agency were hit on Jan. 29
with a proposed class action in New York federal court accusing
them of running a scheme to force consumers to pay off credit card
debts they didn't actually owe.

According to plaintiff Johanna N. Sierra's complaint, Chase, debt
collector NCO Group Inc. -- owned by a Chase investment arm -- and
law firm Bickerstaff Heath Delgado & Acosta LLP had engaged in a
"criminal[ly]" unfair and deceptive debt collection scheme.


KERYX BIOPHARMA: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on Feb. 1 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, case no. 13 Civ. 0755, on behalf of
all persons who purchased Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
securities between June 1, 2009 and April 1, 2012 inclusive.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
http://www.faruqilaw.com/KERX

Keryx and its Chief Executive Officer Ron Bentsur are alleged to
have violated Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants mislead
investors about the timing and success of Keryx's clinical trial
that tested whether the drug perifosine was effective in treating
late stage colorectal cancer.

On April 2, 2012, Keryx announced the top-line data from the
perifosine X-PECT Phase 3 Clinical Trial.  The Company revealed
that the trial for refractory advanced colorectal cancer did not
meet the primary endpoint of improving overall patient survival
versus capecitabine and a placebo.  On this disappointing news,
Keryx share price plummeted from $4.98 on March 30, 2012 to $1.74
on April 2, 2012 -- a decline of roughly 65%.

Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who bought Keryx
securities between June 1, 2009 and April 1, 2012, excluding
defendants and their affiliates.  Plaintiff is represented by
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in
prosecuting class actions and actions involving corporate fraud.

If you purchased Keryx securities during the Class Period, you
may, not later than April 2, 2013, move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  In order to discuss
this action, or if you have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact:

          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
                Francis McConville, Esq.
          E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
                  fmcconville@faruqilaw.com
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                     (212) 983-9330


METLIFE INC: Gets Final Approval of "Cerami" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted final approval of the settlement resolving the class
action lawsuit captioned ROBERT CERAMI, on behalf of himself and
on behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. METLIFE INC., an unknown business organization;
METLIFE BANK, N.A., an unknown business organization; METLIFE HOME
LOANS, INC., an unknown business organization; and DOES 1 to 500,
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. SACV 11-00681-CJC(MLGx).

In his February 4, 2013 order, District Judge Cormac J. Carney
held that the Settlement Agreement and its terms are fair, just,
reasonable and adequate as to the settling parties, including the
California Settlement Classes.

The Court certified these definitions of the California Settlement
Classes:

     a) "California Overtime Class" means all persons who were
employed by Defendants in California as Forward Mortgage
Consultants at any time during the Class Period and whose earnings
were not equal to or greater than two times their minimum draw
against commissions on an annualized basis.

     b) "California 2802 Class" means all persons who were
employed by Defendants in California as Forward Mortgage
Consultants during the Class Period.

The Class Administrator, Rust Consulting, will be paid in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Complaint is dismissed on the merits with prejudice on a
class-wide basis.

The Court directed the parties to perform the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

A copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2013 Judgment and Order of
Final Approval and Dismissal is available at http://is.gd/O4udWe
from Leagle.com.


NBTY INC: In Talks to Settle Glucosamine-Based Supplements Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement discussions to resolve the class action lawsuits over
NBTY, Inc.'s glucosamine-based dietary supplements on a national
level are ongoing, according to the Company's February 1, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been
filed in various jurisdictions against the Company, its subsidiary
Rexall Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to
which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the
marketing of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various
states' consumer protection statutes.  The lawsuits against the
Company and its subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and
Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed June 14, 2011) in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California, on behalf
of a putative class of California consumers seeking unspecified
compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and
disgorgement, plus punitive damages and injunctive relief); and
Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed August 22, 2011 in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on
behalf of a putative class of Massachusetts consumers seeking
unspecified trebled compensatory damages), as well as other cases
in California and Illinois against certain wholesale customers as
to which the Company may have certain indemnification obligations.
The cases are in various stages of discovery, except that in one
of the Illinois cases, a motion to dismiss was granted with leave
to appeal.  The Jennings case is trial ready for a trial of
limited issues and a settlement conference is scheduled for early
February 2013.

Settlement discussions to resolve the cases on a national level
are ongoing but the Company is unable to determine on whether
settlement efforts ultimately will be successful.  The Company
continues to dispute the allegations and intends to vigorously
defend these actions.  At this time, however, no determination can
be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or an
estimate of possible loss or range of loss, if any, on the part of
any of the defendants.


NBTY INC: Expects OK of "Hutchins" Suit Settlement This Quarter
---------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. expects to file documentation and obtain court approval
of its settlement of the class action lawsuit commenced by John F.
Hutchins during the second fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2013,
according to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2012.

On May 11, 2010, a putative class-action, captioned John F.
Hutchins v. NBTY, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, against NBTY and
certain current and former officers, claiming that the defendants
made false material statements, or concealed adverse material
facts, for the purpose of causing members of the class to purchase
NBTY stock at allegedly artificially inflated prices.  An amended
complaint, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, was served on February 1, 2011.  The Company moved
to dismiss the amended complaint on March 18, 2011, and that
motion was denied on March 6, 2012.  On September 28, 2012, the
court set a January 22, 2013 trial date.

On November 12, 2012, at a mediation, the parties reached an
agreement in principle, subject to agreement on settlement
documentation and court approval, which is expected in the second
fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2013, to settle the claims for $6
million, to be paid from insurance proceeds.


NISSAN: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Timing Chains Systems
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nissan timing chains systems
fail prematurely on several 2004-2009 models "and could not be
reasonably repaired," a class action claims in Federal Court.


OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: New York Judge Consolidates 3 Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New
York consolidated three related putative federal securities class
actions against Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., its various
officers, underwriters, and auditors.

Two of the actions are brought on behalf of purchasers of OSG
common stock and allege violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934.  The third action
is brought on behalf of purchasers of "OSG debt securities sold
pursuant and/or traceable to [OSG's] $300 million public offering
of 8.125% Senior Notes Due 'conducted on March 24, 2010," and
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The cases are:

     -- ROBERT PORZIO, Individually and on Behalf of All
        Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OVERSEAS
        SHIPHOLDING GROUP, et al., Defendants, No. 12 Civ.
        7948 (S.D.N.Y.)

     -- BRUCE MYATT, Individually and on Behalf of All
        Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MORTEN
        ARNTZEN, et al., Defendants, No. 12 Civ. 8547
        (S.D.N.Y.); and

     -- INDIANA TREASURER OF STATE, Individually and on
        Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
        v. G. ALLEN ANDREAS III, et al., Defendants, No. 12
        Civ. 9363 (S.D.N.Y.)

The three groups of plaintiffs in contention for appointment as
lead plaintiff are:

     (1) Abe Hedaya, Norma Hedaya, William Mills, Kristin Mondo
         -- OSG Investor Group -- who allege that Abe and Norma
         Hedaya suffered $2,077,291.13 in losses, William Mills
         suffered $9,413.44 in losses and Kristin Mondo suffered
         approximately $33,260.45 in losses;

     (2) Robert Kawula, Ben Reuben, Nikos Georgalakis, Patrick
         Cummins, and Douglas G. Fixter -- Overseas Investor
         Group -- who allege total losses of $809,773; and

     (3) Stichting Pensioenfonds DSM Nederland and Indiana
         Treasurer of State, joined by Lloyd Crawford -- DSM
         Group -- who allege approximately $1.3 million in
         losses.

Judge Scheindlin named OSG Investor Group as lead plaintiff, and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel.

The law firms involved in the case include:

     (1) Giti Baghban, Esq., in Lawrenceville, NJ; Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., Malcolm T. Brown, Esq., Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq.,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, NY; Jason M.
Leviton, Esq., Berman DeValerio Boston, MA; Jeffrey C. Block,
Esq., Block & Leviton LLP, New York, NY; Joseph P. Guglielmo,
Esq., Scott Scott, L.L.P., New York, NY; and Steven P. Harte,
Esq., Jones Day New York, NY, representing Plaintiff Robert
Porzio.

     (2) Samuel H. Rudman, Esq., David A. Rosenfeld, Esq., Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Melville, NY, for Plaintiff Bruce Myatt
and Indiana Treasurer of State.

     (3) Curtis Victor Trinko, Esq., Law Offices of Curtis V.
Trinko, LLP, New York, NY, for Movant Lee McClennahan;

     (4) Lawrence Paul Kolker, Esq., Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, NY, for Movant OSG Investor Group;

     (5) Phillip C. Kim, Esq., The Rosen Law Firm P.A.. New York,
NY, for Movant Overseas Investor Group;

     (6) Kenneth Mark Rehns, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
P.L.L.C., New York, NY, for Movants Barrie Woolard and Steven
Hyman;

     (7) Thomas James McKenna, Esq., Gainey & McKenna, LLP, New
York, NY, for Movant the Riley Group;

     (8) John Christopher Browne, Esq., Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP, New York, NY, for Movant Paul Otto Koether IRA
Rollover;

     (9) David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq., Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Melville, NY, for Movant the DSM Group;

    (10) Lewis J. Liman, Esq., Elizabeth Vicens, Esq., Cleary
Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant
Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc.

    (11) Scott B. Schreiber, Esq., Craig A. Stewart, Esq., Arnold
& Porter, Washington, DC, for Defendant Morten Arntzen;

    (12) David H. Kistenbroker, Esq., Joni S. Jacobsen, Esq.,
Ashley J. Burden, Esq., Dechert LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant
Myles R. Itkin.

The Irving Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund appeared pro se.

A copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2013 Opinion and Order is available
at http://is.gd/MrfhJpfrom Leagle.com.

                     About Overseas Shipholding

Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., headquartered in New York, is
one of the largest publicly traded tanker companies in the world,
engaged primarily in the ocean transportation of crude oil and
petroleum products.  OSG owns or operates 111 vessels that
transport oil and petroleum products throughout the world.

Overseas Shipholding Group and 180 affiliates filed voluntary
Chapter 11 petitions (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 12-20000) on
Nov. 14, 2012.  Bankruptcy Judge Peter J. Walsh oversees the case.
Greylock Partners LLC Chief Executive John Ray serves as chief
reorganization officer.  Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
serves as OSG's Chapter 11 counsel, while Chilmark Partners LLC
serves as financial adviser.  Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC will
provide certain administrative services.

The Debtors disclosed $4.15 billion in assets and $2.67 billion in
liabilities as of June 30, 2012.  Liabilities include $1.49
billion on an unsecured credit agreement with DNB Bank ASA as
agent.  In addition to the secured Chinese loan, there is $518
million in unsecured notes and debentures plus $267 million on
ship mortgages taken down to finance nine vessels.

The Export-Import Bank of China, owed $312 million used for the
construction of five tankers, is represented by Louis R. Strubeck,
Jr., Esq., and Kristian W. Gluck, Esq., at Fulbright & Jaworski
LLP in Dallas; David L. Barrack, Esq., and Beret Flom, Esq., at
Fulbright & Jaworski in New York; and John Knight, Esq., and
Christopher Samis, Esq., at Richards Layton & Finger PA.  Chilmark
Partners, LLC serves as financial and restructuring advisor.

Roberta A. DeAngelis, U.S. Trustee for Region 3, appointed a
five-member official committee of unsecured creditors in the case
of Overseas Shipholding Group Inc.


PERRIGO CO: Gets Prelim. Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company received preliminary approval of its settlement of
a securities litigation, according to the Company's February 1,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 29, 2012.

On March 11, 2009, a purported shareholder of the Company named
Michael L. Warner ("Warner") filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors, including the
President and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph Papa, and the Chief
Financial Officer, Judy Brown, among others.  The plaintiff sought
to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period between November 6, 2008, and February 2, 2009.
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").  The
plaintiff generally alleged that the Company misled investors by
failing to disclose, prior to February 3, 2009, that certain
auction rate securities held by the Company, totaling
approximately $18,000 in par value (the "ARS"), had been purchased
from Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman").  The plaintiff
asserted that omission of the identity of Lehman as the seller of
the ARS was material because after Lehman's bankruptcy filing, on
September 15, 2008, the Company allegedly became unable to look to
Lehman to repurchase the ARS at a price near par value.  The
complaint sought unspecified damages and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief, along with costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 15, 2009, the Court appointed several other purported
shareholders of the Company, rather than Warner, as co-lead
plaintiffs (the "Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs").  On July 31, 2009,
these Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint dropped all claims against the individual
defendants other than Joseph Papa and Judy Brown, and added a
"control person" claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the members of the Company's Audit Committee.  The amended
complaint asserted many of the same claims and allegations as the
original pleading.  It also alleged that the Company should have
disclosed, prior to February 3, 2009, that Lehman had provided the
allegedly inflated valuation of the ARS that the Company adopted
in its Form 10-Q filing for the first quarter of fiscal 2009,
which was filed with the SEC on November 6, 2008.  The amended
complaint also alleged that some portion of the write-down of the
value of the ARS that the Company recognized in the second quarter
of fiscal 2009 should have been taken in the prior quarter,
immediately following Lehman's bankruptcy filing.

On September 28, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
all claims against all defendants. On September 30, 2010, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.
The Court dismissed the "control person" claims against the
members of the Company's Audit Committee, but denied the motion to
dismiss as to the remaining claims and defendants.  On
October 29, 2010, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on the grounds that the Original Co-Lead
Plaintiffs (who were the only plaintiffs named in the amended
complaint) lacked standing to sue under the U.S. securities laws
following a then-recent decision of the United States Supreme
Court holding that Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act does not
apply extraterritorially to the claims of foreign investors who
purchased or sold securities on foreign stock exchanges.  On
December 23, 2010, a purported shareholder named Harel Insurance,
Ltd. ("Harel") filed a motion to intervene as an additional named
plaintiff.  On January 10, 2011, the original plaintiff, Warner,
filed a motion renewing his previously withdrawn motion to be
appointed as Lead Plaintiff to replace the Original Co-Lead
Plaintiffs.

On September 28, 2011, the Court granted defendants' renewed
motion to dismiss.  The Court (i) dismissed the claims of the
Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs; (ii) ruled that any class that might
ultimately be certified could only consist of persons who
purchased their Perrigo shares on the NASDAQ market or by other
means involving transactions in the United States; (iii) granted
Harel's motion to intervene as a named plaintiff; and (iv) ruled
that Warner would also be treated as a named plaintiff.

On October 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
behalf of both Harel and Warner, alleging the same claims as in
the amended complaint but on behalf of a purported class limited
to those who purchased Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ market or by
other means involving transactions in the United States.  On
October 27, 2011, the Court approved a stipulation appointing
Harel and Warner as co-lead plaintiffs (the "Co-Lead Plaintiffs").

On November 21, 2011, the defendants answered the second amended
complaint, denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting
numerous defenses.  On September 7, 2012, the Court, pursuant to a
stipulation, dismissed all claims against Joseph Papa and Judy
Brown.

Although the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to
this lawsuit, the Company engaged in settlement discussions with
counsel for the Co-Lead Plaintiffs in an effort to move the matter
to a quicker resolution and avoid the costs and distractions of
protracted litigation.  As a result of these discussions, the
Company and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs reached an agreement in
principle to settle the case, subject to Court approval.  On
December 27, 2012, the Company and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a
Stipulation of Settlement and a motion for preliminary approval of
the proposed class action settlement.

On January 28, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed
class action settlement and ordered that notice of the proposed
settlement be provided to the members of the proposed shareholder
class and set a deadline for class members either to object to the
settlement or to exclude themselves (or "opt out") of the
settlement class.  The Court also scheduled a fairness hearing for
May 9, 2013, to determine whether the settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate and thus merits final approval.  There can
be no assurance that the proposed settlement will be approved by
the Court.  Regardless of whether the proposed settlement is
approved, the Company believes the resolution of this matter will
not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and
results of operations as reported in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements.

Perrigo Company is a healthcare supplier that develops,
manufactures and distributes over-the-counter (OTC) and generic
prescription (Rx) pharmaceuticals, infant formulas, nutritional
products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API).  The
Company's primary markets and locations of manufacturing and
logistics operations are the United States, Israel, Mexico, the
United Kingdom and Australia.  The Company is headquartered in
Allegan, Michigan.


PERRIGO CO: Class Cert. Bid Hearing in Eltroxin Suit This Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by Perrigo
Company's subsidiary, Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd.  The
respondents include Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or
Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product,
and various health care providers who provide health care services
as part of the compulsory health care system in Israel.

The nine applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated
version of Eltroxin in Israel.  The applications generally alleged
that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients,
pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation;
and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor
patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients
were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug.  As a result,
claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a)
purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by
patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse
events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid
functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting
from the patient's lack of informed consent prior to the use of
the reformulation.

All nine applications were transferred to one court in order to
determine whether to consolidate any of the nine applications.  On
July 19, 2012, the court dismissed one of the applications and
ordered that the remaining eight applications be consolidated into
one application.  On September 19, 2012, a consolidated motion to
certify the eight individual motions was filed by lead counsel for
the claimants.  Generally, the allegations in the consolidated
motion are the same as those set forth in the individual motions;
however, the consolidated motion excluded the manufacturer of the
reformulated Eltroxin as a respondent.  A hearing on whether or
not to certify the consolidated application is scheduled for
February 2013.

As this matter is in its early stages, the Company says it cannot
reasonably predict at this time the outcome or the liability, if
any, associated with these claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 1,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 29, 2012.

Perrigo Company is a healthcare supplier that develops,
manufactures and distributes over-the-counter (OTC) and generic
prescription (Rx) pharmaceuticals, infant formulas, nutritional
products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API).  The
Company's primary markets and locations of manufacturing and
logistics operations are the United States, Israel, Mexico, the
United Kingdom and Australia.  The Company is headquartered in
Allegan, Michigan.


PFIZER INC: FDA Demands Changes in Zoloft Package Labeling
----------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian Express reports that the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is making Pfizer change its package labeling
on their prescription antidepressant Zoloft, because of
contraindications and warnings of increased risk of serotonin
syndrome when used in conjunction with other serotonergic drugs
such as triptan, trycyclic antidepressants, Fentanyl, lithium,
tramadol, tryptophan, buspirone, and St. John's Wort as well as
MAOIs.

If that isn't bad enough news for Pfizer Inc., manufacturer and
distributor of the prescription antidepressant Zoloft, they are
also attempting to navigate through a flurry of consumer class-
action lawsuits over the efficacy of Zoloft, with one trial
proceeding as of Feb. 1.

The first of many class-action lawsuits over Zoloft has begun in
Northern California, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose division, being heard by
the Honorable Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal.

Laura A. Plumlee, is the plaintiff in this action, and she hails
from Watsonville, California.  She had retained the law firm of
Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, and Goldman in this matter and Pendley,
Bawden, and Kaufman have been retained on behalf of all consumers
Nationwide as well as in California.

The plaintiff alleges in her complaint that during the 3 years
that she took Zoloft, it did not help her.  Lead attorney R. Brent
Wisner indicated that the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) should never even approved Zoloft because
drug manufacturer Pfizer withheld some clinical trial evidence
that indicated the medication's effects were similar to that of a
placebo.

The active ingredient in Zoloft, is Sertraline Hydrochloride, and
is an antidepressant of the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor
Class (SSRI).  It is used primarily to treat depressive disorders
in adults as well as obsessive-compulsive disorders, panic attacks
and social anxiety disorders in both children and adults.

It was the number 2 prescribed antidepressant medication in the
United States in the year 2011 with fully 37,208,000 prescriptions
filled.

The US Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of Zoloft in
1991.

The antidepressant medication industry is big business in the U.S.

Some statistics stand out above others.

Antidepressants are the number 1 prescribed medicine for Americans
between the ages of 18 to 44, and are the number 3 prescribed
medication for all ages.

Sixty Percent (60%) of all persons taking antidepressants have
done so for 2 years or more.  A total of 14% have taken it for 10
years or more.

Women are more than twice as likely to take antidepressants than
men, as depression is linked to hormonal changes in the human
body.

A total of 23% of women between the ages of 40 to 50 take
prescription antidepressants, which just so happens to be the
highest percentage of any age demographic in the United States
today.

11% of Americans over the age of 11 take antidepressants on a
daily basis.

Prozac, Cymbalta, Paxil, Celexa, Zoloft, Effexor, Wellbutrin,
Ritalin, Adderall, Dexedrine, Seroquel, Abilify, the names all
sound similar, and the media blitz we receive from TV commercials
on a daily basis from the makers antidepressants has to make you
wonder?

Is it just Zoloft that is no better than a placebo, or are all of
them the same, and just by taking them, your brain fools itself
into thinking you are better off with the drug than without it?


SILVERCORP METALS: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Looms
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of the important March 1,
2013 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit filed by
the firm on behalf of all persons who purchased the stock of
Silvercorp Metals, Inc. during the period from June 24, 2010
through September 13, 2011.  The lawsuit alleges that Silvercorp
and certain of its management violated the federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading financial information.

To join the Silvercorp class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Jonathan Horne or Laurence Rosen
toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail
jhorne@rosenlegal.com or lrosen@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

The complaint charges that Silvercorp overstated the level of
silver production at its mines, as well as the quality and
quantity of its ore reserves.

On September 13, 2011, analyst firm Alfred Little issued a report
claiming that Silvercorp had inflated the size of its revenue,
earnings, assets, and operations in its reports filed with the
SEC.  This adverse disclosure caused Silvercorp's share price to
drop, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must make a request to
the Court no later than March 1, 2013.

If you wish to join the Class Action, or discuss your rights and
interests in Silvercorp stock, please visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.comto join the class action.  You may also
contact Laurence Rosen or Jonathan Horne of The Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com
or jhorne@rosenlegal.com

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


SOMAXON PHARMACEUTICALS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a consolidated merger-related lawsuit,
according to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court
of California County of San Diego (the "Court") by Daniele
Riganello, an alleged stockholder of Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Somaxon") (Riganello v. Somaxon, et al., No. 37-201200087821-CU-
SLCTL).  A second purported class action was also filed in the
Court by another alleged stockholder of Somaxon (Wasserstrom vs.
Somaxon, et al., No. 37-2012-00029214-CU-SL-CTL).  Both plaintiffs
filed amended complaints on January 18, 2013.  The lawsuits have
since been consolidated into a single action captioned In re
Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Lead Case
No. 37-201200087821-CU-SLCTL).  The operative complaint names as
defendants Somaxon, each member of Somaxon's board of directors
(the "Individual Defendants") as well as Pernix Therapeutics
Holdings, Inc. ("Pernix") and Pernix Acquisition Corp. I, the
other party to the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between
Pernix, Pernix Acquisition Corp. I and Somaxon, dated as of
December 10, 2012 (the "Merger Agreement").  It alleges, among
other things, that (i) the Individual Defendants have breached
fiduciary duties they assertedly owed to Somaxon's stockholders in
connection with the proposed transaction described in the Merger
Agreement; (ii) Somaxon and Pernix have aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty; (iii) the merger
consideration is unfair and inadequate, and (iv) the disclosures
regarding the proposed transaction in the Registration Statement
on Form S-4 initially filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on January 7, 2013 (as may be amended, "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus"), were inadequate.

On January 24, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Somaxon and the other named defendants in
such litigation signed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
to settle such litigation.  Subject to the completion of certain
confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, as well as
court approval and further definitive documentation in a
stipulation of settlement, the MOU resolves the claims brought in
the such litigation and provides a release and settlement by the
purported class of Somaxon's stockholders of all claims against
the defendants and their affiliates and agents in connection with
the Merger Agreement and transactions and disclosures related
thereto.  The asserted claims will not be released until such
stipulation of settlement is approved by the court. The Company
says there can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately
enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will
approve such settlement even if the parties were to enter into
such stipulation.  Additionally, as part of the MOU, Somaxon and
Pernix have agreed to make certain additional disclosures related
to the proposed transaction in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus
expected to be mailed to Somaxon's stockholders by February 8,
2013.  Finally, in connection with the proposed settlement,
plaintiffs in such litigation intend to seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount to be approved or
determined by the Court.  This payment will not affect the amount
of merger consideration to be paid in the merger or the timing of
the special meeting of Somaxon's stockholders scheduled for
March 6, 2013 in San Diego, California.

The Company says nothing in its Current Report on Form 8-K, the
MOU or any stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission
of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures
set forth or added to the Proxy Statement/Prospectus pursuant to
the MOU.

Somaxon undertakes no duty or obligation to publicly update or
revise the information contained in its report, although it may do
so from time to time as its management believes is appropriate.
Any such updating may be made through the filing of other reports
or documents with the SEC, through press releases or through other
public disclosure.


TESORO REFINING: Delagarza Case Mgmt. Conference Moved to March 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California moved the case management
conference currently set for February 8, 2013, in DELAGARZA v.
TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY to March 7, 2013, at 10:30
a.m.

Judge Chen's ruling was pursuant to a stipulation between
Plaintiffs Rick Delagarza, Paul Gutierrez, Sal Lucido, April
Moore, Charles Grimmett, Antonio Garcia, Brian Cashwell and
Defendant Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company.

The Parties told the Court that they have engaged in substantial
settlement negotiations with a high likelihood of success and hope
to focus resources on settlement rather than continued litigation.

Specifically, the Parties participated in two all-day, private
mediation sessions with Mediator Mark Rudy on October 15, 2011 and
May 14, 2012.  On August 8, 2012, the case was consolidated with
Burgess v. Tesoro Ref. & Mktg. Co., USCD Case No. 10-cv-05870 DMG
(PLAx), which has been certified as a class action and is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

According to the Parties' stipulation, they have reached an
agreement in principle resolving the "going forward" issues that
will require the negotiation of supplemental agreements to two
separate collective bargaining agreements governing the employment
of class members in Delagarza and in Burgess, and the
participation of two local bargaining committees of Plaintiffs'
labor union and Tesoro labor negotiators, as well as ratification
by the membership.  A proposal regarding the monetary aspects of
settlement was made during the second mediation session, and the
Parties are evaluating each other's respective positions.

Since the first mediation session and now specifically in
connection with the proposed monetary settlement, the Parties have
spent considerable time and dedicated substantial resources to
collecting and analyzing payroll data, consisting of the number of
12-hour shifts worked by, and the applicable wage rates for, each
class member in this case (for a period covering 8 years) and in
Burgess (for a period covering more than 4 years). The project
required the analysis of hundreds of thousands of daily time clock
entries and calculation of corresponding wage rates. The Parties
are now extremely close to reaching an agreement on the monetary
aspects of settlement but must resolve final discrepancies between
exposure analyses and document the agreement.

The Parties estimate that it will take at least an additional four
weeks to negotiate, draft, and reach a final agreement about the
language in these documents but they are optimistic that a
settlement can be achieved within the next 30 days.

The case before Judge Chen is styled RICK DELAGARZA, individually,
PAUL GUTIERREZ, SAL LUCIDO, APRIL MOORE, CHARLES GRIMMETT, ANTONIO
GARCIA, Assigned to the and BRIAN CASHWELL, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees,
Plaintiffs, v. TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 09-05803 EMC.

A copy of Judge Chen's February 4, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/zhtuulfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay Smith, Esq.
          Linda S. Fang, Esq.
          GILBERT & SACKMAN, A Law Corporation
          Los Angeles, CA
          E-mail: js@gslaw.org
          E-mail: lfang@gslaw.org

               - and -

          Richard R. Rouco, Esq.
          QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO
          Birmingham, AL
          E-mail: rrouco@wdklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William Dritsas, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          San Francisco, CA
          E-mail: wdritsas@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com
                  kagnew@seyfarth.com


TRICOR AMERICA: Drivers File Class Action For Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Tricor America stiffs its
drivers of overtime pay and cheats them by time-shaving, a class
action claims in San Mateo County Court.


VOYAGER: Veterans File Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that Voyager
Financial Group defrauded military veterans and the public by
claiming it can buy and sell unregistered securities based on VA
disability and retirement benefits, a class action claims in
Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Lawrence Vicari sued Voyager Financial Group, VFG
LLC, and five of their top officers: Brandon Kogut, Glenn Hopkins,
Brittney McClinton, Jonathan Sheets, and Mackenzie Young.

Mr. Vicari claims the Delaware LLCs, operating out of Little Rock,
sold unregistered securities they call "Veterans Benefits
Contracts."

Mr. Vicari says he paid $62,574.29 to acquire the disability
benefits sold by a veteran in Virginia.  Mr. Vicari was to get
$90,000 in return: 120 monthly payments of $750 each, according to
the purchase application attached as an exhibit to the complaint.

Voyager describes itself on its Web site as "a national
distributor, broker, and consulting firm for a diverse array of
products, services, and contracts in the financial services arena.
VFG specializes in the factored income stream market, working to
satisfy the needs both of individuals and entities receiving
structured payments and those wishing to take advantage of the
stability and return on investment that these products can bring.

"By acting as a liaison between the individuals receiving
structured incomes and those wishing to purchase those factored
streams, Voyager Financial Group is able to utilize these
relationships in such a way as to bring maximum equity and
profitability to all sides of the factored income stream
transaction," according to its Web site.

But the whole deal was illegal, Mr. Vicari claims.

The complaint does not estimate how much money changed hands, or
how much was lost or gained.  Nor does it state where the
individual defendants are.  It identifies them by job title:
Brandon Kogut as chief officer of VFG; Glenn Hopkins as director
of business development; Brittney McClinton as "director of
compliance"; Jonathan Sheets as "owner of VFG"; and Mackenzie
Young as "director of case management."

Mr. Vicari claims that Voyager advertised its illegal,
unregistered securities "through the use of publicly available
websites and spreadsheets with details about available deals to
induce plaintiff and the class to enter into illegal and
irrevocable investment contracts."

The complaint states: "VFG defendants' business includes finding
individuals who are receiving structured payments, pensions and/or
disability incomes from the government, and offering a lump sum in
exchange for their promise to turn over all or a portion of their
payments, in the form of the securities, which are investment
contracts.  These individuals, or 'sellers,' are often ex-
military, injured during service and in need of a large amount of
money quickly.  VFG enters into contracts with 'sellers" which
assign VFG the right to sell the securities once an investor is
found.  The investor, or 'buyer,' often retired, is looking for a
secure, risk-free investment."

Mr. Vicari is one such buyer, he says. "Another such investor is
former Oregon Governor Neil Goldschmidt," who is not named as a
party to the complaint.

Mr. Vicari claims that the Voyager defendants claim that these
securities are legal, risk-free, guaranteed by the United States,
and will benefit veterans, though in fact the sale of these
securities is "not lawful, was not risk-free, was not guaranteed
to the investor by the United States government, would not benefit
veterans and would in fact lead to loss of all or some of the
investors' money and gain to VFG defendants.  This scheme in fact
did lead to the loss of all or some of the class members' money
invested and to unlawful gain by FVG defendants.  VFG fraudulently
failed to disclose the true facts to plaintiff and other class
members.  Further, some of the payments, which the owner of the
veterans' benefits cannot lawfully assign, have now been stopped
and cannot be lawfully or effectively secured to plaintiff or the
class members.  VFG defendants failed to disclose to plaintiff and
the class members that such contracts were illegal and irrevocable
[sic] upon breach, were not frisk free, were not guaranteed to
them by the United States government, and would not help veterans,
who were also innocent and induced to enter into this unlawful
scheme to defraud innocent investors of their money.  VFG
defendants benefited and received money from the sale of the
securities.

"Plaintiff has reason to believe that defendant VFG fraudulently
induced a large number of investors across California and other
states to purchase securities during the class period."

The class period is Jan. 31, 2008 to Jan. 31, 2013.

Mr. Vicari claims the defendants violated securities laws.

The complaint states that Voyager "makes money by the sale of
securities in the form of contracts for the right to receive
Veterans Administration and other military structured payments,
awards, and/or disability incomes owned by veterans and military
retirees throughout the United States ('Veterans Benefits' or
'Veterans Benefits' Contracts').  These veterans benefits
contracts are securities under the federal securities laws.  FVG
defendants have not registered these securities with the federal
government as is required and have not complied with the federal
law in connection with the sale of securities.  The veterans
benefits are paid by the United States government to the veterans
and are guaranteed to the veterans.  These veterans benefits and
the right to the income from the veterans' benefits or securities
are sold by and through VFG to innocent investors ('Investors' or
'Class Members') throughout the United States by the VFG
defendants and their agents, including to Mr. Vicari ('Class
Representative').  VFG defendants are agents of the veterans.  VFG
defendants and their agents represent to the veterans that this is
a lawful transaction and that they have the right to sell their
interests for a lump sum now and that their interests in the
veterans' benefits will be paid to class members.  VFG defendants
and their agents represent to the investors and class members that
the purchase of the securities in the form of contracts for the
right to military and Veterans Administration structured payments,
awards, pensions, and/or disability incomes owned by veterans
throughout the United States, is lawful, risk free, is guaranteed
as long as the United States government is solvent and stands, and
will help veterans, among other things ('Misrepresentations').
VFG defendants know or should know that these statements are false
when they are made to their selling agents and know that the
selling agents, as they instruct them to do, will in fact tell
investors and class members that the purchase of securities in the
form of the right to military and Veterans Administration
structured payments, awards, pensions, and/or disability incomes
owned by veterans throughout the United States is lawful, risk-
free, is guaranteed as long as the United States government is
solvent and stands, and will help veterans, VFG defendants and
their selling agents know or should know that investors and class
members will rely on the misrepresentations in selling and
purchasing the securities."

Mr. Vicari seeks compensatory damages and costs for violations of
the Exchange Act.

He is represented by Don Howarth, Esq. --
DHowarth@Howarth-Smith.com -- with Howarth & Smith.


YUM! BRANDS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Yum! Brands, Inc., and certain of its
officers.  The class action filed, in United States District
Court, for the Central District of California, and docketed under
SACV13-173-AG, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Yum
between October 9, 2012 and January 7, 2013, both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Yum securities during the
Class Period, you have until March 25, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-4760-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address and telephone number.

Yum describes itself as the world's largest quick service
restaurant company based on number of system units, with
approximately 37,000 units in more than 120 countries and
territories.  Through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and
Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and licenses
a worldwide system of restaurants.

Throughout the Class Period, the Company's defendants made
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's current and future business and financial condition.  In
particular, the complaint alleges that (a) the defendants knew but
concealed that Yum's own food safety inspections had already found
that Chinese chicken supplier Shandong Liuhe Group had sold the
Company chickens with high levels of antibiotics and other illegal
drugs and/or chemicals; and (b) the Company had continued to buy
products from Shandong Liuhe Group until as late as August 2012.

On November 23, 2012, reports in the Chinese media disclosed that
certain of the Company's chicken suppliers had been feeding toxic
chemicals to chickens sold to KFC China.

On December 20 and 21, 2012, news reports began to circulate that
the Company knew well before the Class Period that certain chicken
suppliers in China had injected chickens with excessive
antibiotics and other illegal chemicals but sought to conceal
these facts.  As a result of the December 20 and 21, 2012
disclosures, Yum's stock price declined 5% from a close of $67.16
per share on December 19, 2012 to $63.88 per share on December 21,
2012.


* Class Actions May Lose Attraction for Small Indian Investors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rohit Mahajan, writing for The Hindu Business Line, reports that
without the promise of expeditious disposal, class action lawsuits
may lose their attraction for small investors.

Companies Bill 2011, which was recently passed by the Lok Sabha,
prescribes several new guidelines for corporate governance.  The
one that permits filing class action suits against companies has,
in particular, raised curiosity amongst businesses and the public.

These lawsuits, prevalent in more litigious societies like the US,
are representative actions through which people or companies can
collectively bring a claim to court, or in which a class of
defendants is being sued.  The objective is to empower end-users
and safeguard their interests.  But can class action suits be
potent enough to help investors in India claim damages from
fraudulent companies?

Let us take the example of the Satyam Computer accounting fraud,
one of the largest in India in recent times.  When the company
collapsed, it eroded the wealth of countless Indian investors.
However, these investors were unable to stake any claim on the
$125 million settlement that their US counterparts were able to on
the back of several class action suits.

By allowing class action suits in India, small networth investors
can get together and file for claims against erring companies,
irrespective of the extent of individual investment.

Class action suits can be used in several other circumstances too.
An example is the Fraley vs. Facebook Inc. suit, which alleged
that the social media giant had violated users' right to privacy
by sharing their personal details with advertising platforms
without their consent.  Although Facebook denied any wrongdoing,
it agreed to a $20 million settlement.  Critics may contest the
effectiveness of the class action lawsuit in terms of an out-of-
court settlement, which limits its scope of reaching out to
millions of potentially exploited users.  But in terms of the
intangible valuation of Facebook, the settlement can be seen as a
symbolic triumph of individual rights.

A more comprehensive class action lawsuit settlement was reached
between British Petroleum and the residents and businesses
affected by the 'Transocean Deepwater Horizon' oilrig spill in the
Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010.

Around 80 class action suits were filed by fishermen, hotel
operators, landowners, rental companies, seafood processors and
restaurants, claiming damages for current or potential loss of
business due to the oil spill.  Some suffered economic and
property damage while others had medical claims arising from the
oilrig explosion that spilled more than 4 million barrels of oil
into the ocean.  Without the class action suit, the affected
residents and businesses may not have been able to individually
claim their share of the damages.

The very nature of a class action lawsuit makes it potent enough
to help investors claim damages from fraudulent companies.
However, in the Indian context, the lawsuit may lose effectiveness
unless handled a bit differently.  Without the promise of
expeditious disposal, class action lawsuits may lose the momentum
at the initial stage itself, failing to encourage small investors
to take the plunge.  The nuances of out-of-court settlements can
be structured and subsequently evolved once class action lawsuits
deepen roots here.

The victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy who were unable to fully
prosecute a class action litigation against Union Carbide due to
procedural rules, took recourse in the Indian Government's right
of parens patriae to appropriate all the claims, with the
Government proceeding to litigate on their behalf.

However, with the rising complexity of cases, such as the NGO
Midas Touch Investor Association's petition to the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking compensation on
behalf of Satyam investors, alleging that they were misled into
buying the shares at a manipulated price, class action lawsuits
are the need of the hour in India.


* Two Lawyers in Dispute Over Share in LCD Class Action Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that with
a federal judge set to approve a $300 million payoff to attorneys
in the long-running LCD price-fixing class action, two lawyers are
bitterly feuding over their share of the fees.  What's more,
Joseph M. Alioto and Francis Scarpulla aren't just co-lead counsel
turned rivals: They're also first cousins.

                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace to Adjust Liability to $2.06BB From $1.7BB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. will adjust its recorded asbestos-related
liability to $2,065 million from the previous amount of $1,700
million. Grace will report a $365 million non-cash, pre-tax charge
in its fourth quarter 2012 earnings. This non-cash charge will
have no impact on Adjusted EBIT or Adjusted EPS.

As discussed in the company's November 9, 2012 teleconference with
analysts, an adjustment to the recorded amount is now necessary to
reflect the increased estimates of the settlement values of the
warrant and deferred payment obligation payable to the asbestos
personal injury trust under Grace's plan of reorganization.

The company currently estimates the warrant's value to be $490
million, the maximum value under the company's cash settlement
agreement with the asbestos trust. The cash settlement agreement
was approved by the bankruptcy court on December 17, 2012.

The company currently estimates the deferred payment obligation's
value to be $547 million. The increase in the estimated value of
the deferred payment obligation reflects the company's improved
borrowing costs and the expected timing of its bankruptcy
emergence.

The non-cash charge of $365 million is lower than the range of
$375 million to $475 million that the company had estimated in its
November 9 teleconference.

The ultimate cost of settling the asbestos-related liability will
be based on the value of the consideration transferred to the
asbestos trusts at emergence and may vary from the current
estimate.

W.R. Grace & Co. engages in the production and sale of specialty
chemicals and materials worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 56,442 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
On January 28, 2013, Crane Co. announced its results of operations
for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.  As of December 31, 2012,
the Company was a defendant in cases filed in numerous state and
federal courts alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

It had 56,442 pending claims as of December 31, 2012, of which
approximately 19,300 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 9,900 claims were pending in Texas, approximately
5,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 5,000
claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which
legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company
has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters.  The first payment, in the amount of $2.54
million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after
the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California,
after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate
remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was
made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case
in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009.

The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one
of which, the Patrick O'Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on
appeal. In an opinion dated January 12, 2012, the California
Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and
instructed the trial court to enter a judgment of nonsuit in favor
of the defendants.

On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
James Baccus claim in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with
compensatory damages of $2.45 million and additional damages of
$11.9 million. The Company's post-trial motions were denied by
order dated January 5, 2009. The case was concluded by settlement
in the fourth quarter of 2010 during the pendency of the Company's
appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles, California. The amount of the
judgment entered was $0.68 million plus interest and costs. The
Company pursued an appeal in this matter, and on August 2, 2012
the California Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded
the matter to the trial court for entry of judgment
notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the Company on the ground
that this claim could not be distinguished factually from the
Patrick O'Neil case decided in the Company's favor by the
California Supreme Court.

On February 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles, California.   The jury
found that the Company was responsible for 0.5% of plaintiffs'
damages of $16.93 million; however, based on California court
rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment was entered
against the Company in the amount of $1.65 million, plus costs.
Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with the
trial court requesting judgment in the Company's favor
notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009, the
court advised that the Company's motion was granted and judgment
was entered in favor of the Company. The trial court's ruling was
affirmed on appeal by order dated August 25, 2011. The plaintiffs
appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court of California, which
dismissed the appeal on February 29, 2012; the matter is now
finally determined in the Company's favor.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, state
court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a
$14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th
share of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On
February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in
the amount of $0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and
in the amount of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and
two other defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the
amount of $0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only,
in Nelson.  All defendants, including the Company, and the
plaintiffs took timely appeals of certain aspects of those
judgments.  The Nelson appeal is pending. The Company resolved the
Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the settled
claims for 2012.

On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the
Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on
the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions
seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to
reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under
New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic
losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on
October 18, 2011 and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012
confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of
damages to $8 million.  At plaintiffs' request, the Court entered
a judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the Company,
taking into account settlement offsets and accrued interest under
New York law.  The Company has appealed.

On March 9, 2012, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 1/8th share of a $123,000
verdict in the Frank Paasch claim. The Company and plaintiffs
filed post-trial motions. On May 31, 2012, on plaintiffs' motion,
the Court entered an order dismissing the claim against the
Company, with prejudice, and without any payment.

On August 29, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
William Paulus claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found
that the Company was responsible for ten percent (10%) of
plaintiffs' non-economic damages of $6.5 million, plus a portion
of plaintiffs' economic damages of $0.4 million. Based on
California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment
was entered in the amount of $0.8 million against the Company.
The Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in the
Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, which were
denied. The Company has appealed.

On October 23, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Gerald Suttner claim in Buffalo, New York. The jury found that
the Company was responsible for four percent (4%) of plaintiffs'
damages of $3 million or $120,000.  The Company filed post-trial
motions requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding
the jury's verdict and plans to pursue an appeal if necessary.

On November 28, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the James Hellam claim in Oakland, CA.  The jury found that the
Company was responsible for seven percent (7%) of plaintiffs' non-
economic damages of $ 4 .5 million, plus a portion of their
economic damages of $0.9 million.  Based on California court rules
regarding allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the
Company in the amount of $1.282 million.  The Company filed post-
trial motions requesting judgment in the Company's favor
notwithstanding the jury's verdict and also requesting that
settlement offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance
with California law.  The Company plans to pursue an appeal if
necessary.

Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred
costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final
payment amount is determined.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the years ended
December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 totaled $96.1 million, $105.5
million and $106.6 million, respectively. In contrast to the
recognition of settlement and defense costs, which reflect the
current level of activity in the tort system, cash payments and
receipts generally lag the tort system activity by several months
or more, and may show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter.
Cash payments of settlement amounts are not made until all
releases and other required documentation are received by the
Company, and reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense
costs by insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices,
transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and
the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The
Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs,
net of funds received from insurers, for the years ended December
31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 totaled $78.0 million, $79.3 million and
$66.7 million, respectively.

Cumulatively through December 31, 2012, the Company has resolved
(by settlement or dismissal) approximately 90,000 claims, not
including the MARDOC claims. The related settlement cost incurred
by the Company and its insurance carriers is approximately $370
million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of
approximately $4,000. The average settlement cost per claim
resolved during the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010
was $6,300, $4,123 and $7,036, respectively. Because claims are
sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved
claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period. In addition to large group
dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding settlement
amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes from
period to period in the average settlement cost per claim.
Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered
in the Company's periodic review of its estimated asbestos
liability.

A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. The liability was $796 million as of December 31, 2012. It
is not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the
asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected
such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021,
due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the
estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a
claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated
costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability
to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion
of the total estimated liability at December 31, 2012 was $92
million and represents the Company's best estimate of total
asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period.
Such amount is based upon the HR&A model together with the
Company's prior year payment experience for both settlement and
defense costs.

An asset of $225 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011
representing the probable insurance reimbursement for such claims
expected through 2021. The asset is reduced as reimbursements and
other payments from insurers are received. The asset was $205
million as of December 31, 2012.

Crane Co. manufactures and sells engineered industrial products in
the United States and internationally.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defending Fibro-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company continues to defend asbestos-related lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 1, 2012.

The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 25 years ago. The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and
seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In
many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered
were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are
typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment.
If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable
injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case
is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness
of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation continues to be paid by third parties,
including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976
agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party.
Historically, this third party routinely defended all cases
tendered to it and paid settlement amounts resulting from those
cases. In the 1990s, the third party sporadically reserved its
rights, but continued to defend and settle all asbestos-related
claims tendered to it by us. In 2002, the third party rejected the
tender of certain cases and indicated it would seek contributions
for past defense costs, settlements and judgments. However, this
third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a
reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party. During the fourth quarter of 2007, we and a group
of other defendants, including the third party obligated to
indemnify us against certain asbestos-related claims, entered into
negotiations with certain law firms to settle a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits and claims.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities (including defense costs).
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and, in some cases, settlements
and judgments, in asbestos-related lawsuits. Under these
agreements, we are required in some cases to fund a share of
settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the
responsible insurer is insolvent. In addition, to delineate our
rights under certain insurance policies, in October 2009, we
commenced a declaratory judgment action against one of our
insurers in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota. Additional insurers have been brought into the action
to address issues related to the scope of their coverage.

"During the fourth quarter of 2007, we and a group of other
defendants entered into negotiations with certain law firms to
settle a number of asbestos-related lawsuits and claims over a
period of years. In total, we had expected to contribute up to
$4.1 million, based on a present value calculation, towards the
settlement amounts to be paid to the claimants in exchange for
full releases of claims. Of this amount, our insurers had
committed to pay $2.0 million based on the probable liability of
$4.1 million. Our contributions toward settlements from the time
of the agreement through the end of fiscal year 2011 were $2.2
million with insurers paying $1.2 million of that amount. Based on
this experience we reduced our reserves in the fourth quarter of
2011 to an undiscounted amount of $0.3 million with insurers
expected to pay $0.2 million. There were no contributions or
insurance payments during 2012, therefore our reserves for this
agreement and our insurance receivable remained unchanged from the
previous year-end. These amounts represent our best estimate for
the settlement amounts yet to be paid related to this agreement.
Our reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis.

"In addition to the group settlement, a summary of the number of
and settlement amounts for asbestos-related lawsuits and claims
is:

                                Year Ended December 1, 2012
                                ---------------------------
Lawsuits and claims settled                               9
Settlement amounts                                 $500,000
Insurance payments received or
   expected to be received                         $400,000

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff.

"To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our
probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries. As of December 1, 2012, our probable
liabilities and insurance recoveries related to asbestos claims,
excluding those related to the group settlement, were $0.2 million
and $0.2 million, respectively. These amounts relate to three
pending cases and three settled cases for which final insurance
payouts have not yet been made. We have concluded that it is not
possible to reasonably estimate the cost of disposing of other
asbestos-related claims (including claims that might be filed in
the future) due to our inability to project future events. Future
variables include the number of claims filed or dismissed, proof
of exposure to our products, seriousness of the alleged injury,
the number and solvency of other defendants in each case, the
jurisdiction in which the case is brought, the cost of disposing
of such claims, the uncertainty of asbestos litigation, insurance
coverage and indemnification agreement issues, and the continuing
solvency of certain insurance companies.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow. However, adverse developments and/or
periodic settlements could negatively impact the results of
operations or cash flows in one or more future periods."

H.B. Fuller Company is a global formulator, manufacturer and
marketer of adhesives, sealants, paints and other specialty
chemical products. Industrial adhesives represent its core product
offering. Its adhesives products are used in manufacturing common
consumer goods, including food and beverage containers, disposable
diapers, windows, sportswear, footwear and multi-wall bags.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco International Had 5,700 Claims at Dec. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. has determined that there were
approximately 5,700 asbestos-related claims pending against it as
of December 28, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 28, 2012.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous
other companies are named as defendants in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims
based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or
distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos
or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components
manufactured by third-parties. Each case typically names between
dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. While the Company has
observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits over the past
several years, including lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-
related claims, a large percentage of these suits have not
presented viable legal claims and, as a result, have been
dismissed by the courts. The Company's historical strategy has
been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated
suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling suits before
trial. Although a large percentage of litigated suits have been
dismissed, the Company cannot predict the extent to which it will
be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. In addition,
the Company continues to assess its strategy for resolving
asbestos claims. Due to the number of claims and limited amount of
assets at one of the Company's non-operating subsidiaries, the
Company is pursuing alternatives for this subsidiary, including a
negotiated settlement with representatives of all current and
future asbestos claimants against such subsidiary. While the
Company has not finalized its approach, if the Company is
ultimately successful with this alternative, it will likely assign
rights to certain insurance assets and make a cash payment in
order to fully resolve the claims against the subsidiary.

As of December 28, 2012, the Company has determined that there
were approximately 5,700 claims pending against it, its
subsidiaries or entities for which the Company has assumed
responsibility in connection with acquisitions and divestitures.
This amount reflects the Company's current estimate of the number
of viable claims made against such entities and includes
adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted,
identify incorrect defendants, are duplicative of other actions or
for which the Company is indemnified.

Annually, during the Company's third quarter, the Company performs
an analysis with the assistance of outside counsel and other
experts to update its estimated asbestos-related assets and
liabilities. In addition, on a quarterly basis, the Company
re-evaluates the assumptions used to perform the annual analysis
and records an expense as necessary to reflect changes in its
estimated liability and related insurance asset. The Company's
estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for
pending and future claims and defense costs is based on the
Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the number
and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed.
The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts
these estimates. The Company considers various trends and
developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back
period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is
used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be made
in the future during a defined period of time (the look-forward
period).

As part of the Company's annual valuation process in the third
quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company determined that a look-back
period of three years was more appropriate than a five year period
because the Company has experienced a higher and more consistent
level of claims activity and settlement costs in the past three
years. As a result, the Company believes a three year look-back
period is more representative of future claim and settlement
activity than the five year period it previously used. The Company
also revised its look-forward period from seven years to fifteen
years. The Company's decision to revise its look- forward period
was primarily based on improvements in the consistency of
observable data and the Company's more extensive experience with
asbestos claims since the look-forward period was originally
established in 2005. The revisions to the Company's look-forward
and look-back periods do not apply to claims made against the
subsidiary for which the Company is pursuing alternatives,
including a negotiated settlement with representatives of all
current and future asbestos claimants. Excluding these claims, the
Company believes it can make a more reliable estimate of pending
and future claims beyond seven years. The Company believes
valuation of pending claims and future claims to be filed over the
next fifteen years produces a reasonable estimate of its asbestos
liability, which it records in the unaudited consolidated
financial statements on an undiscounted basis.

The Company's estimate of asbestos related insurance recoveries
represents estimated amounts due to the Company for previously
paid and settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating
to its estimated liability for pending and future claims. In
determining the amount of insurance recoverable, the Company
considers a number of factors, including available insurance,
allocation methodologies, and the solvency and creditworthiness of
insurers. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company
reached an agreement with one of its primary insurance carriers
for asbestos related claims. Under the terms of the settlement,
the Company agreed with the insurance carrier to accept a lump sum
cash payment of $97 million in respect of certain policies, and
has reached a coverage-in-place agreement with the insurance
carrier with respect to certain claims. Upon receipt of the
payments from the insurance carrier in the first quarter of fiscal
2013, the Company terminated a cost-sharing agreement that it had
entered into with an entity that it had acquired a business from
several decades ago and as a result, has access to all of the
insurance policies and is responsible for all liabilities arising
from asbestos claims made against the subsidiary that was
acquired.

As of December 28, 2012, the Company's estimated net liability of
$215 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and
related defense costs of $376 million, and separately as an asset
for insurance recoveries of $161 million. The Company believes
that its asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets
as of December 28, 2012 are appropriate. Similarly, as of
September 28, 2012, the Company's estimated net liability of $155
million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance
Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related
defense costs of $401 million, and separately as an asset for
insurance recoveries of $246 million.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the
Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently
available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions.
Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new
claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of
claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers,
amount of insurance and the solvency risk with respect to the
Company's insurance carriers. Furthermore, predictions with
respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in
the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may
affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-
related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation
process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case,
reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability
of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher
or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's
calculations vary significantly from actual results.

Tyco International Ltd is a Switzerland-based holding company of
Tyco Group. The Tyco Group is a diversified, global provider of
diversified products ranging from electronic security and alarm
monitoring to fire-fighting equipment and breathing apparatus,
water purification and flow control solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Had Total Net Reserves of $589M at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation updated its asbestos reserves to: reassess
Chubb's ultimate liability regarding asbestos exposures using an
internal analysis, reviewed by our independent outside consulting
actuaries; determine appropriate reserve levels; ensure aggressive
case management of asbestos claims; and provide relevant
substantive information requested by investors and rating
agencies.

Chubb's total net asbestos reserves at December 31, 2012 was $589
million based on its 2012 analysis of its ultimate asbestos
liabilities.  This reserve represents Chubb's best estimate of its
ultimate asbestos liability at December 31, 2012.  The net reserve
reflects a modest reinsurance recoverable amount of approximately
3% of the gross reserve.  Net payments for asbestos liabilities in
2012 were $44 million.

The Chubb Corporation is a holding company for a family of
property and casualty insurance companies known as the Chubb Group
of Insurance Companies (the P&C Group). The P&C Group provides
property and casualty insurance to businesses and individuals
worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 66,000 Open Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. had 66,000 open claims at December 31, 2012, alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2012.

To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve
estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given
various assumptions, Ashland retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. (HR&A).

The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos
asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of
Riley Stoker Corporation, a former subsidiary.  The amount and
timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate
significantly from period to period.

There were 66,000 open claims at December 31, 2012.

Total reserves for asbestos claims were $513 million at
December 31, 2012 compared to $522 million at September 30, 2012.

Ashland has insurance coverage for most of the litigation defense
and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its
asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the
insurance companies that provide most of the coverage currently
being accessed.  As a result, increases in the asbestos reserve
have been largely offset by probable insurance recoveries.  The
amounts not recoverable generally are due from insurers that are
insolvent, rather than as a result of uninsured claims or the
exhaustion of Ashland's insurance coverage.

For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent.  Approximately 69% of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best,
all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of December 31, 2012.
The remainder of the insurance receivable is due from London
insurance companies, which generally have lower credit quality
ratings, and from Underwriters at Lloyd's, whose insurance policy
obligations have been transferred to a Berkshire Hathaway entity.
Ashland discounts this piece of the receivable based upon the
projected timing of the receipt of cash from those insurers unless
likely settlement amounts can be determined.

During the December 2011 quarter, Ashland received $7 million in
cash after reaching a settlement with certain insolvent London
market insurance companies.  The cash received from this
settlement during the prior period was recognized as an after-tax
gain of $6 million within discontinued operations of the
Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income since Ashland's
policy is to not record asbestos receivables for any carriers that
are insolvent.

In October 2012, Ashland initiated arbitration proceedings against
Underwriters at Lloyd's and certain Chartis (AIG member) companies
seeking to enforce these insurers' contractual obligations to
provide indemnity for asbestos liabilities and defense costs under
existing coverage-in-place agreements. In addition, Ashland has
initiated a lawsuit in Kentucky state court against certain
Berkshire Hathaway entities (National Indemnity Company and
Resolute Management Inc.) on grounds that these Berkshire entities
have wrongfully interfered with Underwriters' and Chartis'
performance of their respective contractual obligations to provide
asbestos coverage by directing the insurers to reduce and delay
certain claim payments. While Ashland anticipates its position
will be supported by the proceedings, an adverse resolution of
these proceedings could have a significant effect on the timing of
loss reimbursement and the amount of Ashland's recorded insurance
receivables from these insurers.

At December 31, 2012, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to $419 million, of which $63 million relates to costs
previously paid.  Receivables from insurers amounted to $423
million at September 30, 2012.  During the June 2012 quarter, the
annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the
asbestos reserve, and its impact on valuation of future recoveries
from insurers, was completed.  This model update resulted in an
additional $19 million increase in the receivable for probable
insurance recoveries.

Ashland Inc. is a global specialty chemical company that provides
products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Hercules Had 21K Open Claims End Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary Hercules had 21,000 open claims at
December 31, 2012, alleging personal injury caused by exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2012.

To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve
estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given
various assumptions, Ashland retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. (HR&A).

Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos.  Such claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former
subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.  The amount and
timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate
significantly from period to period.

There were 21,000 open claims at December 31, 2012.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A.  During the most recent annual update of this estimate,
completed during the June 2012 quarter, it was determined that the
liability for Hercules asbestos related claims should be increased
by $30 million.  Total reserves for asbestos claims were $311
million at December 31, 2012 compared to $320 million at September
30, 2012.

The asbestos reserve at December 31, 2012, was $311 million.

For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain
reimbursements pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements with
insurance carriers exist.  As a result, increases in the asbestos
reserve are partially offset by probable insurance recoveries.
Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries
associated with its asbestos reserve based on management's
interpretations and estimates surrounding the available or
applicable insurance coverage, including an assumption that all
solvent insurance carriers remain solvent.  The estimated
receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers. Of the
insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit rating
of B+ or higher as of December 31, 2012.

As of December 31, 2012 and September 30, 2012, the receivables
from insurers amounted to $55 million and $56 million,
respectively.  As previously mentioned, during the June 2012
quarter, the annual update of the model used for purposes of
valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of future
recoveries from insurers was completed.  This model update caused
a $9 million increase in the receivable for probable insurance
recoveries.

The insurance receivable at December 31, 2012, was $55 million.

Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables
that are extremely difficult to predict.  In addition to the
significant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims that
might be received, other variables include the type and severity
of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period
associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of
medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies
that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, and the impact of potential changes in legislative or
judicial standards.  Furthermore, any predictions with respect to
these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the
projection period lengthens.  In light of these inherent
uncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos reserves for
Ashland and Hercules represent the best estimate within a range of
possible outcomes.

As a part of the process to develop the estimates of future
asbestos costs, a range of long-term cost models was developed.
These models are based on national studies that predict the number
of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases and are
heavily influenced by assumptions regarding long-term inflation
rates for indemnity payments and legal defense costs, as well as
other variables mentioned previously.  Ashland has currently
estimated in various models ranging from approximately 40 to 50
year periods that it is reasonably possible that total future
litigation defense and claim settlement costs on an inflated and
undiscounted basis could range as high as approximately $830
million for the Ashland asbestos-related litigation and
approximately $500 million for the Hercules asbestos-related
litigation (or approximately $1.3 billion in the aggregate),
depending on the combination of assumptions selected in the
various models.  If actual experience is worse than projected,
relative to the number of claims filed, the severity of alleged
disease associated with those claims or costs incurred to resolve
those claims, Ashland may need to further increase the estimates
of the costs associated with asbestos claims and these increases
could be material over time.

Ashland Inc. is a global specialty chemical company that provides
products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Maremont Had $75MM Reserves at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary Maremont Corp.'s asbestos-related
reserves for pending and future claims was $75 million at December
31, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 30, 2012.

Maremont Corporation ("Maremont"), a subsidiary of Meritor,
manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953
through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin
Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont
in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits
brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products. Maremont had
approximately 5,000 pending asbestos-related claims at
December 31, 2012 and September 30, 2012. Although Maremont has
been named in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has
been alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont
product caused their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue
dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits on
behalf of hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking damages
against all named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury
and irrespective of any causal connection with a particular
product. For these reasons, Maremont does not consider the number
of claims filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor
in determining its asbestos-related liability.

Maremont's asbestos-related reserves and corresponding asbestos-
related recoveries are:

                                         December 31, 2012
                                         -----------------
Pending and future claims                   $75 million
Asbestos-related insurance recoveries       $67 million

Prior to February 2001, Maremont participated in the Center for
Claims Resolution ("CCR") and shared with other CCR members in the
payment of defense and indemnity costs for asbestos-related
claims. The CCR handled the resolution and processing of asbestos
claims on behalf of its members until February 2001, when it was
reorganized and discontinued negotiating shared settlements. Since
the CCR was reorganized in 2001, Maremont has handled asbestos-
related claims through its own defense counsel and has taken a
more aggressive defensive approach that involves examining the
merits of each asbestos-related claim. Although the company
expects legal defense costs to continue at higher levels than when
it participated in the CCR, the company believes its litigation
strategy has reduced the average indemnity cost per claim.

Pending and Future Claims: Maremont engages Bates White LLC (Bates
White), a consulting firm with extensive experience estimating
costs associated with asbestos litigation, to assist with
determining the estimated cost of resolving pending and future
asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be
expected to be, filed against Maremont.

Bates White provided an estimate of the reasonably possible range
of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over
the next ten years of $72 million to $88 million. Maremont
recognized a liability of $72 million at September 30, and
December 31, 2012.

The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities
is $67 million as of December 31, 2012. The difference between the
estimated liability and insurance receivable is primarily related
to proceeds received from settled insurance policies. Certain
insurance policies have been settled in cash prior to the ultimate
settlement of the related asbestos liabilities. Amounts received
from insurance settlements generally reduce recorded insurance
receivables. Receivables for policies in dispute are not recorded.

Meritor, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, sells, markets,
distributes, services, and supports integrated systems, modules,
and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the
aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation, and
industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's ArvinMeritor Had 2,500 Active Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary ArvinMeritor Inc. had approximately
2,500 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits at December 31,
2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 30, 2012.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. (AM), a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many
other companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used
in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago.
Liability for these claims was transferred at the time of the
spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. At
December 31, 2012 and September 30, 2012, there were approximately
2,500 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM,
together with many other companies, as defendants. A significant
portion of the claims do not identify any of Rockwell's products
or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to
asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and past experience
has shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely
never identify any of Rockwell's products. Historically, AM has
been dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in
the past with no payment to claimants. For those claimants who do
show that they worked with Rockwell's products, management
nevertheless believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial
part due to the integrity of the products involved and the lack of
any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. For
these reasons, the company does not consider the number of claims
filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in
determining asbestos-related liabilities. The company defends
these cases vigorously.

Rockwell's asbestos-related reserves and corresponding asbestos-
related recoveries are summarized as follows (in millions):

                                      December 31, 2012
                                      -----------------
Pending and future claims                $37 million
Asbestos-related insurance recoveries     $7 million

The company engages Bates White to assist with determining whether
it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and
future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and
could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company.
Bates White provided an estimate of the reasonably possible range
of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over
the next ten years of $37 million to $45 million. The company
recognized a liability of $37 million at December 31 and September
30, 2012. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims
is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for
plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an
established history with Rockwell.

In addition to the probable liability for pending and future
claims, the company also recognized a liability of approximately
$7 million in fiscal year 2012 associated with a previously
disclosed asbestos-related claim (Gordon Bankhead) which was
settled during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012. The payment
required by this settlement agreement was made in the first
quarter of fiscal year 2013.

Rockwell maintained insurance coverage that management believes
covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance
retentions, for most of these claims. The company has initiated
claims against certain of these carriers to enforce the insurance
policies, which are currently being disputed. The company expects
to recover some portion of defense and indemnity costs it has
incurred to date, over and above self-insured retentions, and some
portion of the costs for defending asbestos claims going forward.
Based on consultation with advisors and underlying analysis
performed by management, the company has recorded an insurance
receivable related to Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities
of $7 million at December 31, 2012 and September 30, 2012. If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, nature of
pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of
available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of
liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on
the company, could differ materially from current estimates and,
therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial
condition and results of operations.

Meritor, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, sells, markets,
distributes, services, and supports integrated systems, modules,
and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the
aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation, and
industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Covidien's Unit Had 11,600 Cases at Dec. 28
------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien Public Limited Company disclosed that as of December 28,
2012, there were approximately 11,600 asbestos liability cases
pending against its subsidiary Mallinckrodt Inc.

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

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed
by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in
a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims, and intends
to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. When appropriate,
the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and
defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of December
28, 2012, there were approximately 11,600 asbestos liability cases
pending against Mallinckrodt.

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. 3M, et al. Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a Jan. 23, 2013 order, Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York remanded
to the New York State Supreme Court, Onondaga County, the action
filed by William Trimm, Jr., and his wife, Helen Trimm, against
dozens of companies that allegedly produced asbestos-containing
products after finding that all the claims in the Plaintiffs'
complaint are state-law claims.

The case is WILLIAM TRIMM, JR. and HELEN TRIMM, Plaintiffs, v.
3M COMPANY, formerly known as Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing
Company; 84 LUMBER COMPANY; A.W. CHESTERTON CO., INC.; ABEX
CORPORATION, formerly known as American Brake Shoe Company; AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as successor by merger to Buffalo
Pumps, Inc.; AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., individually and on behalf
of its division The Trane Company; ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
ARVINMERITOR, INC.; BORG WARNER CORPORATION; CARLISLE COMPANIES
INCORPORATED; CBS CORPORATION, formerly known as Viacom, Inc.,
formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation; CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION; CLEAVER-BROOKS INC.; CRANE CO.; CRANE PUMPS &
SYSTEMS, INC.; DANA CORPORATION; DAP PRODUCTS, INC.; EATON
ELECTRICAL, INC., formerly known as Cutler Hammer; FEDERAL-MOGUL
ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, as successor to Felt Products
Manufacturing Co.; FMC CORPORATION, individually and as Successor
to Northern Pump Company and Coffin; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FOSTER
WHEELER, LLC; GARDNER DENVER, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY;
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY; GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, formerly known as
Georgia-Pacific Corporation; GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY;
GOODRICH CORPORATION, formerly known as B.F. Goodrich Company;
GOULDS PUMPS, INCORPORATED; HB SMITH COMPANY INCORPORATED;
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., as success-in-interest to The
Bendix Corporation formerly known as Alliedsignal, Inc.; HOWDEN
BUFFALO, INC.; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC; ITT INDUSTRIAL, INC.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Foster Engineering,
Inc.; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES COMPANY;
JOHN CRANE, INC.; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; KEELER/DORR-OLIVER
BOILER COMPANY; KENTILE FLOORS, INC.; MACK TRUCKS, INC.; MAREMONT
CORPORATION; NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION; NAVISTAR
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; PECORA CORP.; REXNORD INDUSTRIES, LLC,
individually and as Successor in Interest to The Falk Corporation;
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., formerly known as Rockwell
International Corporation; SPIRAX SARCO, INC.; STANDARD AUTO
PARTS; NASH ENGINEERING COMPANY (THE); UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION;
VELAN VALVE CORP.; WARREN PUMPS, INC.; WEIL MCLAIN, a division of
The Marley Company; WHITE'S LUMBER; YARWAY CORPORATION;
CATERPILLAR, INC.; and ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATION, as successor in
interest to Bosch Braking Systems Corporation, Defendants, No.
5:12-CV-1145 (FJS/ATB)(N.D.N.Y.).  A copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/I5H5Eifrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. Texaco Inc., et al., Remanded
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kathleen Kay, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division,
remanded to the Fourteenth Judicial District Court of the State of
Louisiana the occupational asbestos exposure action captioned
ROGER GARRIE v. AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL, Civil Action No.
2:12-CV-1615 (W.D. La.), after determining that, contrary to
Defendant Texaco Inc.'s argument that the Plaintiffs have settled
with Defendant Cities Services, there was no binding settlement
between the Plaintiffs and Cities Services.

Judge Kay explained that if Texaco was correct in asserting that
the other defendants were fraudulently joined, the existence of a
binding settlement would have rendered the case removable.
However, Judge Kay found that counsel for the Plaintiffs and
Cities Services negotiated a tentative settlement but counsel for
both sides lacked final authority to create an enforceable
settlement.

A copy of Judge Kay's Decision dated January 23, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/Nd2mRtfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cessna Must Answer Questions in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHIRLEY SPYCHALLA Individually and as
Special Administrator of the Estate of LEONARD J SPYCHALLA,
Deceased v. AVCO CORPORATION, et. Al., MDL No. 875, Case No.
12-60004 (E.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
directed Cessna to answer certain questions posed by the
Plaintiffs after finding that, contrary to Cessna's argument, the
Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence of possible exposure
to asbestos-containing products.

A copy of Judge Strawbridge's Decision dated January 25, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/ogmrlHfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated Building in Century Finally Razed
---------------------------------------------------------------
NorthEscambia.com reports that nearly two years after the process
began, a dilapidated asbestos-containing building in Century,
Fla., is gone.

The building belonged to the Town of Century, which voted last
October deed the property to the Century Chamber of Commerce,
shifting the demolition responsibility to the chamber.

The town council had voted to demolish the building at 7601 Mayo
Street back in 2011, but asbestos concerns put those plans on
hold.  A study found asbestos in the older 6,400 square foot two
story portion of the building, as well as in the newer single
story portion of the structure, according to Century Mayor Freddie
McCall.

The town located an available  grant from the Regional Planning
Council to abate the asbestos and demolish the structure.  Because
the town was not eligible to receive the grant, the building was
deeded to the chamber of commerce, which was eligible for the
assistance.

Now that the building is demolished, the chamber will have up to
10 years to lure development to the property or it will revert
back to the town.  The town will approve or deny any lease or
purchase of the property.

Until the property is sold to another party, it will be used for
parking for the businesses and agencies in the Mayo and Church
street area.

The white, mostly brick building at 7601 Mayo Street (across from
the old hospital) once housed doctors' offices and even a pharmacy
and soda fountain years ago.  It has been abandoned for several
years and was in an obvious state of disrepair with roof and
structural problems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADFA Head Warns More Fibro-Releasing Disasters
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that residents returning
to properties damaged by floods and bushfires are being warned
against stirring up deadly asbestos fibers as they sift through
debris.

There are concerns asbestos fibers in homes damaged in the
Warrumbungle fire near Coonabarabran in northwest NSW have already
spread.

Initial assessments by Warrumbungle Shire at 36 properties found
31 sites contained asbestos, and the council's public works
committee now working on an asbestos management plan.

Barry Robson, president of the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of
Australia (ADFA), said residents returning to homes in areas
affected by floods and bushfires needed to be careful and take
precautions.

"People searching through the remains of their houses need to
protect themselves and their families," he told AAP on Thursday,
Jan. 31.

"It's obviously very hard for them, as they sift through their
houses looking for cherished possessions.

"They forget about the dangers of being exposed to asbestos
fibers."

Mr. Robson recommended people wear masks and disposable suits
before handling any material.

He said a high proportion of buildings constructed before 1987
contained asbestos products, either in houses, sheds or water
pipes.

While it was understandable many flood-affected families wanted to
assess the damage to their home and begin the clean up, safety
should come first, he said.

"When people start using high-pressure water blasters to clean
away the mud, they should be mindful of whether their house is
asbestos or fibro.

"They should not disturb the surface of the fibro, which can
release asbestos fibers."

Fibro can be dangerous even after sheeting has dried, Mr. Robson
said.

He predicted future natural disasters would continue to trigger
the risk of asbestos fiber release.

"It's not an easy fix -- the danger will stay in Australia for the
next 100 years."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maltese Dock Workers Slam Government's Entreaty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Ameen at Timesofmalta.com reports that 20 former dockyard
workers demanding compensation for asbestos-related illnesses
Tuesday, Jan. 29, rejected the Government's plea that it had done
everything possible to ensure their safety and argued that the
masks they were given were flimsy and inadequate.

"The protective clothing was nothing more than a sham protective
measure -- the masks provided were not capable of protecting the
men at all, particularly against asbestos," they pleaded in
submissions to the European Court of Human Rights.

Similarly, the ventilation in the work areas was "manifestly
insufficient."

Through their lawyer Juliette Galea, the men and the family of a
worker who died from asbestosis argued that the Government, which
owned Malta Shipyards from 1968 to 2003, had failed to fulfill its
"positive obligations" to protect their lives against the cancer-
causing fiber and tell them they were exposed to danger.

The safety equipment was so flimsy, often nothing more than
disposable gear, that it led the workers "to seriously doubt the
authorities' good faith."

The men resorted to the European court after three judges in the
Maltese Constitutional Court upheld previous rulings that their
request for damages should have been filed in a civil court, not a
constitutional one.

The workers said they were "heavily exposed" during their years at
Malta Shipyards and now suffered respiratory problems and areas of
calcification on the lungs, known as plaques.  One died from
mesothelioma in 2009.

A mineral fiber used for insulation and as a fire retardant,
especially in ships, asbestos is too small to be visible but can
accumulate in the lungs if inhaled.  Symptoms of mesothelioma, or
asbestosis -- irreversible lung scarring -- do not show up until
many years after exposure.

As part of the submissions, Dr. Galea also sent to the ECHR a mask
that had been handed out to the workers.

Dr. Galea argued that her clients' claim was "based on very
specific responsibilities, which the State had taken on when it
ratified the European Convention of Human Rights."

Aside from the laws enacted in 2006, the Government admitted that
no precautions were taken, information circulated or
implementation enforced, and it did not prove it had a clear
policy for asbestos removal.

The Government "actually refused to ratify" the Asbestos
Convention 1986, Dr. Galea pointed out, asking: "Does this fact
not speak loudly about the lack of sensitivity to the grave
dangers of asbestos?"

The Government could not justify the "tardy legislative" action
taken in 2006 -- especially since the hazardous effect of asbestos
had been tackled in various publications between 1912 and 1997.
These included medical journals such as The Lancet and The British
Journal of Industrial Medicine, which were routinely available to
medical students from the 1940s and not the 1970s, as the
Government claimed, Dr. Galea said.

"To this day, all this asbestos is still found in the Drydocks'
site in a disused tunnel, which has been walled.

"This means that, to this day, the Government has no effective
removal and disposal policy."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Ends Former Building Checker's Life
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Salisbury Journal reports a man has died from asbestos
exposure, more than five decades after working as a building
inspector.

John Tipping, 82, from Fordingbridge, worked in Hong Kong during
the 1950s and 1960s, overseeing buildings being constructed and
demolished.

Southampton Coroner's Court heard he developed mesothelioma last
year as a result of "significant exposure" to asbestos during his
working life.

He died at Fordingbridge Care Home on Nov. 19, 2012.

Coroner Keith Wiseman recorded a verdict of death due to
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Alert Up In Queensland Flood Aftermath
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Nielsen of The Sunshine Coast Daily (Aus) reports that for
people returning to their homes after the floods, Queensland
Health has advised residents to be aware of coming into contact
with asbestos.

Any building built before 1990 may contain asbestos material.

Household debris, such as kitchen bench tops, chests, wardrobes,
shelves and cabinets, are unlikely to contain asbestos and can be
disposed of without any concern with general rubbish but only
remove materials already broken and dislodged.

Contact Queensland Health on 13-432-584 or visit
http://health.qld.gov.au/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Cries Paterson Bosses Put Workers in Danger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Malinconico of The Alternative Press reports that the day
after health inspectors advised the city of Paterson, N.J., to
stop office renovations because of the discovery of hazardous
asbestos, municipal officials ordered public works department
employees back inside to clean up the area, union officials said
on Monday, Jan. 28.

Prior to the shutdown, the employees had been working amid the
asbestos for almost two months, even though they had no training
for handling the toxic substance, the union leaders said.

"They put people's lives in danger," said James Parker, president
of American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees,
Local 2272.  "We pulled them out and the director sent them back
in."  Parker said Public Works Director Christopher Coke
threatened the employees with insubordination charges if they did
not go back into the shut-down location on the second floor of 133
Ellison Street.

Another official with the union, Michael Jackson, said the city
failed to provide the workers with protective suits and gave them
substandard masks.  Jackson also said Coke used fans to air out
the work area where the asbestos tiles were being removed from the
floor before he went ahead conducted tests to check for the toxic
substance.

Three departments of state government are investigating the
situation.  Also, Passaic County Sheriff Richard Berdnik is
conducting his own inquiry because his office says it was never
told asbestos was involved when he supplied the city with inmates
from a community service work crew who were assigned to the office
renovation project.

When asked about the union leaders' assertions, Coke said, "As
much as I would like to comment, I've been advised by the legal
department not to comment because the investigation is still going
on."

Paterson Business Administrator Charles Thomas said Paterson's
legal department was researching the case.  Thomas said he had not
seen a formal grievance filed by the labor union and declined to
respond to comments made by union leaders until after he had read
the grievance.  Thomas said the city wanted to make sure that in
the future all renovation projects were done in compliance with
state law regarding asbestos.  He also said the city planned to
hire a firm with expertise in dealing with the hazardous materials
to complete the work at the offices.

Jackson, the head of the union's grievance committee, said seven
employees worked on the renovations at the site.  Workers
initially raised questions about the asbestos in October, Jackson
said.  Officials told them not to worry, that there was no danger,
he said.

Officials have said the type of asbestos at the site would only
become a problem if the tiles were broken apart and the asbestos
fibers became airborne.  Jackson said that's exactly what was
going on at 133 Ellison.

The workers were using scrapers to chip the tiles off the floor,
said Jackson.  He asserted that the proper way to remove such tile
is applying heat so that they slide off the floor.  "None of these
guys had ever been trained in how to deal with asbestos," said
Jackson.  "They should have never been there."

City health inspectors went to the site after the city's
affirmative action officer, whose office was in between the two
rooms where the work was going on, questioned whether the
situation posed any danger, said Jackson.

The health department ordered the renovations to stop on Dec. 12,
Jackson said.  But Coke directed the workers to return to the two
rooms on Dec. 13 to clean up the area and to install fans, Jackson
said.

Jackson said the director did not want the air tests done until
the asbestos could be blown from the area.

Coke has said that 15 air samples and five tests of dust taken
from the location all came back negative.  The tiles themselves,
Coke has said, showed low levels of asbestos.

The workers were doing renovations to create a new office for
Paterson's Community Development Director Lanisha Makle, according
to the union leaders.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Fibro Found in West Suffolk Garage Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Everitt at EADT24 reports that fire crews received several
calls reporting a garage fire in west Suffolk on Tuesday, Jan. 29.

Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service was alerted to the blaze in
Newnham Close, Mildenhall, just before 8:35 am.

Two crews were sent to the scene and found the garage was well
alight.

Firefighters used one hosereel to extinguish the flames and found
asbestos sheeting on the roof of the garage was involved in the
fire.

As a precaution the area has been cordoned off and the Environment
Agency are safely removing the asbestos from the site.

The fire is not believed to have been started deliberately.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japan's Tsunami Leaves Behind Alarming Toxic Wake
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Willacy of The Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports
that while there has been much anxiety about radioactive fallout
from the Fukushima disaster, there are warnings that Japan's
tsunami may have left another toxic legacy.  With hundreds of
thousands of buildings along the north-east coast damaged and
destroyed, it's estimated that the giant waves scattered tons and
tons of asbestos.  The cancer-causing fibrous material was used in
building materials such as sheeting, fireproofing and insulation.
Already more than a dozen tsunami sites have registered asbestos
levels above the World Health Organization's safety limit.

It rolled over the Sendai Plain, a black Leviathan of unstoppable
force.  Along a 600 kilometer stretch of Japan's north-east coast,
the tsunami took away lives and swallowed entire communities and
it turned homes and businesses into toxic piles of rubble.

Asbestos Researcher Naoki Toyama says "Many Japanese people don't
know about asbestos.  They don't realize that lots of it was used
in houses throughout the country.

All along Japan's north-east coast, asbestos sheeting, insulation
and fireproofing material was mixed up in towering piles of
tsunami debris.  It's carcinogenic dust and fibers eventually
dried out, with some of it carried away by the wind.

Toyama relates that for about a year after the disaster, many
people were working without taking precautions.  "Tens of
thousands of people were involved in the clean-up.  So I think
there's a chance some people will become ill from asbestos in the
decades to come," Toyama says.

This is not the first time Japan has had to confront the toxic
spectre of asbestos.  There was much criticism that during the
aftermath of the 1995 Kobe earthquake there were no measures taken
to protect workers with three deaths from asbestos-related illness
confirmed so far.

After the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, Japan's government began
checking asbestos levels in the disaster zone.  So far its teams
have checked more than 800 sites, from primary schools to debris
piles.

Hideaki Kuribayashi, Environment Ministry, states, "As a result of
that research, we have confirmed 14 cases in which asbestos levels
exceeded the World Health Organisation safety limit."

Japan relied on asbestos to rebuild from the ashes of World War
II.  But even after its dangers were known, a law banning asbestos
use was not brought into force until just six years ago, so
there's still plenty of asbestos sitting in piles of tsunami
debris.

The ABC was on the Sendai Plain just after the tsunami crashed
into these communities, the waves killing indiscriminately and
crushing almost every building in their path.  Nearly two years
on, the plain is empty, except for fields of weeds and the odd
mountain of debris.  In the piles of wreckage still being removed
are tons and tons of asbestos building materials.

Kuribayashi relates, "The Government is now carrying out measures
to prevent workers from being exposed, so we're teaching them to
wear equipment such as dust masks."

But veteran asbestos researcher Naoki Toyama believes more needs
to be done to prevent clean-up workers falling victim to the
cancer-causing substance.  "For example, Ishinomaki City is
planning to destroy 4,000 tsunami-damaged buildings in the coming
months.  They don't have enough local workers, so people who've
never worked in the construction industry are being drafted in and
they don't have any knowledge of asbestos."

While many fear the invisible fallout from Fukushima, it may be
another poisonous substance closer to home that could prove even
deadlier for some.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Workers File ARD Lawsuit v. Union Pacific
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey of The Southeast Texas Record reports that a group
of Union Pacific employees have filed a lawsuit claiming that they
have developed an asbestos-related lung disease (ARD) due to
decades' worth of exposure.

Henry J. Buckley, Gilbert A. Curtis, Ronald Morale, Jesse Sasser,
Jr., and Walter Williams, III, filed suit against Union Pacific
Railroad Co. on Jan. 21, in the Eastern District of Texas,
Beaumont Division.

The plaintiffs were employed as track laborers by Union Pacific
from various times starting from 1969 to approximately 2012.  The
men claim that during their employment they were exposed to
asbestos and asbestos-containing materials and have been diagnosed
with an asbestos-related lung disease.

The defendant is accused of negligence for:

   -- Using asbestos-containing materials for decades after Union
Pacific became aware of the harmful and/or hazardous nature of
these materials;

   -- Failing to inspect and remove its cars and equipment for the
presence of asbestos;

   -- Failing to warn the plaintiffs regarding the presence of
asbestos or of the synergistic effect between smoking and asbestos
exposure;

   -- Failing to properly train the plaintiffs, failing to provide
proper respirators or to conduct air monitoring to determine the
levels of asbestos;

   -- Failing to provide comprehensive medical examinations; and

   -- Failing to medically monitor plaintiffs for asbestos-related
conditions.

The lawsuit is seeking an award of damages for medical expenses,
mental anguish, physical pain and suffering, fear of cancer,
physical impairment, interest and court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by J. Kirkland Sammons of Sammons &
Berry P.C. in Houston.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Ron Clark is assigned to the case.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00022.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Airborne Fibro Confirmed During Bike Shop Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Moore of Our Colorado News reports that cleanup in the wake
of the fire at Castle Rock Bike & Ski came to a halt after crews
discovered asbestos in the fire's rubble.

A demolition inspector who discovered the asbestos spill at the
building at 725 Wilcox Street in downtown Castle Rock reported it
to the state health department, said Christopher Dan,
communications liaison for the department's air pollution control
division.

"A lot of the details are still being determined," he said.  "We
haven't received any formal notification."

Notification comes to the health department when a permit for
removal of asbestos is delivered to the department, Dan said.  At
press time, no permit application had arrived, he said.

The certified building inspector verified the hazardous spill in
the unit at the bike shop and adjacent units in the building, Dan
said.

The building was built in 1976, according to public records, and
was damaged in a Jan. 4 fire.  At press time, the origin of the
asbestos and extent of the spill remain under investigation, Dan
said.  The department confirmed asbestos was disturbed and
released during the fire, he said.

"When you have an event like a fire, depending on the age of
building, it can be on walls, ceilings, floor tile or behind walls
as insulation and piping," Dan said.  "In other units that
received cross-contamination, asbestos needs to be removed.  It's
not uncommon in circumstances like this."

The state health department is working on asbestos spills nearly
every day of the year in Colorado, Dan said.

Typical exposure to the public is through an airborne release and,
once the building is properly secured, the risk to the public is
"none," Dan said.  Tape and signs on the building on Jan. 22
warned of the presence of asbestos and prohibited access to the
affected units.

The town and fire department were not aware of the spill until the
signs were brought to their attention.

The town received a demolition permit request from ServPro Jan. 9
and, by Jan. 21, the application was withdrawn, said Karen
McGrath, town spokeswoman.

The company did not provide an explanation of the reason for
withdrawal of the application, McGrath said.

Fire Chief Art Morales did not know if firefighters were exposed
to asbestos during the initial response to the burning building,
he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Sealing Opposes Summary Judgment Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek of Legal Newsline reports that a Houston firm
alleged to have made inconsistent claims about the origin of a
client's mesothelioma is now asking a U.S. bankruptcy court to
enter a summary judgment in its favor.

However, the company being sued over a rare type of asbestos --
Garlock Sealing Technologies -- is opposing the motion.

Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas LLP sued Garlock in 2008 in a Texas
state court, alleging that client John Phillips' illness was
caused by a rare type of asbestos called crocidolite that came
solely from Garlock's products.

Garlock contends it was induced to enter into a far larger
settlement than it would have paid.  In Texas, juries can allocate
a percentage of liability to responsible third parties.

Phillips worked at Triplex, a company that sold parts that
contained asbestos, from 1966-68, but no records still exist
detailing the company's inventory then.

The company claims the firm could have asserted Johns-Manville's
asbestos-containing gaskets were to blame, but Johns-Manville had
already filed for bankruptcy.

More than 90 companies have declared bankruptcy from asbestos
litigation, and more than 60 bankruptcy trusts have been
established to pay out claims.

In a Dec. 5 filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of North Carolina Charlotte Division, the defendants --
Williams Kherkher and attorneys Troy D. Chandler, Charles D.
Finley and Samantha Flores -- moved the court to enter a summary
judgment in their favor on the grounds that there is "no genuine
dispute as to any fact."

"Specifically, Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts in support of
their contention that Defendants made any misrepresentation of
fact as required to prove their claims of fraud and negligent
misrepresentation, nor can they produce evidence of any such
misrepresentations, so those claims must be dismissed," the
defendants wrote in their three-page motion.

"Further, Plaintiffs' conspiracy claim is premised on the
existence of fraud, and because Plaintiffs can produce no evidence
to support the fraud claim, the conspiracy claim must be dismissed
as well."

Garlock, in a Jan. 10 response, said the defendants' motion is
"premised on the principle that in the context of litigation,
lawyers are permitted to do whatever they want."

"Their brief reads like an exercise in proof of that point, as it
is a misstatement of Texas law and further offers a selective and
tilted 'record' on which it contends this Court should dismiss
claims that Garlock has asserted with every detail possible in a
concealment case," the company wrote in its 19-page opposition.

Garlock contends the bankruptcy court should deny the motion and
allow it to conduct discovery.

In October, Judge George Hodges ruled that a committee
representing those with asbestos claims against Garlock will be
allowed to intervene in the company's fraud case against Williams
Kherker.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Lawyer to Appeal $17MM Verdict Reversal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Hsieh at Lawyers.com reports that an appeals court has
thrown out a $17.5 million jury verdict against Exxon won by a
worker nearly two years ago.

Rubert "Bert" Minton was exposed to asbestos when he worked on 17
Exxon oil tankers as a supervisor for his employer, a shipbuilding
company in Newport News, Va., for over a decade.  He developed
mesothelioma, a cancer caused by asbestos exposure that attacks
the lung's linings.

Minton and his wife, Linda, sued Exxon, arguing it knew about the
dangers of asbestos because it took steps to protect its oil
refinery workers as early as 1937, but it didn't do the same for
those who worked on its ships.

Exxon wanted to pin the blame on Minton's employer, Newport News
Shipbuilding, for not warning Minton about the risks of asbestos,
but the judge who oversaw the trial didn't allow Exxon to do so.
Minton was not allowed to sue his employer because it has immunity
under workers' compensation laws.

Now, the state supreme court has thrown out the multimillion
dollar award saying, that Exxon should have been allowed to show
the jury evidence that the shipbuilder knew about the dangers of
asbestos.

The Mintons' attorney, Robert Hatten -- RRHatten@pwhd.com -- of
the law firm Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein, said what the
shipyard knew or didn't know is "totally irrelevant" to whether
Exxon is liable.  He said he is ready to take the case all the way
to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If he loses, he will have to try the case again.  This time
around, Bert Minton will not be there.  He died 17 months after
the first trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Heights School Reopens After 'False Alarm'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Casie Mason at Tristatehomepage.com reports that it's back to
school for kids at a Henderson elementary school after an asbestos
scare canceled class.  South Heights Elementary students were to
return to classes Monday, Jan. 28.  On Friday, Jan. 25, South
Heights Elementary faculty and students had a bit of a scare.
Students were released immediately after maintenance employees
thought they found asbestos while fixing a roof leak.  Tests are
complete and the results find the school to be asbestos free.
Parents say they couldn't be happier.

South Heights Elementary School almost had an unwelcome guest
Friday afternoon, asbestos.  It ended up being a false alarm, but
families are thankful their children are safe.  "One of the
mothers called me and told me, and I was in shock when they called
me and told me that."  Theresa Givens, a grandmother to some
students that attend South Heights, says Friday was a scary day.
"I'm the grandmother to the students there, about six of them.  I
was here when my daughter called me that night and told me that
they wouldn't' be going to school Friday because of the asbestos,"
says Givens.

She says asbestos is not something you commonly hear about and
immediately wondered what harm it could cause to her
grandchildren.  "I was trying to find out what kind of sicknesses
it might cause to them and stuff."  Givens has lived near South
Heights her whole life.  She is glad to hear the results are
negative for her grandchildren's safety, and for another reason as
well.  "It's great.  Yeah, it's nice because I didn't want the
school to be ruined or anything you know.  I went there when I was
a kid all the way to sixth grade, so I loved it then.  Yes, it
holds a special place in my heart," says Givens.

The asbestos inspection was made by the Department of
Environmental Protection and P.A.C.E. Field Services on Friday,
Jan. 28.  A one call system has been made by the school to inform
parents their students are safe to return to school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Won't Delay Portland Clubhouse Razing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Harrington at Keepmecurrent.com reports that an environmental
assessment has turned up traces of asbestos that will need to be
removed before South Portland's Wilkinson Park clubhouse can be
torn down.

Parks and Recreation Director Rick Towle said Friday, Jan. 26, the
cleanup -- expected to cost between $5,000 and $10,000 ? should
not delay demolition of the building, located on New York Avenue,
past the initial March 1 timeframe given at a Jan. 16 neighborhood
meeting called to debate the park's future.

A dozen residents braved a winter storm to attend that gathering
at the South Portland Community Center.  All endorsed Towle's view
of the 62-year-old clubhouse, which steadily deteriorated from
lack of maintenance until closed for good last year.

"I'd bulldoze it," said Towle.

"We need to get this building out of here," said City Manager Jim
Gailey.  "Then we can work with a blank slate to get some sort of
amenity down there."

What that amenity should be remains an open question.  A second
neighborhood meeting will be called in early March, once the
clubhouse is gone, to decide what, if anything, should go up in
its place.

"Pretty much everyone has agreed what should be done with the
building," said Towle,  "but the courtesy of a final decision
really needs to go to the council."

At a workshop meeting scheduled Monday, Jan. 28, Towle is to
report to the council on the asbestos, which Westbrook-based
Abatement Professionals found in some tiles buried beneath the
floor during its $700 site review.

"It appears over the years the folks who ran the building before
the city took it over built each new floor on top of the old one,
probably using whatever leftover materials were donated by some
nearby contractor," said Towle.  "So, you've got layers of
linoleum on top of linoleum on top of tile on top of tile, some of
which have traces of asbestos, the same as you often find in any
tile work from buildings of that era."

"Interestingly," said Towle, "some of these layers don't always
cover the entire floor."

That patchwork maintenance, Towle said, speaks to the well-meaning
if sometimes under-funded way the community cared for the
building, even in its heyday.

In May 1950, John J. Wilkinson gave 9.47 acres at the end of New
York Avenue to the Sunset Park Men's Club, using land left over
from one of the first major, mid-century subdivisions in South
Portland.  The club quickly built a 2,132-square-foot clubhouse
there that summer.  The park also included ball fields and a
playground.  Wilkinson's only stipulation was that the property
had to be used continually for public recreation.  Otherwise
ownership would revert back to him or his heirs.

But within a generation, the men's club -- having since changed
its name to the Sunset Park Community Club -- was in trouble.
Records at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds show six
separate tax liens were placed on the property after 1988.
Finally, in March 1994, the club worked with Wilkinson to sign the
property over the city.  The club disbanded soon after.

Reportedly, little money was put into the building even after the
city took it on.  In time, it began to rot from below, while
spouting patches of moss out of the shingles on top.  Perhaps due
to what Towle charitably called a "lack of luster on the building"
official use fell from virtually every weekend for the better part
of three decades to just 16 function rentals in its final full
year of use.

According to Towle, fixing what's physically wrong with the
building, updating its mechanical systems and bringing it up to
code for fire, health and handicapped accessibility, would cost
$140,000 -- more than twice the $68,000 now set aside in a
maintenance fund.

"I would say 100 percent that tearing it down would be the right
thing to do," said John M. Wilkinson, son of the park founder.  "I
just don't want too much time to go by without a friendly
agreement by everybody as to what we are going to put there
instead."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Appeals to Husband's Former Peers for Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Siobhan Ryan of The Argus (UK) reports that the widow of a father-
of-two who died of an asbestos-related cancer is appealing to his
former colleagues for help.

Rickman Saunders, from Shoreham, contracted mesothelioma after
being exposed to asbestos dust.

Mr. Saunders, of Swiss Gardens, who died in February 2009 aged 84,
had begun legal action for compensation before his death.

His wife of 18 years, Pamela Saunders, and one of his grand
daughters, Michele Silsby, are continuing the action.

They are asking for Mr. Saunders's former colleagues to get in
touch with any information that could help.

Lawyers at Irwin Mitchell want to hear from Mr. Saunders's former
colleagues when he worked at Beves & Sons timber importers, which
was based in Shoreham.

He worked there from 1957 to 1960 and was involved in a project
putting up roofing and constructing a timber hangar at Gatwick.

Irwin Mitchell asbestos specialist Joanne Jefferies --
joanne.jeffries@irwinmitchell.com -- said: "Rickman's family have
been left devastated by his death and desperately want answers so
they can begin to come to terms with their loss.

"We need Rickman's former colleagues to get in touch to help with
information.

"It can take several decades for mesothelioma to develop and it
can be very aggressive, which was unfortunately the case with
Rex."

Mrs. Saunders said:  "Rex and I met in later life after we were
both married previously.

"We were very happy together and loved to go dancing and walking.
I had hoped we had many more happy years together but that was not
to be.

"When we were told his diagnosis we just couldn't believe it.

"It seemed so unfair that he was given a death sentence through
something he was exposed to through no fault of his own over 50
years ago.

"By the end he could barely walk to the local shop, never mind go
dancing.  It was very hard to see him suffer.

"I just hope his former colleagues get in touch.

"Any information, no matter how small, could give us the answers
and justice we need to be able to come to terms with what's
happened."

Anyone able to help should call Ms. Jefferies on 0207 421 3936 or
e-mail joanne.jeffries@irwinmitchell.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: M&S in Violation of Fibro Laws Since 1998
----------------------------------------------------------
BBC News England reports that Marks & Spencer was warned customers
and staff may have been put at risk from asbestos contamination
more than 10 years before receiving a GBP1 million fine.

A contractor told the BBC he warned in 1998 that refurbishment
work at its London Marble Arch store was breaching asbestos
removal guidelines.

In 2011 the company was fined GBP1 million over work at its
Reading store.

The company said it carried out a full investigation into the
Marble Arch work and no-one was put at risk.

William Wallace, who was working as a health and safety manager,
wrote his letter to the then chairman of the company, Sir Richard
Greenbury, after what he says were a series of breaches at the
London store, recorded in the logs left between shifts.

'Safety not guaranteed'

One report from April 1998 described how cladding had been
stripped with a sledgehammer and asbestos was "everywhere."

The nightshift workers recorded that it was the "third occasion in
a week" they had had to clean up after a "dangerous occurrence."

Later one contractor described how he should "legally report" more
instances of broken asbestos being left lying around.

Mr. . Wallace told the BBC's Inside Out program:  "There were
minefields, asbestos minefields for the want of a better
expression.

"You could not have guaranteed the safety of anybody, the workers,
the staff, the customers: you could not have given a 100%
guarantee that those people were safe."

Mr. . Wallace said he set out his concerns in a letter to Sir
Richard and three days later met senior managers and showed them
copies of the log.  He was promised there would be a full
investigation.

Steve Rowe, a Marks & Spencer board member, said:  "On the face of
it these allegations sound worrying, but our team at the time 15
years ago thoroughly investigated them on the day.

"They thoroughly investigated them some three months afterwards
and again I've spoken to those individuals and could find no case
whatsoever to say any member of staff or any member of the public
was put at risk."

But in 2006 Mr. . Wallace said he was again concerned by what he
saw -- this time at the Reading store as it was being refurbished.

The Health and Safety Executive later took the company to court.

One witness who gave evidence has spoken to the BBC.  He asked not
to be identified for fear of being blacklisted by the building
0industry.

The witness -- a construction worker -- told the court he was
overruled by Marks & Spencer managers after he ordered that fans
in the ceiling void should be turned off to avoid circulating dust
which might contain asbestos.

The witness told the court he returned to work to find the fans
had been turned on again, on the instruction of the Marks &
Spencer managers, to prevent food refrigerators overheating.

On another occasion he described how he saw dust from the ceiling
falling on a shop assistant stacking sandwiches.  Construction
workers warned her to move.

He said:  "The night manager responsible for the refilling of the
shelves came and went absolutely ballistic at us, and told us that
we don't tell his staff where to go and he sent her back to go and
fill the sandwich (shelves) which at that point would be covered
in asbestos dust."

Imposing the GBP1 million fine plus costs, Judge Christopher
Harvey Clark said there had been a "systemic" failure by Marks &
Spencer management and its response to asbestos safety complaints
was to "turn a blind eye" to what was happening because the
asbestos work was "already costing the company too much."

'No blind eye'

The judge said that contractors, staff and shoppers "have a right
to be anxious as to whether they have breathed asbestos fiber and
what effect that might have on their well-being and future."

Marks & Spencer continues to describe the judge's comments as
"disappointing."

Mr. . Rowe told the BBC:  "Marks & Spencer never, ever puts profit
before safety.

"There wasn't a blind eye.  Our investigations were full and
thorough.

"We have a very good policy which the judge described as sensible
and practical.

"Implementation of the policy wasn't good at Reading.  We are very
sorry about that.  We regret it.  So we are disappointed by the
judge's comments."

Stores other than Marks & Spencer have also been fined for
asbestos breaches, including House of Fraser in 1997 by Birmingham
magistrates, Blacks in London for an incident in 2005, the Co-op,
Manchester in 2007, Top Shop, Liverpool in 2008 and John Lewis,
Edinburgh, also in 2008.

Inside Out has heard the stories of Marks & Spencer staff and some
contractors who say they came into contact with asbestos when they
either worked in or for stores in the past and who contracted
asbestos-related illnesses.

Peter Jackson, Marks & Spencer warehouseman, died in 2008 after
contracting mesothelioma.  Mr. Jackson worked at the Ashton under
Lyne store for three decades from the 1960s.

     -- Freda Hughes -- a shop assistant from Folkestone who died
in 2007 after contracting mesothelioma.  She worked for Marks &
Spencer between 1971 and 1986

     -- Pietter Pipping, from Milton Keynes, Marks & Spencer
warehouse manager for three decades from the 1960s, He contracted
mesothelioma.  He died in 2012 following a heart attack.

     -- Richard Shepherdson -- a contractor who worked in stores
across the north in the 1960s including Newcastle, Middlesbrough
and Carlisle.  He died in 2010 as a result of mesothelioma.

     -- James McCann -- a contractor who worked in stores across
the North West in the 1960s and 70s.  He has a condition known as
pleural plaques -- indicating exposure to asbestos .

Marks & Spencer paid compensation to Peter Jackson and Freda
Hughes.  Pietter Pipping died before he could submit his claim and
Marks & Spencer said it is not responsible for his exposure.

The contractors have been compensated by their companies.

Marks & Spencer said: "In cases of the contractors it's tragic
that anyone has developed an asbestos-related illness.  They are
truly terrible illnesses.

"Those contractors settled their claims not with us (but) with the
government and their employer and therefore it's not right for me
to say that was based on Marks & Spencer.

"They worked for a long time in the industry and many builders in
the 60s, 70s and 80s were exposed to asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: P McGuinness Firm, Salford Council Face Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Crook of The Manchester Evening News (UK) reports that a
mum-of-three who is dying from lung cancer says it was caused by
being exposed to asbestos in the playground at school.

When Penny Garner, 45, started suffering chest pains her doctor
told her she had pulled a muscle.  When the problems continued she
was diagnosed with pneumonia.

But 18 months later after a series of tests she was diagnosed with
cancer -- and medics asked her when she had worked with asbestos.

She recalls spending playtimes as a pupil at Seedley primary
school in Salford during the 1970s watching builders demolish the
historic baths -- which were believed to have contained asbestos -
- next door.

Now, after two years of treatment, she has been told her illness
is terminal and it is not known how long she will live.

She is suing Salford council and Ardwick-based building firm
P McGuinness and Co, who demolished the baths and who she believes
exposed her to deadly fibers.  The firm strongly denies her
claims.

Penny, of Peel Green, Eccles, said: "It is terrifying that I could
catch a terminal disease from playing in the yard at school and
now all my friends from that time are worried too.  My mother is
terrified for my brother who is a couple of years older than me."

She added: "My condition is stable at the moment but I am living
in limbo.  It is like a terrible waiting game between the tests I
have to have every two months.

"At first I could not believe it.  I don't think the doctors did
either because it took ages to diagnose me and they don't often
see it in someone of my age.

"I try to get up and to follow my normal routine for the children.
I have to for their sake but it is very difficult.  It is
heartbreaking."  The former seamstress gave up her job when her
daughter Becky, now 20, was born with a chromosomal disorder which
means she will never live independently.

Penny's solicitor Neil Fisher, from industrial diseases experts
John Pickering and Partners, is fighting to secure funding for
Becky's future and for Penny's other two children, James, 15, and
Lucy, 12.

He says cases among younger people who have never worked in heavy
industry are still rare but are on the increase.

He said: "This case is unusual because Penny is so young and has
not worked with asbestos, but we are seeing more cases like this
over the last few years."

Mr. Fisher quizzed Penny about the places where she had worked.
He then looked back into her time at school and it was her brother
who initially remembered the baths being demolished in 1978, after
asbestos was discovered in the building.

When Penny was diagnosed with cancer, hospital staff told her
about the Asbestos support group and they have helped her sue for
compensation.  The civil case is due to be heard in the High Court
later this month.

P McGuinness and Co, whose website says they are specialists in
asbestos removal, said they strongly refute the claims and will be
defending the case robustly in court.

Salford council declined to comment while legal proceedings are
active.

Mr. Fisher is hoping people who remember the demolition of Seedley
baths will come forward as they may be able to help in Penny's
case.  He is asking people to contact him on 0161-8341251.

Seedley primary school closed in 2010 and was pulled down.  The
site is now a wasteland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: LCAVC Now Reaches Out to All US Navy Veterans
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center (LCAVC) wants to hear from
any US Navy Veteran, or their family members, if the individual
has been diagnosed with any type of lung cancer, and if the US
Navy Veteran was also exposed to asbestos on their ship, or in a
US Navy facility.  The group says, "What most lung cancer victims,
or their family members do not realize is people who were exposed
to asbestos in their workplace have a five times greater chance of
getting lung cancer, than individuals who had no exposure to
asbestos.  We are aggressively attempting to get the word out
about this to lung cancer victims, and their family members,
because we are certain they are not aware there could be
significant financial compensation for any type of lung cancer
victim, who also had heavy exposure to asbestos."  If a victim of
any type of lung cancer had long term exposure to asbestos in
their workplace the Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center will
direct the victim, or family members to a very capable law firm,
that has an established record of achieving superior results for
their clients.  For more information lung cancer victims, or their
family members are urged to call the Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims
Center at 866-714-6466.

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "When it comes to US
Navy Veterans we need them to think back three, or four decades.
The US Navy base, or installation might have been in California,
New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, Virginia, Michigan, Georgia,
Florida.  Or the US Navy Veteran may now live in Ohio, West
Virginia, Minnesota, Utah, Nevada, Kentucky, Maryland, or any
other state.  The key for us is any type of diagnosed lung cancer
combined with asbestos exposure, and possibly significant
financial compensation.  If you have a loved one who has been
diagnosed with lung cancer, especially if they are a non smoker,
please ask them if they were exposed to asbestos in their
workplace, and have them call us at 866-714-6466, if the answer is
yes."

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "Aside from the US
Navy, other high risk workplaces for asbestos exposure include
shipyards, power plants, manufacturing factories, chemical plants,
oil refineries, mines, smelters, aerospace manufacturing
facilities, demolition construction work sites, railroads,
automotive manufacturing facilities, or auto brake shops.  With
lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure the lung cancer may not
show up until decades after the exposure.  Many victims never
smoked, and never connected the dots between the asbestos
exposure, and their lung cancer. As long as the victim, or their
family members can prove the exposure to asbestos, we will do
everything possible to help them get what might be significant
financial compensation."  For more information please call the
Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center anytime at 866-714-6466 or at

          http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diss to Spend GBP12,000 on Youth Centre Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Diss Express (UK) reports that Diss town councillors have
voted to use up to GBP12,000 of unallocated council money to allow
improvement work at Diss Youth and Community Centre to move
forward following the discovery of asbestos.

The youth centre was closed last Tuesday, Jan. 29, after workmen
carrying out improvements found asbestos in the window panels on
the top floor of the centre.

The money will pay for the decontamination of the upstairs rooms,
which remain sealed off, and the removal and replacement of the
panels which the asbestos was found in.

Town clerk Deborah Sarson estimated the work could cost the full
GBP12,000 and councillors agreed to use the money as a one off
resolution, although the council hopes to claim some of the money
back from third parties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Tops Shawano County Courthouse Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Pulaski of The Shawano Leader reports that removing asbestos
from the courthouse basement is a top priority before deciding how
to use the vacant space, the Shawano County Public Property
Committee agreed Friday, Feb. 1.

County committees for months have discussed what should be done
with basement space that used to house the Health Department,
which moved to the first floor to better accommodate its users,
especially disabled individuals and mothers with young children in
tow.

No determination has been made about which department will get the
vacant space when it is ready.

Maintenance Director Steve Dreher pointed out to the Public
Property Committee that asbestos would be exposed the moment walls
in the Health Department were demolished.

"We're looking, at a minimum, of that area being abated," Dreher
said.  "As soon as we start pulling (carpet), breaking tiles and
popping tiles, that's where the possibility exists for asbestos to
become friable (airborne)."

Dreher noted there are many areas in the courthouse where
departments have wanted carpeting replaced, but the associated
cost of asbestos abatement becomes cost prohibitive.

Dreher said there is no money in this year's budget for asbestos
abatement, which he estimated could cost $16,000 or more, which
includes removing carpeting, tiles and other materials.

"My recommendation would be to gut it, abate it.  Build it once;
build it right," he said.  "Let's not deal with it again."

Supervisor Jerry Erdmann asked whether the work could be done in-
house to reduce costs, but Dreher pointed out the county has no
one certified for asbestos abatement.

Erdmann plans to take the issue of funding to the Finance
Committee on Feb. 18.

"If it's abated, then we can decide what we can do because then we
can rip everything out (without health risk)," Erdmann said.

Once the asbestos is gone, then the county will be in a better
position to decide what to do with the space, he noted.

Dreher showed the committee possible floor plans if the Technology
Services Department moved into the basement space and the Planning
Department expanded into the space where Technology Services is
now.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Locals to Decide on Fibro Disposal Facility Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Newtownabbey Times (UK) reports that Mallusk residents are
said to be "unhappy" with proposals to build an asbestos disposal
plant at the Cottonmount landfill site, but the village's
residents' association has said it is encouraged with the
communication it has had with the owner of the site.

Biffa Waste Services, which operates the landfill, has applied to
vary its waste license and build a Stable Non-Reactive (SNR) cell
for receipt and disposal of asbestos waste within the site.

It's thought the facility will be the first of its kind in
Northern Ireland and will significantly reduce the costs of
disposing of asbestos.

In discussions with residents, Biffa has stressed the safety
aspect of the disposal process, however many residents are said to
be unhappy with the application.

Richard Gregory, chair of Mallusk Community Action Group said:
"Obviously we would prefer that there was no asbestos disposal on
the site.

"But we would also prefer there was no landfill site to begin
with, but that is just not realistic.

"I know many residents are not happy with this.

"As soon as you mention asbestos people do have an immediate
reaction and think the worst.

"We would be hopeful there will be a public meeting and the entire
village can have their say and listen to what Biffa is planning."

Richard along with another member of the group's committee
recently travelled to Redhill in Surrey, England to see how an
asbestos disposal plant works.

He went on: "We are no experts, but the process certainly seemed
to be safe and secure.

"Biffa over the years has improved its relationship with Mallusk
residents, there is a lot more communication and information.

"The site manager at the landfill has attended our AGM and has
been very helpful and informative.

"The company produce a leaflet on what's happening locally to keep
us informed.

"It's something they don't have to do and we would appreciate a
similar relationship with other businesses in the area.

"No one wants this on their doorstep, but at least Biffa is
willing to be open and discuss the matter with us and address the
concerns we have."

Councillor Mark Cosgrove has been working with residents on the
matter.

He said: "Clearly nothing can proceed unless the safety of the
wider Mallusk community can be 100 percent guaranteed.

"Considering the daily contamination of our historic village and
the dreadful smells which blights residents' lives, it is vitally
important that the process outlined is one that is open and
transparent and that involves maximum consultation.

"I was also delighted to hear at first hand the assurances given
by Biffa's Mallusk site manager that if after having considered
everything in a rational fashion the community still did not want
the activity to proceed that it wouldn't.

"I would urge all residents to engage with us in the consultation
process and to do so with an open mind.

"If there is any grey areas about community safety I will be at
the forefront of the campaign to stop it.  Until then I am
prepared to listen."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Post-Trial Arguments Due in Bondex Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi of Legal Newsline reports that weeks after an
estimation hearing took place before a federal judge in Pittsburgh
concerning the future liabilities of asbestos claimants in a
bankruptcy trust case, the parties are looking at putting forth
post-trial arguments.

Specialty Products Holding Corp., Bondex International and RPM
International appeared before U.S. District Judge Judith
Fitzgerald in her courtroom in the Western District of
Pennsylvania from Jan. 7 to 11 for a hearing designed to close the
discrepancy between what the debtors figure they will owe to
future asbestos injury claimants and what those representing the
claimants contend the now-insolvent companies will owe in damages.

Like any former asbestos defendant who files for Chapter 11
bankruptcy, the debtors in this case, who specialized in the
manufacture of chrysotile asbestos-containing joint compound
designed for do-it-yourself home use, have created a trust that
will pay money to those who claim they have developed asbestos
related diseases such as mesothelioma, a cancer that affects the
lining of the lungs.

The debtors, who claim that chrysotile asbestos is much less
likely to cause mesothelioma than other forms of asbestos,
estimate that future asbestos liabilities to be somewhere in the
range of $125 million to $700 million while the Official Committee
of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the Future Claimants'
Representative, Eric D. Green, contend that the amount is closer
to $1 billion.

Both sides requested the weeklong estimation hearing before
Fitzgerald -- the soon-to-be-retired federal jurist who splits her
time between Delaware and Pittsburgh -- in order to try and close
the gap between their differing estimations, which they arrived at
with the help of financial consulting experts.

During the trial, both sides presented various witnesses to
bolster their respective estimations, with each side given 17-and-
a-half hours by which to present their arguments.

Since the conclusion of the weeklong proceeding, the judge has
ordered the parties to submit their post-trial briefs with the
court no later than Feb. 6.

Reply briefs are due by Feb. 25 and closing arguments have been
set for March 4.

The record shows that Fitzgerald also granted a motion by the
claimants' attorneys that sought a protective order directing
certain exhibits in the case to remain under seal and providing
partially redacted versions of sealed exhibits for filing on the
public record.

And on Jan. 23, Fitzgerald granted a debtors' motion seeking a
court order authorizing the filing of a redacted version of the
debtors' motion in limine for an order precluding so-called "each
and every exposure" expert opinion testimony as to the issue of
defendant causation.

That motion had been filed on Jan. 22.

As for the potential outcome of the case, it's anyone's guess at
this point.

Steven Todd Brown, an associate professor and the director of the
Centre for the Study of Business Transactions at SUNY Buffalo Law
School at The State University of New York, said in an interview
that judges in these types of cases generally come in on the
higher end of the estimates.

"The judge ultimately concludes that they're going to go with such
and such a figure [and] we'll probably see more litigation," Brown
said in a phone interview.

Brown was speaking in general terms, and not specifically about
the Bondex case.

Brown did stress that ultimately, the parties in asbestos
bankruptcy cases such as these tend to reach an agreed upon dollar
figure.

"These estimation hearings are designed to do what they can't do
in the bankruptcy otherwise," Brown said.

Brown also said that Fitzgerald, who has her sights set on
retirement, has overseen more asbestos bankruptcy cases than
perhaps any other judge.

"Everybody is pretty familiar with her," he said.  "She has some
very set ideas about what is acceptable and what isn't.  She's
seen, I think, the best and the worst from everybody."

Natalie Ramsey -- nramsey@mmwr.com -- an attorney from Montgomery,
McCracken, Walker & Rhoads who is representing the claimants'
committee, said her impression thus far has been that both the
creditors and the debtors were pleased with the respective cases
they put on in front of Fitzgerald.

However, there were some differences.

"We didn't have quite the same uphill battle that the debtors had
because the case we were putting on, the judge has heard that same
approach in other earlier cases," Ramsey said by phone.

Fitzgerald had already had a pretty good understanding of the
methodology used by the claimants, Ramsey said.

Ramsey said typically in asbestos bankruptcy cases, the point of
the estimation proceeding is to make findings that are necessary
in connection with the reorganization plan.

This case, though, is slightly different.

"We've got two plans that are going nowhere and they're very, very
different with what they provide," Ramsey said.  "We're so very
far apart in our assessment of what the debtors owe their asbestos
creditors that we really can't reach an agreement."

The court's goal in this case, she said, is to help the parties
better assess their relative positions.

"The court's goal is to help, have an objective person say, 'OK,
you guys are both advocates, this is what I think is the right
range for the asbestos liabilities,'" Ramsey said.

The outcome of the case won't determine anyone's rights, Ramsey
said, but it will most likely propel the case in one direction or
another.

"Ultimately it's to guide the negotiations or to tell the parties
that there's not going to be a consensus," Ramsey said.

Brown, the law professor from New York, said it's common for
asbestos bankruptcy cases such as these to "linger for quite a
while."

As for Judge Fitzgerald, Brown said he imagines the jurist has
some legitimate concerns about letting a case like this just
"explode into something."

"She's heard all of this before," Brown said of Fitzgerald's
extreme familiarity with this type of case.  "She's familiar with
what all these people do, with the show they put on to make their
case."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Closes Bexhill's Public Library
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bexhill Observer reports that Bexhill's public library is to
be closed for 10 days while dangerous asbestos is removed from the
building.

The premises, at the junction of Western Road and Sackville Road,
had been closed earlier this month while contractors were busy
refurbishing the first floor.

But during the work, they discovered asbestos within the walls and
so extra time must now be spent to safely remove it.

It means the library, run by East Sussex County Council, is to
close from Monday, Feb. 4 until Thursday, Feb. 14.

It will then partially re-open on Friday, Feb. 15, offering as
full a service as possible from the ground floor only.

Once used for its fire-resistant and insulating properties,
asbestos has since been identified as potentially harmful, its
fibers having been linked to various types of lung disease,
including cancer.

An ESCC spokesman stressed: "There was no hazard at the library
and once the work is completed it will be totally safe for people
to use.

"In the meantime, other libraries can be used, including Battle,
Eastbourne, Hastings and Pevensey Bay.  People can also call 0845-
60-80-195 for renewals or 0345-60-80-196 for enquiries.  Many
services can also be accessed at www.eastsussex.gov.uk/libraries."

The spokesman added: "We're really sorry if this causes any
inconvenience and thank people for their co-operation."

Bexhill Library opened at its present location, formerly the
building occupied by St Barnabas girls and infants school, in
1951.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Safe" Levels of Fibro Suspends Fort George Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Derry Journal reports that regeneration work was halted at the
former Fort George army base following the discovery of traces of
asbestos, the 'Journal' has learned.

Work at the site which is being transformed into a temporary car
park for the City of Culture year and prepared for the
construction of a North West Regional Science Park was stopped on
Friday, Jan. 25.

Derry's Urban Regeneration Company Ilex has confirmed that "traces
of asbestos" dating from the British military's control of the
site had been found last month.

Ilex's Fort George Development Manager, Lawrence McCullough, told
the 'Journal' that laboratory tests had confirmed that the level
of asbestos found was not considered dangerous.

"When dealing with concrete in the site we found traces of
asbestos.  It was found in concrete from buildings put up by the
army 30 to 40 years ago."

He said that samples were taken and "as a consequence work was
suspended" pending the results of lab testing.

"The results show that levels found were 'non-quantifiable' and
well below the threshold level," Mr. McCullough added.

It had been planned to use the concrete as "fill" for the site as
part of decontamination remedial work.

"Remedial work involves the placing of layers of stone on the site
and we were going to use some of the concrete to fill the site.
After additional tests were carried out and trace elements of
asbestos were found it was decided not to use any of it for the
site."

He explained that the concrete will now be removed to a section of
the site for "future remediation or removal."  "Air monitoring
will be undertaken at the site while that is undertaken," Mr.
McCullough added.

He explained that the asbestos was nothing that Ilex did not
expect to uncover at the site.

"We knew we were going to have to deal with this situation.  It's
nothing that hasn't been found before at the site but health and
safety is paramount and when we have concerns about something we
have to stop work and investigate."

Work to create 749 car parking spaces to cope with an expected
hike in the volume of vehicles in the city throughout 2013 has
resumed at the site.

A large part of the 14 acre site is to be used for the temporary
car park, which is expected to be open to the public until January
next year.  The 749 bay car park is due to be completed later this
month.

The decontamination of the site, which includes the laying of
stone for the car park, will be completed after the car park
closes.

Meanwhile, work on the North West Regional Science Park is also
due to begin in the spring with an estimated completion date in
May next year.  In November Environment Minister Alex Attwood gave
the green light to plans for the Fort George science park.
Approval has been given for a four storey building dedicated to IT
and science based businesses.

The park will be part of a cross border project in conjunction
with the Letterkenny Institute of Technology and is modeled on the
Northern Ireland Science Park in Belfast.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Requires Disclosure of Fibro Trust Deals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson of Legal Newsline reports that a bill recently
introduced in the Mississippi House of Representatives would
require asbestos claimants to disclose dealings with asbestos
trusts.

House Bill 529 was introduced recently by Representative Jerry
Turner, a Republican.  It currently is placed in the Judiciary A
Committee.  If it isn't taken up by that committee, the bill will
die for this session.

The bill, if passed, would require a claimant to provide a sworn
statement identifying all existing asbestos trust claims made by
or on behalf of him.  The claimant also would have to provide all
trust claim material and information regarding the claims.  This
statement would have to be disclosed within 30 days of the start
of discovery in the case.  If trust claims were made after the
filing of the suit, the claimant would have 30 days to disclose
those as well.

If there are issues with trusts found, the bill would give
defendants in an asbestos case 75 days before the start of trial
to stay the proceedings with credible evidence.

The bill also says that if a claimant files a claim with an
asbestos trust after obtaining a judgment in court, the court can
reopen the case and adjust the judgment or order other relief to
parties in the case.

If adopted, the law would apply to asbestos claims filed on or
after July 1, 2013, and to pending cases in which trial hasn't
started on that date.

"To date, approximately one hundred (100) employers have declared
bankruptcy at least partially due to asbestos-related liability,
as found in a 2011 report by the United States Government
Accountability Office," the legislation states.  "These
bankruptcies have resulted in the search for more solvent
companies.  Researchers for the RAND Corporation estimated in a
2005 report that the number of asbestos defendants now includes
over eight thousand five hundred (8,500) companies, including many
small- and medium-sized companies, in industries that cover 85
percent of the United States economy.

"Asbestos claimants often seek compensation for alleged asbestos-
related conditions from civil defendants that remain solvent in
civil court tort actions and from trusts or claims facilities
formed in asbestos bankruptcy proceedings. . . .  There is limited
coordination and transparency between these two (2) paths to
recovery.  The courts have already experienced the problem of
instances of claimants failing to provide information and
materials regarding asbestos trust claims that they have
commenced.

"It is in the interest of justice that there be transparency for
claims made in the bankruptcy system and for claims made in civil
asbestos litigation. . . .  The current lack of transparency in
the tort system may result in businesses in this state being
unfairly penalized and deprived of their rights."

It also says new asbestos trust continue to be formed.  The U.S.
GAO estimates that current trust control more than $36 billion in
assets.

"As a consequence, it is critical to the interests of justice and
to the economy of the state that the distribution of these assets
be made in a manner that incorporates full and consistent
disclosure when recovery is sought through an asbestos tort action
in this state against solvent companies or through a trust claim
against a bankrupt entity.

"All relevant asbestos exposure information should be made
available in a timely manner so that solvent companies do not
unnecessarily absorb the liabilities of bankrupt trust entities
that are not subject to tort actions.  Transparency will help
ensure that all responsible parties are allocated an equitable
share of any liability and will encourage injured persons to
promptly seek an appropriate recovery from all appropriate
sources."

The bill is similar to one recently passed by the Ohio
legislature.

Neither Turner, the Mississippi bill's sponsor, nor House
Judiciary A Chairman Mark Baker, also a Republican, opted to
comment on the legislation.  Baker is rumored to be considering a
run for state Attorney General against incumbent Jim Hood.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County's High Number of Cases to Continue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis of The Madison / St. Clair Record reports that
while last year's spike in Madison County asbestos filings might
not have surprised area attorneys, the reason behind the increase
isn't so easy to pinpoint.

If you ask Associate Judge Clarence Harrison, who presides over
the asbestos docket, he'll make the answer sound simple:  "There
are more filings because more people filed."

Some attorneys, however, question whether Harrison's decision to
eliminate the practice of setting asbestos trials in advance might
have opened up the door for more lawyers, and potentially more
suits, to make their way into Madison County's court system.

Others acknowledge that while the end of the advanced trial
setting did provide an opportunity for smaller firms and new
players to get more involved than in the past, it doesn't
necessarily have any connection to an increase in filings.

Figures from the Madison County Circuit Clerk show that 1,563
asbestos lawsuits were filed last year, an increase of more than
600 cases from 2011.  With the exception of a slight dip in 2010,
asbestos filings have been on a steady increase since 2006.

And a review of 2012 asbestos filings by The Record via eMagnus
shows that dozens of these suits were filed by relatively new
players in the Madison County asbestos game.

The majority of last year's asbestos cases, however, were brought
by several of the firms that have historically brought these
suits, including nearly 500 by the Simmons Law Firm in Alton and
about 340 by Gori Julian & Associates in Edwardsville.

Goldenberg Heller Antognoli & Rowland in Edwardsville, which
typically ranked as one of the top three firms with the most
asbestos filings, brought only 45 last year, according to records,
while a relatively new player, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, filling
the No. 3 spot with 343 filings in 2012.

Headquartered in New York, the Napoli firm has 10 offices across
the nation, including one that recently opened in Edwardsville.

Attorneys at the nationwide firm, Maune Raichle, brought about 120
asbestos suits last year, followed by the Texas law firm of
Shrader & Associates at 78.

The Record's analysis also shows that other small or relatively
new players last year included Wood River attorney Bob Perica with
about 70 filings; Flint & Associates with 30, the O'Brien Law Firm
in St. Louis with 17 and SWMK Law in St. Louis with nine.

In addition, records show that Edwardsville attorney Michael
Bilbrey brought four asbestos suits in Madison County in 2012,
followed by Glen Carbon attorney Aaron Dickey with four and
Chicago attorney Jon Richardson with one.

In regards to "new players," Harrison said that is "a matter of
perspective" and that there are always developments between firms,
whether they are consolidating or splitting up.

Brian Huelsmann -- bhuelsmann@heplerbroom.com -- a defense
attorney with HeplerBroom in Edwardsville, said he noticed a few
new players in the asbestos arena last year.

The reason for that, he said, is two-fold: ?? attorneys
splintering off from the area's big asbestos firms to start their
own practices and national firms hiring their own employees,
instead of local counsel.

Huelsmann, however, said these trends don't necessarily explain
why Madison County saw a spike in filings last year.

Another trend he said he saw in 2012, but can't necessarily
explain, was an increase in the number of lung cancer-related
asbestos suits.

During an asbestos conference in Chicago this fall, Huelsmann
noted that the vast majority of Napoli's asbestos cases as of
August focused on lung cancer, as opposed to mesothelioma.

Raymond Fournie -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com -- a defense
attorney at Armstrong Teasdale in St. Louis, said he also noticed
a spike in lung cancer cases and said he believes Napoli is the
third largest filer of asbestos suits and most of them are lung
cancer cases.

Like Huelsmann, Fournie said he wasn't surprised to learn Madison
County broke previous asbestos filing records last year.

He said part of the reason behind the increase was Harrison's
order that eliminated the advanced trial setting for asbestos
cases.

That, Fournie said, "made it more tenable for new players" to jump
in and file suits since the court no longer reserved trial slots
for certain firms.  Now, he said, "it's easier for people to
simply come in and file for a docket setting" and "not have to
affiliate themselves with local counsel."

Lisa LaConte -- llaconte@heylroyster.com -- an attorney at Heyl
Royster in Edwardsville, said Harrison took a big step forward in
getting rid of the advanced trial setting system, but that doing
so "has certainly opened up an opportunity for other firms that
may not have had the opportunity in the past, to get spaces on the
trial docket."

Saying that this new opportunity doesn't fully explain the spike
in filings, LaConte said last year's record-breaking number of
suits highlights the need to "take a look at those aspects of
Madison County that make it an attractive forum and consider
whether some additional revisions to trial settings need to be
considered."

Until there is a limitation on the number of cases set for trial,
LaConte said "we are going to continue to see these high number of
cases."

"A meaningful application of forum law" could also help, LaConte
said, noting that attorneys have yet to see the Illinois Supreme
Court's forum decision in Walter Fennell v. Illinois Central
Railroad Co. play out.

"I think the impact of that is something we are going to see this
year," she said.

Fournie and Huelsmann also mentioned the importance of the Fennell
decision, saying that depending on how courts apply it, the ruling
could potentially help remove many of the out-of-state asbestos
suits filed in Madison County.

"It's hard to predict," Fournie said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Doubles Steelville Museum Project Cost
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy England of The Three Rivers Publishing reports that aldermen
had agreed that the structure needed to be demolished last year,
due to its poor condition.  Alderman Terry Beckham had made the
recommendation on behalf of the city's museum committee in March
of 2012.  Work to remove items from the place took close to six
months and in November, the city council agreed to seek bids for
the removal of the old house that had served as the museum in the
Hoppe Springs Park.

At the last council meeting of 2012, aldermen looked at the four
bids submitted for the project.  P.J.Meyers' bid was for $6,899;
Woodruff Service, LLC, bid $7,950; John Eaton bid $5,850; and
Larry Harmon bid $5,300.  The two lowest bidders did not provide
certificates of liability or workers compensation insurance and
therefore were disqualified from the bidding process.

City Comptroller Jennifer Basham pointed out that the cost was
much higher than expected.  "This is very over budget," she said.
"It's about $3,500 too much.  I see a lot of cuts in the parks
(budget) future to do this project, but it's something that needs
to be done before someone gets hurt up there."

Mayor Terry Palmer agreed that the project was needed, noting that
the structure was a liability for the city.

Alderman Dave Hatcher made a motion to accept P.J. Meyers' bid,
but his counterpart Beckham questioned whether the city employees
could to the job instead.  "Is that out of the question?" Beckham
asked.  "This is way more than we had anticipated."

"The only concern I have is what happens if they get called away
on more than one occasion," Alderman Mike Pounds said.  "I'd hate
to have half a building standing there."

But Hatcher didn't like the idea of asking for bids, but then
deciding against the work.  "I'm not against our own crew doing
things.  But I don't think it's right to put out these bids and
then say we're going to do it ourselves.  I don't think that's
ethical."

Although Beckham reiterated he hadn't thought the project would be
so costly, Pounds seconded Hatcher's motion and the vote passed,
awarding the bid to Meyers.

As Meyers was at the meeting, he informed the council that an
asbestos inspection was a requirement before the structure could
be demolished and noted that he had some concern about the floor
tile in the old home.

Results of the inspection that revealed the asbestos in the
linoleum flooring were shared with the council at the Jan. 22
meeting, along with bids for the removal of the substance.  Three
bids were submitted, ranging from $5,600 to $6,967.  Asbestos
removal requires a special state license.  "The good part of this
is that we don't have to pay prevailing wage because it's a
demolition," Palmer noted.  Basham reported she had asked Charlie
Ray with Missouri Engineering about the cost and he'd stated the
cost was close to what would be seen for this type of removal.
"They just have you over a barrel because you have to have a
licensed person to do it," she said.

Beckham questioned whether the city should do anything at all with
the structure.  "We could just board the place up and wait till we
are in better financial condition," he said.  Then he asked
Basham, "Will this put us into a bind with the budget?"

Basham replied, "There will have to be some cuts made in the parks
department somewhere, somehow."  Palmer pointed out that the total
cost to remove the museum would be around $12,500, around $7,500
over what was budgeted for the project.

However, Basham noted that the parks budget would probably not be
in better condition, even if the city waited a year or so, since
that department doesn't bring in revenue, so Beckham made a motion
to go ahead with low bid for asbestos removal and to continue with
the demolition.  The motion was approved.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso-Victim's Kin Calls to Former Peers for Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Courtney of The Fulham & Hammersmith Chronicle reports the
family of a Fulham man who died from lung cancer after he was
exposed to asbestos at work have appealed to former colleagues to
come forward in their fight for justice.

Terence Thompson, formerly of Rosaline Road, Fulham, was 69 when
he died of the painful asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma in
February 2012, after being diagnosed in June 2010.

His widow, Shirley, 71, and daughter, Susan Carroll, 45, believe
Mr. Thompson may have been exposed to asbestos through work more
than 40 years ago.

"When dad was taken ill and admitted to Charing Cross Hospital in
May 2010, his doctors suspected he had a serious condition," said
Ms. Carroll.  "After he was diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma in
June, he underwent a number of treatments including both
chemotherapy and radiotherapy.  But his condition deteriorated and
it became painfully obvious that dad was seriously ill."

Mr. Thompson was admitted to Trinity Hospice in the final weeks of
his life.

Ms. Carroll contacted lawyers after discovering mesothelioma is
only ever caused by exposure to asbestos, who are investigating
whether his former employers are to blame.

Andrew James -- andrew.james@fentons.co.uk -- an industrial
disease specialist at Fentons Solicitors LLP, says Mr. Thompson
was likely to have been exposed to asbestos during his work as a
plastic moulder at Landis and Gyr in Acton and then as a kitchen
porter at Barlby Road School in Ladbroke Grove in the 1960s and
1970s.

Mr. James said: "At that time, Bakelite and plastic products were
made using a filler that often contained asbestos dust.  It's a
sad fact that many plastic molders were exposed to deadly asbestos
fibers and dust during their work."

Mrs. Thompson said she recalls him working in areas where there
were badly damaged walls, believed to have been made from asbestos
board.

Mr. James wants to hear from anyone who knew or worked with Mr.
Thompson throughout those years.  "The problem we face is locating
people who knew and worked alongside Terence so they can help to
verify his working conditions," he said.


                           *********

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, Valerie Udtuhan, 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  * * *