CAR_Public/130315.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, March 15, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 53

                             Headlines



ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: ADA Suit Plaintiffs Get Favorable Ruling
AFFYMAX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
AMERICAN TRADES: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Students
ANGIE'S LIST: Continues to Defend "Fritzinger" Suit in Indiana
ANGLO AMERICAN: Gold Miners File Silicosis Class Action

APPLE INC: Likely Violated Discovery Order in Privacy Class Action
ARIZONA: Prisoner Health Care Suit Obtains Class Action Status
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Property Owners to Get Settlement Notice
ATLANTICUS HOLDINGS: "Knox" Suit Remains Pending in NC Court
CALIFORNIA PRODUCTS: Accord in "Boyajian" Suit Gets Initial OK

BABY DOLLS: Forces Dancers to Work Only for Tips, Suit Claims
BAYER HEALTHCARE: N.J. Court Dismisses False Ad Class Action
CALIFORNIA: Riverside County Sued Over Lack of Medical Care
CHINESE DAILY: 9th Cir. Remands Wage Class Action to Dist. Court
CON-WAY INC: To Appeal Rulings in Wage and Hour Class Suits

CORELOGIC INC: Teletrack Continues to Defend FCRA Violations Suit
CORELOGIC INC: Unit Continues to Defend RESPA Violations Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Worker Seeks to Revive Seating Class Action
DIAMOND PET: Recalls Dry Cat Food Formulas Over Vit. B1 Levels
DUFF & PHELPS: Plaintiff Amends "West Palm" Complaint

DUFF & PHELPS: "Rutkowski" Suit Plaintiff Seeks Rushed Discovery
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Settlement in Freudenberg Action Now Final
GREEN HAVEN: Inmate Amended Civil Rights Claims to Represent Class
HOT TOPIC: Being Sold to Sycamore for Too Little, Suit Claims
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Hearing on Dismissal Bid Set for May 16

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Awaits Final Okay of LCD Suit Settlements
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Continues to Defend Cathode-Ray Tube Suits
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Discovery in Optical Disc Drive MDL Ongoing
KOSMOS ENERGY: IPO-Related Securities Suit Remains Pending
LENDER PROCESSING: Signed Deal to Settle "St. Clair" Class Suit

LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal From Award in Molina Suit Still Pending
MONTFORT HOSPITAL: Law Firms to Launch Class Action Over Data Loss
OMNICELL: Faces Class Action Over Exposing Clients to ID Theft
PELLA CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Windows
PITNEY BOWES: California Judge Tosses Privacy Class Action

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sued Over Plan to Fire Older Sales Reps
RANBAXY LABORATORIES: N.J. Court Rejects Lipitor Class Action
SAUER-DANFOSS: Sued by Investor Over $700 Million Danfoss Buyout
SLM CORP: 2nd Circuit Affirmed ERISA Suit Dismissal in December
SLM CORP: 9th Circuit Dismissed Settlement Appeal in Arthur Suit

SMARTHEAT INC: CFO Resigns After Named as Class Suit Defendant
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Plaintiff Appealed Dismissal of "McPeak" Suit
SPI ELECTRICITY: Ex-Treasurers May Be Called to Give Evidence
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over Phone Calls
TRANSUNION HOLDING: Appeal in "White" Suit to Be Heard in March

TRANSUNION HOLDING: Continues to Defend Va. Public Records Suit
TRANSUNION HOLDING: To Ask for Final Distribution Order This Year
URS CORP: Still Awaits Decision in New Orleans Levee Failure Suit
ZYNGA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in California


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Trust Transparency Bill Heard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rapid-American in Ch. 11 to Deal w/ Asbestos Debt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Ct. OKs Summary Judgment in Inmate Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies Crane Co.'s Summary Judgment Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Flips Order Denying Benefits Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Ct. Affirms Ruling in Crane Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nev. Ct. Junks TRO Motion for Improper Context
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Ct. Retains Jurisdiction Over Crane Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Bid to Stay Dismissal of Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Denies CSX Appeal in Widow's Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Ct. Allows Suit v. Crane to Proceed to Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Defends 2,609 Exposure-Related Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $1.03BB Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Continues to Defend Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Had $10 Million Liability at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Remains Exposed to Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Had $27.8MM Net A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Continues to Defend 111 PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Corp. Had 25,000 Active Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Contends $75MM Net Reserve Was Adequate
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Monitoring PC Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Insurance Covers Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Awaits Ruling on NuStar Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation Had $63MM Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Defending Suits Involving 885 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defends Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends Suits by 15K Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Still Defending 7 Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Still Defending Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pilbarans Warned of Fibro Stirred Up by Cyclone
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dump Traced Back to Ex-Shellharbour Mayor
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Awning Fallout in South Grafton Contained
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lenawee Sheriff's Offices Up For Fibro Testing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corporation, 56 Others Face Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Friable Fibro Found in 44 Bassetlaw Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Detected at Canberra Hospital - Non Toxic
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Recommends Background Check On Removalists
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leaving Off Nonfriable Fibro Can Be Safer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbiana Initiates Phase 1 Of Demolition Plan

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beacon House Faces $13,000 Fibro Abatement Cost
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senator Designates First Week of April as NAAW
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Advanced" Option Urged Over Costly Gear Change
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judiciary Committee Hears Testimony Behind HB153
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claritas, Network Rail Ink Fibro Management Deal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling on Libby Lawyers Fee Request Up in 2 Weeks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Meso Lawsuit Filed v. A. Mormile Plumbing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Warns Of Mesothelioma From 'Carried' Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buffalo Pumps, 67 Others Face Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Tests On The TBA Site Confirms Contamination

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H2 Environmental CEO Bags Chino's WoY Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Fibro Found on Deeside Car Park Inspection
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Alert Closes Croydon Magistrates' Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Offers Unique Fibro Management Solutions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feds Move to Revoke Health Violator's Probation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Slam EQC Home Repair/Cleanup Policy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Recommend Focus On Non-Fibro Substitutes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Lived With 'Crumbled' Fibro for Months


                           *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: ADA Suit Plaintiffs Get Favorable Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Wiley Y. Daniel granted a motion for summary
judgment, entry of injunction, and entry of judgment filed by
plaintiffs in COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION v. ABERCROMBIE &
FITCH CO.

The Plaintiffs, a class of individuals who use wheelchairs or
scooters for mobility, challenge the raised porch entrances at
approximately 248 Hollister brand stores operated by Abercrombie &
Fitch Stores LLC.  On August 31, 2011, the Court held that the
raised porch entrances at two stores in Colorado were in violation
of section 4.1.3(8) of the 1991 Department of Justice Standards
for Accessible Design, 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. D (2012), and
therefore of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. Section 12183(a)(1).

Following certification of the class, the Plaintiffs moved to
extend the summary judgment holding to the remainder of the
Hollister stores with Raised Porch Entrances. The Defendants
simultaneously moved for summary judgment and/or to vacate the
Court's August 31, 2011 order on the grounds that they had made
modifications to the remaining open store visited by the
Representative Plaintiffs, and that the stores in question were in
compliance with the 2010 DOJ Standards for Accessible Design.

At hearing held January 24, 2013, Judge Daniel concluded that the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and request for entry of
an injunction will be granted, but the actual injunction will be
issued in a future order of the Court.

The Defendants' motion for summary judgment or, in the
alternative, to vacate the August 31, 2011 Order is denied.

The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer before March 15,
2013, to attempt to craft an injunction/remedy that is mutually
agreeable to both parties.  If the parties can reach agreement on
the contents of a proposed injunction, they must jointly file the
proposed injunction not later than April 19, 2013.  If the parties
are not able to reach agreement, the Plaintiffs must file a
proposed injunction and the Defendants will have 15 days to
respond.

The case is styled COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado
non-profit corporation; ANITA HANSEN; and JULIE FARRAR, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
09-cv-02757-WYD-KMT, (D. Col.).

A copy of the District Court's March 7, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/ha6SXtfrom Leagle.com.


AFFYMAX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Affymax, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action filed in United States District Court, Central
District of California, and docketed under C13-1025 SI, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Affymax between
December 8, 2011 and February 22, 2013, both dates inclusive of.
This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Affymax securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 29, 2013 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address and telephone number.

Affymax is a Palo Alto-based biopharmaceutical company whose
primary drug offering is Omontys (peginesatide) Injection for the
treatment of anemia in chronic kidney disease in adult patients on
dialysis.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business practices and financial results.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that 0.02% of patients who were
administered Omontys experienced fatal anaphylaxis reactions.  As
a result of this false statement, Affymax stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $27.74 per share in intraday trading on October 17, 2012.

On February 23, 2013, Affymax announced that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration was requiring a total recall of the drug due
to reports of anaphylaxis, with the FDA calling it a "serious and
life-threatening" allergic reaction in the agency's statement.
"Serious and fatal" hypersensitivity reactions have been reported
in some patients within 10 minutes of receiving their first doses
of the drug by intravenous injection, the FDA said in its
statement.  On this news, the price of Affymax stock declined by
more than 85%, closing at $2.42 per share, down $14.10 per share
from the prior Friday night's close, on unusually high trading
volume.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  It has offices in New York, Chicago, and San
Diego.


AMERICAN TRADES: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Students
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that American Trades Institute of
Florida, which closed in January, defrauded students of "millions
of dollars," 21 of them claim in a federal RICO class action.


ANGIE'S LIST: Continues to Defend "Fritzinger" Suit in Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit pending in Indiana, according to the Company's
February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

A lawsuit seeking class action status, Fritzinger v. Angie's List,
was filed against the Company on August 14, 2012, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  The lawsuit
alleges claims for breach of contract, deception and unjust
enrichment, and requests certification of a class consisting of
all current and former Angie's List members whose membership was
renewed between August 14, 2006, and the present.  The plaintiff
is seeking unspecified compensatory damages and an award of treble
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company believes this
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously
in this matter.

Indianapolis, Indiana-based Angie's List, Inc., --
http://www.angieslist.com/-- operates a consumer-driven service
for members to research, hire, rate and review local professionals
for critical needs, such as home, health care and automotive
services.  The Company's ratings and reviews, which are available
only to its members, help the members find the best provider for
their local service needs.


ANGLO AMERICAN: Gold Miners File Silicosis Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ed Cropley, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers representing
gold miners suffering from the deadly lung disease silicosis said
on March 7 they had filed a class action lawsuit against the South
African arm of global mining giant Anglo American.  The filing by
the legal groups from South Africa and Britain is the latest in
several class action suits raised against South Africa's once
mighty gold mining industry.


APPLE INC: Likely Violated Discovery Order in Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that Apple is in hot water over its
handling of discovery in a user privacy class action.  A U.S.
magistrate judge has concluded that Apple likely violated a
discovery order in the case by failing to produce key documents,
including e-mails from deceased CEO Steve Jobs.  The federal judge
overseeing the case has concurred with the magistrate judge's
findings and denied Apple's motion for summary judgment.


ARIZONA: Prisoner Health Care Suit Obtains Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cecilia Chan, writing for The Arizona Republic, reports that a U.S
District judge on March 6 granted class-action status to a lawsuit
accusing the Arizona Department of Corrections of providing
inadequate health care for prisoners.

The judge's action means the suit filed last year on behalf of 14
inmates is now expanded to cover all current and future prisoners
housed in the state system, said Dan Pochoda, legal director for
the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

"It's a very important win . . .," Mr. Pochoda said.  "Obviously
this will have a greater impact on the state.  The ruling is
something that would cause the state to take notice, as it should
have years ago, because of the harm that was caused and, clearly,
the unnecessary deaths."

About 33,000 inmates are incarcerated by DOC in 10 complexes
statewide, according to court documents.

"The ruling is not a decision on the merits of the claims," said
DOC spokesman Bill Lamoreaux.  "The department is consulting with
the Attorney General's Office, outside counsel and the health-care
contractor on moving forward in this process."

The lawsuit accuses DOC of unconstitutionally denying adequate
medical, dental and mental-health care to inmates in state
prisons, and of routinely keeping mentally ill inmates in solitary
confinement under brutal conditions.

It was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix by a coalition of
human-rights groups, including ACLU, and lists shocking
allegations of prisoners suffering serious, preventable injuries,
disfigurements and death.  The suit seeks to force the state to
improve prison health care.

Examples cited in the lawsuit include an inmate whose pleas for
help were ignored for two years while cancer swelled his liver to
four times its normal size and killed him, and a 4-months pregnant
woman who was told her problems were "all in your head" and was
left alone in a cell while she miscarried.

Other examples cited include inmate suicides that poorly trained
staff failed to prevent, and many instances of prisoners waiting
months or years for treatment of fractured bones, broken teeth and
other medical issues.

An Arizona Republic series last year also highlighted medical and
mental-health care shortcomings adversely affecting inmates in
Arizona's prisons.

District Judge Neil Wake in his ruling on March 6 found evidence
that problems identified in the health care provided by the
department "are not merely isolated instances but, rather,
examples of systemic deficiencies that expose all inmates to a
substantial risk of serious harm."

Judge Wake added, "The remedy in this case would not lie in
providing specific care to specific inmates.  Rather, the level of
care and resources would be raised for all inmates."

Judge Wake pointed out that his finding was not an opinion that
the prisoners would succeed in their suit against the department.


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Property Owners to Get Settlement Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Trout, writing for Reno Gazette-Journal, reports that after
a federal judge's order from a preliminary approval hearing on
Feb. 25, residents and former residents of the area north of the
Anaconda/Yerington mine can decide if they want to participate in
a settlement offer of a class-action lawsuit filed against
Atlantic Richfield.

Mason Valley News include a legal notice for the current and
recent residents near the copper mine at Weed Heights regarding
the class-action settlement offer.  Property owners within an area
established north and northwest of the mine site will be receiving
mailed notices with details of the settlement offer, reported Bill
Duffy of the law firm Davis, Graham & Stubbs, LLP, which is
representing the defendant in the class action lawsuit -- known as
Roeder, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.  Those
notices were to be mailed Wednesday (March 6) with additional
information on the settlement offer.

A special Web site for the settlement offer will have information
for residents -- http://www.roederclassettlement.com-- and a
toll-free telephone line has also been established (1-877-773-
8199).  Those who didn't receive the detailed notice in the mail
and feel they should have may call that number.

An office will also be opening in Weed Heights later this month in
relation to the lawsuit's settlement offer, and residents can go
to that office to ask questions and receive more information from
a claims administrator, starting around March 18-19.

Those who can participate in the lawsuit, which sought property
damages and medical monitoring, are those who owned property in
the designated area between Feb. 14, 2011, when the lawsuit was
filed in federal district court, and June 10, 2013 (with
exceptions).

In addition, people who lived in that area may also participate in
the medical monitoring settlement portion of the lawsuit.

The settlement proposal includes an offer for the defendants to
pay the City's costs for design and construction to extend the
City water system within certain areas of the settlement class
area, if enough property owners accept the offer.  Defendants
would also fund all piping, meter placement and connections to the
City system, plus a trust fund would be set up to pre-pay fees for
up to 35 additional connections for new residences on undeveloped
lots.

Those in the property damage settlement class may also be eligible
to receive certain payments, which are based on the size of their
property, proximity to the mine (more if in Tier 1), and whether
the lot has been developed and has a well, with a certain payment
per well, Mr. Duffy said.  Final payments will depend on how many
wells and properties are involved.

Members of the medical monitoring settlement class, which could
include residents, adults and children of that area during the
time period who weren't property owners, may be eligible to
receive up to $1,000 as settlement of medical monitoring claims.

Defendants would also pay up to $2.6 million for attorney fees and
litigation costs to counsel involved in the class action.

There are certain steps to take to request settlement benefits, as
outlined in the notice, with a deadline of May 3.

Mr. Duffy said after that May 3 deadline, the judge would make a
decision on the settlement offer mainly based on the number of
people who elect to participate.

The U.S. District Court in Reno is scheduled to conduct another
hearing on June 10 at 9:00 a.m. on whether to approve the
settlement and attorney fees.  The notice says the hearing could
be moved, so those planning to attend should go to the Web site to
check.


ATLANTICUS HOLDINGS: "Knox" Suit Remains Pending in NC Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Knox, et al., vs. First Southern
Cash Advance, et al., remains pending, according to Atlanticus
Holdings Corporation's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are defendants in a
purported class action lawsuit entitled Knox, et al., vs. First
Southern Cash Advance, et al., No. 5 CV 0445, filed in the
Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, on
February 8, 2005.  The plaintiffs allege that in conducting a
so-called "payday lending" business, certain subsidiaries within
the Company's Retail Micro-Loans segment (the operations of which
were sold in October 2011, subject to the Company's retention of
liability for this litigation) violated various laws governing
consumer finance, lending, check cashing, trade practices and loan
brokering.  The plaintiffs further allege that certain
subsidiaries were the alter ego of the Company's former Retail
Micro Loans segment subsidiaries and are liable for their actions.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages of up to $75,000 per class
member, and attorney's fees.  These claims are similar to those
that have been asserted against several other market participants
in transactions involving small-balance, short-term loans made to
consumers in North Carolina.

On January 23, 2012, among other orders, the trial court denied
the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, and granted the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Company says it
is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

Atlanticus Holdings Corporation -- http://www.Atlanticus.com-- a
Georgia Corporation headquartered in Atlanta, provides financial
services.  Through its subsidiaries, the Company offers financial
products and services to a market represented by credit risks that
regulators classify as "sub-prime."  On November 30, 2012, the
Company changed its name from CompuCredit Holdings Corporation to
Atlanticus Holdings Corporation.


CALIFORNIA PRODUCTS: Accord in "Boyajian" Suit Gets Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rya W. Zobel issued an order granting preliminary
approval of a class action settlement in the lawsuit captioned
RONALD S. BOYAJIAN, FRANK LEONE and DAVID L. THOMPSON,
Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA PRODUCTS CORPORATION, JOSEPH D.
DEANGELIS, JOSEPH S. JUNKIN, DAVID G. LOHR, and DOES 1 through 20,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 10-CV-11849-RWZ, (D. Mass.)

The Court preliminarily certified for settlement purposes the
class defined as: "All Persons who were Participants in the
[California Products Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan] at
anytime between January 1, 1988 and December 31, 2005."

The Court preliminarily appoints Ronald S. Boyajian, Frank Leone,
and David L. Thompson as class representatives for the Settlement
Class and appoints The McCormack Firm as Class Counsel.

The Court approves the Class Notice, appoints Rust Consulting as
the Claims Administrator, and approves the Notice Plan.

The Class Counsel must file their Final Approval pleadings by
May 13, 2013.

A hearing is scheduled for July 9, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. before the
Court, in Courtroom 12 at the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse,
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
One Courthouse Way, 5th Floor, in Boston, Massachusetts to
determine, among other things, whether the Settlement should be
finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Any member of the Settlement Class who wishes to object to the
fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement, to the
Plan of Allocation, to any term of the Settlement Agreement,
and/or to the proposed Fee Award and Expense Award, may file an
objection and must have the objection postmarked no later than
June 3, 2013, and must serve the objection so that it is received
by these parties no later than June 7, 2013:

To the Court:

              Clerk of the Court
              United States District Court
              for the District Court of Massachusetts
              John Joseph Moakley Courthouse
              One Courthouse Way
              Boston, MA 02210

To Class Counsel:

              Stephen D. Rosenberg, Esq.
              THE MCCORMACK FIRM LLC
              One International Place, 7th Floor
              Boston, MA 02110

To Defendants' Counsel:

              Howard Shapiro, Esq.
              PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
              650 Poydras Street, Suite 1800
              New Orleans, LA 70130

                   - and -

              Richard J. Rabin, Esquire
              AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
              One Bryant Park
              New York, NY 10036

Class Counsel must respond to any objections no later than
June 21, 2013.

Class Counsel are directed to file an application for a Fee Award
and Expense Award no later than July 2, 2013.

A copy of the District Court's March 5, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/Xagg9Xfrom Leagle.com.


BABY DOLLS: Forces Dancers to Work Only for Tips, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that dancers claim the owners of
Baby Dolls Topless Saloons illegally force them to work for tips
alone, and managers take a cut, in a federal class action.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: N.J. Court Dismisses False Ad Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John E. Villafranco, Esq. -- jvillafranco@kelleydrye.com -- Daniel
S. Blynn, Esq. -- dblynn@kelleydrye.com -- and Katherine E. Riley,
Esq. -- kriley@kelleydrye.com -- at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
report that last month, in Gaul v. Bayer Healthcare LLC,[1] the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a
class action lawsuit predicated on a National Advertising Division
decision that found that substantiation for Bayer Healthcare's
labeling claims was unreliable.  The District Court relied heavily
on a 2010 Third Circuit decision -- Franulovic v. Coca Cola
Co.,[2]-- which held that allegations that a defendant lacks
substantiation are insufficient to satisfy the "falsity" element
of a New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA") claim.

Nothing prevents a private litigant from filing a lawsuit against
an advertiser or manufacturer after a federal regulatory agency,
such as the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), or a self-regulatory
agency, such as the NAD, takes action against the same company. In
fact, in recent years, these types of "piggyback" class actions
have been filed in increasing numbers.  Many recent false
advertising class action complaints have come on the heels of,
rely heavily on, and, in some cases, are virtually verbatim to FTC
complaints and NAD decisions.

The Gaul decision, however, is the latest in a series of decisions
over the past three years, in which federal courts have dismissed
class actions brought under state consumer protection and false
advertising laws premised on the theory that a claim is false
simply because the defendant has not offered adequate
substantiation.  While these decisions are no doubt a welcome
relief to advertisers, it remains to be seen whether they will
slow down the pace of follow-on class action filings or merely
signal to the plaintiffs' bar that something more than an FTC
complaint or NAD case decision will be needed to overcome a motion
to dismiss.

   Gaul v. Bayer Healthcare LLC and Franulovic v. Coca-Cola Co.

In Gaul, the plaintiffs alleged that the advertising for Bayer's
calcium supplement product, "Citrical Slow Release 1200", was
false in violation of the NJCFA, and based their allegation solely
on a June 29, 2012 NAD decision in an advertising challenge
brought by Pfizer.  Pfizer had challenged the express and implied
claims that consumers absorb the equivalent amount of calcium from
a single dose of Citrical SR (1200 mg) as from two daily doses
(600 mg) of competing calcium supplements.  The NAD decision held
that the sole study offered to support Citrical SR's claims --
concluding that a single dose of Citrical SR was equivalent to
competing supplements that require two doses -- was unreliable,
and recommended, therefore, that Bayer discontinue the labeling
claims at issue.

The Gaul court held that the plaintiff's claim that the NAD
decision supported a finding of falsity was infirm and dismissed
the complaint.  The court based its dismissal primarily on the
Third Circuit's decision in Franulovic, which distinguished false
advertising from inadequate substantiation.

More specifically, in Franulovic, the plaintiff asserted an NJCFA
claim against Coca Cola on behalf of a class of consumers,
alleging that the company engaged in fraudulent and deceptive
marketing of its "Enviga" green tea soft drink.  Specifically, the
plaintiff challenged the veracity of Coca Cola's advertisements,
which stated that drinking three cans of Enviga daily would lead
to weight loss.  The District of New Jersey granted Coca Cola's
motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion for
leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which, among other
things, asserted that Coca Cola advertised Enviga as a calorie-
burning drink without prior substantiation.  Specifically, the
proposed fourth amended complaint alleged that "Coke made [the
challenged weight loss claims] without adequate prior
substantiation," and that the "weight-loss representations for the
product (whether express or implied) cannot be substantiated
because the small number of studies that exist are conflicting and
inadequate to substantiate the representations."

Coca Cola argued that the plaintiff bears the burden under the
NJCFA to affirmatively prove that the challenged representation is
false; the plaintiff cannot shift the burden to the defendant to
prove that the claim, in fact, is true and substantiated.  The
District of New Jersey held that the proposed amendment to include
a claim that Coca Cola did not have substantiation to support the
challenged weight loss claims would be futile because "the [NJCFA]
does not recognize this theory of liability."  The Third Circuit
affirmed, holding that "[n]o New Jersey or Third Circuit decision
has applied the prior substantiation theory to the [NJCFA], and
we, therefore, decline to do so here."

In its decision, the Gaul court applied Franulovic and held that
the plaintiffs had failed to allege facts supporting the argument
that Bayer's representations were false or misleading, determining
"[t]hat a research study may be unreliable does not mean that is
conclusions are necessarily incorrect . . . . It is a very big
leap from [the] assertion [of unreliability] to the conclusion
that Bayer's labeling claims are false -- too great a leap for the
Complaint to pass muster."

          Scheuerman v. Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc.

In another recent New Jersey decision, Scheuerman v. Nestle
Healthcare Nutrition, Inc.,[3] the District of New Jersey granted
Nestle Healthcare Nutrition's motion for summary judgment in a
false advertising class action alleging that Nestle lacked
substantiation for express and implied claims made in conjunction
with its "BOOST Kid Essentials" probiotic drink product ("BKE").
The plaintiffs alleged violations of, among other things, the
NJCFA and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and False Advertising Law ("FAL"),
as well as common law negligent misrepresentation.

The Scheuerman plaintiffs argued that Nestle made express and
implied claims that BKE, a nutritionally complete drink supplement
for children, provided a number of health benefits, including,
among other things, immunity protection; a strengthened immune
system; reduced absences from daycare or school due to illness;
reduced duration of diarrhea; and protection against cold and flu
viruses.  They also claimed that Nestle advertised that those
challenged health benefits were "clinically shown."

The plaintiffs based their allegations on Nestle's July 2010
settlement with the FTC, which resolved allegations that Nestle's
clinical studies provided insufficient support for the claimed
health benefits of BKE. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that
the FTC complaint concluded that Nestle's representations "were,
and are, false and misleading."  The court agreed with Nestle that
the plaintiffs' assertions were disingenuous because "the FTC does
not come to any actual conclusions in a complaint."

With respect to the merits, the court held that the plaintiffs
could not prevail on their NJCFA, UCL, FAL, or CLRA claims on
their theory of liability -- that Nestle lacked substantiation for
the challenged advertising claims at the time the claims were made
(sometimes referred to as the "prior substantiation doctrine").
Rather, the plaintiffs were required to come forward with evidence
actually demonstrating that the challenged advertising claims were
affirmatively false, not merely that the claims were not supported
by competent and reliable scientific evidence. The Gaul decision
is consistent.

Scheuerman is an important decision with respect to "clinically
proven" or "clinically shown" advertising claims, as the court's
holding and detailed analysis sweeps those claims within the prior
substantiation doctrine.  The court found that substantiation, in
fact, does exist for Nestle's BKE health benefit claims and, at
best, plaintiffs' arguments went to the quantum of that
substantiation rather than its existence, which simply was not
enough for a finding of false, deceptive, or misleading
advertising.

The court also found that, because there was no evidence of
falsity or deception, or that any consumers were misled by the
challenged advertising statements, the plaintiffs' negligent
misrepresentation claim failed.

                      California Litigation

Several decisions from California federal courts have detailed the
interplay between the prior substantiation doctrine and false
advertising actions brought under state law and reached the same
conclusion as the Gaul court.[4] For example, in Fraker v. Bayer
Corp.,[5] a 2009 class action brought under California's CLRA,
UCL, and FAL, the Eastern District of California dismissed the
plaintiff's allegations that Bayer lacked substantiation for its
"One-A-Day WeightSmart" vitamin supplement advertising claims,
holding that the failure to possess a reasonable basis consisting
of prior substantiation is not in and of itself a cognizable claim
under California law.

The plaintiff filed her class action complaint against Bayer a
little less than two years after the FTC concurrently filed and
settled a lawsuit against Bayer alleging violations of the FTC
Act.  The FTC settlement, which was memorialized in a consent
decree, prohibited Bayer from advertising unsubstantiated claims
regarding One-A-Day WeightSmart's ability to enhance metabolism or
promote weight loss.  The class action challenged advertising
disseminated after the FTC consent decree, stating that the
product increased metabolism and helped prevent weight gain
associated with age-related metabolism decline, and alleged that
those claims violated the consent decree because they were not
substantiated by reliable scientific evidence and, consequently,
violated the CLRA, UCL, and FAL. Bayer moved to dismiss, and the
court granted the motion, calling the plaintiff's complaint an
"attempt to shoehorn an allegation of the [FTC Act] . . . into a
private cause of action" and recognizing the that the FTC, not
private plaintiffs, retains exclusive jurisdiction over ensuring
that advertising claims are substantiated.  Additionally, the
court explained that a private plaintiff cannot avoid her
obligations to plead and prove that an advertisement is false or
misleading by styling the claim as one of unsubstantiated
advertising.

These cases all demonstrate that plaintiffs must affirmatively
prove, or at least allege (to get beyond the dismissal stage),
falsity, and that alleging a lack of substantiation alone is not
sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under New Jersey or
California consumer protection and false advertising laws.
Further, as Scheuerman demonstrates, plaintiffs must do more than
pick apart an advertiser's scientific proof; rather, they must
affirmatively show that a product's touted benefits are not
provided in order to prevail.


CALIFORNIA: Riverside County Sued Over Lack of Medical Care
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Riverside County, Calif.
subjects its prisoners to unconstitutionally abusive lack of
medical care, a class action claims in Federal Court.


CHINESE DAILY: 9th Cir. Remands Wage Class Action to Dist. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlyn Kolker, writing for Reuters, reports that a recent decision
from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals undoing the class action
certification of a wage dispute at a Chinese-language newspaper
signals how Dukes v. Wal-Mart is calling into question a host of
employment class action cases.

The opinion is "a very defense-minded ruling," Gerald Maatman, an
attorney at Seyfarth Shaw who defends companies in employment
litigation, told Reuters.

"The 9th Circuit is known as probably the most employee-friendly
circuit in the United States and here is an instance where the 9th
Circuit is overturning a liability award and a class
certification," said Mr. Maatman.  "It demonstrates the power of
Dukes."

Courts have been "reluctant" to apply the Wal-Mart decision to
wage-and-hour cases, he said, and this decision signals a new
embrace of it.

The case was brought in March 2004 by current and former employees
of the Chinese Daily News, claiming that the Los Angeles-based
news organization failed to pay them for overtime and to fairly
compensate them for meal and rest breaks.

The plaintiffs were certified as a class action of about 200
employees and the plaintiffs won more than $2.5 million in damages
at trial in 2006.  Chinese Daily News appealed to the 9th Circuit,
which affirmed the decision in September 2010.  But after the
Supreme Court's decision in the Wal-Mart case in June 2011, which
curtailed plaintiffs' ability to sue as a group, Chinese Daily
News appealed to the high court.  The Supreme Court vacated the
9th Circuit's decision and remanded it to the appeals court.

On March 4, the same three-judge panel that initially affirmed the
class-action certification instead remanded it back to the
district court to reconsider the question of class certification.
The appellate panel, citing the Wal-Mart decision, vacated U.S.
District Judge Consuelo Marshall's certification of the class
under Rule 23(a)(2).  That rule is the linchpin of many class
action certifications, and in the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court
raised the bar for plaintiffs to use it.

                        Monetary Damages

In addition, the 9th Circuit vacated the portion of the district
court's certification of the class regarding meal and rest breaks.
Since the trial court ruling, the California Supreme Court decided
in Brinker Restaurant Corp v. Superior Court that employers don't
have to ensure workers take their breaks.

"I'm delighted with the result," said Michael Berger of Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips in Los Angeles, who represents Chinese Daily
News.

As the case goes back to the district court, says Mr. Berger,
there are "major issues that need to be dealt with."

In addition to the certification and meal break issues, the trial
court must address how it calculates monetary damages, if it gets
to that stage, said Mr. Berger.  In its opinion, the 9th Circuit
noted that the Supreme Court warned against the process of using a
sample set of class members to determine damages and then applying
it to the whole class.

"I think overall, the biggest impact is that plaintiffs need to be
more open to the concept of bifurcating the damages phase from the
liability phase, and being more creative in proposals to assess
damages on a classwide basis," said Brendan Donelon, an attorney
in Kansas City, Missouri, who represents plaintiffs in wage-and-
hour cases around the country.

Della Barnett, an attorney with the Impact Fund who represents the
employees, and Randy Renick -- rrr@hadsellstormer.com -- of law
firm Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick did not return calls for
comment.

The case is Wang v. Chinese Daily News, U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, No. 08-55483.

For the plaintiffs: Della Barnett of the Impact Fund and Cordelia
Dai and Randy Renick of Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick.

For Chinese Daily News: Michael Berger, Benjamin Shatz --
bshatz@manatt.com -- Yi-Chin Ho and Andrew Satenberg --
asatenberg@manatt.com -- of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.


CON-WAY INC: To Appeal Rulings in Wage and Hour Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Con-way Inc. said in its February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012, that it plans to appeal the class certification
and summary judgment rulings in wage and hour class action
lawsuits.

Con-way is a defendant in several class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the state of California's wage and hour laws.
Plaintiffs allege that Con-way failed to pay certain drivers for
all compensable time and that certain other drivers were not
provided with required meal breaks and rest breaks.  Plaintiffs
seek to recover unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest
and attorneys' fees.

The two primary cases are Jorge R. Quezada v. Con-way Inc., dba
Con-way Freight, (the "Quezada" case), and Jose Alberto Fonseca
Pina, et al, v. Con-way Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina" case).
The Quezada case was initially filed in February 2009 in San Mateo
County Superior Court, and was removed to the U.S. District Court
of California, Northern District.  The Pina case was initially
filed in November 2009 in Monterey County Superior Court and was
removed to the U.S. District Court of California, Northern
District.  By agreement of the parties, in March 2010, the Pina
case and the Quezada case were deemed related and transferred to
the same judge.  On April 12, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff's
request for class certification in the Pina case as to a limited
number of issues.  On October 15, 2012, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' request for class certification in the Quezada case
and granted summary judgment as to certain issues.

Con-way has denied any liability with respect to these claims and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this case.  Con-way plans
to appeal the class certification and summary judgment rulings.
Given the nature and status of the claims, Con-way cannot yet
determine the amount or a reasonable range of potential loss, if
any.

Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Con-way Inc. --
http://www.con-way.com/-- and its consolidated subsidiaries
provide transportation, logistics and supply-chain management
services for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial and retail
customers.  Con-way's business units operate in regional and
transcontinental less-than-truckload and full-truckload freight
transportation, contract logistics and supply-chain management,
multimodal freight brokerage, and trailer manufacturing.


CORELOGIC INC: Teletrack Continues to Defend FCRA Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
according to the Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On June 30, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the Company's subsidiary Teletrack, Inc. ("Teletrack").
The complaint alleges that Teletrack has been furnishing consumer
reports to third parties who did not have a permissible purpose to
obtain them in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq., and seeks to recover actual, punitive
and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs of lawsuit.  On September 20, 2011, Teletrack
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the
plaintiffs lacked standing.  That motion was denied on March 7,
2012.  Teletrack has denied the allegations and is defending
against this claim vigorously; however, it may not be successful.
At this time, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of
this claim or the potential range of damages, if any.

Based in Irvine, California, CoreLogic, Inc. --
http://www.corelogic.com/-- is a property information, analytics
and services provider in the United States of America and
Australia.  The Company was originally incorporated in California
in 1894, and was reincorporated in Delaware on June 1, 2010.
Before June 1, 2010, the Company operated as The First American
Corporation.  Through a separation transaction, the Company spun
off its financial services businesses on June 1, 2010, changed its
name to CoreLogic, Inc.


CORELOGIC INC: Unit Continues to Defend RESPA Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A CoreLogic, Inc. subsidiary continues to defend a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, according to the Company's February 25, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, against Washington Mutual Bank
("WaMu") and eAppraiseIT, LLC ("eAppraiseIT") alleging breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the California Unfair
Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The complaint alleged a conspiracy between WaMu and eAppraiseIT to
allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially inflate appraisals
in order to qualify higher value loans that WaMu could then sell
in the secondary market.  Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily
dismissed WaMu on March 9, 2009.  On August 30, 2009, the court
dismissed all claims against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim.

On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for
class certification.  On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification.  On April 25, 2012, the
court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a
nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006,
received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that
were obtained through eAppraiseIT.  On July 12, 2012, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class
certification order.

CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC ("CVS"), as successor to
eAppraiseIT, intends to defend against this claim vigorously;
however, it may not be successful.  At this time the Company
cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential
range of damages, if any.

Based in Irvine, California, CoreLogic, Inc. --
http://www.corelogic.com/-- is a property information, analytics
and services provider in the United States of America and
Australia.  The Company was originally incorporated in California
in 1894, and was reincorporated in Delaware on June 1, 2010.
Before June 1, 2010, the Company operated as The First American
Corporation.  Through a separation transaction, the Company spun
off its financial services businesses on June 1, 2010, changed its
name to CoreLogic, Inc.


CVS PHARMACY: Worker Seeks to Revive Seating Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Taube, writing for Law360, reports that a former CVS
Pharmacy Inc. retail clerk urged the Ninth Circuit on March 4 to
reinstate her proposed seating rights class action, arguing that a
handful of responsibilities that require employees to stand should
not preclude them from being offered a seat while performing other
tasks.  Nykeya Kilby told the appellate court that a California
federal judge misinterpreted a state law requiring employers to
provide seating to certain workers by ruling that Ms. Kilby's "job
as a whole" required her to stand.


DIAMOND PET: Recalls Dry Cat Food Formulas Over Vit. B1 Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Pet Foods is voluntarily recalling limited production
codes of Premium Edge Finicky Adult Cat Formula dry cat food,
Premium Edge Senior Cat Hairball Management Formula dry cat food,
Premium Edge Kitten Formula dry cat food, Diamond Naturals Kitten
Formula dry cat food and 4health All Life Stages Cat Formula dry
cat food.  Tests conducted by the Company indicated the products
might have a low level of thiamine (Vitamin B1).  There have been
no complaints regarding thiamine levels, or any other health
issues, related to these products.  In association with this
voluntary recall, Diamond Pet Foods has tested all other Diamond
brands for thiamine deficiency to ensure the safety of the cat
food it manufactures.  No other product manufactured by Diamond
Pet Foods is involved in this voluntary recall.

Only product with the following Best By dates and Production Codes
are included in the voluntary recall.  Further distribution of
these affected production codes has occurred through online sales.
It is best to check the production code to determine if the
product has been recalled or not.

                                      Production
Product                   Size          Codes     Best By
-------                   ----          -----     -------
Premium Edge Finicky      18-lb. bags   NGF0703   10-Jul-2013
Adult Cat Formula

States: Massachusetts

Premium Edge Finicky      6-lb. bags    NGF0802   15-Aug-2013,
Adult Cat Formula                                 16-Aug-2013

States: Florida, Massachusetts, New York,
         North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
         South Carolina, Virginia

Premium Edge Senior Cat   6-lb. and     NGS0101   03-Jan-2014,
Hairball Mgmt. Formula    18-lb. bags             04-Jan-2014

States: Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota,
         Missouri, Oklahoma

Premium Edge Senior Cat   6-lb. and     NGS0702   10-Jul-2013
Hairball Mgmt. Formula    18-lb. bags

States: Florida, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
         Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia

Premium Edge Kitten       6-oz. samples MKT0901   26-Sept-2013
Formula                   6-lb. and               29-Sept-2013
                           18-lb. bags             30-Sept-2013
                                                   02-Oct-2013
States: Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan,
         New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
         Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia

Diamond Naturals Kitten   6-oz. samples MKT0901   30-Sept-2013
Formula                   & 6-lb. bags

States: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
         Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio,
         Pennsylvania, South Carolina

4health All Life Stages   5-lb. and     NGF0802   14-Aug-2013,
Cat Formula               18-lb. bags             18-Aug-2013

States: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware,
         Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland,
         Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
         New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
         Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont,
         Virginia, West Virginia

"At Diamond Pet Foods, we have a process where we continuously
test our products, and this process allowed us to find the
undesired levels of thiamine in some of our cat formulas.  Our
food safety protocols are designed to provide safe food on a daily
basis," says Michele Evans, Ph.D., Diamond Pet Foods Executive
Director of Food Safety and Quality Assurance.  "In the event an
error occurs, we have the data to quickly alert pet owners, giving
them the confidence they demand of a pet food manufacturer."

Pet owners who are unsure if the product they purchased is
included in the recall, or who would like replacement product or a
refund, may contact the Pet Food Information Center at
1?888?965?6131, Sunday through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. - 6 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.  Consumers also may visit Web site -
http://www.petfoodinformationcenter.com/for additional
information.

Cats fed product with the previously listed Production Codes and
Best By dates exclusively for several weeks may be at risk for
developing a thiamine deficiency.  Thiamine is essential for cats
in maintaining normal nervous system function.  Symptoms of
thiamine deficiency displayed by an affected cat can be
gastrointestinal or neurological in nature.  Early signs of
thiamine deficiency may include decreased appetite, salivation,
vomiting and weight loss.  In advanced cases, neurological signs
can develop, which may include ventriflexion (bending towards the
floor) of the neck, wobbly walking, falling, circling and
seizures.  Pet owners should contact their veterinarians
immediately if a cat is displaying any of these signs.  If treated
promptly, thiamine deficiency typically is reversible.


DUFF & PHELPS: Plaintiff Amends "West Palm" Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund filed in February 2013 an
amended complaint in its merger-related lawsuit against Duff &
Phelps Corporation, according to the Company's February 25, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 30, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Duff & Phelps
Acquisitions, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("D&P
Acquisitions"), Dakota Holding Corporation ("Parent"), Dakota
Acquisition I, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger
Sub I"), and Dakota Acquisition II, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Merger Sub I ("Merger Sub II"), pursuant to which Merger Sub II
will merge with and into D&P Acquisitions with D&P Acquisitions
surviving, and immediately thereafter Merger Sub I will merge with
and into the Company (the "Merger") with the Company surviving as
a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.  Parent is owned by funds
advised by Carlyle Investment Management, L.L.C. (d/b/a The
Carlyle Group), Stone Point Capital LLC, Pictet & Cie, and The
Edmond de Rothschild Group.

On January 17, 2013, a putative class action captioned West Palm
Beach Police Pension Fund v. Duff & Phelps Corporation et al.,
Civil Action No. 8231-VCN, was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.  The complaint alleges that the Company's board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by
failing to take steps to maximize the value of the Company for its
public shareholders and instead diverting consideration to
themselves.  The complaint further alleges that Carlyle Investment
Management, L.L.C. (d/b/a The Carlyle Group), Stone Point Capital
LLC, Pictet & Cie, The Edmond de Rothschild Group, D&P
Acquisitions, Parent, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties by the members of the
Company's board of directors.  The complaint seeks injunctive
relief, or rescission (in the event the proposed transaction has
already been consummated) and rescissory or other compensatory
damages, as well as costs and disbursements, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees.  On February 21, 2013, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint in this action that adds claims
challenging the adequacy of the disclosures the Company has made
in connection with the proposed acquisition.

Duff & Phelps Corporation -- http://www.duffandphelps.com/-- is a
provider of independent financial advisory and investment banking
services.  Headquartered in New York, the Company provides
services to publicly traded and privately held companies,
government entities and investment organizations, such as private
equity firms and hedge funds.


DUFF & PHELPS: "Rutkowski" Suit Plaintiff Seeks Rushed Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff filed a motion seeking expedited discovery in the
class action lawsuit styled Rutkowski v. Gottdiener, et al.,
according to Duff & Phelps Corporation's February 25, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 30, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Duff & Phelps
Acquisitions, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("D&P
Acquisitions"), Dakota Holding Corporation ("Parent"), Dakota
Acquisition I, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger
Sub I"), and Dakota Acquisition II, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Merger Sub I ("Merger Sub II"), pursuant to which Merger Sub II
will merge with and into D&P Acquisitions with D&P Acquisitions
surviving, and immediately thereafter Merger Sub I will merge with
and into the Company (the "Merger") with the Company surviving as
a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.  Parent is owned by funds
advised by Carlyle Investment Management, L.L.C. (d/b/a The
Carlyle Group), Stone Point Capital LLC, Pictet & Cie, and The
Edmond de Rothschild Group.

On January 15, 2013, a putative class action captioned Rutkowski
v. Gottdiener et al., Index. No. 650144/2013, was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York (New York County) against
the Company and its directors, as well as D&P Acquisitions,
Parent, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II.  The complaint alleges
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties of
good faith and loyalty and failed to maximize shareholder value
when they accepted an offer to sell the Company at a price that
fails to reflect the true value of the Company, thus depriving
common stock shareholders of the reasonable, fair and adequate
value of their shares.  The complaint further alleges that there
is no indication that the proposed acquisition was the result of a
competitive bidding process or arms-length negotiation where all
possible synergistic acquirers were vetted.  The complaint also
alleges that the Company, D&P Acquisitions, Parent, Merger Sub I
and Merger Sub II aided and abetted the directors' breaches of
fiduciary duty.  Among other things, the complaint seeks
injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the proposed
acquisition, or rescission (in the event the transaction has
already been consummated), as well as damages, costs and
disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

On February 11, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
this action that adds claims challenging the adequacy of the
disclosures the Company has made in connection with the proposed
acquisition.  On February 15, 2013 the plaintiff filed a motion
seeking expedited discovery and to set a timetable for a hearing
on a preliminary injunction.

Duff & Phelps Corporation -- http://www.duffandphelps.com/-- is a
provider of independent financial advisory and investment banking
services.  Headquartered in New York, the Company provides
services to publicly traded and privately held companies,
government entities and investment organizations, such as private
equity firms and hedge funds.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Settlement in Freudenberg Action Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit against
E*TRADE Financial Corporation alleging violations of the federal
securities laws is now final, 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 October 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and its then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons, respectively,
by Larry Freudenberg on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated (the "Freudenberg Action"). On July 17, 2008,
the trial court consolidated this action with four other purported
class actions, all of which were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and which
were based on the same facts and circumstances.

On January 16, 2009, plaintiffs served their consolidated amended
class action complaint in which they also named Dennis Webb,
the Company's former Capital Markets Division President, as a
defendant. Plaintiffs contended, among other things, that the
value of the Company's stock between April 19, 2006 and
November 9, 2007 was artificially inflated because the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that the Company was experiencing a rise in delinquency
rates in its mortgage and home equity portfolios; failed to timely
record an impairment on its mortgage and home equity portfolios;
materially overvalued its securities portfolio, which included
assets backed by mortgages; and based on the foregoing, lacked a
reasonable basis for the positive statements made about the
Company's earnings and prospects.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on May 17,
2012, which was submitted to the Court for approval. The
settlement was approved by the Court and the class was certified
by a final judgment and order of dismissal dated October 22, 2012.
Under the terms of the settlement, the Company and its insurance
carriers paid $79.0 million in return for full releases.
Approximately $11.0 million of the total settlement figure was
paid by the Company, which was expensed in the year ended December
31, 2011. As of January 14, 2013, all appeals and requests for
attorneys' fees have been resolved and the settlement is final.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation, a financial services company,
provides online brokerage and related products and services
primarily to individual retail investors under the E*TRADE
Financial brand in the United States.


GREEN HAVEN: Inmate Amended Civil Rights Claims to Represent Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that an inmate
who spent three years in solitary for "unauthorized legal
materials and filings" amended his civil rights claims to
represent a class.

Leroy Peoples, a convicted rapist, sued New York prisons
commissioner Brian Fischer, two of Fischer's subordinates, and
officials from the Green Haven and Upstate prisons, in the
Southern District of New York.

Two other New York prisoners joined Peoples on Wednesday as
plaintiffs to his December 2012 complaint.

Tonja Fenton, 39, defrauded Queens apartment hunters with a
Craigslist post; and DeWayne Richardson, 40, was convicted of
second degree assault.

They are all represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union,
which recently stepped up its campaign to end long-term solitary
confinement as "cruel and unusual punishment."

Amended for the third time Friday, the new complaint liberally
quotes the NYCLU's report "Boxed In," which was released late last
year as an overview of extended isolation in New York state
prisons.

"Between 2007 and 2011 alone, New York imposed nearly 70,000
extreme isolation sentences," the complaint states.  "On any given
day in New York prisons, approximately 4,300 people, constituting
approximately 8% of the New York prison population, are locked
down 23 hours a day in tiny concrete cells.  A disproportionate
number of individuals sent to New York's isolation cells are
black, and many suffer from serious mental illness."

New York prisons refer to these cells as Special Housing Units, or
SHUs, which are intended to punish misbehavior in prison, rather
than the crimes that led to an inmate's incarceration.

Peoples, Fenton and Richardson each contend that they endured
solitary confinement for nonviolent prison offenses.  Peoples and
Richardson spent three years in the SHU, and Fenton served two
years in isolation, according to the complaint.

Describing his confinement as "torturous," Peoples claims that
"his emotions became capricious, uncontrollable, and extreme.  He
had thoughts of harming himself and committing suicide.  He was
certain he would lose his marriage.  He suffered from anxiety,
panic, apathy, paranoia, lethargy, uncontrollable rage, and
depression."

Fenton, a mother of two, accrued solitary confinement time for
allegedly helping another prisoner access hair care products and
sneakers, reporting that a male guard sexual assaulted her, and
pursuing food tampering claims against corrections officers.

Though corrections officials deemed Fenton's assault allegations
unsubstantiated, her lawyers say "sexual misconduct by Albion
corrections staff has been well-documented in the last decade in
news reports, trial judgments against corrections staff, and
reports by prison monitors."

Albion staff allegedly discouraged Fenton from filing the report,
and then found her guilty of "false statements," according to the
complaint.

"For Ms. Fenton, SHU was hell," the complaint states. "She
struggled to maintain her sanity in extreme conditions of
deprivation.  Prior to her incarceration, Ms. Fenton had no mental
health history.  Once placed in SHU, doctors diagnosed her with
depression and prescribed psychotropic drugs."

Richardson, who also has two children, claims that solitary
confinement aggravated his pre-existing mental illness, and that
he was sent there for possessing documents related to the Uniform
Commercial Code.

Corrections officials consider such reading material to be
contraband, the ACLU says.

Department of Corrections officials were not immediately available
to explain why the keep that prohibition.

The class seeks an injunction declaring that lengthy SHU sentences
violate Eighth Amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual
punish, and that hearings to protect them from such terms violate
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

Peoples, Fenton and Richardson also seek damages for all similarly
situated New York prison inmates.


HOT TOPIC: Being Sold to Sycamore for Too Little, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hot Topic (clothiers) is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Sycamore
Partners, for $14 a share or $600 million, shareholders claim in
Superior Court.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Hearing on Dismissal Bid Set for May 16
---------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in
the 2011 Federal Securities Class Action against Juniper Networks,
Inc., is scheduled for May 16, 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.

On August 15, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned City of Royal Oak Retirement System v. Juniper Networks,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-04003-LHK, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
naming the Company and certain of its officers and directors as
defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
prospects. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class. On January 9, 2012 the
Court appointed City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System
and City of Bristol Pension Fund as lead plaintiffs. Lead
plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business and future prospects, and
failed to adequately disclose the impact of certain changes in
accounting rules. Lead plaintiffs purport to assert claims for
violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Juniper Networks' common stock
between July 20, 2010 and July 26, 2011, inclusive. On March 14,
2012, Defendants filed motions to dismiss lead plaintiffs' amended
complaint. On July 23, 2012, the Court issued an order dismissing
the action and giving lead plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on
August 20, 2012. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on September 17, 2012, and lead plaintiffs filed
their opposition on October 22, 2012. Defendants filed their reply
brief on November 8, 2012. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is
scheduled for May 16, 2013.

Juniper Networks, Inc., designs, develops, and sells products and
services that together provide its customers with network
infrastructure.


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Awaits Final Okay of LCD Suit Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is awaiting final approval of
its settlements of class action lawsuits brought on behalf of
purchasers of products incorporating TFT-LCD panels, according to
the Company's February 25, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 11, 2006, LG Display Co. Ltd (formerly LG Philips LCD
Co. Ltd.), a company in which the Company then held a minority
common stock interest, announced that officials from the Korean
Fair Trade Commission had visited the offices of LG Display and
that it had received a subpoena from the United States Department
of Justice (DOJ) and a similar notice from the Japanese Fair Trade
Commission in connection with inquiries by those regulators into
possible anticompetitive conduct in the LCD industry.  Since then
various other authorities have started investigations as well.

Subsequent to the public announcement of these inquiries, a number
of class action antitrust complaints were filed in the United
States courts, seeking, among other things, damages on behalf of
purchasers of products incorporating TFT-LCD panels, based on
alleged anticompetitive conduct by manufacturers of such panels.
Those lawsuits were consolidated in two master actions in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California: one, asserting a claim under federal antitrust law, on
behalf of direct purchasers of TFT-LCD panels and products
containing such panels, and another, asserting claims under
federal antitrust law, as well as various state antitrust and
unfair competition laws, on behalf of indirect purchasers of such
panels and products.  On November 5, 2007, and September 10, 2008,
the Company and certain other companies within the Philips group
companies that were named as defendants in various of the original
complaints entered into agreements with the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs and the direct purchaser plaintiffs, respectively, that
generally toll the statutes of limitations applicable to
plaintiffs' claims, following which the plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss without prejudice the claims against the Philips
defendants.  Both the direct purchaser and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs reached initial settlements with the remaining
defendants earlier this year, and those settlements have been
submitted to the court for final approval.

In addition, a number of plaintiffs have filed separate,
individual actions alleging essentially the same claims as those
asserted in the class actions in which the Company and/or Philips
Electronics North America Corporation were named as defendants.
The Company has resolved these matters or entered into tolling
agreements with certain potential claimants tolling the statute of
limitations and currently, no Philips entity is named as a
defendant in any pending LCD action.

Due to the considerable uncertainty associated with certain of
these matters, on the basis of current knowledge the Company has
concluded that potential losses cannot be reliably estimated with
respect to these matters.  These investigations and litigation
could have a materially adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. or Royal Philips Electronics
-- http://www.philips.com/-- is a diversified technology company
active in the markets of healthcare, lighting and consumer well-
being.  The Company's headquarters are in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Continues to Defend Cathode-Ray Tube Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. continues to defend itself
against numerous lawsuits in various jurisdictions related to
cathode-ray tubes, according to the Company's February 25, 2013,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On November 21, 2007, the Company announced that competition law
authorities in several jurisdictions had commenced investigations
into possible anticompetitive activities in the Cathode-Ray Tubes,
or CRT industry.  As one of the companies that formerly was active
in the CRT business, the Company is subject to a number of these
ongoing investigations in various jurisdictions.  The Company has
assisted the regulatory authorities in these investigations.  In
November 2009, the European Commission sent a Statement of
Objections to the Company, indicating that it intends to hold it
liable for antitrust infringements in the CRT industry.

On May 26 and May 27, 2010, the Company presented its defense at
the Oral Hearing.  The Company received a supplementary Statement
of Objections in June 2012 to which it responded both in writing
and at an Oral Hearing.  On December 5, 2012, the European
Commission issued a decision imposing fines on (former) CRT
manufacturers including the Company.  The European Commission
imposed a fine of EUR313 million on the Company and a fine of
EUR392 million jointly and severally on the Company and LG
Electronics, Inc.  The Company intends to appeal the European
Commission's decision.  In total a payable of EUR509 million has
been recognized (under other current liabilities).  The amount of
EUR313 million has been recorded in the Innovation, Group &
Services sector.  50% of the fine of EUR392 million (i.e. EUR196
million) was recorded in the line results relating to investments
in associates.

In the U.S., the Department of Justice has deferred Philips'
obligation to respond to the grand jury subpoena Philips received
in November 2007 and Philips expects that no penalties will result
from that proceeding.  On August 26, 2010, the Czech competition
authority issued a decision in which it held that the Company had
been engaged in anticompetitive activities with respect to Color
Picture Tubes in the Czech Republic between September 21, 1999,
and June 30, 2001.  No fine was imposed because the statute of
limitation for the imposition of fine had expired.  On September
14, 2011, the Slovakian competition authority issued a decision in
which it held that the Company had been engaged in anticompetitive
activities with respect to Color Picture Tubes in Slovakia between
March 30, 1999, and June 30, 2001.  No fine was imposed because
the statute of limitation for the imposition of fine had expired.
In April 2012, the authority's decision was annulled by the
authority's internal administrative review body.

Subsequent to the public announcement of these investigations in
2007, certain Philips group companies were named as defendants in
over 50 class action antitrust complaints filed in various federal
district courts in the United States.  These actions allege
anticompetitive conduct by manufacturers of CRTs and seek treble
damages on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of CRTs and
products incorporating CRTs.  These complaints assert claims under
federal antitrust law, as well as various state antitrust and
unfair competition laws and may involve joint and several
liability among the named defendants.  These actions have been
consolidated by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation
for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.

On March 30, 2010, the District Court denied the bulk of the
motions to dismiss filed on behalf of all Philips entities in
response to both the direct and indirect purchaser actions in the
federal class actions.  The direct and indirect purchasers
stipulated to remove allegations of a conspiracy in CRT finished
products from their complaints.  In February 2012, the Company
reached an agreement with counsel for direct purchaser plaintiffs
fully resolving all claims of the direct purchaser class and
obtaining a complete release by class members.  The settlement
agreement received preliminary approval on May 3, 2012, and final
approval on October 22, 2012.

On October 1, 2012, counsel for indirect purchasers sought
certification of the purported class of indirect purchasers
pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23.  Philips opposed plaintiffs' motion and a
decision is expected by mid-2013.  Discovery is proceeding in the
indirect purchaser actions.  Seventeen individual plaintiffs,
principally large retailers of CRT products who sought exclusion
from the direct purchaser class settlement, have filed separate
"opt-out" actions against Philips and other defendants based on
the same substantive allegations as the putative class plaintiff
complaints.  These cases have all been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes with the putative class actions in the Northern District
of California and discovery is being coordinated with the putative
class cases.  Philips' motions to dismiss the complaints of the
individual plaintiffs are pending before the Court.  A decision on
the motion is expected by mid-2013.  Actions by other similarly
situated plaintiffs are possible.  Philips intends to continue to
vigorously defend these indirect purchaser and individual
lawsuits.

In addition, the state attorneys general of California, Florida,
Illinois, Oregon and Washington filed actions against Philips and
other defendants seeking to recover damages on behalf of the
states and, in parens patriae capacity, their consumers.  Philips'
motion to dismiss the Florida complaint as untimely was upheld by
the Special Master and pursuant to a stipulation with Florida the
Court ordered the dismissal of the Florida complaint with
prejudice on December 27, 2012.  Philips has answered the
Complaints of Washington and Oregon.  Philips has not yet been
required to respond to the Complaint filed by Illinois.  These
additional actions are pending in the respective state courts of
the plaintiffs.  The Courts have not set trial dates and there is
no timetable for the resolution of these cases.  Philips intends
to continue to vigorously defend these remaining lawsuits.

Certain Philips group companies have also been named as
defendants, in proposed class proceedings in Ontario, Quebec and
British Columbia, Canada, along with numerous other participants
in the industry.  In December 2012, the class plaintiffs issued an
amended statement of claim with more detailed allegations against
the defendants.  However, at this time, no statement of defense
has been filed, no certification motion has been scheduled and no
class proceeding has been certified as against the Philips
defendants.  Philips intends to vigorously oppose these claims.

Due to the considerable uncertainty associated with certain of
these matters, on the basis of current knowledge, the Company has
concluded that potential losses cannot be reliably estimated with
respect to these matters.  These investigations and litigation
could have a materially adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. or Royal Philips Electronics
-- http://www.philips.com/-- is a diversified technology company
active in the markets of healthcare, lighting and consumer well-
being.  The Company's headquarters are in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Discovery in Optical Disc Drive MDL Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the multidistrict litigation in
California related to optical disc drive, according to Koninklijke
Philips Electronics N.V.'s February 25, 2013, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On October 27, 2009, the Antitrust Division of the United States
Department of Justice confirmed that it had initiated an
investigation into possible anticompetitive practices in the
Optical Disc Drive (ODD) industry.  Philips Lite-On Digital
Solutions Corp. (PLDS), a joint venture owned by the Company and
Lite-On IT Corporation, as an ODD market participant, is included
in this investigation.  PLDS is also subject to similar
investigations outside the U.S. relating to the ODD market.  PLDS
and Philips intend to cooperate with the authorities in these
investigations.

In July 2012, the European Commission issued a Statement of
Objections addressed to (former) ODD suppliers including the
Company.  The European Commission granted the Company immunity
from fines, conditional upon the Company's continued cooperation.
The Company responded to the Statement of Objections both in
writing and at an oral hearing.

Subsequent to the public announcement of these investigations in
2009, the Company, PLDS and Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions
USA, Inc., were named as defendants in numerous class action
antitrust complaints filed in various federal district courts in
the United States.  These actions allege anticompetitive conduct
by manufacturers of ODDs and seek treble damages on behalf of
direct and indirect purchasers of ODDs and products incorporating
ODDs.  These complaints assert claims under federal antitrust law,
as well as various state antitrust and unfair competition laws and
may involve joint and several liability among the named
defendants.  These actions have been consolidated by the Judicial
Panel for Multidistrict Litigation for pre-trial proceedings in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Consolidated amended complaints were filed on August 26, 2010, and
initially dismissed.  Second Consolidated Amended Complaints were
filed on September 3, 2011.  The defendants' motions to dismiss
the Second Consolidated Complaints were denied on
April 12, 2012, and Philips has filed Answers to the Complaints of
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs.  Discovery is
proceeding.  Plaintiffs are expected to file motions seeking to
certify the putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers
under F.R.C.P. Rule 23 in April of 2013.  Philips intends to
vigorously defend these actions.

The Company and certain Philips group companies have also been
named as defendants, in proposed class proceedings in Ontario,
Quebec, British Columbia, and Manitoba, Canada along with numerous
other participants in the industry.  These complaints assert
claims against various ODD manufacturers under federal competition
laws as well as tort laws and may involve joint and several
liability among the named defendants.  Philips intends to
vigorously defend these lawsuits.

Due to the considerable uncertainty associated with these matters,
on the basis of current knowledge, the Company has concluded that
potential losses cannot be reliably estimated with respect to
these matters.  These investigations and litigation could have a
materially adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. or Royal Philips Electronics
-- http://www.philips.com/-- is a diversified technology company
active in the markets of healthcare, lighting and consumer well-
being.  The Company's headquarters are in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.


KOSMOS ENERGY: IPO-Related Securities Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit over its initial public offering
remains pending, according to Kosmos Energy Ltd.'s February 25,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On January 10, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the 68th Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, against Kosmos Energy
Ltd., all of its directors, certain officers of the Company,
Warburg Pincus LLC, Blackstone Capital Partners and the
underwriters of the Company's IPO, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.  Specifically, the plaintiff alleged,
among other things, that the defendants made materially false
statements and omissions in the documents related to the IPO
concerning anticipated gross oil production from the Jubilee Field
and that the defendants failed to disclose that several wells were
not producing as expected due to design defects that will
purportedly cost hundreds of millions of dollars to remediate and
will purportedly keep such wells from producing as expected for
several years.  The plaintiff seeks to certify the lawsuit as a
class action lawsuit.  This lawsuit has been removed from the
Dallas County State court in which it was originally filed to the
United States Federal District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, and has been consolidated along with three
substantially similar lawsuits into one lawsuit.  The Company says
it intends to defend vigorously against the lawsuit and does not
believe it will have a material adverse effect on its business.
However, if the Company is unsuccessful in this litigation and any
loss exceeds its available insurance, this could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations.

Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, Kosmos Energy Ltd. is an independent
oil and gas exploration and production company focused on frontier
and emerging areas in Africa and South America.  The Company's
asset portfolio includes existing production and other major
project developments offshore Ghana, as well as exploration
licenses with significant hydrocarbon potential offshore
Mauritania, Morocco and Suriname and onshore Cameroon.


LENDER PROCESSING: Signed Deal to Settle "St. Clair" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lender Processing Services, Inc. entered into a stipulation to
settle the securities class action lawsuit commenced by St. Clair
Shores General Employees' Retirement System, according to the
Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 1, 2010, Lender Processing Services, Inc. was served
with a complaint entitled St. Clair Shores General Employees'
Retirement System v. Lender Processing Services, Inc., et al.,
which was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.  The putative class action seeks damages for
alleged violations of federal securities laws in connection with
the Company's disclosures relating to its default operations.  An
amended complaint was filed on May 18, 2011.

LPS filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 18, 2011, and
the plaintiff filed a response to the Company's motion on
September 12, 2011.  The complaint was dismissed on March 30,
2012.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second and third
amended complaint on May 8, 2012, and October 5, 2012,
respectively.

On January 28, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement resolving the securities class action
litigation.  The settlement is subject to the entry of a final
order by the Court.

Lender Processing Services, Inc. -- http://www.lpsvcs.com/-- is a
provider of integrated technology, data and services to the
mortgage lending industry, with a market leading position in
mortgage processing in the United States of America.  LPS was
incorporated in Delaware and is based in Jacksonville, Florida.


LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal From Award in Molina Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lexmark International, Inc.'s appeal from an award of damages in
the class action lawsuit Molina v. Lexmark, 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: "On August 31, 2005 former Company employee
Ron Molina filed a class action lawsuit in the California Superior
Court for Los Angeles under a California employment statute which
in effect prohibits the forfeiture of vacation time accrued. This
statute has been used to invalidate California employers' "use or
lose" vacation policies. The class is comprised of less than 200
current and former California employees of the Company. The trial
was bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase. On May
1, 2009, the trial court Judge brought the liability phase to a
conclusion with a ruling that the Company's vacation and personal
choice day's policies from 1991 to the present violated California
law. In a Statement of Decision, received by the Company on August
27, 2010, the trial court Judge awarded the class members
approximately $8.3 million in damages which included waiting time
penalties and interest but did not include post judgment interest,
costs and attorneys' fees. On November 17, 2010, the trial court
Judge partially granted the Company's motion for a new trial
solely as to the argument that current employees are not entitled
to any damages. On March 7, 2011 the trial court Judge reduced the
original award to $7.8 million. On October 28, 2011, the trial
court Judge awarded the class members $5.7 million in attorneys'
fees.

"The Company filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of
Appeals objecting to the trial court Judge's award of damages and
attorneys' fees. The appeal is pending.

"The Company believes an unfavorable outcome in the matter is
probable. The range of potential loss related to this matter is
subject to a high degree of estimation. In accordance with the
accounting guidance for contingencies, if the reasonable estimate
of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is a
better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is accrued.
Because no amount within the range of potential loss is a better
estimate than any other amount, the Company has accrued $1.8
million for the Molina matter, which represents the low-end of the
range. At the high-end of the range, the class has sought $16.7
million in damages along with $5.7 million in attorneys' fees,
plus post judgment interest. Thus, it is reasonably possible that
a loss exceeding the $1.8 million already accrued may be incurred
in this matter, ranging from $0 to $22.4 million, excluding post
judgment interest, costs and any additional attorneys' fees which
may be assessed against the Company."

Lexmark International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the development, manufacture, and supply of printing,
imaging, device management, managed print services, document
workflow, business process, and content management solutions in
North and South America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia,
the Pacific Rim, and the Caribbean.


MONTFORT HOSPITAL: Law Firms to Launch Class Action Over Data Loss
------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Spalding, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that two
heavyweight law firms out of Windsor and Toronto, in Canada,
promise to launch a class-action lawsuit as early as this week
against Montfort Hospital for its role in losing the personal
information of 25,000 patients.

Representatives from Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Falconer Charney LLP
were to arrive in Ottawa on March 7 to meet with about 20 or more
clients who say they suffered damages from the privacy breech.

The 25,000 patients received apology letters in January,
indicating that an employee had broken hospital policy by taking
files home on a USB key which was then lost.  The data included
patient names, a summary of the "service" they received, date of
the service and the doctor they visited, according to the letter.

Many of those clients came forward in recent weeks, encouraging
the legal team to move forward with a case as early as this week,
according to lawyer Sharon Strosberg -- sharon@strosbergco.com

"We understand there was some health information that was lost as
well," she said.  "We don't know the extent of what was lost yet.
The story is still being written."

Staff at Montfort said they were unaware of the pending lawsuit.
Patients who received letters had called the hospital to inquire
about specifics of the breech, but there has never been mention of
a court battle, according to Lucie Laurion, Montfort's
communications director.

"We haven't received any formal notification.  We don't know
anything at this point," she said.

Both Ms. Strosberg's firm and Falconer Charney are involved in
several high-profile class-action cases, including a lawsuit
against the federal government over the loss of personal
information of more than half a million student loan recipients.

In the Montfort case, damages could cost the hospital anywhere
from $500 to several thousand dollars per person, according to
Ms. Strosberg

"With the amounts we're talking about, this is why people want to
do a class-action," she said. "If you went out on your own, you
wouldn't get a lawyer to take your case. It's all about strength
in numbers."

Ms. Laurion said the USB key has never been found as far as the
hospital knows, which, if true, could save patients a lot of
headaches by preventing any identity theft or credit breeches.


OMNICELL: Faces Class Action Over Exposing Clients to ID Theft
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that thousands were exposed to ID
theft because Omnicell, South Jersey Healthcare, Sentara
Healthcare, and University of Michigan Health Systems did not
notify them for 6 weeks that a laptop had been stolen from an
Omnicell employee, a class action claims in Federal Court.


PELLA CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Windows
-----------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that two Louisiana couples have filed a class
action lawsuit against Pella Corp., alleging that windows
manufactured by the company contain a defect that allowed water to
enter their homes and cause damage to the structures and property
inside the residences.  The complaint, filed Feb. 24 in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, accuses
Pella of concealing its knowledge of problems with the Pella
Architect series windows, failing to recall the product and
refusing repair the windows once the defect came to light.


PITNEY BOWES: California Judge Tosses Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean McLernon, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on March 5 quashed a privacy class action accusing
digital technology firm Pitney Bowes Inc. of illegally recording
phone calls to consumers, finding that the named plaintiff
couldn't show that he discovered the alleged violation within the
one-year statute of limitations.  Nicholas Anagnostellis had
argued that the delayed discovery rule applies in his case because
he didn't know right away that an April 2009 call with a Pitney
Bowes representative was being recorded.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sued Over Plan to Fire Older Sales Reps
----------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that a former Quest
Diagnostics Inc. saleswoman was fired as part of a "top-down" plan
to push older sales representatives out the door, an attorney
representing the former saleswoman in a putative age
discrimination class action argued in New Jersey federal court on
March 6.  Quest, which sells medical diagnostic systems like blood
testing kits, is seeking summary judgment in the case brought by
Theresa Seibert, who contends that her firing was part of a bigger
plan to terminate older salespeople under the guise of poor
performance.


RANBAXY LABORATORIES: N.J. Court Rejects Lipitor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ranbaxy Laboratories has reasons to cheer as New Jersey court has
rejected a class action suit proposal against the company
demanding a wider recall of its drug Atorvastatin (generic version
of Pfizer's blockbuster drug Lipitor which is a cholesterol-
lowering medication), reports CNBC-TV18's Ekta Batra.

Ranbaxy had recalled 41 lots of the generic Lipitor after it found
glass particles in the drug in November.  However, the recall was
only made at pharmacy level and not at retail or consumer level.
The lawsuit had argued that Ranbaxy should have taken the
initiative to alert consumers directly and promptly and it also
needed to provide instructions on how to respond to the recall and
information on obtaining a refund.

Ranbaxy has escaped the wider recall of the generic Lipitor, on
rejections of this lawsuit.  However, it is important to note that
post the controversy the market share of Ranbaxy in Atorvastatin
(or generic Lipitor) has crashed all the way to 1% as opposed to
peak of 45% and is not expected to come back to that levels
anytime soon.  It may manage to get back around 15%-16% maximum.

Ranbaxy had stopped production of generic Lipitor across
facilities after the controversy.  However it resumed the
production of the drug from its Ohm Laboratories facility in New
Brunswick, New Jersey, from February 22 post an approval after US
Food and Drug Administration.  The company is still awaiting
approval from the US regulator to resume manufacturing of the drug
from its Mohali facility in India.

The recall was only for the US market and not other markets across
the world.  Ranbaxy was the first to market the generic version of
Lipitor in late 2011 after US drug giant Pfizer lost its US patent
protection on November 30, 2011.  Ranbaxy was given rights to 180
days of marketing exclusivity by the FDA for being the first
company to file a generic equivalent of the drug.  In first six
months of launch, the drug had generated sales of nearly $600
million for Ranbaxy.


SAUER-DANFOSS: Sued by Investor Over $700 Million Danfoss Buyout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bathon of Bloomberg News reports that Sauer-Danfoss Inc.,
a maker of hydraulic and electronic equipment, was sued by an
investor claiming shareholders will be shortchanged by a $700
million offer from Danfoss A/S for the shares it doesn't already
own.

Sauer-Danfoss investor C. David Schacher, in a complaint filed on
March 8, 2013, in Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington, said
majority shareholder Danfoss' $58.50-a-share offer to buy the
remaining 24.4% stake undervalues the Company.  Mr. Schacher is
asking for class-action status to represent minority shareholders
as a group.

"Given Sauer-Danfoss's future growth prospects, the consideration
shareholders will receive is inadequate and undervalues the
company," lawyers for Mr. Schacher said in the lawsuit.

Nordborg, Denmark-based Danfoss' offer represents a 5.3% premium
to the highest trading price during the one-year period before its
previous proposal of $49 a share on November 28, 2012, according
to a March 1 statement announcing the new offer.  The new offer,
which was accepted by the board of directors, represents a 19.4%
premium to the prior deal.

Bryan Locke, a spokesman for Ames, Iowa-based Sauer-Danfoss,
wasn't immediately available to comment on the lawsuit.

The case is Schacher v. Sauer-Danfoss Inc., CA8396, Delaware
Chancery Court (Wilmington).


SLM CORP: 2nd Circuit Affirmed ERISA Suit Dismissal in December
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in
December 2012 the dismissal of the lawsuit captioned In Re SLM
Corporation ERISA Litigation against SLM 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.

The Company states: "On May 8, 2008, a class action complaint was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, certain current and former officers,
retirement plan fiduciaries, and the Board of Directors of the
Company, formerly in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and prohibited transactions in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act arising out of alleged false and
misleading public statements regarding our business made during
the 401(K) Class Period and investments in our common stock by
plan participants in the 401(K) Plans. The class consists of
participants in or beneficiaries of the Sallie Mae 401(K)
Retirement Savings Plan and Sallie Mae 401(k) Savings Plan
(together, the "401K Plans") between January 18, 2007 and "the
present" whose accounts included investments in our common stock
("401K Class Period"). On September 24, 2010, the District Court
dismissed the complaint. The Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit; however, on December 26, 2012,
the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the
complaint."

SLM Corporation (commonly known as Sallie Mae), through its
subsidiaries, originates, acquires, finances, and services private
education loans in the United States.


SLM CORP: 9th Circuit Dismissed Settlement Appeal in Arthur Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed in
December 2012 an appeal from the settlement in the lawsuit
captioned Mark A. Arthur et al. v. Sallie Mae, Inc., according to
SLM Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On February 2, 2010, a class action lawsuit
was filed by a borrower in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington alleging that we contacted consumers on
their cellular telephones via autodialer without their consent in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 et seq. ("TCPA"). On October 7, 2011, we entered into
an amended settlement agreement under which the Company agreed to
a settlement fund of $24.15 million. On December 5, 2012, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed an appeal filed
by two individual objectors. We have denied vigorously all claims
asserted against us, but agreed to settle to avoid the burden,
expense, risk and uncertainty of continued litigation."

SLM Corporation (commonly known as Sallie Mae), through its
subsidiaries, originates, acquires, finances, and services private
education loans in the United States.


SMARTHEAT INC: CFO Resigns After Named as Class Suit Defendant
--------------------------------------------------------------
SmartHeat, Inc., disclosed in its February 25, 2013, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its
chief financial officer and treasurer resigned last month after
being named as a defendant in a shareholder class action lawsuit.

On February 20, 2013, Michael Wilhelm resigned from his position
as Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of SmartHeat.  Mr.
Wilhelm stated that he was resigning due to being "named
personally in a groundless shareholder lawsuit, where the alleged
(unproven) actions in question are alleged to have taken place
long before my involvement with the company."  Mr. Wilhelm was
added as a defendant to the class action lawsuit filed against the
Company, its directors, and certain of its former officers,
originally captioned Steven Leshinsky v. James Wang, et. al, in an
amended complaint filed by the Rosen Law Firm on January 28, 2013
(the "Amended Complaint").

Oliver Bialowons, President of the Company, also named as a
defendant in the Amended Complaint, stated that he was
disconcerted by Mr. Wilhelm's resignation as result of what Mr.
Bialowons believed were unfair and spurious claims.  Mr. Bialowons
believes Mr. Wilhelm, the Company and himself, have not committed
any wrongdoing and noted that Mr. Wilhelm was not an executive
officer of the Company during the alleged class period.  Mr.
Bialowons further stated that Mr. Wilhelm was a diligent and
extremely competent Chief Financial Officer whose intelligence and
acumen were a valuable addition to the Company.  Mr. Bialowons
believes the search for a Chief Financial Officer to replace Mr.
Wilhelm will likely be difficult, because the Rosen Law Firm
appears intent on including any officer of the Company in the
class action.  The difficulty in retaining a suitable Chief
Financial Officer, who is qualified to sign the requisite
Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, due to the legal harassment of the
Company's officers by the plaintiffs and lawyers in the class
action, may delay the Company's 2012 Annual Report on Form 10K
required to be filed by April 1, 2013.

                      About SmartHeat Inc.

Founded by James Jun Wang, a former executive at Honeywell China,
SmartHeat Inc. -- http://www.smartheatinc.com/-- is a U.S.
company with its primary operations in China.  SmartHeat
manufactures heat exchangers, custom plate heat exchanger units
(PHE Units), heat meters and heat pumps.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Plaintiff Appealed Dismissal of "McPeak" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. McPeak has appealed the dismissal of his class action
lawsuit against a subsidiary of Snyder's-Lance, Inc., according to
the Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 29,
2012.

On January 19, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by
Joseph A. McPeak individually and allegedly on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals against S-L Distribution Company,
Inc., a subsidiary of Snyder's-Lance, Inc.  The complaint alleges
a single cause of action for damages for violations of New
Jersey's Franchise Practices Protection Act.  The Company's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint was granted on December 20,
2012, but the Court permitted the Plaintiff to file a motion to
amend his complaint.  The Plaintiff filed a motion to amend on
January 5, 2013, and the Company filed an objection.  The Court
denied the Plaintiff's motion to amend as the Plaintiff had
appealed.  The Company intends to vigorously defend this action.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc. -- http://www.snyderslance.com/--
manufactures, distributes, markets and sells snack food products,
including pretzels, sandwich crackers, kettle chips, pretzel
crackers, cookies, potato chips, tortilla chips, other salty
snacks, sugar wafers, nuts and restaurant style crackers.  The
Company is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.


SPI ELECTRICITY: Ex-Treasurers May Be Called to Give Evidence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Portelli, writing for Herald Sun, reports that former
treasurers will be called to give evidence in a class action about
whether the state government had sufficient funds to comply with
planned burning targets in the lead up to the most destructive of
the Black Saturday bushfires, the Supreme Court has heard.

"We will . . . subpoena one or more of the treasurers of the
executive government at the relevant time -- one or more of
(Steve) Bracks, (John) Brumby and (John) Lenders -- and we will
ask them to explain to Your Honour whether or not, if requested,
moneys would have been available for planned burning," Philip
Solomon, SC, for electricity provider SPI Electricity, said.

Justice Jack Forrest replied: "Well we've got that to look forward
to."

Mr. Solomon said the Department of Environment and Sustainability
had preventatively burned less than one-quarter of its prescribed
quota in the eight years prior to the 2009 blaze, which killed 119
people.  He said the state's argument they had insufficient funds
to complete the fuel-reducing burns was "fanciful".  Adequate
prescribed burning could have saved towns such as Kilmore,
Strathewen and St Andrews, Mr. Solomon said.

The court heard on March 6 many victims of the ferocious fire were
given no warning of its approach -- or were warned hours after the
firestorm struck.

Lead plaintiff Carol Ann Matthews lost her 22-year-old son, Sam,
when her St Andrews home was incinerated on February 7, 2009.  Sam
had been checking the CFA Web site for warnings, but had no idea
he was in danger.

Mrs. Matthews -- representing more than 10,000 group members -- is
suing SPI, powerline maintenance contractor Utility Services
Corporation and the state for compensation.

The power companies are countersuing DSE, as well as government
agencies CFA, DSE and Victoria Police for failing to give
appropriate warnings about the bushfire.

Jonathan Beach, QC, also for SPI, said warnings that were given to
some communities prior to the firefront hitting were "too little
and too late".

CFA volunteer firefighters prepare to go into action as flames hit
Dederang on Black Saturday.

"We say there was an appreciation by state authorities the fire
was out of control after about 12:30 p.m.," Mr. Beach said.  He
said authorities failed to give any warnings to some endangered
communities, including Strathewen, which was hit by the fire
around 3:42 p.m., killing 22 people.  Mr. Beach said other areas
were warned too late, such as Kinglake West, where 16 people died.

The fire hit the area at 3:51 p.m. but the CFA warning appeared on
their Web site at 6:48 p.m., he said.

The court heard there were insufficient warnings disseminated via
the CFA and DSE Web sites, the bushfire information phone line and
radio.

Mr. Beach said of the 9,879 calls to the phone line that were put
on hold, 8,125 -- more than 80 per cent -- were abandoned.  "So
that indicated that the line was significantly overburdened and
did not operate at all well on the day," he said.

SPI alleges many of the 119 people killed in the Kilmore fire were
robbed of the chance to leave early and save themselves.  The
blaze, started by a faulty SPI powerline, also destroyed 1200
homes and caused an estimated AUD1 billion worth of damage.

All the defendants deny the allegations and are fighting the
claims in a trail expected to last nine months.


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TeleTech Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit pending in California, 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 October 12, 2012, an amended class action complaint was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, against TeleTech Services Corp. and Google Inc. ("Google"),
as co-defendants. The action alleges that the defendants violated
California Penal Code Section 632 by recording telephone calls
made on behalf of Google to residents in California without
disclosing that the calls might be recorded. The plaintiff seeks
class certification, cash statutory damages and attorney fees.
Pursuant to the Company's agreement with Google, Google has made a
claim for full indemnification from the Company for all expenses
incurred by Google in connection with the lawsuit. The ultimate
outcome of this litigation, and consequently, an estimate of the
possible loss, if any, related to this litigation, cannot
reasonably be determined at this time. The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself in these proceedings.

TeleTech Holdings is a global call center operator that provides a
wide range of business process outsourcing (BPO) services in four
areas: customer management, direct sales, human capital, and
professional services.


TRANSUNION HOLDING: Appeal in "White" Suit to Be Heard in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of TransUnion Holding Company, Inc.'s
settlement of the class action lawsuit titled White, et al v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., is scheduled to be heard
this month, according to the Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

In a matter captioned White, et al v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG, filed in 2005 in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California), plaintiffs sought class action status against Equifax
Inc., Experian plc and the Company in connection with the
reporting of delinquent or charged-off consumer debt obligations
on a consumer report after the consumer was discharged in a
bankruptcy proceeding.  The claims allege that each national
consumer reporting company did not automatically update a
consumer's file after their discharge from bankruptcy and such
non-action was a failure to employ reasonable procedures to assure
maximum file accuracy, a requirement of the United States Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").

Without admitting any wrongdoing, the Company has agreed to a
settlement of this matter.  On August 19, 2008, the Court approved
an agreement whereby the Company and the other industry defendants
voluntarily changed certain operational practices.  These changes
require the Company to update certain delinquent records when it
learns, through the collection of public records, that the
consumer has received an order of discharge in a bankruptcy
proceeding.  These business practice changes did not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's operations or those of
its customers.

In 2009, the Company also agreed, with the other two defendants,
to settle the monetary claims associated with this matter for
$17.0 million each ($51.0 million in total), which amount will be
distributed from a settlement fund to pay the class counsel's
attorney fees, all administration and notice costs of the fund to
the purported class, and a variable damage amount to consumers
within the class based on the level of harm the consumer is able
to confirm.  The Company's share of this settlement was fully
covered by insurance.  Final approval of this monetary settlement
by the Court occurred on July 15, 2011.  Certain objectors to this
monetary settlement have appealed the decision of the Court.  This
appeal is scheduled to be heard by the federal appellate court in
March 2013.

If the monetary settlement is not upheld the Company expects to
vigorously litigate this matter and to assert what the Company
believes are valid defenses to the claims made by the plaintiffs.
Although the Company believes it has valid defenses and has not
violated any law, and although the Company has additional
insurance coverage available with respect to this matter, the
ultimate outcome of this matter is not certain.  However, the
Company does not believe any final resolution of this matter will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition.

TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. -- http://www.transunion.com/--
is a global provider of information and risk management solutions
to businesses across multiple industries and to individual
consumers.  The Company was founded in 1968 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


TRANSUNION HOLDING: Continues to Defend Va. Public Records Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action, captioned Donna K. Soutter v. Trans
Union LLC No. 3:10-cv-00514-HEH, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, was filed in 2010 and alleges
that TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. fails to maintain reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible file accuracy with respect
to the collection and reporting of the satisfaction, release,
dismissal or appeal of judgments entered in the Virginia state
court system.  Similar cases have been filed against Equifax Inc.
and Experian plc.  The Company, like its competitors, contract
with a third-party vendor to collect public records on a timely
basis.  The plaintiff alleges that the diligence used to gather
and report satisfactions, releases, dismissals or appeals is
inadequate and that the established intervals between trips to the
various state courthouses to gather this information is too
infrequent.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this
matter as it believes it has acted in a lawful manner.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 25,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. -- http://www.transunion.com/--
is a global provider of information and risk management solutions
to businesses across multiple industries and to individual
consumers.  The Company was founded in 1968 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


TRANSUNION HOLDING: To Ask for Final Distribution Order This Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. expects to ask this year a final
distribution order with respect to its settlement of class action
lawsuits that arose from activities of its discontinued
"Performance Data Division," according to the Company's
February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in sixteen purported class actions that
arose from activities of its Performance Data Division that was
discontinued over 12 years ago.  Fifteen of these purported class
actions alleging violations of federal law were consolidated for
pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) and are known as
In Re TransUnion Corp. Privacy Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1350.
These matters are referred to as the "Privacy Litigation."  A
companion class action alleging violation of Louisiana state law
was filed in 2002 (Andrews v. Trans Union LLC, case No. 02-18553,
Civil District, Parish of Orleans, Louisiana), the "Louisiana
Action."

The Privacy Litigation, which began in 2000, was the result of the
Company's sale of information, including names and addresses of
individuals, to businesses for marketing purposes.  The United
States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") challenged the Company's
target marketing practice in 1992, which challenge resulted in a
final decision rendered in 1999 holding that certain target
marketing lists that the Company sold were consumer reports as
defined in the United States Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"),
and were sold for purposes not permitted under the FCRA.
Following that decision, the fifteen purported class actions were
filed, alleging that each target marketing list was sold in
willful violation of the FCRA and seeking statutory damages.

A settlement of the Privacy Litigation and the Louisiana Action
was approved on September 17, 2008 (the "Settlement").  Pursuant
to the terms of the Settlement the Company paid $75.0 million into
a fund for the benefit of class members on July 7, 2008, and the
Company provided approximately 100,000 individuals with free
credit monitoring services.  All class members released their
procedural rights to pursue the claims alleged in these matters
through the pending, or any new, class action.  However, all class
members (other than the named plaintiffs in the Privacy Litigation
and the Louisiana Action) did retain their right to bring a
separate, individual claim against the Company for the violations
alleged in these matters provided these claims were asserted on or
before September 16, 2010 (the "PSCs").  The Settlement provides
that any money remaining in the fund after payment of notice
costs, class counsel fees and administrative expenses will be used
to satisfy any such PSCs, with remaining funds distributed on a
pro-rata basis to class members who elected to receive a potential
cash payment in the Settlement as part of the consideration to
release their procedural rights.

The Company has been advised that there are approximately 100,000
PSCs seeking payment from the Settlement fund.  Through court
monitored mediation with counsel representing the class members
and the PSCs claimants, the Company has entered into agreements to
settle substantially all of these PSCs for payments from the
Settlement fund to bring this matter to conclusion.  Payments from
the Settlement fund have been made in accordance with the terms of
the agreements entered into with the settling PSCs.  The Court has
rejected all objections made by class counsel to the settlements
entered into, and payments made to, the PSCs, and confirmed and
approved these actions as being in accordance with the Settlement.

The Company expects to ask the Court to issue a final distribution
order with respect to the Settlement fund in 2013.  The Company
believes the amount remaining in the Settlement fund, after such
final distribution order, will be sufficient to meet all demands
asserted by any non-settling PSCs.

TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. -- http://www.transunion.com/--
is a global provider of information and risk management solutions
to businesses across multiple industries and to individual
consumers.  The Company was founded in 1968 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


URS CORP: Still Awaits Decision in New Orleans Levee Failure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of URS Corporation continues to await a decision in
the New Orleans Levee Failure Class Action Litigation, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2012.

The Company states: "From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington
Group International, Inc., an Ohio company ("WGI Ohio"), a wholly
owned subsidiary acquired by us on November 15, 2007, performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of
the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in New
Orleans, Louisiana.  On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina
devastated New Orleans.  The storm surge created by the hurricane
overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the
Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city.  Fifty-nine personal
injury and property damage class action lawsuits were filed in
Louisiana State and federal court against several defendants,
including WGI Ohio, seeking $200.0 billion in damages plus
attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiffs are residents and property
owners who claim to have incurred damages from the breach and
failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina.

"All 59 lawsuits were pleaded as class actions but none have yet
been certified as class actions.  Along with WGI Ohio, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the Orleans Levee District,
and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company were
also named as defendants.  At this time WGI Ohio and the Army
Corps of Engineers are the remaining defendants.  These 59
lawsuits, along with other hurricane-related cases not involving
WGI Ohio, were consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District Court").

"Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent in their design,
construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans levees.
Specifically, as to WGI Ohio, plaintiffs allege that work WGI Ohio
performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and
floodwall, causing or contributing to breaches and flooding.  WGI
Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the
levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane
Katrina.  Rather, WGI Ohio performed work adjacent to the
Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government.

"WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal
on grounds that government contractors are immune from liability.
On December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment, but several plaintiffs appealed that
decision to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 27, 2009.  On September 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision and WGI
Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case back to the District Court
for further litigation.  On August 1, 2011, the District Court
decided that the government contractor immunity defense would not
be available to WGI Ohio at trial, but would be an issue for
appeal.  Five of the cases were tried in District Court from
September 12, 2012 through October 3, 2012.  A decision is
expected in 2013.

"WGI Ohio intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously;
however, WGI Ohio cannot provide assurance that it will be
successful in these efforts.  The potential range of loss and the
resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time
primarily due to the unknown number of individual plaintiffs who
are actually asserting claims against WGI Ohio; the uncertainty
regarding the nature and amount of each individual plaintiff's
damage claims; uncertainty concerning legal theories and factual
bases that plaintiffs may present and their resolution by courts
or regulators; and uncertainty about the plaintiffs' claims, if
any, that might survive certain key motions of our affiliate, as
well as a number of additional factors."

URS Corporation provides engineering, construction, and technical
services to public agencies and private sector clients worldwide.
The company plans, designs, engineers, constructs, retrofits, and
maintains various power-generating facilities, and systems that
transmit and distribute electricity, as well as develops and
installs clean air technologies.


ZYNGA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. continues to defend itself against securities class
action lawsuits pending in California, according to the Company's
February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 30, 2012, a purported securities class action captioned
DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSW, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, and certain of its
current and former directors, officers, and executives.
Additional purported securities class actions containing similar
allegations have since been filed in the Northern District.  On
September 26, 2012, the court consolidated various of the class
actions as In re Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.
12-cv-04007-JSW.  On January 23, 2013, the court entered an order
appointing a lead plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel.

In addition, a securities class action captioned Reyes v. Zynga
Inc., et al. was filed on August 1, 2012, in San Francisco County
Superior Court, the action was removed to the Northern District on
September 28, 2012, and an order remanding the action to San
Francisco County Superior Court was entered on January 23, 2013.
The various class action complaints allege that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial projections.  The various plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between December 16, 2011, and July 25, 2012.  The
complaints assert claims for unspecified damages, and an award of
costs and expenses to the putative class, including attorneys'
fees.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend these actions.

Zynga Inc. -- http://www.zynga.com/-- is a provider of social
game services.  Zynga develops, markets and operates online social
games as live services played over the Internet and on social
networking sites and mobile platforms.  Zynga was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Trust Transparency Bill Heard
-------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal's Dionne Searcey reports that a House
Judiciary subcommittee hear testimony on March 13 on the
"Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency" bill, which would require
asbestos bankruptcy trusts to submit detailed quarterly reports of
claims and their disposition to the Executive Office for U.S.
Trustees. A similar measure was introduced last year but failed to
gain traction.

According to WSJ, the measure, sponsored by Reps. Blake Farenthold
(R., Texas) and Jim Matheson (D., Utah), comes as a growing
portion of asbestos legal action moves out of the courtroom and
into the trust system.  Now numbering more than 40, the trusts
were created by solvent companies that were inundated by lawsuits.
A special bankruptcy law lets the companies keep operating while
they shed those asbestos liabilities by setting aside money in
trusts to pay claims.

The report relates some politicians and defense attorneys say they
suspect the money in the trusts sometimes goes to undeserving
victims and worry the trusts will be drained before legitimate
victims have the chance to tap them.

A Wall Street Journal analysis found numerous anomalies in claims
to asbestos trusts, including claimants through the years
submitting exposure dates that were unlikely, such as infants
claiming to be shipyard workers when exposed. The analysis also
found claimants submitting conflicting diseases to separate
trusts. Most trusts pay higher claims for certain categories of
diseases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rapid-American in Ch. 11 to Deal w/ Asbestos Debt
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapid-American Corp. filed for bankruptcy protection on March 8 in
Manhattan (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 13-10687) to deal with debt
related to asbestos personal-injury claims.

New York-based Rapid-American said in court filings that it was
formerly a holding company with subsidiaries primarily engaged in
retail sales and consumer products but it was never engaged in an
asbestos business of any kind.  But through a series of merger
transactions going back more than 45 years, Rapid has incurred
successor liability for personal injury claims arising from
plaintiffs' exposure to asbestos-containing products sold by The
Philip Carey Manufacturing Company -- Old Carey -- as that entity
existed prior to June 1, 1967.

Glen Alden, the predecessor of Rapid-American, previously owned
majority of the shares of Panacon Corp. but later sold its stock
in Panacon to Celotex Corp.  By its merger with Panacon, Celotex
assumed Old Carey's liabilities, according to court filings by the
Debtor.

Asbestos-related lawsuits against Rapid started in 1974.  Rapid
was indemnified by Celotex Corp. but Celotex sought Chapter 11
protection in October 1990.  After the bankruptcy filing, a
significant number of asbestos claims stemming from products of
Old Carey were asserted against Rapid.  The rate of new filings
against Rapid reached its peak in 2000, with more than 57,000
claims being asserted against Rapid in that year alone, bringing
the number of pending claims in 2000 to more than 188,500.

After 2000, however, due to a number of factors -- the most
important, it is believed, being the National Settlement Program
which Rapid instituted late that year, the number of new filings
against Rapid declined, as did the average amount paid to settle
cases.  Today Rapid is confronting 275,000 asbestos personal
injury claims.

Rapid is wholly dependent on insurance coverage to fund claim
settlements and the defense costs associated with the asbestos
litigation pending against it.  Rapid has $64 million of upper
level excess insurance with solvent insurers remaining.  It also
has a court-approved allowed claim of $5.4 million in The Home
liquidation proceeding, and has entered into a Notice of
Determination in the amount of $13 million with the New York
Liquation Bureau with respect to its claim in the Midland
insolvency proceeding, which NOD is currently being contested by
certain reinsurers.

"Recently, Rapid has experienced an increase in the number of
mesothelioma claims being filed against it and an increase in the
dollar amount sought to settle claims.  Although total claims
filed have declined in recent years, mesothelioma claims, which
generally result in higher settlement values, now represent
approximately 34% of newly filed claims against Rapid.  These
facts, together with Rapid's dwindling insurance assets have led
to this chapter 11 filing," Paul Weiner, director, vice president
and treasurer, explains in court filings.

"It is Rapid's objective to develop a plan of reorganization in
this case pursuant to section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code which
will equitably distribute Rapid's remaining insurance to current
and future asbestos claimants thereby providing the best and
fairest opportunity for all asbestos claimants to recover on their
claims."

On the first day of the case, the Debtor filed an application to
employ Logan & Company as claims agent and a request to file a
list of addresses of counsel for personal injury claimants in lieu
of the claimants' addresses.

The first day hearing is scheduled for March 12, 2013.

The Debtor estimated assets of at least $50 million and
liabilities of up to $500 million.

Rapid-American is represented by Chrystal Puleo, Esq., --
cpuleo@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP, in New York.

     List of 20 Law Firms Representing Asbestos Clients

Rapid-American filed together with its bankruptcy petition a list
of the 20 law firms that represent clients with, collectively, the
largest unpaid settlement amounts.  The Debtor said the claimed
amounts are contingent.

                                         Amounts owing
                                         on Settlements to
  Law Firm                               Law Firm's Clients
  --------                               ------------------
Baron & Budd                                 $2,618,660
3102 Oak Lawn Ave.,
Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Attn: Russell Budd
Tel: (214) 521-3605
Fax: (214) 520-1181
Email: rbudd@baronbudd.com

Silber Perlman                               $2,088,640
c/o Baron & Budd
3102 Oak Lawn Ave.,
Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Attn: Russell Budd
Tel: (214) 521-3605
Fax: (214) 520-1181

Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C.               $1,429,920
1030 5th Avenue, Third Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Attn: Theodore Goldberg
Tel: (412) 471-3980
Fax: (412) 471-8308
Email: tgoldberg@gpw.com

Reyes, O'Shea & Coloca, P.A.                   $862,240
345 Palermo Avenue
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Attn: Daniel F. O'Shea
Tel: (305) 374-8110
Fax: (305) 374-8112

Thornton & Naumes, LLP                         $649,120
100 Summer Street, 30th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Attn: Michael Thornton
Tel: (888) 491-9726
Fax: (617) 720-2445
Email: mthornton@tenlaw.com

The Lipman Law Firm                            $638,240
5915 Ponce de Leon Blvd.,
Suite 44
Coral Gables, FL 33146
Attn: David Lipman
Tel: (305) 662-2600
Fax: (305) 667-3361
Email: dmlipman@aol.com

Terrell Hogan                                  $562,560
233 East Bay Street, Suite 804
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Attn: Wayne Hogan
Tel: (904) 722-2228
Fax: (904) 632-0549

Brayton Purcell, LLP                           $528,960
222 Rush Landing Road
Novato, CA 94948
Attn: Alan Brayton
Tel: (415) 898-1555
Fax: (415) 898-1247

Brent Coon and Associates                      $424,000
215 Orleans Street
Beaumont, TX 77701
Attn: Brent Coon
Tel: (409) 835-2666
Fax: (409) 833-4483

Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos                $430,920
100 N. Charles St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
Attn: Peter Angelos
Tel: (410) 649-2000
Fax: (410) 659-1780

Parker & Parks, LLP                            $264,160
1 Plaza Sq.
Port Arthur, TX 77642
Attn: Christopher Parks
Tel: (409) 985-8814

Goldenberg Heller                              $251,280
Antognoli & Rowland, P.C.
2227 South State Route 157
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Attn: Mark Goldberg
Tel: (618) 656-5150
Fax: (618) 656-6230
Email: mark@ghalaw.com

Rose, Klein & Marias, LLP                      $210,320
12800 Center Court Drive
Cerritos, CA 90703
Attn: Gregory Stamos
Tel: (562) 606-0348
Fax: (562) 436-6157
Email: g.stamos@rkmlaw.net

James Hession Law Office PLLC                  $187,200
202 N. Saginaw St.
St. Charles, MI 48655
Attn: James Hession
Tel: (989) 865-8298

Gori, Julian & Associates, P.C.                $186,320
156 North Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Attn: Randy Gori
Tel: (618) 659-9833
Fax: (618) 659-9834
Email: randy@gorijulianlaw.com

Early Lucarelli, Sweeney & Strauss             $176,400
360 Lexington Ave., 20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attn: James F. Early
Tel: (212) 986-2233
Fax: (212) 986-2255

James D. Burns                                 $172,000
0841 SW Gaines St., Unit 816
Portland, OR 97239-3101
Attn: James Burns
Tel: (503) 597-8891
Email: jimburnslaw@gmail.com

Anapol Schwartz                                $168,720
1710 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attn: Alan Schwartz
Tel: (215) 735-1130
Fax: (215) 875-7700
Email: aschwartz@anapolschwartz.com

Motley Rice, LLC                               $140,480
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Attn: Joseph Rice
Tel: (843) 216-9000
Fax: (843) 216-9450
Email: jrice@motleyrice.com

Bergman Draper Ladenburg, PLLC                 $111,040
614 First Avenue, 4th Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Attn: Matthew Bergman
Tel: (206) 957-9510
Fax: (206) 957-9549
Email: matt@bergmanlegal.com



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Ct. OKs Summary Judgment in Inmate Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John G. Heyburn, II, of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, in Louisville, granted the
motion for summary judgment filed by a defendant in an inmate's
asbestos exposure suit.

Kentucky State Reformatory engineering supervisor, Marvin Brunner,
was named defendant by Plaintiff Everett D. Abney in his pro se
action alleging that while incarcerated at KRS and assigned on
work detail, Abney was exposed to friable asbestos and lead paint
dust and fumes, and required to work without proper safety
equipment.  In addition, the Plaintiff alleged that during this
period Brunner sexually harassed him and other inmates.  The
Plaintiff asserted Eighth Amendment claims against Brunner.

In granting Brunner's motion for summary judgment, Judge Heyburn
ruled that the Plaintiff failed to state an Eighth Amendment
violation.  Moreover, the Court found that Brunner's alleged
conduct, though unsavory, is not the kind of severe or repetitive
sexual abuse that "involve[s] a harm of federal constitutional
proportions," as cited in Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857, 861
(2d Cir. 1997).  Judge Heyburn noted that prison officials were
alerted as to the situation, and Brunner was justifiably
reprimanded; however, Brunner's conduct did not rise to the level
of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and
as such, he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

The case is EVERETT ABNEY, Plaintiff, v. LaDONNA THOMPSON, et.
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-606-H (W.D. Ky.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Heyburn's February 27, 2013 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/5vwgMkfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies Crane Co.'s Summary Judgment Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action titled JEANNE LOWE, as
Executrix for the Estate of ROBERT A. LOWE, and JEANNE LOWE,
Individually Plaintiffs, v. AERCO INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al.
Defendants, Docket No. 110194/04, Motion Seq. 003 (N.Y.), Judge
Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied
defendant Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment after finding
that the submissions on the case show that Crane designed and
supplied its pumps and valves to be used with asbestos-containing
gaskets, packing, insulation, and cement, that were present in Mr.
Lowe's field of work as maintenance supervisor at St. Francis
Hospital, in Olean, New York.  Judge Heitler based her decision in
a prior case captioned Sawyer v A.C. & S., Inc., et al., 2011 NY
Slip Op 51612U; 32 Misc.3d 1237A (Sup. Ct., NY Co. June 24, 2011),
that discussed identical issues.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's February 26, 2013 Decision &
Order is available at http://is.gd/XMh5ubfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Flips Order Denying Benefits Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a March 1, 2013, decision and judgment, the Court of Appeals of
Ohio, Sixth District, Wood County, reversed a lower court's
summary judgment denying a workers' compensation death benefits
asserted by the widow of a former maintenance worker/electrician
at the Bowling Green ketchup bottling plant operated by H.J. Heinz
Co.  The worker, who worked at the plant from 1946 to 1975,
developed mesothelioma, a pulmonary cancer due to exposure to
asbestos.  When the worker died in 2007, his widow filed for death
benefits with the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation.

In reversing the lower court's judgment, the Court of Appeals
ruled that sales records from Owens Corning support a reasonable
inference of the presence of asbestos in the Bowling Green Heinz
plant and affidavits of a co-worker and the plant's personnel
manager support the assertion that the worker was exposed to
asbestos at least in the boiler room of the plant.  Further, the
Court of Appeals noted that medical experts agree that the worker
had mesothelioma and that the cause of this disease was his
exposure to asbestos.

The Court of Appeals then concluded that the widow presented
evidence which, if believed, establishes that her husband was
injuriously exposed to asbestos at the Heinz plant in Bowling
Green.  There exist questions of fact on whether the persons
presented as experts had the expertise to properly identify
asbestos insulation and on whether the asbestos at the location
was friable, according to the Court of Appeals.  When there are
questions of material fact, summary judgment is inappropriate, the
Court of Appeals ruled.

The case is Mary Lou Burkhart, Appellant, v. H.J. Heinz Co., et
al., Appellee, C.A. No. WD-12-008 (Ohio).  A full-text copy of the
Court of Appeal's Decision is available at http://is.gd/KC1x4d
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Ct. Affirms Ruling in Crane Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel from the Appellate Court of Illinois, First
District, Second Division, affirmed in part and reversed in part a
circuit court's judgment in an insurance liability suit involving
John Crane, Inc., and several insurers.  The insurance liability
suit arises from John Crane's desire to have itself insured from
the more than 250,000 asbestos-related bodily injury claims
arising from asbestos-containing gaskets it manufactured.  The
trial court, among other things, denied Crane's motion for summary
judgment seeking an "all sums" allocation of payments, arguing
that each umbrella policy triggered by a claim must pay up to its
policy limits.

Crane appealed from the trial court's ruling and raised the issues
on whether the trial court erred in: (1) finding that the parties
could not use the agreement concerning coverage (ACC) to determine
that the primary policies issued by Kemper to Crane had been
exhausted by November 2004; (2) determining that a pro rata
allocation of payments by excess and umbrella insurers applies,
rather than an "all sums" allocation; and (3) finding that Zurich
Insurance Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 118 Ill.2d 23 (1987),
requires Crane to prove all three trigger dates to prove
exhaustion of its primary policies.  Defendants Columbia Casualty
Company, Continental Casualty Company, Continental Insurance
Company also filed a cross-appeal in which it alleges that the
trial court erred in (1) determining that mere exposure to
asbestos constitutes bodily injury under Zurich; and (2) failing
to adopt an equitable continuous trigger.

In its decision, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's
holding that the horizontal exhaustion doctrine requires Crane to
prove that all of Kemper's primary policy limits, as written
before the parties entered into the ACC, were exhausted before the
umbrella or excess carriers would be required to contribute to any
settlement or judgment.

The Appellate Court further adhered to the decision in Zurich and
held that where coverage for asbestos-related injury claims is
triggered by bodily injury or sickness or disease, all triggered
policies are jointly and severally liable.  The Appellate Court,
however, said that only those carriers providing policies for the
period at issue will be liable, and based its determination on the
contract law principle that it would be unfair to allocate the
damages to an insurer "that did not agree to provide coverage
during" a particular period of time, as cited in AAA Disposal, 355
Ill. App. 3d at 275 (citing Outboard Marine, 283 Ill. App. 3d at
642-44).  The Appellate Court also found that the Appellee's
argument fails as neither Zurich nor any other cited case requires
an insured to prove the dates for all three possible triggers
before they settle a claim which, as a consequence, reduces the
amount of primary coverage that remains available before
exhaustion.  The Appellate Court concluded that Zurich does not
require an insured to prove all three triggers for coverage and
that coverage is triggered upon proof of exposure, sickness, or
disease.

The Appellate Court declined to revisit the issues raised by CNA,
and remanded the case for determination of exhaustion.  On remand,
pursuant to the "horizontal exhaustion doctrine," the Appellate
Court said Crane must prove that all of the post-1986 primary
insurance policies' original limits, without regard to the ACC,
have been exhausted before the umbrella or excess coverage
policies are implicated.  Also, for claims of asbestos-related
personal injury, all triggered excess or umbrella policies are
jointly and severally liable for payment. Finally, the Appellate
Court said Crane need not prove all three of the triggers for
coverage outlined in Zurich.  Instead, coverage for asbestos-
related personal injury claims is triggered upon proof of
exposure, sickness, or disease.  The Appellate Court rejected
CNA's request to use an equitable continuous trigger as the
supreme court has addressed this issue in Zurich and determined
that personal injury from exposure to asbestos is not a continuous
injury.

The case is JOHN CRANE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-
Appellee, v. ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN MOTORISTS
INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD
ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY, LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, and
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS
OF LONDON, and CERTAIN LONDON MARKET INSURANCE COMPANIES,
including Excess Insurance Company, Ltd., General Reinsurance
Corporation, River Thames Insurance Company, World Auxiliary
Insurance Corporation, and John Does 1 through 400, Defendants,
(Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance
Company, AIU Insurance Company, American Re-Insurance Company,
Granite State Insurance Company, Lexington Insurance Company,
National Surety Corporation, National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, PA, Insurance Company of North America, and TIG
Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees; Columbia Casualty
Company, Continental Casualty Company, and The Continental
Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees and Cross-Appellants), No.
1-09-3240 (Ill.).

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's March 5, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/FByOMdfrom Leagle.com.

The Appellant is represented by:

         Kevin M. Forde, Esq.
         Joanne R. Driscoll, Esq.
         KEVIN M. FORDE, LTD.
         111 West Washington Street, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Tel: 312-465-4860
         Fax: 312-641-1288
         Email: kforde@fordellp.com
                jdriscoll@fordellp.com

              - and -

         Michael J. Daley, Esq.
         Claire E. Gorman, Esq.
         NISEN & ELLIOTT LLC
         200 West Adams Street, Suite 2500
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Tel: 312-346-7800
         Fax: 312-346-9316
         Email: mdaley@nisen.com
                cgormankenny@nisen.com

              - and -

         John L. Cooper, Esq.
         Dennis M. Cusack, Esq.
         Erica Villanueva, Esq.
         FARELLA BRAUN & MARTELL, LLP
         235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Tel: (415) 954-4400
         Fax: (415) 954-4480
         Email: jcooper@fbm.com
                dcusack@fbm.com
                evillanueva@fbm.com

The Appellees are represented by:

         Rebecca L. Ross, Esq.
         Clinton E. Cameron, Esq.
         David F. Cutter, Esq.
         Stephanie L. Haas, Esq.
         TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
         55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3000
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Email: becky.ross@troutmansanders.com
                clinton.cameron@troutmansanders.com
                david.cutter@troutmansanders.com

              - and -

         Catherine M. Crisham, Esq.
         Kristi S. Nolley, Esq.
         Ellen J. Zabinski, Esq.
         Agelo L. Reppas, Esq.
         BATES CAREY NICOLAIDES, LLP
         191 North Wacker, Suite 2400
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Email: ccrisham@bcnlaw.com
                knolley@bcnlaw.com
                ezabinski@bcnlaw.com
                areppas@bcnlaw.com

              - and -

         Timothy J. Fagan, Esq.
         Michael L. Resis, Esq.
         SMITH AMUNDSEN LLC
         150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3300
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Email: tfagan@salawus.com
                mresis@salawus.com

              - and -

         Mary F. Stafford, Esq.
         Colleen A. Beverly, Esq.
         Melinda S. Kollross, Esq.
         CLAUSEN MILLER P.C.
         10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Email: mstafford@clausen.com
                cbeverly@clausen.com
                mkollross@clausen.com

              - and -

         John D. LaBarbera, Esq.
         COZEN & O'CONNOR
         333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1900
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Email: jlabarbera@cozen.com

              - and -

         Robert R. Anderson III, Esq.
         John Hughes, Esq.
         Daniel A. Waitzman, Esq.
         HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM LTD.
         Three First National Plaza
         70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Email: randerson@hsplegal.com
                jhughes@hsplegal.com
                dwaitzman@hsplegal.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nev. Ct. Junks TRO Motion for Improper Context
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada denied Plaintiff Frank M. Peck's motions for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on the
grounds that the allegations in the motion for TRO are completely
unrelated to the allegations contained in his complaint.  The
Plaintiff, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada
Department of Corrections, sued for violations of his First
Amendment rights to access the courts.  The motions for TRO and
preliminary injunction address construction projects in the prison
showers which, according to the motion, are exposing the inmates
to "friable asbestos" through welding activities.

The case is FRANK M. PECK, Plaintiff, v. JAMES G. COX, et al.,
Defendant, No. 2:12-CV-01495-GMN-PAL (D. Nev.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Navarro's Order dated March 6, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/vOeTpbfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Ct. Retains Jurisdiction Over Crane Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Joyner, a 22-year veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard,
was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in March 2012.
Three months later he brought an asbestos products-liability
action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.  The defendants,
with the exception of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
manufactured and distributed various products that contained
asbestos -- the principal known cause of mesothelioma. Some of
these products allegedly were sold to the United States Navy and
United States Coast Guard.  Invoking the government contractor
defense to tort liability, defendant Crane Co. removed Joyner's
action to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland under the federal officer removal statute.  Joyner asked
the court to remand the entire case to the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City.  In the event that motion fails, Joyner moved to
sever one piece of his claim against Crane Co. from the rest of
the suit and to remand the other claims to the state court.

In a memorandum dated March 7, 2013, District Judge Catherine C.
Blake granted Joyner's motion to sever his claims against Crane
Co. from his claims against all other remaining defendants.  The
remaining defendants in the case are John Crane, Inc.; Owens-
Illinois, Inc.; Union Carbide Corp.; Kaiser Gypsum Co.; MCIC,
Inc.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.; CBS Corp. (as successor to
Westinghouse Electric Corp.); and the Wallace & Gale Asbestos
Settlement Trust.

Moreover, Judge Blake granted Joyner's motion to remand the case
with respect to the claims against the other remaining defendants,
but retained jurisdiction with respect to Joyner's claims against
Crane Co., without prejudice to renew the motion at the
appropriate time, as Judge Blake found that Crane Co. has
plausibly alleged sufficient facts to support removal.

The case is JAMES E. JOYNER, v. A.C. & R. INSULATION CO., et al.,
Civil No. CCB-12-2294 (D. Md.).  A full-text copy of the Decision
is available at http://is.gd/SkA7XGfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Bid to Stay Dismissal of Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Monti L. Belot of the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas entered a memorandum and order dated March 7,
2013, denying an inmate's motion to stay a ruling that granted
summary judgment dismissing his claims of lead poisoning and
asbestos contamination in prison for lack of personal
participation.  Judge Monti concluded that prison officials that
were named defendants in the complaint had established that there
was little to no possibility of lead and asbestos exposure in the
prison where the plaintiff was held.  Moreover, Judge Monti noted
that medical testing revealed the lead level in the inmate's blood
is well below safe levels, accordingly there could be no
deliberate indifference to his health regarding lead and asbestos
exposure.

The case is DALE McCORMICK, Plaintiff, v. RAY ROBERTS, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-3130-MLB (D. Kan.).  A copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/VEeIAbfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Denies CSX Appeal in Widow's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel in the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth
District, Cuyahoga County, rejected the appeal of CSX
Transportation, Inc., and affirmed a June 8, 2012 decision of the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that denied CSX's motion for
administrative dismissal of the claims of Pearl Fields, as
representative of the estate of Paul H. Fields.

Pearl brought the action under the Federal Employers' Liability
Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act, following the death of her
husband, Paul, who allegedly was exposed to various substances,
including asbestos and asbestos dust, during the course of his
employment as a trainman and conductor for CSX.  Paul worked for
CSX from 1950 until 1989. He was diagnosed with lung cancer in
July 2007 and subsequently died in November 2007.

Throughout the case, CSX has maintained that it is not solely
responsible for Paul's lung cancer because Paul was a smoker.  The
Court of Appeals, however, in denying CSX's appeal, found that the
trial court's finding that Paul does not meet the statutory
definition of a "smoker" is not against the manifest weight of the
evidence and that no manifest miscarriage of justice occurred.

The case is PEARL FIELDS, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL
H. FIELDS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, No. 98612 (Ohio).  A full-text copy of the
Opinion dated March 7, 2013 is available at http://is.gd/iJFNHk
from Leagle.com.

The Appellant is represented by:

         David A. Damico, Esq.
         Ira L. Podheiser, Esq.
         BURNS WHITE L.L.C.
         Four Northshore Center
         106 Isabella Street
         Pittsburgh, PA 15212
         Email: dadamico@burnswhite.com
                ilpodheiser@burnswhite.com

              - and -

         Brian D. Netter, Esq.
         MAYER BROWN L.L.P.
         1999 K Street NW
         Washington, D.C. 20009
         Email: bnetter@mayerbrown.com

The Appellee is represented by:

         Michael L. Torcello, Esq.
         Christopher Murphy,
         DORAN & MURPHY P.L.L.C.
         1234 Delaware Avenue
         Buffalo, NY 14209


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Ct. Allows Suit v. Crane to Proceed to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In an opinion dated March 6, 2013, the Court of Appeals of
Louisiana, Fourth Circuit -- on appeal from defendants Steel Grip,
Inc., and John Crane, Inc. -- affirmed a trial court's judgment
that determined that (1) Plaintiff Raleigh Landry was diagnosed
with mesothelioma, (2) asbestos was the cause of the mesothelioma,
and (3) mesothelioma was the cause of Raleigh's death; but
reversed the trial court's judgment that determined that (1)
Raleigh was exposed to John Crane's and Steel Grip's asbestos-
containing products, (2) John Crane's and Steel Grip's products
were a substantial contributing cause of Raleigh's development of
mesothelioma, and (3) John Crane and Steel Grip are liable under
Louisiana law.

In reversing, in part, the trial court's judgment, the Court of
Appeals ruled that genuine issues of material fact exist
precluding the granting of summary judgment as to whether Raleigh
was exposed to John Crane's asbestos-containing products that were
a significant factor of his mesothelioma and death, thus creating
liability under Louisiana law.  According to the Court of Appeals,
Raleigh worked at a facility where John Crane products were
present, some of the products containing asbestos while others did
not.  The quantity of John Crane asbestos-containing products that
he came into contact with is not clearly shown by the evidence;
thus genuine issues of material fact exist, the Court of Appeals
said.  The Court of Appeals concluded that it cannot say that
whatever quantity of John Crane asbestos-containing product
Raleigh came into contact with was a substantial factor in his
contracting mesothelioma that caused his death.  The Court of
Appeals acknowledged the existence, however, of circumstantial
evidence that reasonable minds might conclude preponderates to
establish that Raleigh did come into contact with John Crane
asbestos-containing products, but the evidence does not tip the
scales on a motion for summary judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs.  The issues are properly determined at a trial on the
merits, the Court of Appeals concluded.

A dissenting opinion, however, was issued by one judge sitting in
the five-judge panel, disagreeing with the reversal in part of the
trial's court decision.  The dissenting opinion stated that in
McAskill v. American Marine Holding Co., 07-1445 (La.App. 4 Cir.
3/4/09), 9 So.3d 264; Hennegan v. Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co.,
02-0282 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/30/02), 837 So.2d 96., the Court of
Appeals has consistently acknowledged that every exposure to
asbestos, no matter how brief, is a contributing factor and
constitutes a cause of mesothelioma.  The dissenting opinion
further stated that in this case there are no genuine issues of
material fact as both Steel Grip and John Crane have asserted
unsupported allegations that have no substance.

The case is RALEIGH LANDRY AND CLAILEE AUCOIN LANDRY, v. AVONDALE
INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., No. 2012-CA-0950 (La.).  A full-text
copy of the Opinion is available at http://is.gd/RxE2Oufrom
Leagle.com.

The Appellees are represented by:

         Gerolyn P. Roussel, Esq.
         Jonathan B. Clement, Esq.
         Perry J. Roussel, Jr., Esq.
         Lauren R. Clement, Esq.
         Benjamin P. Dinehart, Esq.
         ROUSSEL & CLEMENT
         1714 Cannes Drive
         LaPlace, LA 70068

Steel Grip is represented by:

         Michael R. Barnes, Esq.
         JUDE AND JUDE, PLLC
         6424 U.S. Hwy. 98 West, Suite 50
         Hattiesurg, MS 39402

              - and -

         Douglas G. Wah, Esq.
         FOLEY & MANSFIELD
         300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1900
         Oakland, CA 94612

Crane is represented by:

         Kenan S. Rand, Jr., Esq.
         Attie B. Carville, Esq.
         Scott H. Mason, Esq.
         Lauren B. Dietzen, Esq.
         Lacey E. Sarver, Esq.
         PLAUCHE MASELLI PARKERSON LLP
         701 Poydras Street, Suite 3800
         New Orleans, LA 70139
         Email: krand@pmpllp.com
                acarville@pmpllp.com
                smason@pmpllp.com
                ldietzen@pmpllp.com
                lsarver@pmpllp.com

              - and -

         Michael A. Pollard, Esq.
         Erin McCloskey Maus, Esq.
         BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
         300 E. Randolph Street, Suite 5000
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Email: Michael.Pollard@bakermckenzie.com
                Erin.Maus@bakermckenzie.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Defends 2,609 Exposure-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company is a defendant in 2,609 lawsuits in
which plaintiffs allege to have contracted certain cumulative
trauma diseases related to exposure to silica, asbestos, and/or
coal dust, 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: "Cumulative trauma product liability claims
involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos
and coal dust) that occurred many years ago and may have developed
over long periods of time into diseases such as silicosis,
asbestosis or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. We are presently named
as a defendant in 2,609 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to
have contracted certain cumulative trauma diseases related to
exposure to silica, asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits
mainly involve respiratory protection products allegedly
manufactured and sold by us. We are unable to estimate total
damages sought in these lawsuits as they generally do not specify
the injuries alleged or the amount of damages sought, and
potentially involve multiple defendants."

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

                        http://is.gd/OAbsud

Mine Safety Appliances Company develops, manufactures, and
supplies products that protect people's health and safety. It also
provides a broad offering of consumer and contractor safety
products through retail channels.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $1.03BB Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation had $1.03 billion reserves for asbestos
claims as of 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.

Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were $1.03
billion and $1.08 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of $496
million and $529 million, as of December 31, 2012 and 2011,
respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were $193 million
and $185 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $48 million
and $40 million, as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
Approximately 58 percent and 59 percent of the total net asbestos
and environmental reserves as of December 31, 2012 and 2011,
respectively, were for incurred but not reported estimated losses.

Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are
appropriately established based on available facts, technology,
laws and regulations. However, establishing net loss reserves for
asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is
subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those
presented by other types of claims. The ultimate cost of losses
may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on
management's best estimate. Among the complications are lack of
historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the
number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and
unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved
legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing
of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding
theories of liability; availability and collectability of
recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums
and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and
timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy
protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos
defendants; and other uncertainties. There are also complex legal
issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy
provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever
intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through
retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other
contractual agreements. Courts have reached different and
sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to
have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of
losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to
defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions
and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up
costs represent insured property damage. Management believes these
issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and the
ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently
recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves. In
addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial
techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate
asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss
reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be
inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due to the
uncertainties and factors, management believes it is not
practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional
net loss reserves that may be required.

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

                       http://is.gd/jB4tXF

The Allstate Corporation is primarily engaged in the personal
property and casualty insurance business and the life insurance,
retirement and investment products business. It conducts its
business primarily in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Continues to Defend Suits
------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., has been named as a defendant, along with many other
companies, in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits. Many of these
lawsuits either relate to businesses which were acquired by the
Company and do not involve products which were manufactured or
sold by the Company or relate to previously owned businesses of
the Company which are under new ownership. In connection with many
of these lawsuits, the sellers or new owners of such businesses,
as the case may be, have agreed to indemnify the Company against
these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The Indemnified Claims
have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such sellers and
new owners. These sellers and new owners have met their
obligations, in all respects, and the Company does not have any
reason to believe such parties would fail to fulfill their
obligations in the future; however, one of these companies filed
for bankruptcy liquidation in 2007. To date, no judgments have
been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-
related lawsuit. The Company believes it has strong defenses to
the claims being asserted and intends to continue to vigorously
defend itself in these matters.

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.

AMETEK, Inc. is a manufacturer of electronic instruments and
electromechanical devices with operations in North America,
Europe, Asia and South America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Had $10 Million Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., had $10 million accrued liability for
asbestos-related lawsuits 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.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s subsidiaries and many other
defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large
amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and
injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various
premises of the Company's utilities -- Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc. (CECONY) and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
(O&R). The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have
been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts
specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions
of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are
greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.
In 2010, CECONY estimated that its aggregate undiscounted
potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may
be brought over the next 15 years is $10 million. The estimate was
based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and
risk factor assessment. Actual experience may be materially
different. In addition, certain current and former employees have
claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on
alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current
rate agreements, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets
(for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its
asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims. The accrued
liability for asbestos suits and workers' compensation proceedings
(including those related to asbestos exposure) and the amounts
deferred as regulatory assets for Con Edison and CECONY at
December 31, 2012 and 2011 were:

Con Edison                                   2012         2011
                                         -----------  -----------
Accrued liability-asbestos suits       $10 million  $10 million
Regulatory assets-asbestos suits       $10 million  $10 million
Accrued liability-workers' compensation  $94 million  $98 million
Regulatory assets-workers' compensation  $19 million  $23 million

CECONY                                       2012         2011
                                         -----------  -----------
Accrued liability-asbestos suits       $10 million  $10 million
Regulatory assets-asbestos suits       $10 million  $10 million
Accrued liability-workers' compensation  $89 million  $93 million
Regulatory assets-workers' compensation  $19 million  $23 million

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

                       http://is.gd/bD7Rto

Consolidated Edison, Inc., is a holding company which owns all of
the outstanding common stock of Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc. (CECONY), Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R) and
the competitive energy businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Remains Exposed to Asbestos Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation has exposures related to asbestos and
environmental pollution (A&EP) claims, which could result in
material losses, 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: "Our property and casualty insurance
subsidiaries have exposures related to A&EP claims. Our experience
has been that establishing claim and claim adjustment expense
reserves for casualty coverages relating to A&EP claims is subject
to uncertainties that are greater than those presented by other
claims. Additionally, traditional actuarial methods and techniques
employed to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more
traditional property and casualty exposures are less precise in
estimating claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for A&EP.
As a result, estimating the ultimate cost of both reported and
unreported A&EP claims is subject to a higher degree of
variability.

"On August 31, 2010, the Company completed a retroactive
reinsurance transaction under which substantially all of its
legacy A&EP liabilities were ceded to National Indemnity Company
(NICO), a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., subject to an
aggregate limit of $4 billion (Loss Portfolio Transfer). If the
other parties to the Loss Portfolio Transfer do not fully perform
their obligations, the Company's liabilities for A&EP claims
covered by the Loss Portfolio Transfer exceed the aggregate limit
of $4 billion, or the Company determines it has exposures to A&EP
claims not covered by the Loss Portfolio Transfer, it may need to
increase its recorded net reserves which would result in a charge
against its earnings.  These charges could be substantial."

CNA Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries provide products
and services primarily marketed through independent agents,
brokers and managing general underwriters to a wide variety of
customers, including small, medium and large businesses, insurance
companies, associations, professionals and other groups.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Had $27.8MM Net A&E Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
At December 31, 2012, Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s asbestos
claims constituted 28% of its $27.8 million net asbestos and
environmental reserves, 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: "Our general liability, excess liability, and
homeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims. Our exposure to environmental liability is primarily due
to: (i) landfill exposures from policies written prior to the
absolute pollution endorsement in the mid 1980s; and (ii)
underground storage tank leaks mainly from New Jersey homeowners'
policies. These environmental claims stem primarily from insured
exposures in municipal government, small non-manufacturing
commercial risks, and homeowners policies. The emergence of these
claims is slow and highly unpredictable.

"'Asbestos claims'" are claims for bodily injury alleged to have
occurred from exposure to asbestos-containing products. Our
primary exposure arises from insuring various distributors of
asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing
materials. At December 31, 2012, asbestos claims constituted 28%
of our $27.8 million net asbestos and environmental reserves
compared to 24% of our $27.9 million net asbestos and
environmental reserves at December 31, 2011.

"'Environmental claims' are claims alleging bodily injury or
property damage from pollution or other environmental contaminants
other than asbestos. These claims include landfills and leaking
underground storage tanks. Our landfill exposure lies largely in
policies written on municipal governments, in their operation or
maintenance of certain public lands. In addition to landfill
exposures, in recent years, we have experienced a relatively
consistent level of reported losses in the homeowners line of
business related to claims for groundwater contamination from
leaking underground heating oil storage tanks in New Jersey. In
2007, we instituted a fuel oil system exclusion on our New Jersey
homeowners policies that limits our exposure to leaking
underground storage tanks for certain customers. At that time,
existing insureds were offered a one-time opportunity to buy back
oil tank liability coverage.  The exclusion applies to all new
homeowners policies in New Jersey. These customers are eligible
for the buy-back option only if the tank meets specific
eligibility criteria.

"Our asbestos and environmental claims are handled in our
centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit.
Case reserves for these exposures are evaluated on a claim-by-
claim basis. The ability to assess potential exposure often
improves as a claim develops, including judicial determinations of
coverage issues. As a result, reserves are adjusted accordingly.

"Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is
difficult because of the delayed and inconsistent reporting
patterns associated with these claims. In addition, there are
significant uncertainties associated with estimating critical
assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs,
potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages,
litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal
legislative changes. Normal historically based actuarial
approaches cannot be applied to environmental claims because past
loss history is not indicative of future potential loss emergence.
In addition, while certain alternative models can be applied, such
models can produce significantly different results with small
changes in assumptions. As a result, we do not calculate an
asbestos and environmental loss range. Historically, our asbestos
and environmental claims have been significantly lower in volume,
with less volatility and uncertainty than many of our competitors
in the commercial lines industry. This is due to the nature of the
risks we insured, and the fact that we are the primary insurance
carrier on the majority of these exposures, which provides more
certainty in our reserve position compared to others in the
insurance marketplace."

Selective Insurance Group, Inc. is primarily a holding company for
ten customer-focused property and casualty (P&C) insurance
companies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Continues to Defend 111 PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in approximately 111
pending lawsuits that allege injury from 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 states: "We have been named in approximately 111
pending lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos. In
addition, to date, we have secured dismissals with prejudice and
without prejudice in approximately 68 and 232 lawsuits,
respectively and are currently in discussions for similar
dismissal of several other lawsuits, and have not been found
liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any
case. We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past and
current operations and the relatively non-friable condition of
asbestos in our products makes it unlikely that we will face
material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether
individually or in the aggregate. We do maintain insurance
coverage for these potential liabilities and we believe adequate
coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability."

Curtiss-Wright Corporation designs and manufactures highly
engineered, advanced technologies that perform critical functions
in demanding conditions in the defense, power generation, oil and
gas, commercial aerospace, and general industrial markets, where
safety, performance, and reliability are essential.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Corp. Had 25,000 Active Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corporation had approximately 25,000 active pending asbestos
personal injury liability 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 Company states: "We had approximately 25,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims at December 31, 2012
versus 26,000 such claims at December 31, 2011. In addition,
approximately 1,000 mostly inactive claims have been settled and
are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with or without
payment. We have accrued $83 million for indemnity and defense
costs for settled, pending and future claims at December 31, 2012,
compared to $89 million at December 31, 2011. We use a fifteen-
year time horizon for our estimate of this liability.

"At December 31, 2012, we had recorded $50 million as an asset for
probable recovery from our insurers for the pending and projected
asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $53 million
recorded at December 31, 2011. The recorded asset represents our
assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to
provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs
for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition
of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to
recover under the respective contracts and on the financial
strength of the insurers. We have coverage agreements in place
with our insurers confirming substantially all of the related
coverage and payments are being received on a timely basis. The
financial strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually
with the assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not
represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the
amount we would expect to recover if we paid the accrued indemnity
and defense costs. A 2011 settlement with one of the insurers
provided increased coverage on pending and projected claims,
resulting in an increased aggregate receivable as a percent of the
total liability at December 31, 2011.

"As part of our reorganization, assets and liabilities associated
with asbestos claims were retained in Dana Corporation which was
then merged into Dana Companies, LLC, a consolidated wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dana. The assets of Dana Companies, LLC include
insurance rights relating to coverage against these liabilities
and other assets which we believe are sufficient to satisfy its
liabilities. Dana Companies, LLC continues to process asbestos
personal injury claims in the normal course of business, is
separately managed and has an independent board member. The
independent board member is required to approve certain
transactions including dividends or other transfers of $1 million
or more of value to Dana.

"During the second quarter of 2011, we reached an agreement with
an insurer to settle a long-standing claim pending in the
liquidation proceedings of the insurer and recorded the estimated
fair value of the recovery. As a result, other income includes a
$6 million credit for this recovery of past outlays related to
asbestos claims."

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

                       http://is.gd/qgq85b

Dana Corporation is a global provider of high technology
driveline, sealing and thermal-management products for virtually
every major vehicle manufacturer in the on-highway and off-highway
markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
over personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-
containing products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the
past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has
generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that
this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will
not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated
into any such products were primarily encapsulated and used as
internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe
that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during
the use of this equipment.

"Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved
claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities
from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority
of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or
indemnities. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our
estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a
related receivable from insurers or other companies for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute. While
unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these
claims could have a material adverse impact on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we
currently believe the likelihood is remote. Additionally, we have
claims pending against certain insurers that, if resolved more
favorably than reflected in the recorded receivables, would result
in discrete gains in the applicable quarter. We are currently
unable to estimate the impact, if any, of unasserted asbestos-
related claims, although future claims would also be subject to
then existing indemnities and insurance coverage."

Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service
provider of comprehensive flow control systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Contends $75MM Net Reserve Was Adequate
------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., completed an environmental
top-down analysis in the fourth quarter of 2012, to determine the
appropriate loss reserve estimate for its asbestos exposures; and
found that its $75 million net reserve strengthening recognized in
the first half of 2012 was adequate, 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: "As part of our more in-depth comprehensive
loss-reserve review in the fourth quarter of 2010, we conducted a
series of top-down and ground-up reserve analyses to determine the
appropriate loss reserve estimate for our asbestos exposures. To
ensure the most comprehensive analysis possible, we engaged an
independent third-party actuarial firm to assist in assessing
these exposures. The ground-up study conducted by this firm used a
proprietary model to calculate the loss exposure on an insured-by-
insured basis. We believe that the accuracy of the reserve
estimate is greatly enhanced through the combination of the
actuarial firm's industry modeling techniques and industry
knowledge and our own specific account-level experience.

"Annually, the Company considers a number of factors and recent
experience in addition to the results of the top-down and ground-
up analyses performed for asbestos and environmental reserves. It
considered the significant uncertainty that remains as to its
ultimate liability for asbestos and environmental claims, which is
due to several factors:

* the long latency period between asbestos exposure and disease
  manifestation, leading to the potential for involvement of
  multiple policy periods for individual claims;

* claims filed under the non-aggregate premises or operations
  section of general liability policies;

* the number of insureds seeking bankruptcy protection and the
  effect of prepackaged bankruptcies;

* diverging legal interpretations; and

* the difficulty in estimating the allocation of remediation cost
  among various parties with respect to environmental claims.

"As a result of the top-down and ground-up reserve analyses and
the factors considered, asbestos reserves were strengthened by
$3.3 billion gross and $1.5 billion net in 2010.

"In 2011, the Company completed a top-down report year projection
as well as a market share projection of our indicated asbestos and
environmental loss reserves. These projections consisted of a
series of tests performed separately for asbestos and for
environmental exposures.

"For asbestos, these tests project the losses expected to be
reported through 2027. This projection was based on the actual
losses reported through 2011 and the expected future loss
emergence for these claims. Three scenarios were tested, with a
series of assumptions ranging from more optimistic to more
conservative.

"For environmental claims, a comparable series of
frequency/severity tests were produced. The Company updated the
top-down report year projections in 2012. In this updated
projection, environmental claims from future report years (i.e.,
IBNR) are projected out ten years, through the year 2022.

"As a result of the studies, the Company determined that no
additional strengthening was required for asbestos and
environmental in 2011.

"After we carefully considered the recent experience compared to
the results of the 2010 ground-up analysis, as well as all of the
factors, no adjustment to gross and net asbestos reserves was
recognized in 2012. Additionally in 2012, a moderate amount of
incurred loss pertaining to the asbestos loss reserve discount is
reflected in the Company's SEC report and is related to the
reserves not subject to the NICO reinsurance agreement.

"Upon completion of the environmental top-down analysis performed
in the fourth quarter of 2012, we concluded that the $75 million
net reserve strengthening recognized in the first half of 2012 was
adequate.

"In addition to the U.S. asbestos and environmental reserve, AIG
Property Casualty also has asbestos reserves relating to foreign
risks written by non-U.S. entities of $140 million gross and $116
million net as of December 31, 2012. The asbestos reserves
relating to non-U.S. risks written by non-U.S. entities were $233
million gross and $165 million net as of December 31, 2011.

Transfer of Domestic Asbestos Liabilities

"On June 17, 2011, the Company completed a transaction under which
the bulk of AIG Property Casualty's net domestic asbestos
liabilities were transferred to NICO, a subsidiary of Berkshire
Hathaway, Inc. This was part of the Company's ongoing strategy to
reduce its overall loss reserve development risk. This transaction
covers potentially volatile U.S.-related asbestos exposures. It
does not, however, cover asbestos accounts that the Company
believes has already been reserved to its limit of liability or
certain other ancillary asbestos exposure assumed by AIG Property
Casualty subsidiaries.

"Upon the closing of this transaction, but effective as of
January 1, 2011, the Company ceded the bulk of AIG Property
Casualty's net domestic asbestos liabilities to NICO under a
retroactive reinsurance agreement with an aggregate limit of $3.5
billion. Within this aggregate limit, NICO assumed collection risk
for existing third-party reinsurance recoverable associated with
these liabilities. AIG Property Casualty paid NICO approximately
$1.67 billion as consideration for this cession and NICO assumed
approximately $1.82 billion of net U.S. asbestos liabilities. As a
result of this transaction, AIG Property Casualty recorded a
deferred gain of $150 million in the second quarter of 2011, which
is being amortized into income over the settlement period of the
underlying claims."

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

                       http://is.gd/iuzpRi

American International Group, Inc., provides a wide range of
property casualty insurance, life insurance, retirement products,
mortgage insurance and other financial services to customers in
more than 130 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Monitoring PC Bankruptcy
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., continues to monitor the activity associated
with certain asbestos claims in the Pittsburgh Corning Corporation
bankruptcy proceeding, 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: "For over 30 years, PPG has been a defendant
in lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from
exposure to asbestos. Most of PPG's potential exposure relates to
allegations by plaintiffs that PPG should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known
as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation ("PC"). PPG and Corning Incorporated are each 50%
shareholders of PC. PPG has denied responsibility for, and has
defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC products. As of
the April 16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims
against PPG, PPG was one of many defendants in numerous asbestos-
related lawsuits involving approximately 114,000 claims served on
PPG. During the period of the stay, PPG generally has not been
aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims.

"On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

"Following the effective date of the third amended PC plan of
reorganization, as amended, and the lifting of the Bankruptcy
Court stay, PPG will monitor the activity associated with asbestos
claims which are not channeled to the Trust pursuant to the third
amended PC plan of reorganization, and evaluate its estimated
liability for such claims and related insurance assets then
available to the Company as well as underlying assumptions on a
periodic basis to determine whether any adjustment to its reserve
for these claims is required.

"Of the total obligation of $920 million and $834 million under
the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement at December 31, 2012 and 2011,
respectively, $683 million and $593 million are reported as a
current liabilities and the present value of the payments due in
the years 2014 to 2023 totaling $237 million and 2013 to 2023
totaling $241 million are reported as a non-current liability in
the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31,
2012 and 2011. The future accretion of the non-current portion of
the liability totals $109 million at December 31, 2012, and will
be reported as expense in the consolidated statement of income
over the period through 2023."

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

                       http://is.gd/0gicp4

PPG Industries, Inc. is a global supplier of coatings for
customers in a wide array of end use markets, including industrial
equipment, appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum
extrusions and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft
equipment; automotive original equipment; and other industrial and
consumer products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Insurance Covers Liability at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are presently named
as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries and seeking money damages, allegedly as
a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that
contained asbestos. These components were acquired from third
party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the
subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's settlements
and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration,
insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been
covered in full by insurance subject to applicable deductibles.
However, the Company cannot predict whether and to what extent
insurance will be available to continue to cover such settlements
and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are
tendered to them. Claims have been filed in jurisdictions
throughout the United States. Most of the claims resolved to date
have been dismissed without payment. The balance have been settled
for various insignificant amounts. Only one case has been tried,
resulting in a verdict for the affected business unit. No
provision has been made in the financial statements of the Company
for these asbestos-related claims, other than for insurance
deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does not
currently believe these claims will have a material adverse effect
on it.

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.

IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions business that sells an
extensive array of pumps, flow meters and other fluidics systems
and components and engineered products to customers in a variety
of markets around the world. All of the Company's business
activities are carried out through wholly-owned subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Awaits Ruling on NuStar Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on an appeal
filed by NuStar Energy LP from a summary judgment that Diamond
Offshore did not assume liability for asbestos-related 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 one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in state courts alleging that defendants
manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing
asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been
utilized aboard our offshore drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing
drilling mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the
drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are
not liable for the damages asserted and we expect to receive
complete defense and indemnity with respect to a majority of the
lawsuits from Murphy Exploration & Production Company pursuant to
the terms of our 1992 asset purchase agreement with them. We also
believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the
remaining lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset
purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation, and we filed a
declaratory judgment action in Texas state court against NuStar
Energy LP, or NuStar, the successor to Diamond M Corporation,
seeking a judicial determination that we did not assume liability
for these claims. We obtained summary judgment on our claims in
the declaratory judgment action, but NuStar has appealed the
court's decision. We are unable to estimate our potential
exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but do not
believe that ultimate liability, if any, resulting from this
litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows."

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., is a global offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation Had $63MM Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
At December 31, 2012, Exelon Corporation's subsidiary Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, had reserved approximately $63 million in
total for asbestos-related bodily injury 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.

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by
Exelon's subsidiaries Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO
Energy Company (PECO). The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted
basis and excludes the estimated legal costs associated with
handling these matters, which could be material.

At December 31, 2012 and 2011, Generation had reserved
approximately $63 million and $49 million, respectively, in total
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of December 31,
2012, approximately $14 million of this amount related to 170 open
claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $49 million of
the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury
claims anticipated to arise through 2050 based on actuarial
assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On
a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against
the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim
payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is
necessary. During the second quarter of 2012, Generation increased
its reserve by approximately $19 million, primarily due to
increased actual and projected number and severity of claims.
During 2011 and 2010, the updates to this reserve did not result
in material adjustments.

Since 1993, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) and certain
Constellation (now Generation) subsidiaries have been involved in
several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon
the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and
Generation knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard.
In addition to BGE and Generation, numerous other parties are
defendants in these cases.

Approximately 480 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
Generation have pending claims each seeking several million
dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Cross-claims and
third-party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed
against BGE and Generation in these actions. To date, most
asbestos claims which have been resolved have been dismissed or
resolved without any payment by BGE or Generation and a small
minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were
not material to BGE or Generation's financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases once they are placed on the trial
docket. At present, none of the pending cases are set for trial.
Given the limited discovery, BGE and Generation do not know the
specific facts that are necessary to provide an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss relating to these claims; as such, no
accrual has been made and a range of loss is not estimable. The
specific facts not known include:

* the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs
  allegedly worked as contractors;

* the names of the plaintiffs' employers;

* the dates on which and the places where the exposure allegedly
  occurred; and

* the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged exposure.

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who
employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions.

Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company engaged,
through its principal subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
in the energy generation business, and through its principal
subsidiaries Commonwealth Edison Company, PECO Energy Company, and
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, in the energy delivery
businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Defending Suits Involving 885 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2012, MRC Global Inc. is a defendant in
lawsuits involving approximately 885 of claims seeking damages for
injuries that certain products containing asbestos allegedly
caused, 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 involved in various legal proceedings
and claims, both as a plaintiff and a defendant, which arise in
the ordinary course of business. These legal proceedings include
claims that individuals brought against a large number of
defendant entities, including us, seeking damages for injuries
that certain products containing asbestos allegedly caused. As of
December 31, 2012, we are a defendant in lawsuits involving
approximately 885 of these claims. Each claim involves allegations
of exposure to asbestos-containing materials by an individual or
his or her family members. The complaints typically name many
defendants. In a majority of these lawsuits, little or no
information is known regarding the nature of the plaintiff's
alleged injuries or their connection with products that we
distributed. Through December 31, 2012, lawsuits involving 11,975
claims have been brought against us. No asbestos lawsuit has
resulted in a judgment against us to date, with the majority being
settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. In total, since the
first asbestos claim brought against us in 1984 through December
31, 2012, approximately $2.0 million has been paid to asbestos
claimants in connection with settlements of claims against us
without regard to insurance recoveries. Of this amount,
approximately $1.5 million has been paid to settle claims alleging
mesothelioma, $0.4 million for claims alleging lung cancer and
$0.1 million for non-malignant claims.

"There has been an increase in the number of claims filed since
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008. We believe that this
increase is primarily due to an increase in the marketing efforts
by personal injury law firms in West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Although we do not know whether this is a trend that will continue
in the near term, in the long term, we anticipate that asbestos-
related litigation against us will decrease as the incidence of
asbestos-related disease in the general U.S. population decreases.

"We annually conduct analyses of our asbestos-related litigation
to estimate the adequacy of the reserve for pending and probable
asbestos-related claims. These analyses consist of separately
estimating our reserve with respect to pending claims (both those
scheduled for trial and those for which a trial date had not been
scheduled), mass filings (including lawsuits brought in West
Virginia each involving many, in some cases over a hundred,
plaintiffs, which include little information regarding the nature
of each plaintiff's claim and historically have rarely resulted in
any payments to plaintiff) and probable future claims. A key
element of the analysis is categorizing our claims by the type of
disease the plaintiffs allege and developing "benchmark" estimated
settlement values for each claim category based on our historical
settlement experience. These estimated settlement values are
applied to each of our pending individual claims. With respect to
pending claims where the disease type is unknown, the outcome is
projected based on historic experience. The reserve with respect
to mass filings is estimated by determining the number of
individual plaintiffs included in the mass filings likely to have
claims resulting in settlements based on our historical experience
with mass filings. Finally, we estimate the value of probable
claims that plaintiffs may assert against us over the next 15
years based on public health estimates of future incidences of
certain asbestos-related diseases in the general U.S. population.
Estimated settlement values are applied to those projected claims.
Our annual assessment, dated December 31, 2012, projected that our
payments to asbestos claimants over the next 15 years are
estimated to range from $5.2 million to $13.1 million. Given these
estimates and existing insurance coverage that historically has
been available to cover substantial portions of our past payments
to claimants and defense costs, we believe that our current
accruals and associated estimates relating to pending and probable
asbestos-related litigation likely to be asserted over the next 15
years are currently adequate."

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

                     http://is.gd/ImJUvU

MRC Global Inc. is an industrial distributor of pipe, valves and
fittings and related products and services to the energy industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defends Exposure Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc continues to defend various asbestos-related lawsuits,
according to the Company's 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2012.

The Company states: "We and certain subsidiaries have been named
as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as co-
defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi and
Louisiana by approximately 100 plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals
alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act,
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs
and associated facilities during the 1960s through the 1980s.

"We intend to vigorously defend against these claims and have
filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and challenges
to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still ongoing
and, therefore, available information regarding the nature of all
pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably
determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under
the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure,
if any.

"In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi and Louisiana, we
have other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in
litigation in other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect the
final disposition of these asbestos or lung injury lawsuits to
have a material adverse effect upon our financial position,
operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to
the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits."

Ensco plc provides offshore contract drilling services to the
international oil and gas industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends Suits by 15K Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., continues to defend lawsuits
alleging asbestos-induced illness and involving 15,050 plaintiffs
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: "At December 31, 2012, we were a co-defendant
in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by
approximately 15,050 plaintiffs. In each instance, we are one of a
large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants allege that
exposure to asbestos contained in welding consumables caused the
plaintiffs to develop adverse pulmonary diseases, including
mesothelioma and other lung cancers.

"Since January 1, 1995, we have been a co-defendant in asbestos
cases that have been resolved as follows: 41,161 of those claims
were dismissed, 20 were tried to defense verdicts, seven were
tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of which are being appealed), one
was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 612 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.

"The long-term impact of the asbestos loss contingency, in the
aggregate, on operating results, operating cash flows and access
to capital markets is difficult to assess, particularly since
claims are in many different stages of development and we benefit
significantly from cost-sharing with co-defendants and insurance
carriers. While we intend to contest these lawsuits vigorously,
and believe we have applicable insurance relating to these claims,
there are several risks and uncertainties that may affect our
liability for personal injury claims relating to exposure to
asbestos, including the future impact of changing cost sharing
arrangements or a change in our overall trial experience.

"Asbestos use in welding consumables in the U.S. ceased in 1981."

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is a broad-line manufacturer of
welding, cutting, and brazing products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Still Defending 7 Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc., is currently defending itself against
seven pending asbestos 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: "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials.  The
Company currently has 72 pending silica cases and 7 pending
asbestos cases. To date, 1,394 silica cases and 32 asbestos cases
have been dismissed. No new asbestos cases were filed in the
fourth quarter of 2012, and twenty-two were dismissed.  Most of
these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their
merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or
the magnitude of such liability, if any.  Additional claims of
this nature may be made against the Company or its subsidiaries.
At this time management anticipates that the amount of the
Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such
claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position
or results of operations.

"The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to
date.  We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage.  The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense
of these cases since inception was approximately $0.2 million, the
majority of which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc pursuant to
the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with
the Company's initial public offering in 1992. Of the 7 pending
asbestos cases, all allege liability based on products sold mostly
or entirely prior to the initial public offering, and for which
the Company is therefore entitled to indemnification pursuant to
such agreements. Our experience has been that the Company is not
liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does
not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these
lawsuits."

Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based
company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a broad
range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral
products and supporting systems and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Still Defending Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, doing business as
Wabtec Corporation, continues to defend asbestos-related 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: "Claims have been filed against the Company
and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the
United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products. Most of these claims
have been made against our wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad
Friction Products Corporation ("RFPC"), and are based on a product
sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any
interest in RFPC.

"Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue. We cannot, however, assure
that all these claims will be fully covered by insurance or that
the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable. Our
ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these
claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be
estimated.

"It is Management's belief that the potential range of loss for
asbestos-related bodily injury cases is not reasonably
determinable at present due to a variety of factors, including:
(1) the asbestos case settlement history of the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, RFPC; (2) the unpredictable nature of personal
injury litigation in general; and (3) the uncertainty of asbestos
litigation in particular. Despite this uncertainty, and although
the results of the Company's operations and cash flows for any
given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related
lawsuits, Management believes that the final resolution of the
Company's asbestos-related cases will not be material to the
Company's overall financial position, results of operations and
cash flows. In general, this belief is based upon: (1) Wabtec's
and RFPC's history of settlements and dismissals of asbestos-
related cases to date; (2) the inability of many plaintiffs to
establish any exposure or causal relationship to RFPC's product;
and (3) the inability of many plaintiffs to demonstrate any
identifiable injury or compensable loss.

"More specifically, as to RFPC, Management's belief that any
losses due to asbestos-related cases would not be material is also
based on the fact that RFPC owns insurance which provides coverage
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. To date, RFPC's
insurers have provided RFPC with defense and indemnity in these
actions. The overall number of new claims being filed against RFPC
has dropped significantly in recent years; however, these new
claims, and all previously filed claims, may take a significant
period of time to resolve. As to Wabtec and its divisions,
Management's belief that asbestos-related cases will not have a
material impact is also based on its position that it has no legal
liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, and that the
former owners of Wabtec's assets retained asbestos liabilities for
the products at issue. To date, Wabtec has been able to
successfully defend itself on this basis, including two
arbitration decisions and a judicial opinion, all of which
confirmed Wabtec's position that it did not assume any asbestos
liabilities from the former owners of certain Wabtec assets.
Although Wabtec has incurred defense and administrative costs in
connection with asbestos bodily injury actions, these costs have
not been material, and the Company has no information that would
suggest these costs would become material in the foreseeable
future."

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, doing business as
Wabtec Corporation, primarily serves the worldwide freight rail
and passenger transit industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pilbarans Warned of Fibro Stirred Up by Cyclone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlyn Offer reporting for PerthNow says Pilbara residents
cleaning up after Cyclone Rusty have been warned to be careful of
asbestos disturbed by the destructive winds.

Asbestos is found extensively in building materials throughout the
Pilbara region, was mined in Wittenoom and exported through Point
Sampson.

Senior asbestos lawyer from Slater and Gordon, Simon Millman, said
there was a danger from disturbed asbestos dust when residents are
repairing and cleaning their damaged homes and properties.

"While it can be hard to know if your home or business contains
asbestos, it was a common building product right up until the mid
1980s, so you should assume that if your home is built before then
there's a definite risk," he said.

"There's a real concern that residents may start the clean-up
process without appropriate protection, and this is a timely
reminder for residents that it's better to be overly cautious when
dealing with anything you think could contain asbestos."

More than 260 Western Australians die from asbestos-related
diseases every year, with the time between exposure and diagnosis
being up to 30 or 40 years.

Information about dealing with asbestos can be found on the
Department of Health's website: http://is.gd/KNgbod


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dump Traced Back to Ex-Shellharbour Mayor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illawarra Mercury reports that a load of asbestos fibro
sheeting found dumped at Flinders on the morning of March 6 came
from former Shellharbour mayor Kellie Marsh's home, she says.

A ute containing the bonded asbestos was stolen, and is believed
to have dropped the load of sheeting near Flinders Public School
about 3.30am.

Three roads remained closed over the day and the clean-up
operation took about 12 hours.

Police, firefighters and representatives from the Environment
Protection Authority showed up about 7am.

The material was found on Tuan Street, and sections of Brunderee
and Baragoot roads, Shellharbour City Council said.

In a strange sequence of events, the sheeting originated from the
Barrack Heights property rented by Cr Marsh, who informed the
Mercury of the incident March 5, the day after a fibro fence at
the home was demolished.

Cr Marsh told the Mercury that workers removed the fence from the
property and loaded it into the back of a ute.

"It was an old fibro fence that had been there for about 30
years," she said.

The ute, which did not belong to Cr Marsh, was then parked outside
a home in Potaroo Place, Blackbutt overnight.

However, sometime after 1am, the ute was stolen and the sheeting
was dumped on the roundabout in Flinders.

Cr Marsh said that when she heard the ute had been stolen early
morning of March 5, she rang Shellharbour council to alert them.

About 5.30am, the ute was set alight near Verbena Way in Barrack
Heights, police said.

Cr Marsh said she believed her fence did not contain asbestos,
after a specialist inspected it before she moved in, so was
shocked when HazMat crews investigating the material at Flinders
told her otherwise.

"My son and I have been playing in the backyard and the fence was
broken up," she said.

A Fire and Rescue NSW spokesman said the material at Flinders
contained asbestos.

An occupational hygienist and asbestos management experts cleaned
the site, over more than 12 hours for the council.

"The specialists identified that the material was bonded asbestos,
which is considered to be the safest form of the hazardous
material," the council said.

Police confirmed the connection between the material at Flinders
and a burnt-out ute found at Barrack Heights.

Anyone with information is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on
1800333000 or Lake Illawarra police on 42325599.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Awning Fallout in South Grafton Contained
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Newley of The Clarence Valley Daily Examiner (Aus) reports
that an incident that left asbestos exposed in a busy street was
handled as well as it could have been, South Grafton fire station
captain Dennis Pye has said.

Mr. Pye said officers from the station were called to Skinner St
on the afternoon of March 2 after a water-logged awning started to
fall apart.

Builders were already working on the site and a passer-by,
concerned about the lack of protective equipment, called the
emergency services.

"One or two pieces (of the awning) actually fell to the ground and
some workmen were called in to render the area safe," Mr. Pye
said.

He conceded the builders didn't have all of the protective gear
but said they did their best considering they were called in "at a
moment's notice" and didn't initially know there was asbestos
there.

"We donned the personal protective equipment; we went into
overkill.  We cordoned the area off," Mr. Pye said.

He said the asbestos was sodden with water and there was no dust,
which minimized the risk of anyone breathing in the potentially
fatal material.

Council deputy general manager Robert Donges said a council
officer attended the site and was happy with how it was handled.

He said the asbestos was wrapped with plastic and stored
accordingly until it was taken to the disposal centre.

Mr. Donges said the recent rainfall meant buildings were suffering
and people should look out for asbestos.

"You have always got to be careful.  If you have got a building it
is best to know whether you have asbestos in it in case you do
have an incident," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lenawee Sheriff's Offices Up For Fibro Testing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Pelham of The Daily Telegram reports that the air in the
Lenawee County Sheriff's Department offices is to be tested for
asbestos.

Sheriff Jack Welsh questioned the safety of the air in the
building after reviewing a report on a 2009 building evaluation
that identified 69 items that contain asbestos.  One of the
locations is plaster on office walls that has been crumbling and
falling onto radiators.

"I am concerned about the environment inside the building after
finding out about the asbestos issue," Welsh told county
commissioners at a physical resources committee meeting on Monday,
March 4.

"If it's OK, great.  If it's not, we need to do something for the
employees who work inside the building," Welsh said.  He asked for
testing and any needed work to protect employees without waiting
for decisions on renovating or replacing the 60-year-old building.

County maintenance supervisor Tim Mehan said he contacted a
company last week to discuss proposed air-quality testing in two
other county buildings.  He is to seek quotes from several
companies to test the sheriff's department building.

"If we have a problem we will move quickly to solve it," said
commission chairman John Tuckerman, R-Blissfield.

Committee chairman Cletus Smith, R-Madison Twp., said air-quality
testing should provide direction about what needs to be done to
protect employees.

The committee is also moving forward on deciding the building's
future.  Committee members toured the building last month for a
first-hand look at its condition.

Kreighoff-Lenawee construction company has been asked to evaluate
the building and come up with options, said county administrator
Martin Marshall.

"We need to have that analysis before we can proceed in any
constructive way," Marshall said.  A report from Kreighoff-Lenawee
is expected before the committee's April 1 meeting, he said.

The report on the 2009 evaluation of asbestos in the building
stated there should be no concern for employees working in the
building if proper maintenance procedures are followed, Marshall
said.

Mehan said recommendations for dealing with asbestos in the
building are being followed.

Air testing is a "step in the right direction," Smith said.  "I'm
sure there are parts of that building that are a concern."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corporation, 56 Others Face Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that an Ashland,
Ky., couple are suing 57 companies they claim are responsible for
an asbestosis diagnosis.

Arthur Benjamin, Jr. was diagnosed with asbestosis on Aug. 20,
according to a complaint filed March 1 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Benjamin and his wife, Jackie L. Benjamin, claim he smoked for
approximately 47 years, starting in approximately 1966, but quit a
few times.

The defendants exposed Arthur Benjamin to asbestos and/or
asbestos-containing products during his career as a laborer from
1968 until 2001, according to the suit.

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

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

The Benjamins are seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved.  They are being represented by James A. McKowen of James
F. Humphreys & Associates.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 57 defendants in the suit include 3M Company; A.K. Steel
Corporation; Ashland, Inc.; A.W. Chesterton Company; Amdura
Corporation; Bucyrus International, Inc.; CBS Corporation;
Caterpillar, Inc.; Clark Equipment Company; and Certainteed
Corporation.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-423.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Friable Fibro Found in 44 Bassetlaw Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Worksop Guardian reports that Notts County Council is to
inspect 44 schools across Bassetlaw this year for asbestos, the
authority has revealed.

The Worksop Guardian obtained new figures under the Freedom of
Information (FOI) Act which show 20 schools in Worksop and 24 in
Retford will be inspected this year.

Tim Gregory, corporate director, environment and resources at
Notts County Council, said the checks will be made as part of the
authority's annual inspections of schools.

"The county council has comprehensive asbestos management
protocols which apply to all its buildings and includes a regime
of regular surveys when necessary," he said.

"We work on the basis that any building erected before the year
2000 could contain asbestos unless we can prove otherwise, which
is in line with Health and Safety Executive guidance."

He added: "The surveys in Bassetlaw do not entail any materials
being disturbed, so there is no risk to the inspector or other
users of the buildings whilst the surveys are taking place."

"Asbestos only poses a risk if it is disturbed."

"The information collected during the survey monitors the
condition of the asbestos and the likelihood of it being disturbed
during the day-to-day use of the building."

"Following Control of Asbestos Regulations, high or medium risk
items are either professionally and safely removed or treated."

"Low or very low risk items continue to be monitored and managed.
The council also has an on-going program of improvements to school
buildings, so it is vital to have up-to-date information on the
location and condition of any asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Detected at Canberra Hospital - Non Toxic
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Jean, health reporter for The Canberra Times relates that
fears of possible asbestos contamination at the Canberra Hospital
have been allayed after tests revealed suspicious fibers were
actually made of linen.

Construction work on levels 7 and 9 were halted this week after
airborne fibers were detected.  Staff, patients and visitors were
advised that the risk of coming into contact with asbestos was
low.

But ACT Health spokesman Charles Guest said testing conducted with
an electron microscope had determined the fibers were not
asbestos.

"Because of the extensive safety measures put in place by the
qualified asbestos remover involved in refurbishment work at
Canberra Hospital, we considered the risk of asbestos exposure to
be remote," Dr. Guest said.

"The formal testing has confirmed this and has determined the
fibers to be organic in nature indicating their origins may be
from linen such as bed sheets, blankets, towels or clothing.

"ACT Health has followed all relevant laws, safety procedures,
codes of practice and guidelines in undertaking the asbestos
removal work, and in informing the public of a potential hazard
when it was detected."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Recommends Background Check On Removalists
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Huffman, consumer news reporter for ConsumerAffairs, reports
that asbestos has been outlawed as a building material for more
than three decades, but that doesn't mean it can't turn up in your
home.  And when it does, it shouldn't be ignored.

It wasn't unusual to find asbestos in construction materials, such
as drywall products, floor tile and roofing shingles, up until the
mid 1980s.  It was used as an insulator and flame retardant.
Though it was banned in 1978, the law allowed companies to use up
their existing supply of the material until 1986.

Joy, of Fort Worth, Tex., recently discovered her pipes were
insulated with asbestos when she called a plumber to repair her
water heater.

"He told us the water heater was not even installed to code," Joy
wrote in a ConsumerAffairs post.  "We were not told about the
asbestos pipe either.  At this point there is no resolution.  I
don't even know where to begin with this."

Linked To Fatal Diseases

Asbestos was outlawed because it is dangerous when it becomes
airborne, leading to diseases like mesothelioma, lung cancer, and
asbestosis.  Despite that scary fact, asbestos removal is not
always necessary when you discover it.  In some cases, experts say
doing so could actually increase the risks to you and your loved
ones.

That's because asbestos creates harm when the material ages and
breaks down or is damaged.  As it crumbles, tiny particles are
released in the air and can end up in your lungs.  If asbestos-
containing materials such as drywall and floor tile are undamaged,
you could be better off leaving it alone.

But here's a problem.  Generally, you can't tell whether material
contains asbestos just by looking at it, unless it happens to have
a label.  To be sure requires sophisticated tests.

When In Doubt

If in doubt, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
federal agency with jurisdiction over asbestos removal, says you
should treat the material as if it contains asbestos and leave it
alone.  You may want to have your home inspected for asbestos-
containing materials by a trained and accredited asbestos
professional if you're planning a remodeling project that could
disturb or damage the materials in question.

A trained and accredited asbestos professional should take samples
for analysis, since a professional knows what to look for, and
because there may be an increased health risk if fibers are
released.  In fact, if done incorrectly, sampling can be more
hazardous than leaving the material alone.  For that reason,
taking samples yourself is not recommended.

If building materials in your home aren't damaged and won't be
disturbed, the EPA advises you do not need to have your home
tested for asbestos.  Material that is in good condition and will
not be disturbed should be left alone.

No Cause For Alarm

For that reason, finding what you think is asbestos in your home
is no call for alarm.  A visual inspection of the area should tell
you if the material is damaged and "leaking" tiny fibers.  If it
appears to be in good shape, and is unlikely to be damaged or
disturbed, it probably poses no risk.

If the material you suspect is asbestos shows signs of wear or
damage, or is exposed to potential wear and damage, there are two
courses of action and both should be left to professionals.

Repair usually involves either sealing or covering asbestos
material.  With any type of repair, the asbestos remains in place.

Sealing, also known as encapsulation, involves treating the
material with a sealant that either binds the asbestos fibers
together or coats the material so fibers are not released.  Pipe,
furnace and boiler insulation can sometimes be repaired this way.
This should be done only by a professional trained to handle
asbestos safely.

Covering, also called enclosure, involves placing something over
or around the material that contains asbestos to prevent release
of fibers.  Exposed insulated piping may be covered with a
protective wrap or jacket.

Asbestos Removal

Removing asbestos from your home can be an expensive project.  To
keep it from being more expensive than it should be, EPA
recommends avoiding a conflict of interest.  An asbestos
professional hired to assess the need for asbestos repair or
removal should not be connected with an asbestos firm that does
the actual repair or removal of materials.  It is better to use
two different firms so there is no conflict of interest.

When considering the services of asbestos professionals, ask them
to document their completion of federal or state-approved
training.  Each person performing work should provide proof of
accreditation to do asbestos work.

It is also a good idea to check on the past performance of your
candidates with your local air pollution control board, the local
agency responsible for worker safety, and the Better Business
Bureau.  Ask if the firm has had any safety violations.  Find out
if there are legal actions filed against it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leaving Off Nonfriable Fibro Can Be Safer
----------------------------------------------------------
If you suspect that your house contains asbestos, you may be
interested in having it removed or you may be wondering what will
happen if you decide to renovate your home.  Asbestos was commonly
used in construction materials, such as drywall products, floor
tile and roofing shingles, with some of these materials containing
asbestos up until the mid 1980s.  Asbestos is most dangerous when
it becomes airborne, which can lead to diseases like mesothelioma,
lung cancer, and asbestosis.  While having asbestos removed may
seem like the best thing to do in light of our knowledge of the
dangers of asbestos, it should be noted that asbestos removal is
not always necessary.  In some cases, doing so could actually
increase the risks to you and your loved ones.  If asbestos
containing materials such as drywall and floor tile are undamaged,
it is advisable to leave it alone.

You should always check with the proper authorities before
beginning any project, and trained inspectors should be hired to
investigate whether or not asbestos is present.  If asbestos
materials are present, you should hire qualified asbestos removal
professionals to ensure that this dangerous mineral is taken out
and disposed of properly.

There are several different types of professionals suited for this
job, from general asbestos contractors to specialists such as
roofing, flooring and plumbing contractors.  The federal
government offers training courses in asbestos removal.  State and
local health departments and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regional offices are a few trustworthy places to turn to for lists
of local, licensed professionals.  You can also check the yellow
pages of the phone book.  It is important to remember that
licensed professionals should always be consulted before beginning
any asbestos removal project.

For more information on asbestos related diseases like
mesothelioma, asbestosis and other illnesses visit
CooneyConway.com or call 888-875-7899 today.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbiana Initiates Phase 1 Of Demolition Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Giambroni for Salem News reports that Columbiana County
commissioners took the first step toward demolishing the old
county welfare office building by hiring a Mahoning County
contractor on Wednesday, March 6, to remove and dispose of
asbestos.

Commissioners voted to award the asbestos removal contract to the
Howland Co. of Youngstown for $24,460, which was the lowest of the
four bids received.

The decision means commissioners are moving ahead with plans to
demolish the county Annex No. 1 building on Nelson Avenue, which
served as home to the county Department of Job and Family Services
from the late 1970s until last April, when the JFS relocated to
the new county government services building off state Route 45.

After initially abandoning plans to raze the building,
commissioners changed their minds and decided to do the project in
phases, depending on the cost, with the first phase focusing on
removing asbestos from the building, which was constructed in the
1950s. Once this is completed sometime this year, the next step
would be to seek demolition bids.

Although commissioners have no immediate plans for the property,
they intend to do something with it.

In other action at Wednesday's meeting, county Extension Office
director and 4-H coordinator Katie Houk briefed commissioners on
the office's 2012 activities, noting more than 700 youths
participated in the 4-H program last year.

Houk also reminded commissioners not to forget her agency when it
comes to funding.  Commissioners provided the extension office
with $15,000 initially but usually provide more as the year goes
on.  That was the case in 2012, when commissioners provided the
extension office with $60,000 during the course of the year, with
the state contributing another $100,000.

The next meeting is set at 9 a.m. on March 13.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beacon House Faces $13,000 Fibro Abatement Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Strangeways of The Royal Gazette Online reports that a charity
has been hit with an unexpected $13,000 bill after asbestos was
found in the floor of its headquarters.

The toxic substance was found by contractors starting renovation
work at Beacon House in Hamilton for Bermuda Society for the
Blind.

The discovery means the charity has had to put on hold its plans
to improve the building, on the corner of Dundonald Street and
Cedar Avenue.

Amanda Marshall, president of the society's board, told The Royal
Gazette: "It came to our attention that there might be asbestos in
the flooring.  We immediately stopped everything.

"We contacted one of the local companies that does asbestos
testing.  They indicated there was asbestos."

Dr. Marshall said work to remove the asbestos would begin on March
11, meaning Beacon House will close for a week or two for blind
and visually-impaired users.

"The rest of the renovations are on hold," she added.  "The
asbestos removal has impacted our budget."

Four people attend basket and stool-making workshops at Beacon
House, while several retirees receive stipends from the charity.

It also provides training in independent living skills,
orientation and mobility, and assistive technology for the
Island's blind and visually impaired population.

Part of Beacon House is rented out by the society to Bermuda
Diabetes Association.  That section is not affected by the
asbestos and will remain open.

Bermuda Society for the Blind gets an annual $30,000 grant from
Government and receives money from a trust but otherwise relies on
donations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senator Designates First Week of April as NAAW
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baron & Budd's The Mesothelioma News relates that even today, most
people believe that the threat of asbestos exposure is a thing of
the past.  People may hear about mesothelioma on T.V. or catch a
glimpse of a news article on asbestos, but the toxic substance
seems to be removed from the general public's daily life.  In
fact, many people in the United States believe that asbestos is
already banned in the U.S. even though we continue to import the
toxic substance on a steady basis.  Unfortunately, the reality of
the dangers of asbestos can become all too clear once you or a
loved one is diagnosed with mesothelioma, an aggressive and fatal
form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure.  Therefore, it is
imperative for leaders such as Senator Max Baucus, along with co-
sponsors, to continue to propagate asbestos awareness.

Last week, Sen. Baucus introduced a resolution that designates the
first week of April as National Asbestos Awareness Week (NAAW).
The NAAW is a nationwide effort to promote education about the
dangers of asbestos and increase awareness on the current status
of asbestos in the U.S.

Asbestos is a carcinogen that was prominently used until the 1970s
and is still used in the U.S today.  When asbestos fibers are
inhaled or ingested, this exposure can lead to mesothelioma, lung,
gastrointestinal, laryngeal and ovarian cancers, as well as non-
malignant lung and pleural disorders.  According to the World
Health Organization (WHO), approximately 107,000 workers will die
each year from an asbestos-related disease.

Despite the well-documented dangers of asbestos exposure, a report
from the United States Geological Survey states that an estimated
two percent of the 1,060 tons of asbestos imported in the United
States is unaccounted for.  Asbestos is always dangerous, but when
its use is unknown it represents a significant risk of exposure.
The toxic substance has been known to show up in a variety of
products, from household goods to children's toys.

Organizations such as the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
(ADAO) have been working to educate the public on the facts of
asbestos and advocate for a ban.  Linda Reinstein, CEO and co-
founder of ADAO, is the perfect example of someone who was unaware
of the severity of asbestos until it became part of her reality.
Her husband passed away from mesothelioma in 2004.  She has since
made it her mission to advocate for asbestos victims and educate
the masses on asbestos disease.

The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron and Budd is an avid
supporter of asbestos advocacy groups such as the ADAO and share
in the organization's goal to place a global ban on asbestos.  The
law firm is a platinum sponsor of ADAO for the second consecutive
year.  Baron and Budd is also committed to serving as a
comprehensive resource for those effected by mesothelioma and
other asbestos-related diseases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Advanced" Option Urged Over Costly Gear Change
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Delcore of The Barre Montpelier Times Argus reports that
city councilors were told during an emergency meeting Wednesday,
March 6, night that when it comes to gear that was potentially
contaminated by asbestos in a late-December fire "doing nothing"
probably isn't an option, doing something could cost as much as
$235,000, and where that money will come from is still anybody's
guess.

Less than 24 hours after learning that the city's $10.5 million
budget request went down in flames, councilors met with the chief
and assistant chief of their fire department and three other
"experts" who they have asked to collectively craft a
recommendation for their consideration Tuesday, March 12.

At issue is a lingering concern that firefighters' turnout gear
and other "porous" equipment -- from high-pressure fire hoses to
straps for everything from helmets to self-contained breathing
apparatus -- were contaminated during -- and immediately after --
the Dec. 20, 2012, fire at Houle Brothers' Granite plant on South
Front Street.

City officials belatedly learned that there was a significant
amount of a rare asbestos material in the fire-damaged facility
and its friable fibers likely rained down on firefighters when
they ripped into the roof of the building in an attempt to keep
the early morning blaze from spreading and assisted in "overhaul"
efforts later in the day.

All of that equipment has since been cleaned to the best of the
department's ability and remains in service because, Chief Tim
Bombardier noted, "shutting the doors of the firehouse" isn't
really an option.

However, Bombardier has since pitched a plan to replace all of
that equipment at a projected cost of $235,000.  Roughly half of
that expense -- nearly $115,000 -- is tied to a proposal to
replace 40 sets of turnout gear that is currently being used by
the department's 17 full-time firefighters, as well as members of
its call force and cadet program.  The balance would cover the
cost of equipment -- most notably cloth fire hoses.

Heading into Wednesday's (March 6) meeting, Bombardier had
indicated there really wasn't any other option, because the
personal protective equipment couldn't be tested for the presence
of asbestos fibers without being destroyed and no one would clean
it and certify that it was "asbestos-free."

"I believe, based on everything I know at this point, that we need
to replace our porous gear," Bombardier said.  "I haven't heard
anything to date that would make me change that opinion."

Moments later Fred Satink, loss control specialist for the Vermont
League of Cities and Towns, offered what might be a reasonable
alternative -- at least with respect to the turnout gear.  He said
he had spoken with one out-of-state firm earlier in the day that
provides precisely that sort of cleaning service the city would
need.

According to Satink, the "advanced cleaning" process, which is
conducted in accordance with applicable National Fire Protection
Association standards, costs $81 per coat, $81 per pair of pants.
Once the cleaning is complete, he said the company sends out
representative samples of the garments to an independent lab for
analysis using a "non-destructive" test.  That analysis, he said,
costs $325 per garment and it would be up to the city to decide
whether to test one, some or all of the garments.

"This is a fairly reasonable option to consider and I would
encourage you to do that," Satink told the council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judiciary Committee Hears Testimony Behind HB153
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis of The Madison / St. Clair Record reports that
there might not have been a vote, but lawmakers heard testimony
this week over legislation aimed at preventing "double-dipping" by
asbestos claimants.

Sponsored by Rep. Dwight Kay, R-Glen Carbon, House Bill 153 would
require plaintiffs seeking compensation for their asbestos-related
injuries to disclose their trust claims information within 30 days
of the start of discovery in their lawsuits.

The bill, modeled after recently-passed legislation in Ohio,
intends to prevent plaintiffs from filing suits against businesses
in court and going after money in the trusts bankrupted companies
created to compensate asbestos victims.

Kay previously said he was "flabbergasted" that there are two
avenues for claimants to seek damages and that more transparency
is needed given the size of asbestos dockets in Cook and Madison
counties.

He testified in support of his bill on Wednesday, March 6, in the
House Judiciary Committee, which also heard from Todd Maisch with
the Illinois Chamber of Commerce; Brian McGuire, the president of
Tooling & Manufacturing Association; and Mark Behrens --
mbehrens@shb.com --, an attorney with Shook, Hardy & Bacon in
Washington D.C.

Behrens testified on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's
Institute for Legal Reform, which owns The Record.

He told members of the Judiciary Committee that by the end of
2011, nearly 100 companies with asbestos liabilities had filed
bankruptcy.  A recent trend in asbestos litigation, he said,
involves the creation of trusts set up in bankruptcy to pay claims
against former asbestos defendants.

"Over 60 trusts have been established to collectively form a $36.8
billion privately funded asbestos personal injury compensation
system that operates parallel to, but wholly independent of, the
civil tort system," Behrens said in his prepared testimony.

Because these trusts operate independent of the court system,
Behrens said the current system "is fertile ground for inequity."

As an example, Behrens pointed to Garlcok Sealing Technologies, a
gasket manufacturer currently in bankruptcy who reported some
inconsistencies in the claims filed against it.

"Of the 255 Garlock mesothelioma plaintiffs who filed claims
against Pittsburgh Corning, only 19 had disclosed their exposure
to Pittsburgh Corning asbestos to Garlock," he said, noting that
both plaintiffs and trusts, many of which he claims are involved
in governing these trusts, have "resisted  making this information
available."

Behrens said that more transparency is needed in order to prevent
claimants from double-dipping and help "asbestos trusts and
solvent defendants alike to assess claims based on accurate and
reliable exposure information."

The transparency proposed in Kay's bill could also "help ensure
that solvent defendants are held responsible only for their fair
share of the liability, whether through proper set-off credits
post-verdict or by proving that the now bankrupt entity was the
sole proximate cause of the harm," he said.

As president of the Tooling & Manufacturing Association (TMA),
McGuire testified this week in support of HB 153.

"Myriad Illinois-based companies, including many small and medium
sized manufacturers, are being hurt by the current lack of trust
claims transparency," he said in a prepared statement.  "As a
state with a strong manufacturing sector, Illinois feels the
impact of abusive asbestos litigation more directly than many
other states."

Pointing to reports from the Government Accountability Office and
RAND Institute, TMA contends that having a dual compensation
system for asbestos plaintiffs "promotes fraudulent and
inconsistent claims."

"It is evident that asbestos claimants are presenting the trusts
with one set of facts while telling solvent defendants something
entirely different," the group claimed in a new release regarding
the legislation.

As an example, the group pointed to a case in Ohio, where "a
claimant told a trust he was exposed to its asbestos as a World
War II shipyard worker.  But in his tort suit he claimed he only
passed through the shipyard and that his injuries were the result
of exposure to asbestos-containing consumer products."

TMA asserts similar situations have occurred in Delaware,
Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma and Virginia.

When plaintiffs file their trust claims after their lawsuits have
been resolved, the group claims that businesses are denied the
"opportunity to fully and fairly defend themselves" and that
solvent defendants "end up paying more than their fair share of
liability."

It is unclear when, or if, HB 153 will be called to a committee
vote.  As of Thursday, March 7, it remained assigned to the House
Judiciary Committee.  The language of Kay's bill can be found at
ilga.gov.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claritas, Network Rail Ink Fibro Management Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Yorkshire Post reports that a Yorkshire-based IT services firm
is helping to ensure that rail workers and passengers are
protected from asbestos.

Claritas, which is based in Bramham, near Leeds, has secured a
GBP200,000 contract with Network Rail to develop an asbestos risk
management system.  Over the next eight years, the "working
relationship" with Network Rail will provide a GBP1.5m boost for
Claritas.

A spokesman for Claritas, which has 50 staff, said the IT program
provides a quick assessment of the location of asbestos, so it can
be treated by Network Rail.

Network Rail, which has 40,000 employees, operates, maintains and
develops Britain's rail infrastructure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling on Libby Lawyers Fee Request Up in 2 Weeks
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Western News reports that upon hearing statements from
asbestos victims Friday, March 8, 19th Judicial District Court
Judge James B. Wheelis said he will accept for two weeks written
comments from those affected with asbestos before ruling on
whether lawyers should receive money meant for asbestos victims.

Wheelis made the comment during a hearing as to whether attorneys
from three law firms should be able to receive up to 20 percent of
a $19.5 million medical trust fund created as the result of a
bankruptcy settlement with W.R. Grace.  The fund was meant to
assist those with asbestos-related diseases pay medical expenses,
specifically Medicare premiums.

The Libby Medical Fund replaces the old W.R. Grace insurance plan
that served the same purpose and was on the verge of being
discontinued.  The Libby Medical Fund payments are earmarked for
the payment of Medicare premiums for victims.  The trust has an
administrator and a three-person local board.

Speaking on behalf of all attorneys involved, Roger Sullivan,
addressed Wheelis' questions of jurisdiction, the doctrine of
common fund, spoke to client and nonclient comments and,
generally, defended the lawyer's position of entitlement to 20
percent of the settlement.

Sullivan said the three firms have accumulated more than 18,000
hours of work during 11 years to bankruptcy litigation.  Some
45,000 hours have been spent in other Libby litigation.

Sullivan said the Wheelis jurisdiction was handed down to the 19th
District Court as part the bankruptcy-court settlement that
awarded funds creating the trust.

The doctrine of common fund was created for those times when the
legal effort of a few benefits a larger group than just the
original few clients, so the cost is borne by clients and non
clients who benefit.

Sullivan said the first distribution of funds has already
occurred, estimating the current payout rate will have the $19.5
million trust depleted in three to five years.

Wheelis allowed beneficiaries of the trust to make public comment.
Most spoke of high out-of-pocket medical bills.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Meso Lawsuit Filed v. A. Mormile Plumbing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Pitcher of The Leader Herald reports that the family of a man
who spent part of his career as a plumber is suing a local
plumbing company, saying it's responsible for his death from
mesothelioma after he came in repeated contact with asbestos.

Josephine Jaworski, the widow of Joseph Jaworski, filed the suit
on behalf of herself and her late husband's estate in state
Supreme Court in Fonda on Feb. 22, against A. Mormile Plumbing &
Heating of Amsterdam.  Among the claims in the lawsuit are
wrongful death, negligence and loss of consortium.

The lawsuit doesn't specify an amount Josephine Jaworski is
seeking in damages.

This is the second lawsuit Josephine Jaworski has filed against
the company.  A similar suit claiming negligence filed in state
Supreme Court in Johnstown in June 2011 named more than 100 other
defendants, including CBS, Ford, General Electric, Goodyear and
Sears, but the case was disposed before coming to trial, according
to court records.

According to his obituary, Joseph Jaworski was 83 years old when
he died July 17, 2011 -- less than a month after the first lawsuit
was filed.

The obituary says he owned a vending company and spent 30 years as
an Amsterdam firefighter after starting his career in the plumbing
industry.  According to state pension records, Jaworski retired
from the Fire Department on Oct. 31, 1976.

Neither lawsuit specifies when Jaworski was employed by A. Mormile
Plumbing & Heating.  The 2011 lawsuit says "for a period of many
years" Jaworski was exposed to asbestos "while working in various
shipyards, steel mills, refineries, paper mills, chemical plants,
industrial sites and other facilities" or was exposed through
normal use of asbestos products.

The lawsuits also don't say when he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, a form of cancer frequently caused by asbestos
exposure.

James Mormile, an owner of the plumbing company, said the company
has not been served with the lawsuit and declined to comment on
it.  But he said the company Jaworski would have worked for no
longer exists.

The family has been in the plumbing and heating business for four
generations, spanning more than 90 years, but the company being
sued has been incorporated only since 1985, according to state
Department of State records.  The 2011 lawsuit also named the
Mormile Wholesale Plumbing & Heating Supply Corp., which no longer
exists as an active corporation, according to Department of State
Records.

Josephine Jaworski's attorney, Richard White, a partner in the
Manhattan-based Belluck & Fox firm, did not return a phone message
seeking comment.  Belluck & Fox specializes in mesothelioma and
asbestos-related cases, according to its website.

The lawsuit says while working for A. Mormile Plumbing & Heating,
Joseph Jaworski was repeatedly exposed to asbestos fibers and
dust.  The suit says the company should have known "their asbestos
products would cause the release of asbestos fibers and dust into
the ambient air, creating danger and unreasonable risk of injury
and harm to those breathing the air contaminated with such
asbestos fibers and dust."

The lawsuit claims A. Mormile Plumbing & Heating was negligent by
not warning the public or its employees of the danger of asbestos
products.  It also says the company didn't test products for
hazards, didn't tell employees of the need for protection, failed
to enforce or adopt safety protocols, and didn't "remove their
asbestos products from the stream of commerce despite knowledge of
the unsafe and dangerous nature of those products," among other
claims.

The suit claims wrongful death, because Jaworski allegedly
sustained asbestos-related injuries, diseases and illness that led
to his death, and resulted in his family suffering damages,
including loss of his "income, support, inheritance, care and
assistance," as well as the family incurring medical, funeral and
other expenses.  It also claims loss of consortium for his widow.

Other causes of action in the lawsuit include breach of warranty,
because the company allegedly said its asbestos products were "of
good and merchantable quality," and strict liability, because the
company allegedly knew products would reach consumers without
substantial changes from their original form.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Warns Of Mesothelioma From 'Carried' Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------------
An industrial disease expert has warned how family members of
workers might have been unwittingly exposed to deadly asbestos by
their loved ones decades ago.

Bridget Collier -- bridget.collier@fentons.co.uk --, head of the
Industrial Disease Claims team at Fentons Personal Injury
Solicitors LLP, said the recent case of a woman in her 70s who
died from mesothelioma had highlighted how asbestos dust
represented a danger not just to those who worked in heavy
industry, but also to their wives and children.

"Only last month a coroner recorded a verdict of death by
industrial disease after a 78-year-old woman succumbed to
mesothelioma," said Bridget, a partner with the firm.  "The court
heard how the woman had breathed in asbestos fibers as she shook
out the work clothes of her husband and son, who worked at a power
station.

"Whilst a tragic case in itself, it has served as a stark warning
that entire families might be unaware that they have been exposed
to asbestos."

Bridget, who for many years has seen first-hand the devastating
effects mesothelioma has on victims and their relatives, said that
although the number of mesothelioma cases reported in the UK
continued to increase, there was a concern that some were still
being overlooked because people simply did not realize they had
been exposed to asbestos.

"Mesothelioma is a dreadful, cruel and painful disease, and kills
one person every five hours in the UK," she said.  "This tragic
case is just the latest where the victim was not directly exposed
through her own work, but instead from washing dirty clothes and
cleaning up after her family members.

"We have encountered a large number of cases like this one, where
a diagnosis of mesothelioma has been met with complete surprise
because the victims themselves never worked in one of the
industries readily associated with the disease -- such as mining,
ship-building, construction, plumbing and electrical work," she
said.  "However once we learn more about the history of the
victim, the root of the exposure becomes clear."

Bridget said she had heard stories of wives beating their
husband's dusty overalls as they hung on a washing line, or
shaking them off in a doorway before putting them in a washing
machine.

"Children and even grandchildren have also been put at risk,
running up to a returning parent to give them a hug as they return
from work, or sitting on their knee as they wear their dusty work
clothes," she said.  "The risk of loved ones being accidentally
exposed is unfortunate and just adds to the tragic legacy of
asbestos.  But as this latest case shows, it is something that
family members need to be made aware of."

She advised anyone who begins to suffer from symptoms -- such as a
cough that will not go away, or developing breathlessness when
doing something that would ordinarily not have caused such a
problem -- to see their doctor.

"It can take between 15 and 60 years after being exposed to
asbestos before any related disease becomes apparent," said
Bridget.  "Many people who are diagnosed often came into contact
with asbestos several years ago and didn't even realize, so it is
vitally important to be vigilant now."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buffalo Pumps, 67 Others Face Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that a woman is
suing 68 defendants she claims are responsible for her family
member's lung cancer and death.

Ervin Dallas Mayes was diagnosed with lung cancer on April 26,
2010, from which he died on May 5, 2011, according to a complaint
filed Feb. 25 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Denise Tate claims Mayes smoked one pack of cigarettes per day
from 1960 until 1991, but then quit.

The defendants exposed Mayes to asbestos and/or asbestos-
containing products during his employment as a laborer and
carpenter from 1955 until 1995, according to the suit.

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

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

Mayes was diagnosed with lung cancer on April 26, 2010, from which
he died on May 5, 2011.  Tate claims the 68 defendants caused the
lung injury.

Tate is seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.  She
is being represented by Bronwyn I. Rinehart of James F. Humphreys
& Associates.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 68 companies named as defendants include 3M Company; A.W.
Chesterton Company; Allied Chemical Corporation; Ashland, Inc.;
Aurora Chemical Corporation; Borg-Warner Corporation; Brand
Insulations, Inc.; Buffalo Pumps, Inc.; BW/IP, Inc.; and CBS
Corporation.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-379.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Tests On The TBA Site Confirms Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rochdale Online News (UK) reports that new soil tests on the TBA
site have confirmed asbestos contamination in most of the test
holes recently dug.

Earlier this year United Utilities did asbestos air testing and
detected elevated levels.

United Utilities also commissioned a company called WSP to conduct
soil testing to test specific areas that were to be dug to allow a
small trench for electricity cabling to power the new water
treatment improvements for drains above the River Spodden.

The testing has been from Shawclough Road along a track known as
Hollows Lane that leads to the former TBA site.  The vast majority
of the testing holes dug have confirmed the presence of asbestos
all along the testing area.

The areas were asbestos has now been repeatedly found is the same
area were the 2004 planning application wanted to build dozens of
homes with gardens and apartments.

This is the same area where Encia Consulting Ltd (now dissolved)
also tested but the developer's consultants didn't finding
anything remarkable.

Commenting on behalf of the Save Spodden Valley campaign, Jason
Addy said: "For 9 years we have raised legitimate concerns about
past test results and the way expert consultants have ceased
trading.  Exposure to asbestos takes decades before it can
manifest itself as a cruel terminal cancer.  A permanent solution
to contamination on the former TBA site needs full accountability
and credibility.  How can this be achieved when companies can set
up and close down with apparent impunity?

"A report that stated in 2004 'of particular note is the absence
of any asbestos contamination' has proven to be utter nonsense.
The recent test results confirming widespread asbestos
contamination are shocking but not surprising.  Former workers and
residents have been warning of this for years -- but it seems many
of those with responsibility for the site have turned a blind eye.
Why is that?

"Following Simon Danczuk's [MP for Rochdale] questions in the
House of Commons, action is being now being taken by the
Parliamentary All-Party Asbestos subcommittee.

"The people of Rochdale deserve answers and action to make the
Spodden Valley permanently safe for future generations."

Background

In December 2004 a planning application was submitted for the
former TBA site.  With this application was a report from a
business called "DPP", (Design Planning Partnership) who stated,
at paragraph 5.30 of the Environmental Statement (non-technical
summary), "of particular note is the absence of any asbestos
contamination."

Controversy raged and over 1,000 individual letters of objection
were lodged with Rochdale Planning Department.  Many expressed
concerns about the methods and findings of the consultants
employed to advise on contamination.

In 2005, another firm of environmental specialists - Encia
Consulting Ltd -- were employed by the developers.  Encia
conducted further tests that supported the planning application
and a view that asbestos contamination did not appear to be a big
issue for areas of the site were permission to build houses and
apartments was being sought.

An area to the east of the main factory buildings was historically
home to TBA sports facilities, including a bowling green and
tennis courts.  The area is close to housing estates built in the
late 1980s (Fallowfield Drive and Foot Wood, etc).

Since their confident reports about the former TBA site for the
planning application that was finally refused in January 2011,
both DPP and Encia Consulting Ltd are no longer trading
businesses.

DPP went into Administration in August 2012.

Encia Consulting Ltd went into Administration and was wound up in
2008.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H2 Environmental CEO Bags Chino's WoY Award
------------------------------------------------------------
The 61st District of California has awarded the title of Chino's
Woman of the Year to Amy De Santiago, owner, President, CEO, and
CFO of H2 Environmental Services, an asbestos inspection company.
Ms. De Santiago was recognized for her hard work, dedication, and
outstanding achievements in the business community.  Her company
specializes in improving indoor air quality for public venues,
businesses, and home owners, offering services such as asbestos
air testing through well-trained staff.

It takes a lot of time and hard work to run a company --
especially one that requires special expertise and training.  Ms.
De Santiago has used her wealth of knowledge to build the company
into the reputable asbestos inspection and indoor quality
consultant firm that it is today.  She holds several
certifications and accreditations and has enabled H2 Environmental
Services to grow and expand its services in the last several
years.

The company works with a number of clients in industrial,
residential, private business, government, and public venues,
providing valuable insight to help them understand the importance
of clean interior air and create a management system that keeps
their families, employees, and the public safe.

Their services include:

- Asbestos
- Fungus
- Indoor Air Quality
- Lead
- Soil
- Underground Storage Tank (UST) management

One of their specialties is asbestos air testing, which is done
with the latest equipment that adheres to state and federal
guidelines.  Training services are offered to enable companies and
industrial locations to have an in-house team that can report the
presence of any hazardous materials and remove such material in a
safe manner.  Each project is approached with an individualistic
method that allows H2 Environmental Services to customize their
training and management, and thereby providing excellent customer
service and results.

Like Ms. De Santiago, each member of the company team brings with
them their own knowledge and experience so that clients can
receive pertinent information about improving their interior air
quality.  For more information about the company's services,
please visit their website at http://www.h2environmental.com.


                    About H2 Environmental Services

Since 1995, H2 Environmental Services has been helping people in
Chino, CA live happier and healthier lives.  The company
specializes in assisting home owners and businesses with managing
the quality of the air they breathe, using the latest equipment
and techniques.  As a partner, the company works with its clients
to detect the presence of air pollutants and dangerous materials,
manage the removal of the threat, and plan for further management
of indoor air quality.  To learn more about the services the
company offers, please visit http://www.h2environmental.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Fibro Found on Deeside Car Park Inspection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News NE Scotland, Orkney & Shetland reports that a car park at
a popular Deeside woodland has been closed down amid fears it is
contaminated with asbestos.

BBC Scotland has learned that Aberdeenshire Council has ordered
the owners of the land at Bellwood near Aboyne to prevent access
to the area.

The site is a former Aboyne landfill tip.

Planning permission for the car park was granted in 2009 on
condition the developer notified the council if waste materials
were found.

A local resident raised concerns with the council about finding
glass and other old rubbish in early January.

Earlier, an official from the local authority's environmental
health service examined the site.

He found contaminated soils, what is thought to be asbestos fibers
and broken glass.

The official said there was a possibility of harm to human health.

He recommended access to the area be restricted and that warning
signs be erected by the developer.

The developer of the car park is the community-run Mid Deeside
Limited.

Aberdeenshire Council said remedial works to resolve the
contamination problem will be carried out.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Alert Closes Croydon Magistrates' Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Croydon Advertiser reports that the Croydon Magistrates' Court
was shut to the public on Monday morning (March 4) because of an
asbestos scare.

A spokesman for the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS)
said the closure was due to fears that asbestos dust had been
released by workers clearing asbestos.

The spokesman said Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service
(HMCTS) had confirmed none of the substance, potentially lethal if
inhaled over time, was released.

A spokesman for HMCTS said on Monday that the court reopened at
9.40am.  The court starts sitting at 10am.

He added: "Croydon Magistrates' Court was closed for a short time
this morning after weekend maintenance work carried out by
contractors affected access to part of the building."

The PCS spokesman said staff were told to stay in the building
without being warned, adding: "PCS believes it was wrong for HMCTS
to make a decision that staff should be put at potential risk
while members of the public should be protected."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Offers Unique Fibro Management Solutions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Industry Today relates that the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2012 (Regulation 5) and the Construction (Design and
Management) Regulations 2007 (Regulation 10) require there to be
suitable and sufficient information to be known about asbestos
containing materials (pre-construction information) at the
planning stage of refurbishment works.

The purpose of the refurbishment and (or) Demolition survey is to
ensure that suitable and sufficient risk assessments and plans of
work can be formed to ensure that the risks posed by the presence
of asbestos containing materials are assessed, and then eliminated
or isolated.

The HSE publication HSG264 provides guidance on what to expect
from a Refurbishment and (or) Demolition survey but the key to
obtaining the correct information and ensuring that the process is
successful is ensuring that the survey has been competently
planned and specified.

The UKAS Accredited Inspection Body should be provided with clear
information on the location and purpose of the inspection, the
specification should include, for example, details of the
refurbishment works that are to follow to ensure that all of the
necessary information is captured.

The aims and objectives of the survey should be clear and agreed
by all and as such a scoping document should be produced which is
adopted by all parties and should include the expected output.

The inspection will include intrusive inspection techniques so the
Inspection Body should be asked to provide Risk Assessments and
Method Statements on how they will conduct their work safely.

There is great benefit in the client obtaining independent advice
and support in the compilation of the specification and the
procurement of the survey / inspection to ensure that the
Inspection Body appointed understand their requirements and to
ensure that the output of the inspection is reviewed for
suitability and completeness.

Derisk offer unique asbestos risk management solutions which
ensure that their clients establish and manage compliance at all
stages of their projects.

The Company's thinking is new and is built around the concepts --
Check, Challenge and COMPLY.

                         About Derisk

Derisk are experts in providing competent advice to its expanding
client base in respect of Health and Safety Risk Management.
Derisk specializes in all aspects of Health and Safety including
Asbestos Risk Management and CDM coordination, as well as
providing comprehensive Governance development and support.  To
learn more, please visit http://www.deriskuk.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feds Move to Revoke Health Violator's Probation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim McBride of The Amarillo Globe-News reports that Federal
authorities have filed a motion to revoke the probation of an
Amarillo business owner who pleaded guilty in 2010 to negligently
releasing asbestos into the air.

Jack R. Coiner, owner of Asbestos Maintenance Services Inc.,
pleaded guilty in 2009 to the asbestos charge and was sentenced in
2010 to four years' probation.

Coiner was arrested Thursday, March 7, and made a court appearance
in Amarillo's U.S. District Court.  No bond was set.  He faces
another court hearing this month.

Coiner has been charged with theft of services over $1,500 but
less than $20,000 in Hutchinson County and moved from his
residence in October without notifying his probation officer,
court records show.

In 2010, Coiner also was ordered to pay $31,150 in restitution and
complete 160 hours of community service.

According to federal court records, Coiner told two employees to
store asbestos, which was properly sealed inside bags and barrels,
at two locations.

Coiner told authorities he planned to store the material at dump
sites in Borger and Canyon, and he would eventually dispose of it
legally at a permitted landfill.  He said he was unable to do so
because of financial hardship, court records show.

Some of the bags and barrels weathered or eroded, releasing
asbestos, a toxic material, into the area.  A federal
investigation didn't reveal any other instances when Coiner or his
businesses unlawfully disposed of asbestos, according to court
records.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Slam EQC Home Repair/Cleanup Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wright of The Press (NZ) reports that earthquake-hit
homeowners getting asbestos removed from their houses may have no
choice but to leave some of the dangerous substance behind.

House repairs managed and paid for by the Earthquake Commission
(EQC) can include asbestos removal, but only if the building
material is damaged or deteriorating.

Owners cannot get asbestos removed from their homes while repairs
are being done if it is good condition, even if they are willing
to pay for it.

Asbestos removal contractors have slammed the policy as "pathetic"
and called for homeowners to be granted leeway as they now are
with insulation.

EQC last week announced homeowners could install wall and floor
insulation in their houses while quake repairs were being done.

The practice was previously disallowed because of the risk of cost
and time overruns.

An EQC spokesman said there were "significant differences" between
insulation and asbestos.

The latter was "typically readily accessible and poses no health
risk while undisturbed", whereas with insulation "the opening of
difficult to access cavities during repairs presents an
opportunity to make an improvement to the comfort and health of
the house."

Homeowners could pay to have the undamaged asbestos removed
separately later.

One Christchurch homeowner, who did not want to be named, said the
rigid policy was "ridiculous", and meant a small amount of
asbestos would stay in their house while most was removed.

"This . . . is equally as important [as insulation].  Even more
so.  It's more health and safety.  If you've asbestos in your
house that's breaking down they will fix it, but if it's whole
they won't touch it."

Bricon Asbestos Removal director Brent Blackie said the rule,
especially for small amounts an owner was prepared to pay for,
made no sense.

"I can understand [EQC] have a time line to do things done.  If an
asbestos contractor is holding them up from repairs I can
understand [but] outright saying no, it can't be done, I can't see
where that mentality comes from."

New Zealand Demolition and Asbestos Association president Alan
Edge said it was "common sense" to allow extra asbestos removal if
a property owner wanted to pay for it.

The association was meeting the Government this week and would
raise the issue, he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Recommend Focus On Non-Fibro Substitutes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Many of us associate asbestos with occupations such as
construction and pipe-fitting.  Over the decades, though, asbestos
has been used in varying degrees in many other professions.

Lost-wax casting is an ancient molding procedure that has been
employed in various lines of work.  It is used to form a shape in
a wax mold.  Jewelers, dentists, artists, and art students have
been known to utilize this method in their work.  Asbestos was
sometimes used in the process, which put users at risk of inhaling
the fibers.  When asbestos fibers are inhaled, they can become
trapped in the lungs and can result in future development of
diseases such as asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung cancer.

The lost-wax process is commonly used in crafting fine jewelry out
of sterling silver and gold.  In the past, this has been the
source of asbestos exposure.  For jewelers, asbestos exposure may
have also occurred as a result of soldering in their jewelry-
making.  Jewelers would often use protective asbestos plates
during soldering, which they would cut out with their hands.
Soldering would eventually break the plates down, causing asbestos
fibers to become airborne.

In dentistry, casting is used to create corrective dental pieces
such as crowns, bridges, and inlays.  The lost-wax method became
widespread in dentistry in 1907 with the introduction of the
process through the casting machine.  Asbestos was used to line
casting rings.  Ceramic and absorbent paper components can serve
as safe substitutes.

Artists have used lost-wax casting in their creations.  Students
have also sometimes employed this technique in art classes,
specifically when sculpting.  Other potential asbestos hazards in
the sculpting process include use of serpentine, soapstone, and
greenstone as casting stones.  In addition, heat-resistant gloves
were sometimes made from asbestos in years past.

Since knowledge of the dangers of asbestos has become more
widespread, use of asbestos has widely declined.  Substitutions of
alternative, non-asbestos containing materials should be made
whenever possible.  The Chicago Artists Resource, for example,
recommends using alabaster in place of soapstone in sculpting.

Contact the lawyers of Cooney & Conway for issues related to
asbestos, mesothelioma and any other types of injury resulting
from asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Lived With 'Crumbled' Fibro for Months
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Brannen of The Islington Gazette reports that a family is
terrified their health has been jeopardized after discovering they
have been living with disturbed asbestos in their home for the
past five months.

Chai Suksiri and his partner Ellen O'Neill first became concerned
about the potentially dangerous material when they started work to
change tiles in the bathroom of their home in Cardinals Way,
Archway, last September and the plasterboard behind began to
crumble.

The couple called out a council surveyor to inspect the suspect
material and he said there was no risk of asbestos, leaving
without taking any samples.

Unsatisfied, Mr. Suksiri ,29, and Miss O'Neill, 29, who have three
children under 10, continued to press for a further inspection and
last week -- five months on from the initial visit -- the surveyor
finally took a sample of the plasterboard, which tested positive
for asbestos.

Work is now underway to remove the material from the bathroom,
where another undisturbed board containing asbestos has been
discovered.

But the couple fear they and their children Kimberly, nine, Alfie,
five and Daisy, one, have been exposed to the harmful dust for
five months.

Mr. Suksiri said: "Suspicion of asbestos should not be taken
lightly.  If samples had been taken and the procedure undertaken
correctly in the first place, then my family and myself would not
be in this worrying situation."

A council spokesman said there were strict policies governing the
management of asbestos and stressed that the trace particle found
was considered to be "extremely low risk."

He said it was "unfortunate" that work was started in the bathroom
without notifying the council, as appropriate checks -- including
those for asbestos -- can be carried out before.

"As a precaution the property has been given a local environmental
clean, appropriate air testing, and we will carry out further
checks as required.

"We appreciate the inconvenience this has caused and are reviewing
the way this case was handled," he added.


                           *********

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  * * *