CAR_Public/130301.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 1, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 43

                             Headlines



AETNA INC: Merger-Related Suits in Maryland Voluntarily Dismissed
AETNA INC: Settles Aetna UCR Litigation for $60-Mil.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: News Outlets Mum on Arbitration Hearing
BAYER AG: Mirena Plaintiff's Attorneys Seek Class Action or MDL
BOEHRINGER INGLEHEIM: Faces Uphill Battle in Pradaxa Suit

BOULDER BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertisement
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Has Yet to File Final Settlement Documents
CITICORP CREDIT: Arbitration Bid in "Brown" Suit Denied
CLECO CORP: Only One Matter Remains in Louisiana Customer Suit
CRUSADER SERVICING: Gets More Time to File Class Action Response

EMPIRE STATE: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval
FIFTH THIRD: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification Denial
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Dismissal of Hawaii Suit Pending
FRESH DEL MONTE: Fla. Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending
FRESH DEL MONTE: Still Defends Suits Over Extra Sweet Pineapples

INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Okay
JOHNS HOPKINS: Doctor's Patients File Privacy Class Action
LEGAL HELPERS: Faces Suit Over Failure to Perform Mortgage Change
MCDONALD'S CORP: Majed Moughni Balks at Cy Pres Settlement
NETFLIX INC: Faces Class Action Over 25% Share Drop

NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends Suit vs. Genaera Liquidating Trust
PEPSI-COLA: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dismissal of Consumer Suit Reversed in Part

SANDISK CORP: Briefing in SD Cards Suit Appeal to End by 2013 2Q
SANDISK CORP: Discovery in "Ritz" Class Action Suit Now Open
STRAYER EDUCATION: Dismissal of "Kinnett" Suit Upheld in Dec.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Vehicle Owners Invited to Join Acceleration Suit
TREX CO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Mold Growth in Products

TREX CO: Mold Claims in Defective Products Suit Remain Pending
WAL-MART STORES: Nichols Kaster Files Gender Bias Class Action
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Product Liability Lawsuits Remain Pending
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Settles Direct Purchasers' Claims in Embraco Suit

WYNDHAM VACATION: Couple Files Class Action Over Timeshares Fraud


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Won't Revise Order in Suit v. Union Carbide
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmates Warned of Abusive Litigation Conduct
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln's Appeal From Ex-Worker's Judgment Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment For CBS & Crane Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colo. Ct. Dismisses Inmate's Pro Se Complaint

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Junks Exposure Suit v. Tishman
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $602MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Paid $15MM in Settlements in 2012
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newmarket Continues to Defend Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Expects to Spend $480MM in 2013

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had 23,141 Bendix-Related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Asserts Coverage on NARCO Issues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 45,900 Claims Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Estimates $671MM Liability End Dec.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Had 2,600 Claims Pending End Dec.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal From Owens-Illinois Judgment Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Awaits Order on Consolidation Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Has 1,080 Unresolved Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Had 141 Pending Cases at Nov. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 73,200 Pending Claims End Dec.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural Units Defends 76 Active Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Workers Defenseless Against Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 25 Schools in Arizona Non-Compliant With EPA Law

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IARC Calls For Ban to All Forms of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Schools at Liverpool Central up for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Uganda Orders the Removal of Fibro From Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge to Hear Libby Attorney's Fee Appeal March 1

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCI Probes ACPMA for Anti-Competitive Practices
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Pleas for Info on Swanton Hazmat Dumping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Cites Six AZ Districts for AHERA Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Review Suggests Reopening Safe Areas of Cwmcarn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumbarton Middle School Completes Minor Abatement

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Capricorn Coast Warned of After-Storm Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Voters Decide Guilford Central Abatement Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Fines Decade Long Violator $414,488
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swan Pond Village Abatement Irks Tenant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corporation, 43 Others Face Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caerphilly Council Hires Expert to Review Reports
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Research Says 600 Mechanics Die from ARD Yearly
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Permit to Bury Fibro in Austin Facility Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robert Scott Prison's Full Fibro Test Initiated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Sentence Awaits Belfast Trust in March

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Slams Misinformation by ICA In Pakistan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Russia; New "Lead Saboteur" In Anti-Fibro Efforts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ajax Magnethermic, 28 Others Face Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Hazmat Crews Hush Fibro Scare in Malabar
ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Disposal Fee Blamed for Illegal Dumping

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Asserts Compliance to Fibro Regulations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charles Lucas & Marshall Wins Payout for Client
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Stir-Up in Derwent House Basement Contained
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Photographer Finds Fibro Emitted By Blow Dryer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Town Residents Flee From Contaminated Debris

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Control Plan Ready for Section 5 Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Snubs 237 WorkSafeBC Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Petrochemical, 8 Others Face Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Armitage Shanks Worker Receives GBP160,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kiama Fibro Cleanup Eyed To Wrap Up Soon

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Castlehill Back To Normal After Fibro False Alarm
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlton & United, Amaca Pty Face Meso Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unmanned Truck Rolls Through a Fibro House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NBN Co Launches Own Investigation on Fibro Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup of Fibro Fallout at Dale Farm Begins

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tribunal Awards Mesothelioma Sufferer AUD1.3 MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Storm Damaged Fibro Imperil Bellingen Residents


                           *********


AETNA INC: Merger-Related Suits in Maryland Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. disclosed in its February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012, that acquisition-related lawsuits
commenced in Maryland were voluntarily dismissed.

On August 19, 2012, the Company entered into a definitive
agreement (as amended, and as may be further amended, the "Merger
Agreement") to acquire Coventry Health Care, Inc. in a transaction
valued at approximately $7.3 billion, based on the closing price
of Aetna common shares on August 17, 2012, including the
assumption of Coventry debt.  Coventry is a diversified managed
health care company that offers a full portfolio of risk and fee-
based products, including Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D
programs, Medicaid managed care plans, group and individual health
insurance, coverage for specialty services such as workers'
compensation, and network rental services.  The Company projects
that the Coventry acquisition will add medical membership, which
will enhance its diversified portfolio, increase its presence in
government programs, which is an important element of the
Company's growth strategy, and improve its positioning and reach
in health insurance exchange-based businesses.

In connection with the proposed Coventry acquisition, several
purported stockholders of Coventry have filed putative class
action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
and the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland (the
"Maryland Court").  These lawsuits seek, among other things,
injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from completing the
proposed transaction and other types of money damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On November 12, 2012, the parties to the actions pending in
Delaware executed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
containing the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to
resolve the Delaware actions.  The MOU provides that the parties
will agree upon and execute a stipulation of settlement (the
"Stipulation"), which will replace the MOU and which will be
submitted to the Chancery Court for review and approval following
notice to the shareholders of Coventry.  The settlement will not
affect the form or amount of consideration to be received by
Coventry stockholders in the transaction.  On February 13, 2013,
the plaintiffs in the Maryland litigation requested that the
Maryland Court voluntarily dismiss their lawsuits without
prejudice.

One of the conditions to completion of the proposed acquisition is
the absence of any applicable law (including any order) being in
effect that prohibits completion of the proposed acquisition.
Accordingly, if a plaintiff is successful in obtaining an order
prohibiting completion of the transaction, then such order may
prevent the transaction from being completed, or from being
completed within the expected timeframe.

In addition, the defense or settlement of any of these lawsuits or
claims may adversely affect the combined company's business,
financial condition or operating results following any closing of
the proposed acquisition.


AETNA INC: Settles Aetna UCR Litigation for $60-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. settled for $60 million in December 2012 the claims in
the consolidated lawsuit styled In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL
No. 2020, according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

Aetna Inc. is named as a defendant in several purported class
actions and individual lawsuits arising out of the Company's
practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered
to its members by health care providers with whom the Company does
not have a contract ("out-of-network providers").   Among other
things, these lawsuits allege that the Company paid too little to
its health plan members and/or providers for these services, among
other reasons, because of the Company's use of data provided by
Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company's competitors
("Ingenix").  Other major health insurers are the subject of
similar litigation or have settled similar litigation.

Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to the Company's members
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs
who are members in the Company's health plans seek to represent
nationwide classes of the Company's members who received services
from out-of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the
present.  Taken together, these lawsuits allege that the Company
violated state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone
or in concert with the Company's competitors.  The purported
classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation
and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified
damages and treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and
declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and
seek to disqualify the Company from acting as a fiduciary of any
benefit plan that is subject to ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that
generally contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have
been brought by health plan members and out-of-network providers.

The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").  In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011,
the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs
from MDL 2020 without prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's
action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court")
that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in
MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the
physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's
ruling.

On December 6, 2012, the Company entered into an agreement to
settle MDL No. 2020.  Under the terms of the proposed nationwide
settlement, the Company will be released from claims relating to
the Company's out-of-network reimbursement practices from the
beginning of the applicable settlement class period through the
date the New Jersey District Court preliminarily approves the
settlement.  The settlement class period for health plan members
begins on March 1, 2001, and the settlement class period for
health care providers begins on June 3, 2003.  The agreement
contains no admission of wrongdoing.  The medical associations are
not parties to the settlement agreement.

Under the settlement agreement, the Company will pay $60 million,
the substantial majority of which will be payable upon final court
approval of the settlement, and pay up to an additional $60
million at the end of a claim submission and validation period
that commences upon final court approval of the settlement.  These
payments will fund claims submitted by health plan members who are
members of the plaintiff class and health care providers who are
members of the plaintiff class.  These payments also will fund the
legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of administering
the settlement, in each case in amounts to be determined by the
New Jersey District Court.

The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and final court
approval.  Final court approval of the settlement is expected
during 2013 but could be delayed by appeals or other proceedings.
In addition, the Company has the right to terminate the settlement
agreement if more than certain percentages of class members, or
class members collectively holding specified dollar amounts of
claims, elect to opt-out of the settlement.  In connection with
the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an after-tax charge
to net income of approximately $78 million in the fourth quarter
of 2012.  The Company will pay for the settlement with available
resources and expects the settlement payments to occur over the
next twelve to twenty-four months.  The Company says it intends to
continue to vigorously defend itself against the claims brought in
these cases by non-settling plaintiffs.

The Company also has received subpoenas and/or requests for
documents and other information from, and been investigated by,
attorneys general and other state and/or federal regulators,
legislators and agencies relating to the Company's out-of-network
benefit payment practices.  It is reasonably possible that others
could initiate additional litigation or additional regulatory
action against the Company with respect to its out-of-network
benefit payment practices.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: News Outlets Mum on Arbitration Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------
Lara Schwartz, writing for Media Matters for America, reports that
news outlets have largely ignored the legal barriers that the
Supreme Court has erected in between injured consumers and access
to compensation -- including a current case that could give big
business the power to place themselves beyond the reach of federal
laws by preventing consumers and small businesses from bringing
class action lawsuits.

That's surprising, considering the extensive media coverage of the
story of 3,000 passengers on Carnival Cruise Line's Triumph who
spent five days floating in the Gulf of Mexico with no power or
plumbing, and finally disembarked in Mobile, Alabama.  On February
20, attorneys for the passengers filed a class-action lawsuit
against Carnival, claiming that the cruise line acted negligently
by sending the Triumph to sea when they knew the ship had
mechanical problems.   It was the second major crisis on a
Carnival ship in a year.

Thanks to a series of Supreme Court cases limiting class actions
and upholding arbitration agreements, those passengers are facing
an uphill climb with their lawsuit.  Carnival's ticket contract
itself contains an arbitration clause requiring customers to waive
their right to bring claims against Carnival in court.  It also
includes a "class-action waiver" that states:

"This contract provides for the exclusive resolution of disputes
through individual legal action on guest's own behalf instead of
through any class action."

If enforced, a class-action waiver creates a David and Goliath
dynamic.  As legal expert Dahlia Lithwick has explained, class
actions often level the playing field between individual claimants
and big defendants such as employers.  The Supreme Court has made
it increasingly difficult to pursue class actions.  For example in
Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Court rejected a class-action suit brought
by female Wal-Mart employees who claimed they were subjected to
discrimination in pay and promotions.  The practical result:  Wal-
Mart employees would have to jump over significant hurdles to
pursue class action; otherwise, they are forced to go it alone
against the number two corporation in the Fortune 500.  Lead
plaintiff Betty Dukes explained that the Court took "an
opportunity to give corporate America a huge advantage over
everyday American citizens."

These decisions, which leave plaintiffs to go it alone against
corporations and waive their day in court based on agreements they
didn't have an opportunity to negotiate, set the stage for an
upcoming Supreme Court case that could shift the balance even
further in favor of big business, allowing them to use these form
agreements as an end run around federal law.

On February 27, the Court will hear oral arguments in American
Express Co v. Italian Colors Restaurant, in which it will weigh
whether class-action waiver provisions in an arbitration clause
are enforceable even when refusing to allow the class action to go
forward would make it functionally impossible to vindicate federal
statutory rights at all.

Businesses that accept American Express charge cards must agree to
a class-action waiver and waive any other means of sharing the
cost of legal proceedings against the company.  American Express
insists that businesses accept their unpopular credit cards if
they want to accept the popular ones, which the businesses claim
is a "tying arrangement"   that violates the antitrust laws.
Because pursuing antitrust claims is expensive, the cost of
arbitrating an individual case would dwarf any possible recovery--
meaning that if the plaintiffs cannot proceed as a class or share
expenses, the antitrust claim is dead in the water.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Am Ex's
arbitration agreement, which includes a class-action waiver, was
unenforceable because it would prevent the merchants from
effectively vindicating their federal statutory rights.
Importantly, the court noted that enforcing the waiver would
prevent an antitrust claim from being litigated at all:

"Amex has brought no serious challenge to the plaintiffs'
demonstration that their claims cannot reasonably be pursued as
individual actions, whether in federal court or in arbitration, we
find ourselves in agreement with the plaintiffs' contention that
enforcement of the class action waiver in the Card Acceptance
Agreement 'flatly ensures that no small merchant may challenge
American Express's tying arrangements under the federal antitrust
laws.'"

The bottom line is this: if the Supreme Court reverses the Second
Circuit's decision, small businesses and consumers could be forced
to waive -- through form contracts -- longstanding statutory
rights in order to do businesses with large corporations.  This
gives corporations significant power to evade federal law.  As the
Supreme Court explained in Reiter v. Sonotone (1979), even though
the Department of Justice may also enforce antitrust laws, private
litigation is important because

"These private suits provide a significant supplement to the
limited resources available to the Department of Justice for
enforcing the antitrust laws and deterring violations.  Indeed,
nearly 20 times as many private antitrust actions are currently
pending in the federal courts as actions filed by the Department
of Justice."

When the Court strikes down or blunts the power of duly-enacted
legislation, legal commentators -- conservative and progressive
alike -- often invoke the term "judicial activism," charging that
the Court overstepped its bounds.  But in AmEx, the Court will
consider whether corporations can wield that power.  While big
business and consumer groups recognize what's at stake -the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and Public Citizen both filed amicus briefs-
the media apparently does not.  Even The Wall Street Journal's Law
Blog's post on the Carnival Triumph debacle, while accurately
noting that the cruise industry has adopted mandatory arbitration
clauses, didn't note that the scope of these clauses is currently
before the Court.

There are exceptions, such as conservative attorney Theodore H.
Frank, whose organization, which is funded by the right-wing
Donors Trust, is dedicated to limiting access to class actions.
In an Investor's Business Daily op-ed, Frank attempts to turn
attention away from the problem of illegal tying arrangements,
pointing out that the real problem is class actions themselves.
He writes "[i]n reality, consumers would be better off if they had
the right to promise that they would avoid bringing the class
action in the first place."  According to Frank, lawyers who
pursue class actions are interested because these cases are
lucrative for them.

Former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who is representing the
merchants in AmEx, doesn't see it that way.  His firm often
represents big corporate clients like Exxon Mobil.  Mr. Clement,
whose strong oral argument performance attacking the Affordable
Care Act was the talk of the last Court term, and who is in the
headlines again for defending the Defense of Marriage Act before
the Court this term, is not a class-action attorney.  He has made
clear that the case is not about attacking arbitration provisions,
but preserving the merchants' statutory rights: "This is thus
truly a case in which the alternative to litigation is not
arbitration, but nothing."

Mr. Frank also claims that those who are concerned about the
dangers of reversing the Second Circuit's decision are "Chicken
Littles," and recasts the AmEx case as a struggle to preserve
arbitration itself.  That would probably come as a surprise to the
group of professional arbitrators, mediators, and arbitration
professors who filed an amicus brief in support of the merchants.
They state that

"[American Express's] argument that the [Federal Arbitration Act]
requires enforcement of an arbitration clause even where it is
undisputed that the consequence is that the resolution of the
underlying claims in arbitration is impossible, if adopted, will
reduce public confidence in the arbitration system and leave it a
more weakened institution."

With less than a week left until oral argument, AmEx is something
of a sleeper case.  But that has everything to do with inadequate
media coverage and nothing to do with how much is at stake.


BAYER AG: Mirena Plaintiff's Attorneys Seek Class Action or MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seedol.com reports that plaintiff's attorneys in the Mirena
lawsuit case petition for a mass action similar to a Class Action
Lawsuit.  Plaintiffs attorneys have made application to form an
MDL with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) for
consolidation of Mirena lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation
(MDL).  A Mirena Lawsuit Multidistrict Litigation would be similar
to a Mirena Class Action Lawsuit.

Bayer, the defendant, opposes the Mirena lawyers' petition for
consolidation but last year had also petitioned the JPML for a
consolidation into an MDL.  Reportedly, a large number of Mirena
lawsuits alleging serious injury potentially caused by the use of
the Mirena IUD contraceptive have been filed to date.

Mirena lawsuit allegations include claims of serious injury
following migration of the Mirena IUD contraceptive device and
include claims of perforation.  Why does Bayer now oppose the idea
of a Mirena lawsuit MDL? The manufacturer would like to refute the
claims made against them by the Plaintiffs.  The drug manufacturer
with worldwide dominance in pharmaceuticals asserts that their
ability to mount a defense will be damaged if an MDL is formed
despite their earlier petition for consolidation.

                       Mirena Lawsuit 2012

On August 9, 2012, Bayer petitioned for the consolidation of the
Mirena lawsuit cases into an MDL in Middlesex County, New Jersey.
Bayer's petition reads in part "Dear Judge Grant: This firm
represents Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and a number of
additional Bayer related entities in several matters recently
filed in Morris County Superior Court alleging injuries as a
result of use of the Defendants' contraceptive Device, commonly
known as Mirena."

The petition goes on to read "Defendants submit this application
respectfully requesting Centralized Management of these matters."

In the petition, Bayer also asserts "because Morris County does
not have a Mass Tort Court, Defendants respectfully request
Centralized management of these matters in Middlesex County, the
closest and most convenient mass Tort venue to their original
location".

It does not take much research to learn how many jobs Bayer
Healthcare Pharmaceuticals provides to that area.  Sites like
"simplyhired.com" and "indeed.com" maintain a long list of job
availabilities for residents in the surrounding areas.  Bayer also
maintains a Web site listing US locations.  Three of the locations
listed are in New Jersey.  Is it not reasonable to believe an
employer of such importance to an area might have the ability to
significantly prejudice the available jury pool? The intent to
impact the jury pool might not be overt but nonetheless the
possibility of partiality toward Bayer among jurors is likely
high.

Bayer's petition for consolidation of Mirena lawsuits into an MDL
to be presided over by a New Jersey court was denied on January 8,
2013.  Mirena lawyers for the Plaintiffs have requested oversight
of an MDL, if formed, to be established in U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Ohio.  Bayer does not have any locations in
northern Ohio, perhaps an unspoken reason for their opposition of
the formation of an MDL in that district.


BOEHRINGER INGLEHEIM: Faces Uphill Battle in Pradaxa Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The facts in the Pradaxa Lawsuit MDL or Pradaxa Class Action
Lawsuit are still in dispute however, experts following the case
believe that the defendant in the case has an uphill battle.  The
sheer volume of allegations and the support for those allegations
make it unlikely that the Pradaxa Lawsuit defendant, Boehringer
Ingleheim will be able to mount a successful defense.  The claims
made in Pradaxa Lawsuit cases are serious and in large numbers.
Even if the Pradaxa Lawsuit defendant were to overcome some of the
allegations against them, overcoming all of the allegations, which
would be necessary to prevail in the litigation, may be
impossible.

                 Pradaxa Class Action Lawsuit Info

In recent Pradaxa News, Boehringer Ingleheim lost attempt to block
information in the Pradaxa lawsuit MDL.  Boehringer Ingleheim
tried to block the release of information regarding prior
allegations of wrong doing in lawsuits previously brought against
them.  Judge David Herndon denied the manufacturer's request and
ordered Boehringer to turn over evidence requested by Pradaxa
lawyers fighting for the rights of their clients in the Pradaxa
lawsuit cases.  This important decision may help tip the scales in
favor of the Pradaxa lawyers claiming Pradaxa side effects caused
their clients to suffer serious injury or death.

Claims made against the manufacturer of Pradaxa Boehringer
Ingleheim, include failure to warn and over promotion of the
product.  This is not the first go-round for the bevy of well-
heeled attorneys defending the manufacturer.  Previous lawsuits
brought against them about other of their products may include
claims similar to those found in the Pradaxa lawsuit claims.  If
the manufacturer has previously been accused of encouraging off-
label use, over promotion or failure to warn, they will not be
able to hide that fact in court thanks to an order handed down by
the presiding Judge the Honorable Rodney David Herndon.

There is NO antidote for Pradaxa side effects bleeding! Approved
and released in 2010, Pradaxa enjoyed enormous popularity among
patients and physicians initially.  The blood thinner was approved
for use to prevent stroke in sufferers of atrial fibrillation.
The drug promised to make life easier for people at risk of
developing deadly blood clots.

Allegations are the manufacturer may have spent more dollars
marketing the drug than they did warning the public and physicians
about the potential risks associated with taking a blood thinner
without an available antidote.  The manufacturer heavily marketed
Pradaxa as the new blood thinner on the block blood thinner that
freed patients from the need for close monitoring.  How much did
they say about the potential for an uncontrollable bleed?

Eat your veggies! The "spendy" marketing campaign launched by
Boehringer Ingleheim also promoted Pradaxa as a blood thinner that
could add vegetables containing vitamin K back into the diets of
people taking a blood thinner, a big plus for vegetable lovers.

What Boehringer may have failed to say or say not often enough was
if while using Pradaxa, you suffered a bleed; there might be no
stopping it.  A fall, bump in the head, or spontaneous bleed could
mean death.  An article published by the New York Times describes
the experiences of a trauma surgeon in Houston.  About one patient
in particular he reportedly said "We pretty much threw the whole
kitchen sink at him," . . . "But he still bled to death on the
table."  The quote continues, "You feel helpless," "And that's a
very bad feeling for us."

Marketing of the product has not appeared to slow despite the many
Pradaxa lawsuits that nave been filed.


BOULDER BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertisement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Boulder Brands' fka Smart
Balance and GFA Brands' Fat Free Enhanced Milks are not fat-free
as advertised, a class action claims in Federal Court.


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Has Yet to File Final Settlement Documents
----------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. has yet to submit documents
with respect to its settlement of a consolidated merger-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 13, 2013, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., a
limited liability company (naamloze vennootschap) with corporate
seat in Amsterdam, the Netherlands ("CB&I"), completed its
previously announced acquisition of The Shaw Group Inc. ("Shaw")
(the "Acquisition") pursuant to the transaction agreement (the
"Transaction Agreement"), dated as of July 30, 2012, by and among
Shaw, CB&I, and Crystal Acquisition Subsidiary Inc., a Louisiana
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of CB&I ("Acquisition
Sub").  Pursuant to the Transaction Agreement, Acquisition Sub
merged with and into Shaw, with Shaw surviving the Acquisition as
a wholly owned subsidiary of CB&I.

Following the Company's announcement of the signed Transaction
Agreement, several shareholders filed purported class action
lawsuits against Shaw, its directors, CB&I, and in some cases,
against CB&I's acquisition subsidiary.  On October 17, 2012, the
actions were consolidated and on November 3, 2012, plaintiffs
filed their Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.  The
plaintiffs generally allege breach of fiduciary duties to Shaw
shareholders because of, among other claims, inadequate
consideration to be paid by CB&I for Shaw common stock and an
allegedly flawed negotiation process.  On November 27, 2012, Shaw
and its directors filed peremptory exceptions seeking dismissal of
the action and on November 30, 2012, CB&I likewise filed
peremptory exceptions seeking dismissal.  Also on November 27,
2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary injunction to
enjoin the shareholder vote on the transaction.  The court set
both the exceptions and the motion for temporary injunction for
hearing on December 19, 2012.

On December 13, 2012, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) reflecting an agreement in principle to settle
all claims against all defendants in the lawsuit.  Under the terms
of the MOU, the plaintiff class will release all claims against
all defendants.  In exchange, Shaw will make certain additional
disclosures in a supplement to its definitive proxy statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and voluntarily
waive or modify certain requirements under Louisiana law with
respect to shareholders' dissenting rights, including waiving the
requirement that dissenters rights are only available if the
transaction is approved by less than eighty percent of Shaw's
total voting power.  The defendants have also agreed to pay
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs associated with pursuing
their claims.  The settlement is subject to submission of final
settlement documents and court approval.


CITICORP CREDIT: Arbitration Bid in "Brown" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill denied a motion to compel
arbitration and to dismiss the second amended complaint in LISA
BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:12-cv-00062-BLW, (D. Idaho).

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, there are legal grounds to
revoke the arbitration agreement's waiver of Ms. Brown's right to
bring a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a
class action under the Idaho Wage Claims Act. Accordingly, the
Court will deny Citicorp's motion to compel arbitration and to
dismiss Ms. Brown's claims, Judge Winmill said.

A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2013 Memorandum
Decision and Order is available at http://is.gd/nPXZIXfrom
Leagle.com.


CLECO CORP: Only One Matter Remains in Louisiana Customer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The only matter remaining in a customer class action lawsuit is
related to a ruling in Cleco Corporation's favor that it had
properly charged the ratepayers of Opelousas, Louisiana, according
to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In March 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial District
Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf of three
Cleco Power LLC customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.  The complaint
alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by applying to
customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco Power
applies to all of its retail customers.  The plaintiffs claim that
Cleco Power owes customers in Opelousas more than $30.0 million as
a result of the alleged overcharges.  The plaintiffs allege that
Cleco Power should have established, solely for customers in
Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and distinct from the
retail rates that apply to other customers of Cleco Power and that
Cleco Power should not collect from customers in Opelousas the
storm surcharge approved by the Louisiana Public Service
Commission (LPSC) following hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  Cleco
Power currently operates in Opelousas pursuant to a franchise
granted to Cleco Power by the City of Opelousas in 1986 and an
operating and franchise agreement dated May 14, 1991, pursuant to
which Cleco Power operates its own electric facilities and leases
and operates electric facilities owned by the City of Opelousas.
In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC
appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of
Opelousas have been properly charged the rates that are applicable
to Cleco Power's retail customers and that no overcharges have
been collected.  In addition, Cleco Power removed the purported
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Opelousas electric
customers from the state court to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana in April 2010, so that it could be
properly addressed under the terms of the Class Action Fairness
Act.

In May 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the 27th
Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana,
repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which was
submitted on behalf of 249 Opelousas residents.  Cleco Power has
responded in the same manner as with the first class action
lawsuit.  In September 2010, the federal court remanded both cases
to the state court in which they were originally filed for further
proceedings.  In January 2011, the presiding judge in the state
court proceeding ruled that the jurisdiction to hear the two class
actions resides in the state court and not with the LPSC as argued
by both Cleco and the LPSC Staff.  Both Cleco and the LPSC Staff
appealed this ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the
State of Louisiana (Third Circuit).  In September 2011, the Third
Circuit denied both appeals.  In October 2011, both Cleco and the
LPSC appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme
Court.  In November 2011, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the
appeals and remanded the case to the Third Circuit for further
briefing, argument, and opinion.  In February 2011, the
administrative law judge (ALJ) in the LPSC proceeding ruled that
the LPSC has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the class
action plaintiffs.  At its December 2011, Business and Executive
Session, the LPSC adopted the ALJ's recommendation that Cleco be
granted summary judgment in its declaratory action finding that
Cleco's ratepayers in the City of Opelousas have been served under
applicable rates and policies approved by the LPSC and Cleco's
Opelousas ratepayers have not been overcharged in connection with
LPSC rates or ratemaking.

On January 30, 2012, the class action plaintiffs filed their
appeal of such LPSC decision to the 19th Judicial District Court
for Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana.  On February 15, 2012,
the Third Circuit ruled that the State Court, and not the LPSC,
has jurisdiction to hear the case.  On March 15, 2012, Cleco Power
appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court
asking that it overturn the Third Circuit decision and conform the
LPSC's exclusive jurisdiction over this matter.  The LPSC also
appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court
in March 2012.  On May 18, 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court
granted the writ application of Cleco Power and the LPSC and set
the matter for further briefing on the merits of the jurisdiction
question raised in the writ application.  Such briefing was
completed during the third quarter of 2012 and the Louisiana
Supreme Court heard oral arguments on September 7, 2012.  On
December 4, 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued its opinion
accepting Cleco's jurisdictional arguments and dismissed the state
court claims.

The only matter remaining is before the 19th Judicial District
Court to review the LPSC ruling in Cleco's favor that it had
properly charged the ratepayers of Opelousas.  In view of the
uncertainty of the claims, management is not able to predict or
give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of liability, if
any, of these claims.  However, if it is found that Cleco Power
overcharged customers resulting in a refund, any such refund could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

Cleco Corporation is a regional energy company that conducts
substantially all of its business operations through its two
primary subsidiaries: (1) Cleco Power LLC, a regulated electric
utility company, which owns 9 generating units with a total
nameplate capacity of 2,524 MW and serves approximately 281,000
customers in Louisiana through its retail business and 10
communities across Louisiana and Mississippi through wholesale
power contracts, and (2) Cleco Midstream Resources LLC, a
wholesale energy business, which owns Cleco Evangeline LLC, which
operates the Coughlin Power Station.


CRUSADER SERVICING: Gets More Time to File Class Action Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Shupe, writing for Hunterdon County Democrat, reports that
the defendants in a class action suit regarding municipal tax lien
certificates (TSCs) were granted an extension of time to file an
answer to the consolidated complaint.

A dozen New Jersey homeowners are now parties in a suit claiming
that they were victims of the conspiracy.  The homeowners were
either facing foreclosure or had been foreclosed upon.

Many of the more than two dozen defendants in the federal suit are
among those pleading guilty to criminal charges.

One defendant, Crusader Servicing Corp., purchased a lien in
Lebanon Township.  Earlier this year, the owner of that home was
the first to file a class action suit in Superior Court in
Hunterdon County.  The suit was transferred to federal court and
then consolidated with other suits like it.

The consolidated complaint was filed in December.  The defendants
originally had until Feb. 19 to answer or file a motion to
dismiss.

The defendants now have until March 8 to answer or move to dismiss
the complaint.  Opposing attorneys would have until April 24 to
respond to any motions to dismiss and reply briefs would have to
be filed by May 22.

In December a New Jersey company in the business of receiving the
assignment of municipal tax liens was the latest to plead guilty
for its role in the alleged conspiracy.

The Department of Justice said that the conspiracy limited
competition in public auctions for municipal tax liens so the
liens could be purchased at higher interest rates, many at the
maximum 18 percent interest rate.

When the owner of real property fails to pay taxes on that
property, the municipality in which the property is located may
attach a lien for the amount of the unpaid taxes.  If the taxes
remain unpaid after a waiting period, the lien may be sold at
auction.

State law requires that investors bid on the interest rate
delinquent homeowners will pay upon redemption.  By law, the bid
opens at 18 percent interest and, through a competitive bidding
process, can be driven down to zero percent.  If a lien remains
unpaid after a certain period of time, the investor who purchased
the lien may begin foreclosure proceedings against the property to
which the lien is attached.

According to the consolidated complaint, settlements have been
offered to several homeowners but it does not say which ones or
give any details.

"Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class are New Jersey
taxpayers who became delinquent on their real property tax
obligations, often as a result of disability and/or economic
hardship.  Because of the unlawful conspiracy, Class members
either paid or owe Defendants an inflated amount in order to
redeem their TSCs, and keep their home or other property from
falling into the possession of one of the Defendants.  Indeed,
some class members have already lost their properties as a result
of Defendants' illegal behavior," the complaint says.

The tax lien auction process is meant to create "competitive
bidding in an effort to try and help the delinquent tax payer who
is already likely experiencing financial difficulty," the
complaint says.  Even in the absence of collusion, the lien
process can often lead to harsh results for the property owner,
the complaint says.  Some of the defendants failed to pay a few
hundred dollars in taxes and ended up owing the lien holder tens
of thousands, according to the complaint.

"The Defendants' conspiracy alleged herein acted to make it even
more punitive by colluding and artificially raising the interest
rate associated with the property owner's delinquent obligation.
Quite simply, the defendants' conspiracy was akin to pouring salt
in the wounds of plaintiffs and the members of the Class," the
complaint says.

The class action suit seeks to have the liens acquired through the
alleged conspiracy forfeited by the purchasers and any properties
that have been foreclosed upon returned to the owner plus other
damages.

According to the court documents, Crusader conspired with others
not to bid against one another at municipal tax lien auctions in
New Jersey.  Because the conspiracy permitted the conspirators to
purchase tax liens with limited competition, each conspirator was
able to obtain liens which earned a higher interest rate.
Property owners were therefore made to pay higher interest on
their tax debts than they would have paid had their liens been
purchased in open and honest competition.

A violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of $100
million criminal fine for corporations.  The maximum fine for a
Sherman Act violation may be increased to twice the gain derived
from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims if either
amount is greater than the statutory maximum.

Crusader, two other companies and eight individuals -- Isadore H.
May, Richard J. Pisciotta, Jr., William A. Collins, Robert W.
Stein, David M. Farber, Robert E. Rothman, Stephen E. Hruby, and
David Butler -- previously pleaded guilty as part of this
investigation.


EMPIRE STATE: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Feb. 22 disclosed
that plaintiffs in the class action regarding the proposed
consolidation of several real estate entities, including the
entities that own and operate the Empire State Building, into a
publicly traded real estate investment trust to be known as Empire
State Realty Trust, Inc., are pleased to announce that the
settlement of the class action has been granted preliminary court
approval.  The case, In re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.
Investor Litigation, New York Supreme Court No. 650607/2012, was
brought against the transaction's chief proponents, members of the
Malkin family, certain affiliated companies, and the Estate of
Leona Helmsley.  The Court has scheduled a final approval hearing
for May 2, 2013.

The settlement will benefit investors in the entities subject to
the consolidation in several ways.  A settlement fund of $55
million will be established to pay monetary recoveries in
accordance with a court-approved plan of allocation.  In addition,
the litigation was a material factor in a redesign of the
transaction to permit investors to defer taxation.  The lengthy
process of discovery and negotiation also resulted in extensive
supplemental information being disclosed to investors about the
transaction, as well as a series of investor protections in
connection with the REIT's anticipated initial public offering.

Attorney Lawrence Kolker, of the firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP, who serves as lead counsel to the plaintiff
class, commented, "We are very pleased with the settlement, which
represents, in our opinion, a substantial portion of recoverable
damages and provides valuable tax options, disclosures, and
protections to all of the affected investors."

Pursuant to the court's order of preliminary approval, notice of
the settlement will be mailed to investors in each of the subject
entities in the near future.  The notice will provide detailed
information about the settlement and the plan of allocation. The
notice will also be available at class counsel's Web sites below.

Along with Wolf Haldenstein -- http://www.whafhclass.com-- three
other firms served as class counsel who negotiated the terms of
settlement: Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Haverford PA --
http://www.chimicles.com/-- Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York City -
-- http://www.labaton.com-- and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford
Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, New York City --
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

Contacts: Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Telephone: 212-545-4600
          E-mail: kolker@whafh.com


FIFTH THIRD: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norwalk Reflector reports that Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A. won the
reversal of an earlier Columbus federal district court decision
which had denied class certification for small businesses against
a major regional bank, Fifth Third Bank.

Last week, the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in
Cincinnati reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio that had denied certification of a
proposed class of Fifth Third Bank business checking account
holders that were charged improper "service" fees without
providing notice, more than 15 days ahead of imposition.

The class action was originally filed by Murray and Murray on
Dec. 20, 2007 for about 300,000 business checking account
customers who were charged non timely pre-identified "service"
fees, and that many "service" fees were increased, also without
the prior 15 day notification period.

As one example, a "service" fee, which Fifth Third called a
"Deposit Adjustment," was improperly deducted from account
balances, for allegedly not adding up their deposits correctly, in
a total amount estimated to be in excess of $5 million dollars.

Fifth Third is an Ohio bank that conducts business in the
following 12 states: Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee, Indiana,
Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, North Carolina,
Georgia, and Florida.

The proposed class is represented by Murray and Murray of
Sandusky, and Arlington Video Recording, a small business from
Columbus.

Dennis E. Murray, Sr. -- dms@murrayandmurray.com -- and Donna A.
Evans, of Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., represent the class,
continuing Murray & Murray's more than 50 years of dedication to
protecting the rights of those who have been injured physically or
financially through no fault of their own.

Founded in 1931, Murray & Murray is owned and operated by the
Murray family.  The firm has fourteen attorneys including nine
Murray partners.  Located in Sandusky, Ohio, Murray & Murray
provides legal representation for clients throughout the United
States.  Murray & Murray's focus areas are personal injury and
consumer protection.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Dismissal of Hawaii Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in December 1993, certain of Fresh Del Monte Produce
Inc.'s U.S. subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a
number of actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii,
California and the Philippines involving claims by numerous non-
U.S. plaintiffs alleging that they were injured as a result of
exposure to a nematocide containing the chemical
dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") during the period 1965 to 1990.  As
a result of a settlement entered into in December 1998, the
remaining unresolved DBCP claims against the Company's U.S.
subsidiaries are pending or subject to appeal in Hawaii,
Louisiana, California, Delaware and the Philippines.

In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of
the Company's U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in
Hawaii.  On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
Company's U.S. subsidiaries named in the action without ties to
Hawaii.  At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Company's remaining U.S.
subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of the
remaining plaintiffs are time-barred.  A final judgment dismissing
all remaining claims and terminating the action was entered on
July 28, 2010.  On August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.  The appeal is fully briefed and remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 19,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 28, 2012.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. is a vertically integrated producer,
marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit
and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared
fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe,
Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet
Union.  The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL
MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness
and reliability since 1892.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Fla. Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s
subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida
residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R)
Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.
The only surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
relating only to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000.  The
Company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the surviving claim on
October 12, 2006.  On August 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify a class action.  The Company's subsidiaries filed an
opposition on January 22, 2009, to which plaintiffs filed a reply
on May 11, 2009.  On
November 29, 2011, the court denied the motion to certify a class
action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 19,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 28, 2012.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. is a vertically integrated producer,
marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit
and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared
fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe,
Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet
Union.  The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL
MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness
and reliability since 1892.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Still Defends Suits Over Extra Sweet Pineapples
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. continues to defend itself against
lawsuits over its Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples,
according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 28, 2012.

On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Tennessee on behalf of consumers who purchased
(other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples
in Tennessee from March 1, 1996, to May 6, 2003.  The complaint
alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act and the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  On February 18, 2005, the
Company's subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On May 15, 2006, the court granted the motion in part, dismissing
plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Between March 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class action
complaints against the Company and its subsidiaries in the state
court of California on behalf of residents of California who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003. On November 9,
2005, the three actions were consolidated under one amended
complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in violation
of the California Business and Professional Code.

On September 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class action.  On August 20, 2009, the court denied class
certification.  On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal of the court's order denying class certification.  On
February 29, 2012, the oral argument hearing on the appeal was
held.  On March 7, 2012, the appeal was rejected and the denial of
class certification was upheld.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. is a vertically integrated producer,
marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit
and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared
fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe,
Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet
Union.  The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL
MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness
and reliability since 1892.


INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
Virgil Dickson, writing for PRWeek, reports that a federal judge
in California's central district has preliminarily approved the
settlement terms of a class action lawsuit against Interpublic
Group accusing the holding company of making employees work after
hours without compensation.

The holding company has agreed to pay $327,000 to compensate
employees who said they were made to work at events after hours
and without overtime pay or state-mandated breaks.  The settlement
will benefit employees at Rogers & Cowan, PMK-BMC, the Axis
Agency, GolinHarris, and Weber Shandwick.


JOHNS HOPKINS: Doctor's Patients File Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
WJZ reports that major legal action against the prestigious Johns
Hopkins Hospital.  Tens of millions of dollars of lawsuits have
been filed by patients after their gynecologist is accused of
secretly videotaping some of them.

Meghan McCorkell spoke with one of patients who is suing.

The first two lawsuits were filed against the hospital in court on
Feb. 22 and many more are expected to come.

Patient after patient of Dr. Nikita Levy -- in shock.  The OB/GYN
-- who worked at Johns Hopkins for 25 years -- is under
investigation for secretly photographing and videotaping his
patients.  He took his own life earlier last week.

"I even felt so comfortable with Dr. Levy that I referred my own
mother to him," said Tyesha Bell.

Tyesha Bell -- a patient for six years -- has now filed one of the
first lawsuits against Dr. Levy's estate and the hospital.

"I had no idea that this man was capable of doing such acts," she
said.

About 685 patients have signed on for another class action lawsuit
against Johns Hopkins.  Attorneys say the hospital did not do
enough to protect its patients.

"What did he do with these images? Did he put them on any site
someplace? Did he sell them? Have they been disseminated?" asked
attorney Jonathan Schochor.

Investigators say Dr. Levy may have used a camera hidden inside
his pen to tape some of his patients.  That invasion has some
paranoid about future doctor visits.

"The number one question I'm going to ask is, 'Can I see your pen
before we do an examination?'" Ms. Bell said.

Johns Hopkins has released a statement, saying in part:

"Any invasion of patient privacy is intolerable.  Dr. Levy's
behavior violates Johns Hopkins code of conduct and privacy
policies and is against everything for which Johns Hopkins
Medicine stands."

Police are now sifting through what they call an extensive amount
of evidence that was discovered inside Dr. Levy's home.

Dr. Levy saw about 1,000 patients during his tenure at Johns
Hopkins.

Police have set up a hotline for patients as part of the criminal
investigation.  The number is 410-396-2269.


LEGAL HELPERS: Faces Suit Over Failure to Perform Mortgage Change
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Legal Helpers Debt
Resolution, American Platinum Financial Services, The Mortgage Law
Group et al. took money but failed to perform mortgage
modifications, a class action claims in King County Court.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Majed Moughni Balks at Cy Pres Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Masnick, writing for Techdirt, reports that when Majed
Moughni in Dearborn, Michigan, heard about such a class action
settlement concerning McDonald's having sold non-halal Chicken
McNuggets that were advertised as halal, he decided to protest the
settlement and try to get others to do so.  The settlement was
what is known as a cy pres settlement, in which the lawyers get
paid and the defendant agrees to give a chunk of money to charity,
rather than to the class (about $700,000 in this case).  There
are, at times, good reasons for doing a cy pres award, but it can
also be open to abuse. Settlement agreements, by law, have a
period of time in which people are free to object to a settlement
before it is approved, and Mr. Moughni was doing exactly that, if
at times crudely, with a Facebook page that may have gone a bit
far in its claims.

Mr. Moughni was upset with the cy pres nature of the award, but
also with the fact that there was no injunction that would block
McDonald's from doing the same thing again.

However, as Paul Levy, who is now representing Mr. Moughni, makes
clear in a blog post about the motion he filed in the case, the
court deciding to issue a broad injunction against Mr. Moughni,
barring him from talking about the case, while also forcing him to
post the lawyers' view of the case, would appear to be a pretty
blatant First Amendment violation:

"The lawyers for the plaintiff class threatened Moughni with both
a defamation suit and disciplinary charges (Moughni is a lawyer,
although not by any means a specialist in class actions).  Moughni
would not back down, so the plaintiff's lawyers asked the judge to
shut down the page -- or, more precisely, they asked that Moughni
be required to take everything he had said about the case down,
and to post on his Facebook page instead what they said (and what
the Court had said) (That is why I am not linking to my client's
Facebook page -- it isn't really HIS page any more.  Let the
parties do their own publicity.) And, they asked that Moughni be
forbidden to make any statements that class members might see or
hear, such as by talking about the litigation to the press which,
in turn, might print stories from which class members might learn
Moughni's views."

"The lawyers continued their claim that they had been defamed, but
really, they said, this isn't about us, this is about protecting
the poor class members against having their confidence in the
lawyers undermined, protecting public confidence in the court
system, and preventing class members from being confused about
whether they should object to having their claims for damages
extinguished so that settlement funds could go to the charities
(and the lawyers).  The judge held a hearing a few days later;
plaintiff's counsel spoke his piece, McDonald's lawyers chimed in
with their agreement, but Moughni's attempt to speak was rebuffed
with a peremptory 'Don't you even' from the judge.  And the judge
ruled, granting the injunction almost exactly as requested."

As Mr. Levy notes, with class action settlements there is strong
incentive for the lawyers from both sides and the judge to get the
settlement approved.  It gets a case off the docket and gets the
lawyers paid.  So this is a situation where all three of those
parties have the incentive to team up against anyone who dares to
raise questions about the settlement.  In fact, Mr. Levy noted
that when he contacted the lawyers, noting his own intention to
represent Moughni, they threatened him with sanction too.
Mr. Levy notes that Moughni's original Facebook post may not have
been as carefully worded as one would hope, but in no way should
that ever lead to a broad injunction, along with compelling speech
one disagrees with, in response. From the filing:

"Giving Moughni only a few days' notice, the Court convened an
emergency hearing; then, without hearing from Moughni, issued a
prior restraint of unparalleled breadth, barring Moughni from
making any public statements about an entire subject matter, even
statements that were entirely truthful and not at all misleading.
It further compelled him to place speech with which he fervently
disagreed on his own web page; and it forbade him from
dissemination, circulation or publication of any opt-out form or
objection during the crucial ten-day period before the deadline
for members of the class to decide whether to opt out or object.
On a literal reading of the injunction, Moughni was barred even
from speaking to his own wife and children about the settlement,
and even from submitting an objection to the settlement on his own
behalf."

"While he was pro se, Moughni acknowledged that he is not an
expert in class action procedure; as his counsel, we readily
concede that some of his statements could have been worded more
felicitously.  But Moughni was not counsel for a named party; he
spoke only as a member of the affected community, and the Court's
order holding him to standards that would have been inappropriate
even for a lawyer in the case violated black-letter law against
prior restraints of speech.  The injunction should, therefore, be
vacated immediately.  In addition, during the crucial ten-day
period before the opt-out or objection deadline, the order
deprived the class of the opportunity to hear dissenting views
about whether to go along with a settlement that potentially
deprives them of valuable rights.  The Court should, therefore,
reopen the period for the class to respond to the notice, and
should defer any decision about approval of the settlement until
that time has expired."

Even if you agree that Mr. Moughni may have gone too far with some
of his Facebook postings, completely denying his right to talk
about and object to the settlement, while then forcing him to post
information he disagreed with, seems like an egregious violation
of his rights.  As Mr. Levy notes back in his blog post, whether
or not the actual settlement is a good one is somewhat besides the
point:

"Moughni has his own view, but our motion takes no position on the
merits of the settlement: our only point is that Moughni ought to
have the right to say what he thinks about the settlement, and
that the remedy for speech claimed to be false is not less speech
but more speech.  In my own mind, I have come to no conclusion
about the merits of the proposed settlement."

"But that just leaves me wondering, if the settlement is so
wonderful, why the lawyers felt they had to resort to suppressing
critical speech instead of just putting their own replies into the
marketplace of ideas.  At the hearing for an injunction, they had
reminded the Court of how attentive the national media press had
been to their publicity about the settlement (115 national media
outlets, and a hundred million viewers, they claimed); surely the
media would continue to give them a platform."

Hopefully the court is willing to recognize its mistake and vacate
the injunction quickly.


NETFLIX INC: Faces Class Action Over 25% Share Drop
---------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Netflix
stock dropped by 25% in a day after analysts questioned its
cheerful, and inaccurate, growth predictions, shareholders claim
in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Martin Schulthes claims Netflix's share price
dropped from $80.39 on July 24, 2012, to $60.28 per share the next
day, after defendant CEO Reed Hastings' rosy outlook wilted under
the heat of reality.

Netflix correlates its revenue growth largely to subscriber
growth, according to the complaint.  In the first quarter of 2012,
Netflix predicted it would add 7 million new subscribers for its
domestic streaming segment by the end of the year, based on a
growth trend that began in 2010.

On July 3, 2012, Hastings announced on Facebook that "Netflix
monthly viewing exceeded one billion hours for the first time ever
in June," according to the complaint.

"That announcement affirmed Hastings' statements of April 23, 2012
that the company was 'continuing to execute on all of the key
dimensions' and 'everything was consistent with what we've been
hoping for,' leading the market to believe that Netflix was on
'target for the year' to achieve the 7 million net additions in
domestic subscribers," the complaint states.

On July 5, Netflix stock surged to $81.72 per share on almost
15 million traded shares, a 13.4% increase from $72.04.  But at
least one analyst questioned the company's April 23 first-quarter
earnings prediction.

The analyst asked Hastings: "Why are you so confident that gross
add trends result from seasonality and not slowing growth? How can
you be confident in 7 million net additions for the year?"

Hastings said he based his prediction on a "fantastic" first
quarter of 2012, which added nearly 3 million subscribers.

"We had strong results in all of our territories, including the
U.S.," Hastings replied, according to the complaint.  "Our gross
ads are consistent with our historic patterns.  Our churn is
consistent with our historic patterns, and we're feeling very good
about the year."

On July 24, Netflix sent a letter to shareholders assuring them
the company had "achieved financial performance in the top half of
guidance in nearly every metric, and returned to profitability,"
according to the complaint.

But many were not persuaded.

"What was disconcerting to investors, however, was that the
company had only 530,000 net subscription additions for its
domestic streaming business, resulting in total domestic streaming
subscriptions of 23.94 million," the complaint states.  "The
company also noted that it may not reach its target of adding 7
million domestic streaming subscribers by the end of the year."

Stocks dropped from $80.39 on July 24 to $60.28 per share the next
day.

Schulthes claims Netflix misled investors: that Hastings and co-
defendant CFO David Wells knew the company would report
significantly lower growth than they had announced, that 7 million
goal was not likely to be reached, that they "intentionally
misrepresented the impact of the one billion hours of viewing on
subscriber growth and those misrepresentations remained
uncorrected during the class period."

Schulthes seeks class damages for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

He is represented by Jorge Amador, with the Rosenfarb Law Firm, of
New York City.  The firm may be reached at:

          Jorge Amador, Esq.
          ROSENFARB LAW FIRM
          825 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (855) 255-1100
          E-mail: jorge.amador@rosenfarblawfirm.com

A federal judge last week dismissed a shareholder derivative
complaint, filed in November 2011, which claimed the company
wasted assets by spending more than $1 billion buying back shares
at inflated prices.


NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that NetSpend Holdings is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Total System
Services, for $16 a share or $1.4 billion, shareholders claim in
Chancery Court.


OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends Suit vs. Genaera Liquidating Trust
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit brought against the Genaera Liquidating
Trust, according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2012.

In July 2012, the Company received notice that it was being named,
along with 26 other parties, as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit being brought against the Genaera Liquidating Trust.  The
Company purchased biotechnology assets from the Trust in 2009.
The Company does not believe the allegations against the Company
in the complaint have merit and intends to defend the case
vigorously.  Recognizing that the outcome of litigation is
uncertain, management believes that the litigation is unlikely to
have a materially adverse impact to the Company's financial
statements.


PEPSI-COLA: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of
New York stiffed delivery drivers and assistants for overtime and
minimum wages, a class action claims in Federal Court.


POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Poseidon
Concepts, gas and oil storage, inflated the share price with false
and misleading statements, then it sank from $13.10 to 28 cents
per share in three months, shareholders claim in Federal Court.

                     Rosen Law Firm Files Suit

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Feb. 23 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
stock of Poseidon Concepts Corp. during the period from May 9,
2012 to February 14, 2013 seeking to recover damages for
violations of the federal securities laws.

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

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

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Poseidon and certain of its officers and directors for
issuing materially false and misleading financial information.
The Complaint asserts that Poseidon falsely overstated revenue and
earnings by over 200% during the class period. The lawsuit asserts
that this adverse information caused shareholders to lose nearly
the entire value of the investment.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 24, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-
mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

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

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


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dismissal of Consumer Suit Reversed in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed,
in part, and reversed, in part, a district court ruling dismissing
the consumer class action lawsuit captioned RICHARD LORETO, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated; LARRY BUFFA, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee,
No. 10-4274.

Messrs. Richard Loreto and Larry Buffa appeal the district court's
dismissal of their claims against Procter & Gamble for violation
of various consumer-protection statutes.

The class action involves the charge that Procter & Gamble was
unjustly enriched and violated the consumer-protection laws of all
fifty States when it sold and marketed two new products in 2009:
DayQuil Plus Vitamin C and NyQuil Plus Vitamin C.  According to
plaintiffs, the company sought to exploit the commonly held, yet
allegedly unfounded, belief that Vitamin C is effective for
treating cold symptoms by adding the vitamin to its DayQuil and
NyQuil products.

The Sixth Circuit reversed the portion of the judgment dismissing
the plaintiffs' claim under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act
predicated on Procter & Gamble's statement in its advertising that
Vitamin C "won't cure a cold, but . . . can help blunt its
effects."  In all other respects, the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

A copy of the Appeals Court's February 22, 2013 Decision is
available at http://is.gd/s2eGPOfrom Leagle.com.


SANDISK CORP: Briefing in SD Cards Suit Appeal to End by 2013 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellate briefing should be completed in the first half of 2013
in the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their class action
lawsuit against SanDisk Corporation, et al., according to the
Company's Feb. 19, 2013 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD-
3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a nationwide class of
indirect purchasers of Secure Digital ("SD") cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic, Toshiba, and
Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal
antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California
antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law.  The
complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct,
dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or
cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution,
disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company (along with
the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate the
royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation
of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws,
which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for
SD cards.  The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by
reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v.
Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and
SD-3C LLC.

On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiffs have appealed.
Appellate briefing should be completed in the first half of 2013.


SANDISK CORP: Discovery in "Ritz" Class Action Suit Now Open
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is now open in the class action lawsuit brought by Ritz
Camera & Image, LLC, according to SanDisk Corporation's Feb. 19,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging SanDisk violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to
monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products.
The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk
Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of
direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and
joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006,
through the present.  The complaint alleges that the Company
created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining
patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly
converting other patents for its competitive use.  On February 24,
2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss which resulted in
Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant.  On September 19, 2011,
the Company filed a petition for permission to file an
interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit for the portion of the District Court's Order denying the
Company's motion to dismiss based on Ritz's lack of standing to
pursue Walker Process antitrust claims.

On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed
the case pending the Federal Circuit's ruling on the Company's
petition.  On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the
District Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss.  On
December 2, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning
the case to the District Court.  Discovery is now open in the
District Court.


STRAYER EDUCATION: Dismissal of "Kinnett" Suit Upheld in Dec.
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld in December
2012 the dismissal of the securities lawsuit titled Kinnett v.
Strayer Education, Inc., et al., according to the Company's
February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On October 15, 2010, a putative securities class action styled
Kinnett v. Strayer Education, Inc., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
On March 20, 2012, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that dismissal on
December 13, 2012.

On April 4, 2011, a shareholder derivative action alleging similar
facts was filed in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia,
which action was voluntarily dismissed by nonsuit on June 12,
2012.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Vehicle Owners Invited to Join Acceleration Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Lane, writing for The Clarion-Ledger, reports that thousands
of Mississippi Toyota owners and lessors should receive a postcard
in the mail between now and mid-April inviting them to be part of
a class-action lawsuit against the company.

The lawsuit relates to allegations of unintended acceleration in
some vehicles and the alleged concealing of safety issues.
Restitution for consumers affected by recalls or safety issues in
Mississippi has no limit but is expected to be up to $5 million,
depending on the number of applicants, said Jan Schaefer,
spokeswoman for the Mississippi attorney general's office.

Owners or lessors of 26 Toyota models, 12 Lexus models and three
Scion models manufactured in different time ranges between 1998
and 2010 are included in the class-action suit.

Toyota has already agreed to pay the state of Mississippi $561,288
to aid in litigation and other fees relating to the suit as part
of a legal settlement, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood said.

The state funds are part of a $29 million settlement between
Toyota and 29 other states.  These funds will be used for costs of
investigation and litigation or be placed into the consumer
protection law enforcement fund.  Mississippi received just more
than half a million dollars based on the state's population.

Those who qualify for the suit will need to be able to document
the expenses incurred in getting their recalled vehicle repaired,
such as rental car expenses, Ms. Schaefer said.

The total number of Mississippians affected by recalls or defects
is unknown, but the attorney general's office confirmed a reported
32,755 vehicles in the state were involved in a floor mat safety
recall.

The models included in the settlement are those sold in the United
States or Puerto Rico that were equipped with what's called an
electronic throttle control system.

The company maintains that stuck accelerator pedals, faulty floor
mats and driver error are the reasons for vehicles unexpectedly
surging, while plaintiffs' attorneys contend Toyota's electronic
throttle control system is to blame.


TREX CO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Mold Growth in Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc. continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits related to mold growth in its products, according to the
Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the United States District Court, Western
District of Kentucky, by the lead law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP,
on behalf of Richard Levin and similarly situated plaintiffs, and
on June 13, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against
the Company in the Marion Circuit/Superior Court of Indiana by
Cohen & Malad on behalf of Ellen Kopetsky and similarly situated
plaintiffs.  On June 28, 2011, the Company removed the Kopetsky
case to the United States District Court, Southern District of
Indiana.  On August 11, 2011, a purported class action was
commenced against the Company in the 50th Circuit Court for the
County of Chippewa, Michigan, on behalf of Joel and Lori Peffers
and similarly situated plaintiffs.  On August 26, 2011, the
Company removed the Peffers case to the United States District
Court, Western District of Michigan.  On April 4, 2012, a
purported class action was commenced against the Company in
Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County on behalf of Caryn
Borger, M.D. and similarly situated plaintiffs.  On May 1, 2012,
the Company removed the Borger case to the United States District
Court, District of New Jersey.  The plaintiffs in these purported
class actions generally allege certain defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.

The Company believes that the claims relating to mold growth are
without merit and denies all liability with respect to the facts
and claims alleged.  However, the Company is aware of the
substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of
continued litigation.  During the three months ended December 31,
2012, the Company recorded $1.5 million to expense related to
these claims.  It is reasonably possible that the Company may
incur costs in excess of the recorded amounts; however, the
Company expects that the total net cost to resolve the lawsuit
will not exceed $10 million.

Trex Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of wood-alternative decking
and railing products, which are marketed under the brand name
Trex(R).  The Company is incorporated in Delaware.  The principal
executive offices are located at 160 Exeter Drive, Winchester,
Virginia 22603.


TREX CO: Mold Claims in Defective Products Suit Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On January 19, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced
against Trex Company, Inc. in the Superior Court of California,
Santa Cruz County, by the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and certain other law firms on behalf of
Eric Ross and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly situated plaintiffs.
These plaintiffs generally allege certain defects in the Company's
products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate
remedies for defective products.  On February 13, 2009, the
Company removed this case to the United States District Court,
Northern District of California.  On January 21, 2009, a purported
class action case was commenced against the Company in the United
States District Court, Western District of Washington by the law
firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on behalf of Mark Okano
and similarly situated plaintiffs, generally alleging certain
product defects in the Company's products, and that the Company
has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products.
This case was transferred by the Washington Court to the
California Court as a related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's
case.

On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the
claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group
involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on
March 15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement.  On
April 14, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed a notice to appeal
the District Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On July 9, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm
dismissed their appeal, effectively making the settlement final.

On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint
to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.
The Hagens Berman firm has alleged similar claims in its original
complaint.  In its Final Order approving the surface flaking
settlement, the District Court consolidated these pending actions
relating to the mold claims, and appointed the Hagens Berman Firm
as lead counsel in this case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 19,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company believes that the claims relating to mold growth are
without merit and denies all liability with respect to the facts
and claims alleged.  However, the Company is aware of the
substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of
continued litigation.  During the three months ended December 31,
2012, the Company recorded $1.5 million to expense related to
these claims.  It is reasonably possible that the Company may
incur costs in excess of the recorded amounts; however, the
Company expects that the total net cost to resolve the lawsuit
will not exceed $10 million.

Trex Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of wood-alternative decking
and railing products, which are marketed under the brand name
Trex(R).  The Company is incorporated in Delaware.  The principal
executive offices are located at 160 Exeter Drive, Winchester,
Virginia 22603.


WAL-MART STORES: Nichols Kaster Files Gender Bias Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nichols Kaster, PLLP on Feb. 22 disclosed that it filed a class
action complaint against the giant retailer on behalf of five
Wisconsin women in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin last week. The complaint -- Ladik, et al. v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Case No. 3:13-cv-00123-bbc), -- alleges
that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. discriminated against female employees
in retail stores throughout its Region 14, which includes stores
in parts of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Plaintiffs seek an end to Wal-Mart's discriminatory practices
regarding the pay and promotion of female employees in stores
throughout the region as alleged in the complaint.

Ladik, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is the fifth regional
discrimination case lodged against Wal-Mart since the U.S. Supreme
Court in June 2011 reversed a lower court ruling on the national
class action against the retailer and issued new guidelines for
class actions and Title VII Civil Rights Act employment
discrimination cases.  In October 2011, two regional complaints
were filed -- Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California (Case No. 3:01-cv-
02252-CRB), and Odle, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas (Case No
3:2011-cv-02954).  In October 2012, another two regional
complaints were filed including Phipps, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville (Case No. 3:2012-cv-01009) and Love, et al. v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
(Case No. 0:12-cv-61959).  While the California case, Dukes, et
al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is proceeding, "we hope that this
case provides a venue for Wal-Mart to have to address the merits
of their treatment of women in the workplace outside California,"
said Jim Kaster of Nichols Kaster, PLLP, in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.  While other non-California courts have been troubled
by the issue of whether a class can be timely filed based on
allegations going back to the beginning of the Dukes case, we
believe that persuasive authority in the Seventh Circuit will
allow tolling.

The named plaintiffs in the Region 14 case are Sandra Ladik, of
Montello, Wisconsin, employed by Wal-Mart for approximately 14
years; Penny Perkins, of Rock County, Wisconsin, employed by Wal-
Mart for approximately 11 years; Jackie Goebel of Kenosha County,
Wisconsin, a Wal-Mart employee since 1988; Marie Coggins of Rock
County, Wisconsin, employed by Wal-Mart for approximately 14
years, over three separate time periods; and Sondra Steeb-Lamb of
Sauk County, Wisconsin, employed by Wal-Mart for approximately 8
years.

As alleged in the complaint, women at Wal-Mart were told by
management that women deserved less pay and fewer promotions than
men because men had families to support.

As alleged in the complaint, evidence in the case shows that
female employees of Wal-Mart retail stores, excluding Pharmacists
and Managers at Store Manager level and above, were denied equal
opportunities for promotion, and equal pay.  The class action
asserts that Wal-Mart fosters a work environment that actively
discriminates against women and management has failed to take
action to prevent gender disparities.  These practices permeated
stores throughout the region.

"Wal-Mart has been successful in making technical legal arguments
preventing courts from reaching the merits of womens' claims, and
we expect more of these arguments here.  Nevertheless, we hope
that the court in Wisconsin will, after this long period of
waiting, finally allow their claims to be heard by a jury," said
Jim Kaster of Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

For more information contact Nichols Kaster, PLLP toll free at
(877) 448-0492, or visit http://www.walmartclass.com

Ladik, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Case No. 3:13-cv-00123-
bbc)

Plaintiffs are represented by Nichols Kaster, PLLP of Minneapolis,
MN, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC of Washington, D.C., and
the Impact Fund of Berkley, CA.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhaeuser Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On April 25, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of
a person alleged to be a participant in the Company's U.S.
Retirement Plan for salaried employees.  The complaint alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA) with
respect to the management of the plan's assets and seeks
certification as a class action.  The Company believes that its
pension plans have been consistently managed in full compliance
with established fiduciary standards and is vigorously contesting
the claim.  The Company is seeking to have the case dismissed.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Product Liability Lawsuits Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is currently defending against numerous
lawsuits pending in federal and state courts in the United States
and various jurisdictions in Canada relating to certain of the
Company's front load washing machines.  Some of these lawsuits
have been certified for treatment as class actions.  The
complaints in these lawsuits generally allege violations of state
consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty.
The complaints generally seek unspecified compensatory,
consequential and punitive damages.  The Company believes these
lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending them.
Given the preliminary stage of these proceedings, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any, at
this time.  The resolution of one or more of these matters could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated
Financial Statements.

In addition, the Company is currently defending a number of other
lawsuits in federal and state courts in the United States related
to the manufacturing and sale of its products which include class
action allegations.  These lawsuits allege claims which include
breach of contract, breach of warranty, product defect, fraud,
violation of federal and state consumer protection acts and
negligence.  The Company does not have insurance coverage for
class action lawsuits.  The Company is also involved in various
other legal actions arising in the normal course of business, for
which insurance coverage may or may not be available depending on
the nature of the action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 19,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company disputes the merits of these lawsuits and actions, and
intends to vigorously defend them.  Management believes, based
upon its current knowledge, after taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such lawsuits and actions, and after
taking into account current litigation accruals, that the outcome
of these matters currently pending against Whirlpool should not
have a material adverse effect, if any, on the Company's
Consolidated Financial Statements.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Settles Direct Purchasers' Claims in Embraco Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation's compressor business headquartered in
Brazil entered into a settlement agreement with direct purchaser
plaintiffs in the combined antitrust lawsuit pending in Michigan,
according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

Beginning in February 2009, the Company's compressor business
headquartered in Brazil ("Embraco") was notified of investigations
of the global compressor industry by government authorities in
various jurisdictions.  In 2012, Embraco sales represented
approximately 8% of the Company's global net sales.

Government authorities in Brazil, Europe, the United States, and
other jurisdictions have entered into agreements with Embraco and
concluded their investigations of the Company.  In connection with
these agreements, Embraco has acknowledged violations of antitrust
law with respect to the sale of compressors at various times from
2004 through 2007 and agreed to pay fines or settlement payments.

Since the government investigations commenced in February 2009,
Embraco has been named as a defendant in related antitrust
lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking damages in connection
with the pricing of compressors from 1996 to 2009.  Several other
compressor manufacturers who are the subject of the government
investigations have also been named as defendants in the antitrust
lawsuits. United States federal lawsuits instituted on behalf of
purported "direct" and "indirect" purchasers and containing class
action allegations have been combined in one proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Other lawsuits are also pending and additional lawsuits may be
filed by purported purchasers.

On February 12, 2013, Embraco entered into a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs representing a proposed settlement class of direct
purchasers of compressors in the Michigan Lawsuit.  The settlement
agreement, which is subject to court approval, provides for, among
other things, the payment by Embraco of up to $30 million in
exchange for a release by all settlement class members.  The
settlement agreement does not cover any claims by direct
purchasers that opt out of the proposed settlement class and the
settlement amount will be reduced if there are opt-outs.  The
settlement agreement does not cover claims by "indirect purchaser"
plaintiffs in the Michigan Lawsuit, which remain pending.

In connection with these agreements and other Embraco antitrust
matters, the Company has incurred, in the aggregate, charges of
approximately $357 million, including fines, defense costs and
other expenses.  These charges have been recorded within interest
and sundry income (expense).  At December 31, 2012, $111 million
remains accrued, with installment payments of $73 million, plus
interest, remaining to be made to government authorities at
various times through 2015.

The Company says it continues to work toward resolution of ongoing
government actions in other jurisdictions, to defend the related
antitrust lawsuits and to take other steps to minimize its
potential exposure.  The final outcome and impact of these
matters, and any related claims and investigations that may be
brought in the future are subject to many variables, and cannot be
predicted.  The Company establishes accruals only for those
matters where it determines that a loss is probable and the amount
of loss can be reasonably estimated.  While it is currently not
possible to reasonably estimate the aggregate amount of costs
which the Company may incur in connection with these matters, such
costs could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.


WYNDHAM VACATION: Couple Files Class Action Over Timeshares Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Finney, writing for 7 On You Side, reports that a retired
couple claims a well-known vacation company tricked them into
signing up for expensive timeshares.

Thomas and Donna Crook of Chico enjoy their vacations at San
Francisco's Wyndham Canterbury Hotel.  They bought a timeshare for
a room there four years ago.

"I like it very much because it's centrally located, it has nice
amenities," said Mr. Crook.

However, the couple is also very troubled.  They claim they were
tricked into buying more timeshares for the resort and it's put
them deep into debt.

"They said we owed $96,000.  I was shocked!" said Mrs. Crook.

Attorneys for the retired couple have filed a class action lawsuit
in San Francisco Superior Court against Wyndham Vacation
Ownership.  The suit claims Wyndham salespeople were targeting
senior citizens, using deceptive practices to sell timeshares they
couldn't afford.

"The abuse towards the elderly people.  I feel them, I loved
them," said Patricia Williams.

Ms. Williams is a former salesperson at the San Francisco resort.
She claims she was fired for blowing the whistle on fraudulent
sales.  And she isn't the only one.  Ms. Williams and four other
employees filed wrongful termination lawsuits in San Francisco
Superior Court claiming they were forced out for complaining about
fraud.

"I did report it and I was told to keep my mouth shut or I would
be fired," said Marty Whitney, a former Wyndham employee.

Ms. Whitney is one of the former employees in the wrongful
termination suits.  She said she was shocked to find sales people
tricking Donna, Thomas, and other seniors into signing contracts
for more timeshares.  They say sales people preyed on the elderly
who were easily overwhelmed and confused by complicated documents
and fine print.

"When people would come in, they didn't know what they were
signing and I was told as long as they could walk in, be on a
walker, be in a wheelchair, it really didn't matter," said
Ms. Whitney.

Mr. and Mrs. Crook were invited to listen to sales seminars when
they checked in.  The hotel gave them $100 or a meal in exchange.
They say they got in trouble during these sales pitches.

"I never really understood what was happening," said Mr. Crook.

According to the lawsuit, in July 2010, a sales person told the
couple they could qualify for a lower interest rate on their loan.
There were so many papers and legal terminology the couple said
they didn't read all of the papers or understand what they signed.
Only later they realized they'd actually purchased more
timeshares, worth another $30,000.

"I was kind of lost because they went through it so fast," said
Mr. Crook.

When they complained, another sales person told them Wyndham would
guarantee to buy back those points after 11 months if they
upgraded to a higher level called "presidential reserve".

So the Crooks agreed to invest another $49,000.  However the
lawsuit says, 11 months later, Wyndham rejected their request to
buy back those shares.  It turns out there was no guarantee to buy
back points, only Wyndham's right to purchase them.

"And I'm the one that had to tell the Cooks that no, after 11
months, they won't get their money back and they will never get it
back," said Ms. Whitney.

7 On You Side contacted Wyndham Vacation Ownership for a response
to these claims.  The company reclined to go on camera to discuss
the wrongful termination case or the fraud suit. It said it does
not comment on pending litigation.

However, Wyndham provided a statement saying: "Treating our
employees, owners and guests properly is one of our core values,
and we engage in extensive efforts to create a healthy and
enriching workplace for our employees, and Dan enjoyable buying
experience for our owners. Consequently, we are disappointed to
learn of this filing.  People of all ages and backgrounds love to
vacation and the diversity of our more than 800,000 owners
reflects the wide appeal of our products."

Mr. and Mrs. Crook now owe $95,000 on their timeshare loan, plus
$500 a month in maintenance fees.  They had to borrow on their
Chico home to keep up the payments.

"They made it sound beautiful and we would get our money back.
But after all of this, no we won't," said Mrs. Crook.

The California Department of Real Estate requires timeshare
companies to give you seven days to cancel a contract.  They also
must file a report with the state on exactly what the timeshare
offers.  However, Mr. and Mrs. Cook said they didn't even know
they had purchased more shares until they were billed weeks later.
The lesson here is do not sign a timeshare contract until you
review it thoroughly and you might want to have an attorney review
it as well.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Won't Revise Order in Suit v. Union Carbide
------------------------------------------------------------------
In an order dated Feb. 12, 2013, Judge James S. Moody, Jr., of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, denied Plaintiffs Mark Flomenhoft and Linda
Flomenthoft's motion for reconsideration of the order granting the
motion for withdrawal of counsel for Defendant Union Carbide
Corporation.

In their Motion for Reconsideration, the Plaintiffs argued that
withdrawal of UCC's counsel, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young
LLP, will cause delay of the proceeding in their asbestos exposure
action.  Judge Moody said that would not be the case because the
case management and scheduling order of the action is already in
place.

The case is MARK FLOMENHOFT and LINDA FLOMENHOFT, Plaintiffs, v.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC and UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendants,
Case No. 8:12-cv-2496-T-30AEP (M.D. Fla.).  A copy of Judge
Moody's Decision is available at http://is.gd/5FMf5yfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmates Warned of Abusive Litigation Conduct
-------------------------------------------------------------
A magistrate judge in a federal court in Colorado warned several
inmates at the Fremont Correctional Facility to cease their
inappropriate filings in their action alleging constitutional
violation arising from asbestos exposure.

In an order dated Feb. 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
of the United States District Court for the District Colorado
denied several motions filed by the inmates, including motion for
appointment of counsel, motion for appointment of experts, and
motion for leave to amend complaint, after determining that these
motions are premature, frivolous, redundant and meritless.

Citing the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Magistrate Judge Boland
said, "[t]he right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor
unconditional, and there is no constitutional right of access to
the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious.
No one, rich or poor, is entitled to abuse the judicial system."

The case is JAMES TEMPLETON, FRANK POWELL, DAVID ALLEN, DAVID
COWDEN, SHANNON SMITH, ROBERT GALLOB, and ROBERT C. ROWE,
Plaintiffs, v. PETER ANDERSON, BRIAN BRADEN, JEFF SMITH, JAMES
CHANEY, TIMOTHY CREANY, JAN SYLVIA, STEVEN GALLEGOS, LANCE
JOHNSON, CARL WOJCIECHOWSKI, CHERI DRENNON, STEPHEN ENGLE, and
THOMAS MARTIN, Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-cv-01276-RBJ-BNB
(D. Colo.).  A copy of Magistrate Judge Boland's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/vbLocbfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln's Appeal From Ex-Worker's Judgment Junked
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an order dated Feb. 14,
2013, affirmed judgment entered April 13, 2011, awarding the
Estate of Robert E. Wolfinger the sum of $952,281 for damages
caused by Decedent, Robert F. Wolfinger's, exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers contained in The Lincoln Electric Company's
welding rods.

Lincoln appealed and asked the Superior Court to determine whether
the trial court committed prejudicial error:

   (1) in failing to exclude testimony from the Plaintiff's
       proffered liability expert and failing to grant a judgment
       n.o.v. or a new trial in response to Lincoln's post-trial
       motions;

   (2) in precluding all evidence regarding the Plaintiff's
       applications to bankruptcy trusts and failing to grant a
       new trial in response to Lincoln's post-trial motions;

   (3) in permitting the case to be tried in a reverse-bifurcated
       manner or then refusing to empanel a new jury in the Phase
       2 proceedings.

With respect to the first issue, the Superior Court held that the
testimony of the Plaintiff's liability expert was rightfully
accepted as evidence because it established substantial factor
causation of Decedent's illness and death from exposure to Lincoln
products.  The testimony was also supported by other evidence,
which was considered by the jury to determine if Decedent's
exposure to respirable asbestos fibers from Lincoln's welding rods
over time was a substantial factor in causing Decedent's illness,
the Superior Court said.  Accordingly, the Superior Court
concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting the Plaintiffs' liability expert's deposition testimony
to the jury and the trial court did not err in refusing to grant
Lincoln a new trial on these grounds.

With respect to the second issue, the Superior Court concluded
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to
permit reference to the Decedent's applications to bankruptcy
trusts.  The Superior Court agreed with the trial court that the
Estate did not open the door by presenting a portion of Decedent's
deposition that referenced some of the products from bankrupt
companies. "[Decedent] merely gave an occupational history in
order to establish a timeline of exposure to the Lincoln welding
rods," the Superior Court said, citing the trial court's ruling.

With respect to the third issue, the Superior Court noted that it
has rejected similar arguments challenging the reverse bifurcation
procedure.  Similarly, in this case, the Superior Court rejected
Lincoln's arguments holding that the record does not support
Lincoln's assertion that the jury in this case was actually
confused, misled or prejudiced.  Accordingly, the Superior Court
concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
overruling Lincoln's objection to the reverse bifurcation
procedure employed in this case or denying a new trial on this
ground.

The case is MICHELLE WOLFINGER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
ROBERT F. WOLFINGER Appellee, v. 20TH CENTURY GLOVE CORPORATION OF
TEXAS, ET AL., APPEAL OF: THE LINCOLN ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellant,
No. 1393 EDA 2011 (Pa. Super. Ct.).  A copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/oOsx5vfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment For CBS & Crane Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ellen N. Whiting appeals from a December 2011 Superior
Court order granting summary judgment for Defendants CBS
Corporation and Crane Company.  The Plaintiff filed the action
alleging that her husband suffered from malignant mesothelioma as
a result of his exposure to asbestos and products of the
defendants during his service in the engine and boiler rooms
aboard the U.S.S. Guadalcanal.

In a memorandum and order dated Feb. 14, 2013, the Appeals Court
of Massachusetts affirmed the Superior Court's judgment after
finding that the Defendants have demonstrated that there is no
evidence that Whiting's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos
products manufactured or later supplied by the defendants, and
have shown that the plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of
proving an essential element of her case.

The case is ELLEN N. WHITING, vs. CBS CORPORATION & another, No.
12-P-329 (Mass.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/SbhLrKfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colo. Ct. Dismisses Inmate's Pro Se Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lewis T. Babcock, Senior District Judge for the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado entered on
Feb. 14, 2013, an order of dismissal in the case captioned DARRELL
K. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HICKENLOOPER, TOM CLEMENTS, REA
TIMME, DAVID TESSLER, JOHN V. BUGLEWICZ, M.D., JAY A. RICHTER,
M.D., MIKE STIEHL, ALANO MAYES, RODNEY ACHEN, DANIEL BRATINA, JOHN
DOE #1, and JOHN DOE #2, Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-cv-02097-
BNB (D. Colo.).

The Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections, filed a pro se complaint alleging
constitutional violations, including his exposure to unsafe
conditions such as airborne friable asbestos, cockroaches, and
rodents, while incarcerated.

In the Order of Dismissal, Judge Babcock found that Mr. Scott has
not presented his claims in a manageable format that allows the
Court and Defendants to know with certainty what claims are being
asserted against which defendants so that they are able to respond
to those claims.  The general rule that pro se pleadings must be
construed liberally has limits and the Court cannot take on the
responsibility of serving as the litigant's attorney in
constructing arguments and searching the record, Judge Babcock
said, citing Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836,
840 (10th Cir. 2005)).

A full-text copy of Judge Babcock's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/GoT9Emfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Junks Exposure Suit v. Tishman
--------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action titled JEFFREY A. ZAYAS and
SUSAN ZAYAS, Plaintiff, v. A.C. & S., INC., et al., Defendants,
Docket No. 119115/02, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y.), Judge Sherry
Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the
motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint filed by
defendant Tishman Liquidating Corporation, Inc.

The defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that there
is no evidence that it directed, supervised or controlled any of
Mr. Zayas' work or that it supervised the other trades that are
alleged to have caused Mr. Zayas' injuries.  Judge Heitler agreed,
adding that the Plaintiffs' position that Tishman knew or should
have known that asbestos-containing products were being used at
the post office site is also unsupported by the record.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision and Order dated
Feb. 13, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/pH6t1Cfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $602MM Liability at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation had $602 million asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims at December 31, 2012,
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 Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades.  These suits principally allege personal
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed
against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem").
In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation's products.

The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.

At December 31, 2012, the Corporation's asbestos-related liability
for pending and future claims was $602 million ($668 million at
December 31, 2011) and the Corporation's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to its asbestos liability was $25 million ($40
million at December 31, 2011). At December 31, 2012, the
Corporation also had receivables of $154 million ($178 million at
December 31, 2011) for insurance recoveries for defense and
resolution costs.

Claims unresolved at December 31, 2012, were 33,449.

Union Carbide's receivables for asbestos-related costs was $179
million at December 31, 2012.

The Corporation's receivables related to its asbestos-related
liability was $179 million at December 31, 2012.  The Corporation
expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax impact for defense
and resolution costs, net of insurance, was $100 million in 2012,
$88 million in 2011 and $73 million in 2010, and was reflected in
"Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of operations.

Management believes that it is reasonably possible that the cost
of disposing of Union Carbide's asbestos-related claims, including
future defense costs, could have a material impact on the
Corporation's consolidated financial statements.

A full-text copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available
at:

                       http://is.gd/MeBA4q

Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and polymers company that
has been a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company
since 2001.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Paid $15MM in Settlements in 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel paid approximately $15 million in settlements
related to asbestos litigation, 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.  These settlements and
other dispositions resolved approximately 190 claims.  New case
filings in 2012 added approximately 285 claims.

At December 31, 2012, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately
790 active cases involving approximately 3,330 plaintiffs. As of
December 31, 2011, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately
695 active cases involving approximately 3,235 plaintiffs.

About 2,560, or approximately 77 percent, of these claims are
currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with
massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's experience
in such cases, it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs
who ultimately assert claims against the Company will likely be a
small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. Most of the
claims filed in 2012, 2011 and 2010 involve individual or small
groups of claimants.

In general, the only insurance available to U. S. Steel with
respect to asbestos claims is excess casualty insurance, which has
multi-million dollar self-insured retentions. To date, U. S. Steel
has received minimal payments under these policies relating to
asbestos claims.

Historically, approximately 89 percent of the cases against U. S.
Steel did not specify any damage amount or stated that the damages
sought exceeded the amount required to establish jurisdiction of
the court in which the case was filed. U.S. Steel noted that
jurisdictional amounts generally range from $25,000 to $75,000.
The Company added that it does not consider the amount of damages
alleged, if any, in a complaint to be relevant in assessing its
potential exposure to asbestos liabilities.

U. S. Steel aggressively pursues grounds for its dismissal from
pending cases and litigates cases to verdict where it believes
litigation is appropriate. The Company also makes efforts to
settle appropriate cases, especially mesothelioma cases, for
reasonable, and frequently nominal, amounts.

A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at:

                       http://is.gd/L3O4Qa

U. S. Steel is an integrated steel producer of flat-rolled and
tubular products with major production operations in North America
and Europe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newmarket Continues to Defend Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
NewMarket Corporation continues to defend lawsuits alleging
exposure to asbestos, 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 is a defendant in personal injury lawsuits that
involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated, or
formerly owned or operated, by subsidiaries of NewMarket. Nearly
all of these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois
and involve multiple defendants. NewMarket stated that it
maintains an accrual for these proceedings, as well as a
receivable for expected insurance recoveries.

NewMarket noted that the accrual for its premises asbestos
liability related to currently asserted claims is based on these
assumptions and factors:

* NewMarket is often one of many defendants. This factor
  influences both the number of claims settled against the
  Company and also the indemnity cost associated with such
  resolutions.

* The estimated percent of claimants in each case that will
  actually, after discovery, make a claim against NewMarket, out
  of the total number of claimants in a case, is based on a level
  consistent with past experience and current trends.

* NewMarket utilizes average comparable plaintiff cost history as
  the basis for estimating pending premises asbestos related
  claims. These claims are filed by both former contractors'
  employees and former employees who worked at past and present
  company locations. NewMarket also include an estimated
  inflation factor in the calculation.

* No estimate is made for unasserted claims.

* The estimated recoveries from insurance and Albemarle
  Corporation for these cases are based on, and are consistent
  with, the 2005 settlement agreements with Travelers Indemnity
  Company.

The Company states: "Based on these assumptions, NewMarket has
provided an undiscounted liability related to premises asbestos
claims of $11 million at both December 31, 2012 and December 31,
2011. The liabilities related to asbestos claims are included in
accrued expenses (current portion) and other noncurrent
liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Certain of these
costs are recoverable through our insurance coverage and agreement
with Albemarle Corporation.

"The receivable for these recoveries related to premises asbestos
liabilities was $8 million at December 31, 2012 and $7 million at
December 31, 2011. These receivables are included in trade and
other accounts receivable, net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets
for the current portion. The noncurrent portion is included in
other assets and deferred charges."

NewMarket Corporation is a holding company and is the parent
company of Afton Chemical Corporation (Afton), Ethyl Corporation
(Ethyl), NewMarket Services Corporation (NewMarket Services), and
NewMarket Development Corporation (NewMarket Development).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Expects to Spend $480MM in 2013
----------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. expects its cash spending for
asbestos claims to be approximately $480 million and its cash
receipts for related insurance recoveries to be approximately $44
million in 2013, 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: "Like many other industrial companies,
Honeywell is a defendant in personal injury actions related to
asbestos. We did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did we make or
sell insulation products or other construction materials that have
been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease
in the vast majority of claimants.

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

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

NARCO and Bendix's asbestos-related liabilities total $1,772
million at December 31, 2012, while their insurance recoveries for
asbestos-related liabilities total $707 million.

A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at:

                       http://is.gd/f0K44X

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had 23,141 Bendix-Related Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. had 23,141 unresolved Bendix-related
asbestos claims at December 31, 2012, 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.

Honeywell reported that the number of Bendix-related claims
resolved in 2012, which totals 3,350 claims -- includes
approximately 288 claims previously classified as inactive (85%
non-malignant and accrued liability of approximately $1.3 million)
which were activated during 2012.  Claims unresolved at December
31, 2012, total 23,141.  Of the total unresolved claims, 5,367 are
Mesothelioma and Other Cancer Claims while 17,774 are Nonmalignant
Claims.

The Company states: "It is not possible to predict whether
resolution values for Bendix related asbestos claims will
increase, decrease or stabilize in the future.

"Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for resolution of pending (claims actually filed as of
the financial statement date) and future Bendix related asbestos
claims. We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using
average resolution values for the previous five years. We update
the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix pending
and future claims during the fourth quarter each year.

"The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of
future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be
asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated
cost of future Bendix related asbestos claims is based on historic
claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in
making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to
friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a
reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next
five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for
future claims is similar to that used to estimate the future NARCO
related asbestos claims liability.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Asserts Coverage on NARCO Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company ("Travelers")
filed a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court of New
York, County of New York against Honeywell International Inc. and
other insurance carriers that provide coverage for North American
Refractories Company (NARCO) asbestos claims, seeking a
declaration regarding coverage obligations for NARCO asbestos
claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers
and the other insurance carriers.

The Company states: "The other insurance carriers asserted cross
claims against Honeywell seeking declarations regarding their
coverage obligations for NARCO asbestos claims under high excess
insurance coverage issued by them. Since then, the Company has
entered into settlement agreements resolving all NARCO-related
asbestos coverage issues with almost all of these insurance
carriers, including Travelers. Honeywell believes it is entitled
to the remaining coverage at issue. While Honeywell expects to
prevail in this matter, an adverse outcome is not expected to have
a material impact on our consolidated results of operations,
financial position or operating cash flows."

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 45,900 Claims Pending at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation, as of December 31, 2012, had pending
approximately 45,900 asbestos claims, 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 is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one
of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases.
In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a
claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-
containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in
commercial ships.

Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had pending
approximately 45,900 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 50,090 as of December 31, 2011 and 52,220 as of
December 31, 2010. During 2012, the Company received approximately
4,350 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket
approximately 8,540 claims. The Company reports claims as closed
when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a
court or when the Company has reached agreement with the claimants
on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on
the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claim,
the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors.
The Company's total costs for the years 2012 and 2011 for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax benefits were approximately $21 million
and $33 million, respectively. The Company's costs for settlement
and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance
proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the
insured portion of the expenses.

Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos-
related disease. The predominant number of claims against the
Company are non-cancer claims. In a substantial number of the
pending claims, the plaintiff has not yet identified the claimed
injury. The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are
adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based
upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of
outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the
breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs
per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the
number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended
down in the past five to ten years and has remained flat in recent
years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as
events and circumstances may occur including, among others, the
number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such
claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos
liabilities.

CBS Corporation operates businesses which span the media and
entertainment industries, including the CBS Television Network,
cable program services, television content production and
distribution, motion pictures, publishing, radio stations,
television stations, interactive businesses, and outdoor
advertising.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated is currently involved in approximately 9,800
cases (approximately 37,500 claims) alleging injuries from
asbestos, aside from the asbestos litigation related to Pittsburgh
Corning Corporation, 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.

Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) each own 50% of the capital
stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC). Over a period of
more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been
named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for
Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for
bankruptcy protection, there were approximately 11,800 claims
pending against Corning in state court lawsuits alleging various
theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products
and typically requesting monetary damages in excess of one million
dollars per claim. Corning has defended those claims on the basis
of the separate corporate status of PCC and the absence of any
facts supporting claims of direct liability arising from PCC's
asbestos products. Corning is also currently involved in
approximately 9,800 other cases (approximately 37,500 claims)
alleging injuries from asbestos and similar amounts of monetary
damages per case. Those cases have been covered by insurance
without material impact to Corning to date. As of December 31,
2012, Corning had received for these cases approximately $18.6
million in insurance payments related to those claims. Several of
Corning's insurance carriers have filed a legal proceeding
concerning the extent of any insurance coverage for past and
future defense and indemnity costs for these claims. Asbestos
litigation is inherently difficult, and past trends in resolving
these claims may not be indicators of future outcomes.

Corning, with other relevant parties, has been involved in ongoing
efforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would resolve the
concerns and objections of the relevant courts and parties. In
2003, a plan was agreed to by various parties (the 2003 Plan),
but, on December 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order
denying the confirmation of that 2003 Plan. On January 29, 2009,
an amended plan of reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) -- which
addressed the issues raised by the Court when it denied
confirmation of the 2003 Plan -- was filed with the Bankruptcy
Court.

The proposed resolution of PCC asbestos claims under the Amended
PCC Plan would have required Corning to contribute its equity
interests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a
Belgian corporation, and to contribute a fixed series of payments,
recorded at present value. Corning would have had the option to
use its shares rather than cash to make these payments, but the
liability would have been fixed by dollar value and not the number
of shares. The Amended PCC Plan would, originally, have required
Corning to make (1) one payment of $100 million one year from the
date the Amended PCC Plan becomes effective and certain conditions
are met and (2) five additional payments of $50 million, on each
of the five subsequent anniversaries of the first payment, the
final payment of which is subject to reduction based on the
application of credits under certain circumstances. Documents were
filed with the Bankruptcy Court further modifying the Amended PCC
Plan by reducing Corning's initial payment by $30 million and
reducing its second and fourth payments by $15 million each. In
return, Corning would relinquish its claim for reimbursement of
its payments and contributions under the Amended PCC Plan from the
insurance carriers involved in the bankruptcy proceeding with
certain exceptions.

On June 16, 2011, the Court entered an Order denying confirmation
of the Amended PCC Plan. The Court's memorandum opinion
accompanying the order rejected some objections to the Amended PCC
Plan and made suggestions regarding modifications to the Amended
PCC Plan that would allow the Plan to be confirmed. Corning and
other parties have filed a motion for reconsideration, objecting
to certain points of this Order. Certain parties to the proceeding
filed specific Plan modifications in response to the Court's
opinion and Corning supported these filings. Certain parties
objected to the proposed Plan modifications and, to resolve some
of those objections, further revisions to the Plan and other
documents were filed. A modified Amended PCC Plan was then
submitted by PCC, and objections to that Plan were filed by two
parties. Those objections and the Plan are pending before the
Court.

The Amended PCC Plan does not include certain non-PCC asbestos
claims that may be or have been raised against Corning. Corning
has recorded in its estimated asbestos litigation liability an
additional $150 million for the approximately 9,800 current non-
PCC cases alleging injuries from asbestos, and for any future non-
PCC cases. The liability for non-PCC claims was estimated based
upon industry data for asbestos claims since Corning does not have
recent claim history due to the injunction issued by the
Bankruptcy Court. The estimated liability represents the
undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees over the
next 20 years. The amount may need to be adjusted in future
periods as more data becomes available.

The Amended PCC Plan with the modifications addressing issues
raised by the Court's June 16, 2011 opinion remains subject to a
number of contingencies. Payment of the amounts required to fund
the Amended PCC Plan from insurance and other sources are subject
to a number of conditions that may not be achieved. The approval
of the (further modified) Amended PCC Plan by the Bankruptcy Court
is not certain and faces objections by some parties. If the
modified Amended PCC Plan is approved by the Bankruptcy Court,
that approval will be subject to appeal. For these and other
reasons, Corning's liability for these asbestos matters may be
subject to changes in subsequent quarters. The estimate of the
cost of resolving the non-PCC asbestos claims may also be subject
to change as developments occur. Management continues to believe
that the likelihood of the uncertainties surrounding these
proceedings causing a material adverse impact to Corning's
financial statements is remote.

Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state
courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the
parties under insurance policies, including rights that may be
affected by the potential resolutions. Corning is vigorously
contesting these cases. Management is unable to predict the
outcome of this insurance litigation and therefore cannot estimate
the range of any possible loss.

Corning Incorporated is a manufacturer of specialty glass and
ceramics. Drawing on more than 160 years of materials science and
process engineering knowledge, Corning creates and makes keystone
components that enable high-technology systems for consumer
electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life
sciences.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Estimates $671MM Liability End Dec.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated's asbestos litigation liability was estimated
to be $671 million at December 31, 2012, 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: "In 2012, we recorded an increase to our
asbestos litigation liability of $14 million compared to an
increase of $24 million in 2011. In 2010, we recorded a net
decrease to our asbestos litigation liability of $49 million. The
net decrease in 2010 was due primarily to a $54 million decrease
to our estimated liability for asbestos litigation that was
recorded in the first quarter of 2010, as a result of the change
in terms of the proposed settlement of the PCC asbestos claims.
For the remainder of 2010, we recorded net credit adjustments to
our asbestos litigation liability of $5 million to reflect the
change in value of the estimated settlement liability.

"Our asbestos litigation liability was estimated to be $671
million at December 31, 2012, compared with an estimate of $657
million at December 31, 2011. The entire obligation is classified
as a non-current liability as installment payments for the cash
portion of the obligation are not planned to commence until more
than 12 months after the proposed Amended PCC Plan is ultimately
effective, and a portion of the obligation will be fulfilled
through the direct contribution of Corning's investment in PCE
(currently recorded as a non-current other equity method
investment)."

Corning Incorporated is a manufacturer of specialty glass and
ceramics. Drawing on more than 160 years of materials science and
process engineering knowledge, Corning creates and makes keystone
components that enable high-technology systems for consumer
electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life
sciences.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Had 2,600 Claims Pending End Dec.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., had 2,600 asbestos-related claims pending at
the end of 2012, 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 is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily
injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust. From
1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a
high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958. The typical asbestos
personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seeks compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts.

                                 2012      2011     2010
                                 ----      ----     ----
Pending at beginning of year     4,600     5,900    6,900
Disposed                         4,400     4,500    4,200
Filed                            2,400     3,200    3,200
Pending at end of year           2,600     4,600    5,900

Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31,
2012, approximately 66% of plaintiffs either do not specify the
monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an
amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the
trial court. Approximately 30% of plaintiffs specifically plead
damages of $15 million or less, and 4% of plaintiffs specifically
plead damages greater than $15 million but less than $100 million.
Fewer than 1% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages equal to or
greater than $100 million.

Current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the
assertion of monetary damages. The Company's experience resolving
hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an
extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief that may be
alleged in a complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits
or disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable
is determined by such factors as the severity of the plaintiff's
asbestos disease, the product identification evidence against the
Company and other defendants, the defenses available to the
Company and other defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which
the claim is made, and the plaintiff's medical history and
exposure to other disease-causing agents.

In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-handling
agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the
country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation
regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria
established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims
include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable
probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's
former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in
1958.

The Company has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon
its past experience, the Company believes that these categories of
lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and
they are not included in the description of pending matters or in
the following description of disposed matters.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
December 31, 2012, has disposed of the asbestos claims of
approximately 391,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average
indemnity payment per claim of approximately $8,400. Certain of
these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over a
number of years. Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately
$24 million at December 31, 2012 ($18 million at December 31,
2011) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment
per claim. The Company's asbestos indemnity payments have varied
on a per claim basis, and are expected to continue to vary
considerably over time. A part of the Company's objective is to
achieve, where possible, resolution of asbestos claims pursuant to
claims-handling agreements. Failure of claimants to meet certain
medical and product exposure criteria in the Company's
administrative claims handling agreements has generally reduced
the number of marginal or suspect claims that would otherwise have
been received. In addition, certain courts and legislatures have
reduced or eliminated the number of marginal or suspect claims
that the Company otherwise would have received. These developments
generally have had the effect of increasing the Company's per-
claim average indemnity payment over time.

The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability
(i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs
plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning
with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993,
the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.3 billion
through 2012, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-
related liability. The Company's ability to reasonably estimate
its liability has been significantly affected by, among other
factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the
United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have
filed for bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant
bankruptcy trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future
disease incidence and claiming patterns, the expanding list of
non-traditional defendants that have been sued in this litigation,
and the use of mass litigation screenings to generate large
numbers of claims by parties who allege exposure to asbestos dust
but have no present physical asbestos impairment.

The Company's reported results of operations for 2012 were
materially affected by the $155 million fourth quarter charge for
asbestos-related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to
be substantial. Any future additional charge would likewise
materially affect the Company's results of operations for the
period in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of
significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has
affected and may continue to affect the Company's cost of
borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic
acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its operating
cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to
pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and to fund its
working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short-
term and long-term basis.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., is a manufacturer of glass containers. It
competes in the glass container segment of the rigid packaging
market and is the leading glass container manufacturer in most of
the countries where it is located.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal From Owens-Illinois Judgment Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a judgment in favor of Owens-Illinois, Inc., in an
asbestos-related case is pending, 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.

On March 11, 2011, the Company received a verdict in an asbestos
case in which conspiracy claims had been asserted against the
Company. Of the total nearly $90 million awarded by the jury
against the four defendants in the case, almost $10 million in
compensatory damages were assessed against all four defendants,
and $40 million in punitive damages were assessed against the
Company. On August 31, 2012, the trial judge who presided over the
original trial vacated all of the damages awarded against the
Company in the trial and entered judgment in the Company's favor.
The plaintiff has appealed the trial judge's ruling to an
intermediate appellate court, and while the Company cannot predict
the ultimate outcome of this appeal, the Company believes that the
trial judge ruled appropriately based upon applicable appellate
precedent.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., is a manufacturer of glass containers. It
competes in the glass container segment of the rigid packaging
market and is the leading glass container manufacturer in most of
the countries where it is located.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Awaits Order on Consolidation Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on a motion to
consolidate mesothelioma claims in Maryland, 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.

A prominent Baltimore plaintiffs' firm recently filed a motion in
Maryland to consolidate for trial more than 13,000 non
mesothelioma claims (the "Motion"). The plaintiffs' proposal is to
consolidate these cases for trial on "common issues" and then have
"mini trials" on damages. Most of these cases are currently on an
inactive docket. The initial hearing on the Motion to consolidate
was in December 2012 but no ruling was issued at that time. The
Company cannot predict whether or not the Motion will be granted
and, if so, the number, timing or format of any trial or the costs
that might be required to litigate or resolve cases subject to the
Motion. If the Motion is granted, then a substantial number of
these previously inactive cases may be activated against the
Company.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., is a manufacturer of glass containers. It
competes in the glass container segment of the rigid packaging
market and is the leading glass container manufacturer in most of
the countries where it is located.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Has 1,080 Unresolved Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation had 1,080 unresolved asbestos exposures cases
at the end of 2012, 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 have been named as a "premises defendant"
in a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-
employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility. In the
past, these cases typically have involved multiple plaintiffs
bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the complaints
have not indicated which plaintiffs were making claims against
which defendants, where or how the alleged injuries occurred or
what injuries each plaintiff claimed. These facts, which would be
central to any estimate of probable loss, generally have been
learned only through discovery.

"Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to our
ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners generally
have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to
indemnify us against, asbestos exposure claims. This
indemnification is not subject to any time or dollar amount
limitations. Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, we
tender it to the prior owner. Rarely do the complaints in these
cases state the amount of damages being sought. The prior owner
accepts responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the cases
and payment of any amounts due to the claimants. In our nineteen-
year experience with tendering these cases, we have not made any
payment with respect to any tendered asbestos cases. We believe
that the prior owners have the intention and ability to continue
to honor their indemnity obligations, although we cannot assure
you that they will continue to do so or that we will not be liable
for these cases if they do not.

"Certain information about cases for which service has been
received that we have tendered to the prior owner, all of which
have been accepted.

                       Year ended     Year ended     Year ended
                       December 31,   December 31,   December 31,
                           2012           2011           2010
                       ------------   ------------   ------------
Unresolved at
  beginning of period      1,080          1,116          1,138
Tendered during period         3             10             24
Resolved during period         3             46             46
Unresolved at
  end of period            1,080          1,080          1,116

"The Company stated that it has never made any payments with
respect to these cases. As of December 31, 2012, Huntsman has an
accrued liability of approximately $10 million relating to these
cases and a corresponding receivable of approximately $10 million
relating to its indemnity protection with respect to these cases.

"However, Huntsman cannot assure its shareholders that its
liability will not exceed its accruals or that its liability
associated with these cases would not be material to its financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity. Accordingly, the
Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of loss in
excess of its accruals.  Additional asbestos exposure claims may
be made against Huntsman in the future, and such claims could be
material. However, because the Company is unable to estimate the
amount or range of losses associated with such claims, it has made
no accruals with respect to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as
of December 31, 2012.

"Certain cases in which Huntsman is a premises defendant are not
subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. However,
the Company may be entitled to insurance or other recoveries in
some of these cases. Cases include all cases for which Huntsman
has received service. Certain prior cases that were filed in error
against the Company have been dismissed.

                       Year ended     Year ended     Year ended
                       December 31,   December 31,   December 31,
                           2012           2011           2010
                       ------------   ------------   ------------
Unresolved at
  beginning of period       36              37            39
Filed during period         21              11             5
Resolved during period       7              12             7
Unresolved at
  end of period             50              36            37

"We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that
are not subject to indemnification of $559,000, $584,000 and
$201,000 during the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010,
respectively. As of December 31, 2012, we had no accrual relating
to these cases. We cannot assure you that our liability will not
exceed our accruals or that our liability associated with these
cases would not be material to our financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate
the amount or range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional
asbestos exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and
such claims could be material. However, because we are not able to
estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such
claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted
asbestos exposure claims as of December 31, 2012."

Huntsman Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a global
manufacturer of differentiated organic chemical products and of
inorganic chemical products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Had 141 Pending Cases at Nov. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. had 141 asbestos cases pending as of November 30,
2012, according to Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2012.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and
Pennsylvania. There were 141 asbestos cases pending as of November
30, 2012.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted
claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been
accrued for such contingencies.

In 2011, Aerojet received a letter demand from AMEC, plc, the
successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business assets of
Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet subsidiary, for Aerojet to
assume the defense of twenty-one asbestos cases, involving 264
plaintiffs, pending in Louisiana and reimbursement of over $1.0
million in past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that
Aerojet retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burk
assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under the
relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only certain,
specified liabilities relating to the operation of Barnard & Burk
before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all unassumed pre-
closing liabilities, and Aerojet agreed to indemnify the purchaser
against unassumed liabilities that are asserted against it. Based
on the information provided, Aerojet declined to accept the
liability and requested additional information from AMEC
pertaining to the basis of the demand. Accordingly, no estimate of
liability has been accrued for this matter as of November 30,
2012.

                                                Year Ended
                                           ----------------------
                                           2012     2011     2010
                                           ----------------------
                                           (Dollars in thousands)
Claims filed                                19***    28**     27*
Claims consolidated                         --        --        --
Claims dismissed                            21       20       15
Claims settled                               3        3        5
Claims pending                             141      146      141
Aggregate settlement costs                 $53      $70     $105
Average settlement costs                   $18      $23      $21

* This number is net of six cases tendered to a third party
  under a contractual indemnity obligation.

** This number is net of one case tendered to a third party
    under a contractual indemnity obligation.

*** This number is net of two cases tendered to a third party
    under a contractual indemnity obligation.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for fiscal
2012, 2011 and 2010 were $0.4 million for all years presented.

GenCorp Inc. is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense products
and systems with a real estate segment that includes activities
related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of our
excess real estate assets. The Company develops and manufactures
propulsion systems for defense and space applications, and
armaments for precision tactical and long range weapon systems
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 73,200 Pending Claims End Dec.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company reported approximately 73,200
claimants at December 31, 2012 relating to asbestos claims,
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 numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and Federal courts. To date, we have disposed
of approximately 105,600 claims by defending and obtaining the
dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement. The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, totaled approximately $407 million through
December 31, 2012 and $388 million through December 31, 2011.

"Because claims are often filed and disposed of by dismissal or
settlement in large numbers, the amount and timing of settlements
and the number of open claims during a particular period can
fluctuate significantly.

(Dollars in millions)                 2012       2011       2010
                                     ---------------------------
Pending claims, beginning of year    78,500     83,700    90,200
New claims filed during the year      2,200      2,200     1,700
Claims settled/dismissed
  during the year                    (7,500)    (7,400)   (8,200)
Pending claims, end of year          73,200     78,500    83,700
Payments                                $18        $23       $26

"Payments represents amount spent by the Company and its insurers
on asbestos litigation defense and claim resolution.

"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We
had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $139 million and $138
million at December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.
The recorded liability represents our estimated liability over the
next ten years, which represents the period over which the
liability can be reasonably estimated. Due to the difficulties in
making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change
in circumstances arising in the future could result in an increase
in the recorded obligation in an amount that cannot be reasonably
estimated, and that increase could be significant. The portion of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims and
related defense costs was $68 million at December 31, 2012 and $64
million at December 31, 2011. At December 31, 2012, our liability
with respect to asserted claims and related defense costs was $71
million, compared to $74 million at December 31, 2011.

"We maintain primary insurance coverage under coverage-in-place
agreements, and also have excess liability insurance with respect
to asbestos liabilities. After consultation with our outside legal
counsel and giving consideration to agreements with certain of our
insurance carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations
of our insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine
an amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We
record a receivable with respect to such policies when we
determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate
the amount of a particular recovery.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $73
million at December 31, 2012 and $67 million at December 31, 2011.
We expect that approximately 50% of asbestos claim related losses
would be recoverable through insurance through the period covered
by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, $10 million was
included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at
December 31, 2012 and $8 million at December 31, 2011. The
recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect
under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary carriers
as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from
certain of our excess coverage insurance carriers.

"We believe that, at December 31, 2012, we had approximately $160
million in limits of excess level policies potentially applicable
to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims. We
also had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining
aggregate limits, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense
costs for asbestos premises claims on a per occurrence basis,
pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements at December 31, 2012."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation organized
in 1898, develops, manufactures, markets and distributes tires for
most applications and rubber-related chemicals for various
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural Units Defends 76 Active Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend 76
active asbestos-related cases, 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: "The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and/or The
Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship Company have been named defendants in
489 actions brought from 1986 to date by former seamen in which
the plaintiffs claim damages under federal law for illnesses in
varying levels of severity allegedly suffered as the result of
exposure to airborne asbestos fibers while serving as crew members
aboard the vessels previously owned or managed by our entities
until the mid-1980s. All of these actions have been consolidated
into multidistrict proceedings in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, along with approximately 30,000 other cases from
various jurisdictions throughout the United States that were filed
by seamen against ship-owners and other defendants. Through a
series of court orders, the docket has been reduced to
approximately 3,500 active cases, of which we are a named
defendant in 76. These cases are in the discovery phase. The court
has dismissed the remainder of the cases without prejudice. Those
dismissed cases could be reinstated upon application by
plaintiffs' counsel. The claims against our entities are insured
in amounts that vary by policy year; however, the manner in which
these retentions will be applied remains uncertain. Our entities
continue to vigorously contest these claims and have made no
settlements on them."

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is a major global iron ore producer
and a significant producer of high- and low-volatile metallurgical
coal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos, 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.

Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant, along
with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various state
courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to
asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle manufactured in limited
amounts between the late-1940's and the mid-1980's. In addition to
compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek punitive
damages.

Generally, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of
its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material effect on its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The
Company maintains insurance coverage that applies to the Company's
defense costs and payments of settlements or judgments in
connection with asbestos-related lawsuits.

On December 22, 2010, the Company settled a case involving alleged
asbestos-related injury. The total amount of the award and related
loss, inclusive of insurance recoveries, was approximately $5.9
million, which was recorded in discontinued operations in the
fourth quarter of 2010, as the related alleged asbestos-containing
product was manufactured by the Company's former on-highway brake
business.

At this time, the amount of reasonably possible additional
asbestos claims, if any, is not material to the Company's
financial position, results of operations or operating cash flows
although these matters could result in the Company being subject
to monetary damages, costs or expenses, and charges against
earnings in particular periods.

Carlisle Companies Incorporated is a holding company for Carlisle
Corporation. Carlisle is a diversified manufacturing company
consisting of five segments which manufacture and distribute a
broad range of products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Workers Defenseless Against Fibro Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stretching from World War II until the late 1970's, members of the
U.S. military, particularly the naval branch, were among those
most affected by asbestos exposure.  Asbestos was widely used for
insulation purposes on a number of navy ships including aircraft
carriers, destroyers, and transport vessels.  Asbestos was used
because of its remarkable strength, its fire resistant abilities,
and its capacity to withstand massive amounts of heat.  Since
there was an abundance of heat-producing equipment aboard,
asbestos was the perfect solution to alleviate the risk of
potential fires in case of a malfunction or an attack.

During World War II asbestos helped the US military manufacture
ships quickly, efficiently, and at a low cost.  What the
government and citizens didn't realize were the dangers and health
risks connected to asbestos exposure.  Asbestos manufacturing
companies knew of the hazards, but withheld the information from
the government and sold the asbestos-containing products anyway.

Everyone onboard was exposed to asbestos.  Once asbestos is
damaged in any way it's easily breakable or 'friable.'  The tight
spaces and lack of proper ventilation left all naval personnel
defenseless against the millions of asbestos fibers released into
the air.  However, some occupations were exposed more than others
including: boiler workers, pipefitters, insulators, plumbers,
welders, electricians, machinists, and engineers.  Asbestos was
mainly used in the boiler and engine rooms.  However, it was also
used to insulate piping systems which were found and exposed
throughout the entire ship including the galley and the sleeping
quarters.

Additionally, those who were involved with repairing navy vessels
in shipyards were also exposed to asbestos.  These individuals
were constantly exposed due to the high concentrations of asbestos
fibers in damaged and war-torn ships.

Statistics show that military personnel, including shipyard
workers, who served during the 1940's to the late 1970's are at a
higher risk of developing mesothelioma than any other occupation.
Many of the ships that contained asbestos during World War II were
still in service throughout the 1970's.  Removing asbestos from
discontinued vessels put workers and veterans at risk since parts
of the ships were often sold or used in other military branches,
which again lead to additional asbestos exposure.

Asbestos doesn't expire.  In fact, it gets worse with age.  If
you're a veteran or know of any veteran's who have been exposed to
asbestos and have an asbestos related disease such as
mesothelioma, legal help is available to receive compensation for
your medical bills and emotional strain.  Contact an attorney
today to know your options.

If you or a family member has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or
another asbestos related disease due to exposure during your
military service or on the job, you may have grounds for a legal
claim.  The Chicago mesothelioma lawyers of Cooney and Conway can
provide you with a free consultation to discuss your case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 25 Schools in Arizona Non-Compliant With EPA Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Six school districts in Arizona
have done compliance work to avoid hefty federal fines for
asbestos violations.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined the school
districts a combined total of nearly $95,000.

More than 15,000 children attend the 25 schools not in compliance
in the six districts -- three in Apache County, two in Pinal
County and one on the Fort Apache reservation.

EPA officials say all of the school districts have since taken
necessary actions to comply with the federal asbestos law and the
cost of compliance reduces the penalties in most cases to zero.

During inspections in 2011, EPA inspectors say they discovered
numerous violations in the school districts.  Violations included
failing to inspect and then re-inspect facilities for asbestos
containing materials and not having a management plan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IARC Calls For Ban to All Forms of Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Placitella at Mesotheliomalegalblog.com relates that a
common defense employed in most mesothelioma trials is that
chrysotile asbestos does not cause mesothelioma.  This position is
once again rebuffed by the IARC.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer calls for end to
use of all forms of asbestos.

In a Joint Statement, released on Feb. 19, 2013, the World Health
Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) state that all forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to
humans and that the most efficient way to eliminate asbestos-
related diseases is to stop the use of all forms of asbestos.

In a letter of Dec. 13, 2012, scientists and public health
defenders around the world expressed concerns that IARC (an agency
of the WHO) was participating in a sham scientific conference in
Kiev, organized by asbestos promoters to try to prevent chrysotile
asbestos being put on the Rotterdam Convention's list of hazardous
substances at the upcoming May 2013 Conference of the Parties to
the Rotterdam Convention.

The scientists and public health defenders also expressed their
concern that, in its presentation at the Kiev conference, IARC
used outdated and inaccurate information regarding chrysotile
asbestos that minimized the harm it causes to health.  They also
expressed concern that IARC is collaborating in a study on
chrysotile asbestos with a discredited institute in Russia and
with discredited scientists, who promote use of chrysotile
asbestos and deny that it is hazardous to health.

This Joint Statement from the WHO and IARC exposes the deadly
deception of the campaign being waged by the asbestos industry to
prevent chrysotile asbestos from being put on the Rotterdam
Convention's list of hazardous substances as the dangerous, as the
Convention's expert scientific committee has repeatedly
recommended.

The other issues raised by the scientists and public health
defenders have not yet been addressed by IARC and continue to be
of concern.

Joint WHO/IARC Statement:

In response to allegations in the recent Lancet article, IARC in
the dock over ties with asbestos industry (The Lancet,
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60152-X), WHO (World Health
Organization) and IARC (International Agency for Research on
Cancer) state the following:

All forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to humans (IARC Monographs
Volume 100C) and stopping the use of all forms of asbestos is the
most efficient way to eliminate asbestos-related diseases (WHO
Fact Sheet No 343).

The study on cancer in chrysotile workers in Asbest, Russian
Federation, for which IARC is providing its epidemiological
expertise, will supply important scientific information to better
quantify the risk of cancers already known to be related to
chrysotile as well as additional cancers suspected to be related
to chrysotile, the asbestos fiber is the most commonly produced.

WHO and IARC take conflict of interest seriously and use a
rigorous process to protect our research and development of norms,
standards and guidelines from undue influence.

IARC confirms the completeness and accuracy of all data and
statements of scientific results published in the British Journal
of Cancer (Estimating the asbestos-related lung cancer burden from
mesothelioma mortality, doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.563) and presented at
a conference in Kiev.

IARC, as WHO's cancer research agency, remains committed to
providing the most reliable, independent scientific evidence on
which public health decisions can be based.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Schools at Liverpool Central up for Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Moses at Syracuse.com reports that Liverpool Elementary
School and Liverpool Middle School in the Liverpool Central School
District in New York closed for asbestos removal.

The abatement requires that contractor employees wear protective
clothing and follow appropriate procedures.

District officials said they expect both schools to reopen on
schedule Thursday morning (Feb. 21).  Students, teachers and staff
members will not be allowed in the building until air samples are
acceptable according to the New York State Department of Labor's
requirements.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair of Law360 reports that Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. has
sued Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. over the insurer's refusal to
provide future coverage for asbestos-related claims under policies
issued in the 1960s and 1970s, according to a suit removed to
Pennsylvania federal court on Feb. 18.

According to the suit originally filed in state court, Goodyear
claims that the insurance giant breached its contract by backing
out of its commitment to cover defense and indemnity costs beyond
Jan. 28, 2013.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Uganda Orders the Removal of Fibro From Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Sekanjako and Moses Walubiri of Uganda's leading daily,
NewVision, report that parliament has ordered the government to
phase out the use of asbestos sheets as roofing materials in all
schools and technical colleges to avert the health and safety
hazards associated with its usage.

Debating a report of The Committee on Science and Technology on
the status of science and technology in Ugandan colleges on
Tuesday, Feb.19, MPs recommended that government replaces all
asbestos roofing in educational institutions and replace them with
iron sheets that are health friendly.

According to committee Vice Chairperson Kafeero Ssekitoleko, most
of the Technical colleges that the committee visited were still
roofed with asbestos.

"During one of our visits, the Principal of Uganda Technical
College (UTC) Lira Charles Ojilong told us that a staff member of
the college died after using water harvested off an asbestos roof.
His eyes swelled and shortly afterwards developed complications
and died," Kafeero told MPs Tuesday.

The MPs suggested that government allocates a specific amount of
money in the national budget for the abolition of asbestos cement
sheets in the entire country.

"Kyambogo University still has rooms roofed with asbestos.  There
should be a special budget for the eradication and use of these
sheets in the country," said Beatrice Anywar, Kitgum woman MP.

Mbale municipality MP Jack Wamai Wamanga added; "Asbestos was
abolished long time ago but it is everywhere in technical schools.
We should ban it because it is very dangerous to this country."

The World Health Organization has in the past banned the use of
asbestos sheets due to diseases like cancer that are associated
with the sheets.

The report further indicated that most of the colleges had
obsolete equipment that was not in conformity with the modern
technologies currently being used in the market place.

In its other report on the status of science and technology in
public universities, the committee recommended that government
increases funding towards science teaching in secondary schools
through construction of laboratories and provision of requisite
equipment like chemicals and reagents.

Both reports were adopted by the Parliament on Tuesday.




ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge to Hear Libby Attorney's Fee Appeal March 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys for asbestos victims
in a Montana mining town are seeking more than $4 million in fees
and expenses out of a legal settlement with chemical company W.R.
Grace that was intended to cover the victims' ongoing medical
costs.

State District Judge James Wheelis has ordered a March 1 fairness
hearing on the request, recently submitted by a group of lawyers
who said they sunk more than 16,000 hours of work into the case
over 11 years.

Last year's settlement followed decades of asbestos exposure from
a Grace mine outside the town of Libby that so far has killed an
estimated 400 people and sickened more than 2,000.

Asbestos dust from the mine once blanketed the town, and
contaminated mine waste was widely used by residents and local
officials in construction projects, as a soil supplement in home
gardens and for other purposes.

In documents submitted to the court, the plaintiffs' attorneys
described their fee request as reasonable given the time and
effort they put into lawsuits filed against Grace.

It equals about 20 percent of the $19.6 million that Maryland-
based Grace last year agreed to put into a trust fund set up to
help Libby residents cover medical expenses.

Total costs and fees requested topped $5 million, but almost $1
million of that amount would be returned for the benefit of the
victims, according to documents filed by the attorneys.  The
attorneys said they were entitled to up to 40 percent of their
client's share of the settlement under their retainer contracts,
but opted for a lesser percentage that would come from all
qualifying victims and not just the attorneys' clients.

The attorneys are from three law firms: McGarvey, Heberling,
Sullivan and McGarvey P.C. of Kalispell; Lewis, Slovak, Kovachich
and Marr P.C. of Great Falls; and Murtha Cullina LLP, which has
offices in multiple locations.

A separate legal settlement between Libby victims and the state of
Montana to cover damages for failing to intervene sooner included
$14 million in attorney fees.

The medical trust fund set up with the Grace settlement funds has
enough money to last about five years, said trust administrator
and Missoula attorney Nancy Gibson.

Yet because of the long latency period for asbestos-related
diseases, it could be many years before some people diagnosed in
Libby develop medical complications.  That means the trust could
be depleted by the time some people need it, although Gibson said
still-pending litigation involving Libby could result in more
money coming in the future.

"We're looking at stretching it out as long as funds are there to
keep coverage in place," she said.  "Hopefully there will be other
funds that supplement this."

The trust money is being used to cover the victims' premiums for
Medicare or comparable private insurance policies, Gibson said.

Some victims have complained that the attorneys' fees are too
high, taking money that would otherwise go to helping victims.
"These lawyers want and want and want," said Michael Crill, a
former Libby resident now living in Missoula who was not a
plaintiff in the case but indicated he was a trust beneficiary.

Crill added in a letter to Judge Wheelis that the trust was the
only means to pay for the medical care keeping him alive.

But Gibson said the fee request was not out of line given the time
and effort the attorneys put into the case.  She added the
attorneys have been working unpaid to persuade Medicare
administrators to forgive money owed to the government by some
victims.

W.R. Grace previously covered the medical expenses that have been
assumed by the trust, costing the company about $2 million
annually since 2000, soon after the scope of Libby's contamination
was revealed.

A subsequent cleanup of the town and surrounding areas by the
Environmental Protection Agency has cost more than $447 million to
date and is expected to last at least several more years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCI Probes ACPMA for Anti-Competitive Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Times (New Delhi) reports that the Competition
Commission is probing alleged cartelization in the market for
asbestos cement sheets, which is mainly used in rural areas for
low cost houses and warehouses.

The fair trade regulator has said that various factors including
high concentration in the market, product homogeneity and "active
association of manufacturers" led to the decision of investigating
anti-competitive practices in that industry.

Competition Commission of India's investigation arm -- Director
General (DG) -- is looking into the matter.

"The role of the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers
Association (ACPMA) is under scanner for facilitating the cartel
and controlling production volumes and sale prices.

"The Commission has taken suo motu cognizance of alleged anti-
competitive conduct of ACPMA," CCI said in its latest quarterly
newsletter.

It noted that asbestos cement sheets are widely used for roofs in
low cost houses, sheds and warehouses.

"The market of asbestos cement sheets consists of 20 big firms and
68 manufacturing units, of which top six players hold 87 per cent
of the market share," CCI added.

It said the probe was triggered after a reference from the Serious
Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).

CCI keeps a tab on anti competitive practices across sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Pleas for Info on Swanton Hazmat Dumping
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Reed of WNWO Today reports that the Ohio EPA has put out
a plea for help identifying the group responsible for illegally
dumping asbestos on a property near Swanton last fall.

A large quantity of pipe insulation containing asbestos was
discovered in November 2012 at an unoccupied residence on
Stateline Road, just west of Nature Conservancy property.

The Ohio EPA says the insulation was most likely used on a heating
system pipe and that it may have been removed or stolen from a
building by thieves looking for scrap metal.

Asbestos is highly regulated by the agency due to the serious
health problems associated with inhaling the material's fibers.

Investigators believe someone may have seen trucks entering the
property to dump the material or may know of a building where
scrappers removed heating and air conditioning pipes.

Anyone with information is encouraged to call Rick Hassinger at
Ohio EPA's Northwest District Office in Bowling Green at (419)
352-8461 or (800) 686-6930.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Cites Six AZ Districts for AHERA Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
The White Mountain Online reports that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has fined six Arizona school districts a
combined total of $94,575 for Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act (AHERA) violations.  More than 15,000 children attend the 25
schools not in compliance with the federal AHERA in these
districts.

During inspections conducted in 2011, EPA inspectors discovered
numerous violations, from failing to inspect facilities for
asbestos containing materials, failing to re-inspect campuses with
known asbestos containing materials, and failing to have an
Asbestos Management Plan.  All of the school districts have since
taken necessary actions to comply with the law, with the cost of
compliance reducing the penalties in most cases to zero.

"Asbestos in schools has the potential to harm the health of
students, teachers, and maintenance workers," said Jared
Blumenfeld, EPA's Regional Administrator for the Pacific
Southwest.  "EPA takes these violations seriously, and we are
satisfied the schools have now conducted inspections and put their
asbestos plans in place."

Each school district is allowed to subtract properly documented
costs of complying with the regulations from the penalty amount.

The six school districts are:

-- Apache Junction Unified School District (Pinal County):  fined
$21,675, but this was reduced to $7,933 because of the school
district's cost of achieving compliance.

-- St. John's Unified School District (Apache County):  fined
$14,195, reduced to $824 by the school district's cost of
achieving compliance.

-- Florence Unified School District (Pinal County):  fined
$31,705, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs
of compliance exceeded the penalty.

-- Vernon Elementary School District (Apache County):  fined
$2,700, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs
of compliance exceeded the penalty.

-- McNary Elementary School District (Fort Apache Indian
Reservation):  fined $14,200, but no cash payment was due because
the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty.

-- Round Valley Unified School District (Apache County):  fined
$10,100, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs
of compliance exceeded the penalty.

Federal law requires schools to conduct an initial inspection
using accredited inspectors to determine if asbestos-containing
building material is present and develop a management plan to
address the asbestos materials found in the school buildings.
Schools are also required to appoint a designated person who is
trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure compliance with
federal regulations.  Finally, schools must conduct periodic
surveillance and re-inspections of asbestos-containing building
material, properly train the maintenance and custodial staff, and
maintain records in the management plan.

Local education agencies must keep an updated copy of the
management plan in its administrative office and at the school
which must be made available for inspection by parents, teachers,
and the general public.

For more information about federal asbestos regulations visit:
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/lawsregs.html.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Review Suggests Reopening Safe Areas of Cwmcarn
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Campaign Series News (UK) reports that a review into Cwmcarn
High School has recommended sealing off part of the school to
allow the rest to reopen.

A report issued by independent asbestos surveyor Ensafe says that
following a review and an inspection of the school, it was found
that the decision by the council to close the school was
"understandable" but not supported by any airborne fiber testing
sample results.

The report states that it is clear that parts of the school were
built with "significant" quantities of asbestos containing
products particularly within the school's A block building.

Previous investigations said that asbestos debris was sitting on
non-asbestos ceiling tiles in the block as well as in one area
leading to the science block.

The report said that without further testing, it is possible to
say that there is a "foreseeable risk" of a ceiling tile breaking
and releasing material containing asbestos and airborne asbestos
fibers in some areas of the school.

But the report states that if this risk does exist, it is not
clear that the risk is so high it warrants the closure of the
whole site, as these areas are confined to specific rooms in the A
block.

The surveyor has said that a licensed asbestos contractor should
immediately seal off the main parts of the two-storey A block from
the rest of the school site.

The report also says that when this is done: "the other areas of
the school outside the sealed zone should be immediately returned
to normal usage with the pre-existing management controls for the
known asbestos containing material (ACM) locations maintained."

It continues that the work could be carried out quickly and simply
and would allow the school to be returned to normal usage having
been subjected to a revised management survey while further
surveys and site investigations are conducted in the sealed areas
of the school if necessary.

Temporary classrooms would be installed as necessary.

The report concludes by adding that while there is compelling
evidence to indicate that it would be "perfectly safe" to re-open
the entire school, this precautionary approach is recommended.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumbarton Middle School Completes Minor Abatement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Meoli for The Baltimore Sun reports that signs warning of
asbestos contamination at Dumbarton Middle School in Towson
appeared last week and set off some concern from students and
parents.

However, school spokesman Charles Herndon said the signs were
precautions taken in advance of minor renovations scheduled Feb.
22.

Dumbarton Middle School Assistant Principal Chuck Bolger said a
sink will be replaced in a second-floor custodial workroom, and
that a small number of tiles that contain asbestos and were laid
when the school opened in then 1950s must be removed.

"Because of that, we were just told that we have to inform
everyone that the building has to be closed during that time,"
Bolger said.  "(The contractors) put the signs up.  We don't."

Herndon said the floor tiles contain non-friable asbestos --
meaning it does not appear in the atmosphere unless disturbed.

"It's not anything that would typically be in that atmosphere, but
any time you're dealing with materials that contain asbestos that
could become friable...you have to take precautions involved in
asbestos abatement," Herndon said.

One of those precautions, he said, involved posting the signs
throughout the school.

Herndon said the work would begin late Friday afternoon (Feb. 22)
and was expected to be completed Saturday, Feb. 23.

"None of the work is going to take place when children are in the
classroom," Herndon said.  "My understanding is it'll all be done
over the weekend and it doesn't even involve any classroom space,
or where students would normally be anyway."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Capricorn Coast Warned of After-Storm Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
Trish Bowman of The Morning Bulletin (Aus) reports that asbestos
flew through the air during recent storms that swept through the
Capricorn Coast, and Yeppoon resident Derel Wust is asking the
community to be aware of the dangers.

Mr. Wust has a home in the Cooee Bay area situated close to
numerous older-style homes with asbestos roofs and guttering.

This has never been an issue until recent strong wind gusts ripped
sheeting from a nearby house, sending asbestos missiles through
the air.

"We had asbestos guttering and roof sheeting strewn around our
yard, causing some damage to paving and trimmings, but more
worrying are the health concerns relating to the damaged
materials," Mr. Wust said.

"We have a lot of homes on the Coast with asbestos building
materials, which is fine when it is kept in good condition, but
not so fine when it is left in disrepair.

"Add to the mix major winds in cyclonic conditions and it becomes
a real problem."

Mr. Wust said the letting agent for the damaged neighboring
property had repairs and professional asbestos removalists deal
with the immediate problem.

"I think it is vital that people understand the seriousness of
health concerns related to un-maintained asbestos," Mr. Wust said.

"You simply can't be negligent when it comes to asbestos.

"I believe buildings with asbestos should be part of a register to
be able to appropriately maintain and manage problem areas."

Darren Ireland from Darren's Asbestos Removal has been in the
business of asbestos removal for 31 years, and he agreed that
unmaintained asbestos could have dramatic health repercussions if
not handled in the correct manner.

Mr. Ireland said it was important that all asbestos repairs or
removals be done by a qualified technician to prevent exposure to
possible health hazards.

"Asbestos should be in good condition and it must be sealed
appropriately," Mr. Ireland said.

"In the case of fallen asbestos, the contaminated material needs
to be sprayed, wrapped in 200UM plastic and disposed of by a
qualified and registered technician.

"Soil around the contaminated area to a depth of 100mm must also
be removed.

"Our technicians wear full safety clothing and transport
contaminants in a specially registered vehicle.

"They have medical check-ups every six months."

Mr. Ireland said rental properties with asbestos building
materials would soon come under the same legislation as commercial
buildings.

"From August 2013 all rental properties will require an asbestos
report and any problem areas will need to be rectified within a
month," he said.

"I believe the more stringent regulations will offer a better
level of safety for the community, including those who currently
underestimate the ramifications of handling contaminated
materials.

Asbestos Facts

Not everyone exposed to asbestos fibers will contract an asbestos-
related disease.  In fact, the chances are low with a single
exposure.  The risk increases with the number of exposures and
with higher concentrations of fibers.

Asbestos can cause health problems when fibers become airborne and
are inhaled.  Once inside the lungs, most asbestos fibers are
removed by the body's natural defenses.  However, some fibers can
become trapped in the lungs.  In some individuals, this can result
in serious lung diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer or
mesothelioma that may develop years later (typically a 10- to 40-
year latency period).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Voters Decide Guilford Central Abatement Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Faher of The BrattleBoro Reformer reports that voters soon
will decide whether a contractor should remove asbestos from
Guilford Central School.

School Board members will ask Town Meeting voters for approval of
a special article granting permission to spend $18,167 for the
asbestos project in fiscal year 2014.

That would be the first installment of a three-year loan aimed at
getting rid of the potentially hazardous construction material.

"The whole project would happen this summer, but we would pay it
back over three years," board member Penny Lussier said.

Officials have long known that there is asbestos in some areas of
the central school, which houses students from kindergarten
through eighth grade.

Last summer, Principal John Gagnon wrote a letter to parents
advising that there is asbestos "located in some of the pipe
wrapping as well as ceiling tiles in the intermediate/middle
school hallway and the middle school classrooms."

He added that school officials had been following an "EPA-approved
and monitored regimen to make sure the asbestos does not pose a
threat to students and staff."

There was some question as to whether the material should be
removed or whether it was better to leave it alone.  But a closer
look at estimated removal costs led board members to pursue the
project.

The price tag "didn't end up being nearly what some had feared,"
said Dan Systo, board chairman. "We felt as a board, for the money
they were talking about, it was best to remove it."

Officials have said the project's price tag will not exceed
$50,000.  And there is some cushion built into that budget: Systo
estimated that final costs could be significantly lower than that,
possibly totaling around $35,000.

Catamount Environmental Inc. of Wilmington submitted a low bid of
$24,850 for asbestos removal, board members said.

There will be additional costs for items such as portable storage,
new ceiling tiles, pipe insulation and additional manpower for
cleanup.

"We'll obviously need more custodial staff," Lussier said.

The project would happen during the summer so that no students are
present during construction.  Asbestos would be removed in "all
areas kids have access to," Systo said.

Of course, the project won't move forward without voter approval.
If the article is defeated, officials said, the asbestos will be
left in place and monitored as it had been in the past.

"We just won't touch it," Systo said.

The School Board was scheduled to meet jointly with the Guilford
Selectboard for a pre-Town Meeting forum on Thursday, Feb. 21, at
Broad Brook Grange.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Fines Decade Long Violator $414,488
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Patterson at Syracuse Online reports that more than a decade
of improper asbestos removal will cost a Clay company owner nearly
half a million dollars, a U.S. Dist. Court judge recently ruled.

John Leathley, of Pompey, pleaded guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to
violate the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act and to commit mail
fraud.  He was sentenced at the end of December.

He and other co-conspirators were accused of stripping and bagging
asbestos-containing material and disposing of asbestos into water
when working on renovation and demolition projects.  Leathley was
also accused of providing his clients with false air monitoring
results in order to convince them that his company, Aapex
Environmental Services Inc., was working in compliance with the
law.

The illegal activity was said to have transpired at Aapex from
1996-2007.

In 2007, The U.S. Labor Department's Occupational Safety and
Health Administration accused the company of exposing employees to
asbestos during a botched cleanup of the former Agway Building in
DeWitt and a federal investigation ensued.

Leathley faced up to five years in prison but was sentenced by
Senior U.S. Dist. Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin to five years
probation.  He was also ordered to pay $414,488 in restitution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swan Pond Village Abatement Irks Tenant
--------------------------------------------------------
Susan Vaughn of The Register reports that Beth Harris got very
upset when she received a letter that the vinyl flooring in the
kitchen and bathroom of her Swan Pond Village apartment were to be
replaced the following week and that she could expect some debris.

What the letter from the management company didn't mention was the
debris contained asbestos, a hazardous substance, although she
knew there was asbestos underneath the floors.

Harris initially questioned the plan because she didn't see the
need to replace floors that were intact in her unit and not
causing any harm.  The letters went to at least three other
apartments in her building and perhaps others in the 150-unit
affordable housing complex that was built in 1978 off Long Pond
Drive in South Yarmouth.  The complex operates under federal
Housing and Urban Development guidelines with a Section 8 contract
to provide housing for low-income and disabled people.

The tenants in Harris' building include young children and other
disabled people like her and were not aware of the asbestos, she
said.

Asbestos fibers may be released into the air by the disturbance of
asbestos-containing material and exposure to asbestos increases
risk of lung disease, according to the Environmental Protection
Agency website, www.epa.gov.  Asbestos-containing materials that
aren't damaged or disturbed are not likely to pose a health risk,
the EPA states, and advises that usually the best thing is to
leave asbestos-containing material alone if it is in good
condition.

The letter from the management company, Weston Associates of
Boston, said the kitchen and bath would be blocked off with
plastic from the rest of the small one-bedroom apartments during
the work and the tenants have the option of removing their food
and other items from the apartment, Harris said in a phone
interview.

"What are we supposed to do for three days without a bathroom?"
she asked.  "Do we have to stay in the unit while they're doing
abatement?"

Harris, 52, has trouble walking any distance without pain because
of neuropathy in her feet.  "I can barely get to my mailbox once a
week," she said.  She also is concerned about the potential health
hazard to her grandchildren who come to visit.

After receiving the letter, Harris immediately started calling
Weston Associates, MassHousing, the Environmental Protection
Agency, local health officials and others to voice her objections.
She also wanted to find out what her rights are as a tenant when
such work is being done.

"I don't trust them to do it right," Harris said.  "My main
concern is the deceitfulness."

When she asked Michael Packard, a principal at Weston, where the
tenants should go during the work, she said she was told she could
sit in the community day room.  The company did not offer to house
the tenants elsewhere during the work.

However, after she raised the objections, Harris and other tenants
received updated letters from Weston, which stated the renovation
would involve asbestos abatement that was required by Housing and
Urban Development in order for the owners to get funding.  The
letters described the process for the removal, including air
testing and a third party environmental consultant.

Yarmouth Health Director Bruce Murphy, who has been monitoring the
renovation work, said the complex owners have obtained the state
air quality certification to allow the removal.  He has reviewed
the application, checked with the state agencies and stopped at
the complex on Tuesday, Feb. 19, to make sure the workers were
following the guidelines.

Murphy said it is all right for the tenants to stay in their
apartments during the floor removal, which lasts from about 8 a.m.
to 4 p.m., although it might be noisy from the machinery.  They
could also do errands or stay in the community room, which has a
kitchen, bathroom and television, he said.

Harris chose to leave her apartment while the work was being done
on Tuesday, Feb. 19, because she was still concerned about the
health hazard.  Before going to a local motel, she moved
everything out of her kitchen and bathroom, including food and her
grandchildren's toys and put them in her bedroom.  She left a note
asking that the workmen seal off the bedroom door.  An EPA
official had recommended she bag everything.

"I hope they do the proper abatement," she said.  Harris believes
she should be able to deduct the $100 motel cost from her next
month's rent and notified the owners and management company what
she was doing.  She was trying to find out if she had any legal
rights for temporary housing.

The floor replacements do not require town building permits
because they are not structural changes, according to a
spokeswoman at the Yarmouth Building Department.  Swan Pond
Village owners have not applied for any other building permits.
The current work will replace floors in 42 units, Murphy said.

The floor work is part of nearly $30 million in major renovations
planned by the owners, SP Associates LLC, an affiliate of Weston
Associates, the project sponsor, according to a letter from the
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency to the Yarmouth Planning
Board last September.  SP Associates purchased Swan Pond Village
in December 2010.  As part of the sales agreement, the state
Department of Housing and Community Development required the new
owner to renew the Section 8 contract and continue to operate the
complex as affordable housing.

The company has a $18 million bond for the renovations at $40,000
per unit.  Calls to Weston Associates have not been returned.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corporation, 43 Others Face Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that an Eleanor
woman is suing 44 companies she claims are responsible for her
late husband's lung cancer and death.

Delmer Absten was diagnosed with lung cancer on Jan. 10, 2011,
from which he died on April 15, according to a complaint filed
Feb. 15 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Thelma Absten claims her late husband was exposed to asbestos
and/or asbestos-containing products during his career as a laborer
and a carpenter from 1964 until 2003.

Delmer Absten smoked one pack of cigarettes or less per day from
1956 until 1984, but then quit, according to the suit.

Thelma Absten claims the defendants failed to warn him of the
dangers of asbestos.

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.

Thelma Absten is seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved.  She is being represented by Victoria L. Antion --
vantion@motleyrice.com --, Scott A. McGee -- smcgee@motleyrice.com
-- and John D. Hurst -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- of Motley Rice
and Bronwyn I. Rinehart of James F. Humphreys & Associates.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 44 companies named as defendants include 3M Company; A.W.
Chesterton Company; Beazer East, Inc.; Certainteed Corporation;
Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.; Dravo Corporation; FB Wright Company; FMC
Corporation; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; and General
Electric Company.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-310


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caerphilly Council Hires Expert to Review Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------
The South Wales Argus reports that parents of Cwmcarn High School
pupils told of their anger at Caerphilly council because of the
way it is dealing with by the asbestos issue at the school.

Their anger comes in the wake of the news that a third report into
asbestos at the school has recommended part of the building be
reopened to students.

Parent Rhiannon Price said: "I think the majority of parents feel
angry with the way the council is dealing with it and feel that
the council is not being open, honest and transparent."

The Argus recently reported how parents and pupils will hold a day
of action outside Cwmcarn High School, with some claiming its
future is being put in jeopardy by Caerphilly council "dragging
its feet."

They planned to march from the village on Feb. 25 in protest at
the way the situation has developed since asbestos was discovered.

The latest twist in the tale comes four months after the school
was closed amid health concerns that there is an "elevated risk"
of asbestos.

Since then more than 900 pupils have been bussed to the former
Coleg Gwent campus in Ebbw Vale, a 22-mile round trip and a cost
of around GBP1.4 million to taxpayers for the rest of the school
year.

This latest report issued by independent asbestos surveyor Ensafe,
contracted by the school's leadership, recommends the appointment
of a licensed asbestos contractor to seal off the main parts of
the two-storey A block of the school -- but other areas of the
school could be returned to normal use.

However, when the Argus contacted Caerphilly council on Feb. 20
for a comment on this latest revelation, Argus was referred to a
statement previously released that said the authority has
commissioned an unnamed independent expert to give an impartial
view on all the previous reports to help the council make
decisions.

As yet, no details on how long that will take have been released.

The saga has already angered parents who have hit out at the way
the council has dealt with the issue.

The Ensafe report states the decision by the council to close the
school was "understandable" but was not supported by any airborne
fiber testing sample results.

But Ensafe says that if this risk does exist, it is not clear the
risk is so high it warrants the closure of the whole site as these
areas are confined to specific rooms in the A block.

Their recommendation is to seal off the main parts of the A block
from the rest of the school while further surveys and site
investigations are conducted in the sealed areas of the school if
necessary.

The report adds that while "there is compelling evidence to
indicate that it would not be unreasonable and perfectly safe to
re-open the entire school", this precautionary approach is
recommended.

Cwmcarn High School was closed in October after a report said
there is an "elevated risk" posed by asbestos in the school
structure but the Health and Safety Executive subsequently said
the risk is lower than first thought.

The council is now providing funding to the school for a new
management survey, which will include an options appraisal for the
future of the site.

The council has also employed an unnamed independent expert who
will now give an impartial view of all the reports to help the
council make decisions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Research Says 600 Mechanics Die from ARD Yearly
----------------------------------------------------------------
Auto show season is in full swing and the nation's automakers are
busily showcasing their hottest, most coveted cars to get
consumers revved and ready to step into the showroom.

But did you know that cars and trucks are a potential source of
asbestos exposure?

The dangers of asbestos -- a human carcinogen -- are well known.
Asbestos exposure causes mesothelioma, a deadly cancer that kills
more than 3,000 people every year.  The federal government's
failure to ban asbestos means this silent killer is still found in
thousands of asbestos-containing products manufactured and used
every day in this country.  A number of asbestos products -- such
as brake linings and clutch facings -- may be found in older cars
and even in some newer ones.

People who have worked in the automotive industries, as well as
those who have tinkered on their own vehicles, are at an increased
risk of asbestos exposure and developing diseases such as
mesothelioma, as compared to the general population.

The auto industry is a hazardous working environment due to the
high volume of confirmed workplace exposures to carcinogens such
as asbestos.  More than 6 million mechanics have been exposed to
asbestos from brake dust since 1940, according to one estimate.
Research indicates that these exposures contribute to almost 600
asbestos-related deaths each year.

"The on-site mechanics are not the only people at risk," explains
Ricky LeBlanc, Managing Asbestos Attorney at Sokolove Law.  "A
tragic consequence of occupational asbestos exposure is that
families and loved ones are also at risk of secondhand exposure
when asbestos fibers travel home with a worker.  Asbestos poses a
very real danger and there is a pressing need for more public
education and legislative action to keep people safe from this
deadly material."

Asbestos was widely used in automotive manufacturing due to its
ability to resist damage from heat, friction, and chemicals, as
well as its flexibility and tensile strength.  Brakes and clutches
pose the biggest exposure threats since these parts wear down
during normal use and release asbestos dust, which gets trapped in
the brake housing or clutch compartment.  When these components
are serviced, the dust is released and creates a potential risk of
disease.

Other automotive parts that may contain asbestos include hood
liners, gaskets, heat-seal material, valve rings, and packing.
While guidelines limit the amounts of asbestos present in newer
auto parts, millions of cars still contain asbestos.

Older automotive workers are most at risk, especially those who
worked on vehicles manufactured in the 1970s or before.  People
who for many years worked with or around vehicles are urged to get
a full physical evaluation by a doctor.  Your physician may be
able to screen you for early signs of mesothelioma.  At-risk
workers should also be alert for any mesothelioma symptoms, which
may include chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, and unusual
weight loss.

For more information on mesothelioma, visit
www.mesotheliomahelpnow.com.  This site is constantly updated to
provide relevant information to those currently living with or
caring for a victim of mesothelioma.

If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, you
can contact a mesothelioma attorney to learn more about the
possibility of filing a mesothelioma lawsuit.

For more information contact:

Dian Dulberger
Sokolove Law
(781)489-2608
ddulberger@sokolovelaw.com


                          About Sokolove Law:

Sokolove Law, LLC provides quality legal services that help people
obtain access to the civil justice system.  With over 30 years of
service, Sokolove Law has helped thousands of injured parties
obtain the compensation they deserved from their legal claims.
The cases include birth injury, mesothelioma, cerebral palsy,
nursing home abuse, dangerous drugs, disability insurance denial,
and medical malpractice.  Sokolove Law is nationwide, with local
offices in 47 states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Permit to Bury Fibro in Austin Facility Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Boese at PostBulletin.com reports that the Minnesota Court
of Appeals on Feb. 20 affirmed a 2012 Mower County Board decision
to deny a conditional-use permit that sought to dispose of
asbestos in a local landfill.

The six-page opinion concludes that the board's decision to "deny
the CUP request was not arbitrary and capricious."  Veit Disposal
System had requested the right to dump friable asbestos -- a
hazardous material if inhaled -- at its VONCO IV Demolition Debris
Disposal Facility north of Austin.

On April 24, 2012, commissioners voted 3-1 to deny that request
after a heated discussion that lasted about an hour, prompting the
request for re-examination from the appellate court.

"(Veit) asserts that there is insufficient evidence in the record
from which to conclude that there would be a problem with asbestos
dust, and that such a problem would negatively impact property
values and development," Appellate Judge Roger M. Klaphake wrote
in the legal opinion from a three-judge panel.  "We disagree.  The
record contains testimony that strong southerly winds tend to blow
dust and other debris from realtor's landfill onto neighboring
properties, including one farm and residence located a mere 1,000
feet from the landfill site."

The county board had considered issuing an amended conditional-use
permit to the landfill site with up to 30 conditions before
deciding to deny the request after hearing impassioned testimony
from residents who live nearby.  Veit Disposal System sought to
bury friable asbestos in pre-sealed plastic bags under a foot of
dirt, with such activity required to be stopped if winds exceeded
10 mph.

Neighbors argued that such an arrangement would increase local
disturbances and create increased health concerns.  Commissioner
Jerry Reinartz, a local real estate agent, argued that it would
negatively affect property values in the area.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robert Scott Prison's Full Fibro Test Initiated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Jaskot of The Northville Patch reports that before
demolition of the Robert Scott Correctional Facility can begin,
Northville Township must ensure that the 13 buildings are free of
asbestos.

The Northville Township Board of Trustees on Thursday night (Feb.
21) approved to award BDN Industrial Hygiene Consultants, Inc. --
the low bidder -- $19,975 to complete testing of the site.

The Board also decided to allocate the funds from the $57,625 it
has from the Seven Mile Property.  The Board said they also
reserve the right to replenish the money allocated with money from
the general fund.

The prison was built in the 1980s, and the survey will certify
that there is not any asbestos in the floor or ceiling tiles.  The
survey is done by taking samples at various locations and then
running the samples through a lab process.

"This prison was built right on the end of when the new laws were
taking effect," said Township Manager Chip Snider.  "We believe
that it was built in accordance with the new law, but
unfortunately we don't have proper evidence of that."

Up to 100 samples could be taken, but the process will not
destruct the structural integrity of the buildings.  The survey,
including taking samples, analyzing them, and developing a report,
is estimated to take three weeks.

Township Supervisor Bob Nix said he hopes to be able to bring a
demolition contract before the board in March or April, so he
would like the survey to be completed by then so the Township can
continue to move forward.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Sentence Awaits Belfast Trust in March
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Northern Ireland reports that the Belfast Trust has
pleaded guilty to failing to ensure the safety of staff at Belfast
City Hospital in an incident linked to asbestos.

It also admitted failing to tell sub-contractors about the
presence of asbestos before they started work at the hospital last
January, and to failing to manage the risk.

At Belfast Crown Court on Friday, Feb. 22, a trust representative
pleaded guilty to three charges under health and safety
legislation.

A fourth was not proceeded with.  The trust will be sentenced next
month.

In a statement, the trust said it "continues to manage remaining
asbestos safely so as to not to pose any risk to patients, staff
or visitors using our buildings."

It said its priority was "to ensure that any potential exposure
risk is alleviated."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Slams Misinformation by ICA In Pakistan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Placitella at MesotheliomaCareCenter.com Legal Blog relates
that one hundred and forty-three scientists and organizations from
thirty countries, on Feb. 22, released a Statement telling an
international asbestos lobby organization, based in Quebec, to
stop opposing a ban on asbestos that has been proposed by the
Pakistan National Assembly's Standing Committee on Human Resource
Development.

The signers of the Statement:

-- Condemn the dangerous misinformation that the International
Chrysotile Association (a lobby group for the global asbestos
industry) is disseminating in Pakistan, because this
misinformation will cause unnecessary disease and death.

-- Condemn the International Chrysotile Association for trying to
undermine a public health initiative in Pakistan to protect the
people of Pakistan from asbestos-related diseases and death.

-- Emphasize that the scientific consensus is clear that all
asbestos causes harm to health and that the use of any form of
asbestos should be globally banned.

-- Urge the Government of Pakistan to protect the health of its
citizens by banning the import and use of asbestos, as the
Pakistan National Assembly's Standing Committee on Human Resource
Development has recommended.

In a letter of Jan. 31, 2013, Mr. Jean-Marc Leblond, Chairman of
the International Chrysotile Association (ICA), wrote to Dr.
Mahmood A. Khwaja, a Senior Adviser at the Sustainable Development
Policy Institute of Pakistan, regarding the proposed ban.  Mr.
Leblond claimed that numerous scientific studies show chrysotile
asbestos (the only form of asbestos sold today) can be safely used
and that there is no basis for banning asbestos.

"Mr. Leblond, who has sold Quebec asbestos for past decades, did
not disclose that the scientific studies he submitted, were
financed by the asbestos industry," said Dr. Fernand Turcotte,
Professor Emeritus of Public Health, Laval University, Quebec.
"Not a single reputable scientific organization in the world
supports the findings of these studies."

"It is indefensible that, in order to protect their profits,
foreign asbestos companies are seeking to block a public health
initiative in Pakistan," said Dr. Domyung Paek, Professor of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Seoul National
University, South Korea.  "The world has seen enough asbestos
deaths.  We urge the Government of Pakistan to protect the health
of its people, not the profits of the asbestos industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Russia; New "Lead Saboteur" In Anti-Fibro Efforts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Yang of The Toronto Star reports that a World Health
Organization agency is denying allegations published in a leading
medical journal that it has fallen under the influence of the
Russian asbestos industry, which is resisting tighter controls on
the carcinogenic mineral.

In a Feb. 2 article, The Lancet questioned whether the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) -- the WHO's
cancer research arm -- has fallen prey to "corporate capture" by
the asbestos industry, even as the WHO fights to end worldwide use
of the substance.

The article suggested that recent IARC decisions have propped up
efforts to keep chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, off an
international list of hazardous substances -- an effort that
Canada, once a top chrysotile exporter, has been at the forefront
of over the last decade.

But in an emailed statement to the Toronto Star, the IARC denied
the allegations and said suggestions of corporate influence are
"erroneous."

"The Lancet report is poorly researched and contains a number of
false allegations and unfounded inferences," the statement said.

"The Agency has extensive experience of conducting important
research whilst protecting itself from undue influence from a
variety of stakeholders with vested interests."

The WHO and IARC had also released a joint statement earlier this
week, restating the UN health agency's position that the "most
efficient way to eliminate asbestos-related diseases" is to stop
using the carcinogenic minerals.

On Thursday, Feb. 21, David Holmes, who wrote the Lancet piece,
stood by his article.

"They haven't really said anything to address the concerns set out
in the article," said Holmes, a regular contributor to the Lancet,
one of the world's most-respected medical journals.

"It's kind of strange that the method they choose to address the
concerns is to question the integrity of the person that's
questioning their integrity."

The article, which cites several anonymous WHO sources, states
that recent decisions by the IARC have triggered accusations
ranging from "poor judgment to allegations of corporate capture by
the asbestos industry."

The allegations come at a particularly charged moment.  In April,
member states of the UN Rotterdam Convention will discuss whether
chrysotile should be added to a list of controlled hazardous
substances -- a decision that must be unanimous.  Chrysotile,
which makes up 95 percent of all asbestos mined, is the only form
of asbestos not on the list.

In the past, the Canadian government has consistently blocked
efforts to list chrysotile -- most notably in 2011, when a near-
consensus collapsed after Canada expressed opposition, according
to a Canadian Press report.

Canada's asbestos industry is now dead and the federal government
announced in September it will no longer oppose the listing.  But
for the first time, Russia, the world's largest exporter of
asbestos, will have a seat at the table, having ratified the
Rotterdam Convention in 2011.

Whereas Canada was once the "lead saboteur" in the international
effort to list chrysotile, Russia is now stepping up to the plate,
said anti-asbestos campaigner Kathleen Ruff, who was quoted in the
Lancet piece.

"Russia is the world's leading exporter of asbestos by far and it
is the centre of propaganda and corrupt science on asbestos," said
Ruff, a senior human rights adviser at the Rideau Institute in
Ottawa.

The article said concerns over the IARC were first raised in
November, when the agency accepted an invitation to attend a
conference in Kiev, Ukraine.

The decision prompted an outcry.  Dozens of anti-asbestos
campaigners and scientists signed a letter opposing the UN
agency's participation in a "sham scientific conference" designed
to "sabotage" the Rotterdam Convention.

"We believe that the purpose of this conference is to promote the
continued use of chrysotile asbestos," the letter stated.

The IARC was invited by the Russian Scientific Research Institute
of Occupational Health (SRIOH) -- but, according to the letter's
signatories, the WHO severed its relationship with this
organization years ago due to its continued promotion of
chrysotile and "conflicts of interest endangering WHO's
credibility."

In another letter addressed to the IARC director, signatories
blasted the cancer research agency for collaborating with the
SRIOH on a new study, led by scientist Evgeny Kovalevskiy -- a
"leading promoter of use of chrysotile asbestos," according to the
authors of the letter.

Citing anonymous WHO sources, Holmes wrote that high-ranking WHO
officials pressured the IARC to pull out of the conference.  The
IARC denied this to the Lancet and spokesperson Nicolas Gaudin
said the agency's focus was to present "the relevant science to
the audience of the Kiev meeting."

In a written statement in November, the IARC said it participated
in the Kiev conference because "the best science needs to be
communicated to all stakeholders."

The agency emphasized it would have nothing to do with any
resolutions signed at the Kiev conference -- which, ultimately,
concluded that the issue of adding chrysotile to the Rotterdam
Convention list would be "premature."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ajax Magnethermic, 28 Others Face Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury at The West Virginia Record reports that a
Proctorville, Ohio, couple are suing 29 companies they claim are
responsible for a lung cancer diagnosis.

On March 4, 2011, Jerry Dee Hall was diagnosed with lung cancer,
according to a complaint filed Feb. 15 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Hall and his wife, Karen Gay Hall, claim the 29 defendants are
responsible for the lung cancer because they exposed him to
asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products during his career as
a mechanic, laborer and operator from 1964 until 1993.

Jerry Dee Hall smoked one pack of cigarettes per day from 1963
until 1989, but then quit, according to the suit.

The Halls claim the defendants failed to warn them of the dangers
of asbestos and asbestos-containing products.

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 Halls are seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
They are being represented by Victoria L. Antion --
vantion@motleyrice.com --, Scott A. McGee -- smcgee@motleyrice.com
-- and John D. Hurst -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- of Motley Rice
and Bronwyn I. Rinehart of James F. Humphreys & Associates

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 29 companies named as defendants include Ajax Magnethermic
Corporation; Borg-Warner Corporation; Dravo Corporation; Fairmont
Supply Company; Ford Motor Company; Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation; General Electric Company; Genuine Parts Company;
Goulds Pumps, Inc.; and Hercules, Inc.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-309.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Hazmat Crews Hush Fibro Scare in Malabar
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Partridge of The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Police
have blocked off all roads surrounding Malabar RSL after winds of
more than 100km/h partially ripped off its roof and caused sheets
of asbestos to fly onto nearby homes and roads.

Fire and Rescue NSW HAZMAT crews continue to clear asbestos from a
number of streets which are expected to be closed to traffic for
as long as another 24 hours.

Ireton, Victoria and Prince Edwards Streets and Bilga Crescent are
closed to the public and residents warned to stay indoors.

Fire and Rescue NSW Superintendent Paul Bailey said Malabar
residents should not be concerned about air contamination but to
contact the NSW Environment Protection Authority if they suspected
there was asbestos near their homes or backyards.

"It was an asbestos roof and to be concentrated like that in an
area is of some concern but there is no need for residents to be
concerned that the air they breathe is contaminated,"
Superintendent Bailey said.

"We've been working with the EPA and SES on establishing where it
all is and working out the clean-up," he said.

Randwick SES deputy controller Terry Pappas said there were three
independent contractors using vacuums to clean grass, roads and
all the affected areas.

"We are very optimistic that it will all be cleaned up by Monday,
Feb. 25 for school starts by 7am."

SES volunteers received 200 calls for assistance in the Randwick
area to fallen trees and damage caused by debris from the RSL
roof.

Randwick deputy controller Terry Pappas said residents described a
"mini tornado" which came up Ireton Steet and swept over Anzac
Parade towards Chiefley at about 1am.

When the wind funneled down Mitchell Street at Chiefley it twisted
street and traffic signs and uprooted a large pine tree inside
Chiefley Public School.

Mr. Pappas described the school as being "poleaxed" by the winds
and the grounds were covered in fallen branches and uprooted
trees.

Harry Tran lives opposite the school and surveyed the damage of
his son's room which no longer has a roof.

"It was like boom!"

"My house was shaking and I was inside when the roof flew off," he
said.

"Timber came down and hit the back of my head and scratched my
arms."

He said it was lucky his son was on holidays because the wind had
completely peeled off the roof of his bedroom.

"I thought it was an earthquake and there was all this light
flashing.  I never thought this would happen in Australia."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Disposal Fee Blamed for Illegal Dumping
-------------------------------------------------------------
ONE News (NZ) reports that almost two tons of highly toxic
asbestos roofing has been found dumped in a public area in west
Auckland.

A pedestrian alerted ONE News after discovering the dangerous
waste.

"Seen some roosters, there's a horse up the road, come round the
corner there... there's a pile of asbestos," said Ray Thomas
describing how he made the grim find.

Despite having the potential to be highly toxic, the two tons of
asbestos was dumped on the side of the road in Swanson, just half-
an-hour's drive from central Auckland.

"Everybody knows what white asbestos can do, it's nasty stuff,"
said Thomas.

He was right to be concerned -- if it is exposed to materials like
water, asbestos can lead to chronic illness, lung conditions and a
deadly form of cancer.

While the unpleasant haul was discovered close to a dry riverbed,
the potential for damage or injury could have been a lot higher if
the current sunny, dry weather had changed while it lay
undiscovered.

ONE News reporter Ruth Wynn-Williams tracked down the person
responsible for removing the roof, who told her he wrapped the
asbestos and took it to his own home.

The man says his intention was to dispose of it properly, but his
grandchildren gave the scrap metal to an unknown member of the
public who wanted to use it for a project of their own.

Asbestos transfer stations charge around NZD250 a ton to dump the
toxic material -- avoiding that fee is the most likely reason it
ended up at the side of the road, say authorities.

Auckland Council said there were at least three prosecutions for
dumping similar waste in 2012, with penalties ranging from
NZD5,000 to NZD25,000 depending on the level of asbestos and the
scale of damage to the environment.

The council has now removed the toxic roofing, in a clean-up
operation which ONE News understands to have cost more than
NZD2,000, and it will now decide whether it can lay charges.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Asserts Compliance to Fibro Regulations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Noonan of Yahoo!7News reports that an asbestos expert has
warned that disease from the deadly substance is not a thing of
the past.

He says bad worksite practices and ignorance are putting everyone
at risk.

On Feb. 22, 40 workers evacuated a city worksite when a union
official discovered they'd been working amongst asbestos dust for
weeks.  Across town, asbestos contaminated soil was found during
landscaping at Glenside hospital.

The union fears if it's being found on worksites where people are
trained to recognize it, the problem is likely to be far more
widespread.

"We don't know how much asbestos would be going out on to domestic
sites where perhaps that training's not being done, used on
driveways, used as under fill for concrete slabs," John Carter
says.

"Unfortunately people trust their tradesman, and the tradesman
honestly think they're doing it right, I've been doing this for
years, this hasn't hurt me, this is not a problem, don't worry
about it."

But Carter says asbestos is continuing to claim new victims.

"The numbers are on the increase, that's changing slightly as to
who's getting it, and now its mothers and children."

He says dust on clothes from small jobs can put everyone at risk.

Safework SA says the regulations are rigorous, but they need to be
followed.

If you have concerns, go to www.cartercorporation.com.au or ring
the free emergency helpline on (0417) 814-330.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charles Lucas & Marshall Wins Payout for Client
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Daily Press reports that a Somerset widow has been
awarded substantial damages after her husband died from exposure
to asbestos almost 50 years ago.

Edward Gommo, from Shepton Mallet, worked as a fitter's mate for a
Bristol engineering company and was sent to work at hospital
building projects across the South West.

Pipework at the hospitals was lagged with asbestos and there would
often be asbestos dust over the floors, said Brigitte Chandler --
brigitte.chandler@clmlaw.co.uk --, the Swindon solicitor from
Charles Lucas & Marshall, a law firm handling compensation claims
for asbestos-related diseases.

Mr. Gommo was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010 and died a few
months later at the age of 69.  A case was brought on behalf of
Mr. Gommo's widow against the insurers of the firm he worked for,
Arthur Skull & Son, and Drake & Skull Engineering, whose head
offices were in White House Lane in Bristol.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Stir-Up in Derwent House Basement Contained
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor Barlow of The Liverpool Echo reports that hospital staff
were told to go to their doctors after asbestos was disturbed in
the basement of a building in Liverpool city centre.

The concerned relative of a worker at Derwent House, in London
Road, where the training and legal departments of the Royal
Liverpool Hospital are based, said the material was disturbed,
causing potential health risks, a few weeks ago.

He said: "After they found it my relative was advised to go and
see her doctor.

"Staff were really upset about it -- people were crying when they
found out.

"When you hear something like that the instant worry is
asbestosis.

"Everyone booked appointments with their GPs and were expecting to
be told to have X-rays to check if there is any damage.

"People are panicking because paperwork is kept in the basement
and if they went down there they might have been in contact with
it.

"Another worry is a lift shaft going from the basement right
through the building so the particles could have dispersed
anywhere."

The building, which is leased by the Royal and is not on the main
hospital complex, is the base for 65 staff but is not used by
patients.

A spokesman for the Royal said they were always aware of the
asbestos in the building but it only became a potential health
risk after it was found to have been disturbed a few weeks ago.

He said the material was damaged in "circumstances out of the
hospital's control."

Access to the basement was shut off as soon as problems were
identified.

He said the air in the lift shaft had been monitored but no traces
of asbestos were found.  Access of the lift to the basement was
shut off so the area was isolated.

He said: "All areas where asbestos was identified were locked off
and made safe.

"A full asbestos management survey was completed and action is
being taken to address the areas identified in the survey by
safely removing the asbestos using a specialist removal company in
line with legislation.

"All staff working in Derwent House were fully informed.

"We would like to assure staff at the hospital and patients and
visitors to the Royal that this poses no risk to them."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Photographer Finds Fibro Emitted By Blow Dryer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Most people are aware of the common places where asbestos has been
found, such as in insulation, drywall, and automotive parts.  But
asbestos has shown up in some lesser-known and somewhat surprising
places too.  As a result, in the past, some people may have
unknowingly exposed themselves to asbestos, which can cause
mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis, while doing chores
around the home or using everyday products.

One place where you may have least expected to find asbestos is in
a handheld hair blow dryer.  Blow dryers were often manufactured
using asbestos, but it took a photographer to discover that the
dryers actually emitted asbestos fibers.

The photographer was drying film negatives with a blow dryer, and
noted small flecks of dust on the negatives, which turned out to
be asbestos.  It was found that exposure to asbestos through use
of a hair dryer was comparable to -- or even higher than--exposure
near construction sites.  As a result, many people grooming
themselves in their own homes may have unintentionally exposed
themselves while using this tool.  A 1979 study noted that while
health risks from occasional use of asbestos-containing hair
dryers were less than risks associated with routine on-the-job
asbestos exposure, the sheer number of consumers using hair dryers
should have been reason enough to stop its use in these products.

Many other familiar household products have also been manufactured
using asbestos over the years -- even products made for children.
Some crayons contained trace amounts of asbestos and a similar
substance known as "transitional" fiber up until 2000.  Studies
showed that the risk posed to children was extremely low, but
crayon manufacturers subsequently agreed to eliminate use of these
materials in crayon production.  Electric blankets, curling irons,
and toasters are just a few more examples of common household
products that have been found to contain asbestos.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued
statements to increase public awareness of asbestos hazards in
various products over the years, as well as issuing some bans on
the use of asbestos in these items.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Town Residents Flee From Contaminated Debris
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that about 70 residents
from a storm-ravaged town on the NSW south coast will be evacuated
because of fears that strewn debris is contaminated by asbestos.

More than 170 homes were damaged, including three which were
destroyed, when a mini-cyclone ripped through the seaside town of
Kiama on Feb. 24.

Gale-force winds uprooted trees and stripped roofs, with fears
much of the debris contains asbestos.

Town mayor Brian Petschler said about 70 people lived in the
asbestos exclusion zone created by debris from the leisure centre
and a house that "blew up" on the edge of town.

They are to be evacuated Feb. 25.

"They will have to stay out of there until the area has been
cleared," he said.

"We're very concerned and we've got major problems with the
leisure centre which is largely built of asbestos materials."

NSW SES Assistant Commissioner Tara McCarthy said the asbestos
hadn't posed a problem while it was wet but there were concerns
the fibers could spread as the debris dried out.

"Obviously we are seeing now the conditions are becoming sunnier
... and we are looking at a number of local evacuations," she told
reporters.

"As soon as they commence the evacuations then we will bring in
teams to do the clean-up."

Ms McCarthy said affected locals would have to keep away from
their homes for two days.

Another seven homes were expected to be deemed uninhabitable.

"When you talk to the volunteers and the locals, everyone is
saying it was an extraordinary event never been seen before," she
said.

NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell saw the storm damage from a helicopter
before declaring a natural disaster zone.

"It's just an extraordinary scene from the air -- the swathe this
storm or event took through this area" he told reporters at
Kiama's SES headquarters.

"Seeing the roof of the fire station missing, seeing mature trees
that look like they have been through a mixmaster, seeing blue
tarpaulins along a defined corridor: this is an event that you
associate with a tornado going through parts of America."

Mr. O'Farrell said a number of homes in Kiama and surrounding
suburbs remained without power.

He said cabinet would discuss ways to "unlock the funds" for
victims of the storm when it meets on the central coast.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Control Plan Ready for Section 5 Project
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Doherty for The Canberra Times (Aus) reports that a plan is
in place to prevent asbestos fibers escaping from a construction
site close to the Australian War Memorial, the new ASIO building
and private homes in Campbell.

Air-monitoring and wetting down of the area is part of a
remediation plan for the site on Constitution Avenue where a
AUD250 million housing and commercial development is planned.

Bonded asbestos will be disturbed and thousands of cubic meters of
contaminated soil removed in an operation expected to last four
months.

The Canberra Times reported in December 2011 that asbestos had
been found at the site, which was an unofficial dump for building
waste in the 1950s.  The Land Development Agency -- which has
marked the block for 520 dwellings and 8000 square meters of
commercial space -- has confirmed that a total of one hectare of
the 6.4-hectare site will have to be remediated due to the dumped
waste.

Land Development Agency chief executive David Dawes said the waste
was due to be removed between April and July, depending on works
approvals.  "The largest amount of contaminated material is in an
old dam site which is believed to have been used as an unofficial
dump by builders and residents during the 1950s," he said.

"The area of the dam is approximately 5000 square meters and about
2.5 meters deep and represents about half of the total area where
contaminated material exists.  The remaining locations where
material has been dumped are scattered around the site and in
total it is expected that there is in the order of 4000 cubic
meters of contaminated soil to be removed."

The site -- known as Section 5, Campbell -- is bordered by Anzac
Park East to the west, Constitution Avenue to the south-west,
Creswell Street to the south-east, Chowne Street to the east and
Page Street to the north.  It runs parallel to Anzac Parade and is
across the road from the new ASIO building.  There will be
disruptions to traffic due to the remediation.  The Land
Development Agency has said Anzac Day ceremonies will not be
affected.

The block is owned by the ACT government but because it is
designated land, any development on it will have to be approved by
the National Capital Authority.  The authority has received an
application for works approval and took submissions on it until
Friday, March 1.

Mr. Dawes said the agency also had to wait to see whether the
development would get the green light from the Commonwealth under
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

The development needs approval under the act as it could impinge
on the habitat of the endangered golden sun moth and because of
its proximity to Anzac Parade and any potential impact on the
Parliament House vista.  A decision on that is due in mid-April.

The development proposal is for 25-meter-high buildings along
Constitution Avenue, with heights of 19 meters, 13 meters and 10
meters along Anzac Park East.  About 3.4 hectares will be left as
open space.

A report on the remediation plan prepared by Douglas Partners for
the Land Development Agency recommends that daily air-monitoring
be undertaken during the remediation works to confirm no asbestos
fibers are leaving the area.

There will also be a mobile water cart on site full-time and "if
[an] unacceptable level of dust is generated, works will be halted
and additional dust suppression techniques will be employed."

"Contaminated soil will be removed to an appropriately licensed
waste facility in accordance with the waste disposal plan approved
by the ACT Environmental Protection Unit," Mr. Dawes said.

Should works approval be given, the Land Development Agency will
go to a public tender process to determine the contractor for the
development.

A start on construction is expected next year.

Campbell residents have raised concerns about increased traffic in
the area, not only from the housing development but the pending
occupation of the new ASIO building in Constitution Avenue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Snubs 237 WorkSafeBC Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Hoekstra of The Vancouver Sun reports that WorkSafeBC
writes hundreds of violations a year against contractors who fail
to protect workers from exposure to cancer-causing asbestos
building materials.

Since the beginning of 2010, WorkSafeBC has issued nearly 2,500
orders -- the majority of them in the Lower Mainland -- against
construction companies that violated regulations designed to
protect workers from exposure to asbestos.

During the three-year period, WorkSafeBC imposed 59 penalties
totaling CAD490,719, according to data provided to The Vancouver
Sun after a freedom-of-information request.

WorkSafeBC has been on a push to ferret out bad actors and created
a special team of officers to inspect job sites in the Lower
Mainland where asbestos was being removed.

While asbestos has largely been cleaned up in institutional and
industrial buildings in British Columbia, the last danger zone is
residential construction -- particularly in the Lower Mainland,
where older homes are being bulldozed to put up condos or bigger,
more expensive houses.

Asbestos remains the single largest occupational killer in B.C.

The two biggest fines -- released publicly on Feb. 25 as part of
WorkSafeBC's annual rollout of its penalty list -- were handed out
to one Vancouver-based repeat offender.

Skylite Building Maintenance was fined CAD105,000 in two separate
cases for putting workers' health at risk from potential exposure
to asbestos, the second-and third-highest WorkSafeBC penalties in
2012.

By last summer, WorkSafeBC had issued 237 written orders dating
back to 2009 against Skylite for violations of the Workers'
Compensation Act of British Columbia and the Occupational Health
and Safety Regulations, court documents show.

In the most extreme cases, the company had also been penalized 19
times for repeatedly exposing people to asbestos fibers or putting
them at risk of exposure to asbestos fibers.

As of a few days ago, the company has made only one small payment
of about CAD1,100 toward the CAD280,000 in fines it has racked up,
according to WorkSafeBC officials.

Skylite Building Maintenance manager Mike Singh denies any
wrongdoing and says he has been singled out by WorkSafeBC and
persecuted because he is Indo-Canadian.

"I do every effort I can, and they keep discriminating against me
because I am brown," Singh told The Vancouver Sun.

Asked about the repeated violations numbering more than 200 and
numerous penalties, Singh insisted he is following the
regulations.

Singh has started a new asbestos removal company, Seattle
Environmental Consulting.  It's registered in his name, while
Skylite is registered in his wife's name.

Seattle Environmental Consulting also continues to violate rules
on the proper inspection and removal of asbestos, including in
January, according to WorkSafeBC inspection records.

Singh also denies any wrongdoing by the new company.

On Friday, Feb. 22, Singh showed The Sun an asbestos removal site
in the 1600-block of West 59th Avenue in Vancouver where he said
his new company is following all WorkSafeBC rules.

Orange tarps covered an entire home where stucco was being
removed.  The setup included two air filter units and a
decontamination area that included a shower.

"We do it like this for every single job," Singh said.

WorkSafeBC had not checked this site but has inspected 400 of the
two companies' 600 projects, said officials.

WorkSafeBC cannot "take away (a company's) right to operate a
business," so it uses a combination of education, orders to stop
violations and monetary penalties.

There are other companies on the repeat offender list in the past
three years: Globe Foundry, Hans Demolition, All Star Excavating
and Demolition, Park City Homes, Mr. Bin Proposal, Arthur Moore
and Effective Contracting.

WorkSafeBC has handed these companies two or more fines of between
CAD2,500 to CAD27,000 in separate incidents.  Other companies
received multiple penalties but on the same date:  Burnaby
Engineering, Speedy Excavating and CSR Environmental.

B.C. Supreme Court documents concerning just one of Singh's
asbestos-removal jobs show his lack of cooperation with WorkSafeBC
authorities.

On May 7, 2011, a machine operator was standing by to knock down a
home in the 1800-block of East 51st Avenue in Vancouver.

WorkSafeBC occupational safety officer Steve Penner was checking
to ensure asbestos had been completely removed by Skylite Building
Maintenance.

When Penner checked the building, he saw two types of floor tiling
still in place that he believed to contain asbestos.  He
questioned Shawn Singh (Mike Singh's son) of Skylite Building
Maintenance, who had signed a clearance letter saying the building
was free of asbestos.

Singh's response: "I glanced around."

Penner shut down the work site and asked the machine operator for
the survey and clearance letter, which he had looked at earlier.

Singh shouted at the operator not to give them to Penner.

Singh then took the documents from the operator and left the site.

Later testing found asbestos throughout the building.

When asked about the incident where his son, Shawn, refused to
hand over the clearance documents, Singh said there were no
documents.  "They assume things," said Singh.

Last year, as a "last resort," WorkSafeBC obtained a B.C. Supreme
Court petition against Skylite, Seattle Environmental and the
Singhs in an effort to get a judge to order the companies and
their principals to not expose people to asbestos.

Now, if the companies expose workers to asbestos, there is a
possibility the Singhs can be slapped with contempt of court
charges, which bring the possibility of jail time.

Another asbestos removal contractor who repeatedly flouted the
rules, Arthur Moore, was handed a 60-day jail sentence on Jan. 24,
2012 after he ignored a B.C. Supreme Court order to stop exposing
young employees to asbestos.

"It's one thing to disobey the board, it's another thing to
disobey the court," said Scott Nielsen, WorkSafeBC's director of
litigation.

WorkSafeBC officials say the continued enforcement against the
successor firm, Seattle Environmental, is part of building a case
to take back to court.

"We anticipate returning to the courts in the coming weeks," said
WorkSafeBC spokeswoman Donna Freeman.

Singh says he will fight any court action.

Asbestos can be found in more than two dozen types of older home
building materials, including drywall filling compound, loose
insulation, flooring, textured walls and ceilings, stucco, and
roof felt and shingles.

There are more than 2,000 home demolitions in Vancouver, Richmond,
Surrey and North Vancouver each year, nearly half of those in
Vancouver alone, according to figures provided by the
municipalities.

"Those people who were exposed (to asbestos) years ago are now
dying.  What we want to do is prevent those workers of today from
any exposure.  And we believe we can eradicate asbestos disease in
the future if we ensure exposures aren't happening today," says Al
Johnson, WorkSafeBC's vice-president of prevention services.

Asbestos is known as the silent killer.

The tiny fibers -- used in materials between the 1950s to 1990s
because they are a good insulator, strong and resistant to
chemical erosion -- cannot be seen, smelled or tasted.  Among the
hundreds of materials asbestos was used in are floor tiles,
drywall taping compound, mechanical insulation and textured
decorative coatings found on ceilings.

Asbestos-related disease -- which can take decades to surface --
is the No. 1 occupational killer in B.C., responsible for the
deaths of 512 workers between 2002 and 2011, according to
WorkSafeBC figures.

University of B.C. professor Karen Bartlett says there is no
question that lung cancer, particularly mesothelioma, and a lung
disease called asbestosis, is elevated in workers who have been
exposed to asbestos during their jobs.

She noted that it can take 10 to 30 years for the diseases to show
up.

"It is cavalier for a construction company not to take this
seriously," said Bartlett, an expert in occupational and
environmental health.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Petrochemical, 8 Others Face Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran of The Southeast Texas Record reports that the wife
and children of a deceased man are suing three major oil
companies, claiming the man's death from lung cancer was caused by
his exposure to asbestos at a local refinery.

Pamela Herbert, Mary Darjean and Ricky Darjean filed a lawsuit
against Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell Oil, Huntsman Petrochemical,
Guard-line, Triplex, Elliott Turbomachinery, Yarway Corporation
and Zurn Industries on Feb. 5 in Jefferson County District Court.

According to the complaint, Louis Darjean developed lung cancer
after his work as a supervisor at the buildings of the defendants.

During his work, Louis Darjean was exposed to asbestos fibers and
dust, which caused his disease and subsequent death, the complaint
says.

Although the defendants knew about the harms of asbestos for
decades, they failed to warn Louis Darjean of the product's danger
and failed to ensure that its employees were not exposed to the
carcinogen, the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs are seeking a judgment in excess of the minimum
jurisdictional limits of Jefferson County District Court and
exemplary or punitive damages, plus interest at the legal rate,
costs and other relief the court deems just.

Samantha Flores and Michael B. Patronella of Williams, Kherkher,
Hart and Boundas in Houston will be representing them.

Case No. 193-896.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Armitage Shanks Worker Receives GBP160,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Express & Star (UK) reports that a pensioner from Great Wyrley
has received a six-figure compensation sum after developing a
fatal asbestos disease linked to his past work.

Eli Richards worked for Rugeley-based bathroom appliance
manufacturers Armitage Shanks for 17 years from 1979.

The 79-year-old worked with asbestos sheeting at a factory in
Bushbury, Wolverhampton.

He was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a form of incurable lung
cancer, in December 2011.  He has now received GBP160,000
compensation.

Unite the union supported his claim, which said the toolmaker was
never warned about the dangers of asbestos or provided with the
correct protective equipment.

Mr. Richards had worked for the firm's brass taps factory since
1979 and it was discovered he had been exposed to asbestos when a
colleague brought to his attention a red warning sticker on
packages of boards they were cutting up.

He has been told his condition is fatal.

Mr. Richards said: "I couldn't believe we had been working with
asbestos for years but had never been provided with protection."
Mr. Richards said:  "I was a very fit and healthy individual until
this.

"I am a lifelong non-smoker and was still swimming and paying
table tennis and enjoying holidays abroad.  I was playing five-a-
side football into my 60s.  Now I have lung cancer of the worst
order -- there is no cure."  After his diagnosis, Mr. Richards
contacted the union and Thompsons Solicitors was called in to
investigate.  Armitage Shanks did not dispute the case.

Mick Stevens, from Unite, said: "The legacy of employers'
disregard for health and safety will have long reaching affects
for our members who develop asbestos related disease as a result
negligence."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kiama Fibro Cleanup Eyed To Wrap Up Soon
---------------------------------------------------------
Alex Arnold of The Sydney Morning Herald reports that evacuated
Kiama residents can expect to be back in their homes within days
rather than weeks, according to Lake Illawarra Police commander
Wayne Starling.

Residents of 20 homes were evacuated due to asbestos contamination
fears.

Superintendent Starling said extensive work had been carried out
in the areas of the affected homes in Minnamurra Street and Swan
Place on Feb. 26 and there was "a lot of positive news" that the
asbestos clean-up would not drag on.

"We understand it is important for the community to get back to
normality, not just for the people of Minnamurra Street and Swan
Place but the broader community as well," Superintendent Starling
said.

Police and the State Emergency Service could not rule out more
homes being evacuated over asbestos fears, but it would be a
matter of assessing homes on "a case-by-case basis."

The number of houses declared uninhabitable remained at three, but
at least 35 homes were "extensively damaged" and the fate of those
homes was now in the hands of insurers, Superintendent Starling
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Castlehill Back To Normal After Fibro False Alarm
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Alexander of The Courier (UK) reports that school dinners
at Castlehill Primary in Cupar have returned to normal, following
an incident on Feb. 22, which led to an asbestos alert.

During a program of installing energy-efficient lighting in the
school, head teacher Carol Opdahl was alerted on Friday morning
(Feb. 22) to a disturbance of a ceiling panel -- known to contain
asbestos fibers -- in the stage/dining area.

As a precautionary measure, the emergency protocol was put into
place and the area was cordoned off.  Air quality testing was
carried out and the results have come back "well within Health and
Safety Executive standards."

Mrs. Opdahl told parents in a letter: "There has been no risk to
pupils or staff as a result of this event taking place."

Children who were due to have school lunches had a school packed
lunch instead.  All lunches were served in classrooms.

Mrs. Opdahl said the children enjoyed their "classroom picnic."
Castlehill Primary has one of the largest school rolls of any
primary in Fife.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlton & United, Amaca Pty Face Meso Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Dowling of The Herald Sun reports that more than 20 former
Carlton and United Breweries workers have contacted a law firm
concerned about their exposure to asbestos in the 1950s and '60s.

Carlton and United Breweries have had at least six asbestos-
related claims lodged against them in the past decade.  All the
claims were settled before trial.

The 20 people contacted Maurice Blackburn in response to an
advertisement for witnesses for a fitter and turner's legal claim
lodged against CUB this month.

Dimitris Couscouris contracted mesothelioma in November 2011 and
doctors have given him just six months to live.  In court papers
Mr. Couscouris, now 78, claims he contracted the disease after
being exposed to asbestos dust while working at the Victoria and
Abbotsford breweries from 1957 to 1964.

The company still uses its Abbotsford brewery, but sold the
Victoria brewery on Swanston St.

James Hardie subsidiary Amaca Pty Ltd has been named as the second
defendant because the company was alleged to have manufactured the
asbestos installed at the CUB factories.  Asbestos was largely
used in brewery insulation and in gaskets during the 1950s and
'60s.

Hundreds of workers were employed at the CUB factories at the
time.

Mr. Couscouris, who now lives in California, will give bedside
evidence in Los Angeles after doctors said he was too ill to
travel.

Maurice Blackburn principal solicitor Andrew Dimsey said his
client's medical bills had spiraled to more than $500,000 and
fighting the disease had become a tremendous financial strain.

"He has not sold his home yet, but is really feeling the pinch
financially," Mr. Dimsey said.

"Our client was exposed to asbestos during the normal course of
his employment at CUB.

"It was known at the time exposure to asbestos was a health risk
and we say his employer failed to take measures to mitigate
against the risk."

Mr. Dimsey said most CUB brewery workers will not contract an
asbestos-related disease.

"It is a grim equation but if the workforce exposed to asbestos is
big enough, there will be some who contract mesothelioma."

The trial is listed to begin on April 10 at the Melbourne Supreme
Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unmanned Truck Rolls Through a Fibro House
-----------------------------------------------------------
Damien Smith of Yahoo!7News reports that a runaway semi-trailer
has rolled down a driveway, across a road, and slammed into the
side of a house in Sydney's north-west.

Nobody was injured, but the crash triggered an asbestos scare, and
fears the house could collapse.

The driver was hitching trailers onto the B-double at the Original
Pretzel Company factory, when the truck started moving.

He jumped out of the way, only to see it demolish the loungeroom
of a fibro house on Sefton Road at Thornleigh.

Resident, Brooke Lane, was supposed to be home at the time.  "She
only works part time so there's quite a few days of the week she's
home and she would have been sitting in the lounge room right when
the truck went through," Brooke's boyfriend Dylan Jones said.

Council engineers were called to work out how to remove the semi,
and there were concerns that the building contains asbestos, and
is structurally unsound.

The truck has been stuck for about several hours, and 7News has
been told it's a delicate operation to remove it.

The whole accident has created a delicate issue amongst the
Thornleigh household.

As police inspected the damage, they stumbled upon a marijuana
plant, leaving officers with more than just a runaway truck to
investigate.

"I told [my flatmate] to get rid of it, so sucked in if you ask
me, nothing to do with me," tenant Darren Hall said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NBN Co Launches Own Investigation on Fibro Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annabel Hepworth of The Australian reports that NBN Co. is
undertaking its own investigation into concerns raised by a West
Australian household with a Liberal MP that asbestos might have
been released during works on the rollout of the AUD37.4 billion
network.

Liberal MP Steve Irons wrote to the chief executive of Syntheo --
one of the National Broadband Network construction partners --
after a household in Victoria Park, in inner-southeastern Perth,
took two photographs they said were of a worker breaking down an
old Telstra pit with a mash hammer while wearing latex gloves and
a protective face mask, while his colleague worked nearby without
a mask.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup of Fibro Fallout at Dale Farm Begins
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that asbestos scattered after a building fire at
a traveller site in Essex is to be cleared up.

Basildon Council contractors will also secure a cesspool at the
Dale Farm site near Basildon in Essex amid concerns it poses a
pollution threat.

The asbestos debris came from roofing sheets on an industrial
building damaged by fire last year.

The council said it planned to recoup costs of the week-long
clean-up operation from Dale Farm residents.

An access track for equipment is being laid to the part of Dale
Farm affected.  The clean-up work is expected to start on
Wednesday, Feb. 27.

The operation follows the eviction of about 80 families who had
been living illegally next to a legally occupied part of Dale Farm
in 2011.

Council leader Tony Ball, said: "The council now has no choice but
to act and do this work now to address the health issues and then
seek to recover the costs from the landowners concerned."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tribunal Awards Mesothelioma Sufferer AUD1.3 MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamelle Wells of ABC News (Aus) reports that a New South Wales man
with an asbestos-related disease (ARD) has been awarded $1.3
million in damages, partly because of his reduced capacity to care
for his grandchildren.

The Dust Diseases Tribunal has awarded the money to Mario Perez,
who worked as a bus depot laborer at Chullora in Sydney's west
from the 1970s until 1990.

The 68-year-old was exposed to asbestos from gaskets in bus
engines and pipes and when a roof was removed in 1987.

The tribunal heard he has mesothelioma that has spread to his
spine, and until his illness spent up to three days a week caring
for his family.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn argued the care he provided for his
grandchildren during his retirement and also for his wife needed
to be taken into account in determining his payout.

Tribunal acting president Judge Jim Curtis found that under the
Civil Liability Act 2002, Mr. Perez should be entitled to damages
in relation to his lost capacity to provide future domestic
services to his family.

Theodora Ahilas, principal in Maurice Blackburn's asbestos law
department, welcomed the tribunal's decision.

"We live in a world where grandparents are often very involved in
caring for grandchildren and we are very pleased this has been
recognized in this judgment," she said.

"Mr. Perez was also the sole carer of his wife, who has suffered
from a debilitating cardiac condition since contracting rheumatic
fever as an adolescent.

"Mr. Perez also cared for his son's infant twins on week days and
his two granddaughters while their mother worked shift work.
"Understandably, Mr. Perez will no longer be capable of providing
these invaluable services to his family as his disease progresses
and his condition deteriorates."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Storm Damaged Fibro Imperil Bellingen Residents
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Online reports that there is mounting concern on the mid north
coast about asbestos risks from storm damaged fibro homes and
businesses.

Winds with gusts of up to 125 km an hour swept through the region
over the weekend.

Many older structures along the north coast are built from fibro-
cement which contains asbestos.

Bellingen resident Donna Lynne Verrall said a house she rents was
badly damaged but she can't get any help to clean-up the dangerous
material.

"We've had a huge tree that's gone through one fibro half of the
house and we have a lot of fibro sitting around outside," she
said.

"Council referred me SES.

"The Firies were here all day Sunday.

"They could hose out every other house.

"We've still mud downstairs because they couldn't hose us out due
to the asbestos, the fibro breakage."

Ms. Verrall said she has not had any help to clear fibro from a
house she rents in the town.  She said four days later sheets of
broken asbestos are sitting on her lawn.

"The fibro is over 20 years old we can't get anyone to touch it,"
she said.

"There's been no one organized to handle it.

"We did have a demolition team arrive who were doing quote.

"Council referred me to SES for them to remove it but they haven't
arrived.

"They're inundated with a lot of other things I presume.

"But we can't clean it because of health risks."


                           *********

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  * * *