CAR_Public/130215.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 15, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 33

                             Headlines


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wants Sup. Ct. to Overturn 2nd Cir. Ruling
ASPEN UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action in New York Court
BECTON DICKINSON: Final Hearing on $45MM Suit Deal Set for March
BOHNING CO: Recalls 150 Middleton Siege Crossbows
CELERA CORP: Mandatory Class Members May Be Given Opt-Out Rights

CHINESE DRYWALL: Four Additional Class Action Settlements Reached
CONSOL ENERGY: Appeal From Dismissal of "Comer" II Suit Pending
CONSOL ENERGY: Discovery Currently Proceeding in "Hale" Suit
CONSOL ENERGY: Discovery in "Addison" Suit Still Proceeding
CONSOL ENERGY: "Hall" Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania

CONSOL ENERGY: Trial in CNX Gas Shareholders Suit on March 11
CRST VAN: Settles Sexual Harassment Class Action for $50,000
DAIICHI SANKYO: Sanford Heisler Files $100-Million Class Action
DEWEY & LEBOEUF: Loses Bid to Dismiss WARN Act Class Action
FORD: Faces Suit Over False Claims on 2013 Escape SE

GOOGLE INC: Authors Guild Wants Class Action Cert. Upheld
NEW YORK: "Stop and Frisk Suit" Obtains Class-Action Status
NEWS CORP: Awaits Final Okay of Atty. Generals' Suit Settlement
NEWS CORP: Canadian Consumer Suits vs. HarperCollins Pending
NEWS CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Wilder" Securities Suit Pending

NEWS CORP: Court Reserves Ruling on Bid to Junk 3rd Amended Suit
NEWS CORP: HarperCollins Defends Antitrust MDL in New York
NEWS CORP: Hearing on "Forsta Ap-Fonden" Suit Deal on April 26
NORTH SHORE-LONG: Faces Identity Theft Class Action Suit
OCLARO INC: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Commences

OCLARO INC: Opnext Merger-Related Class Action Suits Resolved
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Final Hearing on Settlements Set for 2nd Quarter
SAMSONITE LLC: Recalls Dual-Wattage Travel Converter Kits
SHEILA MORRISON: Settles Class Action Over Alleged Abuses
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Received Prelim. OK of Commercial Class Suit

TYSON FOODS: Court Won't Dismiss 3 Plaintiffs in Workers' Suit
WAGGIN' TRAIN: Sued for Selling Contaminated Dog Treats
WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces Class Action Over Loan Practices

                    Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Architectural Firm Pleads Guilty to Safety Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guernsey HSE Aims to Improve Fibro Policy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSL Downplays Cwmcarn High School Fibro Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincolnshire Council Urged for Hazmat Amenities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lordswood Locals Oppose Planned Hazmat Depot

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Firm's 1970s Operation Blamed for Meso
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Birmingham Builder Fined for Illegal Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: QWHS Checks Abatement Work at Gladstone Cinema
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joint Venture Secures GBP311,643 For ARD Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Fibro Test Method in Soil Approved

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Asbestos Liabilities Drop 2012 Profits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Transportation Moves to Triple Jury Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Treatment Study Links Fibro, Iron, Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mud Engineer With COPD Recalls Exposure to Flosal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Thunder Bay School's Academic Wing

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Procedural Changes Cut Down Mass Torts in Philly
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CA Ruling Jeopardizes Travelers' $420.4 MM Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bidding Process for St. Joe's Abatement Underway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woodsreef's Mine Road Dispute Nears Decision
ASBESTOS UPDATE: LCAVC Reaches Out to Non-Smokers Exposed to Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Christchurch's Isaac Theatre Royal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-Tipping Trio Given Suspended Jail Sentences
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hopeman Brothers Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim Exposed to 2nd-Hand Fibro Awarded $1.1 MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products' Fibro Debt Tops $1.1 Billion

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Risk Study on Libby Abatement Out In 2014
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consultant Maintains Fibro Alert at Cwmcarn High
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Another Hazmat Dump Found in Clarence Valley
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La Collette Hazmat Stockpile Set for France
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ARD, Mesothelioma Issues in South Africa & China

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Payout Cap Reduces $3MM Verdict to $0.98MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burglars Steal Pneumatic Fibro Vacuum in Carlisle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Israeli Ministry Fines IDF Over Fibro Outbreak
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Building Unions Campaign for New Anti-Fibro Laws
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Slaps GBP4,000 Fine on Fibro Law Violator

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal State Releases 2013 Asbestos Building Report
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mack Trucks, 60 Others Face Exposure Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Initiative for Lung Cancer Victims Launched
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Moves Fibro Lawsuit to Federal Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Flips Order Denying Boeing's Dismissal Bid

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Ct. Denies GE's Summary Judgment Motion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 Cases Remanded as Pretrial in MDL Concludes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Won't Appoint Receiver for Krafft-Murphy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Defends Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $139MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Exposed to AO-Related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Invensys Still Must Indemnify Rexnord
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hamilton Defending Rexnord in 200 Pending Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Units Still Facing Exposure Suits


                           *********



AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wants Sup. Ct. to Overturn 2nd Cir. Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
two terms ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a near-death blow to
consumer class actions in an arbitration ruling.  This term, the
justices may finish the job.

Consumer advocacy organizations, such as Public Citizen and Public
Justice, as well as AARP and even a number of arbitration law
scholars and arbitrators, are facing off against the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, Financial
Roundtable and others in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors
Restaurant.

American Express is asking the justices to overturn a ruling by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  That appellate
court had held that the company's arbitration agreement, which
includes a class action waiver, was unenforceable because it would
prevent merchants suing American Express from effectively
vindicating their federal statutory rights -- here, rights under
the antitrust laws.

Representing American Express, Michael Kellogg --
mkellogg@khhte.com -- of Washington's Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd, Evans & Figel, contends that the Supreme Court has never
endorsed the "effective vindication of federal statutory rights"
as a limit on the Federal Arbitration Act's command that
arbitration agreements be enforced according to their terms.

But, citing a 1985 Supreme Court ruling, Paul Clement of D.C.'s
Bancroft, counsel to the merchants, argues that the court, for
more than 25 years, has recognized that federal statutory rights
may be resolved through arbitration only "so long as the
prospective litigant effectively may vindicate its statutory cause
of action in the arbitral forum."

Although the American Express challenge, which will be argued Feb.
27, is a business-to-business arbitration case, it has huge stakes
not just for antitrust law but for labor and employment law as
well, both sides agree.  The United States has filed an amicus
brief supporting the merchants.

"American Express is going for a rule that in every case, the
class action ban is always enforceable," said F. Paul Bland of
Public Justice, who filed an amicus brief supporting the merchants
on behalf of his own organization, AARP and the American
Association for Justice.

However, referring to the court's ruling two terms ago in AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion, Andrew Pincus -- apincus@mayerbrown.com --
of Mayer Brown, amicus counsel to the Chamber of Commerce and the
Business Roundtable, countered that a ruling for American Express,
"is a ruling that follows almost inevitably from Concepcion.  I
think to some extent the Rubicon has been crossed."

American Express' standard card acceptance agreement contains a
mandatory arbitration clause.  It also states that "there shall be
no right or authority for any Claims to be arbitrated on a class
action basis," and that "Claims may not be joined or consolidated"
with claims brought by other merchants.  The prevailing party is
not permitted to shift its costs to the other party, and it
contains a confidentiality provision that prohibits the disclosure
of information obtained in an arbitration proceeding.

A number of small business merchants brought a class action in
federal court alleging that American Express was violating Section
1 of the Sherman Act by engaging in an unlawful tying arrangement.
The credit card giant, they alleged, used its market power in
corporate and personal charge cards to compel them to accept the
company's mass-market credit and debit cards at higher merchant-
fee rates than charged by other companies.

The district court granted American Express' motion to compel
arbitration, but the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the
merchants "would incur prohibitive costs if compelled to arbitrate
under the class action waiver."  The merchants had submitted a
declaration from an economist who estimated that the cost of the
expert analysis and testimony necessary to prove their antitrust
claims would be "at least several hundred thousand dollars, and
might exceed $1 million."  The maximum damages any plaintiff could
expect was $12,850, or $38,549 when trebled, according to the
expert.  American Express did not dispute that evidence, said the
appellate court, concluding that the class action waiver in the
agreement could not be enforced because it would grant American
Express "de facto immunity" from antitrust liability by removing
the merchants' "only reasonably feasible means of recovery."

American Express petitioned the Supreme Court which, at the time,
was considering another arbitration case, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v.
AnimalFeeds International Corp.  In that case, the justices held
in 2010 that under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a party
could not be compelled to submit to class arbitration unless there
was a contractual basis to conclude the party had agreed to it.
The justices vacated the Second Circuit's American Express
decision and remanded it consideration in light of Stolt-Nielsen.
On remand, the Second Circuit stood by its initial ruling.

In 2011, the justices ruled in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion,
holding that the FAA pre-empted a California state-law rule
barring most class action waivers in consumer contracts. The
Second Circuit, sua sponte, reconsidered its American Express
decision in light of Concepcion and again reversed the district
court.  Concepcion dealt with state-law contracts and FAA
preemption, said the appellate court, and did not reverse the
justices' 2000 ruling in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph
that an arbitration agreement should not be enforced when it
effectively forecloses a plaintiff from asserting federal
statutory rights.

In the Supreme Court, American Express' Kellogg urges a clean,
straightforward rule: Absent an express limitation by Congress on
the arbitration of a federal statutory claim, there is no basis
for courts to refuse to enforce the FAA's command that arbitration
agreements be enforced according to their terms.

He accuses the Second Circuit of engrafting onto the FAA "a pro-
class-action public policy" with no basis in that law.  Relying on
Stolt-Nielsen and Concepcion, he writes, "Twice in its last three
terms, this Court has made clear that [the FAA mandate] requires
courts to enforce arbitration agreements even when they call for
bilateral rather than classwide proceedings."

"If plaintiffs were to win, the problem is every plaintiff or
plaintiffs' lawyer is going to make the same claim," said Mayer
Brown's Mr. Pincus.  "Every time someone moves to enforce the
clause, there's going to be at a minimum a trial over whether
claims can be effectively vindicated.  The problem is that can be
a very broad and expensive process.  Once that condition gets
imposed, that's a situation where arbitration is undermined.  If
you're telling me, a business, that I'm going to have huge
litigation costs, then I won't have arbitration."

Mr. Clement, the merchants' counsel, argues that nothing in
Concepcion or Stolt-Nielsen overrides the effective vindication
rule, the analysis in Green Tree Financial.  The rule, he writes,
is narrow and puts a heavy burden on the party claiming it.

"This is the rare case in which the plaintiffs have carried that
burden," he argues.  "This is thus truly a case in which the
alternative to litigation is not arbitration, but nothing."

His clients, he writes, have not demanded class arbitration or
class litigation, simply a forum to vindicate their antitrust
claims.  "If Petitioners want to adopt a better arbitration
agreement that allows cost-shifting for prevailing parties, such
as the one employed by AT&T in Concepcion or by a number of other
large companies, Respondents stand ready to vindicate their
federal antitrust claims through bilateral arbitration," adds
Clement.  "Indeed, such agreements, which guarantee both the
efficiencies of the arbitral process and the effective vindication
of rights, are becoming more common."
Undermining arbitration?

Thomas Stipanowich of Pepperdine University joined an amicus brief
supporting the merchants on behalf of professional arbitrators and
arbitration scholars.  Mr. Stipanowich, an arbitrator and
mediator, said, "The practical result of overturning the Second
Circuit decision would be to create a broad safe harbor for class
action waivers coupled with an agreement to arbitrate.  I am
neutral on the subject of class action arbitration.  My concern is
about the broad enforcement of class action waivers just because
they happen to be in the context of an arbitration clause."

He and his amicus colleagues worry that a ruling for American
Express that eliminates the effective vindication rule would erode
public confidence in the legitimacy of arbitration and trigger a
congressional reaction that would place more restrictions on
arbitration.

Mr. Stipanowich said what is needed is a policy discussion about
the kind of class action framework needed under the law, a
discussion apart from arbitration agreements.  The Supreme Court's
decisions emphasize that arbitration is speedy and economical and
it warns of consequences to business if class waivers are not
enforced, he said.

"In the business arena today, one of the problems is arbitration
is not that way," he said.  "Sometimes people want arbitration to
look like litigation, but that's because they have the wherewithal
to do so.  I'm a person who likes arbitration because of the
ability to choose processes, to fit a process to the needs of a
party.  What's different here is it's really one party choosing
the system.  We can't close our eyes and pretend it's all the
same."

The pro-business public interest law firm, the New England Legal
Foundation, and other amici supporting American Express, argue
that nothing prevents similarly situated parties from pooling
their resources to hire a lawyer, fund expert fees and share
others costs while proving their claims in individual
arbitrations.

"They could do that easier in this case -- you have a group of
plaintiffs organized already," agreed Mr. Pincus.  "More
generally, through the Internet and social media that's something
that could be replicated broadly."

Mr. Stipanowich called that a novel and ultimately cumbersome
approach.  Public Justice's Bland said if American Express wins,
there will be no per se defense left against a class action ban in
an arbitration agreement.

"If a company drafts a clause that bans class actions and cleanly
gets an arbitration agreement formed -- and an American Express
ruling goes as far as the company is asking -- you will see a
whole bunch of statutory rights wiped out," he predicted.


ASPEN UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action in New York Court
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Aspen University
filed false statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission
and accrediting officials and hurt shareholders in other ways, a
class action claims in New York County Supreme Court.


BECTON DICKINSON: Final Hearing on $45MM Suit Deal Set for March
----------------------------------------------------------------
A March 2013 hearing is scheduled for the final approval of a $45
million class action settlement entered into by Becton, Dickinson
and Company with "Distributor Plaintiffs," according to the
Company's February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December
31, 2012.

The Company is named as a defendant in these purported class
action lawsuits brought on behalf of distributors and other
entities that purchase the Company's products (the "Distributor
Plaintiffs"), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust
laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company's
products to the plaintiffs and other purported class members:

Case                                Court           Date Filed
----                                -----           ----------
Louisiana Wholesale Drug     U.S. Dist. Court   March 25, 2005
Company, Inc., et al. vs.          Newark, NJ
Becton Dickinson and Co.

SAJ Distributors, Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Sept. 6, 2005
et al. vs. Becton            Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson & Co.                  Pennsylvania

Dik Drug Company, et al.     U.S. Dist. Court   Sept. 12, 2005
vs. Becton, Dickinson & Co.        Newark, NJ

American Sales Company,      U.S. Dist. Court     Oct. 3, 2005
Inc. et al. vs. Becton,      Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson & Co.                  Pennsylvania

Park Surgical Co. Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Oct. 26, 2005
et al. vs. Becton,           Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson and Company            Pennsylvania

These actions have been consolidated under the caption "In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation."

The Company is also named as a defendant in these purported class
action lawsuits brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
products, such as hospitals (the "Hospital Plaintiffs"), alleging
that the Company violated federal and state antitrust laws,
resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company's
products to the plaintiffs and other purported class members:

Case                                Court           Date Filed
----                                -----           ----------
Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc.,       U.S. Dist. Court     June 3, 2005
et al. v. Becton           Greenville, Tenn.
Dickinson & Company

Drug Mart Tallman Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Jan. 17, 2006
et al. v. Becton           Newark, New Jersey
Dickinson and Company

Medstar v. Becton            U.S. Dist. Court     May 18, 2006
Dickinson                  Newark, New Jersey

The Hebrew Home for          U.S. Dist. Court   March 28, 2007
the Aged at Riverdale          Southern Dist.
vs. Becton Dickinson              of New York
and Company

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits seek
monetary damages.  All of the antitrust class action lawsuits have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation in Federal court in New Jersey.

On April 27, 2009, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the Distributor Plaintiffs in these actions.  The settlement
agreement provides for, among other things, the payment by the
Company of $45 million in exchange for a release by all potential
class members of the direct purchaser claims under federal
antitrust laws related to the products and acts enumerated in the
complaint, and a dismissal of the case with prejudice, insofar as
it relates to direct purchaser claims.  The release would not
cover potential class members that affirmatively opt out of the
settlement or indirect purchaser claims.  On September 30, 2010,
the District Court denied a motion to approve the settlement
agreement, ruling that the Hospital Plaintiffs, and not the
Distributor Plaintiffs, are the direct purchasers with standing to
sue under federal antitrust laws.  On June 5, 2012, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's
standing decision and ruled that the Distributor Plaintiffs, not
the Hospital Plaintiffs, are direct purchasers entitled to pursue
damages.  The Hospital Plaintiffs requested that the ruling be
reconsidered, but that request was denied.  The District Court
preliminarily approved the settlement in November 2012, following
which the settlement funds were placed in escrow by the Company.
The settlement remains subject to final approval by the District
Court.  A hearing is scheduled before the District Court in March
2013 to rule on final approval of the settlement.

The Company currently cannot estimate the range of reasonably
possible losses with respect to these class action matters beyond
the $45 million settlement, that has been paid in escrow, and
changes to the amount already recognized may be required in the
future as additional information becomes available.


BOHNING CO: Recalls 150 Middleton Siege Crossbows
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Bohning Company Ltd., of Lake City, Michigan, announced a
voluntary recall of about 150 Middleton Siege Crossbows.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The crossbow can fire unexpectedly when the auto-safety mechanism
appears to be on and the trigger is pulled, posing an injury
hazard to the user and bystanders.  In addition, the crossbow
limbs can crack or break under normal use.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves "The Siege" hunting crossbows with model
numbers 315, 330, 355 and 375.  "The Siege" and the model numbers
are printed in large lettering directly above the trigger
mechanism.  "Bohning/Middleton Crossbow," "Patent pending" and
serial number are engraved on opposite sides of the rear barrel of
each crossbow.  The serial number, 12-XXX, is unique for each
crossbow.  The crossbows measure 36 to 39 inches in length, are
camouflage/black in color and have a scope mounted on the top.
The crossbows were sold with a scope, arrow quiver, quiver
brackets, cocking aid and a string changer.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/cxShOv

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold at
sporting goods stores in Texas and Pennsylvania and online at
www.bohning.com from June 2012 through October 2012 for between
$675 and $985.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled crossbows and
contact Bohning to return the crossbows for a full refund.
Bohning is contacting customers directly.  The Bohning Company,
Ltd. may be reached at (800) 253-0136, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.bohning.com/and click Product Recall for more
information.


CELERA CORP: Mandatory Class Members May Be Given Opt-Out Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Joshua D. Yount, Esq. -- jdyount@mayerbrown.com -- of
Mayer Brown, a recent decision from the Delaware Supreme Court is
a reminder that the members of a mandatory class -- one in which
the class isn't guaranteed opt-out rights -- sometimes may be
given the right to opt out in order to pursue their own individual
actions.

The decision, In re Celera Corp. Shareholder Litigation, addressed
a class settlement of claims that the directors of Celera Corp.
had breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to a merger with
Quest Diagnostics.  The settlement promised "therapeutic benefits"
to the class of Celera shareholders, such as additional
disclosures and changes to the merger agreement that made it
easier for Celera to entertain other offers.  But the settlement
gave class members no damages, it released all shareholder claims
related to the merger, and it barred class members from opting out
to pursue individual actions.  The chancery court certified the
class under its Rule 23(b)(1) (because of the potential for
inconsistent adjudications) and Rule 23(b)(2) (because the class
sought injunctive relief).  The chancery court also overruled the
objection to the settlement lodged by Celera's largest
shareholder, BVF Partners, which believed that the transaction
undervalued Celera and wanted to pursue an individual claim for
damages.

On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court rejected BVF's challenge to
the standing of the named plaintiff.  The court ruled that even
though the named plaintiff sold its shares before the consummation
of the merger, the plaintiff still was an adequate class
representative, albeit "barely," because it owned the shares when
the merger was announced and did not "acquiesce" to the merger.
The Delaware Supreme Court also saw no merit in BVF's argument
that the class's potential damages claims should have precluded
any class certification except under Delaware's Rule 23(b)(3),
which guarantees opt-out rights to class members.  The court
explained that Delaware precedent allows shareholders to bring
mandatory class actions under Rules 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) in order
to challenge director conduct in carrying out corporate
transactions.

BVF had better success with its request to opt out of the
certified class.  The Delaware Supreme Court concluded that the
chancery court should have allowed BVF to opt out.  Worried that
absent class members "could have their claims released without an
opportunity to be heard," the court explained that the chancery
court has discretion to permit class members to opt out of (b)(2)
classes.  The court noted that such discretionary opt-out rights
have been allowed when an objector has a distinct claim or when
allowing opt outs would facilitate fair and efficient litigation.
The court then explained that the "objective of global peace"
shared by the parties to the settlement was "outweighed by due
process concerns" arising from BVF's circumstances.  In
particular, the named plaintiff was "barely" adequate, the
"therapeutic relief" afforded by the class settlement was quickly
mooted by consummation of the merger, and BVF was a substantial
shareholder with a supportable damages claim.  The court therefore
concluded that barring BVF from opting out was an abuse of
discretion.

The Celera decision promises to become an important consideration
in negotiating class settlements of challenges to corporate
transactions in Delaware and elsewhere.  Defendants can no longer
count on obtaining global peace from a non-monetary class
settlement.  And both sides must now be ready to account for the
possibility that objecting shareholders may try to obtain opt-out
rights.


CHINESE DRYWALL: Four Additional Class Action Settlements Reached
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Herman, Herman
& Katz, and the Law Offices of Richard Serpe, P.C. released a
statement regarding the Chinese Drywall Class Action Settlement.

"Four additional Settlements have been reached in class action
litigation involving drywall imported to the U.S. from China,"
announced Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel Russ Herman, of Herman,
Herman & Katz.  The litigation claims that Chinese drywall causes
property damage, including damage to fixtures, electrical wiring,
corrosion of pipes, and damage to or destruction of air
conditioners, HVAC systems, refrigerators, and other appliances.
Some people have also claimed that they suffered bodily injury as
a result of exposure to Chinese drywall.

The companies being sued are Venture Supply, which sold drywall,
and numerous distributors, suppliers, builders, developers,
installers, and others who were associated with Chinese drywall.
Some of these Defendants and some of their insurance companies
have agreed to these Settlements.  The Participating Defendants
and Participating Insurers deny they did anything wrong.

"These Settlements address a range of claims that people may have
about Chinese drywall -- whether they are homeowners, renters,
developers, or others who have sustained losses.  And in
combination with the resolution of other class action lawsuits, it
will ensure that people are compensated through cash payments for
Chinese drywall that caused damage," said Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel
Arnold Levin of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman.

There are four separate classes for each of the four Settlements:

Nationwide Insureds Settlement Class

Porter-Blaine/Venture Supply Settlement Class

Tobin Trading and Installers Settlement Class

Builders Mutual Insureds Settlement Class

Individuals and businesses are Class Members and likely included
in one or more of the Settlements if they have any claim for
property damage or personal injuries related to Chinese drywall
sold by, used by, installed by, or otherwise within the legal
responsibility of a Participating Defendant.  Most Class Members
will likely be residents of Virginia; however, a few Class Members
may be residents of other states within the U.S.  More information
about the type of damage caused by Chinese drywall, including
pictures of the included drywall and damage the lawsuit claims it
causes, can be found at the Settlement Web site,
ChineseDrywallClass-VA.com.  A list of Participating Defendants
for each of the Settlements can also be found on the Settlement
Web site.

Currently, there is not a claims process for these Settlements. At
a later date the Court will approve a plan to distribute benefits
to Class Members.  At that time Class Members may receive payments
for their damages caused by their drywall.

Some Class Members will have received a notice in the mail about
the Settlements, and do not have to do anything to stay in the
Classes.  For those who did not receive a notice in the mail, they
must register to receive future updates about the Settlements,
including when a claims process is available.  Class Members can
register at ChineseDrywallClass-VA.com, by completing the Online
Registration Form, or by calling 1-877-418-8087.

Class Members have a choice of whether or not to stay in the
Classes.  If Class Members choose to stay in the Classes, they
will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court,
and they will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, the
Defendants for the issues involved in this lawsuit.  Class Members
that do not wish to be included in the Settlements can ask to be
excluded from the Classes.  If they exclude themselves, they will
keep any rights to sue the Participating Defendants for these
claims, now or in the future, and will not be bound by any orders
or judgments of the Court.  Class Members must exclude themselves
in writing by April 25, 2013.  Those wishing to stay in a
Settlement Class may object to that Settlement no later than
April 25, 2013.

More information regarding this lawsuit and Class Members' rights,
including how Class Members can exclude themselves, is available
at ChineseDrywallClass-VA.com or by calling 1-877-418-8087.


CONSOL ENERGY: Appeal From Dismissal of "Comer" II Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, plaintiffs Ned Comer and others filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi against a number of companies in energy,
fossil fuels and chemical industries, including CONSOL Energy Inc.
styled, Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil, et al.  The plaintiffs,
residents and owners of property along the Mississippi Gulf coast,
alleged that the defendants caused the emission of greenhouse
gases that contributed to global warming, which in turn caused a
rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina,
which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' property.  The District
Court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed.  The Circuit
Court panel reversed and the defendants sought a rehearing before
the entire court.  A rehearing before the entire court was
granted, which had the effect of vacating the panel's reversal,
but before the case could be heard on the merits, a number of
judges recused themselves and there was no longer a quorum.  As a
result, the District Court's dismissal was effectively reinstated.
The plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme Court to require the Circuit
Court to address the merits of their appeal.  On January 11, 2011,
the Supreme Court denied that request.

Although that should have resulted in the dismissal being final,
the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on May 27, 2011, in the same
jurisdiction against essentially the same defendants making nearly
identical allegations as in the original lawsuit.  The trial court
has dismissed this case.  The dismissal is being appealed.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Consol Energy Inc. -- http//:www.consolenergy.com/ -- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production headquartered in the suburb of Cecil Township, in the
Southpointe complex, just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Company is a leading producer of high-BTU bituminous coal in
the United States and the U.S.'s largest underground coal mining
company.


CONSOL ENERGY: Discovery Currently Proceeding in "Hale" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action lawsuit in Virginia
involving a subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc., according to the
Company's February 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010,
in U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia, styled Hale v. CNX
Gas Company, et al.  The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff class
consists of oil and gas owners, that the Virginia Supreme Court
has decided that coalbed methane (CBM) belongs to the owner of the
oil and gas estate, that the Virginia Gas and Oil Act of 1990
unconstitutionally allows force pooling of CBM, that the Act
unconstitutionally provides only a 1/8 royalty to CBM owners for
gas produced under the force pooling orders, and that the Company
only relied upon control of the coal estate in force pooling the
CBM notwithstanding the Virginia Supreme Court decision holding
that if only the coal estate is controlled, the CBM is not thereby
controlled.  The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership
of the CBM and that the entire net proceeds of CBM production
(that is, the 1/8 royalty and the 7/8 of net revenues since
production began) be distributed to the class members.  The
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she
recommended that the District Judge decide that the deemed lease
provision of the Gas and Oil Act is constitutional as is the 1/8
royalty, and that CNX Gas need not distribute the net proceeds to
class members.  The Magistrate Judge recommended against the
dismissal of certain other claims, none of which are believed to
have any significance.  The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate
Judge's recommendations in their entirety.

An amended complaint was filed, which added two additional claims
alleging that gas hedging receipts should have been used as the
basis for royalty payments and that severance tax should not be
allowed as a post-production deduction from royalties.  A motion
to dismiss those claims was filed and was denied.  Discovery is
proceeding in this litigation.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  The Company has established an accrual
to cover its estimated liability for this case.  This accrual is
immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and
is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet.

Consol Energy Inc. -- http//:www.consolenergy.com/ -- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production headquartered in the suburb of Cecil Township, in the
Southpointe complex, just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Company is a leading producer of high-BTU bituminous coal in
the United States and the U.S.'s largest underground coal mining
company.


CONSOL ENERGY: Discovery in "Addison" Suit Still Proceeding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action lawsuit styled Addison
v. CNX Gas Company, according to CONSOL Energy Inc.'s February 7,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010, in
Federal court in Virginia styled Addison v. CNX Gas Company.  The
case involves two primary claims: (i) the plaintiff and similarly
situated CNX Gas Company lessors identified as conflicting
claimants during the force pooling process before the Virginia Gas
and Oil Board are the owners of the coalbed methane (CBM) and,
accordingly, the owners of the escrowed royalty payments being
held by the Commonwealth of Virginia; and (ii) CNX Gas Company
failed to either pay royalties due these conflicting claimant
lessors or paid them less than required because of the alleged
practice of improper below market sales and/or taking alleged
improper post-production deductions.  Plaintiffs seek a
declaratory judgment regarding ownership and compensatory and
punitive damages for breach of contract; conversion; negligence
(voluntary undertaking), for force pooling coal owners after the
Ratliff decision declared coal owners did not own the CBM;
negligent breach of duties as an operator; breach of fiduciary
duties; and unjust enrichment.  The Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss in this case, and the Magistrate Judge recommended
dismissing some claims and allowing others to proceed.  The
District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in
their entirety.  An amended complaint was filed, which added an
additional claim that gas hedging receipts should have been used
as the basis for royalty payments.  A motion to dismiss those
claims was filed and was denied.  Discovery is proceeding in this
litigation.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  The Company has established an accrual
to cover its estimated liability for this case.  This accrual is
immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and
is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet.

Consol Energy Inc. -- http//:www.consolenergy.com/ -- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production headquartered in the suburb of Cecil Township, in the
Southpointe complex, just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Company is a leading producer of high-BTU bituminous coal in
the United States and the U.S.'s largest underground coal mining
company.


CONSOL ENERGY: "Hall" Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2010,
styled Hall v. CONSOL Gas Company in Allegheny County Pennsylvania
Common Pleas Court.  The named plaintiff is Earl D. Hall.  The
purported class plaintiffs are all Pennsylvania oil and gas
lessors to Dominion Exploration and Production Company, whose
leases were acquired by CONSOL Energy Inc.  The complaint alleges
more than 1,000 similarly situated lessors.  The lawsuit alleges
that CONSOL Energy incorrectly calculated royalties by (i)
calculating line loss on the basis of allocated volumes rather
than on a well-by-well basis, (ii) possibly calculating the
royalty on the basis of an incorrect price, (iii) possibly taking
unreasonable deductions for post-production costs and costs that
were not arms-length, (iv) not paying royalties on gas lost or
used before the point of sale, and (v) not paying royalties on oil
production.  The complaint also alleges that royalty statements
were false and misleading.  The complaint seeks damages, interest
and an accounting on a well-by-well basis.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  Consequently, the Company has not
recognized any liability related to these actions.

Consol Energy Inc. -- http//:www.consolenergy.com/ -- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production headquartered in the suburb of Cecil Township, in the
Southpointe complex, just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Company is a leading producer of high-BTU bituminous coal in
the United States and the U.S.'s largest underground coal mining
company.


CONSOL ENERGY: Trial in CNX Gas Shareholders Suit on March 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
The CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation is scheduled for trial on
March 11, 2013, according to CONSOL Energy Inc.'s February 7,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

CONSOL Energy has been named as a defendant in five putative class
actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas Corporation
(CNX Gas) challenging the tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire
all of the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did
not already own for $38.25 per share.  The two cases filed in
Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court have been stayed and the three
cases filed in the Delaware Chancery Court have been consolidated
under the caption In Re CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No.
5377-VCL).  All five actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy
breached and/or aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary
duties purportedly owed to CNX Gas public shareholders,
essentially alleging that the $38.25 per share price that CONSOL
Energy paid to CNX Gas shareholders in the tender offer and
subsequent short-form merger was unfair.  Among other things, the
actions sought a permanent injunction against or rescission of the
tender offer, damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses.  The
lawsuit is scheduled for trial on March 11, 2013.  Mediation,
which was scheduled in early December 2012, was canceled due to
the Plaintiffs.

CONSOL Energy believes that these actions are without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.  For that reason, the Company
has not accrued a liability for this claim; however, if liability
is ultimately imposed, based on the expert reports that have been
exchanged by the parties, the Company believes the potential loss
could be up to $221 million.

Consol Energy Inc. -- http//:www.consolenergy.com/ -- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production headquartered in the suburb of Cecil Township, in the
Southpointe complex, just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Company is a leading producer of high-BTU bituminous coal in
the United States and the U.S.'s largest underground coal mining
company.


CRST VAN: Settles Sexual Harassment Class Action for $50,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
trucking company will pay $50,000 to settle a sexual harassment
lawsuit, a token payment to avoid trial in a closely watched case
that has sharply limited the government's ability to file large
workplace discrimination lawsuits in several states.

Cedar Rapids-based CRST Van Expedited, Inc. agreed to the payment
on Feb. 8 to Monika Starke, the lone remaining plaintiff in what
had once been a major lawsuit by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.  In exchange, the company avoided the cost of
defending itself against Ms. Starke's allegations that it was too
slow to respond to her claims that a male trainer had sexually
harassed her.

The settlement is a pittance compared to what CRST, one of the
nation's largest interstate trucking companies, might have had to
pay if federal judges hadn't drastically narrowed the scope of the
lawsuit and made it harder for the EEOC to pursue class-action
discrimination cases in the region.

In an unusual provision for an EEOC settlement that underscores
how badly it fared, CRST will be allowed to try to recoup from it
millions of dollars the company spent fighting allegations by
other women that were dismissed.

CRST CEO David Rusch said on Feb. 11 he believes the company would
have prevailed at trial, but agreed to the settlement to avoid
spending up to $1 million defending itself.  He said the company
has already spent more than $12 million on attorneys, and hopes a
judge will order the commission to pay some of those costs.

Mr. Rusch said the EEOC filed a lawsuit before interviewing all
the women who it alleged were victims.  He said sexual harassment
did happen at CRST, but company officials had procedures for
reporting and preventing it.

"Somebody was claiming that we tolerate harassment, which is
absolutely erroneous, absolutely a witch hunt, and that's why we
took the aggressive posture that we did," he said.

The case began with a 2005 complaint from Ms. Starke, an Azle,
Texas, driver who alleged that she was paired with a male
colleague who constantly made crude sexual remarks and advances
toward her. The company denied her claims.

After failing to reach settlement, the EEOC filed a class-action
lawsuit in 2007 on behalf of female CRST drivers who it said were
subjected to offensive comments, groped or even assaulted by male
trainers and co-drivers during cross-country trips.

The commission sent letters to notify female employees, and dozens
stepped forward with complaints.  CRST is known for its "team
driving" concept, in which trucks are driven by two drivers who
alternate between driving and sleeping.

CRST argued that it immediately investigated reports of harassment
and took actions such as reassigning drivers.  Complaints by many
of the women already had been dealt with internally, Mr. Rusch
said.

U.S. District Judge Linda Reade faulted the commission for being
slow to identify the class and complained that its lawyers were
using the discovery process to identify victims and investigate
claims, rather than doing so beforehand.  Eventually, the agency
said it would bring claims for 270 women, but only 150 were
deposed by a court deadline.

For various legal reasons, all the claims except Ms. Starke's were
ultimately dismissed.  Judge Reade acknowledged that she threw out
potentially worthy allegations by dozens of women because the
commission took a "sue first, ask questions later" litigation
strategy.

Last year, a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which
hears cases from the Dakotas to Arkansas, largely upheld Judge
Reade's ruling in a 2-1 decision, but reinstated Ms. Starke's
claim and set aside Judge Reade's award to CRST of $4.5 million in
legal fees.

The panel ruled that the EEOC must investigate the claims of every
potential victim and seek informal settlements on their behalf
before filing class-action lawsuits.  This made it harder for the
government to pursue similar class-action cases in that region
than anywhere else in the U.S.

Commission officials have argued that the stricter standard would
impede its ability to enforce laws at workplaces with widespread
discrimination and harassment.  They say it is impractical to
identify every possible victim in large cases and the requirement
may reward employers who withhold information.

"This case has been a bad dream for the EEOC," said Chicago lawyer
Gerald Maatman, who represents companies sued by the EEOC.  "Their
position has been rejected pretty thoroughly and it's created
problems for them.  And now employers are pressing this argument
in other areas of the country."

He said the standard is important because employers facing
commission lawsuits want to know how big damages could be before
deciding whether to settle.  Judges in the 6th Circuit recently
ruled in the commission's favor in a similar case, ruling that a
lawsuit against Cintas Corp. on behalf of female employees in
Michigan could proceed.

The parties reached the Feb. 8 settlement after Judge Reade ruled
that 15 other women who claimed harassment would not be allowed to
testify at Ms. Starke's trial.  Mr. Maatman said he now expected
"a big battle" over whether and how much the commission should pay
in fees.


DAIICHI SANKYO: Sanford Heisler Files $100-Million Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 11, six current and former female pharmaceutical sales
professionals filed a $100 million class and collective action
gender discrimination lawsuit against Daiichi Sankyo in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
Represented by Sanford Heisler, LLP, a civil rights law firm that
has successfully litigated class action cases in the industry,
these women seek to end pervasive gender discrimination in their
workplace on behalf of themselves and a class of several hundred
female Daiichi Sankyo sales professionals who have worked for the
company in the United States.

Daiichi Sankyo is the U.S. branch of Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd.,
a Japan-based pharmaceutical giant that employs approximately
3,000 people in the United States.  In 2010, Daiichi Sankyo
reported sales of more than $2.6 billion in North America.

The Complaint alleges that Daiichi Sankyo pays female sales
employees less than male employees for doing the same work;
promotes or advances female sales employees at a slower rate than
male sales employees; treats pregnant employees and working
mothers of young children adversely compared to non-pregnant
employees, male employees, or non-caregivers; and subjects women
to other discriminatory terms and conditions of employment.

"Female pharmaceutical sales employees, including the Plaintiffs,
have been cautioned against committing 'career suicide' if they
choose to have children while working for Daiichi Sankyo," said
Janette Wipper -- jwipper@sanfordheisler.com -- a San Francisco-
based Partner at Sanford Heisler and lead attorney on the matter.
"Daiichi Sankyo's female sales reps have also been called 'baby-
makers' while pregnant, required to attend meetings in smoke-
filled rooms during their pregnancies, and received suspect
reductions in compensation after returning from maternity leaves.
Women who have dared to complain about the unequal treatment have
been summarily 'managed out' of the company."

According to the Complaint, a discrete group of predominantly male
Daiichi executives and senior sales managers keep a tight rein on
employment decisions, including decisions regarding sales
employees' compensation, advancement, and other terms and
conditions of employment.  Through this male dominated leadership
structure, the Company has approved and implemented policies,
practices and decisions that have systemically discriminated
against female employees.

"Daiichi Sankyo's systemic discriminatory actions span the gamut
of prohibited employment practices," said Felicia Medina --
fmedina@sanfordheisler.com -- Senior Litigation Counsel at Sanford
Heisler's San Francisco office.  "The Company's behavior, as
detailed in the Complaint, reads like a primer on how not to treat
female employees, particularly those who are pregnant or have
caregiving responsibilities for infants.  Plaintiffs' experiences
illustrate the lengths Daiichi Sankyo goes to ensure that women
remain in their 'place,' especially women who avail themselves of
the Company's so-called 'flexible work schedule' when they are
expecting a child or caring for their newborns."

The Plaintiffs cite Daiichi Sankyo's violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the federal Equal Pay Act of
1963, as well as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
the California Equal Pay Act and the California Unfair Business
Practices Act in the Feb. 11 Complaint.

"As a consequence of this Company's continuous discriminatory
conduct, the Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to all legal
and equitable remedies available for violations of these laws,
especially much needed programmatic change within the Company to
ensure that going forward women -- including women with children
-- are provided equal employment opportunities at Daiichi," said
Ms. Wipper.

                   About Sanford Heisler, LLP

Sanford Heisler is a law firm with offices in Washington, D.C.,
New York, and San Francisco that specializes in employment
discrimination, wage and hour, qui tam and complex class action
litigation.


DEWEY & LEBOEUF: Loses Bid to Dismiss WARN Act Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York denied approval of a motion filed by Dewey &
LeBoeuf LLP to dismiss a putative class action adversary
proceeding filed by Vittoria Conn.

Dewey collapsed and filed for bankruptcy in May 2012.

The class action, filed on behalf of 550 laid off employees,
seeks relief for alleged violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act and a determination that the alleged
class claims are entitled to administrative expense or wage
priority status.

The Dewey estate sought to have the case dismissed on grounds that
the firm was not an operating business when Ms. Conn was laid off
and was not required to give 60 to 90 days notice.

Dewey also contended that Ms. Conn could not bring a class action
as part of the firm's bankruptcy proceedings because the maneuver
would put the class members' interests ahead of creditors.

However, the Court held that Ms. Conn's Complaint properly asserts
causes of action under the WARN Act and that such claims seek
primarily equitable relief that may be asserted in an adversary
proceeding in the Debtors' Chapter 11 case.

"While the Debtor may ultimately prevail on the liquidating
fiduciary affirmative defense, or some other defense, the defenses
are not established as a matter of law from the four corners of
the Complaint. Therefore, the Motion is DENIED," Judge Glenn held.

With respect to the Plaintiff's request that her claims be
entitled to administrative expense or wage priority status, Judge
Glenn said the requested relief may not be determined in an
adversary proceeding, but only by motion in the main bankruptcy
case.

A hearing is scheduled for March 28 when Judge Glenn is expected
to hear arguments from Dewey and Ms. Conn about whether the case
should receive class action status.

The case before Judge Glenn is styled In re: DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP,
et al., Chapter 11, Debtor. VITTORIA CONN, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. DEWEY & LEBOEUF
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 12-12321 (MG), Adv. Proc. No. 12-01672
(MG).

Jack A. Raisner, Esq., and Rene S. Roupinian, Esq., at Outten &
Golden LLP in New York, represent the Plaintiff and the Putative
Class.

Frank A. Oswald, Esq. -- frankoswald@teamtogut.com -- Jonathan P.
Ibsen, Esq. -- jibsen@teamtogut.com -- Lara R. Sheikh, Esq. --
lsheikh@teamtogut.com -- of Togut, Segal & Segal LLP at One Penn
Plaza, Suite 3335 in New York, represent the Debtor.

Joshua Davis, Esq. -- jdavis@goulstonstorrs.com -- and Elizabeth
Levine, Esq. -- elevine@goulstonstorrs.com -- of Goulston &
Storrs, P.C. at 400 Atlantic Avenue in Boston, Massachusetts, also
represent the Debtor.

A copy of the Bankruptcy Court's February 11, 2013 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/eU4ahLfrom
Leagle.com.


FORD: Faces Suit Over False Claims on 2013 Escape SE
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ford's all-wheel drive 2013
Escape SE does not get the 22 mpg city and 30 mpg highway mileage
of which Ford boasts, a class action claims in Federal Court.


GOOGLE INC: Authors Guild Wants Class Action Cert. Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------
MediaPost reports that the Authors Guild is asking a federal
appellate court to allow longstanding litigation about Google's
book project to proceed as a class-action.

The authors group argues that U.S. Circuit Court Judge Denny Chin
correctly rejected Google's contention that copyright infringement
requires case-by-case evaluation.  "It is duplicitous for Google
to implement a single, mass digitization policy affecting the
rights of so many authors while at the same time argue that its
policy must be analyzed in countless separate lawsuits," the
Authors Guild says in a brief filed with the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals.

Last year, Circuit Court Judge Chin in New York certified the
Authors Guild's lawsuit as a class-action.  Judge Chin ruled that
it wouldn't be fair to require writers to sue Google individually.

Google is appealing that decision to the 2nd Circuit, which stayed
the litigation when it considers the issue.  Google argues that a
class-action isn't appropriate because the Authors Guild and its
members have conflicting interests.  Google says that many writers
approve of its decision to scan millions of books from public
libraries and make them searchable.

The company says a survey it commissioned of 800 authors shows
that most like the digitization project.  Most survey respondents
-- 58% -- said they approved of Google scanning their books, while
19% say they have or would benefit from Google's scans.

But the Authors Guild calls that survey "invalid and misleading"
in its new court papers.

"Google has no evidence a single author has financially benefited
from Google Books," the Authors Guild argues.  The organization
also denies that its position conflicts with book writers.  "Every
class member timely registered their books (or had their
publishers do so), an act that evinces a desire for maximum
copyright protection," the group argues.

Google also says that class-action certification is a mistake
because the case presents fair use issues that require individual
assessment.  The Authors Guild disagrees, noting that Google
itself already drew on "generalized, class-wide evidence" when it
argued that the case should be dismissed on fair use grounds.

The Authors Guild recently lost a fair use argument in another
lawsuit stemming from Google's book digitization.  In that case,
U.S. District Court Judge Howard Baer in New York dismissed a
lawsuit by the Authors Guild against five universities that worked
with Google to digitize the books.

"I cannot imagine a definition of fair use that would not
encompass the transformative uses made by defendants' [mass
digitization project] and would require that I terminate this
invaluable contribution to the progress of science and cultivation
of the arts," Judge Baer wrote in that case.

The Authors Guild's dispute with Google dates to 2005, when the
organization sued Google for allegedly infringing copyright by
scanning library books and displaying snippets of some of them in
its search engine, in response to queries.  The Authors Guild and
Google reached a settlement several years ago, but Judge Chin
scuttled the deal due to antitrust concerns.

That agreement would have allowed Google to create a new book
registry and sell digital downloads at prices it sets with the
registry.  That deal also would have immunized Google -- but no
other companies -- from copyright infringement liability for
digitizing orphan works, or books under copyright whose owners
can't be found.  Critics, including consumer advocacy groups,
argued that this provision would have granted Google a monopoly in
orphan works.


NEW YORK: "Stop and Frisk Suit" Obtains Class-Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge on
Feb. 11 granted class-action status to a lawsuit seeking to stop
the New York Police Department from conducting some "stop and
frisk" searches of people outside certain residential buildings in
the city's Bronx borough.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin found that a group of black
and Latino residents in the Bronx could bring claims on behalf of
a class of hundreds, and possibly thousands, of people at risk of
being stopped outside the buildings.

The lawsuit contends that the practice, in which police stop and
question people they suspect of unlawful activity and frisk those
they suspect of carrying weapons, violates the U.S. Constitution.

On Jan. 8, Scheindlin ordered that some stops related to an anti-
crime program once known as "Operation Clean Halls" must be halted
immediately. Officers would have to have "reasonable suspicion"
that an individual is engaged in criminal activity to make a stop,
she ruled.

But Judge Scheindlin placed that order on hold on Jan. 22, while
the city pursues an appeal.

Defenders of the tactics, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg, say
the police practices have helped to reduce crime.

The plaintiffs requested class-action status to ensure that any
temporary ban on the program would apply to all people at risk of
being stopped outside the Bronx apartment buildings, Monday's
opinion said.

The New York City Law Department did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The case is Ligon et al v City of New York, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, no. 12-2274.

For the plaintiffs: Christopher Dunn, Alexis Karteron, Taylor
Pendergrass and Daniel Mullkoff of the New York Civil Liberties
Union; McGregor Smyth and Mariana Kovel of The Bronx Defenders;
Juan Cartagena, Foster Maer and Roberto Concepcion of
LatinoJustice PRLDEF; John Nathanson --
john.nathanson@shearman.com --  Tiana Peterson --
tiana.peterson@shearman.com --  and Mayer Grashin of Shearman &
Sterling.

For the city: Heidi Grossman, Mark Zuckerman, Joseph Marutollo,
Brenda Cooke and Richard Weingarten of the New York City Law
Department.


NEWS CORP: Awaits Final Okay of Atty. Generals' Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
News Corporation is awaiting final approval of its settlement of
class action lawsuits brought by state attorneys general,
according to the Company's February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2012.

Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, 16 state Attorneys
General led by Texas and Connecticut (the "AGs") filed a similar
action against certain publishers and Apple, Inc. in the Western
District of Texas.  On April 26, 2012, the AGs' action was
transferred to Judge Cote.  On May 17, 2012, 33 AGs filed a second
amended complaint.  As a result of a memorandum of understanding
agreed upon with the AGs for Texas and Connecticut, HarperCollins
was not named as a defendant in this action.  Pursuant to the
terms of the memorandum of understanding, HarperCollins entered
into a settlement agreement with the AGs for Texas, Connecticut
and Ohio on June 11, 2012.  By August 28, 2012, forty-nine states
(all but Minnesota) and five U.S. territories had signed on to
that settlement agreement.  On August 29, 2012, the AGs
simultaneously filed a complaint against HarperCollins and two
other publishers, a motion for preliminary approval of that
settlement agreement and a proposed distribution plan.  On
September 14, 2012, Judge Cote granted the AGs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and approved the
AGs' proposed distribution plan.  Notice was subsequently sent to
potential class members, and a fairness hearing was scheduled on
February 8, 2013.  If the settlement agreement receives final
approval, it would resolve all damage claims of individual
citizens from those states and territories, including those
represented in the purported class actions.

While the settlement agreement with the AGs is still subject to
final approval by the court, the Company believes that the
proposed settlement, as currently drafted, will not have a
material impact on the results of operations or the financial
position of the Company.  However, the Company can make no
assurances that the proposed settlement will receive final
approval.

News Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified global
media company with operations in the following six industry
segments: (i) Cable Network Programming; (ii) Filmed
Entertainment; (iii) Television; (iv) Direct Broadcast Satellite
Television; (v) Publishing; and (vi) Other.  The Company's
activities are conducted principally in the United States, the
United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and Latin
America.  The Company is engaged in the publishing business,
primarily through its subsidiaries News International, News
Limited, Dow Jones, The New York Post, The Daily, HarperCollins
Publishers and News America Marketing Group.


NEWS CORP: Canadian Consumer Suits vs. HarperCollins Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Commencing on February 24, 2012, five purported consumer class
actions were filed in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia,
Quebec and Ontario, which relate to the decisions by certain
publishers, including News Corporation's subsidiary, HarperCollins
Publishers L.L.C., to begin selling their eBooks in Canada
pursuant to an agency relationship.  The actions seek as relief
special, general and punitive damages, injunctive relief and the
costs of the litigations.  While it is not possible to predict
with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of these class
actions, especially given their early stages, HarperCollins
believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust and
competition laws and intends to defend itself vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

News Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified global
media company with operations in the following six industry
segments: (i) Cable Network Programming; (ii) Filmed
Entertainment; (iii) Television; (iv) Direct Broadcast Satellite
Television; (v) Publishing; and (vi) Other.  The Company's
activities are conducted principally in the United States, the
United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and Latin
America.  The Company is engaged in the publishing business,
primarily through its subsidiaries News International, News
Limited, Dow Jones, The New York Post, The Daily, HarperCollins
Publishers and News America Marketing Group.


NEWS CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Wilder" Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al., is pending in New York, according to
News Corporation's February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2012.

On July 18, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative action captioned Shields v. Murdoch, et al. ("Shields
Litigation"), in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The plaintiff alleged violations of Section
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as state law claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste, abuse of
control and contribution/indemnification arising from, and in
connection with, The News of the World (the "NoW Matter").  The
complaint names the directors of the Company as defendants and
names the Company as a nominal defendant, and seeks damages and
costs.  On August 4, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.  The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, an order
declaring the October 15, 2010 shareholder vote on the election of
the Company's directors void; an order setting an emergency
shareholder vote date for election of new directors; an order
requiring the Company to take certain specified corporate
governance actions; and an order (i) putting forward a shareholder
vote resolution for amendments to the Company's Article of
Incorporation and (ii) taking such other action as may be
necessary to place before shareholders for a vote on corporate
governance policies that: (a) appoint a non-executive Chair of the
Board who is not related to the Murdoch family or extended family;
(b) appoint an independent Chair of the Board's Audit Committee;
(c) appoint at least three independent directors to the Governance
and Nominating Committees; (d) strengthen the Board's supervision
of financial reporting processes and implement procedures for
greater shareholder input into the policies and guidelines of the
Board; and (e) appropriately test and strengthen the internal and
audit control functions.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011, and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The plaintiff
brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading
statements were issued regarding the NoW Matter.  The lawsuit
names as defendants the Company, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and
Rebekah Brooks, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission for
damages sustained, and costs.

On July 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative action captioned Stricklin v. Murdoch, et al.
("Stricklin Litigation"), in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The plaintiff brought claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, and waste of
corporate assets in connection with, among other things, (i) the
NoW Matter; (ii) News America's purported payments to settle
allegations of anti-competitive behavior; and (iii) the Shine
Transaction.  The action names as defendants the Company, Les
Hinton, Rebekah Brooks, Paul Carlucci and the directors of the
Company.  On August 3, 2011, the plaintiff served a motion for
expedited discovery and to appoint a conservator over the Company,
which defendants objected to.

The motion has not been formally calendared and there is no
briefing schedule yet.  On August 16, 2011, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint.  The plaintiff seeks various forms of relief
including compensatory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement,
the award of voting rights to Class A shareholders, the
appointment of a conservator over the Company to oversee the
Company's responses to investigations and litigation related to
the NoW Matter, fees and costs.

On August 10, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative action captioned Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v.
Murdoch, et al. ("Iron Workers Litigation"), in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
plaintiff brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of
corporate assets, unjust enrichment and alleged violations of
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act in connection with
the NoW Matter.  The action names as defendants the Company, Les
Hinton, Rebekah Brooks and the directors of the Company.  The
plaintiff seeks various forms of relief including compensatory
damages, voiding the election of the director defendants, an order
requiring the Company to take certain specified corporate
governance actions, injunctive relief, restitution, fees and
costs.

The Wilder Litigation, the Stricklin Litigation and the Iron
Workers Litigation are all now before the judge in the Shields
Litigation.  On November 21, 2011, the court issued an order
setting a briefing schedule for the defendants' motion to stay the
Stricklin Litigation, the Iron Workers Litigation and the Shields
Litigation pending the outcome of the consolidated action pending
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  On September 18, 2012, the
Court denied the motion as to two of the cases and dismissed the
third with leave to replead, which plaintiff has done.
Specifically, on October 4, 2012, Stricklin filed a Second Amended
Complaint that added a claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act challenging the disclosures in the Company's
definitive proxy statements issued during the years of 2005
through 2012.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to void
the election of the director defendants at the Company's 2012
annual meeting.  The plaintiffs in Shields, Stricklin and Iron
Workers have requested a pre-motion conference to address the
potential consolidation of these derivative actions and a briefing
schedule regarding the potential leadership structure for the
plaintiffs.  The pre-motion conference has not yet been scheduled.
In the Wilder Litigation, on June 5, 2012, the court issued an
order appointing the Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel.  Thereafter, on
July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing that an amended
consolidated complaint shall be filed by July 31, 2012.  Avon
filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which
among other things, added as defendants NI Group Limited and Les
Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15,
2011, to July 18, 2011.  Defendants filed their motion to dismiss
on September 25, 2012, plaintiffs' opposition was filed November
6, 2012, and defendants' reply was filed November 30, 2012.  The
motion is pending.

The Company's management believes these shareholder claims are
entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously defend these
actions.

News Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified global
media company with operations in the following six industry
segments: (i) Cable Network Programming; (ii) Filmed
Entertainment; (iii) Television; (iv) Direct Broadcast Satellite
Television; (v) Publishing; and (vi) Other.  The Company's
activities are conducted principally in the United States, the
United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and Latin
America.  The Company is engaged in the publishing business,
primarily through its subsidiaries News International, News
Limited, Dow Jones, The New York Post, The Daily, HarperCollins
Publishers and News America Marketing Group.


NEWS CORP: Court Reserves Ruling on Bid to Junk 3rd Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery has reserved its decision with
respect to a motion to dismiss a third amended consolidated
shareholder complaint, according to News Corporation's
February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

On March 16, 2011, a complaint seeking to compel the inspection of
the Company's books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 220,
captioned Central Laborers Pension Fund v. News Corporation, was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The plaintiff requested
the Company's books and records to investigate alleged possible
breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the Company in
connection with the Company's purchase of Shine (the "Shine
Transaction").  The Company moved to dismiss the action.  On
November 30, 2011, the court issued an order granting the
Company's motion and dismissing the complaint.  The plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal on December 13, 2011.  The Delaware
Supreme Court heard argument on the fully-briefed appeal on
April 18, 2012, and issued a decision on May 29, 2012, in which it
affirmed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of the complaint.

Also on March 16, 2011, two purported shareholders of the Company,
one of which was Central Laborers Pension Fund, filed a derivative
action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned The
Amalgamated Bank v. Murdoch, et al. (the "Amalgamated Bank
Litigation").  The plaintiffs alleged that both the directors of
the Company and Rupert Murdoch as a "controlling shareholder"
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Shine
Transaction.  The lawsuit named as defendants all directors of the
Company, and named the Company as a nominal defendant.  Similar
claims against the same group of defendants were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery by a purported shareholder of the
Company, New Orleans Employees' Retirement System, on March 25,
2011 (the "New Orleans Employees' Retirement Litigation").  Both
the Amalgamated Bank Litigation and the New Orleans Employees'
Retirement Litigation were consolidated on April 6, 2011 (the
"Consolidated Action"), with The Amalgamated Bank's complaint
serving as the operative complaint.  The Consolidated Action was
captioned In re News Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation.  On
April 9, 2011, the court entered a scheduling order governing the
filing of an amended complaint and briefing on potential motions
to dismiss.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a
Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and Class Action
Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") on May 13, 2011, seeking
declaratory relief and damages.  The Consolidated Complaint
largely restated the claims in The Amalgamated Bank's initial
complaint and also raised a direct claim on behalf of a purported
class of Company shareholders relating to the possible addition of
Elisabeth Murdoch to the Company's Board.  The defendants filed
opening briefs in support of motions to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint on June 10, 2011, as contemplated by the court's
scheduling order.

On July 8, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Amended
Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and Class Action Complaint
(the "Amended Complaint").  In addition to the claims that were
previously raised in the Consolidated Complaint, the Amended
Complaint brought claims relating to the alleged acts of voicemail
interception at The News of the World (the "NoW Matter").
Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed in the Amended Complaint that
the directors of the Company failed in their duty of oversight
regarding the NoW Matter.

On July 15, 2011, another purported stockholder of the Company
filed a derivative action captioned Massachusetts Laborers'
Pension & Annuity Funds v. Murdoch, et al., in the Delaware Court
of Chancery (the "Mass. Laborers Litigation").  The complaint
names as defendants the directors of the Company and the Company
as a nominal defendant.  The plaintiffs' claims are substantially
similar to those raised by the Amended Complaint in the
Consolidated Action.  Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the
directors of the Company have breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, approving the Shine Transaction and for
failing to exercise proper oversight in connection with the NoW
Matter.  The plaintiff also brought a breach of fiduciary duty
claim against Rupert Murdoch as "controlling shareholder," and a
waste claim against the directors of the Company.  The action
seeks as relief damages, injunctive relief, fees and costs.  On
July 25, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action requested
that the court consolidate the Mass. Laborers Litigation into the
Consolidated Action.  On August 24, 2011, the Mass. Laborers
Litigation was consolidated with the Consolidated Action.

On September 29, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Second
Amended Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and Class Action
Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint").  In the Second Amended
Complaint, the plaintiffs removed their claims involving the
possible addition of Elisabeth Murdoch to the Company's Board,
added some factual allegations to support their remaining claims
and added a claim seeking to enjoin a buyback of Common B shares
to the extent it would result in a change of control.  The Second
Amended Complaint seeks declaratory relief, an injunction
preventing the buyback of Class B shares, damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest, fees and costs.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  The hearing on the defendants' fully-briefed motion to
dismiss was postponed to allow further briefing by plaintiffs
after the Cohen Litigation was consolidated with the Consolidated
Action.

On March 2, 2012, another purported stockholder of the Company
filed a derivative action captioned Belle M. Cohen v. Murdoch, et
al., in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Cohen Litigation").
The complaint names as defendants the directors of the Company and
the Company as a nominal defendant.  The complaint's claims and
allegations pertain to the NoW Matter and are substantially
similar to the NoW Matter allegations raised in the Second Amended
Complaint in the Consolidated Action.  The complaint asserts
causes of action against the defendants for alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, contribution and
indemnification, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets.
The action seeks as relief damages, fees and costs.  On March 20,
2012, the Cohen Litigation was consolidated with the Consolidated
Action.

On June 18, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed
a Verified Third Amended Consolidated Shareholder Derivative
Complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint").  The Third Amended
Complaint alleges claims against director defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty arising from the Shine Transaction; against Rupert
Murdoch for breach of fiduciary duty as the purported controlling
shareholder of the Company in connection with the Shine
Transaction; against director defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty arising from their purported failure to investigate illegal
conduct in the NoW Matter and allegedly permitting the Company to
engage in a cover up; against certain defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty in their capacity as officers arising from a
purported failure to investigate illegal conduct in the NoW Matter
and allegedly permitting the Company to engage in a cover up; and
against James Murdoch for breach of fiduciary duty for allegedly
engaging in a cover up related to the NoW Matter.  The class
action claim asserted in the Second Amended Complaint pertaining
to the buyback of Common B shares and the relief related to that
claim were removed.  The Third Amended Complaint seeks a
declaration that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties,
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs.

On July 18, 2012, the defendants renewed their postponed motion to
dismiss in the Consolidated Action, and in support thereof, they
filed supplemental briefing directed towards the allegations of
the Third Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs' response was filed on
August 8, 2012.  A hearing on the fully briefed motion was held in
Chancery Court on September 19, 2012.  The Court reserved
decision.

News Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified global
media company with operations in the following six industry
segments: (i) Cable Network Programming; (ii) Filmed
Entertainment; (iii) Television; (iv) Direct Broadcast Satellite
Television; (v) Publishing; and (vi) Other.  The Company's
activities are conducted principally in the United States, the
United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and Latin
America.  The Company is engaged in the publishing business,
primarily through its subsidiaries News International, News
Limited, Dow Jones, The New York Post, The Daily, HarperCollins
Publishers and News America Marketing Group.


NEWS CORP: HarperCollins Defends Antitrust MDL in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
News Corporation's subsidiary is defending itself in a
multidistrict litigation in New York, according to the Company's
February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

Commencing on August 9, 2011, twenty-nine purported consumer class
actions have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the
Southern District of New York and for the Northern District of
California, which relate to the decisions by certain publishers,
including HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. ("HarperCollins"), to
begin selling their eBooks pursuant to an agency relationship.
The cases all involve allegations that certain named defendants in
the book publishing and distribution industry, including
HarperCollins, violated the antitrust and unfair competition laws
by virtue of the switch to the agency model for eBooks.  The
actions seek as relief treble damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
has transferred the various class actions to the Honorable Denise
L. Cote in the Southern District of New York.  On January 20,
2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, again
alleging that certain named defendants, including HarperCollins,
violated the antitrust and unfair competition laws by virtue of
the switch to the agency model for eBooks. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on March 2, 2012.  On May 15, 2012, Judge Cote
denied defendants' motion to dismiss.  On June 22, 2012, Judge
Cote held a status conference to address discovery and scheduling
issues.  On June 25, 2012, Judge Cote issued a scheduling order
for the multi-district litigation going forward.  Additional
information about In re MDL Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Action No. 11-md-02293 (DLC), can be found on Public Access
to Court Electronic Records (PACER).

While it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty
the ultimate outcome of these class actions, HarperCollins
believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust and
competition laws.

News Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified global
media company with operations in the following six industry
segments: (i) Cable Network Programming; (ii) Filmed
Entertainment; (iii) Television; (iv) Direct Broadcast Satellite
Television; (v) Publishing; and (vi) Other.  The Company's
activities are conducted principally in the United States, the
United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and Latin
America.  The Company is engaged in the publishing business,
primarily through its subsidiaries News International, News
Limited, Dow Jones, The New York Post, The Daily, HarperCollins
Publishers and News America Marketing Group.


NEWS CORP: Hearing on "Forsta Ap-Fonden" Suit Deal on April 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing for the court's approval of News Corporation's
settlement of the class action lawsuit initiated by Forsta Ap-
Fonden is set for April 26, 2013, according to the Company's
February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

On May 30, 2012, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf
of all non-U.S. stockholders of the Company's Class B shares,
captioned Forsta Ap-Fonden v. News Corporation, et al.  The
plaintiff alleges that, by temporarily suspending 50% of the
voting rights of the Class B shares held by non-U.S. stockholders
to remain in compliance with U.S. governing broadcast licenses
(the "Suspension"), the Company and the Board violated the
Company's charter and the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware ("DGCL") and the directors breached their fiduciary
duties, both in approving the Suspension and in failing to monitor
the Company's ownership by non-U.S. stockholders.  The complaint
named as defendants the Company and all directors of the Company
at the time of the Suspension.  The complaint sought a declaration
that the defendants violated the Company's charter and the DGCL, a
declaration that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, a
declaration that the Suspension is invalid and unenforceable, an
injunction of the Suspension, damages, fees, and costs.  On June
11, 2012, the defendants filed an opening brief in support of a
motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.  On August 2,
2012, the plaintiff filed a Verified Amended and Supplemented
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended and Supplemented Complaint").
The Amended and Supplemented Complaint seeks a declaration that
the defendants violated the Company's charter and the DGCL, a
declaration that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, a
declaration that the Suspension is invalid and unenforceable, an
injunction of the Suspension, a declaration that non-U.S.
stockholders of the Company's Class B shares are entitled to vote
all of their shares on the Proposed Separation Transaction,
damages, fees, and costs.

On August 28, 2012, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding providing for an agreement in principle to settle
the lawsuit ("MOU").  The MOU, which was filed with the Court on
September 5, 2012, provides in pertinent part: (i) within 5
business days after receiving Court approval, the Company will
file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (the
"FCC") requesting permission to comply with law governing
broadcast licenses for any meeting of stockholders by (a)
determining the number of shares held by foreign stockholders that
are present at the meeting and that would be entitled to vote but
for the Suspension, and (b) counting as votes cast all voted
shares held by foreign stockholders, up to a total of 25% of the
shares voted; (ii) the Company's Audit Committee will determine on
at least an annual basis the total number of voting shares held by
non-U.S. citizens and will have the power to modify or eliminate
any then-existing suspension; the Company will disclose this
information in its annual proxy materials and (iii) the Company
will not consent to amend, modify or terminate the Murdoch Family
Interests agreement without prior approval of the Audit Committee,
which in the case of any vote related to the Proposed Separation
Transaction, must be unanimous.  The settlement is subject to
Court approval after notice to the stockholders and a hearing.
The Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the Court on November
30, 2012.  On December 10, 2012, the Court entered a Scheduling
Order, which, among other things, set the settlement hearing for
April 26, 2013, and approved the form of Notice of Pendency of
Class Action, Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear, which has been distributed to
holders of the Company's Class B Common Stock in accordance with
the Scheduling Order.

News Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified global
media company with operations in the following six industry
segments: (i) Cable Network Programming; (ii) Filmed
Entertainment; (iii) Television; (iv) Direct Broadcast Satellite
Television; (v) Publishing; and (vi) Other.  The Company's
activities are conducted principally in the United States, the
United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and Latin
America.  The Company is engaged in the publishing business,
primarily through its subsidiaries News International, News
Limited, Dow Jones, The New York Post, The Daily, HarperCollins
Publishers and News America Marketing Group.


NORTH SHORE-LONG: Faces Identity Theft Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that North Shore-Long Island
Jewish Health System allowed unencrypted, sensitive information on
"hundreds of patients" to be swiped from its computers, a class
action claims in Queens County Supreme Court.


OCLARO INC: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Commences
--------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the securities class action lawsuit
filed against Oclaro, Inc., according to the Company's February 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 29, 2012.

On May 19, 2011, Curtis and Charlotte Westley filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors.  The Court subsequently appointed
the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund (Pension Fund) as lead
plaintiff for the putative class.  On April 26, 2012, the Pension
Fund filed a second amended complaint, captioned as Westley v.
Oclaro, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2448 EMC, allegedly on behalf of persons
who purchased the Company's common stock between May 6, and
October 28, 2010, alleging that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors issued materially false and misleading
statements during this time period regarding the Company's current
business and financial condition, including projections for demand
for its products, as well as its revenues, earnings, and gross
margins, for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 as well as the
full fiscal year.  The complaint alleges violations of section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5, as well as section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.  The complaint seeks damages and costs of an
unspecified amount.  On September 21, 2012, the Court dismissed
the second amended complaint with leave to amend.

After the Pension Fund moved for reconsideration, on January 10,
2013, the Court allowed plaintiffs to take discovery regarding
statements made in May and June 2010.  Plaintiffs have said that
they intend to file a third amended complaint seeking to state a
claim based on statements allegedly made from July through October
2010.  Discovery has commenced, and no trial has been scheduled in
this action.

The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously.
The Company is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this
lawsuit on its financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.

Oclaro Inc. is a tier-one provider of optical communications and
laser components, modules and subsystems for a broad range of
diverse markets, including telecommunications (telecom),
industrial, scientific, consumer electronics and medical.


OCLARO INC: Opnext Merger-Related Class Action Suits Resolved
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits stemming from Oclaro, Inc.'s merger with
Opnext, Inc. have either been settled or dismissed, according to
the Company's February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December
29, 2012.

On July 23, 2012, the Company completed a merger by and among
Opnext, Inc. (Opnext), Tahoe Acquisition Sub, Inc., a newly formed
wholly-owned subsidiary of Oclaro (Merger Sub), and Oclaro,
pursuant to which the Company acquired Opnext through a merger of
Merger Sub with and into Opnext.

Five putative class actions challenging the merger between Opnext,
Inc., Tahoe Acquisition Sub, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. ("Merger") were
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for
the County of Alameda:

   (1) Martin Zilberberg v. Charles J. Abbe, No RG12623460, on
       March 28, 2012;

   (2) Eleanor Welty v. Harry L. Bosco, Case No. RG12624240, on
       April 4, 2012;

   (3) Todd Wright v. Harry L. Bosco, Case No. RG12624343, on
       April 5, 2012;

   (4) Stephen Greenberg v. Charles J. Abbe, No. RG12624444, on
       April 5, 2012; and

   (5) Mark Graf v. Opnext, Inc., No. RG12624798, on April 9,
       2012.

Two putative class actions challenging the Merger were filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery:

   (1) Glenn Freedman v. Opnext, Inc., CA No. 7400-VCL, on
       April 5, 2012; and

   (2) Berger v. Bosco, No. 7406-VCL, on April 9, 2012.

The defendants in each case were Opnext and the members of
Opnext's Board (collectively, the "Opnext Defendants"), Oclaro,
Inc. and Tahoe Acquisition Sub, Inc. (collectively, the "Oclaro
Defendants").  Each action alleged that the Opnext Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Opnext stockholders by entering
into the Merger Agreement.  Each action further alleged that the
Oclaro Defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary
duties.  On July 6, 2012, plaintiff Wright voluntarily dismissed
his complaint.  The remaining plaintiffs executed a memorandum of
understanding settling these matters, subject to court approval.
Under the proposed settlement, the remaining plaintiffs agreed to
settle these matters for additional disclosures only, and agreed
to limit their application for fees and costs to $235,000.

On January 31, 2013, the Alameda County Superior Court entered an
order approving the settlement and granting plaintiffs' counsel
$235,000 in fees and costs.  On February 1, 2013, the Delaware
Court of Chancery entered a stipulated order dismissing the
Delaware actions.

Oclaro Inc. is a tier-one provider of optical communications and
laser components, modules and subsystems for a broad range of
diverse markets, including telecommunications (telecom),
industrial, scientific, consumer electronics and medical.


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Final Hearing on Settlements Set for 2nd Quarter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing has been scheduled in the second quarter
of 2013 in connection with Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.'s
settlements of two class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's February 7, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Since 2007, the Company has been a defendant in two class action
lawsuits alleging inadequate disclosures in 2007 in SEC filings
related to its internalization, response to a tender offer, and
amendments to the Company's charter.  As previously disclosed, the
Company reached tentative settlements with the plaintiffs in both
cases totaling $7.5 million.  Subsequent to quarter end, the court
preliminarily approved the proposed settlements.  A final approval
hearing has been scheduled in Q2 2013.  The proposed settlements
are within available insurance limits and the Company is seeking
recovery of these settlements from its insurance carriers.


SAMSONITE LLC: Recalls Dual-Wattage Travel Converter Kits
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Samsonite LLC, of Mansfield, Massachusetts, announced a voluntary
recall of Dual-Wattage Travel Converter Kits.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The converter can overheat if a load in excess of 50 watts is
applied to the converter while in the 50-watt setting.  This poses
a fire and burn hazard to consumers.

Samsonite is aware of three converters overheating.  No injuries
or property damage have been reported.

This recall involves the Samsonite Dual-Wattage Travel Converter
Kits used to make standard U.S. and Canadian appliances usable
abroad.  The kit includes one black converter to change 220-volt
AC electricity to 110-volt AC, two adapter plugs with round
prongs, two with flat prongs and one grounded adapter plug with
three flat prongs.  The converter has a red switch to adjust the
wattage of the appliance from 50 to 1600 watts.  The words "Dual-
Wattage Converter" and "Do Not Use 50W on Hair Dryer" appear on
the front of the converter.  The Samsonite logo appears on each
piece in the set.  Picture of the recalled products is available
at: http://is.gd/HBw6Zd

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
retail stores nationwide and at the Samsonite on-line store from
January 2011 through December 2012 for approximately $35.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled travel
converters and contact Samsonite to return the product for a full
refund.  Samsonite may be reached toll-free at (800) 382-7259 from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday; at e-
mail recall@samsonite.com or online at
http://www.samsonite.com/recall/


SHEILA MORRISON: Settles Class Action Over Alleged Abuses
---------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP disclosed that on February 7, 2013, the parties
entered into a C$4 million settlement of the class action relating
to alleged abuses at the Sheila Morrison School.

The Sheila Morrison School was a private school located in Utopia,
near Barrie, Ontario.  The school was primarily directed at
students with learning disabilities, behavioral issues or special
needs. The school closed in 2009.

The settlement is subject to court approval and there will be a
hearing on March 12, 2013 to consider such approval.

The action was settled to the satisfaction of all parties and is,
in the view of the parties, fair, reasonable and in the best
interests of the class members.

Koskie Minsky LLP, a leading Canadian class action law firm, acts
for the plaintiffs and class members and supports the approval of
the settlement.  This settlement, if approved, would provide
compensation to former students and would do so in a manner that
accounts for how long students attended the school and the
experiences they suffered.


SUBURBAN PROPANE: Received Prelim. OK of Commercial Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") received
preliminary approval of its settlement of one of the commercial
class action lawsuits commenced against it, according to the
Company's February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 29, 2012.

The operations of Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. (the
"Partnership") are subject to operating hazards and risks normally
incidental to handling, storing and delivering combustible
liquids, such as propane.  The Partnership has been, and will
continue to be, a defendant in various legal proceedings and
litigation as a result of these operating hazards and risks, and
as a result of other aspects of its business.  In this last
regard, the Partnership currently is a defendant in commercial
lawsuits in two states, including one class action and another
putative class action in which the court has denied class
certification without prejudice.  The Partnership believes both
such lawsuits are without merit.  The class action alleges several
claims relating to two fees charged by the Partnership in
connection with its residential propane business in California.

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, to avoid both the
continued expenses and burden of defending that action and the
uncertainty inherent in all litigations, the Partnership entered
into an agreement to settle that California action on a class-wide
basis in return for the payment of a monetary sum and certain non-
monetary consideration, and established an accrual of $4.5 million
for the estimated cost of the settlement.  The court granted
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on November 19,
2012.

In the putative class action, the Partnership has been successful
in eliminating several of the claims such that only certain
contractual and consumer statute claims remain.  The Partnership
is contesting this putative class action vigorously and has
determined, based on the allegations and discovery to date, that
no reserve for a loss contingency other than for legal defense
fees and expenses is required.

Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") is a publicly
traded Delaware limited partnership principally engaged, through
its operating partnership and subsidiaries, in the retail
marketing and distribution of propane, fuel oil and refined fuels,
as well as the marketing of natural gas and electricity in
deregulated markets.  The Company is headquartered in Whippany,
New Jersey.


TYSON FOODS: Court Won't Dismiss 3 Plaintiffs in Workers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon refused to dismiss three
plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JOSE A. GOMEZ, JULIANA REYES,
JUAN M. CRUZ, TED MCDONALD, CECILIA ORTIZ, and MARIO CRUZ, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals;
Plaintiffs, v. TYSON FOODS, INC., Defendant, No. 8:08CV21, (D.
Neb.).

Tyson Foods have asked the Court to dismiss Dean Renfeld, Rosaura
Azpeitia, and Raymond L. Plafcan for failure to provide responses
to the Company's First Set of Interrogatories or Requests for
Production.

Judge Bataillon ruled that the plaintiffs' conduct does not
warrant the extreme sanction of dismissal.  The plaintiffs were
earlier ordered to respond to discovery requests with respect to
13 plaintiffs.  The Court's review of the record shows that the
plaintiffs substantially complied with that order, and any
remaining failures to respond do not appear to be in bad faith.

"The defendant has not shown it will be prejudiced by these
plaintiffs' failure to respond to the discovery," Judge Bataillon
said.  Accordingly, the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims
of the three plaintiffs is denied.

A copy of the District Court's February 11, 2013 memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/bOwUuJfrom Leagle.com.


WAGGIN' TRAIN: Sued for Selling Contaminated Dog Treats
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Waggin' Train and Nestle
Purina sell Waggin' Train and Canyon Creek Ranch dog treats that
are "contaminated with poisonous antibiotics and other potentially
lethal substances," a class action claims in Jackson County Court.


WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces Class Action Over Loan Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Kara Nuzback, writing for CapeGazette.com, reports that a Dover
developer faces criminal charges, and Wilmington Trust Bank -- now
owned by M&T Bank -- is fighting a class-action lawsuit, all
related to the bank's process of doling out loans.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation began probing the relationship
between Wilmington Trust and developer Michael Zimmerman after
retired Sen. George Bunting, D-Bethany Beach, wrote a series of
letters, beginning Oct. 14, 2010, asking the Federal Reserve to
investigate the bank's commercial loan practices.

Wilmington Trust provided financing for a number of Mr.
Zimmerman's projects, including Salt Pond Plaza in Ocean View and
two other projects in Dover.

Mr. Zimmerman has facilitated shopping centers, drug stores,
grocery stores and residential centers in Sussex County, including
Zwaanendael Landing in Lewes, Walmart in Georgetown, Long Neck
Plaza and Milton Park Center.  Mr. Zimmerman could not be reached
at press time.

The U.S. Attorney General's Office filed an indictment against
Mr. Zimmerman Jan. 23, which included felony charges of conspiracy
to commit bank fraud, making false statements to a financial
institution and money laundering.

Wilmington Trust shareholders, who were already suing the bank,
filed an amended complaint Jan. 9.  The shareholders accuse
Wilmington Trust of securities fraud, which, they say, caused the
demise of the 107-year-old bank as an independent institution.

The lawsuit says Wilmington Trust was sold to M&T Bank at a fire-
sale price equal to half the price at which its shares were
trading.

According to the suit, the bank's senior officers, including Chief
Executive Officers Ted Cecala and Donald Foley, Chief Financial
Officer David Gibson, President Robert Harra and Chief Credit
Officer William North, encouraged loan officers to close loans,
even if they thought borrowers would be unable to repay them.
Many of the accusations in the suit are credited to a number of
confidential witnesses who worked at Wilmington Trust.

"Indeed, according to these witnesses, almost 75 percent of the
bank's loans received 'essentially no review' by the credit review
department, which was supposedly responsible for evaluating the
performance of the bank's loans," the lawsuit reads.

Lead plaintiffs in the class-action suit include Merced County
Employee's Retirement Association, Coral Springs Police Pension
Fund, St. Petersburg Firefighters' Retirement System, Pompano
Beach General Employees Retirement System and Automotive
Industries Pension Trust Fund.

According to the suit, "The bank's underwriting deficiencies --
and the disastrous relationship with Zimmerman -- arose out of
policies instituted by Defendants Cecala, Harra, and Gibson that
favored extending a high volume of loans to customers based on the
clients' ongoing or potential relationships with the bank, rather
than on an evaluation of their creditworthiness."

The suit says the Federal Reserve Board and internal and external
auditors criticized Wilmington Trust's lax lending culture as
early as 2007.  "Notwithstanding these repeated warnings, the
officer defendants did nothing to remedy these problems," the suit
states.

Wilmington Trust initiated a comprehensive analysis of its lending
practices in Delaware in 2009.  According to the lawsuit, the
completed review expressed concerns with past management of the
Delaware Commercial Real Estate Division, which was summarized in
a March 12, 2010 memo, the Delaware Review Memorandum.

The memo gave specific examples of the bank giving multimillion-
dollar loans to developers, who then pocketed the money, including
Mr. Zimmerman.   "The bank's loans to this single developer alone
totaled $90 million in March 2010, constituting almost 6 percent
of the bank's entire commercial construction loan portfolio," the
suit says.

In one instance, the suit says, Mr. Zimmerman sent a fax to the
bank in January 2008, which read, "Send $1,000,000 ASAP I have to
pay my bar tab."

Five days later, Wilmington Trust wired Mr. Zimmerman $1 million
as an equity payout, the suit states; the fax was kept in the
bank's Salt Pond loan file.

Mr. Zimmerman was arrested last month, Jan. 25.  He was then
released Jan. 28, and ordered to appear in court at 1:00 p.m.,
Thursday, Feb. 21, at the Federal Courthouse in Wilmington.

The indictment against Mr. Zimmerman, authored by Assistant U.S.
Attorneys Robert Kravetz and Lesley Wolf, relates to three of Mr.
Zimmerman's Delaware projects -- one in Ocean View and two in
Dover.

Mr. Kravetz and Ms. Wolf claim Mr. Zimmerman borrowed more than
$12 million from Wilmington Trust to fund the Salt Pond Plaza
project in Ocean View.  Mr. Zimmerman built the project under the
Salt Pond Plaza LLC, of which he owned the majority share.

Wilmington Trust sold the debt associated with Mr. Zimmerman's
developments to a third party on March 30, 2011, the indictment
says.  "Both in connection with the sale and prior to this time,
the bank incurred a loss on the three Zimmerman-related projects
in excess of $26 million," Mr. Kravetz and Ms. Wolf state.  Nearly
$10 million was lost on the Salt Pond project.

Mr. Zimmerman's conspiracy charges relate to requests to pay for
architectural and engineering services that were not actually
performed.  A July 8, 2007 request for $357,500 was taken from the
bank to pay for what the indictment called soft costs; instead, a
check was written to Mr. Zimmerman for $309,800.  The remaining
funds were paid to Mr. Zimmerman's Salt Pond partner Kevin
Barrett, who owned an 11 percent share of Salt Pond LLC, and
Mr. Zimmerman's company, BBC Properties.

The attorneys cite five similar requests for the Salt Pond project
and three similar requests for Mr. Zimmerman's two Dover projects.

"At minimum, the fraudulent draw requests for the three projects
totaled approximately $1.25 million," attorneys say.

According to the class-action lawsuit against Wilmington Trust,
"The bank eventually wrote off nearly half of its loans to
Zimmerman, costing the bank over $43 million -- or 10 times the
bank's net loss for all of 2009."

Wilmington Trust announced it would be sold to M&T Bank in
November 2010.

"On the news of the merger -- which the New York Times termed 'one
of the biggest so-called take-unders in recent Wall Street memory'
-- the price of Wilmington's stock collapsed 46 percent, causing
massive losses to investors," the suit says.

The lead plaintiffs ask for a jury trial and demand monetary
compensation for themselves and the class members.  The suit does
not specify the amount plaintiffs wish to be compensated.

                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Architectural Firm Pleads Guilty to Safety Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Prior of The Construction Enquirer reports that an
architects' practice has been prosecuted after builders were
potentially exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers during
construction work at Aberystwyth Rugby Club in Mid Wales.

Aberystwyth Magistrates heard that Dilwyn Roberts
Penseiri/Architects Ltd failed to pass on vital information about
the presence of asbestos insulation board to builders before they
removed soffits from an end wall at the clubhouse in January 2012.

The situation came to light during a routine inspection of the
work by a HSE inspector who found remains of damaged asbestos
insulation boards on the gable end of the clubhouse.

A subsequent HSE investigation found that Dilwyn Roberts
Penseiri/Architects Ltd had been appointed to design and oversee
the work at the clubhouse and to act as the Construction, Design
and Management Coordinator for the project.

Although an asbestos survey was commissioned by the rugby club and
sent to the architects, this was never shown to the contractors
even though it clearly identified the presence of asbestos
insulation board.

When the work was tendered in August 2011, the practice prepared
the pre-construction information and advised that an asbestos
survey had identified asbestos cement in the soffits, but failed
to mention the asbestos insulating board.

Unlike asbestos cement products, asbestos insulation board
requires removal by licensed companies under strictly controlled
conditions.

In January 2012, the building contractor removed the soffits on
the end wall but had not recognized the material as asbestos
boards.

Dilwyn Roberts Penseiri/Architects Ltd of Newtown, Powys, pleaded
guilty to a safety breach and was fined GBP5,400 and ordered to
pay GBP2,917 in costs.

HSE Inspector Phil Nicolle, speaking after the hearing, said:
"Construction Design and Management Coordinators are required to
identify and collect pre-construction information for projects.

"It should contain all information relevant to the health and
safety of people engaged in, affected by the work or using the
building as a future workplace.

"Dilwyn Roberts Penseiri/Architects Ltd failed to pass on vital
survey information, which they were aware of, resulting in a
construction worker being exposed to asbestos fibers."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guernsey HSE Aims to Improve Fibro Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Guernsey reports that Guernsey's Health and Safety
Executive is asking people how it can improve its policy on
asbestos.

It wants to make clearer the responsibilities of contractors and
building owners in dealing with the potentially hazardous
substance.

Richard Brown, the chief health and safety officer, said best
practice had also evolved regarding its disposal, since the island
last updated its laws.

Asbestos fibers can cause serious lung diseases if they become
airborne.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSL Downplays Cwmcarn High School Fibro Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News South East Wales reports that a high school which closed
last year following fears of asbestos is an "essentially
uncontaminated school", says the health and Safety Executive
(HSE).

An earlier study said asbestos levels at Cwmcarn High School,
Caerphilly county, were a potential health hazard.

But new tests indicate risks to pupils and teachers are low, said
HSE.

The testing looked at the potential for the transfer of asbestos
fibers from ceiling voids to rooms below.

"Provided maintenance activities are carried out with the
appropriate precautions, the debris in the ceiling void is
unlikely to result in quantifiable airborne asbestos exposures to
occupants," the report by the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL)
-- on behalf of HSE -- concluded.

The school said results showed levels similar to those found in
background levels in the atmosphere.

The 900-pupil school closed in October after a structural report
identified asbestos in the main block.

Students are currently being educated 12 miles away at Coleg
Gwent's Ebbw Vale campus.

The previous report by Santia Asbestos Management Limited said
asbestos in the roof may have been blown by the heating system,
and airborne fibers were 10 times higher than the accepted levels.

The union Unison said demolition was the safest option for staff
and pupils.

But the new report by HSL, which carries out scientific research
and investigations, casts doubt on the potential danger.

Suitable Solution

The report said airborne asbestos fibers in the areas suspected
most at risk were "very low and many times lower" than those
assumed from the previous survey.

HSE said: "Having made both visual checks of the fabric and
considering the results of the HSL testing, HSE believes it is an
essentially uncontaminated school.

"However, any decision on whether it should re-open rests with the
school governors.  It is their choice whether to use the HSL
report in any decision making."

HSE said the method of testing that was carried out by Santia
could "overestimate the levels of asbestos fibers as it does not
distinguish between asbestos fibers and other fibers such as
paper, clothing and skin cells."

But HSE added:  "The council acted appropriately in closing the
school, given the advice contained in the report they commissioned
at the time."

The school said in a statement:  "All of the samples taken by HSL
were below the 'limit of quantification', in other words they were
so small that they would be below the target sensitivity...

"To place this in context such levels would be similar to that
found in background levels in the atmosphere.

"Even with attempts to disturb the fibers through opening all the
doors and windows, levels of fibers in the classrooms remained
below the levels of quantification."

Caerphilly council said in a joint statement with the school that
a management survey would be completed by next month looking at
all options for the site.

"We are hopeful that a suitable solution can be found in respect
of the problems at the school site and the council are anxious to
work with the governors and the head teacher on this issue," said
the council.

"But the council's main priority remains and will continue to be
the welfare and education of the children attending school at
Cwmcarn."

Previously the council had expressed concern after the school was
taken over by its governors.  Its foundation status means
governors can assume full control of the premises.

However, the joint statement included a quote from the chair of
the school's governing body, Gary Thomas, who said: "We are
delighted that the council are working with Cwmcarn High School to
find a positive outcome.

"We are committed to working with the council and are agreeing a
plan with them for the next steps"

The school has also commissioned its own independent asbestos
inspection report.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincolnshire Council Urged for Hazmat Amenities
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Grimsby Telegraph reports that calls have been made to
Lincolnshire County Council to help make it easier for Wolds
residents to dispose of asbestos.

West Lindsey Councillor for Market Rasen Ken Bridger has urged the
council to develop an asbestos policy to enable those living in
the area to be able to get rid of the specialized waste.

He said: "The problem is that a householder or business has to
hire a private firm to dispose of asbestos.

"Our neighboring authorities North and North East Lincolnshire
will take it for free and, in North East Lincolnshire, it can go
to a recycling centre.

"That is a fantastic facility that we don't have.  Lincolnshire
will not take it either by collection or at an amenity site."

Councillor Bridger added that he believed one consequence of the
lack of amenities was that residents and businesses may resort to
fly-tipping out of frustration.

He said: "It can costs thousands of pounds to dispose of asbestos
and many do not have that kind of money.

"I would like to see an asbestos container at the Gallimore Lane
site here in Market Rasen.  There is a lot of asbestos shedding in
this area and residents ask me where they can take it."

The councillor admitted that his strong views on the subject came
following an issue two years ago when, during his term as Mayor of
Market Rasen, the town council had to pay out to remove top soil
contaminated with asbestos from a playing field.

He also holds an environmental science degree and is determined to
press for better facilities locally.

He said:  "People dump asbestos on grass verges and then, in
summer, the grass cutters churn it all up.  That is not very
satisfactory either."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lordswood Locals Oppose Planned Hazmat Depot
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Bloom at Kentonline.co.uk reports that more than 300 people
have signed a petition against a planned asbestos depot a few
hundred feet from their homes.

Fuming neighbors of the site in Lordswood are backed by Chatham MP
Tracey Crouch, who has campaigned in Parliament for better rights
for asbestos disease sufferers.

Medway has the second-highest death rate in the country, since the
cancer-causing fibers were manufactured in Higham and used in
Chatham Dockyard.

Now the residents have launched a furious door-knocking campaign
to try to kill off plans for the former council gritting depot at
the southern end of North Dane Way, near the junction with
Albemarle Road.

Debbie and David Hales moved their surveying firm Asbestos First
into the site last year and now want to use it as a waste transfer
station.

They would take in up to 70 tons of waste asbestos a week, double-
bagged and stored in locked skips behind a barbed-wire fence,
which would later be moved to bigger tips elsewhere.

But residents and ward councillors, more than 50 of whom gathered
for a protest on Saturday, Feb. 2, said although the station is
200ft from their homes, it is not far enough.

Retired nurse Lyn Reed, 64, who lives in nearby Farley Close,
said: "They might do it double-bagged and put into containers, but
where are their vans coming from?  Have they got anything on their
tires when they come in?

"I know people who've died because of asbestos.  They worked in
Chatham Dockyard.  It is something I think a lot about."

Mother-of-two Annabelle Eales, 19, was one of many who was not
informed of the plan by Medway Council -- despite living yards
away in Farley Close.

Talking about asbestos, she said: "It kills, it's dangerous.  It
stays on your lungs and kills you.  It's a slow and painful death.

"It should be disposed of in a proper manner and not next to
children's houses or schools.

"If the wind gets hold of that asbestos, it can blow it all over
the Medway area and living right next door to it is really
dangerous.  I've never been involved in a campaign like this in my
life."

Mrs. Hales, 42, said builders lack somewhere to dump small amounts
of asbestos as Medway's other site, on the Medway City Estate,
only takes very large deliveries.

A nearby tip in North Dane Way does take asbestos, but Mrs. Hales
said commercial deliveries are not allowed.

She said:  "The only thing we can't do currently is take it out of
a van.  Once we become a transfer station the regulations are
almost suffocating and I will be doing it far more safely than is
required at the moment.

"I'm going to be here every day, so I don't want anything going
wrong.  It's a problem that exists and if I'm not going to solve
it, who is?

"There are unscrupulous types about and it does get fly-tipped."

Chatham MP Tracey Crouch said: "My concern is if there was a
disaster like a fire or a tree falling down on the site, then
actually the residents wouldn't be protected."

A final decision will be taken by Medway Council's planning
committee later this spring.

To find out how to sign the petition, visit the Facebook campaign
page or phone organiser Tony Maund on 01634 325821.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Firm's 1970s Operation Blamed for Meso
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Manchester reports that a woman who believes her cancer
was caused by asbestos exposure as a child during demolition
operations near her school, is taking legal action.

Penny Garner, 45, from Salford, has the lung condition
mesothelioma, which is linked to asbestos dust.

Her lawyer believes she was exposed at Seedley Primary School in
the 1970s, as a nearby swimming pool was demolished.

Demolition firm P McGuinness and Co. denies liability and Salford
Council has not commented on the case.

Ms. Garner, from Peel Green, was diagnosed with the terminal
condition in 2011 and says she could not believe it when the
consultant asked if she had worked with asbestos.

"I didn't really know what it was, I had never heard of it and
then when I was told it was from asbestos, I was even more
shocked," she said.

The alleged link was discovered when her solicitor Neil Fisher,
who could not find any link between where Ms. Garner had worked
and asbestos, questioned her about her school.

A family member recalled the demolition of the swimming pool.

Mr. Fisher, a specialist in mesothelioma and asbestos illness
compensation claims, said a medical report found a link between
Ms. Garner's illness and exposure to asbestos.

He said: "Dr. Rudd, a leading expert in asbestos-related diseases
conducted a number of tests such as X-rays, scans and biopsies on
Ms. Garner.

"He is satisfied if the witness evidence of the levels of asbestos
during the demolition is accepted by the court, he accepts the
link between that exposure and Ms. Garner's illness."

Ardwick-based building firm P McGuinness and Co., denied the claim
and said it will defend itself at the High Court hearing which
begins on Feb. 13 in Liverpool.

Salford City Council said it will not comment until after the case
has been resolved.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Birmingham Builder Fined for Illegal Abatement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Birmingham builder has been fined after causing young children
and their parents to be potentially exposed to asbestos on the
street where he lives, as well as risking exposure himself.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Nicholas Sharpe,
trading as Sharpe Builders, after he illegally removed and broke
up asbestos panels from a home in Castle Bromwich.

Solihull Magistrates' Court heard on Feb. 4 that HSE inspectors
visited a house on Rover Drive on July 19, 2012, following a call
from a Solihull Council Environmental Health Officer about
possible unlicensed asbestos removal work.

A HSE investigation found that, during work to covert a garage
into a living room, Mr. Sharpe had been wearing only a dust mask
for protection as he removed a number of Asbestos Insulating
Boards (AIBs) from the ceiling.  He broke these into pieces and
put the uncovered panels on the householder's driveway.

Mr. Sharpe had no plan for the work and had not acquired a survey
of the building, so did not know that the material was asbestos.
He also did not provide any information to the householders.

The court was told Mr. Sharpe did not hold the necessary license
to remove the asbestos boards, and failed to take adequate steps
to prevent both the exposure to and spread of asbestos fibers
generated by his work.

These control measures are required by law to protect the health
of workers and the general public from potentially harmful levels
of airborne asbestos fibers.

Nicholas Sharpe, of Rover Drive, Castle Bromwich, pleaded guilty
to two breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.  Mr.
Sharpe was fined a total of GBP4,000 and ordered to pay costs of
GBP1,100.

Speaking after the prosecution, HSE Inspector Paul Cooper said:

"Asbestos fibers are a well known and widely publicized potential
health risk.  The type of work being undertaken at Rover Drive
should only be carried out by a contractor who holds the necessary
license, in a safe manner and with the necessary control measures.

"By carrying out this work in such a careless way, Mr. Sharpe
exposed himself and others to potentially harmful airborne
asbestos fibers.  He also demonstrated a complete disregard for
the law.

"Unfortunately, those working in the construction industry are
regularly exposed to asbestos.  The legacy of past exposure is
evident in the high numbers of people in the UK who are suffering
from asbestos-related diseases which can sometimes be fatal.  The
current laws exist to protect future generations from this fate."

Over 3,000 people a year die from asbestos-related illnesses in
the UK.  For further information, visit
http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos

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

Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 states:
"An employer shall not undertake work in demolition, maintenance,
or any other work which exposes or is liable to expose his
employees to asbestos in respect of any premises unless either he
has carried out a suitable and sufficient assessment as to whether
asbestos, what type of asbestos, contained in what material and in
what condition is present or is liable to be present in those
premises; or (b)if there is doubt as to whether asbestos is
present in those premises he assumes that asbestos is present, and
that it is not chrysotile alone, and observes the applicable
provisions of these Regulations."

Regulation 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 states:
"Every employer must prevent or, where this is not reasonably
practicable, reduce to the lowest level reasonably practicable the
spread of asbestos from any place where work under the employer's
control is carried out."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: QWHS Checks Abatement Work at Gladstone Cinema
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Irving of The Gladstone Observer reports that Queensland
Workplace Health and Safety officers were called to inspect the
old Gladstone Civic Cinema site after public concern the asbestos
sheeting in the structure was not being removed correctly.

It's believed the QWHS inspector visited the site on Friday,
Feb. 1.

On Tuesday, Feb. 5, a QWHS representative confirmed the asbestos
removalist company was licensed and carried out work in accordance
with workplace health and safety guidelines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joint Venture Secures GBP311,643 For ARD Victims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern Echo (UK) reports that Advice workers have secured
GBP311,643 in compensation for North-East asbestos victims in five
months.

The Northern TUC Asbestos Support and Campaign Group has also
facilitated payment of welfare benefits in excess of GBP105,000
per month for victims and their families.

The recipients suffer from debilitating asbestos-related diseases
(ARD) including mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer.

The group is a partnership between the Northern TUC, Macmillan
Cancer Support, regional trade unions and Wallsend Memorial Hall
and People's Centre.

It aims to support, advise and inform people living with the
effects of asbestos poisoning.  It employs two dedicated members
of staff, Maggie Fitzsimons, Support Worker and Maggie Bailey,
Macmillan Welfare Rights Adviser.

Kevin Rowan, Northern TUC Regional Secretary said: "This is a
huge, life-changing amount of money going to help the people who
need it most, and as an added benefit it will be recycled into the
local economy providing a win-win situation for the welfare of
workers and the region as a whole."

Stephen Guy, Macmillan Development Manager for North East said:
"It is only correct that people who have suffered have their right
to state benefits and compensation protected and maximized.  This
joint venture delivers."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Fibro Test Method in Soil Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Technology Online posts that a new ASTM
International standard is focused exclusively on testing soil for
asbestos.  ASTM D7521, Test Method for Determination of Asbestos
in Soil, was developed by Subcommittee D22.07 on Sampling and
Analysis of Asbestos, part of ASTM International Committee D22 on
Air Quality.

According to Alan Segrave, division manager, laboratory services,
Bureau Veritas, and an ASTM D22 member, many materials that are
analyzed for asbestos are man-made and contain known types and
quantities of asbestos.  Testing soil presents a unique set of
challenges.

"For soils, the asbestos is not typically homogeneous, and the
soil matrix tends to mask lower levels of asbestos," says Segrave.
"A method was needed to address soils where an accurate assessment
of what is in the sample could be determined."  ASTM D7521 covers
procedures to: Identify asbestos in soil; Provide an estimate of
the concentration of asbestos in the sampled soil; and Provide a
concentration of asbestos reported as the number of asbestos
structures per gram of sample.

"ASTM D7521 can be used for property transfers (Phase I
assessments),  brownfields or Superfund sites for pre-cleanup and
post-cleanup assessment, initial surveys of soils and downstream
migration studies of soils," says Segrave.  "Anyone who needs to
test soils for asbestos will benefit from ASTM D7521.
Laboratories will be able to test the samples the same way using
the procedure, providing consistency and interpretation of
results."  Regulatory bodies may specify the use of the test
method to ensure compliance for applicable local, state and
federal laws regarding asbestos.

Segrave notes that all interested parties are invited to
participate in the ongoing development of ASTM D7521.  "We are
open to collaboration with others to improve the method or to use
the method for other areas of interest, such as risk assessment,"
says Segrave.  "Now that we have a method to determine asbestos in
soil, this opens up the door for other potential research."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Asbestos Liabilities Drop 2012 Profits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Smith Hopkins of The Baltimore Sun reports that Columbia,
Md. chemical maker W.R. Grace & Co. reported profits of $94.1
million last year, a big slide from 2011 that was driven by the
company's $365 million non-cash charge for asbestos liabilities.

But the charge, announced in January, was lower than expected for
the fourth quarter.  Wall Street seemed pleased by the earnings
report and the company's rosier outlook for 2013 -- Grace's stock
was up nearly 4% in late morning trading on Wednesday, Feb. 6, to
about $75.40 a share.

The company said it expects adjusted earnings before interest and
taxes for this year will rise 8% to 12% over the same measure last
year.  Grace has been growing through its years-long bankruptcy
and ended 2012 with more than $1.3 billion in cash and cash
equivalents.

Grace earned net income of $1.23 a share last year, compared with
$3.57 a share the previous year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Transportation Moves to Triple Jury Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien of The West Virginia Record reports that the latest
post-trial battle in the racketeering case against Pittsburgh
asbestos attorneys and a Bridgeport radiologist concerns the
possible tripling of the jury award.

Though attorneys Robert Peirce and Louis Raimond and radiologist
Ray Harron want a new trial or for a December jury verdict to be
set aside, CSX Transportation says the verdict should be tripled
and the defendants should pay its attorneys fees.

CSX filed its motion to treble, or triple, the $429,240.27 on Jan.
11 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia.  The new total would be $1,287,721.41.

Federal law allows the tripling of damages reached in a Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization, the motion says.

"(S)uch an amendment would be improper for the reasons explained
at length in Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law
or, in the alternative, for a new trial, because the underlying
verdict is not in fact based on sufficient admissible evidence to
support the essential elements of CSX's civil RICO claims, was
achieved based on improper statements and arguments from counsel,
and because Defendants are entitled to a new trial because the
verdict was against the weight of the evidence and was a
miscarriage of justice," the response filed by Peirce and Raimond
says.

Because the post-trial motions are still pending, U.S. District
Judge Frederick Stamp should deny the motion, the attorneys say.

On Dec. 20, an eight-person jury found Peirce, Raimond and Harron
committed racketeering, conspiracy and fraud and ordered them
jointly and severally liable for a penalty of $429,240.27.

CSX's original complaint, filed in 2005, said Peirce's firm hid
nine fraudulent claims among other lawsuits filed by the law firm
in West Virginia.

The nine lawsuits were filed and settled from 2000-2006. U.S.
District Judge Frederick Stamp granted summary judgment to the
Peirce firm in 2009, ruling a four-year statute of limitations
began when the Peirce firm began targeting CSX.

However, nearly two years ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit overturned that decision and gave new life to the
lawsuit.  The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Peirce
firm's appeal of the decision.

CSX amended its complaint to include additional claims it said
were fraudulent.  The Peirce firm filed counterclaims against the
company that said it was engaging in fraud by bringing and
conducting the lawsuit, though the jury ruled for CSX on them.

If the verdict is allowed to stand, the asbestos attorneys ask
that the damages amount be reduced to $95,368.98.  The attorneys
had previously asked that CSX not be able to recover any damages
on RICO claims that post-dated July 5, 2007.

If there were a racketeering scheme, CSX knew about it by then,
they argued.  The proposed reduction in the verdict amount
represents a subtraction of damages for claims after the date,
based on legal billings submitted by the company.

On Jan. 21, CSX asked the court to order the defendants to pay its
attorneys fees and litigation costs -- $9,751,838 and $923,094,
respectively.

"Two points bear mentioning at the outset," the motion says.
"First, the fees and expenses that CSXT is seeking are directly
attributable to the complexity and duration of the case and the
manner in which the defendants litigated it.

"Indeed, fully one-third of the total fees CSXT is seeking were
caused by the Lawyer Defendants' unnecessarily broad post-remand
discovery demands.

"Second, the amount CSXT is seeking is substantially less than the
total fees CSXT actually incurred and paid in connection with this
case.  In particular, CSXT has carefully reviewed its billing
records and excluded from this motion more than $2.5 million in
various fees and expenses."

In 2005, federal court judge Janis Graham Jack made national
headlines when she uncovered duplicate and fraudulent silica
diagnoses in her Texas courtroom.  Many of those diagnoses were
made by Harron and were made on plaintiffs who had already brought
asbestos claims.

In Jack's opinion dismissing the claims, she said "These diagnoses
were driven by neither health nor justice -- they were
manufactured for money."

Following Harron's admission that he did not even make the
diagnoses of the patients whose X-rays he read, Jack noted that
most of "these diagnoses are more the creation of lawyers than
doctors."

CSX's lawsuit was filed later that year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Treatment Study Links Fibro, Iron, Mesothelioma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma News relates that it has been known for decades that
asbestos exposure can cause diseases such as lung cancer and
mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs and abdominal
cavity.  Mesothelioma is still very difficult to treat, primarily
because there is still much to learn about why asbestos triggers
cancer growth.  When asbestos is either inhaled or ingested,
doctors are still not sure what exactly causes the change from
healthy tissue into malignant cancerous cells.  However, a recent
study may have discovered a link to asbestos exposure and the role
of iron in the human body.

According to an article published in Scientific Reports, a team of
researchers in Italy has discovered when asbestos fibers inhabit
the lungs, it can create deposit of iron proteins in the body.
The existence of iron deposits within the body appears to be a
trigger in the formation of small masses of mineral matter
referred to as "asbestos bodies."

The study looked at the tissue of 10 shipyard workers who had been
exposed to asbestos.  Upon examination, they discovered varying
elements of iron concentration and distribution in the patients'
lungs.  Their report concluded that long-lasting asbestos bodies
caused the mobilization of iron into surrounding cells.

Iron is an important element and plays an essential role in our
bodies' metabolism.  Too much fiber, however, can be toxic to the
body.  The discovery of the relationship between asbestos, iron
deposits and the development of mesothelioma may be key to
discovering better treatments for the disease.

A Japanese study conducted in 2012 also lends to the theory that
the concentration of iron directly correlates to the development
of mesothelioma.  A team of Japanese researchers increased the
levels of iron in the bodies of laboratory rats that had been
exposed to asbestos.  The rats with elevated iron developed
mesothelioma more quickly than those with lower iron levels.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive form of cancer that is difficult to
treat and typically met with low survival rates.  As more medical
researchers develop a deep understanding of the development of
mesothelioma and the role of iron in creating malignant cancer
cells, more medical advancements are possible in the area of
mesothelioma treatment.  Discoveries such as this one represent
major steps in learning how to better treat asbestos patients and
give hope to those suffering from mesothelioma and their family
members.

As part of our commitment to those suffering from asbestos
disease, the mesothelioma law firm of Baron and Budd is dedicated
to providing the most current information on mesothelioma
treatment.  The law firm is a proud sponsor of the National
Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) as well as several other
medical organizations dedicated to mesothelioma research and
treatment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mud Engineer With COPD Recalls Exposure to Flosal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Mundy at LawyersandSettlements.com reports that Les had a
long and successful career as an asbestos mud engineer, but he's
paying for it now.  He was diagnosed with chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD), but it could be a whole lot worse.  Many
of his co-workers exposed to asbestos -- from rigs to mines --
have succumbed to asbestos mesothelioma.

Les worked with asbestos drilling mud on oil rigs in the Gulf for
15 years, and he has been around asbestos, in one form or another,
for most of his life.  "I was hired by the Milchem Mud Company as
a mud engineer; my job was to keep the properties of the mud
weight from blowing out the well and to stabilize the hole," says
Les.  "I learned a lot about asbestos and clay chemistry on the
job, including the dangers of asbestos later on.

"I was in my late 20s when I got my first job back in 1961, and I
quit in 2002.  I heard about the dangers of asbestos years after I
was exposed to it, sometime in the 70s.  We didn't think anything
was wrong with it and there was no preventive action.  We just sat
there and breathed in this stuff -- it was like sitting in a
sandstorm.

"We used Flosal.  They were 50 lb bags of white fibrous powder.
When we dumped the bags into a mixing hopper, the air was full of
particles floating around everywhere -- we were covered in the
stuff.  There was no breathing apparatus back then.  We had no
safety equipment; in fact, the only time we wore goggles was when
we mixed caustic soda, not even when we mixed Flosal, because we
didn't know that it was full of asbestos fibers.  I remember that
you had to mix it real fast in that room, and there was no place
to go."

(Flosal contained 85-95 percent asbestos and was used as a
drilling mud additive.  The product was a viscosifier, and was
used to increase the viscosity of (to thicken) drilling mud
fluids.  In the lawsuit PHILLIPS 66 CO. v. LOFTON (94 So.3d 1051
(2012), a jury found in favor of plaintiff Troy Lofton, who
claimed he suffered asbestosis as a result of exposure to Flosal.)

Although Les doesn't have asbestosis, his "golden years" have been
taken from him.  "I've had my fair share of health problems," he
says.  "I was diagnosed with COPD in the late 90s and I have been
on oxygen for more than 10 years.  It first affected me when I was
working in deep water on the drilling rig and I could barely climb
the stairs on the rig.  I thought I would have to quit.

"I had stents put in my heart after I failed the stress tests.
And I still didn't know that my condition was related to asbestos.
I was a smoker but I quit in 1996.  Doctors say that your COPD
will get better when you quit smoking but mine got worse,
gradually.  I figure that being a smoker will impact an asbestos
lawsuit, but because I got worse instead of better, I think
asbestos is still floating around my lungs.  However, I don't want
them to do an autopsy on my lungs -- yet."

Les says he is now pretty much housebound, although he has a
portable oxygen tank and uses a walker.  "I have a generator in
the house and it is connected to a hose, so it's like being on a
leash," he says, laughing.  "Sad but true."

"Seriously, when I first heard about the dangers of asbestos and
how we mixed Flosal in that room without any safety precautions, I
was upset.  That impacted my life.  The Flosal makers and Melcham
should have told people as soon as they knew.  They should have
given us protective masks.  I can't remember when we quit using
Flosal but I do remember hearing that the product was bad for us.
I googled Flosal a while back and found that it is still being
made in Germany.  So it is likely being used in other countries
like India and Columbia.  That is a crime."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Thunder Bay School's Academic Wing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tbnewswatch.com reports that an asbestos discovery inside Dennis
Franklin Cromarty High School in Thunder Bay has left staff and
students without the use of several classrooms.

According to Principal Jonathan Kakegamic, the discovery was made
in January, in the ceiling tiles of one of the school's computer
labs.

He says the room in question was immediately closed off to staff
and students, but now, on the advice of a consultant, school
officials have closed off the entire academic wing of the
building.  That includes 10 classrooms.

Kakegamic notes, however, that no classes have been cancelled.
They're simply being held in other areas of the school.

He expects things to be back to normal within the month.

Kakegamic adds there was talk of closing the school entirely, but
ultimately that was deemed unnecessary.

Chiefs of the students' home communities have been notified of the
discovery.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Procedural Changes Cut Down Mass Torts in Philly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Mondics of The Inquirer reports the flood of out-of-state
lawsuits filed in Philadelphia over alleged asbestos injuries and
defective pharmaceutical products has slowed dramatically after a
series of procedural changes to reduce the case backlog of the
city's Court of Common Pleas.

Asbestos and pharmaceutical filings, called mass torts, declined
from a high of 2,690 in 2011 to 816 in 2012, according to Judge
John Herron, administrative head of the court's trial division.

"From the court's perspective it is an excellent reversal of the
trend," Herron said.  "There were uncontrollable filings and we
were very pleased to see that we could bring the flow down."

The changes were set in motion early last year by Herron and other
court leaders out of concern that the city had attracted an
avalanche of filings by out-of-state lawyers.  The city's
reputation for high jury awards and lax oversight in some
instances proved a powerful lure, Herron said.

As a result, he deferred action on the awarding of punitive
damages in asbestos cases and, for a short time, ordered that all
discovery take place in Philadelphia.

The discovery restriction was modified, but the court retained the
rule on punitive damages and other changes, including a
requirement that asbestos cases be consolidated in groups of eight
to 10 with identical medical issues.

In each group, only three are permitted to go to trial, with the
others settling.  If those nontrial cases fail to settle, the
group is dissolved and relisted for future trials.

The rule changes apply to the Complex Litigation Center, a
division of the court established in the early 1990s to handle the
then-growing number of asbestos cases.

The idea was that a separate court division with its own full-time
judges was needed to handle cases that involved complex science
and uncertain legal precepts.

The center later came to handle pharmaceutical cases as well, and
gained a national reputation for legal sophistication and
efficient processing of a huge volume of highly technical cases.

The legal basis for many of these filings is the fact that many
pharmaceutical companies are based in the region or have
operations here.  There is a long history of asbestos litigation
here that traces back to the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, where
asbestos was used in shipbuilding.

But there has been a backlash as defense lawyers alleged that the
system was tilted toward big awards for defendants.

The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), an advocacy group
representing the National Federation of Independent Business, the
American Medical Association, and other interests, for two years
running branded Philadelphia the nation's number-one "judicial
hellhole," asserting that its plaintiff-friendly climate resulted
in over-sized jury awards and settlements.

Philadelphia juries have the reputation among plaintiffs' lawyers
for giving larger awards than juries outside the city, although
ATRA has since removed its Philadelphia designation.

Herron contended the changes were not intended to favor one side
or the other in the debate over the fairness of justice in
Philadelphia, but simply to reduce a substantial backlog of cases.
Herron said Philadelphia juries and judges should be primarily
adjudicating the cases of Pennsylvania plaintiffs, not plaintiffs
from out of state.

"We want our jurors hearing Pennsylvania cases, and not deciding
the case of a Utah plaintiff," Herron said, "and that is what has
been happening."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CA Ruling Jeopardizes Travelers' $420.4 MM Award
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ax of Thomson Reuters reports that The New York Court of
Appeals on Thursday, Feb. 7, said a trial must determine whether
Travelers Cos deliberately structured a nearly $1 billion asbestos
settlement to force its reinsurers to pay more than their fair
share.

The ruling, the latest development in one of the longest-running
asbestos-related cases in U.S. history, throws into question a
$420.4 million award Travelers won at an earlier stage in the
case.

The litigation pits a Travelers unit against various reinsurers,
who have argued they should not be obligated to help cover nearly
$1 billion that Travelers paid to cover asbestos claims against
the company Western MacArthur.

The reinsurers include American Re-Insurance Company, the U.S.
unit of industry leader Munich Re, and units of the insurance and
reinsurance company ACE Ltd.

A trial court awarded Travelers $420.4 million in 2010, a decision
that was upheld by the First Department, Appellate Division, last
year.

But the Court of Appeals said on Thursday, Feb. 7, that a trial is
needed to determine whether Travelers had improperly designed the
Western MacArthur settlement to maximize the amount of money it
could recoup from reinsurers.

In doing so, the court followed the reasoning of First Department
Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam, the lone dissenter in last year's
ruling affirming the award.

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the reinsurers
must help Travelers cover at least some portion of the settlement.

A spokesman for Travelers declined to comment.  Representatives
for Munich Re and ACE did not have an immediate comment on the
ruling.

Calls to the lawyers representing all three companies were not
immediately returned.

The court said it was unclear whether Travelers had inflated the
value of claims for certain asbestos victims while lowering those
of others to increase its reinsurance coverage.

In addition, the court ruled, the deal with Western MacArthur
allocated all of the settlement to claims within Travelers' policy
limits and nothing to "bad faith claims" stemming from Travelers'
initial refusal to cover the asbestos damage.  That decision came
despite evidence that both sides recognized Travelers could face
bad faith liability before the settlement was reached.

The allocation worked to Travelers' advantage, since the claims
within policy limits were covered by reinsurance.

"In short, we find it impossible to conclude, as a matter of law,
that parties bargaining at arm's length, in a situation where
reinsurance was absent, could reasonably have given no value to
the bad faith claims," Judge Robert Smith wrote for the unanimous
five-member court.

The court made it clear that it was not persuaded by the
reinsurers' arguments that they have no obligation whatsoever to
cover any of Travelers' expenses.

The case stems from 1948, when a Travelers unit, United States
Fidelity & Guaranty, wrote a liability insurance policy for
Western Asbestos Co.  Three decades later, people harmed by
asbestos had begun to sue Western Asbestos's successor company,
Western MacArthur.

Western MacArthur sued USF&G and two other insurers in 1993
seeking indemnification.  In 2002, the two sides settled the
lawsuit, pushing Western MacArthur into bankruptcy.  USF&G then
sought indemnification from its reinsurers, leading to the current
dispute.

The case is United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. American
Re-Insurance Co, New York Court of Appeals, No. 1.

Attorney for Excess Casualty Reinsurance Association: Kathleen
Sullivan -- kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan.

Attorney for American Re-Insurance Company: Herbert Wachtell --
HMWachtell@wlrk.com -- of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Attorney for Travelers: Mary Kay Vyskocil -- mvyskocil@stblaw.com
-- of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bidding Process for St. Joe's Abatement Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Davis of The Ottumwa Courier reports that St. Joseph
Hospital is now an empty shell.

Suzie Wood, executive director of development at Ottumwa Regional
Health Center, said the perimeter of St. Joe's is secured by a
fence, and the entire interior has been cleared out.

"They've cleaned out all of the medical records and any other
storage," she said.

ORHC has also started the bidding process for asbestos abatement.

"It's an old building, so asbestos is in the walls, it's in the
flooring," Wood said.  "Once it starts crumbling, decaying or
falling apart, or when you start hammering into the walls -- the
asbestos is now out."

She said there is no way to save the building.

"We have gone through that process and had several engineers come
out and take a look, but there's no possible way to save it," she
said.

Once the contract for asbestos abatement is secured and the 16
active and non-active antennas have been removed from the roof,
the hospital will begin the bidding process for demolition.

"But we will not be imploding the building," she said.  "First
they'll take down the inside.  Then it will be a few weeks'
process to take the outside down.  When we start doing it, people
won't even realize it because it starts on the inside.  It's right
in the middle of a residential area, so imploding it is not an
option because of all the dust, pollution and broken windows."

Once the new communications tower is erected, the antennas for
911, city, county and ORMICS will be moved.

"The process may take awhile," she said.  "We're just waiting for
whoever is putting the new tower up to get that done.  We're not
in any hurry.  Those are key communication antennas up there, so
we're certainly not going to do anything until they're removed."

She doesn't know the cost of demolition yet, though several quotes
have come through.

"They've been a very wide range," she said.  "It could be six to
seven figures."

Recently, all of the items from the time capsule opened last July,
as well as a few more items found when cleaning out the hospital,
were donated to the Wapello County Historical Museum and are
currently on display.

Wood also said a couple hundred people have purchased bricks from
St. Joe's.

"As soon as the hospital begins its demolition, we'll be removing
bricks and cleaning them so we can give them to folks who have
purchased them," she said.

Those wanting to purchase a brick, which will each cost $5, can
call the hospital at 641-684-2300 and ask for Wood.  All money
raised from the sales will go to the American Cancer Society.

While there have been several speculations about what the property
will be used for after St. Joe's is removed, Wood said nothing has
been solidified yet.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woodsreef's Mine Road Dispute Nears Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Clifford of ABC News relates that a report weighing up
if the road through Barraba's Woodsreef asbestos mine should close
will be presented to Tamworth Regional Council on Feb. 26.

The NSW government and the Woodsreef Taskforce want Crow Mountain
Road, or Mine Road as it's better known, closed for health and
safety reasons.

Last year, a road closure application was made by the Minister for
Resources & Energy to the Minister for Primary Industries to close
a section of the road.

As the local roads authority, Tamworth Regional Council must,
under the Roads Act, determine if it supports the request for
closure.

More than a dozen submissions have been received by private
individuals, groups and other government agencies.

Council's Assistant General Manager and General Counsel, Peter
Thompson, says Council has undertaken extensive research for the
report.

He says during the investigation Council has learned its public
liability insurance does not cover Crow Mountain Road and any
potential future claims arising from exposure to asbestos.

Peter Thompson says this is one of the many factors that must be
considered before a determination can be made.

"The report will be a lengthy report because it will cover the
submissions themselves and the points that they raise and also
issues that are particular to the Council," he said.

"Probably the key issue for Council is that insurance policies
that cover Council expressly exclude the situation that the mine
road is in, such as its connection to asbestos from a mining
activity."

Peter Thompson says the exclusion arose out of the claims that
James Hardie faced.

"After that case, all insurance companies went back and reviewed
their policies and now they have a very specific exclusion," he
said.

But Peter Thompson says there's a community living in Barraba,
some of whom are strongly opposed to the closure of Crow Mountain
Road.

He says any impact the road's closure may have on their day-to-day
lives and their businesses must also be taken into account in the
report.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: LCAVC Reaches Out to Non-Smokers Exposed to Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "Of the
approximately 200,000 US citizens that are diagnosed with lung
cancer each year, we believe about one tenth, or 20,000 of these
victims now have lung cancer because they were exposed to asbestos
decades ago, on the job, or in their workplace.  We are especially
focused on US Navy Veterans, or workers that worked in any type of
manufacturing, or industrial facility, where asbestos was
everywhere, and who also were non smokers, or quit smoking decades
ago.  The financial compensation claims for these types of lung
cancer victims can be in the tens of thousands of dollars or
more."  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.  The group says, "For
nonsmokers who have been exposed to asbestos in their workplace
the risk of lung cancer is five times that of unexposed workers.
The types of victims we hope to help are US Navy Veterans, who
were exposed to asbestos on a US Navy ship, power plant workers,
manufacturing workers, or any other type of worker who had
significant exposure to asbestos in their workplace."  For more
information lung cancer victims, or their family members are urged
to call the Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center at 866-714-6466.

Important Note From The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center: "We
desperately need family members, or the adult children to ask of a
Dad, or Mom now diagnosed with lung cancer, if they were exposed
to asbestos on the job in the 1960's, 1970's, or 1980's --
especially if they are a non smoker, or quit smoking over a decade
ago.  There really can be significant financial compensation for
these types of individuals, and we are trying to help."

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "Aside from the US
Navy, other high risk workplaces for asbestos exposure include
shipyards in California, Virginia, or Washington State, power
plants, manufacturing factories in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, or
Illinois, chemical plants in Louisiana, or New Jersey, oil
refineries in California, or Texas, smelters in West Virginia,
Montana, or Idaho, aerospace manufacturing facilities in
California, Washington, or Kansas, demolition construction 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 they 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 at 866-714-6466. http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Christchurch's Isaac Theatre Royal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Gates of The Press (NZ) reports that asbestos has been
found in the Isaac Theatre Royal in central Christchurch.

White asbestos was found in fiber cement sheets in an old
projection room in the foyer of the theatre.  The area has been
cordoned off.

Specialists from Ward Demolition will remove the small amount of
asbestos and theatre chief executive Neil Cox said deconstruction
would continue this month.

The theatre is being restored and is scheduled to reopen in the
second quarter of next year.

The historic facade will be preserved, but the foyer behind will
be deconstructed.

The 1928 marble staircase in the foyer will be preserved and
encased.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-Tipping Trio Given Suspended Jail Sentences
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Inquirer (UK) reports that two waste operators running an
illegal site and a driver have been given suspended prison
sentences on Thursday, Feb. 7, after the Environment Agency found
that asbestos had been fly-tipped around Essex, Hertfordshire and
Kent.

A1 Bins and Waste Ltd's director David John Tuffen and manager
Nigel Lee Hickman both pleaded guilty to running an illegal site
at Towerfields Business Park in Benfleet, where Environment Agency
officers found 72 large skips full of asbestos waste.

The driver, Moses Benjamin Brede, pleaded guilty to dumping five
loads of waste asbestos.

Tuffen was sentenced to two years in prison, suspended for two
years, and ordered to carry out 200 hours unpaid work.  Hickman
was given an 18-month prison sentence suspended for two years and
ordered to carry out 200 hours unpaid work.

Brede was sentenced to 12 months prison for each of five offences
to run concurrently and suspended for two years.  He was also
ordered to pay GBP500 contribution towards costs.

A hearing to deal with a proceeds of crime application has been
adjourned to later this year after which any fines for duty of
care offences and any costs will be imposed on the waste
operators.

Tuffen is of The Oaks, Billericay and Hickman from Bryn Coch, Port
Talbot.  Brede is from Cappel Lane, Stanstead Abbotts, Ware.

Chelmsford Crown Court heard at an earlier hearing that the
company had been in financial difficulty towards the end of 2008.
Waste asbestos was taken back to the Towerfields yard to bulk it
up and store it there.

Tuffen and Hickman also pleaded guilty to failing to prevent the
fly-tipping of waste asbestos on six occasions and asked the court
to take into consideration a further seven asbestos dumping
offences.

Hickman also asked for one offense of using false waste
consignment notes to be taken into consideration.

Tuffen, sole active director of the company, told investigating
officers he had sold a vehicle, later seen fly-tipping asbestos,
to Brede, who offered to do work for A1 Bins for a good rate.

Hickman, transport manager for the company, said they employed
Brede when it was busy between February and May 2009.

He said he was not aware that a permit was needed to store the
waste as it was only a temporary measure.  There was no evidence
of waste being disposed of legally between December 2008 and July
2009.

A1 Bins advertised as a specialist asbestos waste transport and
disposal company.  This gave the impression of knowledge and
trustworthiness.

The court heard that underpinning that trust was the supply of
what appeared to be legitimate invoices and consignment notes
showing that the hazardous waste had been taken to and signed for
by the Oxfordshire landfill site.  These were false.

Mr. Sailesh Mehta, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, told
the court that when officers visited the illegal site in May 2009
they found 72 skips, most of which contained waste asbestos.  Some
asbestos was also on the ground.  Samples taken showed that it
included white, blue and brown asbestos.

Waste consignment notes were found in the office covering a period
when no evidence could be confirmed of legitimate disposal of
waste by A1 Bins.

Asbestos had, in fact, been dumped twice in Norton Road,
Stevenage; at Jodrell Way, Thurrock; Highways Depot, Stanford-le-
Hope; twice at Manor Way, Swanscombe, Kent Welwyn Garden City,
Thurrock Lakeside, other Thurrock sites, Tilbury and Dolphin
Quarry between March 24 and April 26, 2009.

In total the company cleared 361.7 tons of waste containing
asbestos from the Towerfields site, at a cost of about GBP48,436.

Judge Charles Gratwicke said nobody in the court could not feel
angry towards the defendants.  "Each of you has not paid the
slightest regard for the regulations.  You all flouted the law for
financial gain putting public health at risk."

After the hearing, the Environment Agency's environmental crime
team leader Lesley Robertson said: "We take the problems of
illegal waste very seriously.

"During this investigation we worked in partnership with other
agencies including Stevenage Borough Council, Thurrock Council,
Essex Police and other regions within the Environment Agency to
gather evidence against those believed to be committing these
offences.

"This case was made worse by the hazardous nature of the waste,
namely three types of asbestos, which was being illegally stored
at the site in Benfleet, further aggravated by the fact that the
company the defendants operated claimed to be 'specialist
contractors for the disposal of asbestos waste', preying on
others' trustworthiness.

"This case should also be a warning to legitimate businesses, to
ensure that they fulfill their duty of care when employing a
business or person to dispose of their waste, including auditing
any paperwork that they should receive for the disposal of the
waste -- don't be afraid to ask the necessary questions."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hopeman Brothers Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tia Benton of The Louisiana Record reports that a local
shipbuilder is suing a company that makes furniture for ships
alleging breach of contract.

Avondale Industries, Inc., filed a lawsuit against Hopeman
Brothers, Inc., in the Orleans Parish Central District Court on
Dec 4.

The plaintiff claims Hopeman breached its indemnity contract by
its failure to provide defense and indemnity of claims brought
against the plaintiff in an asbestos suit.

The defendant is accused of breach of contract.

An unspecified amount is sought for all damages reasonable in the
premise.

Brian C. Bossier -- bbossier@bluewilliams.com -- of Blue Williams,
LLP is representing the plaintiff.

This case has been assigned to Division M Judge Paulette R. Irons.

Case no. 2012-11277.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim Exposed to 2nd-Hand Fibro Awarded $1.1 MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth for the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance reports that the
King County, Washington case of a woman whose husband brought home
asbestos dust on his clothes has resulted in an award of $1.1
million for the plaintiff, who is dying of asbestos-caused cancer.

According to an article in the For Mill Times, the 89-year-old
woman, Phyllis Granville of Lynnwood, Washington, was consistently
exposed to asbestos whenever she handled the work clothes of her
husband Donald, who long worked as a tile installer for various
companies.  Prior to the late 1970s, floor and ceiling tiles often
contained asbestos, an ingredient that aided in durability and
fire resistance.

Granville brought her case against 13 different defendants, a
variety of companies who both manufactured and/or sold asbestos-
containing tiles.  The elderly woman told the court that she never
expected that shaking out and then washing her husband's dust-
covered clothes would result in her spending her last years with a
debilitating disease like mesothelioma, which has traditionally
been very hard to treat and nearly always results in a quick death
sentence.

"I never imagined Donald's work would ever end up giving me
cancer," Phyllis stated. "The manufacturers didn't warn him about
the risk of bringing asbestos home with him.  It's hard enough for
us to start battling my mesothelioma, but now Donald is afraid
he's going to contract it, too."

The trial lasted four weeks and is one of a growing list of cases
filed by individuals who didn't have direct exposure to asbestos
but rather suffered exposure at the hands of another party, one
who had no idea that they were harming a loved one by their
actions.  This secondary exposure most often affects women of
Phyllis's age who spent much of their married life caring for the
needs of their husband.  Similar cases have been seen among woman
married to construction workers, auto mechanics, insulators, and
others who worked with asbestos on a regular basis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products' Fibro Debt Tops $1.1 Billion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni of Law360 reports that bankrupt Specialty Products
Holding Corp. has at least $1.1 billion of current and projected
asbestos liability, according to a brief filed Wednesday, Feb. 6,
in Delaware bankruptcy court by a committee representing asbestos
claimants, a number far above the company's own estimates.

In the brief, the official committee of asbestos personal injury
claimants, joined by a representative for future claimants, put
the company's total asbestos liability between $1.1 billion and
$1.25 billion, net present value.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Risk Study on Libby Abatement Out In 2014
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that federal officials anticipate
finishing by late 2014 a risk study to guide the cleanup of
asbestos-contaminated Libby, Montana, after a panel of scientists
backed draft results that say even a minuscule amount of the
substance can lead to lung problems.

The long-awaited document will determine when work can end on the
cleanup of asbestos dust from a W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine
outside this northwestern Montana town.  Hundreds of people in and
around Libby have died from exposure, and many more have been
sickened.

The cleanup so far has cost more than $447 million since it
started in 1999.

Environmental Protection Agency toxicologist Deborah McKean says
the agency will complete its risk study earlier if it can,
possibly by the end of this year.

But she says the EPA first must do additional work recently
recommended by its Science Advisory Board, a group of outside
scientists who spent more than a year deliberating the agency's
preliminary findings.

Meanwhile, the cleanup grinds on.  At least 80 and up to 100
properties in town are queued up for work this year, said EPA
project manager Rebecca Thomas.

Several hundred properties still need to be addressed, and that
list could grow significantly depending on the outcome of the risk
study.

Work on the mine site outside town has barely begun.  It closed in
1990 and remains the responsibility of W.R. Grace.

                           *     *     *

Despite Libby's many deaths, the science board said the EPA was
right to use a less drastic benchmark, lung scarring, to determine
how much asbestos poses a risk.

That could have implications far beyond the town itself.  Dozens
of sites across the U.S. received or processed vermiculite from
Libby's mine, which was used as insulation in millions of homes
across the U.S.

The science board also said the agency should gather more data to
back up its position.

W.R. Grace and industry groups have criticized the EPA's proposal
for a strict new standard as unjustified and impossible to attain.
The agency has not yet formally responded to those comments.

McKean said she did not expect a significant change to the
agency's determination that exceeding extremely low levels of
airborne asbestos -- 0.00002 fibers of the mineral per cubic
centimeter -- raises the risk of lung-scarring.

"They are asking us to bolster our decision," McKean said.  She
added that final exposure standards won't be established until
additional work is done.

It will take another six months after that for the study to be
completed, she said.

The town remains under a first-of-its kind public health emergency
declaration issued by Environmental Protection Agency
administrator Lisa Jackson in 2009.

The deaths are expected to continue for decades due to the long
latency of asbestos-related diseases (ARD).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consultant Maintains Fibro Alert at Cwmcarn High
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News South East Wales reports that a company which raised
concerns about asbestos leading to the closure of a Caerphilly
county school has criticized the findings of further tests that
say it is "essentially uncontaminated".

Cwmcarn High School shut in October after a report said asbestos
posed a threat to health.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) carried out tests which
indicated the risk to pupils and teachers was low.

But the firm advising the council says it still has safety
concerns.

Santia Consulting Ltd issued a statement on Friday, Feb. 8, saying
the source of the asbestos contamination in the school "still
remains in place consisting of substantially damaged asbestos
insulating boards (AIBs) in the ceiling voids, damaged AIB in the
room heaters and repeated damage of AIB window panels within
classrooms."

It has asked for more information about the type of report carried
out on behalf of the HSE and whether it has gone far enough.

The HSE said it wants to offer a response to the Santia's comments
but needs more time to study them.

The initial report by Santia Asbestos Management Limited had said
airborne fibers at the 900-pupil school were 10 times higher than
the accepted levels.

However, on Monday, Feb. 4, it was revealed that a new report
carried out on behalf of HSE by the Health and Safety Laboratory
(HSL) -- which carries out scientific research -- that the method
of testing carried out by Santia could "overestimate the levels of
asbestos fibers as it does not distinguish between asbestos fibers
and other fibers such as paper, clothing and skin cells."

The HSE went on to say that any decision on whether the school
should reopen "rests with the school governors", adding "it is
their choice whether to use the HSL report in any decision
making."

The council and school asked for a further survey but it will be
three weeks before any decision is made while students are
currently being educated 12 miles away at Coleg Gwent's Ebbw Vale
campus.

The Santia statement said it was preparing a new report which
"will provide more documentary evidence to support the actions
taken."

It added: "Both the council and Santia continue to believe that
the safety of the children attending the school and those who work
there cannot be guaranteed with the foreseeable risks in relation
to asbestos still in existence."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Another Hazmat Dump Found in Clarence Valley
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Howard of The Daily Examiner (Aus) reports that Lanitza
residents suspect their isolated section of the Clarence Valley
has been targeted for illegal asbestos dumping after another major
find in the region on Feb. 8.

Nymboida Rescue Team member Paul McIntyre came across the second
find at the Mustard Pot, about 4km away from the initial find on
Wim Van Vlymen's block near Qwyarigo Creek.

Mr. McIntyre believes the two finds could be linked.

"To me it looks the walls and guttering belonging to the roofing
sheets dumped on Wim's place," he said.

"There's not a lot of people out here, so people think they can
come out here and dump their rubbish."

Mr. McIntyre said the second dumping site appeared to be on Crown
land or land under the control of the Clarence Valley Council.

The council's deputy general manager Des Schroder said the
prospect of the dumpers exposing themselves to contamination was a
worry.

"What they're doing is illegal, but it could have ramifications
for them and their families if they're not following the correct
procedures," he said.

He said this involved a team of workers in special suits wrapping
pieces of asbestos in plastic for disposal.

The council waste disposal site was an accredited asbestos waste
disposal site.

Mr. Schroder said if this latest find was on Crown land, the
council would organize the clean-up.

He said the council had a deal with the Environment Protection
Agency to reimburse it after the work was completed.

Asbestos is a building product made from a naturally occurring
fibrous mineral.

A single fiber can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma or asbestosis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La Collette Hazmat Stockpile Set for France
------------------------------------------------------------
This is Jersey reports that Jersey's stockpile of asbestos at La
Collette could be disposed of in France, the Environment Minister
has said.

Deputy Rob Duhamel said that later this month States officers will
visit two locations where the waste could be deposited.

It was revealed last August that there were 217 rusted shipping
containers of asbestos sitting at the reclamation site.

Transport Minister Kevin Lewis, who is responsible for waste
management and recycling, originally said that the waste would be
buried in concrete-lined pits, but a decision was later made to
try to export it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ARD, Mesothelioma Issues in South Africa & China
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Surviving Mesothelioma and Cancer Monthly reports that two new
reports highlight the fact that mesothelioma and other asbestos-
related diseases (ARD) are global issues.

Reporting in a recent issue of Global Health Action, scientists
from South Africa's National Institute for Occupational Health and
the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg say the country is
facing an epidemic of environmentally-linked asbestos-related
diseases like mesothelioma because of abandoned asbestos mines.
The same report also found that many of these mesothelioma
patients are not receiving any compensation for their injuries.

South Africa was once a top exporter of asbestos, which was used
for thousands of industrial applications, including insulation,
construction materials, asbestos cement, and friction products
like brake and clutch pads.  Although all of South Africa's
asbestos mines are now closed because of the risk of diseases like
mesothelioma, the new study suggests that they continue to pose a
serious environmental hazard.

The study's author examined the 146 environmental mesothelioma and
asbestos disease claims submitted between 2003 and 2010 to one of
two South African trusts set up to deal with such cases.  Of those
cases, 77 were malignant mesothelioma, the cancer of the
mesothelial membranes that is considered the most aggressive of
the asbestos-related diseases.  Of those 77 mesothelioma cases,
only 33 received any compensation.  The records show that these
patients had been exposed to asbestos in their homes or
neighborhoods.

"Mesothelioma was the most common disease diagnosed, but most
cases were not compensated," observed the study's authors.  "This
highlights that there is little redress for individuals with
environmentally-acquired asbestos-related diseases in South
Africa."  The study calls on the South African government to
rehabilitate abandoned asbestos mines and the environment
surrounding them in order to stop the epidemic of environmentally-
linked asbestos-related diseases.

At the same time, in China, researchers at the Chinese University
of Hong Kong studying occupational exposure to asbestos say that
"urgent efforts" must be made to increase regulations to protect
workers from mesothelioma and other asbestos caused diseases.
China has been the world's top producer and consumer of chrysotile
asbestos although the national mortality rate for asbestos-related
diseases is unknown.  An analysis of recent studies found
mortality rates for lung cancer in Chinese asbestos workers and
miners to be four times higher than expected, but found
"surprisingly few" cases of mesothelioma which the researchers say
may be due to problems in diagnosis.  In its early stages,
mesothelioma may cause vague symptoms that make it difficult to
diagnose.

The Chinese researchers call for "improvements in diagnostic and
systematic recording of the incidence and mortality of asbestos-
related diseases" to decrease the future risk of mesothelioma and
other diseases among asbestos workers.  Although many countries
have banned the use of asbestos, neither China nor the U.S. has
done so.  The World Health Organization estimates that 90,000
mesothelioma deaths annually are attributable to asbestos
exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Payout Cap Reduces $3MM Verdict to $0.98MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KELLY McCORMICK,
individually and as Executrix for the ESTATE OF KIT L. McCORMICK,
Plaintiff, v. CLEAVER BROOKS CO., INC., ET AL., Present Defendant,
Nos. 91-MD-875, 04-CV-2405 (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Jack B. Weinstein of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York ruled that findings of the jury against Defendant Cleaver
Brooks on total non-economic damages of $3,000,000 were excessive.

The parties to the case, which arises from the exposure of Kit
McCormick to asbestos while working on a variety of boilers at an
Air Force base in Kansas and at other locations, have agreed that
Kansas law will be applied at trial.  Under Kansas law, the burden
of proof with respect to the percentage of individual liability of
defendant and other non-party persons contributing to the total
damages must be established by the defendant through a
preponderance of the evidence, Judge Weinstein said.

Judge Weinstein ruled that the non-economic damages were
appropriate when reduced pursuant to Kansas law to $500,000, the
total amount of economic damages allocated against the Defendant
of $480,000 was justifiable.  Accordingly, total damages are
$980,000.

A copy of Judge Weinstein's Decision dated January 28, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/zsaqsBfrom Leagle.com

                           *     *     *

Silvia Hsieh of Lawyers.com reports that a judge has drastically
reduced a $3 million jury verdict awarded to the widow of a worker
who died from cancer after years of handling products made with
asbestos.

Companies have been ordered by juries to pay millions of dollars
only to have the damages slashed by a judge after trial.

Under "tort reform," many states have passed laws that limit how
much an injured person can collect, such as by capping damages at
a few hundred thousand dollars.

Juries aren't told about such caps at the time of trial, so they
go ahead and award what they think is right.  After trial, a judge
cuts the award based on state damages caps.

That's what happened in this case.

Kit McCormick worked on an Air Force base as a boiler tender,
which involved installing and maintaining several boilers in six
to eight small buildings over a long period of time.  He developed
mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure.
After his death, his wife Kelly sued boiler manufacturer Cleaver
Brooks, which sold about a dozen types of boilers to the base.

One of McCormick's co-workers testified he believed McCormick
inhaled asbestos dust while handling firebrick that he installed
and replaced in the boilers, and also from asbestos-laden
insulation in the boilers' sheet metal jackets.

The jury trial took place in New York but applied Kansas law
because McCormick worked on the boilers in Kansas.  Different
states have passed their own laws limiting damages to victims in
different kinds of cases.

Under Kansas law, so-called noneconomic damages, such as pain and
suffering, are capped at $250,000 for negligence, and a separate
cap for wrongful death is $250,000.

As a result, the most massive reductions were taken against the
jury's original award of $1.5 million for noneconomic damages to
$250,000, and another $1.5 million awarded for wrongful death to
$250,000.

The jury's total $3.8 million was reduced to $980,000.

"The findings of the jury on total non-economic damages of
$3,000,000 were excessive.  They were appropriate when reduced
pursuant to Kansas law to $500,000.  The total amount of economic
damages allocated against defendant of $480,000 was justifiable.
The verdict of $980,000 was supported by the evidence," wrote
Brooklyn U.S. District Court Judge Jack Weinstein.

In addition to these general damages some 16 states have passed
laws specifically protecting companies that purchase an asbestos-
manufacturing company from liability.  Lawyers who represent
asbestos victims call it a "corporate bailout" for asbestos
makers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burglars Steal Pneumatic Fibro Vacuum in Carlisle
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Cumbria reports that an industrial vacuum cleaner stolen
during a burglary in Carlisle was used to remove asbestos, police
have warned.

The yellow pneumatic cleaner was taken from the former Richard
Rose premises in Harraby, over the weekend.

Cumbria Police said they would carry a serious health risk to
anyone coming into contact with it.

Five others, also being used in the renovation and containing
asbestos, were moved into a different room during the break-in.

Officers have been appealing to anyone with information about the
theft or the whereabouts of the item to contact them immediately,
and not to touch it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Israeli Ministry Fines IDF Over Fibro Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arutz Sheva (Israel) reports that the IDF responded to an order by
the Environmental Ministry that they pay more than NIS 3 million
in fines due to a failure to take care of an asbestos outbreak in
a base in Be'er Sheva.

"The IDF has been handling the asbestos outbreaks on bases for
over a decade.  The asbestos in Mahane Natan was recognized and
reported to the Ministry of Environmental Protection by officials
acting on behalf of the IDF."

According to the IDF, army officials contacted the Environmental
Ministry to figure out how to best eliminate the asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Building Unions Campaign for New Anti-Fibro Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Lucas of The Age (Aus) reports that two out of three homes in
Australia built between World War II and the early 1980s still
contain asbestos and building unions are set to launch a campaign
in Sydney demanding new laws to dispose of it.

The unions will also renew a push for the creation of a federal
asbestos authority.

Renovators who do not realize their homes contain asbestos are
still being subjected to deadly exposure, the Australian
Manufacturing Workers Union and the Construction, Forestry, Mining
and Energy Union say.

Australia was the biggest user of asbestos between the 1950s and
1980s, and as a result it now has the highest incidence of
asbestos-related cancer in the world, a rate that is still rising.

The national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers
Union, Paul Bastian, said the threat from asbestos was still a
risk to the community and more needed to be done to combat its
effects.

"The fact that asbestos-related disease is still killing people
. . . means we really need to combat hidden traces of the deadly
material in our homes and commercial buildings," he said.

Many residents did not realize until they started work on their
homes that they had asbestos in them.  "They have been clad over
-- they look like a normal building until you drill through it and
you find an asbestos wall."

The union wants the recommendations of a government report on
asbestos that was completed in June to be fully implemented and
funded.

An assistant secretary for the CFMEU, Lindsay Fraser, said
priority needed to be given to the removal of asbestos from
government and public buildings.  The review in June recommended
asbestos in houses built before 1987 should be labeled to alert
buyers, tenants and renovators.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Slaps GBP4,000 Fine on Fibro Law Violator
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Griffin of The BirminghamMail (UK) reports that a builder has
been fined GBP4,000 for illegally removing and breaking up
asbestos panels, demonstrating a 'complete disregard for the law,'
a court heard.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Nicholas Sharpe,
trading as Sharpe Builders, after he exposed himself and others to
potential danger by breaking up the panels from a house in Castle
Bromwich.

Solihull Magistrates' Court heard that HSE inspectors visited a
house on Rover Drive in July 2012, following a call from a
Solihull Council Environmental Health Officer about possible
unlicensed asbestos removal work.

A HSE investigation found that, during work to convert a garage
into a living room, Mr. Sharpe had been wearing only a dust mask
for protection as he removed a number of Asbestos Insulating
Boards (AIBs) from the ceiling.  He broke these into pieces and
put the uncovered panels on the householder's driveway.

Mr. Sharpe had no plan for the work and had not acquired a survey
of the building, so did not know that the material was asbestos.
The court was told Mr. Sharpe did not hold the necessary license
to remove the asbestos boards, and failed to take adequate steps
to prevent both exposure to and spread of asbestos fibers
generated by his work.

Nicholas Sharpe, of Rover Drive, Castle Bromwich, pleaded guilty
to two breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.

He was fined a total of GBP4,000 and ordered to pay costs of
GBP1,100.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal State Releases 2013 Asbestos Building Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yvette Quintero of The Daily Titan reports that Cal State
Fullerton released its annual asbestos building report that
details the location and gives information on campus buildings
that may or may not contain asbestos fibers.

The 2013 report is compiled by CSUF's Environmental Health and
Instructional Safety, in accordance with California's Notification
Law and Safety Code Sections 25915.  The law requires that
notification be given for asbestos present in public buildings.

University employees were notified in January of the presence of
asbestos in various campus buildings.

In general, buildings constructed before 1990, such as College
Park, McCarthy Hall, Langsdorf Hall and the Humanities Building,
are assumed to have been constructed with materials containing
asbestos.

Asbestos is a mineral used in building materials for its fire
resistant properties.  It may be present in insulation, tiling,
hot water and steam pipes, carpets, or other construction
materials.

Colleen Wilkins, Environmental Health and Instructional Safety
officer, said most asbestos on campus is found within floor tiles.

If left undisturbed, asbestos does not pose a risk or health
hazard to the campus community.

"If it's in materials and no one is touching it, no one is playing
with it, it's not really a problem for workers," said John
Breskey, Ph.D., an assistant health science professor.

The risk of exposure occurs when construction or deconstruction
are underway and asbestos comes out of the materials and into the
air.

When this occurs, a removal job is scheduled.  Willem van der Pol,
Physical Plant director, said a removal job is typically triggered
by another project.

"A remodeling project can potentially cause the disturbance of
asbestos and makes it, therefore, a priority for removal," Van der
Pol said.

In 2012, various removal jobs were conducted in McCarthy Hall and
the Kinesiology and Health Science, Humanities and Visual Arts
buildings.

The removal jobs were completed in seven different months, with
four of the jobs being completed during the course of the semester
on weekends.

"Most jobs are scheduled for breaks or summer because there are
fewer people on campus," Wilkins said.  "Jobs are done on the
weekend because no one but the police are here."

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, inhalation
of asbestos fibers is the primary cause of asbestos-related
disease.  If fibers are not expelled through mucus secretions or
coughing, they may become embedded in the lungs.

The three major types of asbestos-related disease are Asbestosis,
lung cancer and Mesothelioma.

"It's a mineral . . . so your immune system can't break it down,"
Breskey said.  "It tries to break it down, but it can't so it ends
up making a lot of scar tissue and if you let that progress long
enough over the course of years, you can actually end up getting
respiratory diseases."

To avoid health complications, many precautions have to be taken
prior to removing asbestos.  Removal must be done by specially
trained individuals that are certified.

Small removal jobs are done by Facilities Operations trade
workers, while large projects are done by contractors specializing
in removal.

"We have a number of our trade workers who are trained in this
kind of work and we do small jobs, typically as part of a
maintenance activity," Van der Pol said.

After extensive training, the abatement contractors set up a
containment.  This includes closing off the area with plastic or,
if it is a single room, sealing the door and the air supply,
Wilkins said.

Jobs are prioritized according to the availability of the
contractor.  The cost of the removal jobs spans a variety of
projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mack Trucks, 60 Others Face Exposure Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that a Huntington
couple are suing 61 companies they claim are responsible for a
asbestos diagnosis.

Robert Leon Null was diagnosed with asbestosis on Feb. 7, 2011,
according to a complaint filed Feb. 6 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Null and his wife, Geraldine Null, claim the 61 defendants caused
his asbestosis.

The plaintiffs claim Robert Null was exposed to asbestos and/or
asbestos-containing products during his employment as an insulator
and machinist from 1959 until this year.

The defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence,
contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty,
strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation
and post-sale duty to warn, according to the suit.

The Nulls claim Robert Null never smoked.

Certain defendants are also being sued as premise owners and as
Robert Null's employers for deliberate intent/intentional tort,
according to the suit.

The Nulls are seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
They are being represented by Victoria Antion Nelson --
vantion@motleyrice.com --, Scott A. McGee -- smcgee@motleyrice.com
-- and John D. Hurst -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- of Motley Rice.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 61 defendants named in the suit are 3M Company; A.W.
Chesterton Company; American Electric Power Company Inc.; American
Electric Power Service Corporation; Appalachian Power Company;
Ashland Inc.; Beazer East Inc.; Borg-Warner Corporation; Brand
Insulations Inc.; Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver-Brooks Inc.;
Cooper Industries Inc.; Copes-Vulcan Inc.; Crane Co.; Crown Cork &
Seal USA Inc.; Dravo Corporation; Eaton Electrical Inc.; Flowserve
Corporation; FMC Corporation; Ford Motor Company; Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation; General Electric Company Inc.; Genuine Parts
Company; Georgia Pacific Corporation; Goulds Pumps Inc.; Grinnell
LLC; Hercules Inc.; Honeywell International; IMO Industries Inc.;
Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; ITT
Corporation; Lockheed Martin Corporation; Mack Trucks Inc.;
McJunkin Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Nitro
Industrial Coverings Inc.; Ohio Valley Electric Corporation; Ohio
Valley Insulating Company Inc.; Owens-Illinois Inc.; Rapid
American Corporation; Riley Power Inc.; Rockwell Automation Inc.;
Rust Constructors Inc.; Rust Engineering & Construction Inc.;
Sargent & Lundy, LLC; Schneider Electric; State Electric Supply
Company; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC; Tasco Insulations Inc.;
UB West Virginia Inc.; Union Carbide Chemical & Plastics Company;
Uniroyal Inc.; United Conveyer Corporation; United Engineers &
Constructors and Washington Group International; Viacom Inc.;
Vimasco Corporation; Warren Pumps Inc.; West Virginia Electric
Supply Company; Yarway Corporation; and Zurn Industries Inc.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-243.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Initiative for Lung Cancer Victims Launched
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "We believe there
are tens of thousands of US citizens who are diagnosed with lung
cancer right now, where the contributing factor to the lung cancer
was exposure to asbestos in the workplace, and these individuals
may qualify for significant financial compensation.  This is a
national effort involving all lung cancer victims in all US
states, with the only requirement being exposure to asbestos in
the workplace.  Our effort is not just about identifying victims
of mesothelioma, it is about identifying any current victim of any
type of lung cancer in the United States who had long term
exposure to asbestos in their workplace."  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.

Important Note From The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center: "In
nonsmokers who have been exposed to asbestos, the risk of lung
cancer is five times that of unexposed workers."

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "High risk
workplaces for asbestos exposure include US Navy installations, or
current, or former shipyards in California, Washington, or the
state of Virginia, current, or former power plants in all US
states, automotive industry manufacturing facilities in Ohio,
Michigan, Indiana, or Illinois, chemical manufacturing plants in
Louisiana, Texas or New Jersey, oil refineries in California,
Washington, Louisiana, or Texas, aerospace manufacturing
facilities in California, Washington, or Kansas, demolition
construction 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 we fear most
current lung cancer victims have never considered their lung
cancer could be linked to 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 at 866-714-6466;
http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Moves Fibro Lawsuit to Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis of The Madison / St. Clair Record reports that
CBS Corp. has removed a Madison County asbestos lawsuit to federal
court and asked a judge there to dismiss it.

As the administrator of Richard Spells' estate, Richard Spells,
Jr., in October 2012 sued CBS Corp., the successor by merger to
the corporation formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corp., and
30 other defendants.

Spells, a Georgia resident, alleges that his decedent was injured,
in part, due to his contact with asbestos-containing equipment
during his time as a U.S. Navy machinist.  He worked on several
ships between 1958 and 1980, with a few breaks.

According to the complaint, the Spellses first became aware that
Richard Spells had developed lung cancer in May 2011 and learned
it was caused by asbestos exposure.  He died in June 2012.

The suit accuses the defendants of failing to exercise care and
caution for Spells' safety by including asbestos in their products
when they knew or should have known about the dangers associated
with exposure to asbestos.

It seeks more than $50,000 and includes counts for negligence,
willful and wanton conduct, conspiracy, negligent spoliation of
evidence and strict liability.

CBS Corp. asserts in its Feb. 7 notice for removal that the suit
should be handled in federal court because it was acting under the
authority of the government and has "a colorable federal law-based
'government contractor' defense to said claim or claims."

In its answer to the complaint, CBS Corp. on Monday, Feb. 11,
denied that it "caused or contributed to the decedent Richard
Spells' alleged exposure to asbestos."

The corporation offered nearly four dozen affirmative defenses and
asked the federal court to dismiss the suit and award it costs.

In addition, CBS Corp. asserts that Spells failed to state a cause
of action supporting punitive or exemplary damages and that any
award of punitive damages would violate constitutional safeguards
provided to the defendants.

Robert Sanderson and Daniel Donahue of Foley & Mansfield in St.
Louis represent CBS Corp and Steven Aroesty --
SAroesty@NapoliBern.com -- of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik in
Edwardsville represents Spells.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Flips Order Denying Boeing's Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two, in an opinion
dated Jan. 29, 2013, reversed a lower court's ruling denying
defendant The Boeing Company's motion for summary judgment
dismissing a work-related personal injury suit arising from
exposure to asbestos-containing products.  The Court of Appeals
granted Boeing's appeal after determining that it has met its
burden to show that no disputed material facts exist in the action
and that, the burden now being shifted to the Plaintiffs, a former
Boeing employee and his wife, the Plaintiffs failed to meet the
burden of raising a material factual dispute about whether Boeing
had actual knowledge that the complained-of asbestos exposure was
certain to cause injury and that Boeing willfully disregarded that
knowledge.  The Court of Appeals agreed with Boeing that Walston's
claims should be dismissed because it was entitled to employer
immunity under the State of Washington's Industrial Insurance Act
(IIA), which created a swift and certain no-fault workers'
compensation system for injured employees in exchange for granting
employers immunity from lawsuits arising from workplace injuries.

The case is GARY G. WALSTON and DONNA WALSTON, husband and wife,
Respondents, v. THE BOEING COMPANY; and SABERHAGEN HOLDING, INC.,
as successor to TACOMA ASBESTOS COMPANY and THE BROWER COMPANY,
Appellants, No. 42543-2-II (Wash.).  A copy of the Court of
Appeals' Decision is available at http://is.gd/eljt4Nfrom
Leagle.com.

The Appellants are represented by:

          William Brendan Murphy, Esq.
          1201 3rd Ave Ste 4800
          Seattle, WA 98101-3266
          Tel: (206) 359-3672
          Fax: (206) 359-7179

               - and -

          Bruce Duplan Campbell, Esq.
          Katherine Carlson Wax, Esq.
          Eric David Miller, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 3rd Ave Ste 4800
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Tel: (206) 359-8000
          Fax: (206) 359-9000
          Email: BCampbell@perkinscoie.com
                 KWax@perkinscoie.com
                 EMiller@perkinscoie.com

The Respondents are represented by:

          Matthew Phineas Bergman, Esq.
          Glenn S. Draper, Esq.
          Brian F. Ladenburg, Esq.
          Anna D. Knudson, Esq.
          BERGMAN DRAPER LADENBURG, PLLC
          614 1st Ave Fl 4
          Seattle, WA 98104-2233
          Tel: (206) 957-9510
          Fax: (206) 957-9549
          Email: brian@bergmanlegal.com
                 glenn@bergmanlegal.com
                 matt@bergmanlegal.com
                 annak@bergmanlegal.com

               - and -

          John Wentworth Phillips, Esq.
          John Matthew Geyman, Esq.
          PHILLIPS LAW GROUP PLLC
          315 5th Ave S. Ste 1000
          Seattle, WA 98104-2682
          Tel: (206) 382-6163
               (206) 382-1168
          Fax: (206) 382-6168
          Email: jphillips@jphillipslaw.com
                 mgeyman@jphillipslaw.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Ct. Denies GE's Summary Judgment Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert F. Kelley of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary
judgment filed by Defendant General Electric Company seeking to
dismiss a personal injury action filed by Plaintiffs Terry and Jo
Ann Cardaro arising from Terry Cardaro's exposure to asbestos-
containing products manufactured by GE during his time working
around those products.  Judge Kelley found that, contrary to GE's
assertion, the Louisiana Statute of Repose Sec. 2772 does not
perempt the Plaintiffs' claims, and that a genuine issue of
material fact exists in the case.

The case is IN RE ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (VI):
TERRY & JO ANN CARDARO, Plaintiffs, v. AEROJET GENERAL CORP., et
al., Defendants, MDL No. 875, Civil Action No. 11-66763 (E.D.
Pa.).  Copies of Judge Kelley's Memorandum and Order dated
Jan. 29, 2013, are available at http://is.gd/JsHGScand
http://is.gd/z1hNnLfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 Cases Remanded as Pretrial in MDL Concludes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty cases consolidated under the case captioned IN RE: ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI), No. 3:11-986, MDL No. 875,
were remanded to the courts where the cases were originally filed
as all claims for punitive and exemplary damages were severed by
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and
that pretrial proceedings with respect to the remaining claims
have been completed.

MDL 875, In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, involves
issues relating to personal injury damages caused by asbestos
products. It currently consists of about 6,000 cases transferred
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which has been
transferring cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania since
1991. Each case typically consists of claims by multiple
plaintiffs against multiple defendants. Since its inception, the
litigation has involved more than 100,000 cases and up to ten
million claims, including land-based and maritime claims
("MARDOC").

A copy of the Order dated January 29, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/sHW8tHfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Won't Appoint Receiver for Krafft-Murphy
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an opinion dated Feb. 4, 2012, the Court of Chancery of
Delaware entered a ruling in the long-running asbestos tort
litigation against Krafft-Murphy Company, Inc., a Delaware company
that dissolved more than a decade ago after ceasing operations for
seven years.  The opinion, according to the Court, addressed a
question that has not yet been squarely addressed in Delaware law:
namely, whether a receiver should be appointed more than ten years
after the dissolution of a Delaware corporation where the
dissolved corporation's only assets are liability insurance
policies.

In that case, petitioners, who are asbestos claimants represented
by the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos and who have pending
individual claims against Krafft-Murphy, seek the appointment of a
receiver for Krafft-Murphy based on the perceived existence of
undistributed assets in the form of liability insurance coverage.

Krafft-Murphy was involved for decades in the business of
plastering and spray insulating and due to the nature of its
business, it has been subject to hundreds of asbestos-related tort
suits.  Krafft-Murphy has moved in other courts to dismiss those
asbestos-related tort suits that were filed more than ten years
after its dissolution.

The Court held that the law is clear that appointment of a
receiver may be made at any time where a dissolved corporation has
undistributed assets.  The first inquiry, therefore, is whether
insurance liability contracts are undistributed assets of a
Delaware corporation that has been dissolved for more than ten
years.  To resolve that question, it must also be determined
whether such a dissolved corporation is amenable to suits brought
more than ten years after dissolution.

Having examined Delaware's corporate scheme of dissolution, the
Court concluded that Krafft-Murphy is not amenable to asbestos-
related tort suits commenced more than ten years after its
dissolution. Consequently, in the circumstances of the case, the
insurance contracts are valueless, the Court said. Because Krafft-
Murphy does not have any undistributed assets, the Court found
tgat appointment of a receiver unnecessary.

The case is IN THE MATTER OF KRAFFT-MURPHY COMPANY, INC., a
dissolved Delaware Corporation, C.A. No. 6049-VCP (Del.).  A copy
of the Court's Opinion dated February 4, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/uPNFA4

The Petitioners are represented by:

         Raeann Warner, Esq.
         JACOBS & CRUMPLAR
         Wilmington, DE 19899
         Tel: (302) 656-5445
         Fax: (302) 656-5875
         Email: raeann@jcdelaw.com

              - and -

         Jennifer L. Lilly, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS
         Baltimore, MD

              - and -

         Jeffrey P. Wasserman, Esq.
         CICONTE, WASSERMAN & SCERBA, LLC
         Wilmington, DE 19899
         Tel: (302) 658-7101
         Fax: (302) 658-4982
         Email: jwasserman@cicontewasserman.com

              - and -

         Daniel A. Brown, Esq.
         Eileen M. O'Brien, Esq.
         BROWN & GOULD, LLP
         Bethesda, MD 20814
         Tel: (301) 718-4548
         Fax: (301) 718-8037
         Email: dbrown@brownandgould.com
                eobrien@brownandgould.com

Krafft-Murphy is represented by:

         Francis J. Murphy, Esq.
         MURPHY & LANDON
         Wilmington, DE 19805-1267
         Tel: (302) 482-4381
         Fax: (302) 472-8135

              - and -

         Joseph L. Ruby, Esq.
         LEWIS BAACH PLLC
         1899 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 600
         Washington, DC 20006
         Tel: (202) 659-7979
         Fax: (202) 466-5738
         Email: joseph.ruby@lewisbaach.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
contained in products made by the Company. The Company is a
co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and
intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The
claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the
Company as defendant, which either were dismissed when it was
shown that the Company had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for immaterial amounts.

As of December 31, 2012, the Company remains subject to these
asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2012.

Graham Corporation (Graham) designs, manufactures and sells
custom-built vacuum and heat transfer equipment to customers
worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Defends Exposure Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., continues to defend asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago. Currently there are a few thousand
claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with
hundreds of other companies. In some cases, the claims involve
products from divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most
of the costs. However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify
asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by
our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor
repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which
occurred on January 31, 2007. We are also responsible for half of
the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against
the former Rockwell International Corporation's (RIC's) divested
measurement and flow control business. But in all cases, for those
claimants who do show that they worked with our products or
products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we
nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial
part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature
of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. We
defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been
dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment
to claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary. Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity
Company (Nationwide) and Kemper Insurance (Kemper), the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to Allen-
Bradley, we entered into separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with
both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility for
ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. In
exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its remaining
liability and has been released from further insurance obligations
to Allen-Bradley. Nationwide entered into a cost share agreement
with us to pay the substantial majority of future defense and
indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. We believe that
this arrangement with Nationwide will continue to provide coverage
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
the asbestos liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our financial
condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims
and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related
to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we
agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or
because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some
instances, the divested business has assumed the liabilities;
however, it is possible that we might be responsible to satisfy
those liabilities if the divested business is unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
component systems business, semiconductor systems business and
Rockwell Collins avionics and communications business, the spun-
off companies have agreed to indemnify us for substantially all
contingent liabilities related to the respective businesses,
including environmental and intellectual property matters.
In connection with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale."

Rockwell Automation, Inc., provides industrial automation power,
control, and information solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $139MM Liability at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability at December
31, 2012, was $139 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in
which current and former employees and other parties allege
exposure to asbestos. We assess our potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future
defense and processing costs.

"Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to
present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of
future payments. Approximately 22% of the recorded liability
related to asserted claims and approximately 78% related to
unasserted claims at December 31, 2012. Because of the uncertainty
surrounding the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related claims, it is
reasonably possible that future costs to settle these claims may
range from approximately $139 million to $149 million. We record
an accrual at the low end of the range as no amount of loss within
the range is more probable than any other.

"At December 31, 2012, the Company's asbestos-related liability
was $139 million.

"In conjunction with the liability update performed in 2012, we
also reassessed estimated insurance recoveries. We have recognized
an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at December 31, 2012
and 2011. The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities
and related insurance recoveries were based on currently known
facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims
filed each year, average settlement costs, and insurance coverage
issues, could cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to
be higher or lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may
vary in the future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of
asbestos litigation materially change; federal and state laws
governing asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability
or amount of compensation of claimants; and there are material
changes with respect to payments made to claimants by other
defendants."

Union Pacific Corporation owns transportation companies. Its
principal operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, links
23 states in the western 66% of the country. Union Pacific
Railroad Company's business mix includes agricultural products,
automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products and intermodal.
Union Pacific Railroad Company connects with Canada's rail systems
and is the railroad serving six gateways to Mexico.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Exposed to AO-Related Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation continues to have exposure in connection with
asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2012.

Cabot has exposure in connection with a safety respiratory
products business that a subsidiary acquired from American Optical
Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset purchase transaction.
The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and
disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection with its
acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in certain
circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities, including
costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in settlements and
judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to the
1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.

Generally, these respirator liabilities involve claims for
personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators
that are alleged to have been negligently designed or labeled.
Neither Cabot, nor its past or present subsidiaries, at any time
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing products. At no time
did this respiratory product line represent a significant portion
of the respirator market.

As of both December 31, 2012 and September 30, 2012, there were
approximately 42,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims
against AO in connection with respiratory products. Cabot has a
reserve to cover its expected share of liability for existing and
future respirator liability claims. At both December 31, 2012 and
September 30, 2012, the reserve was $13 million on a discounted
basis ($17 million on an undiscounted basis at both December 31,
2012 and September 30, 2012). The reserve is being accreted up to
the undiscounted liability through interest expense over the
expected cash flow period, which is through 2062. Cash payments
related to this liability were less than $1 million in the first
three months of both fiscal 2013 and 2012.

Cabot Corporation manufactures several industrial materials
including specialty chemicals. commonly found both inside your
household and in industrial applications. Some of the major
product offerings are fumed metal oxide which is often found in
cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and composites.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Invensys Still Must Indemnify Rexnord
------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to be involved in asbestos-related
claims for which Invensys plc is obligated to defend and indemnify
them, according to Rexnord's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended
December 29, 2012.

In connection with the Carlyle acquisition in November 2002,
Invensys plc has provided the Company with indemnification against
certain contingent liabilities, including certain pre-closing
environmental liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to
such indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company relating to the Ellsworth Industrial Park
Site and to various asbestos claims. The indemnity obligations are
subject, together with indemnity obligations relating to other
matters, to an overall dollar cap equal to the purchase price,
which is an amount in excess of $900 million. These paragraphs
summarize the most significant actions and proceedings:

   * In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC ("Rexnord Industries") was
     named as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), together
     with at least ten other companies, at the Ellsworth
     Industrial Park Site, Downers Grove, DuPage County, Illinois
     (the "Site"), by the United States Environmental Protection
     Agency ("USEPA"), and the Illinois Environmental Protection
     Agency ("IEPA"). Rexnord Industries' Downers Grove property
     is situated within the Ellsworth Industrial Complex. The
     USEPA and IEPA allege there have been one or more releases
     or threatened releases of chlorinated solvents and other
     hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, allegedly
     including but not limited to a release or threatened release
     on or from the Company's property, at the Site. The relief
     sought by the USEPA and IEPA includes further investigation
     and potential remediation of the Site and reimbursement of
     USEPA's past costs. Rexnord Industries' allocated share of
     past and future costs related to the Site, including for
     investigation and/or remediation, could be significant. All
     previously pending property damage and personal injury
     lawsuits against the Company related to the Site have been
     settled or dismissed. Pursuant to its indemnity obligation,
     Invensys continues to defend the Company in known matters
     related to the Site and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

   * Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 1,000 claimants) are
     pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
     relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged
     presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
     previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division
     and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys and FMC, prior
     owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs
     to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the
     Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending
     multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
     injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a
     product allegedly manufactured by Prager. Additionally,
     there are approximately 4,000 individuals who have filed
     asbestos related claims against Prager; however, these
     claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation
     inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos
     matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the
     Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs
     related to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes
     that the combination of its insurance coverage and the
     Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs
     of these matters.

Rexnord Corporation is a multi-platform industrial company. The
Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion Control and
Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control product
portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under
brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water
Management platform operates in the commercial construction market
for water management products and the municipal water and
wastewater treatment markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hamilton Defending Rexnord in 200 Pending Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to be involved in asbestos-related
claims for which Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and
indemnify them, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter
ended December 29, 2012.

In connection with the Falk Corporation acquisition, Hamilton
Sundstrand has provided Rexnord with indemnification against
certain products-related asbestos exposure liabilities. The
Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations,
Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and that, with
respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are not
subject to any time or dollar limitations.

Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in
approximately 200 lawsuits pending in state or federal court in
numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due
to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 600
claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

Rexnord Corporation is a multi-platform industrial company. The
Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion Control and
Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control product
portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under
brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water
Management platform operates in the commercial construction market
for water management products and the municipal water and
wastewater treatment markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Units Still Facing Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Rexnord Corporation's Water Management subsidiaries
continue to be involved in asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended December 29,
2012.

Certain Water Management subsidiaries are subject to asbestos and
class action related litigation. As of December 29, 2012, Zurn and
an average of approximately 80 other unrelated companies were
defendants in approximately 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits
representing approximately 27,000 claims. Plaintiffs' claims
allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used
primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment
of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components.
Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are
being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers.
As of December 29, 2012, the Company estimates the potential
liability for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well
as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be
approximately $42.0 million of which Zurn expects to pay
approximately $33.0 million in the next ten years on such claims,
with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years. The $42.0 million was developed based on an
actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout for
claims filed in the next 10 years. However, there are inherent
uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos
claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, Zurn's actual
liability could differ from the estimate. Further, while this
current asbestos liability is based on an estimate of claims
through the next ten years, such liability may continue beyond
that time frame, and such liability could be substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of December 29, 2012, is
approximately $255.1 million, and believes that all current claims
are covered by this insurance. However, principally as a result of
the past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance
carriers, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the
Company's other carriers have paid the first $179.1 million of
aggregate liabilities. In order for the next $51.0 million of
insurance coverage from solvent carriers to apply, management
estimates that it would need to satisfy $14.0 million of asbestos
claims. Layered within the final $25.0 million of the total $255.1
million of coverage, management estimates that it would need to
satisfy an additional $80.0 million of asbestos claims. If
required to pay any such amounts, the Company could pursue
recovery against the insolvent carriers, but it is not currently
possible to determine the likelihood or amount of such recoveries,
if any.

As of December 29, 2012, the Company has a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of $42.0 million, which corresponds to
the amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance that $255.1 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's
asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed $255.1 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.

Rexnord Corporation is a multi-platform industrial company. The
Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion Control and
Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control product
portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under
brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water
Management platform operates in the commercial construction market
for water management products and the municipal water and
wastewater treatment markets.


                           *********

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  * * *