CAR_Public/130322.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 22, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 58

                             Headlines



AMGEN INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Violation Suit
AMGEN INC: Securities Suit Remanded Back to C.D. Cal. Court
AMGEN INC: Duane Morris Discusses High Court Ruling
AMGEN INC: Sheppard Mullin Discusses High Court Ruling
BANK OF IRELAND: Landlord Mulls Mortgage Class Action

CHEMED CORP: All Claims in "Morangelli" Suit Dismissed in Feb.
CHEMED CORP: Awaits Rulings on Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit
CHEMED CORP: Continues to Defend "Santos" Class Suit vs. Vitas
CHINESE DAILY: 9th Cir. Applies Dukes Ruling in Class Action
EDISON INT'L: Appeal From Greenhouse Gas Suit Dismissal Pending

FIRST SOLAR: Bid to Dismiss "Smilovits" Suit Denied in December
FOCUS MEDIA: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action in California
FORTINET INC: $1-Mil. Settlement of California Suit Approved
FULL TILT: Online Poker Class Action Removed to Federal Court
GPT: Shareholder Class Action in Mediation

GROUPON INC: Faces Two Securities Class Action Suits in Illinois
GROUPON INC: Replies on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit on Apr. 22
HEARTWARE INT'L: Has Funded Settlement of Massachusetts Suit
ITT CORP: Class Suit vs. Travelers Casualty Remains Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Dismisses Overtime Class Action

LEVEL 3 COMMS: Continues to Defend Rights-of-Way Litigation
MAINE: Preliminary Injunction Bid in "Bruns" Medicaid Suit Denied
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Recalls See-Though Yoga Pants
MANITOBA: Farmers Launch Class Action Over 2011 Flood Damages
MERIDIAN DIVERSIFIED: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Class Action

MORGAN PROPERTIES: Sued Over Attorney Fees in Evictions
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Coulter" Suit in New York
MORGAN STANLEY: Notice of Appeal in Stratte-McClure Suit Pending
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Mortgage Pass-Through Suit

MORGAN STANLEY: Still Defending Suits Over Securities & Certs.
NORTHERN TRUST: Still Defending Securities Suit in Illinois
NORTON, OH: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Sewage Fees
OLD NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees
PELLA CORP: Seeks Approval of $90-Mil. Window Defect Settlement

PRO-AMINO INT'L: Recalls Protein Bars on Salmonella Contamination
ROMA FINANCIAL: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in New Jersey
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Unit Faces "Vega" Suit in California
SMART TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Shareholder Class Actions in Ontario
TENET HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Suit Over Patient Records Pending

THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Awaits Ruling in Shareholder Class Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Headlamp Suit
TRUSTMARK CORP: Continues to Defend Two Stanford-Related Suits
TRUSTMARK CORP: Seeks Dismissal of One Overdraft Fee Suit
UNIT CORP: 2nd Request to Certify Class Pending in "Panola" Suit

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
VIVUS INC: Briefing on Suit Dismissal Appeal to Continue to April
YELP INC: Appeal From Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Pending

* Companies Changing Rules to Avoid Class Actions
* New Zealand Has Yet to Consider Class Action Proposal


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Granted Limited Access to 2019 Exhibits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Ct. Denies Summary Judgment in Ex-Navy's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Bids for Summary Judgment in 2 Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Widow's Dependent Benefits Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Continues to Defend Fibro Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Hudson Had 1,164 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Had 515 PI Suits Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Had 29 PI Suits Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Continues to Defend Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had 8,000 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teledyne Tech. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $796M Liability Through 2021
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Had 188 Pending Cases at Jan. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Had 18,302 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Ltd. Had 2,300 PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 1,023 PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PartnerRe Ltd. Had $199M A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Piedmont Office Property Still Has Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had 430 Pending PD Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Still Has Claims Not Subject to Stay
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Recorded $2.06B Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remy Int'l. Still a Protected Party in GM Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 65,812 PI Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Industries Had $141.9M Coverage at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Fin'l Had $67M A&E Reserves in 2012
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Settles Aqua-Chem Coverage Issues

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Recorded $1.3B Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Unit Had 20 Pending Lawsuits as of Dec.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Continues to Defend 42 Suits at Dec.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $70.7M Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Former Firm Build Executives Convicted

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tobacco & Fibro Increase Lung Cancer Risk by 90%
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Legal Issues Bog Huskisson Fibro Building Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beazer East, 72 Others Face Exposure Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4520 Corporation, 69 Others Face Fibro Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Waste Vandalizes Queen Elizabeth Park

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lordswood Waste Depot Plan Temporarily Withdrawn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Howard Willems Honored With CCS' Leadership Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Environmental Health Plan for Swift Creek Started
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bosses Replace Morris Plains Cleanup Contractors
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shutdown of Barangaroo Public Walkway Urged

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belfast Health Trust Pleads Guilty, Fined GBP10K
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Testimony Supporting Fact Act Heard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barangaroo Closes/Re-Routes Contaminated Walkway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ROHS Amendment Aims to Widen Employers' Duties
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Tells DfE to Stop Delegating its Duties

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Requiring Tags on All Fibro Products Passed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mandatory List of Public Fibro Buildings Pushed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Issue at Pittsburgh Police Academy is Minor
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EQC Denies CDHB Officer Crucial Abatement Info
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso Victim's Kin Warns of Risk in Local College

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Issues Complicate Windsor Farm Cannery Sale
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso Lawsuit v. John Crane, Crane Co Trial Starts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Kills Housewife Exposed to Hubby's Laundry


                             *********


AMGEN INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Violation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. continues to defend itself from a consolidated class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, according to the Company's
February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On August 20, 2007, the ERISA class action lawsuit of Harris v.
Amgen Inc., et al., was filed in the California Central District
Court and named Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Frank J. Biondi, Jr.,
Jerry Choate, Frank C. Herringer, Gilbert S. Omenn, David
Baltimore, Judith C. Pelham, Frederick W. Gluck, Leonard D.
Schaeffer, Jacqueline Allred, Raul Cermeno, Jackie Crouse, Lori
Johnston, Michael Kelly and Charles Bell as defendants.
Plaintiffs claim that Amgen and the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to inform current and former
employees who participated in the Amgen Retirement and Savings
Plan and the Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing
Limited of the alleged off-label promotion of both Aranesp(R) and
EPOGEN(R) while a number of studies allegedly demonstrated safety
concerns in patients using erythropoiesis-stimulating agents
(ESAs).  On February 4, 2008, the California Central District
Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to plaintiff
Harris, who had filed claims against Amgen Inc.  The claims
alleged by the second plaintiff, Ramos, were also dismissed but
the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.  On
February 1, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the decision by the
California Central District Court to dismiss the claims of both
plaintiffs Harris and Ramos to the Ninth Circuit Court.

On May 19, 2008, plaintiff Ramos in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et
al., action filed another lawsuit captioned Ramos v. Amgen Inc.,
et al., in the California Central District Court.  The lawsuit is
another ERISA class action.  The Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al.,
matter names the same defendants in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et
al., matter plus four new defendants: Amgen Manufacturing Limited,
Richard Nanula, Dennis Fenton and the Fiduciary Committee.  On
July 14, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the California
Central District Court's decision in the Harris matter and
remanded the case back to the California Central District Court.
In the meantime, a third ERISA class action was filed by Don Hanks
on June 2, 2009, in the California Central District Court alleging
the same ERISA violations as in the Harris and Ramos lawsuits.

On August 10, 2009, the Harris, Ramos and Hanks matters were
consolidated by the California Central District Court into one
action captioned Harris, et al. v. Amgen Inc.  On October 13,
2009, the California Central District Court granted plaintiffs
Harris' and Ramos' motion to be appointed interim co-lead counsel.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 11, 2009, and
added two additional plaintiffs, Jorge Torres and Albert Cappa.
Amgen filed a motion to dismiss the amended/consolidated
complaint, and on March 2, 2010, the California Central District
Court dismissed the entire lawsuit without prejudice.  Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2010.  Amgen then filed
another motion to dismiss on April 20, 2010.  On June 16, 2010,
the California Central District Court entered an order dismissing
the entire lawsuit with prejudice.  On June 24, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court.
Petitioner's opening brief was served on December 20, 2010, and
Amgen's answering brief was filed on February 2, 2011.  Oral
argument occurred on February 17, 2012.

Headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California, Amgen Inc. --
http://www.amgen.com/-- is a global biotechnology pioneer that
discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers innovative human
therapeutics.  The Company operates in one business segment: human
therapeutics.  The Company was incorporated in 1980 and organized
as a Delaware corporation in 1987.


AMGEN INC: Securities Suit Remanded Back to C.D. Cal. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed last month the decision of an
appellate court and remanded the case titled In re Amgen Inc.
Securities Litigation back to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California for further proceedings, according
to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

The six federal class action stockholder complaints filed against
Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Richard D. Nanula, Dennis M. Fenton,
Roger M. Perlmutter, Brian M. McNamee, George J. Morrow, Edward V.
Fritzky, Gilbert S. Omenn and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr., (the
Federal Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (the California Central District Court) on
April 17, 2007 (Kairalla v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 1, 2007
(Mendall v. Amgen Inc., et al., & Jaffe v. Amgen Inc., et al.),
May 11, 2007 (Eldon v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 21, 2007
(Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc., et al.) and June 18, 2007 (Public
Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado v. Amgen Inc., et
al.) were consolidated by the California Central District Court
into one action captioned In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation.

The consolidated complaint was filed with the California Central
District Court on October 2, 2007.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that Amgen and these officers and directors made false
statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public
regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially
inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities and
(iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase
Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices.  The
complaint also makes off-label marketing allegations that,
throughout the class period, the Federal Defendants improperly
marketed Aranesp(R) and EPOGEN(R) for off-label uses while aware
that there were alleged safety signals with these products.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages,
legal fees and other relief deemed proper.  The Federal Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss on November 8, 2007.  On February 4,
2008, the California Central District Court granted in part, and
denied in part, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

Specifically, the California Central District Court granted the
Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to individual defendants
Fritzky, Omenn, Johnson, Fenton and McNamee, but denied the
Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to individual defendants
Sharer, Nanula, Perlmutter and Morrow.

A class certification hearing before the California Central
District Court, was held on July 17, 2009, and on August 12, 2009,
the California Central District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  On August 28, 2009, Amgen filed a
petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit Court) under Rule 23(f),
regarding the Order on Class Certification and the Ninth Circuit
Court granted Amgen's permission to appeal on December 11, 2009.
On February 2, 2010, the California Central District Court granted
Amgen's motion to stay the underlying action pending the outcome
of the Ninth Circuit Court 23(f) appeal.  On October 14, 2011, the
appeal under Rule 23(f) was argued before the Ninth Circuit Court
and on December 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court denied the
appeal.  Amgen filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court on March 3, 2012, and on June 11, 2012, the Court
granted Amgen's petition.  Oral argument occurred on November 5,
2012.

On February 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision
of the Ninth Circuit Court and remanded the case back to the
California Central District Court for further proceedings.

Headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California, Amgen Inc. --
http://www.amgen.com/-- is a global biotechnology pioneer that
discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers innovative human
therapeutics.  The Company operates in one business segment: human
therapeutics.  The Company was incorporated in 1980 and organized
as a Delaware corporation in 1987.


AMGEN INC: Duane Morris Discusses High Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------
Marvin G. Pickholz, Esq. -- mgpickholz@duanemorris.com -- and
Suzan Jo, Esq. -- sjo@duanemorris.com -- at Duane Morris report
that on February 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its
opinion in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plan and Trust
Funds, 568 U.S. ___ (2013), resolving a conflict among the Courts
of Appeals "over whether district courts must require plaintiffs
to prove, and must allow defendants to present evidence rebutting,
the element of materiality before certifying a class action under
Sec. 10(b) and Rule 10b-5."  (slip op., at p. 8).  Prior to the
February 27 decision, the Courts of Appeals had been split, with
the Second Circuit requiring materiality to be proven at the class
certification stage and the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits not
requiring such proof for class certification.  In the Amgen case,
the Central District of California and the Ninth Circuit both held
that materiality was not a required showing in order for a class
to be certified.

Under federal rules, to obtain class certification, the plaintiff
must first show that: (1) the alleged class is "so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable"; (2) "there are questions
of law or fact common to the class"; (3) the plaintiff's claims
are "typical of the claims . . . of the class"; and (4) the
plaintiff will "fairly and adequately protect the interest of the
class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). To obtain certification of a class
action for money damages, a plaintiff must satisfy all the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and must additionally establish that
"the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a
class action is superior to other available for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(3).

In Amgen, plaintiff Connecticut Retirement alleged that Amgen
violated Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 through certain
misrepresentations and misleading omissions regarding the safety,
efficacy and marketing of two of its flagship drugs.  Connecticut
Retirement alleged that these misrepresentations and omissions
artificially inflated the price of Amgen's stock at the time that
Connecticut Retirement and others similarly situated bought the
stock, which caused it to sustain economic losses when the stock
prices later fell.

To recover money damages in a Sec. 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 action, a
plaintiff must prove "(1) a material misrepresentation or omission
by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the
misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a
security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5)
economic loss; and (6) loss causation." Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.
v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9) (internal
quotation marks omitted).   Materiality is not only an element of
the Rule 10b-5 cause of action, but also is an essential predicate
of the fraud-on-the market theory that the Supreme Court endorsed
in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U. S. 224 (1988).1 Thus, Amgen
contended that Rule 23(b)(3) required that Connecticut Retirement
prove the materiality of Amgen's alleged misrepresentations and
omissions, and that the courts below erred by certifying
Connecticut Retirement proposed class without such proof.

The Supreme Court rejected Amgen's argument and held that, for
purposes of Rule 23(b)(3), "because '[t]he question of materiality
.  .  . is an objective one, involving the significance of an
omitted or misrepresented fact to a reasonable investor,'
materiality can be proved through evidence common to the class."
Amgen, 568 U.S. at ___ (slip op., at p. 11), quoting TSC
Industries Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 445 (1976).  The
Court also noted that "there is no risk whatever that a failure of
proof on the common question of materiality will result in
individual questions predominating." Id.  In other words,
"Connecticut Retirement's failure to present sufficient evidence
of materiality to defeat a summary-judgment motion or to prevail
at trial would not cause individual reliance questions to
overwhelm the questions common to the class.   Instead, the
failure of proof on the element of materiality would end the case
for one and for all." Id.

An apparent implication of the Supreme Court's Amgen decision is
that putative lead plaintiffs have a lower threshold to meet in
order to obtain class certification.  It can be anticipated that
this decision will lead to increased Rule 10b-5 class actions,
particularly in the Second Circuit, which had required materiality
to be established as a prerequisite to class certification.
Issuers should be prepared for increased class action lawsuits
being brought against them.

If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Marvin
G. Pickholz, Suzan Jo, any member of the White-Collar Criminal
Defense, Corporate Investigations and Regulatory Compliance
Practice Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are
regularly in contact.

Footnotes

     1. In Basic, the Court recognized that requiring proof of
direct reliance "would place an unnecessarily unrealistic
evidentiary burden on [a] plaintiff who has traded on an
impersonal market." 485 U.S. at 245.  Therefore, the Court
permitted certain plaintiffs to invoke a rebuttable presumption of
reliance on material misrepresentation disseminated to the general
public. Id. at 241?249.

Duane Morris LLP is a full-service law firm with more than 700
attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally.


AMGEN INC: Sheppard Mullin Discusses High Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
Steven O. Kramer, Esq. John Stigi, Esq. and John Landry, Esq. at
Sheppard Mullin report that in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut
Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, 2013 WL 691001 (U.S.
Feb. 27, 2013), the United States Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit holding that a securities fraud plaintiff need not prove
that the alleged false statements made by defendants were material
in order to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance
established by Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), at
the class certification stage of the proceedings.  The 6-3
majority opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, resolved a split in
the Circuits, which had pitted the First, Second, Fifth and, to a
certain extent, Third Circuits against the Seventh and Ninth
Circuits on this point.  The Supreme Court's decision deprives
securities fraud defendants a means of limiting or effectively
defeating a securities class action lawsuit at an early stage in
the case before the bulk of fact discovery has begun.

Lead plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds
alleged that defendant Amgen Inc. artificially inflated the market
price for Amgen stock by making misrepresentations and misleading
omissions regarding the safety of two Amgen products.  More
specifically, plaintiff alleged that Amgen made misrepresentations
and omissions about (1) the subject matter of a May 2004 advisory
committee meeting of the Food & Drug Administration, (2) clinical
trials involving one of the products, (3) the safety of on-label
uses of both products and (4) its marketing of the products.
Plaintiff alleged that these purported misrepresentations and
omissions constituted securities fraud in violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78j(b), and Securities & Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Sec. 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.

Plaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of Amgen stock
from April 22, 2004, through May 10, 2007. The start of this
period corresponded to a public statement by Amgen regarding the
May 2004 FDA advisory committee meeting.  Plaintiff alleged that
Amgen misrepresented that the meeting would not focus on the
safety of one of the products at issue.  The end of the class
period corresponded with a later meeting of the same FDA
committee.  Plaintiff alleged that this meeting constituted a
corrective disclosure, revealing information about the safety of
the products.

Plaintiff moved for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  That rule conditions certification
on, among other things, a finding by the district court that
"questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members."  As with most
securities fraud claims, the predominance inquiry turned on the
element of plaintiff's reliance.

In Basic, the Supreme Court recognized that securities fraud
plaintiffs could not proceed with a class action if they were
required to prove direct individual reliance on the
misrepresentation by each class member, because individual
questions would overwhelm common ones, thereby precluding
certification under Rule 23(b)(3).  The Court, however, endorsed a
rebuttable presumption of reliance by every class member in cases
in which the "fraud-on-the-market" theory applies.  That theory
states that if a security trades in an efficient market, all
public material information is reflected in the price of the
security.  Purchasers or sellers who rely on the integrity of the
market price therefore also rely, indirectly, on any material
misrepresentations which would be reflected in that price.  The
Court in Basic also held that the presumption of reliance can be
rebutted by "[a]ny showing that severs the link between the
alleged misrepresentation" and "the price received (or paid) by
the plaintiff."

In support of its motion for class certification, plaintiff argued
that the putative class members were entitled to Basic's fraud-on-
the-market-based presumption of class-wide reliance.  Plaintiff
submitted expert evidence to establish the efficiency of the
market for Amgen stock.  It made no evidentiary showing, however,
about the materiality of Amgen's alleged misstatements.

Amgen opposed class certification principally on the ground that
plaintiff did not and could not establish that the alleged
misrepresentations were material.  Amgen showed through analyst
reports and public documents that the market was aware of all the
information that plaintiff claimed was omitted during the class
period. Proof of market efficiency alone, Amgen argued, without
any corresponding proof of the materiality of the alleged
misrepresentations, was not sufficient to invoke a presumption of
class-wide reliance based on the fraud-on-the-market theory.
Amgen also sought to affirmatively rebut any such presumption,
again by showing that the market already was "privy to the truth,"
and accordingly that no alleged misrepresentation had any impact
on the price of Amgen stock.

The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted plaintiff's motion for class certification,
holding that proof of materiality was not necessary to invoke the
fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance and, accordingly, that
it would not consider Amgen's rebuttal evidence.  The United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's decision. See Connecticut Retirement Plans &
Trust Funds v. Amgen, Inc., 660 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2011).  In
doing so, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged the Circuit split
regarding both of these issues. See In re DVI, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
639 F.3d 623 (3d Cir. 2011); Schleicher v. Wendt, 618 F.3d 679
(7th Cir. 2010); In re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litig., 544 F.3d
474 (2d Cir. 2008); Oscar Private Equity Invs. v. Allegiance
Telecom, Inc., 487 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 2007); In re PolyMedica
Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005).

The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit.  The
Court held that while plaintiff certainly must prove the
materiality of the alleged misstatements or omissions to prevail
on the merits of its Rule 10b-5 claim, such proof is not required
for class certification.  As the Court explained, "[b]ecause
materiality is judged according to an objective standard, the
materiality of Amgen's alleged misrepresentations and omissions is
a question common to all members of the [putative] class .  .  .
." Plaintiff was not required to answer that common question at
the class certification stage; the existence of the common
question itself supported class certification.  The Court went on
to hold that its earlier decision in Basic could not be read to
require proof of materiality at the class certification stage to
trigger the fraud-on-the-market presumption, a point contested by
Justices Scalia and Thomas in their dissenting opinions.

This decision deprives securities fraud defendants of the ability
to raise at the class certification stage, before the bulk of fact
discovery, an issue that could be dispositive of the case.  This
effectively gives plaintiffs more leverage in settlement
negotiations in the event the district court denies a motion to
dismiss.  One intriguing issue going forward stems from references
throughout the majority and dissenting opinions to questions
regarding the continued efficacy of the fraud-on-the-market theory
and the strengths and weaknesses of the decision in Basic.  It is
fair to say that at least three (and perhaps more) of the Justices
seem willing to reconsider the four-justice majority opinion in
Basic.  Were the Court to do so, it would have a profound impact
on the entire securities class action litigation industry.


BANK OF IRELAND: Landlord Mulls Mortgage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Julia Rampen, writing for Mortgage Solutions, reports that
landlords affected by the Bank of Ireland rate rise are set to
launch a legal action against the lender.  A hundred landlords and
a coalition of landlord bodies including Landlord Action, the Good
Landlord Campaign and members of the network Property 118 are
preparing to launch a class action on the basis that whilst there
may be explicit terms in the mortgage document allowing the bank
to increase the margin, this clause is inherently unfair.

Following a meeting with a barrister early this week, a second
round of recruitment to the class action is expected, with
residential as well buy-to-let borrowers encouraged to join.  Mark
Alexander told readers of a discussion forum on the rate rise he
had recruited a Landlord Action litigation solicitor: "Landlord
Action has always fought for the rights of landlords and hates to
see landlords being bullied by the government and banks.  They are
in court every day on behalf of landlords and they agree something
needs to be done.

"Landlord Action has a team of legal professionals who will be
able to assist in bringing a class action on behalf of landlords
against the Bank of Ireland."

In a cautionary note for advisers, the solicitor, Justin Selig,
said a second option for affected landlords was to bring a claim
against a solicitor or broker for failing to highlight the terms
at the time the mortgage was taken out.  One contributor to the
forum thread, Alastair Nicholls, said: "I also suggest that
everyone files a complaint to the intermediary who sold the Bank
of Ireland mortgage to them for mis-selling. We thought we bought
a base rate tracker product, not something where the Bank of
Ireland could make up the interest rate whenever they felt like
it.

"That ability of the Bank of Ireland was never explained by the
intermediary; hence it was mis-sold."

Mr. Alexander replied on the thread: "I don't recommend
registering complaints with intermediaries at this stage.  We need
them on our side, the last thing we need right now is more
enemies."

On February 28, Bank of Ireland doubled its tracker rate for
13,500 buy-to-let and residential customers and has subsequently
attracted criticism from the chairman of the Treasury Select
Committee, Andrew Tyrie.


CHEMED CORP: All Claims in "Morangelli" Suit Dismissed in Feb.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation disclosed in its February 27, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012, that all claims asserted against it
in the class action lawsuit brought by Anthony Morangelli, et al.,
against the Company and a subsidiary were dismissed in February
2013.

In February 2010, Chemed and Roto-Rooter Corporation, a
subsidiary, were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
entitled Anthony Morangelli, et al., v. Chemed Corp. and Roto-
Rooter Services Co., No. 10 CV-00876 (BMC).  The named plaintiffs
in this lawsuit, who are current and former technicians employed
by Roto-Rooter who were paid on a commission basis, asserted
against Chemed and Roto-Rooter claims for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and claims for violations of the
labor laws of multiple states.  Plaintiffs alleged that Chemed and
Roto-Rooter failed to reimburse them for all business expenses
incurred in connection with their employment, failed to compensate
for all hours worked and made illegal deductions from pay.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
liquidated damages, other penalties, fees and costs.

In June 2010, the Court conditionally certified a collective
action under the FLSA and, in June 2011, it certified fourteen
separate state law class actions.

On February 4, 2013, the Court dismissed all claims asserted
against Chemed, dismissed plaintiffs' illegal deduction claims and
decertified from the class and collective actions significant
portions plaintiffs' business expense and uncompensated hours
claims.  Roto-Rooter continues to contest Plaintiffs' claims.

Regardless of the outcome of any of the matter, the Company says
litigation adversely affects it through defense costs, diversion
of management time, and related publicity.

Cincinnati, Ohio-based Chemed Corporation --
http://www.chemed.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in 1970 as
a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. and succeeded to the business of
W.R. Grace & Co.'s Special Products Group as of April 30, 1971,
and remained a subsidiary of W.R. Grace until March 10, 1982.
Chemed purchases, operates and divests subsidiaries engaged in
diverse business activities for the purposes of maximizing
shareholder value.


CHEMED CORP: Awaits Rulings on Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation is awaiting court decisions on its and other
defendants' motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit
commenced by the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund,
according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On January 12, 2012, the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension
Fund filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Company, Kevin
McNamara, David Williams, and Timothy O'Toole.  On April 9, 2012,
the Court issued orders (a) renaming the lawsuit as In re Chemed
Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-28 (S.D.
Ohio); (b) appointing the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension
Fund and the Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W.
as Lead Plaintiffs; and (c) approving Lead Plaintiffs' selection
of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
Co-Lead Counsel.  On June 18, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint alleging violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all
Defendants, and violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. McNamara, Williams, and
O'Toole.  The lawsuit's allegations concern the VITAS hospice
segment of the Company's business.  Lead Plaintiffs seek, on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Chemed Capital Stock
between February 15, 2010, and November 16, 2011, compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and expenses,
arising from Defendants' failure to disclose an alleged fraudulent
scheme to enroll ineligible hospice patients and to fraudulently
obtain payments from the federal government.  Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint on August 17, 2012.

The Defendants believe the claims are without merit, and intend to
defend vigorously against them.

Regardless of the outcome of any of the matter, the Company says
litigation adversely affects it through defense costs, diversion
of management time, and related publicity.

Cincinnati, Ohio-based Chemed Corporation --
http://www.chemed.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in 1970 as
a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. and succeeded to the business of
W.R. Grace & Co.'s Special Products Group as of April 30, 1971,
and remained a subsidiary of W.R. Grace until March 10, 1982.
Chemed purchases, operates and divests subsidiaries engaged in
diverse business activities for the purposes of maximizing
shareholder value.


CHEMED CORP: Continues to Defend "Santos" Class Suit vs. Vitas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation continues to defend its subsidiary against a
class action lawsuit initiated by Bernadette Santos, et al.,
according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

Vitas Healthcare Corporation is party to a class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County in
September 2006 by Bernadette Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White,
Bernadette Santos, et al. v. Vitas Healthcare Corporation of
California, BC359356.  This case alleges failure to pay overtime
and failure to provide meal and rest periods to a purported class
of California admissions nurses, chaplains and sales
representatives.  The case seeks payment of penalties, interest
and Plaintiffs' attorney fees.  The Company contests these
allegations.  In December 2009, the trial court denied Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  In July 2011, the Court of
Appeals affirmed denial of class certification on the travel time,
meal and rest period claims, and reversed the trial court's denial
on the off-the-clock and sales representation exemption claims.
Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision.  In September 2012,
in response to an order of reconsideration, the Court of Appeals
reiterated its previous rulings.

Regardless of the outcome of any of the matter, the Company says
litigation adversely affects it through defense costs, diversion
of management time, and related publicity.

Cincinnati, Ohio-based Chemed Corporation --
http://www.chemed.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in 1970 as
a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. and succeeded to the business of
W.R. Grace & Co.'s Special Products Group as of April 30, 1971,
and remained a subsidiary of W.R. Grace until March 10, 1982.
Chemed purchases, operates and divests subsidiaries engaged in
diverse business activities for the purposes of maximizing
shareholder value.


CHINESE DAILY: 9th Cir. Applies Dukes Ruling in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Kaufman, Esq., at SheppardMullin reports that on March 4,
2013 the Ninth Circuit issued a second opinion in the action, Wang
v. Chinese Daily News (Wang II), in which it reversed the class
certification it had previously affirmed and remanded the matter
for further consideration of Rule 23(a) commonality and Rule
23(b)(3) predominance.  The Wang II decision follows a remand from
the United States Supreme Court which had reversed the original
Wang judgment in light of the inconsistencies between the lower
courts' rulings and the certification standards the Supreme Court
announced in Dukes v. Wal-Mart.  As explained below, except for
the last paragraph of the case, this mostly just restates holdings
of other cases  But there is one highly significant holding at the
end of the case concerning the application of "Trial by Formula"
to wage/hour class actions that defense lawyers should be expected
to cite in almost every class action they defend.

The Basic Facts

This case has been bouncing around in the courts for years.  The
case alleges exempt misclassification and other related wage and
hour claims on behalf of a class of about 200 reporters for the
Chinese Daily News.  The case was filed in 2004, certified in 2005
and, in a trial in 2006, the class was awarded some $2.5 million
in damages plus additional amounts for attorney's fees, interest,
and penalties.  The certification of the case was actually under
Rule 23(b)(2) [although the district court indicated it could have
also certified under Rule 23(b)(3)] on the legal theory that the
request for injunctive relief was more important to the class
representative than the claim for monetary relief.  The district
court also found common issues under Rule 23(a) under the very low
standard that was generally used for "commonality" pre-Dukes.
After the sea-change in class certification law effected by Dukes,
however, the Supreme Court summarily reversed and remanded the
decision to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration consistent
with Dukes.

The Ninth Circuit's Analysis

The Ninth Circuit had previously affirmed the district court in
the original 2010 Wang decision.  This time, the Ninth Circuit
reversed the certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and remanded for
further consideration of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

Availability of Certification Under Rule 23(b)(2): The reversal of
the certification under Rule 23(b)(2) did not really make any new
law.  The U.S. Supreme Court in Dukes already held that Rule
23(b)(2) certification is not generally for a case seeking
monetary relief (although it left the door open for some
extraordinary unspecified way in which you might use Rule 23(b)(2)
to get some monetary relief), and the Supreme Court also already
determined that former employees lack standing to seek injunctive
relief.  As such, it was unsurprising that the Ninth Circuit
reversed the Rule 23(b)(2) certification.  In fact, it appears
that the Wang plaintiffs conceded on the point.

Commonality Under Rule 23(a): For Rule 23(a), the Ninth Circuit
recognized that Dukes had heightened the commonality requirement
such that the district court's articulation of commonality was
insufficient to meet the test.  The alleged common issue the
district court identified was the employer's "alleged pattern of
violating state labor standards."  The Ninth Circuit held that
what was required was "evidence that the entire class was subject
to the same allegedly discriminatory practice."  The Ninth Circuit
further clarified, however, that even one truly "common" issue
would qualify to satisfy Rule 23(a).  The Ninth Circuit noted that
the class here was very different from the proposed class in Dukes
in that it was only 200 employees working in one location as
opposed to more than a million working nationwide.  The Ninth
Circuit still recognized, however, that "there are potentially
significant differences among the class members" that would impact
commonality, so it remanded the case for further findings on that
issue.

Predominance Under Rule 23(b)(3): For Rule 23(b)(3), the Ninth
Circuit noted that, in its 2009 decision, Vinole v. Countrywide
Home Loans (which I argued in the Ninth Circuit), it had
previously criticized the Wang district court's determination that
the blanket classification of reporters as exempt was not enough,
standing alone, to justify a finding that common issues
predominated.  Previously, in Wang I, the Ninth Circuit declined
to reach the issue as they affirmed the certification under Rule
23(b)(2).  This time, they sent it back down, noting the Vinole
criticism and further noting that, for the meal period claim, the
district court should follow the direction the California Supreme
Court gave in Brinker of "providing a meal period" in deciding
whether common issues predominated as to that claim.  The Ninth
Circuit's description of Brinker's holding is not particularly
noteworthy, as they simply quote from the Brinker opinion verbatim
without any special "gloss" on the holding we might like or
dislike.

The Most Significant Part of the Decision. Up to this point, the
decision largely restates points already made in other cases. In
Section II-D on damages, however, the Ninth Circuit announces a
new holding that clarifies Dukes significantly. The panel holds
that the prohibition on "trial by formula" set forth in the
unanimous portion of Dukes was not intended to apply solely to
discrimination cases, but to routine wage-hour cases as well.
Here is the quote in total:

"In Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court disapproved what it called "Trial
by Formula," wherein damages are determined for a sample set of
class members and then applied by extrapolation to the rest of the
class "without further individualized proceedings."  Wal-Mart, 131
S. Ct. at 2561.  Employers are "entitled to individualized
determinations of each employee's eligibility" for monetary
relief. Id. at 2560.  Employers are also entitled to litigate any
individual affirmative defenses they may have to class members'
claims. Id. at 2561.  If the district court again certifies a
class under Rule 23(b)(3), it should calculate damages in light of
the Supreme Court's admonitions in Wal-Mart."

This is potentially hugely significant, in that it holds that if a
class is certified, the employer is entitled to raise defenses to
damages as to each and every class member and cannot have the
process short circuited by selecting a small "sample" of class
members, trying the case as to that small sample, and then
extrapolating the results to the broader class.  This will be
controlling authority as to the California district courts and
likely is to be influential on state courts hearing that the
"Trial by Formula" portion of Dukes was just dealing with a
specific Title VII issue.  Without using trial by formula, it is
often impossible to try an exemption misclassification case
because it becomes unmanageable to consider every potential class
member's individual situation and conduct a "mini trial" on each
person. While this doesn't make class certification impossible in
all cases, it makes it much harder to develop a workable class
trial.


EDISON INT'L: Appeal From Greenhouse Gas Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2012, the federal district court in Mississippi
dismissed, in its entirety, the purported class action complaint
filed by private citizens in May 2011, naming a large number of
defendants, including Southern California Edison Company and other
Edison International subsidiaries, for damages allegedly arising
from Hurricane Katrina. In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed an
appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains
pending. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' activities
resulted in emissions of substantial quantities of greenhouse
gases that have contributed to climate change and sea level rise,
which in turn are alleged to have increased the destructive force
of Hurricane Katrina. The lawsuit alleges causes of action for
negligence, public and private nuisance, and trespass, and seeks
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The claims in this
lawsuit are nearly identical to a subset of the claims that were
raised against many of the same defendants in a previous lawsuit
that was filed in, and dismissed by, the same federal district
court where the current case has been filed.

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


FIRST SOLAR: Bid to Dismiss "Smilovits" Suit Denied in December
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit in
Arizona was dismissed in December 2012, according to the Company's
February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers.  The complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between April 30, 2008, and February 28,
2012.  The complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and prospects.  The action
includes claims for damages, and an award of costs and expenses to
the putative class, including attorneys' fees.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the class action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes").  The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012.  On
December 17, 2012, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.  The
Defendants answered the complaint on January 29, 2013.

The Company says the action is still in the initial stages and
there has been no discovery.  Accordingly, the Company is not in a
position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on its
financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range
of potential loss, if any.  The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend this action.

First Solar, Inc. -- http://www.firstsolar.com/-- is a global
provider of solar energy solutions.  The Company, a Delaware
corporation based in Tempe, Arizona, manufactures and sells
photovoltaic solar modules with an advanced thin-film
semiconductor technology.  The Company also designs, constructs,
and sells PV solar power systems that use the solar modules it
manufactures.


FOCUS MEDIA: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP on March 13
disclosed that the firm commenced a class action lawsuit on
February 22, 2013, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District
of California, San Francisco Division, on behalf of the holders of
Focus Media Holding Limited common stock against Focus Media and
its board of directors for, among other things, violations of
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of Focus Media by
Giovanna Parent Limited.

The complaint arises out of a December 19, 2012 press release
announcing that Focus Media had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Giovanna, pursuant to which Focus Media
shareholders would receive $5.50 in cash for each share of Focus
Media they own.

The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants, in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, breached or aided and
abetted the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties
of loyalty and due care owed to Focus Media shareholders.  The
complaint further alleges that, in an attempt to secure
shareholder approval of the Proposed Transaction, the defendants
filed a materially false and misleading Form SC13E-3 transaction
statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
violation of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be
material to Focus Media shareholders' ability to make an informed
decision about whether or not to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named
plaintiff and all other Focus Media shareholders (the "Class") as
of February 22, 2013.  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins
Arroyo LLP.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from March 13, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue of
Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder
information form on our Web site, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com.  Any member of the Class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent Class member.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- concentrates
its practice in the area of shareholder rights litigation,
represents individual and institutional investors in securities
class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions.  Robbins
Arroyo LLP has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of
value for themselves and the companies in which they have
invested.


FORTINET INC: $1-Mil. Settlement of California Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
Fortinet, Inc.'s $1 million settlement of a class action lawsuit
in California has been approved, according to the Company's
February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In April 2010, an individual, a former stockholder of Fortinet,
filed a class action lawsuit against the Company claiming
unspecified damages in the California Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles alleging violation of various California
Corporations Code sections and related tort claims alleging
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the 2009
repurchase by Fortinet of shares of its stock while the Company
was a privately-held company.  In September 2010, the Court
granted the Company's motion to transfer the case to the
California Superior Court for Santa Clara County and the plaintiff
has filed several amended complaints in the Superior Court to add
individual defendants, among other amendments.  The Superior Court
set a trial date for December 2012, but the Company settled this
matter and paid $1.0 million in November 2012, and the settlement
was approved by the court.

Fortinet Inc. -- http://www.fortinet.com/-- provides network
security solutions, which enable broad, integrated and high
performance protection against dynamic security threats while
simplifying the IT security infrastructure for enterprises,
service providers and governmental entities worldwide.  The
Company was incorporated in Delaware in 2000 and is headquartered
in Sunnyvale, California.


FULL TILT: Online Poker Class Action Removed to Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that a pair of defendants in a St. Clair County class
action lawsuit over a gambling Web site has removed the matter to
federal court.  Tiltware LLC and Erik Seidel earlier this month
filed notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, saying the federal court has
jurisdiction over the suit.

Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Judy Fahrner brought a complaint in January against 26 defendants,
both individuals and companies associated with Full Tilt Poker, a
Web site that offers online poker rooms.  Ms. Fahrner claims in
her complaint that she and other Illinois residents invested money
into the site's poker games and then lost it all when the
Department of Justice shut down the card rooms.  In April 2011,
according to the complaint, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York seized assets of some internet poker
companies, including Full Tilt Poker, and issued arrest warrants
for the founders of these companies in relation to an
investigation into money laundering and bank and wire fraud.

Four of the individual defendants named in Ms. Fahrner's suit were
also named in that criminal indictment.  The Department of Justice
also filed a civil suit for forfeiture and seizure of proceeds
from illegal acts that these poker companies, including Full Tilt
Poker, were allegedly engaged in.  By August 2012, some or all of
the Full Tilt Enterprise had been bought by Pokerstars, another
enterprise focusing on online poker games, the complaint states.

Ms. Fahrner contends that "hundreds of thousands -- if not
millions -- of Illinois residents held personal funds in
individual, 'secure' accounts with Full Tilt Poker" and that "the
deposited funds were fraudulently co-mingled with Full Tilt's
operational funds and dispersed to individual defendants."  She
further asserts that "Upon information and belief, Full Tilt's
Board of Directors distributed approximately $443,860,529.89 to
themselves and other owners between April 2007 and April 2011."

The complaint includes 26 counts, one against each of the
defendants for an alleged violation of an Illinois statute
governing gambling.  Each count seeks to recover the gambling
losses and up to three times the amount of losses in damages.

According to the defendants in their notice of removal, the
putative class allegedly has more than 100 members, one of three
reasons why they assert the federal court has jurisdiction over
the matter.

The defendants also contend that the federal court has
jurisdiction over the suit because the requested amount of
recovery and damages makes "it reasonable to conclude that the
$5 million jurisdictional amount is satisfied."   In addition,
they claim in their removal notice that the suit satisfies minimum
diversity because all of the plaintiffs and none of the defendants
are Illinois citizens.

U.S. District Court Judge William Stiehl recused himself from the
case in a March 8 order that stated the matter was reassigned to
Judge Michael Reagan by random draw.

Belleville attorney Lloyd M. Cueto filed the complaint on
Ms. Fahrner's behalf.

The notice of removal shows that Belleville attorneys William J.
Niehoff and Laura Schrick are representing the defendants, along
with Washington D.C. attorneys A. Jeff Ifrah, David Deitch and
Rachel Hirsch.


GPT: Shareholder Class Action in Mediation
------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Australian, reports that the $100
million class action against GPT is in mediation, raising the
chance that the property trust will settle its dispute with
disgruntled shareholders.  Lawyers for GPT and from Slater &
Gordon, which is representing 500 shareholders, called a mediation
meeting in Melbourne on March 13.  The company's former chief
executive Nic Lyons was set to take the stand on March 14.


GROUPON INC: Faces Two Securities Class Action Suits in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc. is facing two securities class action lawsuits in
Illinois, according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

Two federal putative class action securities complaints were filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois: Weber v. Groupon, Inc., et al was filed on December 21,
2012; and Earley v. Groupon, Inc. et al. was filed on January 22,
2013.  Both complaints assert claims pursuant to Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Allegations in
the complaints include that the Company and its officers and
directors made untrue statements or omissions of material fact
beginning on May 14, 2012, with the Company's press release
reporting its first quarter 2012 earnings results, through the
Company's November 8, 2012 press release announcing its third
quarter 2012 earnings results, and failed to disclose information
about the Company's revenue growth and revenue mix.  These
putative class action lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of
monetary damages, reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in
connection with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and
various other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief.

Groupon, Inc. -- http://www.groupon.com/-- is a local commerce
marketplace that connects merchants to consumers by offering goods
and services at a discount.  The Company distributes its deals to
customers primarily through three channels: e-mail, its mobile
platform and its Web sites.  The Company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


GROUPON INC: Replies on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit on Apr. 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc. and other defendants' replies on the Company's
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit are due on
April 22, 2013, according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company is currently a defendant in a proceeding pursuant to
which, on October 29, 2012, a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed against the Company, certain of its directors
and officers, and the underwriters that participated in the
initial public offering of the Company's Class A common stock.
Originally filed in April 2012, the case is currently pending
before the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois: In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation.  The
complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Allegations in the consolidated
amended complaint include that the Company and its officers and
directors made untrue statements or omissions of material fact by
issuing inaccurate financial statements for the fiscal quarter and
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011, and by failing to
disclose information about the Company's financial controls in the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering of Class A common stock and in the Company's
subsequently-issued financial statements.  The putative class
action lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages,
reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection with the
actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other forms of
monetary and non-monetary relief.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on January 18, 2013.  The lead plaintiff's deadline to
file a response was March 19, 2013, and the defendants' replies
are due on April 22, 2013.

Groupon, Inc. -- http://www.groupon.com/-- is a local commerce
marketplace that connects merchants to consumers by offering goods
and services at a discount.  The Company distributes its deals to
customers primarily through three channels: e-mail, its mobile
platform and its Web sites.  The Company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


HEARTWARE INT'L: Has Funded Settlement of Massachusetts Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
HeartWare International, Inc. disclosed in its February 27, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012, that it and other defendants
funded the settlement of a class action lawsuit after the Company
received $0.8 million from its insurance carrier.

On June 27, 2011, HeartWare International, Inc. and HeartWare,
Inc., along with HeartWare's directors, certain officers and a
significant stockholder, were named as defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in Massachusetts state court by two
other Series A Preferred Stockholders on behalf of all holders of
Series A Preferred Stock.  The complaint alleged that the
defendants breached their fiduciary and contractual obligations to
Series A Preferred Stockholders by preventing them from receiving
a payment of the liquidation preference in connection with certain
corporate transactions, including a transaction in 2005 in which
HeartWare, Inc. was acquired by HeartWare Limited, a subsidiary of
HeartWare International, Inc.  The plaintiffs sought monetary
damages, interest, costs and limited equitable relief.  The
Company does not believe it, HeartWare, Inc. or any of its
directors, officers or stockholders have abrogated the rights, or
in any way failed to satisfy obligations owed to, any of the
Company's stockholders, including holders of Series A Preferred
Stock.  On September 12, 2011, the defendants served on plaintiffs
a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

On February 3, 2012, counsel for plaintiffs and defendants entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the matter.
Defendants agreed to pay up to $1.1 million to participating
putative class members in exchange for a full and unconditional
release of all claims asserted in the litigation, including any
and all claims arising from any right to receive a payment upon
any liquidation or deemed liquidation event that has arisen or may
arise in the future.  On March 22, 2012, the parties filed with
the court a stipulation of settlement formalizing the settlement
agreement.  Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs caused notice of the
settlement to be made to putative class members.  Following a
hearing on July 25, 2012, the court entered judgment granting
plaintiffs' motion to finally approve the settlement, including
the full and unconditional release of all present and future
claims to receive the liquidation preference, and dismissed the
case with prejudice.

On September 4, 2012, defendants funded the settlement after the
Company received $0.8 million from its insurance carrier in
connection with the settlement of this litigation.  The insurance
recovery is included in selling, general and administrative
expenses in the Company's statement of operations.

HeartWare International, Inc. -- http://www.heartware.com/-- a
medical device company, develops and manufactures miniaturized
implantable heart pumps or ventricular assist devices (VAD) for
the treatment of advanced heart failure in the United States and
internationally.  The Company offers HeartWare Ventricular Assist
System, which includes a VAD, or blood pump, patient accessories,
and surgical tools designed to provide circulatory support for
patients in the advanced stage of heart failure.  The Company is
headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts.


ITT CORP: Class Suit vs. Travelers Casualty Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
In January 2012, ITT Corporation and its subsidiary Goulds Pumps,
Inc., filed a putative class action against Travelers Casualty and
Surety Company (ITT Corporation and Goulds Pumps, Inc., v.
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (f/k/a Aetna Casualty and
Surety Company)), alleging that Travelers is unilaterally
reinterpreting language contained in older Aetna policies so as to
avoid paying on asbestos claims.  The Company says it continues to
negotiate settlement agreements with other insurers, where
appropriate.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 27,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

ITT Corporation -- http://www.itt.com/-- designs and manufactures
engineered critical components and customized technology solutions
for energy infrastructure, electronics, aerospace, and
transportation industries.  The Company operates in four segments:
Industrial Process, Motion Technologies, Interconnect Solutions,
and Control Technologies.  ITT Corporation was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in White Plains, New York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Dismisses Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Bisha A. Nurse, Esq. -- bnurse@daypitney.com -- at Day Pitney LLP
reports that Judge Vincent Briccetti of the U.S. District Court in
White Plains, New York, recently dismissed a purported collective
action filed by Tiffany Ryan, a former assistant branch manager at
JPMorgan Chase.

Ms. Ryan sued Chase in June 2012 claiming that she was
misclassified as an exempt employee and denied overtime pay in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Court ruled that
the binding arbitration agreement that Ms. Ryan had signed, which
included a waiver of class or collective actions, required her to
submit her claims to arbitration.

Ms. Ryan argued that the Court must defer to the National Labor
Relations Board's decision In re D.R. Horton.  In that case, the
NLRB held that waivers of class, collective, or joint actions in
employment contracts violate the National Labor Relations Act.
Accordingly, Ms. Ryan argued that the agreement between Chase and
Ms. Ryan was unenforceable because of the collective action
waiver.  The Court disagreed, finding that the D.R. Horton
decision and the NLRA were both non-persuasive and non-binding.
Citing the Supreme Court's 2011 decision AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, and subsequent lower-court rulings based upon that
decision, the Court held that the collective action waiver
contained in Ms. Ryan's arbitration agreement was valid and
enforceable.

"At bottom, the Court finds the class waiver is fair, permits
[Ryan] to vindicate her statutory rights under the FLSA, does not
hinder her ability to recover attorney's fees or costs, and
comports with public policy favoring arbitration and honoring
private contracts," Judge Briccetti wrote.

The Court's decision represents an important and much sought after
expansion of the Supreme Court's ruling in Concepcion, which held
that companies can employ class action waivers in consumer
contracts.  In the two years since the Concepcion decision,
employers have sought to apply the Supreme Court's reasoning to
analogous class action waivers in employment contracts.  Thus, the
decision is likely to be cited frequently by employers in
defending against class and collective actions in support of
similar arbitration agreements.


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Continues to Defend Rights-of-Way Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., continues to defend itself against
Rights-of-Way Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company is party to a number of purported class action
lawsuits involving its right to install fiber optic cable network
in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. In
general, the Company obtained the rights to construct its networks
from railroads, utilities, and others, and has installed its
networks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the
purported class actions assert that they are the owners of lands
over which the its fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the
railroads, utilities, and others who granted the Company the right
to construct and maintain its network did not have the legal
authority to do so. The complaints seek damages on theories of
trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as
well as punitive damages. The Company has also received, and may
in the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-way
issues similar to the issues in these cases that may be based on
similar or different legal theories. The Company has defeated
motions for class certification in a number of these actions but
expects that, absent settlement of these actions, plaintiffs in
the pending lawsuits will continue to seek certification of
statewide or multi-state classes. The only lawsuit in which a
class was certified against the Company, absent an agreed upon
settlement, occurred in Koyle, et. al. v. Level 3 Communications,
Inc., et. al., a purported two state class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The Koyle
lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a settlement reached in
November 2010.

The Company negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all
persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of
way in which it has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10,
2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the
settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Company negotiated revised settlement terms
for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who
own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which
the Company has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
Company is currently pursuing presentment of the settlement in
applicable jurisdictions. The settlements affecting current and
former landowners have received final federal court approval in
multiple states and the parties are engaged in the claims process
for those states. The settlement has also been presented to
federal courts in additional states and approval is pending.

Management believes that the Company has substantial defenses to
the claims asserted in all of these actions and intends to defend
them vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately
approved for all affected landowners.


MAINE: Preliminary Injunction Bid in "Bruns" Medicaid Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, the state of Maine elected to cover noncitizens under its
state Medicaid program and continued to do so until June 2011,
when the Maine Legislature passed Public Law 2011, chapter 380,
section KK-4, terminating Medicaid-ineligible alien health benefit
coverage.

Noncitizens Hans Bruns and Kadra Hassan, on behalf of themselves
and a proposed class of Maine residents, request that the Court
declare Public Law 2011, chapter 380, section KK-4
unconstitutional and grant a preliminary injunction enjoining Mary
Mayhew, the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS), from enforcing the law.  They also petition
the Court to order the restoration of their MaineCare benefits.
The Plaintiffs claim the 2011 Maine law violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution because it discriminates against noncitizens in favor
of citizens in the administration of MaineCare benefits.

Chief District Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr., denies the Plaintiffs'
motion for Preliminary Injunction holding that they are unable to
establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their equal
protection claim -- the "sine qua non" of the four-part
preliminary injunction test.  Furthermore, because of the
inadequate state of the record, the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate that the remaining three factors are in their favor,
he added.

The case is HANS BRUNS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARY MAYHEW,
Commissioner, Maine Department of Health and Human Services,
Defendant, No. 1:12-cv-00131-JAW, (D. Maine).

A copy of the District Court's March 14, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/hBzD6Yfrom Leagle.com.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Recalls See-Though Yoga Pants
--------------------------------------------------
Dana Mattioli and Kristin Jones of The Wall Street Journal report
that the shares of Lululemon Athletica Inc., the yoga-apparel
retailer, tumbled late Monday, March 18, 2013, after saying it has
pulled some of its popular pants from stores, after a mistake by a
supplier left the pants too see-through.

Lululemon said the glitch involved pants using its signature
fabric, known as Luon, that arrived in stores March 1.  The
retailer is offering refunds to customers.  The glitch could be a
big hit to the Company, affecting 17% of the bottoms it had in
stock. Lululemon said the incident would reduce its expected
first-quarter sales to $333 million to $343 million, down from the
$350 million to $355 million it had previously expected.

The Company's shares fell more than 6% in after-hours trading to
$61.75 following the news.  They had already slipped nearly 4%
during the day.

"The ingredients, weight and longevity qualities of the pants
remain the same but the coverage does not, resulting in a level of
sheerness in some of our women's black Luon bottoms that falls
short of our very high standards," Lululemon said in a release.

Lululemon said it has used the same manufacturing supplier on key
fabrics since 2004 and is working to understand what happened.
The material was supplied by Eclat Textile Co. Ltd., a person
familiar with the matter said.  Eclat, which manufactures in
Taiwan, couldn't immediately be reached for comment, but its U.S.
Web site does list Lululemon as a customer.

The disclosure was a rare stumble by a company that turned figure-
flattering yoga gear into an empire that notched $1 billion in
sales for the first time in the year ended January 2012 and which
enjoyed a market value near $10 billion.

The Company closely watches shoppers in its stores for signs of
what is and isn't catching on to get its products right.  It also
likes to keep them scarce, a large part of its strategy under
Christine Day, who has been chief executive since 2008.

Lululemon kept new colors and seasonal items on short life cycles
to encourage customers to buy them at full price.  "Our guest
knows that there's a limited supply, and it creates these
fanatical shoppers," Ms. Day told the Wall Street Journal in an
interview last year.

The strategy raised some concern among investors, however.
Conference calls with analysts often centered on Lulu's inability
to stock enough items.

In its annual report in March 2012, Lululemon warned that it is
exposed to risks from its heavy reliance on a limited number of
suppliers.  As an example, it pointed to the Luon fabric that is
at issue in the glitch revealed Monday, March 18, 2013.  The
Company said it sourced Luon from a single manufacturer in Taiwan,
and that the fibers used to make the fabric were supplied by a
single company.

"We may experience a significant disruption in the supply of
fabrics or raw materials from current sources or, in the event of
a disruption, we may be unable to locate alternative materials
suppliers of comparable quality at an acceptable price, or at
all," the Company said in the filing.

Lululemon said it is working with suppliers to get new gear in
stock as soon as possible but expects a shortage for now.


MANITOBA: Farmers Launch Class Action Over 2011 Flood Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Winnipeg Free Press reports that a group of farmers and property
owners along the Assiniboine River has launched a class action
against the Manitoba government in Canada for damages they
suffered during the 2011 flood.

In documents filed recently at Queen's Bench, the farmers said
they only resorted to court action when the Selinger government
repeatedly refused to fairly compensate them for the damages they
suffered as a result of the dike-building efforts along the
Assiniboine between March and October 2011.  The group wants the
courts to recognize the proceedings as a class-action lawsuit,
which would automatically include all affected property owners,
estimated to number in the hundreds.

The provincial government has not yet answered any questions
concerning the legal action.


MERIDIAN DIVERSIFIED: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that Meridian Diversified
Fund Management told a New York federal judge on March 11 that a
class action alleging that its hedge funds served as feeder funds
for Bernard L. Madoff should be dismissed because the plaintiffs
don't have standing under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.  The fund managers say the New Jersey Carpenters Annuity Fund
and its administrative manager George Laufenberg don't own shares
of Meridian Diversified ERISA Fund Ltd. and thus have no standing
to bring a shareholder derivative lawsuit under ERISA.


MORGAN PROPERTIES: Sued Over Attorney Fees in Evictions
-------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that specific
charges that apartment tenants are contractually bound to shoulder
for attorneys' fees in evictions are illegal because those amounts
exceed the real costs of the landlord's in-house legal counsel, an
attorney for a putative class of renters told the New Jersey
Supreme Court on March 12.  Lewis G. Adler represents tenants of
Morgan Properties-affiliated apartment complexes who were hit with
eviction actions for allegedly failing to pay rent.  Their lease
agreements required them to pay $400 as an attorneys' fee, which
would be cut to $200.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself against a consolidated
class action lawsuit captioned, In re Morgan Stanley ERISA
Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on
behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee
stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties,
including certain present and former directors and officers, under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In
February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single
proceeding, styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The
consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's
subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes
allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal
controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was
not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common
stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed.
Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On
March 26, 2012, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the
complaint.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Coulter" Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k)
plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and
certain current and former officers and directors for breach of
fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that defendants knew or should have known that from
January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in
Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by
the Company and its common stock during that period. Plaintiffs
are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On July 20, 2011,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on October 28, 2011,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

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


MORGAN STANLEY: Notice of Appeal in Stratte-McClure Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel
Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain present and former executives
asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and
entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during
the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered
damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the
amended complaint related in large part to the Company's subprime
and other mortgage related losses, but also included allegations
regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting
and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January
18, 2013. On February 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit (the "Second Circuit").

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


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Mortgage Pass-Through Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself in In re Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, which is now styled
In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation
and is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The third amended complaint, filed
on September 30, 2011, alleges, among other things, that the
registration statements and offering documents related to the
offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006
contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of
residential loans that backed these securitizations. The
plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs,
interest and fees. On January 11, 2013, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration which sought to expand the
offerings at issue in the litigation based on recent precedent
from the Second Circuit. On January 31, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
fourth amended complaint, in which they purport to represent
investors who purchased approximately $7.82 billion in mortgage
pass-through certificates issued in 2006 by 14 trusts.


MORGAN STANLEY: Still Defending Suits Over Securities & Certs.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend class action lawsuits related
to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote
offerings of securities and mortgage pass-through certificates,
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.

Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several
putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the
syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage
pass-through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related
entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-
related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among
other things, that the registration statements and offering
documents for the offerings at issue contained material
misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the
issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks
and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class
certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages,
costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential
losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors
including, among other things, the financial condition of the
entities that issued or sponsored the securities and mortgage
pass-through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the
offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of
co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or
their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of
these cases, including In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt
Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities
Litigation, relate to issuers or sponsors (or their affiliates)
that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into
receivership.

In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and relates to several offerings of debt and
equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during
2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million
of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. A group of
underwriter defendants, including the Company, settled the main
litigation on December 2, 2012. The underwriter defendants,
including the Company, continue to defend claims by investors who
opted out of the settlement or who purchased securities not
covered by the settlement.

In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in
the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass-through
certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of
IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. On June 21, 2010, the court
granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint.
The Company underwrote approximately $46 million of the principal
amount of the offerings currently at issue. In July 2011, certain
putative additional plaintiffs appealed the court's June 2011
order denying the motion to add them as additional plaintiffs as
to the Company. The Company is opposing the appeals. On August 17,
2012, the court granted class certification. On October 12, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to expand the offerings at
issue in the litigation, relying on recent precedent from the
Second Circuit. Defendants have opposed the motion. If the motion
is granted and the offerings are included in the class that is
certified, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by
the Company at issue in the litigation will be approximately $1.68
billion.


NORTHERN TRUST: Still Defending Securities Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation continues to defend a securities class
action in Illinois, 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 24, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois against the Corporation and three of
its present or former officers, including the present and former
Chief Executive Officers of the Corporation, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Corporation stock during the
period from October 17, 2007 to October 20, 2009. The amended
complaint alleges that during the purported class period the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by allegedly taking insufficient provisions for credit losses with
respect to the Corporation's real estate loan portfolio and
failing to make sufficient disclosures regarding its securities
lending business. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount. At this stage of the suit, it is not possible
for management to assess the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss.


NORTON, OH: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Sewage Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Hakim, writing for Akron Ohio News, reports that the city of
Norton was recently served with a class action lawsuit regarding
the city allegedly charging an unlawful fee to residents who
reside in the Spring Avenue Outfall area.

According to the suit filed with the Summit County Clerk of
Courts, three Gardner Boulevard residents filed the civil
complaint Feb. 25.  The lawsuit, brought by Tim and Connie Adair
and Paul Ritzman, challenges the city's alleged unlawful
collection of fees, which they claim violates their own and more
than 600 others' federal and state constitutional rights.  The
affected group, the suit alleges, are city residents whose sewage
is transported through Summit County sewer lines and have their
waste treated by Barberton's wastewater treatment plant.

They claim the fees affect a putative class of people who reside
in the Spring Avenue Outfall area, who have been responsible for
surcharges of 27.5% more than the current user rate the city of
Barberton charges Barberton residents, according to the complaint.
Further, the suit alleges the charges were to be put into Norton's
Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund, but residents receive no service
associated with the fee.

"We are reviewing the complaint," said the city's Law Director
Peter Kostoff at Norton City Council's March 11 meeting.  "This
case, like any other, will have the opportunity to have its day in
court."

Also, the city received several citizen petitions March 8 to place
a proposed charter amendment before voters, according to city
Finance Director Laura Starosta.  The city has submitted the
petitions to the Summit County Board of Elections to verify
signatures, she said.  The proposed amendment would appear, at the
soonest, on the ballot in August, according to city officials.
The proposed change to Norton's charter is in regards to sewer and
water rate assessments, connections fees and rate limits.  It
seeks to eliminate fees for construction of sewer or water lines
within the city, as well as to have assessments for sewer or water
lines paid for by the city.  Also, the amendment proposes that
Norton residents not "be charged to tie into, connect to, or
otherwise access sewer or water lines," within city limits.  In
addition, the charter amendment would cap residential water and
sewer bills at $35 a month, unless increased by a majority vote of
Council by not more than 2% per year.

Council's agenda March 11 included a first reading of legislation
to award a contract to Four Corners Cleaning Inc., a Barberton
company, for janitorial services at select municipal buildings.

During Council's work session March 4, Administrative Officer Rick
Ryland noted the city's dissatisfaction with Romaster, the current
cleaning company, according to minutes from that meeting. However,
Council was split on whether to put the new cleaning contract on
the March 11 agenda for a first reading, with Council members
Charlotte Whipkey (at large) and Council President Don Nicolard
(Ward 2) voting against the action.

While Council did conduct a first reading of the legislation that
evening, they also took into account statements from Mitch Roman,
owner of Romaster, who appeared before Council.  Mr. Roman said
his company, which is located in Norton, has been cleaning city
properties for approximately 16 years, a contract which currently
includes three days per week at the Service Department, three days
at the administration and police offices, and two days at the
Community Center.  The company receives $1,100 a month for around
90 hours of work, said Mr. Roman.

"Nobody approached me with anything or called our office with a
complaint," he said.

Councilman Todd Bergstrom (Ward 1) suggested Council take the
topic back to its next work session.  Mr. Bergstrom also said he
would like to see a paper trail showing Mr. Roman's company was
approached by the city with issues and had an opportunity to
change.

"I checked -- there isn't any paper trail," said Ms. Whipkey.

Also, he said he would like to see a performance evaluation
written into the contract, said Mr. Bergstrom.

"I think this does warrant a little more discussion," agreed
Councilman Scott Pelot (at large).

Council members also expressed their desire for Mr. Roman to be
included in the discussion at Council's next work session
March 18.  Also at the meeting, resident Dennis Pierson echoed a
request made by Ms. Whipkey at Council's Feb. 25 meeting for Mr.
Kostoff's resignation, citing different reasoning.  Ms. Whipkey
retracted her request for Mr. Kostoff's resignation, however.  She
explained she changed her mind upon finding out that Mr. Nicolard
asked Mr. Kostoff to read an opinion prior to the Council meeting,
and it was not read in a public way, she said. Her original
complaint against Mr. Kostoff was that he violated attorney/client
privilege, according to minutes from that meeting.

Pierson stated the city paid nearly $10,000 for a paving project
to a company on which Mr. Kostoff's wife sits on the board of
directors, which he called "unethical."

Commenting on this after the meeting, Mr. Kostoff said he did not
recall the contract in question.

"I don't award contracts," he said.

Also at the meeting, Council approved proposed legislation, with
each item passed with a 6-0 vote (Ward 4 Councilman John Conklin
had an excused absence from the meeting.), including:

   * an ordinance adopting various insurance plans for various
periods for city employees;

   * an ordinance authorizing the lease/purchase of a 2013 Kobelco
80 series excavator for the Service Department, not to exceed
$99,000.  Ms. Whipkey said the stated cost is before a trade-in of
a Grade All machine, and the purchase is to be paid off in six
years through a lease option;

   * an ordinance awarding a contract to Mark Campbell
Construction LLC for the construction of the sanitary sewer
improvement project for the Norton maintenance facility at a cost
not to exceed $84,500;

   * a resolution, following a public hearing during which there
were no objections raised, approving the placement of farmland at
3330 Reimer Road in an agricultural district; and

   * an ordinance authorizing the mayor or his designee to enter
into an agreement with the Ohio Department of Transportation for
mowing along Interstate 76 for the 2013 season.

Council was set to meet for a work session March 18 and for its
regular meeting March 25, both at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at
the Safety-Administration Building, 4060 Columbia Woods Drive.


OLD NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, Old National Bancorp was named in a class action
lawsuit in Vanderburgh County Circuit Court challenging Old
National Bank's checking account practices associated with the
assessment of overdraft fees. On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff was
granted permission to file a First Amended Complaint which names
additional plaintiffs and amends certain claims. The plaintiffs
seek damages and other relief, including restitution. Old National
believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the
plaintiffs.

At this phase of the litigation, it is not possible for management
of Old National to determine the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss. No class
has yet been certified and discovery is ongoing. On June 13, 2012,
Old National filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint, which has not yet been ruled upon. On September 7,
2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

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.


PELLA CORP: Seeks Approval of $90-Mil. Window Defect Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that Pella
Corp. and class members in a lawsuit alleging that defects in the
company's windows caused extensive property damage asked a federal
judge on March 11 to approve a settlement that Pella said is worth
more than $90 million.  The move follows the court's December
denial of a request by a group of objectors to prevent notice of
Pella's settlement from being sent out to class members.  Both the
company and the plaintiffs said on March 11 the settlement is fair
and should be approved.


PRO-AMINO INT'L: Recalls Protein Bars on Salmonella Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pro-Amino International Inc. is recalling protein bars which may
contain Salmonella.  The product is the ProtiDiet High Protein
Chocolate Dream Bar, sold in 210 gram (7.4 oz.) packages, 7 bars
per package, bearing UPC 6 21498 42238 1, lot code CR 18 13B, and
Best Before date of 2015-08.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) along with the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Pro-Amino International are
warning people not to consume these high protein bars, which may
contain Salmonella.  Picture of the recalled products' labels is
available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm344355.htm

What are the Symptoms of Illness/Injury?

Salmonella is a public health risk and is one of the most common
causes of foodborne illness.  Healthy people infected with
Salmonella may experience some or all of the following symptoms:
nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping
and fever.

Although rare, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments
including arterial infections, endocarditis (inflammation of the
lining of the heart), arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation and
urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers exhibiting these signs after
having contact with the Pro-Amino product subject to this recall
should contact their health care provider immediately.

Who is at Risk?

Consumers who have purchased or received the ProtiDiet High
Protein Chocolate Dream Bars are at risk.  They should not eat
this product.

What Do Consumers Need To Do?

Consumers should avoid eating the potentially contaminated High
Protein Chocolate Dream Bars and discard the product or return it
to the point of sale.

Consumers who think they may have become ill from eating these
High Protein Chocolate Dream Bars should consult their health care
providers.

Where is it Distributed?

The Canadian-manufactured ProtiDiet High Protein Chocolate Dream
Bars were sent to distributors and retail outlets in Alabama,
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, Virginia.

It was also available for sale on the Internet.

Have There Been Any Illnesses Reported?

There have been no illnesses reported at this time.

What is Being Done about the Problem?

FDA is monitoring the problem in collaboration with the CFIA and
public health agencies in the states where this product was
distributed.

Who Should Be Contacted?

For more information, consumers and industry can call the CFIA at
1-800-442-2342/TTY 1-800-465-7735 (8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time, Monday through Friday).  Consumers may also call
the Pro-Amino International customer service line at 1-800-555-
2170, extension 227.


ROMA FINANCIAL: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roma Financial Corporation is facing a merger-related class action
lawsuit in New Jersey, according to the Company's
February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 19, 2012, Roma Financial Corporation, Roma Bank and
Roma Financial Corporation, MHC, entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bank and
Investors Bancorp, MHC ("Investors MHC").  Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Roma MHC will merge into Investors MHC, with
Investors MHC surviving, to be followed by the merger of Roma
Financial Corporation into Investors Bancorp, with Investors
Bancorp surviving, and the merger of Roma Bank into Investors
Bank, with Investors Bank surviving.  Depositors of Roma Bank will
become depositors of Investors Bank, and will have the same rights
and privileges in Investors MHC as if their accounts had been
established in Investors Bank on the date established at Roma
Bank.  The merger has been approved by each company's board of
directors and is subject to the approval of Investors Bancorp's
and the Company's shareholders, the MHC members, regulatory
approvals and other customary closing conditions.  In addition, on
January 17, 2013, RomAsia Bank entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Investors Bank that provides for the merger of
RomAsia Bank with and into Investors Bank.  All of the
transactions are expected to close in the second quarter of 2013
assuming all required approvals have been obtained.

On January 3, 2013, a Roma Financial stockholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of Roma Financial stockholders in
the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Chancery Division,
Mercer County, against Roma Financial, Roma MHC, Roma Bank, each
member of the Roma Financial board of directors, and Investors
Bancorp, Investors MHC and Investors Bank.  The case is captioned
Joseph T. Zalescik v. Peter Inverso, Michele Siekerka, Alfred
DeBlasio, Jr., Thomas Bracken, Robert Albanese, William Walsh,
Jr., Dennis Bone, Robert Rosen, Jeffrey Taylor, Roma Financial
Corporation, Roma Financial Corporation, MHC, Roma Bank, Investors
Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bancorp MHC and Investors Bank.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Roma Financial
board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by allegedly
agreeing to inadequate consideration and onerous terms for the
merger transaction and allegedly engaging in a process that
involved conflicts of interest.  The complaint also alleges that
Roma Financial and Investors Bancorp aided and abetted the Roma
Financial board of directors' breaches of fiduciary duties.  Roma
Financial and Investors Bancorp believe the allegations in the
complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against the lawsuit.

Robbinsville, New Jersey-based Roma Financial Corporation is a
federally-chartered corporation organized in January 2005 for the
purpose of acquiring all of the capital stock that Roma Bank
issued in its mutual holding company reorganization.


SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Unit Faces "Vega" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation's subsidiary is facing a class
action lawsuit titled Vega v. Sensient Dehydrated Flavors LLC,
according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On January 3, 2013, Thomas Vega, a current employee, filed (but
did not serve) a Class Action Complaint in San Francisco County
Superior Court against Sensient Dehydrated Flavors LLC.  On
February 11, 2013, Vega filed and served a First Amended Complaint
("Complaint") against the Company and a Company supervisor.  Vega
alleges that the Company failed to provide alleged class members
with meal periods, compensation for the alleged absence of meal
periods, and accurate wage statements, in violation of the
California labor code.  The alleged class includes all employees
paid on an hourly basis and all forklift operators.  The Complaint
seeks damages, back wages, injunctive relief, penalties, interest,
and attorneys' fees for the members of the alleged class.  The
Complaint alleges that the total damages and costs "do not exceed
a[n] aggregate of $4,999,999.99."

The Complaint alleges two causes of action.  The first cause of
action is for "Unfair Competition."  The plaintiff's theory is
that the Company, by allegedly not complying with state wage and
hour laws, had an unfair competitive advantage against other
employers who were complying with those laws.  The main strategic
reason that plaintiffs plead this cause of action is that the
statute of limitations is four years.  The second cause of action
is for alleged substantive violations of the California labor code
provisions governing wages, hours, and meal periods.

In this type of class action, the Company says damages are based
on the number of current and former employees who were subjected
to the alleged failure to comply with California meal periods,
compensation for missed meal periods, and wage statement
requirements.  Under California law, an employee who is not
"provided with an opportunity" to take a meal period is entitled
to pay for one additional hour for each day that occurred.
Penalties for wage statement violations are $50 for the first pay
period and $100 for each subsequent pay period and are capped at
$4,000 per employee.  Both the meal period and wage statement
penalties would apply to current and former employees going back
the full four years from the date the original complaint was
filed, that is since January 3, 2009.

The Company believes that for the great majority of employees that
any meal period violations that may have occurred are attributable
to inadequate documentation and do not involve a failure to
provide meal periods.

In order to obtain class certification under California law, the
plaintiff must establish: (1) the existence of a sufficiently
numerous (no minimum), ascertainable class; (2) a well-defined
community of interest among the class members; and (3) that
proceeding as a class is superior to other methods.  Trial courts
have substantial discretion in granting or denying class
certification. In the circumstances, it is possible that Vega
could obtain class certification.  Moreover, under California law,
Vega may pursue full discovery in the matter even before class
certification is granted.

The Company is evaluating the merits of this case and intends to
vigorously defend its interests.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Sensient Technologies
Corporation -- http://www.sensient-tech.com/-- manufactures and
markets colors, flavors and fragrances.  Sensient also employs
technologies to develop specialty chemicals for inkjet inks,
display imaging systems and other applications.


SMART TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Shareholder Class Actions in Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------------
SMART Technologies Inc. on March 13 disclosed that it and the
other defendants have entered into an agreement in principle with
the plaintiffs in the shareholder class action lawsuits.  These
include SMART Technologies Inc. Shareholder Litigation pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, and Tucci v. SMART Technologies Inc. et al., pending in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Actions").

Pursuant to the settlement terms, the parties have agreed to
settle the Actions, releasing the alleged claims and all related
claims, subject to various conditions, including appropriate class
notice, court approvals and the dismissal of related putative
class claims in Harper v. SMART Technologies Inc. et al.,
currently pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California.

The proposed settlement will be funded entirely by insurance
maintained by the Company.

The defendants entered into the settlement in principle to avoid
the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation.  SMART
and the other defendants have denied and continue to deny that
they have committed any violation of law or engaged in any of the
wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in the Actions.

                     About SMART Technologies

SMART Technologies Inc. is a provider of technology solutions that
enable inspired collaboration in schools and workplaces around the
world by turning group work into a highly interactive, engaging
and productive experience.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Suit Over Patient Records Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation continues to defend itself in a class
action lawsuit over patient records, 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 defendants in a class action lawsuit
in which the plaintiffs claim that in April 1996 patient
identifying records from a psychiatric hospital that we closed in
1995 were temporarily placed in an unsecure location while the
hospital was undergoing renovations. The lawsuit, Doe, et al. v.
Jo Ellen Smith Medical Foundation, was filed in the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans in Louisiana in March 1997 and is
currently pending. The plaintiffs' claims include allegations of
tortious invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional
distress. The plaintiffs contend that the class consists of
approximately 5,000 persons; however, only eight individuals have
been identified to date in the class certification process.  The
plaintiffs have asserted each member of the class is entitled to
common damages under a theory of presumed "common damage"
regardless of whether or not any members of the class were
actually harmed or even aware of the incident. We believe there is
no authority for an award of common damages under Louisiana law.
In addition, we believe that there is no basis for the
certification of this proceeding as a class action under
applicable federal and Louisiana law precedents. However, the
trial court has denied our motions for summary judgment and our
motion to decertify the class. In March 2012, the Louisiana
Supreme Court denied our interlocutory appeal of the trial court's
decision on summary judgment based on procedural grounds, noting
that we retain an adequate remedy to appeal any adverse judgment
that might be rendered by the trial court. In April 2012, we filed
a notice of appeal of the trial court's denial of our motion to
decertify the proceeding as a class action. The notice of appeal
was granted, and the trial has been stayed pending the outcome of
the appeal."

"At this time, we are not able to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or reasonably possible range of loss given: the small number
of class members that have been identified or otherwise responded
to the class certification process; the novel theories asserted by
plaintiffs, including their assertion that a theory of presumed
common damage exists under Louisiana law; uncertainties as to the
timing and outcome of the appeals process; and the failure of the
plaintiffs to provide any evidence of damages. We intend to
vigorously contest the plaintiffs' claims."


THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Awaits Ruling in Shareholder Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Theratechnologies Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion
seeking permission to appeal a class certification ruling in a
shareholder lawsuit, according to the Company's February 27, 2013,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended November 30, 2012.

A motion to authorize the institution of a class action was
originally filed in July 2010 in the Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal, entitled 121851 Canada Inc. v.
Theratechnologies Inc. et al., Number 500-06-000-515-102.  The
complaint alleged that the Company, a director and a former
executive officer violated the secondary market liability
provisions of the Securities Act (Quebec) by failing to disclose a
material change relating to the administration of EGRIFTA(TM).
The plaintiff sought damages on behalf of a class of persons who
were shareholders at May 21, 2010, and who sold their common
shares on May 25 or 26, 2010.  On February 24, 2012, the Superior
Court of Quebec authorized 121851 Canada Inc. to institute a class
action against the Company, a director and a former executive
officer.  On March 20, 2012, the Company filed a motion seeking
permission to appeal this judgment with the Court of Appeal of
Quebec, District of Montreal, Number 500-09-022519-128, and the
hearing took place on January 24, 2013.  No judgment has been
rendered yet following the January 24, 2013 hearing.

Whether or not the plaintiff's claims are successful, the Company
says this type of litigation is often expensive and diverts
management's attention and resources, which could adversely affect
the operation of the Company's business.

Theratechnologies Inc. -- http://www.theratech.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that specializes in innovative
therapeutic peptide products, with an emphasis on growth-hormone
releasing factor (GRF) peptides.  The Company is based in Quebec,
Canada.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Headlamp Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Conti granted in part and denied in part a
motion to dismiss a first amended class action complaint in the
lawsuit MUI HO, SHELDA ANGLIN, and TED FLORY, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. 12-2672 SC, (N.D. Cal.).

Mui Ho, Shelda Anglin, and Ted Flory are purchasers of Toyota
Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation's
Lexus RX vehicles produced between the years of 2004 and 2009.
They bring the putative class action on their own behalf and that
of all other purchasers or lessees of the Vehicles.  The
Plaintiffs claim that the Vehicles' headlamp assemblies are
defective because they are prone to condensation and moisture
retention. The Plaintiffs initially asserted six causes of action
against the Defendants: (1) violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750 et seq.; (2)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus & Prof.
Code Sections 17200 et seq., pursuant to California's Secret
Warranty Law, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1795.90 et seq.; (3)
violation of the UCL on grounds other than violation of
California's Secret Warranty Law; (4) fraud by omission; (5)
breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1792 and 1791.1 et seq.; and
(6) breach of express warranty under California Commercial Code
section 2313, exclusively asserted against Defendant TMS.

The Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their UCL claim based on the
California Secret Warranty Law.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the
Plaintiffs fail to state claims under any of the remaining five
causes of action.

In his ruling, Judge Conti held that:

   * the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of implied warranty under
     the Song-Beverly Act is dismissed with leave to amend as to
     Plaintiff Ho. This claim is undisturbed as to Plaintiff
     Anglin.

   * the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of express warranty as to
     Plaintiff Ho is dismissed with prejudice.  This claim is
     undisturbed as to Plaintiff Anglin.

   * the Plaintiffs' fraud by omission claim, CLRA claim, and
     UCL claim are undisturbed.

Judge Conti held that the Plaintiffs have leave to amend their
claim for breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act only if they are able to plead that
Plaintiff Ho purchased her Class Vehicle from a dealer or retailer
seller within the implied warranty period provided by that
statute.

The Plaintiffs have 30 days from March 14, 2013, to file an
amended complaint.  Since the Plaintiffs have amended their
complaint once, they may not re-plead any additional facts or
causes of action without requesting leave from the Court. If the
Plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint, the deficient claim
may be dismissed with prejudice, according to Judge Conti.

A copy of the District Court's March 14, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/1aDJ4Ifrom Leagle.com.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Continues to Defend Two Stanford-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation continues to defend its subsidiary against
two class action lawsuits related to the collapse of Stanford
Financial Group, according to the Company's February 27, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank
(TNB), has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits related to
the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group.  The first is a
purported class action complaint that was filed on August 23,
2009, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif
Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze,
Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four
other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as
defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent
transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and
other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled
by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the "Stanford Financial
Group") and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged
conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford
Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the
asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme.  Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did
not quantify damages.  In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed
to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the
United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court
in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford
related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.
In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit, and the motions to dismiss have been fully
briefed by all parties.  The court has not yet ruled on the
defendants' motions to dismiss.

In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of
an Official Stanford Investors Committee to represent the
interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances,
to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors.  In
December 2011, the Official Stanford Investors Committee ("OSIC")
filed a motion to intervene in this action.  In September 2012,
the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for
hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues.  In December
2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to intervene, and the
OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one of the other
defendant financial institutions.

In February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor
Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining
defendant financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i)
alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the
defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the
profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford
Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants
allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages
attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants
with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and
abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii)
punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.

The second Stanford-related lawsuit was filed on December 14,
2009, in the District Court of Ascension Parish, Louisiana,
individually by Harold Jackson, Paul Blaine, Carolyn Bass Smith,
Christine Nichols, and Ronald and Ramona Hebert naming TNB
(misnamed as Trust National Bank) and other individuals and
entities not affiliated with Trustmark as defendants.  The
complaint seeks to recover the money lost by these individual
plaintiffs as a result of the collapse of  the Stanford Financial
Group (in addition to other damages) under various theories and
causes of action, including negligence, breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, conspiracy, and violation of Louisiana's uniform
fiduciary, securities, and racketeering laws.  The complaint does
not quantify the amount of money the plaintiffs seek to recover.
In January 2010, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  On March 29,
2010, the court stayed the case.  TNB filed a motion to lift the
stay, which was denied on February 28, 2012.  In September 2012,
the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for
hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues.

TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a
result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in
August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other
traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business.
Both Stanford-related lawsuits are in their preliminary stages and
have been previously disclosed by Trustmark.

Trustmark Corporation -- http://www.trustmark.com/-- operates as
the bank holding company for Trustmark National Bank, which
provides banking and financial solutions to individuals and
corporate institutions in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Texas.  The Company was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Seeks Dismissal of One Overdraft Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its February 27, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012, that it filed preliminary dismissal
and venue transfer motions in one of the two class action lawsuits
challenging its subsidiary's practices regarding "overdraft" or
"non-sufficient funds" fees.

Trustmark's principal subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank (TNB),
is the defendant in two putative class actions challenging TNB's
practices regarding "overdraft" or "non-sufficient funds" fees
charged by TNB in connection with customer use of debit cards,
including TNB's order of processing transactions, notices and
calculations of charges, and calculations of fees.  Kathy D. White
v. TNB was filed in Tennessee state court in Memphis, Tennessee
and was removed on June 19, 2012, to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee.  (Plaintiff Kathy
White had filed an earlier, virtually identical action that was
voluntarily dismissed.)  Leroy Jenkins v. TNB was filed on June 4,
2012, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi.  The White and Jenkins pleadings are
matters of public record in the files of the courts.  In both
cases, the plaintiffs purport to represent classes of similarly-
situated customers of TNB.  The White complaint asserts claims of
breach of contract, breach of a duty of good faith and fair
dealing, unconscionability, conversion, and unjust enrichment.
The Jenkins complaint includes similar allegations as well as
federal-law claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA)
and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO);
however, the RICO claims were voluntarily dismissed from the case
on January 9, 2013.

On July 19, 2012, the plaintiff in the White case filed an amended
complaint to add plaintiffs from Mississippi and also to add
federal EFTA claims.  Trustmark contends that amended complaint
was procedurally improper.  On October 4, 2012, the plaintiff in
the White case moved for leave to add two Tennessee plaintiffs.
That motion is pending for decision.  Trustmark has filed
preliminary dismissal and venue transfer motions, and discovery
has begun, in the White case; the Jenkins case has not yet entered
the active discovery stage.  Each of these complaints seeks the
imposition of a constructive trust and unquantified damages.
These complaints are largely patterned after similar lawsuits that
have been filed against other banks across the country.

Trustmark Corporation -- http://www.trustmark.com/-- operates as
the bank holding company for Trustmark National Bank, which
provides banking and financial solutions to individuals and
corporate institutions in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Texas.  The Company was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.


UNIT CORP: 2nd Request to Certify Class Pending in "Panola" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit captioned, Panola Independent School District
No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District
Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma, 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: "Panola Independent School District No. 4,
Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine
Pate, Juanita Golightly, Melody Culberson and Charlotte Abernathy
are the Plaintiffs and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling
and spacing units for which the our exploration segment
distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that
our exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by
deducting post-production costs or marketing related fees.
Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf
of persons who receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma
production. We have asserted several defenses including that the
deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We also asserted that
the case should not be tried as a class action due to the
materially different circumstances that determine what, if any,
deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009, the
trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11,
2012, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's order
certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the Oklahoma
Supreme Court for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the
Plaintiff's petition was denied. The Plaintiffs recently filed a
second request to certify a class of royalty owners that is
slightly smaller than their first attempt. We will continue to
resist certification using these defenses, as well as new defenses
based on the Court of Civil Appeals' decertification of the
Plaintiffs' original class action. The merits of Plaintiffs'
claims will remain stayed while class certification issues are
pending."


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on March 12
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
UnitedHealth Group Inc. and various subsidiaries, including United
Behavioral Health.  The class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
13 CV 1599, alleging violations of federal and state mental health
parity laws and other related statutes.  The action has been
brought on behalf of three beneficiaries who are insured by health
care plans issued or administered by United and whose coverage for
mental health claims has been denied or curtailed.  The plaintiffs
seek to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated
subscribers.  In addition, the action was filed on behalf of the
New York State Psychiatric Association, Inc., a division of the
American Psychiatric Association, seeking injunctive relief in a
representational capacity on behalf of its members and their
patients.

Plaintiffs' counsels are continuing to investigate these claims
and other related claims that may be added to the litigation.  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, telephone number.

United is the country's largest health insurer, administrating
plans on behalf of millions of consumers nationwide.  As part of
its health care plans, United administers mental health benefits,
and is thereby subject to the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (the
"Federal Parity Law"), as well as applicable state parity laws,
including "Timothy's Law" in New York. N.Y. Ins. Law Sec.
3221(l)(5)(A).  In essence, these laws prohibit health plans from
imposing limitations on mental health benefits that are more
restrictive than those applied to traditional medical and surgical
benefits.

Plaintiffs allege that United has adopted insidious, multi-layered
policies and practices that violate applicable parity laws and
impose unjustifiable restrictions on mental health care.  Each of
the three named individual plaintiffs has been subjected to and
harmed by these policies.

Among United's most nefarious practices is its use of concurrent
treatment reviews to prospectively limit and deny benefits for
conditions that, by definition, are unpredictable.  In doing so,
United interferes with prescribed treatments and enforces policies
contrary to generally accepted standards of care in the mental
health community.

As detailed in the 100-page complaint, NYSPA has fielded numerous
grievances from its members concerning United's systemic denials
of mental health care.  According to Seth P. Stein, NYSPA's
Executive Director and General Counsel, "Over the past year, NYSPA
has attempted to work with United Healthcare and its affiliates to
resolve some of the issues identified in the complaint, but those
efforts were unsuccessful."  As Mr. Stein further explains,
"Enforcement of existing state and federal parity statutes is
paramount to ensure that individuals with mental illness receive
access to necessary and appropriate care and treatment."

Problems experienced by NYSPA members and their patients in
receiving proper mental health coverage have been widespread, with
United curtailing psychotherapy for patients requiring long-term
treatment, and allowing no more than weekly psychotherapy even for
actively suicidal patients, including those who have been
frequently hospitalized.  NYSPA members have also reported that
patients with United experience a great deal of difficulty
obtaining initial and continued authorizations for intermediate
levels of care, such as intensive outpatient treatment for mental
health and substance use disorders.

"The mental health parity laws are designed to prevent the very
practices in which United has engaged," says D. Brian Hufford, a
Senior Partner of the Pomerantz firm and head of its health care
practice.  "Through this action, we seek to compel United to
change its restrictive approach to mental health care, while
establishing uniform, industry-wide standards."

Adds co-counsel Meiram Bendat, "Safeguarding crucial access to
mental health care is critical and a substantial factor in
bringing this lawsuit."

Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP --
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is a plaintiff class action firms
with offices in New York, Chicago, San Diego and Florida.

Co-counsel Meiram Bendat is founder of the California-based mental
health insurance advocacy service, Psych-Appeal.  As a practicing
psychotherapist and attorney, Mr. Bendat specializes in protecting
the interests of patients impacted by mental health disorders and
offers customized strategies for overcoming insurer denials of
mental health treatment.  Psych-Appeal --
http://www.psych-appeal.org-- is the nation's first and only
private firm exclusively dedicated to providing this important
service.


VIVUS INC: Briefing on Suit Dismissal Appeal to Continue to April
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on an appeal from the dismissal of a securities-related
class action lawsuit against Vivus, Inc., is expected to continue
into April 2013, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012.

The Company and two of its officers were defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit captioned Kovtun v. Vivus, Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California. The action, filed in November 2010,
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements made by the defendants in connection with
the Company's clinical trials and NDA for Qsymia as a treatment
for obesity. In the Amended Class Action Complaint filed on
April 4, 2011, the plaintiff alleged generally that the defendants
misled investors regarding the prospects for Qsymia's NDA
approval, and the drug's efficacy and safety. On June 3, 2011, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which, after briefing and
argument was granted but extending plaintiff leave to amend. On
November 9, 2011, plaintiff filed his Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, again generally alleging that the defendants misled
investors regarding the prospects for Qsymia's NDA approval, and
Qsymia's efficacy and safety. On December 30, 2011, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Briefing
concluded in late March 2012, and the motion was argued to the
Court on April 18, 2012. On September 27, 2012, Judge Phyllis J.
Hamilton granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint and dismissed the action with prejudice. She entered
final judgment for defendants the same day. On October 26, 2012,
plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff filed his opening appellate brief
on February 19, 2013. Briefing is expected to continue into April
2013.


YELP INC: Appeal From Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
lawsuit against Yelp Inc. remains pending, according to the
Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In February and March 2010, the Company was sued in two putative
class actions on behalf of local businesses asserting various
causes of action based on claims that the Company manipulated the
ratings and reviews on its platform to coerce local businesses to
buy the Company's advertising products.  These cases were
subsequently consolidated in an action asserting claims for
violation of the California Business & Professions Code, extortion
and attempted extortion based on the conduct they allege and
seeking monetary relief in an unspecified amount and injunctive
relief.  In October 2011, the court dismissed this consolidated
action with prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the appeal has not yet
been heard.

Due to the preliminary nature of this potential appeal, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate either the probability of
incurring a loss or an estimated range of such loss, if any, from
an appeal.

Yelp Inc. -- http://www.yelp.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware
in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.  Yelp
connects people with local businesses.  The Company's users have
contributed a total of approximately 36.0 million cumulative
reviews of almost every type of local business, from restaurants,
boutiques and salons to dentists, mechanics, plumbers and more.
These reviews are written by people using Yelp to share their
everyday local business experiences, giving voice to consumers and
bringing "word of mouth" online.


* Companies Changing Rules to Avoid Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------
Brandon Ballenger, writing for Money Talk News, reports that in
the past couple of years, Sony, Microsoft and Netflix have all
changed the rules to keep claimants from joining a class-action
lawsuit.  The report says instead of a class action lawsuit, users
would have to take the companies on one-on-one through
arbitration.

The Money Talk News article ( http://is.gd/MU878J) cites
information from Daily Finance ( http://is.gd/VvknCW)


* New Zealand Has Yet to Consider Class Action Proposal
-------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Vaughan, writing for interest.co.nz, reports that a
specific law enabling New Zealand customers and/or investors to
partake in class action law suits is still stuck on the political
back burner.  A spokeswoman for Justice Minister Judith Collins
told interest.co.nz that the Government had yet to consider a
formal proposal for class actions legislation.

"I am currently awaiting policy advice from the Ministry of
Justice on the proposal and I intend to report to Cabinet later
this year," Justice Collins said via a spokeswoman.

This comes after a Ministry of Justice spokesperson told
interest.co.nz in 2010 that a draft Class Actions Bill and
proposed changes to High Court Rules, languishing with the
Ministry of Justice for a year at that point, hadn't been
progressed due to other government priorities.  A spokesman for
then Justice Minister Simon Power said in 2010 the Government
would consider and progress the proposed bill as other priorities
allowed, but there was no specific timetable for this.

The update from Collins comes after a group calling itself "Fair
Play on Fees" last week launched what it's calling a class action
against banks over default fees, but is technically a
representative action and requires "victims" to sign up ensure
participation.  That's because New Zealand law currently doesn't
allow class actions per se.

Disgruntled investors, or customers, currently have to attempt
such group legal action through what's known as representative
action.  This requires investors or customers signing up
individually with a law firm or litigation funder, as is going on
in the well-publicized Fair Play on Fees case.  If an investor or
customer doesn't know the action is being taken and that there was
a cut-off date they had to sign up by, they would miss out.

In contrast under the previously proposed class action
legislation, a litigant merely required seven people's support to
bring proceedings.  The court would then control the litigation,
with it becoming a class action in the sense that anyone who
believed they had suffered loss and met the criteria is eligible
to potentially benefit from the litigation.

The class action legislation previously proposed would therefore
make it simpler and cheaper for customers/investors to team up and
take group legal action than the currently available
representative action.

Parliament's Commerce Select Committee, led by Labour Party MP and
ex-Commerce Minister Lianne Dalziel, called in 2011 for MPs to
pass a Class Actions Bill saying such a move would give investors
in failed finance companies another option to try and claw back
some of the billions of dollars they lost when the companies
collapsed.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Granted Limited Access to 2019 Exhibits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Leonard P. Stark of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware overturned rulings by a bankruptcy court and
granted Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC limited access to
information filed in nine asbestos-related bankruptcy cases.

Garlock, a manufacturer of sealing products, and its two
affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina to
establish a trust to resolve more than 100,000 current and future
asbestos claims against the company.  The North Carolina
Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a trial to estimate Garlock's
liability for mesothelioma claims.  In preparation of the
estimation proceedings, Garlock sought access to exhibits attached
to statements filed pursuant to Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure.  According to Garlock, the Rule 2019
exhibits will help it prove that its liability to asbestos claims
is not as large as the victims' lawyers' claims.  Garlock filed
the request in numerous asbestos-related bankruptcies, including
the bankruptcy cases of ACandS, Inc., Armstrong World Indus.,
Inc., Combustion Eng'g, Inc., Flintkote Co., et al., Kaiser
Aluminum Corp., et al., Owens Corning, United States Mineral
Products Co. d/b/a Isoletek Int'l, USG Corp., et al., and WR.
Grace & Co., et al.

The Delaware Bankruptcy Court and the Western District of
Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court denied Garlock's motion to access,
holding that it was not permitted to intervene because it lacked
standing to do so at such a late stage in the Chapter 11
proceedings in which, for the most part, Garlock had not
previously participated.  Moreover, the Bankruptcy Courts said
Garlock could not assert the public right to access because it is
not and was not a party and has no claims in any of the cases.

On the issue of standing, Judge Stark agreed with Garlock and
concluded that the Third Circuit has routinely found, as have
other courts, that third parties have standing to challenge
protective orders and confidentiality orders in an effort to
obtain access to information or judicial proceedings.  Because
Garlock is a member of the public and faces an obstacle to
obtaining access to the Rule 2019 exhibits, it has standing, Judge
Stark ruled.

Judge Stark further concluded that the Rule 2019 exhibits are
judicial records and there is a presumptive right of public access
to them.  The Third Circuit, Judge Stark said, has explained that
public access promotes, among other things, public confidence in
the judicial system by enhancing testimonial trustworthiness and
the quality of justice dispensed by the court.  In this case, the
presumption of access has not been rebutted, Judge Stark pointed
out.

Judge Stark, however, set certain limitations to Garlock's access
of the 2019 exhibits.  Garlock, Judge Stark directed, is to be
provided access to the 2019 Exhibits solely for the purpose of
using them in connection with the estimation proceedings in its
own bankruptcy case.  Garlock may not publicly disclose
information contained in the 2019 Exhibits except in an aggregate
format that does not identify any individual.  Moreover, before
there is any disclosure of the information Garlock divines from
the 2019 Exhibits, Garlock must first propose to the North
Carolina Bankruptcy Court an appropriate form of protective order
for that Court to consider. Additionally, Garlock is not seeking
retention agreements between lawyers and potential claimants and
Garlock will not be granted access to those retention agreements,
Judge Stark said.

The case is IN RE: Motions for Access of Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC, Civ. No. 11-1130-LPS (D. Del.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Stark's Opinion dated March 15 is available at
http://is.gd/1VWqcbfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Ct. Denies Summary Judgment in Ex-Navy's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Alice Bridget Gibney, presiding justice for the Superior
Court of Rhode Island, Providence, SC, granted in part and denied
in part defendant Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in an
asbestos action involving a former U.S. Navy fireman and boiler
operator.

Justice Gibney, in a decision dated March 7, 2013, found that
Plaintiffs Douglas Sweredoski and Rose K. Sweredoski have
presented evidence sufficient to raise triable issues of fact with
regard to their claims against Defendant for strict products
liability, negligent failure-to-warn, and breach of the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
purpose.  Justice Gibney, however, found that the Plaintiffs have
failed to produce evidence raising questions of fact concerning
their civil conspiracy claim.

The case is DOUGLAS SWEREDOSKI and ROSE K. SWEREDOSKI, v. ALFA
LAVAL, INC., et al., C.A. No. PC 2011-1544 (R.I.).   A full-text
copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/vz8ddvfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Junks Bids for Summary Judgment in 2 Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
entered two separate decisions and orders on March 8, 2013, that
denied motions for summary judgment dismissing two asbestos
personal injury actions.

In the case captioned LUIS ACEVEDO and SUSAN ACEVEDO, Plaintiffs,
v. A.P. GREEN INDUSTRIES, Inc., et al., Defendants, Docket No.
116194/02, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y.), Judge Heitler denied the
motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Lennox Industries
Inc., ruling that although the Acevedo Plaintiffs never used the
term "boiler" during deposition, it was recognized in another
case, In re Sadowski v A.O. Smith Water Products, Index No.
190215/11 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. July 12, 2012, Heitler, J.), that
Lennox manufactured a line of furnaces, which were similar in
appearance to boilers and which served the same general purpose as
boilers.  Similar to Sadowski, the Acevedo Plaintiffs were never
asked to differentiate between a furnace and a boiler, even though
he used both the terms "boiler" and "furnace" when describing his
alleged exposure.  In light of same, as well as the Lennox's
admission that it sold asbestos-containing furnaces during the
relevant time period, there remains a material issue of fact
whether Lennox furnaces contributed to plaintiffs' injuries, Judge
Heitler concluded.

In the case captioned JOHN RUFF, Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS, et al. Defendants, Docket No. 190516/11, Motion Seq. 006
(N.Y.), Judge Heitler denied the motion of Defendants American
Premier Underwriters, Inc. and American Financial Group, Inc., for
summary judgment after finding that the evidence presented in the
case suggests that the Defendants knew or should have known that
asbestos presented significant dangers to the Plaintiff's health
and failed to warn him off same, and further raises an issue of
fact whether Mr. Ruff's occupational asbestos exposure was a
substantial cause of his injuries.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision and Order in the
Acevedo case is available at http://is.gd/ZuO6Lzfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision and Order in the Ruff
case is available at http://is.gd/52OTEufrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Widow's Dependent Benefits Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a March 14, 2013, memorandum and decision, the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia denied Jeannette Woodall's appeal and
affirmed a decision of the West Virginia Workers' Compensation
Board of Review, which denied dependent benefits to Ms. Woodall.

Lester Woodall, her husband, passed away in 2007.  Mr. Woodall
received a permanent partial disability award for occupational
pneumoconiosis during his life.  His death certificate listed the
immediate cause of death as lung cancer and asbestosis.  The Board
denied Ms. Woodall's request for dependent's benefits after
finding that occupational pneumoconiosis was not a material
contributing factor in the death of the decedent.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the findings and found that the
decision of the Board is not in clear violation of any
constitutional or statutory provision, nor is it clearly the
result of erroneous conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a
material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary
record.

The case is JEANNETTE WOODALL, WIDOW OF LESTER WOODALL, Claimant
Below, Petitioner, v. WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER Commissioner Below, Respondent, and WOODALL REPAIR
SERVICE, Employer Below, Respondent, No. 11-0894 (W. Va.).

A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/MD5Jivfrom Leagle.com.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp., has been named as a defendant in pending
asbestos litigation involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple
defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in pending
asbestos litigation involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple
defendants. In addition, asbestos and other regulated substances
are, and may continue to be, present at our facilities where
suitable alternative materials are not available. We believe that
any remaining asbestos at our facilities is contained. The
continued presence of asbestos and other regulated substances at
these facilities, however, could result in additional actions
being brought against us."

FirstEnergy Corp. is engaged in the holding, directly or
indirectly, of its subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Company (OE), The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI), The Toledo Edison
Company (TE), Pennsylvania Power Company (Penn) (a wholly owned
subsidiary of OE), American Transmission Systems, Incorporated
(ATSI), Jersey Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L), Metropolitan
Edison Company (Met-Ed), Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Hudson Had 1,164 Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary Central Hudson Gas
& Electric Corporation had 1,164 asbestos cases pending 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.

The Company states: "As of December 31, 2012, of the 3,336
asbestos cases brought against Central Hudson, 1,164 remain
pending. Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson,
2,017 have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by
Central Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 155 cases. Central
Hudson is presently unable to assess the validity of the remaining
asbestos lawsuits; however, based on information known to Central
Hudson at this time, including Central Hudson's experience in
settling asbestos cases and in obtaining dismissals of asbestos
cases, Central Hudson believes that the costs which may be
incurred in connection with the remaining lawsuits will not have a
material adverse effect on the financial position, results of
operations or cash flows of either CH Energy Group or Central
Hudson.

"Central Hudson and Griffith are involved in various other legal
and administrative proceedings incidental to their businesses,
which are in various stages. While these matters collectively
could involve substantial amounts, based on the facts currently
known, it is the opinion of management that their ultimate
resolution will not have a material adverse effect on either of CH
Energy Group's or the individual segment's financial positions,
results of operations or cash flows.

"CH Energy Group and Central Hudson expense legal costs as
incurred."

CH Energy Group, Inc. is the holding company parent corporation of
two principal, wholly owned subsidiaries, Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corporation and CHEC. Central Hudson is a regulated
electric and natural gas subsidiary. CHEC is the parent company of
CH Energy Group's unregulated businesses and investments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc., and its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2012.

The Company states: "Our Western Auto subsidiary, together with
other defendants including automobile manufacturers, automotive
parts manufacturers and other retailers, has been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products. We and some of our other
subsidiaries also have been named as defendants in many of these
lawsuits. The plaintiffs have alleged that these products were
manufactured, distributed and/or sold by the various defendants.
These products have primarily included brake parts. Many of the
cases pending against us or our subsidiaries are in the early
stages of litigation. The damages claimed against the defendants
in some of these proceedings are substantial. Additionally, some
of the automotive parts manufacturers named as defendants in these
lawsuits have declared bankruptcy, which will limit plaintiffs'
ability to recover monetary damages from those defendants.
Although we diligently defend against these claims, we may enter
into discussions regarding settlement of these and other lawsuits,
and may enter into settlement agreements, if we believe settlement
is in the best interests of the Company and our shareholders. We
also believe that many of these claims are at least partially
covered by insurance. Based on discovery to date, we do not
believe the cases currently pending will have a material adverse
effect on us. However, if we were to incur an adverse verdict in
one or more of these claims and were ordered to pay damages that
were not covered by insurance, these claims could have a material
adverse effect on our operating results, financial position and
cash flows. Historically, our asbestos claims have been
inconsistent in type and number and have been immaterial. As a
result, we are unable to estimate a possible range of loss with
respect to unasserted asbestos claims that may be filed against
the Company in the future. If the number of claims filed against
us or any of our subsidiaries alleging injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products increases substantially,
the costs associated with concluding these claims, including
damages resulting from any adverse verdicts, could have a material
adverse effect on our operating results, financial position and
cash flows in future periods.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., is a specialty retailer of automotive
aftermarket parts, accessories, batteries and maintenance items
primarily operating within the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Had 515 PI Suits Pending at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation continues to defend itself against 515
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, 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.

As with numerous other large industrial companies, the company has
been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate
defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the litigation,
including settlement costs, have not been significant. As of
December 31, 2012, there were approximately 515 lawsuits.
Management believes that the company has substantial
indemnification protection and insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos
claims. The company has valid defenses to these claims and intends
to continue to defend them vigorously. Additionally, based on its
historical experience in asbestos cases and an analysis of the
current cases, the company believes that it has adequate amounts
accrued for potential settlements and judgments in asbestos-
related litigation. At December 31, 2012, the company had recorded
litigation liabilities of approximately $38 million, a significant
portion of which relates to asbestos. Should the volume of
litigation grow substantially, it is possible that the company
could incur significant costs resolving these cases. After
consulting with legal counsel and after considering established
liabilities, it is our judgment that the resolution of pending
litigation and proceedings is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial condition
or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however, it is
possible such proceedings or matters could have a material effect
on the results of operations.

MeadWestvaco Corporation is a global packaging company that
provides packaging solutions to the healthcare, beauty and
personal care, food, beverage, tobacco and home and garden
industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Had 29 PI Suits Pending at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation continues to defend itself against approximately
29 personal injury lawsuits pending 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 are from time to time a party to various
lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the
claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for
personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.
At December 31, 2012, there were approximately 29 of these
lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits
have been filed in the United States in the states of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. We intend to defend vigorously against the
litigation. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these
matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

Noble Corporation is an offshore drilling contractor for the oil
and gas industry. The Company performs contract drilling services
with its fleet of 79 mobile offshore drilling units and one
floating production storage and offloading unit (FPSO) located
globally.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax Incorporated continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging asbestos-related injuries, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2012.

The Company states: "Over the past several years and continuing in
the current year, we have been named a defendant in a number of
cases where the plaintiffs allege asbestos-related injuries from
exposure to asbestos products or exposure to asbestos while
working at job sites. The claims vary widely and often are not
specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company. None of
the claimants seeks damages from us individually, and we are
generally one of numerous defendants. Many of the cases filed
against us have been voluntarily dismissed, although we have
settled some cases. The settlements we have paid have been covered
mostly by insurance, and we believe any future settlements or
judgments in these cases would be similarly covered. To date, no
asbestos case against us has gone to trial, and the nature of
these cases makes any prediction as to the outcome of pending
litigation inherently subjective. At this time, however, we
believe our involvement in asbestos litigation is not material to
either our financial position or our results of operations."

OfficeMax Incorporated provides office supplies and paper, print
and document services, technology products and solutions and
office furniture to large, medium and small businesses, government
offices and consumers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation continues to defend itself against proceedings
based on alleged exposures 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, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in
various other legal actions (including proceedings based on
alleged exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current
business activities. At December 31, 2012 and 2011, our
consolidated balance sheets included liabilities for these legal
actions of $15.2 million and $16.4 million, respectively. These
liabilities do not include costs associated with legal
representation.  Based on our analysis, and considering the
inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, we do not
believe that it is reasonably possible that these legal actions
will materially adversely affect our financial position, cash
flows or results of operations."

Olin Corporation is a Virginia Corporation, incorporated in 1892,
having its principal executive offices in Clayton, MO.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had 8,000 Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc., had 8,000 asbestos claims at December 31,
2012, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the aggregate self-insured and
insured contingent liability was $49.8 and $53.0, respectively,
and the related insurance recovery receivable was $20.7 and $22.1,
respectively. The asbestos liability included in these amounts at
December 31, 2012 and 2011 was $39.3 and $42.4, respectively, and
the related insurance receivable was $20.4 and $21.8,
respectively. A net deferred tax benefit has been recognized for
those claims for which full insurance recovery is not expected.

The Company states: "We, like many other industrial companies,
have been named as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of
lawsuits filed in the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from
asbestos. The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities
that we own or formerly owned or from products that we formerly
manufactured for specialized applications. Most of these cases
involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.
Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against us have
been dismissed without any indemnity payment by us; however, we
can make no assurances that this pattern will continue.

The Company had 8,000 asbestos claims at December 31, 2012.

"Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance
receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third
party, which is updated every three years. During the third
quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos
related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables,
which updated our last study prepared in the third quarter of
2009. The study is based on, among other things, the incidence and
nature of historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the
incidence of malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments
for malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim
type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and
reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim
type.

"As a result of our findings, we recorded a decrease of $2.1 to
our self-insured and insured contingent liabilities for indemnity
costs for pending and anticipated probable future claims and
recorded a decrease of $1.0 related to receivables for probable
insurance recoveries for these pending and future claims. The
reserve decrease is attributable to lower projected claim filings
offset by more severe malignancy rates and settlement value
projections. The decrease in the receivables is a result of the
lower gross liability and a shift in the types of future claims
expected. Overall, we expect to recover approximately 48% of our
future indemnity costs. We have completed Coverage In Place
Agreements with most of our larger insurance carriers.

"The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all
pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with
certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous
variables that can affect the amount of the liability and
insurance recovery. These variables include but are not limited
to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims; (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims; (iii)
changes in the nature of claims received; (iv) changes in the laws
applicable to these claims; and (v) financial viability of co-
defendants and insurers."

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

                      http://is.gd/I01ekn

Cytec Industries Inc. (Cytec) is a specialty chemicals and
materials company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
value-added products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teledyne Tech. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teledyne Technologies Incorporated continues to defend itself
against lawsuits alleging injury or death as a result of 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 30, 2012.

The Company states: "We have been joined, among a number of
defendants (often over 100), in lawsuits alleging injury or death
as a result of exposure to asbestos. Also, because of the
prominent "Teledyne" name, we may continue to be mistakenly joined
in lawsuits involving a company or business that was not assumed
by us as part of our 1999 spin-off. To date, we have not incurred
material liabilities in connection with these lawsuits. However,
our historic insurance coverage, including that of its
predecessors, may not fully cover such claims and the defense of
such matters. Coverage typically depends on the year of purported
exposure and other factors. Nonetheless, we intend to vigorously
defend our position against these claims.

"Certain gas generators historically manufactured by Teledyne
Energy Systems, Inc. contained a sealed, wetted asbestos
component. While the company has transitioned to a replacement
material, had placed warning labels on its products and took care
in handling of this discontinued material by employees, there is
no assurance that the company will not face product liability or
workers compensation claims involving this component."

Teledyne Technologies Incorporated (Teledyne) is a provider of
electronic subsystems and instrumentation, including aerospace and
defense electronics, digital imaging products and software,
monitoring instrumentation for marine and environmental
applications, harsh environment interconnect products, and
subsystems for satellite communications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $796M Liability Through 2021
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. had recorded aggregate asbestos liability of $796
million for pending and future asbestos-related claims projected
to be filed against it through December 31, 2021, 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 of December 31, 2012, we had an aggregate
asbestos liability of $796 million for pending claims and future
claims projected to be filed against us through December 31, 2021.
Estimation of our exposure for asbestos-related claims is subject
to significant uncertainties, as there are multiple variables that
can affect the timing, severity and quantity of claims and the
manner of their resolution. We have retained the firm of Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized
expert in the field, to assist management in estimating our
asbestos liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information
provided by us concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as
the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the
claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from
filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A
to project future asbestos costs is based largely on our
experience during a base reference period of eleven quarterly
periods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and
three additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for
claims filed, settled and dismissed. Our experience is then
compared to the results of widely used previously conducted
epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Using that
information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would
be filed against us through our forecast period and estimates the
aggregate settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to
resolve both pending and future claims based upon the average
settlement costs by disease during the reference period. After
discussions with us, HR&A augments our liability estimate for the
costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a
forecast from us which is based upon discussions with our defense
counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of
our asbestos liability for pending and future claims expected to
be filed through the indicated forecast period. The most
significant factors affecting the liability estimate are (1) the
number of new mesothelioma claims filed against us, (2) the
average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3) the
percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against us and (4) the
aggregate defense costs incurred by us. These factors are
interdependent, and no one factor predominates in determining the
liability estimate. Although the methodology used by HR&A can be
applied to show claims and costs for periods subsequent to the
indicated period (up to and including the endpoint of the
epidemiological studies), management believes that the level of
uncertainty regarding the various factors used in estimating
future asbestos costs is too great to provide for reasonable
estimation of the number of future claims, the nature of such
claims or the cost to resolve them for years beyond the indicated
estimate. Through December 31, 2012, our actual experience during
the updated reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and
dismissed generally approximated the assumptions in our liability
estimate. In addition to this claims experience, we considered
additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature
of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and
legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected
future settlement values. Based on this evaluation, we determined
that no change in the estimate was warranted for the period ended
December 31, 2012. Nevertheless, if certain factors show a pattern
of sustained increase or decrease, the liability could change
materially; however, all the assumptions used in estimating the
asbestos liability are interdependent and no single factor
predominates in determining the liability estimate. Because of the
uncertainty with regard to and the interdependency of such factors
used in the calculation of our asbestos liability, and since no
one factor predominates, we believe that a range of potential
liability estimates beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be
reasonably estimated.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
we also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for
our asbestos liabilities. As of December 31, 2012, we had an
aggregate asbestos receivable of $205 million. In developing this
estimate, we considered our coverage-in-place and other settlement
agreements, as well as a number of additional factors. These
additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships."

"As of December 31, 2012, we were one of a number of defendants in
cases involving 56,442 pending claims filed in various state and
federal courts that allege injury or death as a result of exposure
to asbestos."

Crane Co. (Crane) a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered
industrial products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Had 188 Pending Cases at Jan. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
GATX Corporation and its subsidiaries had 188 asbestos-related
cases pending against them as of January 31, 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.

Several of the Company's subsidiaries have been named as
defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury caused by
exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages based on common law, statutory or premises liability or,
in the case of ASC, the Jones Act, which provides limited remedies
to certain maritime employees. As of January 31, 2013, there were
188 asbestos-related cases pending against the Company and its
subsidiaries. Of the total number of pending cases, 156 are Jones
Act claims, most of which were filed against ASC before the year
2000. During 2012, 12 new cases were filed, and 18 cases were
dismissed without payment or otherwise settled for an immaterial
amount. In addition, demand has been made against the Company for
asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in
connection with the sale of certain former subsidiaries of the
Company. It is possible that the number of these cases or claims
for indemnity could begin to grow and that the cost of these
cases, including costs to defend, could correspondingly increase
in the future.

GATX Corporation (GATX) leases, operates, manages and remarkets
assets primarily in the rail and marine markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Had 18,302 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation had 18,302 pending asbestos personal injury
claims filed against it 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.

In the United States, the Company has been named as one of many
defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal
actions alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne
asbestos over the past several decades. In their suits, the
plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers. Any component within a Company product that
may have contained asbestos would have been purchased from a
supplier. Based on scientific and medical evidence, the Company
believes that any asbestos exposure arising from normal use of any
Company product never presented any harmful levels of airborne
asbestos exposure, and, moreover, the type of asbestos contained
in any component that was used in those products was protectively
encapsulated in other materials and is not associated with the
types of injuries alleged in the pending suits. Finally, in most
of the depositions taken of plaintiffs to date in the litigation
against the Company, plaintiffs have failed to specifically
identify any Company products as the source of their asbestos
exposure.

The majority of the asbestos complaints pending against the
Company have been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York
complaints contain a standard claim for damages of $20 million or
$25 million against the approximately 90 defendants, regardless of
the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
specifically identifying any Company product as the source of
plaintiff's asbestos exposure.

At December 31, 2012, there are 18,302 pending asbestos personal
injury claims filed against the Company. Of these cases, 17,813
are pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York County in
New York State. The other claims, totaling 489, are filed in
various counties in a number of state courts, and in certain
Federal District Courts (including New York), and those complaints
generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York State
court cases or do not state any amount claimed.

As of December 31, 2012, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 26,480 cases.

In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation nationwide, the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims. However,
there have been developments during the past several years, both
by certain state legislatures and by certain state courts, which
could favorably affect the Company's ability to defend these
asbestos claims in those jurisdictions. These developments include
procedural changes, docketing changes, proof of damage
requirements and other changes that require plaintiffs to follow
specific procedures in bringing their claims and to show proof of
damages before they can proceed with their claim. An example is
the action taken by the New York Supreme Court (a trial court),
which is responsible for managing all asbestos cases pending
within New York County in the State of New York. This Court issued
an order in December 2002 that created a Deferred or Inactive
Docket for all pending and future asbestos claims filed by
plaintiffs who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant
condition or discernible physical impairment, and an Active or In
Extremis Docket for plaintiffs who are able to show such medical
condition. As a result of this order, the majority of the asbestos
cases filed against the Company in New York County have been moved
to the Inactive Docket until such time as the plaintiffs can show
that they have incurred a physical impairment. At December 31,
2012, the Company has been listed as a defendant in 651 Active or
In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County. The Court's Order
has been challenged by some plaintiffs.

Except with regard to the legal costs in a few limited,
exceptional cases, the Company's insurance carrier has paid all
legal and settlement costs and expenses to date related to the
Company's U.S. asbestos cases. The Company has liability insurance
coverage under various primary and excess policies that the
Company believes will be available, if necessary, to substantially
cover any liability that might ultimately be incurred on these
claims.

The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases. It is not possible to predict
the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and
proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury
litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the
Company's consolidated financial statements because a loss
contingency is not deemed probable or estimable. Despite this
uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows for
a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related
lawsuits, claims and proceedings, the Company does not expect that
any costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the
Company in connection with asbestos litigation would have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

Harsco Corporation is a multinational provider of industrial
services and engineered products serving global industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Ltd. Had 2,300 PI Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair Ltd., had 2,300 outstanding personal injury claims based
on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials 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.

The Company states: "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies
are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases
typically involve product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or
used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-
parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the
number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including
lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large
percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims
and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent
to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the
future.

"As of December 31, 2012, there were approximately 1,900 lawsuits
pending against our subsidiaries. A lawsuit might include several
claims, and we have approximately 2,300 claims outstanding as of
December 31, 2012. This amount is not adjusted for claims that are
not actively being prosecuted, identified incorrect defendants, or
duplicated other actions, which would ultimately reflect our
current estimate of the number of viable claims made against us,
our affiliates, or entities for which we assumed responsibility in
connection with acquisitions or divestitures. In addition, the
amount does not include certain claims pending against third
parties for which we have provided an indemnification.

"Periodically, we perform an analysis with the assistance of
outside counsel and other experts to update our estimated
asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of the
liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim
experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of
potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates.

"Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents
estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims
and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated
liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount
of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors,
including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the
solvency and creditworthiness of insurers.

"Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $234.6
million and $0.6 million as of December 31, 2012 and 2011,
respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current liabilities in
the Consolidated Balance Sheets for pending and future claims and
related defense costs. Our estimated receivable for insurance
recoveries was $157.4 million at December 31, 2012, all of which
was acquired in the Merger, and was recorded in Other non-current
assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. We had no estimated
receivable for insurance recoveries as of December 31, 2011.

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

Pentair Ltd., formerly Tyco Flow Control International Ltd., is
global water, fluid, thermal management, and equipment protection
partner.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 1,023 PI Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation continues to defend itself against 1,023
asbestos exposure personal injury cases 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.

As of December 31, 2012, the Company was a party to 1,023 pending
cases involving an aggregate of 7,880 claimants alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly
used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or
distributed by certain of its subsidiaries for use primarily in
the petrochemical refining and exploration industries.  In
addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its
products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior
to acquisition. The Company believes that many of the pending
cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were
distributed or used.

The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought. Of the 7,880 claims pending at December 31, 2012,
89 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating
the statutory minimum or maximum).  In addition, relatively few of
the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims
have gone past the discovery stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
approximately $6.3 million. All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately 40% of the
Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective
February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place
agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the
coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims
when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-place
agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity insurance
coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed
by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration
of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely
that there will to be a period within the next one or two years,
prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement and
following exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage,
during which the Company likely will be solely responsible for
defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration of which would
be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe that these cases will
have a material adverse effect on its financial position and
results of operations or cash flows.

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

                       http://is.gd/MqzJDR

TriMas Corporation (Trimas) is a manufacturer and distributor of
products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PartnerRe Ltd. Had $199M A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
PartnerRe Ltd. had $199 million net reserves for unpaid losses and
loss expenses at December 31, 2012, that represents estimates of
its net ultimate liability for asbestos and environmental 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's net reserves for unpaid losses and loss expenses at
December 31, 2012 and 2011 included $199 million and $195 million,
respectively, that represent estimates of its net ultimate
liability for asbestos and environmental claims. The gross
liability for such claims at December 31, 2012 and 2011 was $205
million and $203 million, respectively, which primarily relate to
Paris Re's gross liability for asbestos and environmental claims
for accident years 2005 and prior of $125 million and $127
million, respectively, with any favorable or adverse development
being subject to the Reserve Agreement. Of the remaining $80
million and $76 million, respectively, in gross reserves, the
majority relates to casualty exposures in the United States
arising from business written by PartnerRe SA and PartnerRe U.S.

Ultimate loss estimates for such claims cannot be estimated using
traditional reserving techniques and there are significant
uncertainties in estimating the amount of the Company's potential
losses for these claims. In view of the legal and tort environment
that affect the development of such claims, the uncertainties
inherent in estimating asbestos and environmental claims are not
likely to be resolved in the near future. There can be no
assurance that the reserves established by the Company will not be
adversely affected by development of other latent exposures, and
further, there can be no assurance that the reserves established
by the Company will be adequate. The Company does, however,
actively evaluate potential exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims and establishes additional reserves as appropriate. The
Company believes that it has made a reasonable provision for these
exposures and is unaware of any specific issues that would
materially affect its unpaid losses and loss expense reserves
related to this exposure.

PartnerRe Ltd., predominantly provides reinsurance on a worldwide
basis, and certain specialty insurance lines, through its wholly
owned subsidiaries, including Partner Reinsurance Company Ltd.
(PartnerRe Bermuda), Partner Reinsurance Europe SE (PartnerRe
Europe) and Partner Reinsurance Company of the U.S. (PartnerRe
U.S.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Piedmont Office Property Still Has Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., continues to own properties
containing asbestos-containing building materials, 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: 'some of our properties contain asbestos-
containing building materials. Environmental laws require that
owners or operators of buildings containing asbestos properly
manage and maintain the asbestos, adequately inform or train those
who may come into contact with asbestos, and undertake special
precautions, including removal or other abatement, in the event
that asbestos is disturbed during building renovation or
demolition. These laws may impose fines and penalties on building
owners or operators who fail to comply with these requirements. In
addition, environmental laws and the common law may allow third
parties to seek recovery from owners or operators for personal
injury associated with exposure to asbestos."

Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. engages in the acquisition and
ownership of commercial real estate properties in the United
States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had 430 Pending PD Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. had approximately 430 asbestos-related property
damage claims that remain outstanding 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.

Grace is a defendant in property damage and personal injury
lawsuits relating to previously sold asbestos-containing products.
As of its bankruptcy filing date, Grace was a defendant in 65,656
asbestos-related lawsuits, 17 involving claims for property damage
(one of which has since been dismissed), and the remainder
involving 129,191 claims for personal injury. Due to the Company's
Chapter 11 filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed
from continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from
commencing new lawsuits against the Debtors. Grace's obligations
with respect to present and future asbestos claims will be
determined through the Chapter 11 process.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek
to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected
buildings. Various factors can affect the merit and value of PD
Claims, including legal defenses, product identification, the
amount and type of product involved, the age, type, size and use
of the building, the legal status of the claimant, the
jurisdictional history of prior cases, the court in which the case
is pending, and the difficulty of asbestos abatement, if
necessary.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed prior to the Chapter 11 Filing Date,
16 remain unresolved.  Eight cases relate to ZAI and eight relate
to a number of former asbestos-containing products (two of which
also are alleged to involve ZAI).

Approximately 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the
March 31, 2003, claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy
Court. (The March 31, 2003, claims bar date did not apply to ZAI
claims.) Grace objected to virtually all PD claims on a number of
legal and factual bases.  As of December 31, 2012, approximately
430 PD Claims subject to the March 31, 2003, claims bar date
remain outstanding.  The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement
agreements covering approximately 410 of such claims for an
aggregate allowed amount of $150.8 million.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada. These cases seek damages and equitable
relief, including the removal, replacement and/or disposal of all
such insulation. The plaintiffs assert that this product is in
millions of homes and that the cost of removal could be several
thousand dollars per home. As a result of the Chapter 11 Filing,
all of these cases have been stayed.

Based on Grace's investigation of the claims described in these
lawsuits, and testing and analysis of this product by Grace and
others, Grace believes that ZAI was and continues to be safe for
its intended purpose and poses little or no threat to human
health. The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's
position on the safety of ZAI. In December 2006 the Bankruptcy
Court issued an opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is
contaminated with asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when
disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI. In the
event the Joint Plan does not become effective, the ZAI claimants
have reserved their right to appeal such opinion and order if and
when it becomes a final order.

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a claims bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved
a related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI
PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than
October 31, 2008.

Approximately 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed prior to the
October 31, 2008, claims bar date and, as of December 31, 2012, an
additional 1,310 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed. Under a Canadian
ZAI Settlement, all Canadian ZAI PD Claims filed before December
31, 2009, would be eligible to seek compensation from the Canadian
ZAI property damage claims fund. Approximately 13,100 Canadian ZAI
PD Claims were filed by December 31, 2009.

In November 2008, the Debtors, the putative class counsel to the
U.S. ZAI property damage claimants, the Future Claims
Representative for property damage claimants, and the Official
Committee of Equityholders reached an agreement designed to
resolve all present and future U.S. ZAI PD Claims. The terms of
the U.S. and Canadian ZAI agreements in principle have been
incorporated into the terms of the Joint Plan and related
documents.

Upon the occurrence of the effective date under the Joint Plan,
all pending and future PD Claims would be channeled for resolution
to the PD Trust. PD Claims other than U.S. and Canadian ZAI PD
Claims would be litigated in the Bankruptcy Court or a U.S.
District Court, including all claims and defenses that would have
been available to the parties prior to the filing of the Chapter
11 Cases as well as any defenses based on the March 31, 2003, bar
date. Any claims determined to be allowed claims would be paid in
cash by the PD Trust. Grace would be obligated to fund the PD
Trust every six months in an amount sufficient to enable the PD
Trust to pay all such allowed claims and Trust-related expenses.

All allowed U.S. ZAI PD Claims would be paid by the PD Trust from
the ZAI PD account and all allowed Canadian ZAI PD Claims would be
paid by the Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund. Grace would
have no liability or obligation for asbestos-related ZAI PD
claims, except for its obligations to fund the PD Trust's ZAI PD
account.

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

                     http://is.gd/a5Wjpx

W.R. Grace & Co. is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Still Has Claims Not Subject to Stay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos personal injury claimants allege adverse health effects
from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly
manufactured by W. R. GRACE & CO. Historically, Grace's cost to
resolve such claims has been influenced by numerous variables,
including the nature of the disease alleged, product
identification, proof of exposure to a Grace product, negotiation
factors, the solvency of other former producers of asbestos-
containing products, cross-claims by co-defendants, the rate at
which new claims are filed, the jurisdiction in which the claims
are filed, and the defense and disposition costs associated with
these claims.

As of the bankruptcy filing date, 129,191 PI Claims were pending
against Grace. Grace believes that a substantial number of
additional PI Claims would have been received between the Filing
Date and December 31, 2012, had such PI Claims not been stayed by
the Bankruptcy Court.

The Bankruptcy Court entered a case management order for
estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims. A trial for
estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but was
suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.

Upon the occurrence of the effective date under the Joint Plan,
all pending and future asbestos-related personal injury claims
would be channeled for resolution to the PI Trust and Grace would
have no liability or obligation for asbestos-related personal
injury claims, except for its obligations to fund the PI Trust.

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.

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

                      http://is.gd/a5Wjpx

W.R. Grace & Co. is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Recorded $2.06B Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. recorded asbestos-related liability of $2.065
billion 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.

The recorded asbestos-related liability as of December 31, 2012,
and December 31, 2011, was $2,065.0 million and $1,700.0 million
respectively, and is included in "liabilities subject to
compromise" in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. Grace
increased its asbestos-related liability by $365.0 million in the
fourth quarter of 2012 to reflect an updated estimate of the value
of the consideration payable to the PI Trust and the PD Trust (the
"Trusts") under the Joint Plan, assuming emergence from bankruptcy
at the end of 2013.  Grace reached an agreement in October 2012 to
cash settle the warrant to be issued to the PI Trust at emergence.
As a result of this settlement, as well as an updated valuation
estimate of the deferred payment obligations and other
consideration payable to the Trusts, Grace concluded that the
previously recorded liability of $1,700.0 million was no longer in
the reasonable range of possible valuations of the consideration
payable to the Trusts.

The components of the consideration payable to the Trusts under
the Joint Plan are as follows:

* The warrant to acquire 10 million shares of the Company's common
stock for $17.00 per share which will be recorded at fair value on
the effective date of the Joint Plan. Under the agreement to cash
settle the warrant, the warrant will have a value between $375
million and $490 million.  Based on the current trading range of
Company common stock and other valuation factors, at December 31,
2012, Grace estimates the value of the warrant at emergence will
be the maximum value of $490 million.

* The deferred payment obligation of $110 million per year for
five years beginning January 2, 2019, and of $100 million per year
for ten years beginning January 2, 2024, which will be recorded at
fair value on the effective date of the Joint Plan. At December
31, 2012, Grace estimates the value of the deferred payment
obligation at emergence will be $547 million, which assumes a
discount rate of approximately 10%. The value of the deferred
payment obligation is affected by (i) interest rates; (ii) the
Company's credit standing and the payment period of the deferred
payments; (iii) restrictive covenants and terms of the Company's
other credit facilities; (iv) assessment of the risk of a default,
which if default were to occur would require Grace to issue shares
of Company common stock; and (v) the subordination provisions of
the deferred payment agreement.

* The cash payable by Grace to fund the PI and PD Trusts, which
will be recorded at fair value on the effective date of the Joint
Plan. Grace estimates the fair value to be $528 million at
December 31, 2012.

* Proceeds with respect to all of Grace's insurance policies that
provide coverage for asbestos-related claims would be transferred
to the PI Trust under the Joint Plan. The recorded asbestos-
related insurance receivable and related liability of $500.0
million at December 31, 2012, is within the reasonable range of
possible valuations of these policies at emergence.

Grace periodically evaluates the recorded amount of its asbestos-
related liability and may further adjust the liability prior to
the effective date of the Joint Plan if it determines that the
currently recorded amount no longer represents a reasonable
estimate of the value of the consideration payable to the Trusts
under the Joint Plan. The ultimate cost of settling the asbestos-
related liability will be based on the value of the consideration
transferred to the Trusts at emergence and will vary from the
current estimate.

Appeals have been filed in the Third Circuit challenging the
District Court order confirming the Joint Plan. If any such
appeals are resolved adversely to Grace and the other Joint Plan
proponents, and if the Joint Plan cannot be amended to address any
deficiencies identified by the Third Circuit in a manner
satisfactory to Grace and the other Joint Plan proponents, the
Debtors would expect to resume the estimation trial, which was
suspended in April 2008 due to the PI Settlement, to determine the
amount of its asbestos-related liabilities. Through the PI Claim
estimation process and the continued adjudication of PD Claims,
Grace would seek to demonstrate that most claims have no value
because they fail to establish any significant property damage,
health impairment or occupational exposure to asbestos from
Grace's operations or products. If the Bankruptcy Court agreed
with Grace's position on the number of, and the amounts to be paid
in respect of, allowed PI Claims and PD Claims, then Grace
believes that the value of its asbestos-related liability could be
lower than the recorded amount. However, this outcome would be
highly uncertain and would depend on a number of Bankruptcy Court
rulings favorable to Grace's position. Conversely, the PI and PD
Committees and the PI FCR have asserted that Grace's asbestos-
related liabilities are substantially higher than the recorded
amount, and in fact are in excess of Grace's business value. If
the Bankruptcy Court accepted the position of the PI and PD
Committees and the PI FCR, then any plan of reorganization likely
would result in the loss of all or substantially all equity value
by current shareholders.

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

                    http://is.gd/a5Wjpx

W.R. Grace & Co. is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remy Int'l. Still a Protected Party in GM Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Remy International, Inc., remains a protected party from asbestos
claims and litigation alleging exposure to asbestos and asbestos-
containing products by former General Motors employees, 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 historically been named as a
defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos
and asbestos-containing products by former GM employees. We were
successful in getting these matters dismissed on the grounds that
the plaintiffs were employees of GM, not our company, following
the 1994 asset purchase of the Delco Remy Division of GM. We also
received an indemnification from GM concerning costs associated
with asbestos exposure claims involving former GM employees.

"GM and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries filed on
June 1, 2009 for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code. On July 10, 2009, a substantial portion of GM
began operations under a new corporate legal structure, called new
GM, which acquired substantially all of the assets of the pre-
bankruptcy GM. Following GM's June 2009 filing for protection
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the indemnification
and certain other arrangements were disputed. However, we
negotiated a settlement of these issues with new GM whereby,
through an Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York, we were accorded protected party
status, which requires that any future asbestos exposure claims by
former GM employees be directed to an asbestos trust, rather than
brought against us directly."

Remy International Inc., (formerly Delco Remy International) revs
up cars and light- and heavy-duty trucks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 65,812 PI Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary Metropolitan Life Insurance Company had
65,812 asbestos personal injury 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.

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally
have focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's
employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately
the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of
certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things,
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these
cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however,
is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including
differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature
of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal
merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number
of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure,
including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial
rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits
under appropriate circumstances.

Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs
-- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not
manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products
that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on
any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the
plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the
dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with
respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the
litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing
claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's
motions to dismiss. There can be no assurance that MLIC will
receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most
cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to
defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure,
including defending claims at trials.

The Company had 65,812 asbestos personal injury claims at
December 31, 2012.

In 2009, MLIC received 3,910 new claims, ending the year with a
total of 68,804 claims, and paid $37.6 million for settlements
reached in 2009 and prior years. In 2008, MLIC received 5,063 new
claims, ending the year with a total of 74,027 claims, and paid
$99 million for settlements reached in 2008 and prior years. In
2007, MLIC received 7,161 new claims, ending the year with a total
of 79,717 claims, and paid $28.2 million for settlements reached
in 2007 and prior years.  In 2006, MLIC received 7,870 new claims,
ending the year with a total of 87,070 claims, and paid $35.5
million for settlements reached in 2006 and prior years. In 2005,
MLIC received 18,500 new claims, ending the year with a total of
100,250 claims, and paid $74.3 million for settlements reached in
2005 and prior years. In 2004, MLIC received 23,900 new claims,
ending the year with a total of 108,000 claims, and paid $85.5
million for settlements reached in 2004 and prior years.  In 2003,
MLIC received 58,750 new claims, ending the year with a total of
111,700 claims, and paid $84.2 million for settlements reached in
2003 and prior years. The number of asbestos cases that may be
brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may
incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year
are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year.

The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability
estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to
resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending
and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in
a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not
yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims.

Significant assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy
of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation
include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve
claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved
in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. As previously
disclosed, in 2002 MLIC increased its recorded liability for
asbestos-related claims by $402 million from $820 million to $1.2
billion. Based upon its regular reevaluation of its exposure from
asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for
asbestos-related claims through December 31, 2012.

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

                        http://is.gd/a4T4ys

MetLife, Inc. (MetLife), is a provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., continues to defend itself against
personal injury lawsuits arising from exposure to asbestos-
containing materials, 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.

Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy contain or have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials. CenterPoint Energy or its subsidiaries have been named,
along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a
number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to
asbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by
subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy, but most existing claims
relate to facilities previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's
subsidiaries. CenterPoint Energy anticipates that additional
claims like those received may be asserted in the future. In 2004
and early 2005, CenterPoint Energy sold its generating business,
to which most of these claims relate, to a company which is now an
affiliate of NRG. Under the terms of the arrangements regarding
separation of the generating business from CenterPoint Energy and
its sale of that business, ultimate financial responsibility for
uninsured losses from claims relating to the generating business
has been assumed by the NRG affiliate, but CenterPoint Energy has
agreed to continue to defend such claims to the extent they are
covered by insurance maintained by CenterPoint Energy, subject to
reimbursement of the costs of such defense by the NRG affiliate.
Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time,
CenterPoint Energy intends to continue vigorously contesting
claims that it does not consider to have merit and, based on its
experience to date, does not expect these matters, either
individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse
effect on CenterPoint Energy's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public utility holding company whose
indirect wholly owned subsidiaries include CenterPoint Energy
Houston Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Houston), which engages in the
electric transmission and distribution business in a 5,000-square
mile area of the Texas Gulf Coast, which includes the city of
Houston, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Industries Had $141.9M Coverage at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc., disclosed that at December 31, 2012, it
had $141.9 million of insurance coverage to cover current and
future asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments,
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 had $141.9 million
of insurance coverage we believe is available to cover current and
future asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments.
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC ("GST LLC") has collected
insurance payments totaling $53.2 million since the Petition Date.
Of the $141.9 million of available insurance coverage remaining,
we consider $140.0 million (99%) to be of high quality because the
insurance policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-based
carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or
better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or better. We
consider $1.9 million (1%) to be of moderate quality because the
insurance policies are written with various London market
carriers. Of the $141.9 million, $105.9 million is allocated to
claims that were paid by GST LLC prior to the initiation of the
Chapter 11 proceedings and submitted to insurance companies for
reimbursement, and the remainder is allocated to pending and
estimated future claims. There are specific agreements in place
with carriers covering $106.2 million of the remaining available
coverage. Based on those agreements and the terms of the policies
in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we believe that
substantially all of the $141.9 million of insurance proceeds will
ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance that
the insurance companies will make the payments as and when due.
The $141.9 million is in addition to the $16.1 million collected
in 2012. Based on those agreements and policies, some of which
define specific annual amounts to be paid and others of which
limit the amount that can be recovered in any one year, we
anticipate that $36.7 million will become collectible at the
conclusion of GST's Chapter 11 proceeding and, assuming the
insurers pay according to the agreements and policies, that the
following amounts should be collected in the years set out below
regardless of when the case concludes:

2013 - $21.2 million
2014 - $22 million
2015 - $20 million
2016 - $18 million
2017 - $13 million
2018 - $11 million

"In addition, GST LLC has received $7.2 million of insurance
recoveries from insolvent carriers since 2007 (including $4.4
million in 2012) and may receive additional payments from
insolvent carriers in the future. No anticipated insolvent carrier
collections are included in the $141.9 million of anticipated
collections. The insurance available to cover current and future
asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability policies
that cover Coltec and certain of its other subsidiaries in
addition to GST LLC for periods prior to 1985 and therefore could
be subject to potential competing claims of other covered
subsidiaries and their assignees.

"Our recorded asbestos liability as of the Petition Date was
$472.1 million. We based that recorded liability on an estimate of
probable and estimable expenditures to resolve asbestos personal
injury claims under generally accepted accounting principles, made
with the assistance of Garrison and an estimation expert, Bates
White, retained by GST LLC's counsel. The estimate developed was
an estimate of the most likely point in a broad range of potential
amounts that GST LLC might pay to resolve asbestos claims (by
settlement in the majority of the cases except those dismissed or
tried) over the ten-year period following the Petition Date in the
state court system, plus accrued but unpaid legal fees. The
estimate, which was not discounted to present value, did not
reflect GST LLC's views of its actual legal liability; GST LLC has
continuously maintained that its products could not have been a
substantial contributing cause of any asbestos disease. Instead,
the liability estimate reflected GST LLC's recognition that most
claims would be resolved more efficiently and at a significantly
lower total cost through settlements without any actual liability
determination.

"Neither we nor GST has endeavored to update the accrual since the
Petition Date except as necessary to reflect payments of accrued
fees and the disposition of cases on appeal. After those necessary
updates, the liability accrual at December 31, 2012 was $466.8
million. In each asbestos-driven Chapter 11 case that has been
resolved previously, the amount of the debtor's liability has been
determined as part of a consensual plan of reorganization agreed
to by the debtor and its creditors, including asbestos claimants
and a representative of potential future claimants. GST does not
believe that there is a reliable process by which an estimate of
such a resolution can be made and therefore believes that there is
no basis upon which it can revise the estimate last updated prior
to the Petition Date. In addition, we do not believe that we can
make a reasonable estimate of a specific range of more likely
outcomes with respect to the asbestos liability of GST, and
therefore, while we believe it to be an unlikely worst case
scenario, GST's ultimate costs to resolve all asbestos claims
against it could range up to the total value of GST.

"In a proposed plan of reorganization filed by GST and opposed by
claimant representatives, GST has proposed to resolve all pending
and future claims. GST has estimated that the amounts to be paid
into the trust created by the plan for payments to future
claimants, plus the indemnity costs incurred under the plan to pay
present claimants, would be approximately $270 million. Claimant
representatives, on the other hand, have asserted that GST's
liability exceeds the value of GST.

"The proposed plan of reorganization includes provisions that
would resolve any and all alleged derivative claims against us
based on GST asbestos products. The provisions specify that we
would fund $30 million of the amount proposed to be paid into the
trust to pay future claimants and would guarantee the obligations
of GST under the plan. Those provisions are incorporated into the
terms of the proposed plan only in the context of the specifics of
that plan, which would result in the equity interests of GST being
retained by GST's equity holder, the reconsolidation of GST into
the Company with substantial equity above the amount of equity
currently included in our consolidated financial statements, and
an injunction protecting us from future GST claims.

"We cannot predict when a plan of reorganization for GST might be
approved and effective; however, an estimation trial for the
purpose of determining the number and value of allowed
mesothelioma claims for plan feasibility purposes has been
tentatively scheduled for July 2013. We believe that GST will
present compelling defenses at the estimation trial that, among
other things, GST's products could not have been a substantial
contributing cause of any asbestos-related disease. Therefore, GST
believes the amounts that will be paid under its proposed plan
would be far more than sufficient to fully fund its actual legal
liability. There are many potential hurdles to plan confirmation,
including appeals, that could arise during and after the
estimation trial."

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro) designs, develops, manufactures,
and markets engineered industrial products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself
against lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos-containing
materials, 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 and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a
longstanding series of cases filed in numerous jurisdictions
around the country, wherein former and current employees and
various third-party persons allege exposure to asbestos containing
materials while on or associated with the Company's premises or
while working on vessels constructed or repaired by the Company.
The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with
pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma and other
alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several of the
Company's former executive officers are also named as defendants.
In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available
to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive
officers. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of
these cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows, it cannot
predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted
or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give
no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related
litigation.

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) owns and operates the
Northrop Grumman shipbuilding business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Fin'l Had $67M A&E Reserves in 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Financial Corporation carried $67 million of net loss
and loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims at
year-end 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 carried $67 million of net loss and loss
expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims and $54
million of reserves for mold claims at year-end 2012, compared
with $74 million and $62 million, respectively, for such claims at
year-end 2011. The asbestos and environmental claims amounts for
each respective year constituted 1.8 percent and 1.9 percent of
total loss and loss expense reserves at these year-end dates.

"We believe our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims is
limited, largely because our reinsurance retention was $500,000 or
below prior to 1987. We also were predominantly a personal lines
company in the 1960s and 1970s, when asbestos and pollution
exclusions were not widely used by commercial lines insurers.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, commercial lines grew as a
percentage of our overall business and our exposure to asbestos
and environmental claims grew accordingly. Over that period, we
endorsed to or included in most policies an asbestos and
environmental exclusion.

"Additionally, since 2002, we have revised policy terms where
permitted by state regulation to limit our exposure to mold claims
prospectively and further reduce our exposure to other
environmental claims generally. Finally, we have not engaged in
any mergers or acquisitions through which such a liability could
have been assumed. We continue to monitor our claims for evidence
of material exposure to other mass tort classes such as silicosis,
but we have found no such credible evidence to date.

"Reserving data for asbestos and environmental claims has
characteristics that limit the usefulness of the methods and
models used to analyze loss and loss expense reserves for other
claims. Specifically, asbestos and environmental loss and loss
expenses for different accident years do not emerge independently
of one another as loss development and Bornhuetter-Ferguson
methods assume. In addition, asbestos and environmental loss and
loss expense data available to date does not reflect a well-
defined tail, greatly complicating the identification of an
appropriate probabilistic trend family model.

"Due to these considerations, our actuarial staff reviewed
additional reserving methods and elected to use a weighted average
of a paid survival ratio method and report year method to estimate
reserves for IBNR asbestos and environmental claims. The result is
a decrease of approximately 10 percent in the indicated reserve as
derived from the 2003 survival ratio analysis alone. Our exposure
to such claims is limited; we believe moving to weighted average
of both methods produces a sufficient level of reserves."

Cincinnati Financial Corporation is engaged in property casualty
insurance marketed through independent insurance agents in 39
states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Settles Aqua-Chem Coverage Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company reached a settlement of remaining coverage
issues and estoppel claims for asbestos-related claims against
Aqua-Chem, Inc., on January 10, 2013, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "During the period from 1970 to 1981, our
Company owned Aqua-Chem, Inc., now known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.
("Aqua-Chem"). During that time, the Company purchased over $400
million of insurance coverage, which also insures Aqua-Chem for
some of its prior and future costs for certain product liability
and other claims. A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain
boilers that contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from
outside suppliers. Several years after our Company sold this
entity, Aqua-Chem received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos,
a component of some of the gaskets. Aqua-Chem was first named as a
defendant in asbestos lawsuits in or around 1985 and currently has
approximately 40,000 active claims pending against it. In
September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified our Company that it believed we
were obligated for certain costs and expenses associated with its
asbestos litigations. Aqua-Chem demanded that our Company
reimburse it for approximately $10 million for out-of-pocket
litigation-related expenses. Aqua-Chem also demanded that the
Company acknowledge a continuing obligation to Aqua-Chem for any
future liabilities and expenses that are excluded from coverage
under the applicable insurance or for which there is no insurance.
Our Company disputes Aqua-Chem's claims, and we believe we have no
obligation to Aqua-Chem for any of its past, present or future
liabilities, costs or expenses. Furthermore, we believe we have
substantial legal and factual defenses to Aqua-Chem's claims. The
parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this
dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the
outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of
Aqua-Chem. In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed
a declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and
16 defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the
parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the
insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in
excess of their obligations. During the course of the Wisconsin
insurance coverage litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached
settlements with several of the insurers, including plaintiffs,
who have or will pay funds into an escrow account for payment of
costs arising from the asbestos claims against Aqua-Chem. On July
24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final declaratory
judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under
the insurance policies issued by the remaining defendant insurers,
which judgment was not appealed. The judgment directs, among other
things, that each insurer whose policy is triggered is jointly and
severally liable for 100 percent of Aqua-Chem's losses up to
policy limits. The court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin
insurance coverage litigation. The Georgia litigation remains
subject to the stay agreement. The Company and Aqua-Chem continued
to negotiate with various insurers that were defendants in the
Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation over those insurers'
obligations to defend and indemnify Aqua-Chem for the asbestos-
related claims. The Company anticipated that a final settlement
with three of those insurers (the "Chartis insurers") would be
finalized in May 2011, but such insurers repudiated their
settlement commitments and, as a result, Aqua-Chem and the Company
filed suit against them in Wisconsin state court to enforce the
coverage-in-place settlement or, in the alternative, to obtain a
declaratory judgment validating Aqua-Chem and the Company's
interpretation of the court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance
coverage litigation. In February 2012, the parties filed and
argued a number of cross-motions for summary judgment related to
the issues of the enforceability of the settlement agreement and
the exhaustion of policies underlying those of the Chartis
insurers. The court granted defendants' motions for summary
judgment that the 2011 Settlement Agreement and 2010 Term Sheet
were not binding contracts, but denied their similar motions
related to plaintiffs' claims for promissory and/or equitable
estoppel. On or about May 15, 2012, the parties entered into a
mutually agreeable settlement/stipulation resolving two major
issues: exhaustion of underlying coverage and control of defense;
and, on or about January 10, 2013, the parties reached a
settlement of the remaining coverage issues and the estoppel
claims. The Chartis insurers have filed a notice of appeal with
respect to certain issues that were the subject of summary
judgment orders earlier in the case. Whatever the outcome of that
appeal, these three insurance companies will remain subject to the
court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.

"The Company is unable to estimate at this time the amount or
range of reasonably possible loss it may ultimately incur as a
result of asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem. The Company
believes that assuming (a) the defense and indemnity costs for the
asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem in the future are in the
same range as during the past five years, and (b) the various
insurers that cover the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem
remain solvent, regardless of the outcome of the coverage-in-place
settlement litigation but taking into account the issues resolved
to date, insurance coverage for substantially all defense and
indemnity costs would be available for the next 10 to 15 years."

The Coca-Cola Company owns or licenses and markets more than 500
nonalcoholic beverage brands, primarily sparkling beverages but
also a variety of still beverages, such as waters, enhanced
waters, juices and juice drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffees,
and energy and sports drinks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Recorded $1.3B Liability at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related
liability for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be
filed over the next 10 years of $1,347.4 million at December 31,
2012, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been joined
as a defendant with numerous other companies in product liability
lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These
claims allege that certain of the Company's products sold prior to
1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a
gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party
parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the
gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. Frequently, the
plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds Pump product
as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, a large percentage
of claims pending against the Company have been placed on inactive
dockets because the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a significant
compensable loss. The Company said its experience to date is that
a majority of resolved claims have been dismissed without payment
by the Company.

The Company recorded a liability for pending asbestos claims and
asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years.
While it is probable that the Company will incur additional costs
for future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for
potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably
estimable due to a number of factors. As of December 31, 2012, the
Company has recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability
for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed
over the next 10 years of $1,347.4 million, including expected
legal fees, and an associated asset of $607.9 million, which
represents estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net
asbestos exposure of $739.5 million.

ITT Corporation is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
growing industrial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Unit Had 20 Pending Lawsuits as of Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself
against approximately 20 pending asbestos-related lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company's consolidated subsidiary Indianapolis Power & Light
Company ("IPL") is a defendant in approximately twenty pending
lawsuits alleging personal injury or wrongful death stemming from
exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly
located in IPL power plants. IPL has been named as a "premises
defendant", which means that IPL did not mine, manufacture,
distribute or install asbestos or asbestos containing products.
These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who worked for
contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL. IPL has insurance
which may cover some portions of these claims; currently, these
cases are being defended by counsel retained by various insurers
who wrote policies applicable to the period of time during which
much of the exposure has been alleged.

It is possible that material additional loss with regard to the
asbestos lawsuits could be incurred. At this time, an estimate of
additional loss cannot be made. IPL has settled a number of
asbestos related lawsuits for amounts which, individually and in
the aggregate, were not material to IPL's or IPALCO's results of
operations, financial condition, or cash flows. Historically,
settlements paid on IPL's behalf have been comprised of proceeds
from one or more insurers along with comparatively smaller
contributions by IPL. Additionally, several cases have been
dismissed by the plaintiffs in the past few years without
requiring a settlement. We are unable to estimate the number of,
the effect of, or losses of or range of loss which are reasonably
possible from the pending lawsuits or any additional asbestos
suits. Furthermore, we are unable to estimate the portion of a
settlement amount, if any, that may be paid from any insurance
coverage for any known or unknown claims. Accordingly, there is no
assurance that the pending or any additional suits will not have a
material adverse effect on IPALCO's results of operations,
financial condition, or cash flows.

IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., ensures that the Indianapolis 500 track
is lit up and the sound system is crackling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Continues to Defend 42 Suits at Dec.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc., continues to defend itself against
42 lawsuits alleging injury or death arising 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 are defending approximately 42 lawsuits in
different jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a result of
exposure to asbestos. The complaints in these cases typically name
a large number of defendants and do not identify any particular
Watts Water products as a source of asbestos exposure. To date, we
have obtained a dismissal in every case before it has reached
trial because discovery has failed to yield evidence of
substantial exposure to any Watts Water products."

Watts Water Technologies, Inc. (Watts) is a supplier of products
for use in the water quality, water safety, water flow control and
water conservation markets in both North America and Europe with a
presence in Asia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $70.7M Reserves at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc., had a $70.7 million litigation reserve with
respect to potential liability arising from asbestos-related
litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company is a party to various legal proceedings, lawsuits and
administrative actions, which are of an ordinary or routine nature
for a company of its size and sector. In addition, due to the
bankruptcies of several asbestos manufacturers and other primary
defendants, among other things, the Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a
number of silica-related personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiffs
in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple
sources and typically the Company is one of approximately 25 or
more named defendants. In the Company's experience to date, the
substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury
for which the Company bears responsibility.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
and silica-related lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither the
Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the
materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the
lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the
Products, if any, were enclosed within the subject Products.
The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company. The Company has also pursued litigation
against certain insurers or indemnitors where necessary. The
latest of these actions, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9,
2010, in the Eighth Judicial District, Adams County, Illinois, as
case number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case"). In the lawsuit, the
Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess
insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to
the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs
associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the
Company. In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with
one of the excess insurer defendants for approximately the amount
of such defendant's policy that was subject to the lawsuit.
Substantially all of the Company's expected future recoveries of
the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the
subject of the Adams County Case.

The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have
a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's
anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the
risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure
from the Products; the Company's experience that the vast majority
of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to
alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the
Products or for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility;
various potential defenses available to the Company with respect
to such matters; and the Company's prior disposition of comparable
matters. However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future
developments, including, without limitation, potential
insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an
adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability
to collect from the Company's historical insurers or indemnitors,
could cause a different outcome. While the outcome of legal
proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known
facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that
the amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the
liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal
injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
or liquidity. Other Liabilities within the Consolidated Balance
Sheet includes a $70.7 million litigation reserve as of December
31, 2012 with respect to potential liability arising from the
Company's asbestos-related litigation. In the event of unexpected
future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution
of these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operations or liquidity. However,
at this time, based on presently available information, the
Company views this possibility as remote.

Gardner Denver, Inc. (Gardner Denver) designs, manufactures and
markets engineered industrial machinery and related parts and
services. The Company is a global manufacturer of engineered
compressors and vacuum products for industrial applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Former Firm Build Executives Convicted
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor A. Patton of The Merced Sun-Star reports that three former
executives of the defunct nonprofit Firm Build are looking at
spending nearly two years in prison after being convicted Monday,
March 11, of violating federal asbestos laws.

Rudy Buendia III, 50; Patrick Bowman, 46; and Joseph Cuellar, 73,
each pleaded guilty to one felony count of breaking the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants law regarding the
cancer-causing substance.

The agreement with federal prosecutors means Bowman and Cuellar
will face 27 months in prison, and Buendia will face 24.  They're
due to be sentenced by Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on June 3.

All three will be eligible for release after serving 85 percent of
their sentences.  The three men remain free, pending sentencing.

The three executives had key oversight positions with Firm Build.
They were accused of cutting corners on a renovation project by
using at least nine high school vocational students to remove
asbestos from the Automotive Training Center at Castle Commerce
Center from September 2005 to March 2006.

Federal prosecutors are expected to ask the judge to dismiss the
remaining counts against the defendants as part of their plea
agreements.

Still, Benjamin Wagner, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of
California, said the convictions send a clear message.

"Exposing student workers and subcontractors at a construction
site to hazardous asbestos without any precautions, and doing so
in order to cut corners and save money, is more than reckless --
it is criminal," Wagner said in a statement.

"The guilty pleas entered today should stand as a warning that
those who disregard environmental laws in the pursuit of profit
will be prosecuted and will face prison time," the U.S. attorney
said.

Although the pleas likely will close the federal case against the
three defendants, they face state charges in Merced County
Superior Court.

"We have no intention of dismissing our case at this time," said
Merced County District Attorney Larry Morse II on Monday, Mard,
when asked about the resolution of the case in federal court.

Morse added that the federal convictions do "confirm some of the
essential facts that we have alleged from the inception of this
case and this investigation."

Calls were placed to the offices of Kirk McAllister and Ralph
Temple, who represent Buendia and Bowman, respectively.  Neither
could be reached for comment.

Douglas Foster, who represents Cuellar, said his client could have
faced significantly more time if the case had gone to trial.

Foster said his client acknowledges he should have been more
engaged and aware of what was going on at the 2245 Jetstream Drive
building.

"That being said, Joe was never personally aware that kids were
removing asbestos.  Joe never asked any kids to remove asbestos
and at no time directed anyone else to remove asbestos," Foster
said.

It remains to be seen whether Bowman, who teaches math at Valley
Community School in Los Banos, will be allowed to keep his job,
now that he is a convicted felon.

"We're going to confer with legal counsel, review our options and
take the appropriate action," said Nathan Quevedo, spokesman for
Merced County Office of Education.

According to federal court documents, the students and others
removed and disposed of about 1,000 linear feet of pipe insulation
and additional tank insulation, which the defendants knew
contained asbestos.

The students, according to the documents, removed the cancer-
causing substance without proper protective equipment or taking
protective measures.

When the incident occurred, Bowman was Firm Build's board
president and coordinator of the Workplace Learning Academy, which
was created at Valley Community School to teach trade skills for
at-risk students.

Buendia was Firm Build's project manager, scouting and determining
the nonprofit's projects.

Cuellar was an administrative manager who had the contractor's
license Firm Build used to find grant funding, procure contracts
and pull permits for projects, according to investigators.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tobacco & Fibro Increase Lung Cancer Risk by 90%
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlyn Teabo of The Mesothelioma Center relates that because
asbestos is a versatile naturally occurring mineral known for its
resistance to heat and friction, its fibers have been used in over
3,600 commercial products in the United States.

As asbestos is so widely used, it is likely that everyone will be
exposed to it at some point in their lives, but an increase in
public awareness and governmental mandates throughout the 1970s
and "80s have limited asbestos use in the United States.  As a
result, general exposure among the public has diminished and it is
highly unlikely for this minimal exposure to have a lasting impact
on your health.

However, significant exposure to asbestos is a known cause of
mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos-related illnesses, which
can range from mild and benign to malignant and life-threatening.
Those most likely to develop mesothelioma worked in a career that
exposed them to asbestos for years.

Other asbestos-related illnesses that are directly linked to
asbestos exposure include:

-- Lung cancer
-- Ovarian cancer
-- Laryngeal cancer
-- Asbestosis
-- Pleural plaques
-- Pleural thickening
-- Pleural effusions

There are also a few cancers that are loosely associated with
asbestos exposure, which include:

-- Esophageal cancer
-- Gallbladder cancer
-- Kidney cancer
-- Throat cancer

These illnesses originate from the inhalation of asbestos fibers.
Once these fibers are inhaled, most are expelled, but some can
become lodged in organ tissues and remain their throughout life.
The accumulation of fibers can cause inflammation and scarring
that may lead to the development of mesothelioma cancer and other
asbestos-related illnesses.

There are a number of environmentally conscious alternative
products for old asbestos-containing products that would eliminate
the risk of asbestos-related illness.  Some of these alternatives
include cotton or icynene as insulation, and amorphous silica
fabric for fire protection, muffler packing, high temperature,
acid-resistant gaskets, acoustic insulation systems, and furnace
insulation.

Before asbestos products are replaced, they must be removed and
there a number of eco-friendly products to do so, including:

Surfactant Wetting Agents:  These are superior wetting agents that
are designed for use prior to the removal of asbestos-containing
materials.

High-Sudsing Industrial Foamer:  A high performance foaming agent
designed to increase the foaming properties of cleaning detergents
and for use as a dust suppressant.

Lockdown Encapsulant:  This product is formulated to lock down
fibers following asbestos removal.  It dries clear, with a smooth,
impact-resistant, semi-gloss finish, and contains no hazardous
sodium silicates ("liquid glass"), which can irritate workers and
damage internal components of airless equipment.

Mesothelioma cancer is the signature, and most deadly, asbestos-
related disease.  It is responsible for more than 3,000 deaths
each year in the United States alone, a majority of which were
caused by occupational exposure.  Mesothelioma can affect the
lining of the lungs, the abdomen or the heart.

Those at risk for prolonged asbestos exposure include people who
work in highly contaminated areas.  Among the 75 occupational
groups identified by the National Institute for Occupational
Health and Safety that are at a high risk for asbestos exposure
are asbestos miners, construction workers, auto mechanics,
shipyard workers and railroad workers.

Asbestos-related diseases take a long time to develop, and are
usually the result of about 40 years of occupational exposure to
air concentrations of 0.125 to 30 fiber/mL.  It is common for lung
cancer or asbestosis to occur 15 or more years after initial
asbestos exposure, and most cases of mesothelioma are diagnosed 30
years or more after the first exposure to asbestos.  After
patients are diagnosed, doctors will discuss their mesothelioma
prognosis, which can vary depending on age, sex, and other
factors.

Researchers have determined that the use of tobacco and exposure
to asbestos collectively greatly increases the risk of developing
lung cancer by 90 percent.  Asbestos fibers that have been lodged
in your lungs may remain there for a lifetime, and cigarette
smoking weakens the lungs, which decreases their ability to remove
asbestos fibers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Legal Issues Bog Huskisson Fibro Building Removal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The South Coast Register (Au) reports that the derelict buildings
containing asbestos in Murdoch Street, Huskisson, which were
directed to be removed as of the first week of March, remain
untouched.

The lack of action to remove the buildings triggered a
reappearance in the Land and Environment Court on Friday, March 8,
according to the report.

Shoalhaven City Council sought the court's direction and the issue
is due to be heard again on May 3.

A three-year campaign by residents and council has failed to have
the buildings removed, the report said.  This was mainly due to
the difficulty in contacting the owners, who are based overseas.

Presently, the site remains unsecured with no fence in place to
keep out vandals.  The buildings have been progressively wrecked
with scatterings of asbestos cladding over the site.  A sign
warning of the asbestos danger sits at the front of the block.

Council's development manager, Robert Russell, said having the
buildings demolished was a legally complicated issue.

"We understand the people representing the owners, who are based
in Cambodia, are endeavoring to have the appropriate asbestos
reports and management plans prepared.

"Council is hopeful the site will be cleared up before the next
appearance date, but there's no guarantee of that.

"If it is not cleared up by then, it will all be back before court
for further direction."

Mr. Russell said council was bound by the court's processes and
had to abide by its procedures.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beazer East, 72 Others Face Exposure Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that a Point
Pleasant couple is suing 73 defendants they claim are responsible
for a lung injury.

John William Taylor was diagnosed with a lung injury on July 24,
according to a complaint filed Feb. 28 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Taylor and his wife Carol claim the 73 defendants exposed him to
asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products during his career as
a laborer, maintenance worker and electrician from 1955 until
1988.  John Taylor began smoking when he was 16 and smoked for
approximately 25 to 30 years, but then quit, according to the
suit.

The Taylors claim the defendants are being sued for 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 premises owners and as
John Taylor's employers for deliberate intent/intentional tort,
according to the suit.

The Taylors 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 73 defendants include A.O. Smith Corporation; A.W. Chesterton
Company; 3M Company; Allegheny Energy Service Corporation;
American Electric Power Company, Inc.; American Electric Power
Service Corporation; Appalachian Power Company; Aurora Pump
Company; Beazer East; and Borg-Warner Corporation.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-420.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4520 Corporation, 69 Others Face Fibro Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that a Gallipolis,
Ohio, couple are suing 70 companies they claim are responsible for
an asbestosis diagnosis.

James E. Preston was diagnosed with asbestosis on June 27, 2011,
according to a complaint filed March 4 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Preston and his wife, Nancy J. Preston, claim the 70 defendants
are responsible for the diagnosis.

During his employment as a laborer and instrument maintenance
worker from 1953 until 1997, James Preston was exposed to asbestos
and/or asbestos-containing products, according to the suit.

The Prestons claim James Preston smoked cigarettes from 1954 until
2000, but then quit.

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

The Prestons are seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved.  They are being represented by Bronwyn I. Rinehart of
James F. Humphreys & Associates.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 70 defendants named in the suit include 3M Company; 4520
Corporation, Inc.; Ajax Magnethermic Corporation; Allied Chemical
Corporation; A.O. Smith Corporation; A.W. Chesterton Company;
American Electric Power; American Electric Power Service
Corporation; Appalachian Power Company; and Aurora Pump Company.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-432.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Waste Vandalizes Queen Elizabeth Park
------------------------------------------------------------
The Portsmouth News reports that fly-tippers have been condemned
after leaving huge piles of asbestos at a beauty spot.

Up to 30 heaps of building waste was dumped along a lane on the
edge of Queen Elizabeth Country Park after offenders threw the
rubbish from a moving lorry.

The offenders then dumped large piles of asbestos roof sheets in
two gateways that lead to the park.

The fly-tipping -- which is punishable by a five-year jail term --
has angered walkers and park officials.

Tim Speller, who manages the park, said: 'someone has driven on
the back road and kept moving, while someone has been on the back
throwing stuff out as they were driving along.  They kept moving
so no-one could stop them.

"It's right along the road as far as the eye can see.

"To dump asbestos in piles on the edge of a country park -- the
last thing you want is people messing round with it.  On all
levels, it's terrible."

The incident happened sometime overnight last Friday, March 8.

The affected roads are Limekiln Lane and New Barn Lane -- leading
from Buriton to Chalton -- as well as two entrances to the park at
Head Down and Chalky Walk.

Mr. Speller said the latest incident would be expensive to clear
up.  Park officials have been sifting through the waste and have
found receipts from the midlands and north of England.

A birthday card saying "Ronnie Happy Birthday from Mum and Archie"
was also found.

The last time the park was affected by fly-tipping was two years
ago when rubbish left in Halls Hill car park was traced back to
Emsworth.

The perpetrator agreed to pay for the clear-up and the cost of a
height restriction barrier at the car park.

A reward is being offered and anyone with information should call
Queen Elizabeth Country Park on (023) 9259 5040.

"Let's hope there's another chapter to this one," added Mr.
Speller.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lordswood Waste Depot Plan Temporarily Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Online (UK) reports that the scheme for the former highways
depot in North Dane Way, Lordswood, has been temporarily
withdrawn.

Despite the Environment Agency making no objection, councillors,
an MP and more than 1,000 residents signed a petition against the
scheme by Medway firm Asbestos First.

It would have allowed asbestos removal firms to pay Asbestos First
to bring up to 70 tons a week of waste into the site, stored
double-bagged in locked skips before being moved to larger tips
elsewhere.

The firm's owner Debbie Hales said she had withdrawn the plans
because there had not been time to hold a full public meeting, but
planned to lodge them again.

If the scheme is re-submitted, residents will have to lodge their
objections all over again.

Farley Close resident Yvonne Maund, who helped lead the campaign,
said: "It's absolutely great but if I have got to do it again, I
will do it again.

"There's people been phoning me up and asking how it's been going.
When we brought the petition into Lordswood Leisure Centre we got
a standing ovation."

Chatham MP Tracey Crouch said: "It's a good thing that they've
withdrawn it when they haven't had a proper public engagement with
the residents.

"My position is that having an asbestos disposal site in the
middle of a residential area is not a good idea."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Howard Willems Honored With CCS' Leadership Award
------------------------------------------------------------------
CTV News Saskatoon reports that The Canadian Cancer Society (CCS)
celebrated the life of a Saskatoon man with an award for his
leadership in asbestos awareness.

Jesse Todd, Howard Willems' stepson, accepted his stepfather's
posthumous award on Monday, March 11.

Until Willems' death in November from a rare form of asbestos-
related cancer, the former building inspector advocated for an
online registry of public buildings that contain asbestos.
Willems' family has continued the fight and says receiving this
award is overwhelming.

"This award is a great way of honoring Howard's work," Todd said.
"There is one more thing we can do to help save the lives of so
many more innocent victims.  We can contact our MLAs and tell them
that it's important to the people of Saskatchewan that they vote
in favor of Bill 604."

Susan Holmes, the Canadian Cancer Society's division chair added,
"The accomplishments already achieved on the asbestos issue and
the ones to come are a direct result of Mr. Willems' work."

Willems is the first person to ever receive the society's
leadership in public policy award.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Environmental Health Plan for Swift Creek Started
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Schwartz of The Bellingham Herald reports that public
comments were taken at a meeting on the plan for reducing the
health and flood risks on Swift Creek.

The creek, which flows from Sumas Mountain to the Sumas River, is
highly flood prone because a landslide in the upper reaches of the
basin releases large amounts of sediment into the creek.  The
sediment contains natural asbestos and metals.

Solutions described in a draft environmental impact statement
include trapping the sediment, shoring up the creek banks and
stabilizing the landslide.

The draft statement can be read online at:

      http://www.whatcomcounty.us/pds/plan/sepa/swiftcreek.jsp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bosses Replace Morris Plains Cleanup Contractors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Remaly for The Patch Network reports that contractors who
were removing asbestos from buildings at the former Pfizer
property on Route 53 in Morris Plains had to be pulled from the
project because of "fines levied by the NJ Department of Labor for
violations during asbestos abatement," the developer of the site
wrote in a letter to the state.

The state said the alleged violations still are under
investigation, and information about the case is not yet available
to the public.

A new contractor took over and the work is continuing, the
developer and state officials said.

After the asbestos abatement work is finished, developer M&M
Realty Partners plans to demolish the buildings at 170 and 182
Tabor Road and build hundreds of apartments, condominiums and
townhouses plus about 100,000 square feet of retail space.

Asbestos work can only be performed by state-licensed contractors.
Even small amounts of asbestos, which was a common construction
material until it was found to be a health hazard, "can cause
serious illness and death years after exposure," according to the
New Jersey Department of Health.

In a Jan. 25 letter to the Asbestos Control and Licensing section
of the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development,
Adel Merdan of M&M at Morris Plains LLC requested a waiver of the
10-day notification process typically required for asbestos
abatement work so a new contractor could continue the work as soon
as possible following the original contractors being removed from
the project.

"As you are aware, our prior demolition contractor, Metro
Industrial Wrecking and Environmental Contracts and their asbestos
abatement subcontractors, Dennison and ATC, started asbestos
abatement on the above-referenced project," Merdan wrote.
"However, due to the fines levied by the NJ Department of Labor
for violations during asbestos abatement, those contractors had to
be removed from the project."

The developer and subcontractors have not yet responded to
questions about the alleged violations and requests for comment.

Pyramid Contracting Corporation took over the asbestos removal
work.

The state said it also responded to a complaint about Pyramid, but
the complaint was unfounded and the company still is serving as
the asbestos abatement contractor at the site.

Morris Plains said back in October that asbestos abatement work at
182 Tabor Road was expected to be completed in four to six weeks.

Lawsuit

The exact number of housing units to be built on the 63-acre site
is the subject of litigation.  M&M, a venture of Edgewood
Properties and JMP Holdings, is suing Morris Plains to be able to
build 800 housing units, with 295 units for low- or moderate-
income residents, which it says will help the borough comply with
the Fair Housing Act.  The borough says plans originally called
for 500 housing units, the municipality has complied with the
housing law, and it will defend itself in court.

The borough said in a Feb. 8 update on its website that Morris
Plains rejected a request from M&M to declare the work a
"redevelopment project" and give the developer 20 years of tax
relief equal to the school portion of the tax bill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shutdown of Barangaroo Public Walkway Urged
------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that the Environment Protection Authority (EPA)
says there is no risk to public health following the third
discovery of asbestos at Sydney's Barangaroo development.

Twenty-three fragments of the cancer-causing material have been
uncovered at the construction site.

Barry Robson from the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia
visited Barangaroo and says he is shocked a public walkway has not
been shut.

"It's a ridiculous situation where you have got the workers with
all their protective gear and yet you have got the members of the
public walking past the same stockpile of dirt," he said.

"You don't have to be a genius or a rocket scientist that if there
is a possibility of people being exposed, then close the walkway."

The opposition Leader John Robertson agrees the path should be
shut.

"The Barangaroo public walkway should be closed until such time as
we can be absolutely certain that nobody will be exposed to
asbestos fibers," he said.

"This is an area where continued discovery of asbestos makes it
clear that we can't be certain the public's safety isn't being
compromised."

The EPA has set up air monitors and taken soil samples and the
chairman Barry Buffier says there is no need to be alarmed.

"We've been monitoring for a long time now and we haven't picked
up any fibers," he said.

"We've been at pains to make sure that we don't put anyone in a
situation where there is any risk.

"We think that we've done a rigorous risk analysis there."

The CFMEU's state secretary Brian Parker says the area must be
constantly monitored.

"We need to have them there on a regular basis to make sure that
things are being carried out properly and make sure that there's
no further exposure to workers or the public," he said.

The developer Lend Lease says its decision to shut a nearby
childcare centre is not connected to the asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belfast Health Trust Pleads Guilty, Fined GBP10K
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UTV News reports that Belfast Health Trust has been ordered to pay
out GBP10,000 after two construction workers were potentially
exposed to asbestos.

They were repairing a floor at Belfast City Hospital in January
last year when they had to remove a section of ceiling made of
asbestos insulation board (AIB).

The fabric was banned in 1999 but prior to that had been commonly
used in the construction of many buildings.

Belfast Health and Social Care Trust knew the estates building
contained asbestos, but they did not pass that information on to
their maintenance contractors.

A Health and Safety Executive investigation also found some staff
in key roles were not trained in managing asbestos.

The trust pleaded guilty to three breaches of health and safety
legislation and was fined GBP10,000 plus GBP1,750 costs at
Laganside Crown Court on Monday, March 11.

Investigating Inspector Hugh Moss said: "This case highlights the
importance of not only having accurate and up-to-date asbestos
surveys carried out, but also ensuring that this information is
given to anyone who carries out work on premises which are known
to contain asbestos.

"There is no such thing as a safe level of asbestos and cases like
this should serve to remind tradesmen and those involved in
maintenance activities that asbestos remains a significant danger
to their health," he added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Testimony Supporting Fact Act Heard
---------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Kary of Bloomberg reports that fraudulent claims for
asbestos exposure are shortchanging companies and legitimate
victims, former judge and McCarter & English attorney Peggy L.
Ableman -- pableman@mccarter.com -- testified on March 14 in
support of legislation aimed at curtailing false claims on an
estimated $30 billion in assets.

Under the current system, people claiming harm from asbestos can
seek damages from trusts set up by bankrupt companies and
simultaneously sue non-bankrupt companies, using inconsistent
information about how and when they were exposed, Ableman said in
a hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on
Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law on March 14.

Companies are "often led to believe -- erroneously -- that their
products were far more responsible for the plaintiff's disease
than what may have been the case, because they have no way of
knowing the substance of an individual plaintiff's claims,"
Ableman said.

The proposed rules would affect non-bankrupt companies being sued
under tort law as well as trusts for bankrupt companies that hold
$18 billion in assets today, with up to $12 billion that may be
added once current bankruptcies are resolved, according to
testimony from Marc Scarcella, an economist with Bates White LLC
in Washington.

                          Johns-Manville

A wave of asbestos bankruptcies from 2000 to 2004 included
companies such as Owens Corning, Fibreboard Corp., Babcock &
Wilcox Co., Pfizer Inc. (PFE)'s non-operating Quigley Co.,
Armstrong World Industries and United States Gypsum Co.  All
followed the example of Johns-Manville Corp., which pioneered the
concept of an asbestos trust in its 1982 bankruptcy.

By settling on an amount to be set aside for all current and
future asbestos claims, companies could reorganize and exit
bankruptcy free of lawsuits, leaving a trust and a trustee to
manage distributions to alleged victims.

Ableman was a judge on the Delaware Superior Court for more than
29 years and joined McCarter & English in February as special
counsel in product liability.  She supports legislation called the
Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2013, which she said
would limit fraud by requiring such trusts to file quarterly
reports on their claims in bankruptcy court.  Reports would
include the name and exposure history of plaintiffs and the basis
for any payments that were previously made to them.

"The enemy of any just compensation system is fraud and abuse,"
said Spencer Bachus, a Republican from Alabama, in a statement
March 14.  "Fraud and abuse take money away from real victims who
desperately need help."

                       Adequate Oversight

"For too long, asbestos bankruptcy trusts have operated without
adequate oversight," said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S.
Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, in a phone interview before
the hearing.  "Courts around the country have uncovered examples
in which plaintiffs' lawyers have filed inconsistent or fraudulent
claims with multiple trusts."

"This is not about human error or mistakes being made when people
are inputting information," Rickard said.  "Claimants go after
trust money and then make different claims in lawsuits,"
essentially "double-dipping," she said.  ILR, founded by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, advocates legal reforms that will reduce what
it says is the "excessive" influence of plaintiffs' lawyers over
the legal and political system.

Ableman used as an example a case in which a plaintiff, June
Montgomery, sued 22 companies claiming her mesothelioma was caused
by exposure to their products via her husband's work clothes,
which she laundered.  Only on the eve of trial did her lawyers
inform the court that Montgomery had pursued claims against 20
trusts for bankrupt companies with a different claim: that she had
been exposed through her own work.

                           New Burden

Elihu Inselbuch -- einselbuch@capdale.com -- a lawyer at Caplin &
Drysdale in New York, which represents asbestos victims' rights,
said the proposed legislation is an attempt by large corporate
defendants to "add a new time-consuming burden" to bankrupt
trusts.

The bill would 'slow down the trust process such that many victims
could die before receiving compensation since victims of
mesothelioma typically only live for four to 18 months after their
diagnosis," Inselbuch said.  There is no evidence that fraud is
widespread, and large corporate defendants not in bankruptcy can
already get details about a plaintiff's past claims under state
law, he added.

Plaintiffs may have been exposed to asbestos from multiple places,
and have a right to recovery from more than one defendant,
Inselbuch said, noting that bankrupt trusts, usually underfunded,
currently only pay around 25 percent of what mesothelioma victims
are scheduled to be paid.

                     Mesothelioma Payments

Manville's trust, for example, currently only pays $26,250 to
mesothelioma claimants, or 7.5 percent of the $350,000 they are
scheduled to receive under the agreement that formed the trust.

Mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer in the lungs, is one of many
diseases linked to asbestos exposure.  Trusts allot amounts to be
paid based on what disease an asbestos claimant has.  Asbestos, a
mineral, was mined and used in products for its fire-resistant
capabilities until the 1970s.
Without the kind of transparency proposed under the new
legislation, it may be impossible to tell whether fraud is
actually occurring, said Todd Brown, a former Jones Day lawyer who
teaches bankruptcy and tort law at State University of New York at
Buffalo Law School.

No one "has access to sufficient information across trusts to
reach the extreme conclusions that are commonly advanced -- that
fraud is nonexistent, on the one hand, or rampant, on the other,"
Brown said in his prepared testimony.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barangaroo Closes/Re-Routes Contaminated Walkway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Nicholls for The Sydney Morning Herald reports that a public
walkway through the northern end of Barangaroo will be closed and
moved after an expert report found it would be "imprudent" to
allow its use while asbestos-contaminated soil was excavated
nearby.

The president of the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia,
Barry Robson, said two days ago he was "gobsmacked" to see people
using the walkway after the discovery of asbestos at the site.

Chief executive of the Environment Protection Authority Barry
Buffier met the Barangaroo Delivery Authority on Wednesday, March
14, to inform it of the decision to close and move the walkway.

"We've agreed with the BDA today we will re-route that part of the
walkway through the headland immediately," Mr. Buffier said on
March 14.

The walkway, which provides access to the public foreshore walk
around the Barangaroo site, will be moved to an area further from
where excavation work will take place for the planned headland
park at the northern end of the site.

On Tuesday, March 13, Fairfax Media revealed there were renewed
concerns about asbestos at Barangaroo following the discovery of
23 asbestos fragments in 10 minutes at the northern end on Feb.
28.

The developer Lend Lease has been dogged by concerns since
asbestos was found in soil at the southern end of Barangaroo last
April.

In November, the authority stopped plans to move up to 150,000
cubic meters of landfill containing up to 1 percent bonded
asbestos from the southern end of Barangaroo to the northern tip
for the base of the headland park pending the report of public
health expert Tim Driscoll.

Dr. Driscoll's report recommends closure of the walkway "until all
material potentially contaminated with asbestos has been
remediated and used on site or has been transported off site."

He said it was "prudent" that workers wear protective clothing due
to the potential for airborne asbestos fibers.

"Allowing the public to walk through or next to a work site in
such circumstances seems imprudent, even though the potential for
exposure is likely to be very low," the report said.

Dr. Driscoll said the concentration of asbestos in landfill used
in the headland park should be lower than the 1 percent initially
planned, recommending less than 0.006 percent, with no visible
asbestos.

The report recommends the trigger for work ceasing at Barangaroo
if airborne asbestos fibers are detected should be 0.02 fibers a
milliliter.  The EPA says no fibers have been detected since work
began in 2011.

Dr. Driscoll found the excavation, control and monitoring of
asbestos at the southern end of Barangaroo was appropriate to
protect the health of workers and the public.  The EPA has
accepted all the recommendations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ROHS Amendment Aims to Widen Employers' Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Guertin and Isabelle Tremblay of Borden Ladner Gervais
LLP report that a draft regulation to impose on Quebec employers a
duty to take additional measures with respect to the potential
presence of asbestos in facilities where their employees work was
published in the Gazette officielle du Quebec of Dec. 27, 2012,
and may come into force in the Spring.

The Regulation respecting occupational health and safety (the
ROHS) would be amended so as to oblige employers to inspect
certain buildings in order to locate and, if need be, repair the
heat insulating material and flocking present in those structures.
At the present time, the ROHS provides for air quality standards
for workplaces, including standards governing the concentration of
respirable asbestos fibers, as well as an obligation to minimize
the exposure of workers to asbestos; but it does not specifically
provide for an obligation to search for and maintain asbestos-
containing materials.  Consequently, the practices of employers
and building owners with respect to the prevention of health risks
associated with asbestos vary.

Asbestos is a thermal, acoustic and electrical insulant.  In
Quebec, until the early 1980's, it was commonplace to use
flocking, sprayed material containing asbestos, for thermal
insulation.  It goes without saying that flocking and heat
insulating materials containing asbestos are therefore still
present in many buildings dating from that period.  Other interior
finishes incorporated into buildings built or renovated during the
same period may also contain asbestos, notably gypsum, joint
compounds, stucco and other sealants, as well as ceiling tiles,
caulking and vinyl tiles.

Asbestos is a known carcinogen.  According to the World Health
Organization, it is responsible for one third of workplace- elated
cancer deaths.  Because of the "friable" (crumbly) nature of
asbestos, respirable fibers may detach from damaged material and
become airborne, causing a health hazard to those who inhale them.

If the draft regulation is adopted, a number of important
obligations will become applicable to employers subject to the
ROHS:

(1) within 2 years following the coming into force of the
amendment, the employer will have to ensure that the following
inspections are made of every building under its authority:

   -- any building built before Feb. 15, 1990, must be inspected
in order to locate flocking containing asbestos;

   -- any building built before May 20, 1999 must be inspected in
order to locate heat insulating materials containing asbestos;

(2) all flocking and heat insulating materials will be presumed to
contain asbestos, unless demonstrated otherwise, and any asbestos
concentration result greater than a  trace  shall be equivalent to
an asbestos concentration of at least 0.1%;

(3) every 2 years following the initial inspection, flocking and
heat insulating materials containing asbestos must be checked by
the employer, except as provided in the ROHS;

(4) if the inspection of a flocking or a heat insulating material
reveals that it is liable to produce asbestos dust emissions, the
employer must either remove or encase it;

(5) other interior finishes likely to contain asbestos (vinyl
tiles, ceiling tiles, gypsum and joint compounds manufactured
before 1980, etc.) must be repaired or removed by the employer if,
because of their state, they are liable to emit dust into the air;
and

(6) finally, the employer must keep a register relating to the
materials, flocking and heat insulating materials that were
checked or inspected and put the register at the disposal of the
workers.

The obligation to inspect is imposed on employers, rather than on
building owners, and is restricted to buildings under the
authority of the employer.

It nevertheless appears to us that the obligation to apply
corrective measures -- that is the employer's obligation to remove
or repair interior finishes, flocking, or heat insulating
materials liable to emit asbestos dust - is not limited in the
same way, nor is that obligation imposed by law on building
owners.

One thing is certain: any employer who rents its establishment
will not generally have foreseen assuming the financial
responsibility for removing or replacing interior finishes,
flocking or heat insulating materials liable to emit asbestos dust
- a responsibility which may prove to be expensive. Should the law
oblige the employer to carry out such work henceforth, without
stipulating any financial liability on the part of the owner, it
is possible that the employer would be required to assume that
financial responsibility.

In the light of the foregoing, a tenant with an eye to the future,
should, at the very least, review its lease and, in the event of
its renewal or extension, seek to impose on the landlord the
obligations that result or may result from the amendments to the
ROHS and all associated costs.  In negotiating a new lease, a
tenant should require a representation and warranty as to the
absence of heat insulating materials, flocking or other materials
that may contain asbestos and impose on the landlord all
obligations and associated costs that result or could result from
the ROHS amendments.

From the standpoint of landlords, it is perhaps desirable for them
to independently carry out their own inspections and any works
that may be required, reserving the right to charge back all
related costs as operating expenses. In all probability, it is in
the landlord's interest to avoid that defective work performed by
tenants to implement the ROHS amendments give rise to additional
expenses in the future and/or health problems for the occupants of
the building concerned.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Tells DfE to Stop Delegating its Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spencers Solicitors, in advance of a House of Commons Education
Select Committee evidence session on Wednesday, March 13, on
asbestos in schools, is urging the Government to take action to
address the long ignored problem of asbestos in schools.

Spencers is calling for the current nationwide survey into the
state of England's schools (the DfE's Property Data Survey
Programme) to be extended to identify the scale of the problem of
asbestos in our 23,000 educational premises and then to prioritize
those schools that most need action.

Asbestos in schools is a vitally important and complex issue, but
it has been neglected by successive governments, resulting in the
deaths of teachers and other education workers every year.  It is
time for the DfE to stop delegating responsibility to individual
local authorities and schools and for it to oversee the
development of a nationwide program to protect teachers and
children from the dangers of asbestos.

John Spencer, Director of Spencers Solicitors, said:

"It is deeply shocking that 16 teachers died from mesothelioma in
England in 2011 alone.  If a teacher was killed every month in the
classroom from violence there would be public outrage and urgent
calls for action, but because it is asbestos-related it is largely
ignored.

"It is a complete waste of an opportunity that the Department for
Education is currently running a nationwide survey to consider the
physical state of England's schools, and yet asbestos is
specifically not included.

"In an ideal world we would do all we can to totally eradicate
asbestos from our schools once and for all, but in reality we must
prioritize funding towards those schools where teachers and our
children are most at risk.  We can only prioritize action and
expenditure if the scale of the problem is fully understood."

House of Lords Parliamentary Answer, Feb. 6, 2013,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/13
0206w0001.htm#13020694000372

Specifically, Spencers has called for:

-- The DfE's Property Data Survey Programme to be extended
urgently to include asbestos in schools.

-- There must be openness and transparency about the scale of the
problem.

-- There is no single body responsible for the issues of asbestos
in schools -- this is resulting in a piecemeal approach to the
problem with no national picture of the problem existing.

-- Regular school inspections and a comprehensive database
available publically online of findings should be made available
and there should be the phased removal of asbestos.

-- Future Schools Capital Allocations must include provision for
the removal of asbestos from the schools most at risk.

            Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012

Responsibility for managing the risks from asbestos containing
materials comes under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012
which determines that local authorities and individual schools
have responsibility for the management of schools.  Not having a
significant central role, other than providing guidance on
asbestos management, the Department for Education does not collect
information on the presence and condition of asbestos in schools.

                  About Spencers Solicitors

Spencers Solicitors (www.spencerssolicitors.com) is one of the
UK's leading firms of personal injury claim solicitors.  Based in
Chesterfield, Derbyshire, Spencers is committed to protecting its
clients' best interests by putting duty before profit, and
campaigning for justice for those affected by negligence and
statutory breach, and for the improvement of professional
standards and business practices within the personal injury
system.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Requiring Tags on All Fibro Products Passed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Camden for The Spokesman-Review reports that people buying
supplies for a home remodeling project might not realize that they
have asbestos in them.  The state Senate says the product should
say so, right on the label.

This week, the Senate passed a proposal sponsored by a Spokane
senator to require such labels on a 47-2 vote.  If the House
agrees, labels on everything from wallboard to shingles to floor
tiles to caulk would have to say if there's asbestos inside.

The idea for that bill came from the Spokane Regional Clean Air
Agency staff, which inspects demolition sites for, among other
things, to make sure asbestos wasn't getting into the air.

"This has been an issue for a while," Bill Dameworth, agency
director, said.  It's not usually a problem when wallboard goes up
or shingles go on; it can be a problem when they are torn out, and
the damaged item releases asbestos into the air.

That's a known problem for buildings constructed through the
latter half of the last century.  It's not as well known for newer
buildings or remodeled structures, Dameworth said.  "It's kind of
hard to find a building that you're going to demolish that doesn't
have a lot of asbestos in it."

Asbestos was banned from 1989-1991 by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, but since that time has been used by some
manufactures in common home construction products.  It might be
listed as "mineral fibers" or Chrysotile, which is name for a type
of white asbestos.  Or it might not be listed at all.

The agency's board of directors at one point thought about banning
such products in Spokane County, but after study decided it made
more sense to require labeling so consumers would know what they
were buying, and make their own choices.

Dameworth contacted Sen. Andy Billig, D-Spokane, with the idea for
such a law, a bill was drafted and introduced, picked up several
co-sponsors, received a hearing in the Senate Energy Committee,
which heard testimony from Dameworth and others and was sent to
the Senate floor.

In reality that's the exception rather than the rule in Olympia
where bills are often suggested by powerful interest groups,
worked and reworked for political advantage as they move through
committee and onto the floor.

Billig admitted to colleagues that he was surprised it was even
possible to buy building materials with asbestos.  Sen. Doug
Ericksen, R-Ferndale, said the committee checked with such retail
outlets as Home Depot and Lowe's, who didn't consider the labels a
burden.  "We're not going down the scare route," Ericksen added.

In minutes, all Democrats and all but two Republicans said yes,
and it was among dozens of bills sent to the House Wednesday,
March 13, where it's not expected to be controversial.

Dameworth said he thinks consumers would be glad to know what's in
their products.  If there's a negative reaction to products
containing asbestos, somebody smart will start marketing products
without it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mandatory List of Public Fibro Buildings Pushed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Saskatchewan government says
it will back proposed legislation to make reporting of asbestos in
public buildings mandatory.

Labour Minister Don Morgan said Thursday, March 14, a private
member's bill will proceed through the legislative process to a
committee that will consider things such as what information would
have to be provided on the registry.

"The bill would make it mandatory across a wide range of public
entities and that's something we would want to work out at
committee as to which entities we properly have jurisdiction over
or should control," Morgan said March 14.  "But we think the more
buildings that are included, the better level of safety that we
can offer."

The bill was introduced by the Opposition NDP last fall in honor
of Howard Willems, a former building inspector who died from
mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that comes from inhaling
asbestos fibers.

Willems had argued that people should know if they're going into
buildings that have asbestos -- especially if construction is
being done.

Asbestos is typically found in building materials such as
insulation.  It is not considered harmful if undisturbed, but
renovations or construction work stirs up hazardous fibers that
can be inhaled.

The province said last fall that it would provide lists of more
than 300 government buildings that contain asbestos.

But Willems' family and groups, including the Lung Association of
Saskatchewan, said that didn't go far enough because it wasn't
mandatory for other public buildings such as schools or hospitals
to register.

Morgan said the legislation would make that mandatory.

The Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region did post information and
Morgan said he was "quite surprised" by the details.

"Not only did they say yes or no for a building, but they said,
'In this particular crawl space there's pipes that are coated' and
the various technical details.  And that's the type of information
that will make it safe for somebody to go in and work when you
know where the asbestos is, what it was used for, whether it's
encapsulated," said Morgan.

"That would be the type of information we would want provided from
all of the entities."

Willems' stepson Jesse Todd is pleased with the government's
decision to move forward with a strengthened bill.

"The voluntary registry was an incomplete list," said Todd, who is
also chairman of the Saskatchewan Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization.

"We saw all kinds of variations of information that was submitted.
We saw lists that were one-page letters that didn't provide very
much information at all.  And we also had some of the health
regions provide information that was extremely detailed and right
to the top of our list as far as what the gold standard was."

Willems died a week after the bill was tabled.  Todd said the
bill's passage would be a wonderful tribute.

"He started this fight just over two years ago.  He'd been working
so hard towards that up until his passing last November and we've
been working tirelessly towards this goal," he said.

"We realize we haven't reached the final stage yet, it's not law
yet, but this is an important step in the right direction."

Morgan said the law should pass this spring.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Issue at Pittsburgh Police Academy is Minor
------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Harding of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that a
higher-than-recommended carbon dioxide level found in an
inspection of the Pittsburgh Police Training Academy this week is
no cause for alarm, a city official said as the police bureau
works to correct other problems a state inspector cited six months
ago.

The city approved work on the Highland Park building, costing more
than $51,000 in the past three months, to remove lead and asbestos
and to install an energy-efficient ventilation system in the
basement.

"We continue to do whatever is necessary to maintain the building
and look for ways to upgrade it," Acting Chief Regina McDonald
said.

McDonald said the bureau, Public Works and Citiparks are scouting
for a place for recruits to do physical skills training, which the
building lacks.

State inspectors found potential for lead and evidence of rodents
and sewer backups in the training facility last year.  A Sept. 20
inspection report warned that the city has no documented cleanup
of a former basement firing range, which could contain lead.  The
report cited visible mold and water damage in several rooms, vents
blocked with dust and inadequate ventilation.

McDonald said the bureau is addressing "deficiencies" that the
state inspector listed.

Public Works Director Rob Kaczorowski said the building can be
repaired.

The Allegheny County Health Department air quality test on
Tuesday, March 12, found elevated carbon dioxide levels,
Kaczorowski said, though neither he nor health officials would
release the report or specify the level.

When carbon dioxide levels do not meet accepted air quality
standards, that indicates the air is stagnant.

"There's no health risk with the carbon dioxide, in terms of
causing an illness," Kaczorowski said.  "They felt that could be
resolved by opening a window."

High levels of carbon dioxide can displace oxygen and nitrogen,
potentially causing health problems, the Wisconsin Department of
Health Services says on its website.  Exposure at certain levels
can cause headaches, dizziness or sleepiness, difficulty
breathing, sweating, increased heart rate and elevated blood
pressure.

In 1986, Congress mandated that the Environmental Protection
Agency develop information on indoor air quality for building
owners and facility managers.

Kaczorowski said the health department found no evidence of active
mold growth or excessive water intrusion at the academy.

"The asbestos was minor," Kaczorowski said.  "It has to be
airborne.  This stuff wasn't airborne.  The only problem you'd
have is if you pick it up and eat it."

Officers say recruits use donated facilities to practice gun
retention, fighting and other skills.

"There is currently no area for physical skills training," said
Officer David Wright, an instructor who allows some police
training in his private gym at no cost.

Off and on since at least 1999, recruits have practiced in
abandoned schools, church gymnasiums and, most recently, an empty
UPMC-owned warehouse.

The academy is "not a good facility," said Sgt. Michael LaPorte,
president of Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1.
"When new recruits come in and look at the facility, they go,
'I'll stick around for a year.' "

Lt. Jennifer Ford, who heads the academy, declined to comment.

Zone 3 Cmdr. Catherine McNeilly said she complained in the summer
to the state Department of Labor & Industry about conditions in
the academy, which opened in 1959.  "I was assigned there 20 years
ago, and that building was in bad shape then," McNeilly said.

LaPorte wants city officials to draft a long-term plan for the
training academy.

"No one is planning for the future," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EQC Denies CDHB Officer Crucial Abatement Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Carville of The Press (NZ) reports that a Canterbury
medical officer of health is considering legal action to force EQC
to reveal how many homes contain asbestos hidden by earthquake
repairs.

EQC came under fire for refusing to divulge the number of homes
with concealed asbestos at a Canterbury District Health Board
(CDHB) meeting March 14.

CDHB medical officer of health Dr. Alistair Humphrey told the
board he had asked EQC to provide the information and the name of
the health and safety expert who signed off on the asbestos
process, but said the commission had declined his request.

Humphrey's call for a moratorium on the process has "basically
been ignored."

"At the moment all EQC is saying is: 'We made this decision and we
based it on legal advice.'  I think the public deserves a better
response," he said.

"I want to know why EQC think it's safe to cover over damaged
asbestos and leave it there for decades into the future."

If a homeowner or tradesman started drilling holes into the roof
of an asbestos-ridden property in years to come it could lead to
an array of different health concerns, he said.

Asbestos can cause fatal cancer, asbestosis or scarring of lung
tissue.

"It will be a terrible legacy to leave and the people of
Christchurch deserve better than that."

The best possible outcome would be to immediately halt the process
and then form a register to show which properties contained the
"disguised hazard."

Humphrey has sought legal advice on how to ensure the affected
homes would be identified 'so decades in the future nobody is at
risk."

"I will also look at other legal options if they decide to
continue with this practice," he said.

If Humphrey were to take EQC to court, he would have to do so with
the technical and legal support of the Ministry of Health.

He said the ministry were "fully on side with my view and the CDHB
view that this process should not be happening."

"I really hope it doesn't come to that and that we can sort this
problem out by sensible negotiation, by sitting down, talking and
applying common sense."

EQC customer services general manager Bruce Emson was "puzzled"
with Humphrey's stance.

"If Dr. Humphrey, through the CDHB, wanted to set up a register of
asbestos-containing properties, we would willingly participate,
provided, of course, that we can satisfy the privacy concerns of
the individual property owners," Emson said.

"I had a very constructive conversation with Dr. Humphrey in
regard to this subject this morning during which we agreed a
strategy for raising this at a Canterbury-wide area."  The
Earthquake Commission estimates 43,000 Christchurch homes due for
quake repairs could contain asbestos.

In about 10 percent of cases, asbestos in ceilings will be
"encased" behind plasterboard instead of being removed during
repairs.

Ministry of Health director of public health Dr. Mark Jacobs said
health professionals were "comfortable" with how asbestos is being
contained in Christchurch.

Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee said he spoke to EQC
periodically about asbestos.

"I am very aware this is something we can't take in any way
lightly," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso Victim's Kin Warns of Risk in Local College
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lancashire Evening Post reports that the sister of a former
college lecturer who died from an industrial lung disease, has
warned that thousands of other students and staff may have been
put at risk.

Cynthia Clarke of Fulwood taught in the English Department of
Preston College for nearly 25 years, having joined the staff in
1971 when it was known as Tuson College.

In July 2008 she was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a form of cancer
that is almost exclusively caused by exposure to asbestos.
Despite chemotherapy treatment, she died in April 2010 aged 66.

While she was alive, Ms. Clarke began legal proceedings against
Lancashire County Council (LCC), which were settled out of court
for a 'substantial figure" last summer, despite LCC never
admitting formal liability.

Her sister Elizabeth Smith said: "The pathologist's conclusion
after post-mortem examination was that the malignancy was likely
to have been caused by exposure to asbestos.  The family are not
aware of any such exposure other than at her place of work.

"An inquest by the Preston Coroner determined that she had died of
an industrial disease.

"Although Lancashire County Council and its insurers have never
admitted formal liability, they still paid out."

Mrs. Smith added: "My sister wanted to warn people who had worked
and been students of Preston College."

Ms. Clarke's solicitor, Ruth Davies, said: "My client's case
revolved around ceiling tiles in Preston College that contained
asbestos.

"Quite a lot of these were removed during the 1980s, but my client
had already been there over a decade by that point, and there had
been people going up into the ceiling space, disturbing the
asbestos by fitting cables."

LCC declined to give a formal comment, stating only that Ms.
Clarke was employed by Preston College, and LCC insurers paid out
only as a result of complicated employment terms and conditions
from the 1970s.

A College spokesman said:

"This incident relates to alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that
occurred prior to the College's incorporation in 1992.  Before and
since this time, asbestos has been removed from the vast majority
of the site and any small amounts of residuary asbestos containing
materials are now controlled via asbestos registers and the
College facilities team.

In addition, Preston College only use approved contractors for
working on/with this residual material.

"The investigation into this case also showed the college to be
correct in its management and control of the small remaining
amount of asbestos on site and has full documentation and
processes in place, and are not aware of any further claims of
this nature pertaining to the college.

Preston College acts as a responsible employer and we were
saddened to hear of Ms. Clarke's untimely death and would like to
pass on our condolences to Ms. Clarke's family once again."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Issues Complicate Windsor Farm Cannery Sale
------------------------------------------------------------------
Skye Manson for ABC Rural News reports that administrators of
Australia's last remaining vegetable cannery, at Cowra in NSW, are
talking with external parties to try to sell off the business.

Windsor Farm Foods is in millions of dollars of debt and has laid
off 80 workers.  It was placed into voluntary administration on
Tuesday, March 12, and will be advertised for sale next week.

Spokesperson Trevor Pogroske says there are some problems with the
ailing factory infrastructure.

"I guess it's important for everybody to understand these
buildings are over 70 years old in some cases and we've got a lot
of asbestos issues here," he said.

"People that are buying it will be very, very conscious of the
fact if they want to upgrade the buildings it's going to be very
expensive to deal with, with those asbestos issues."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso Lawsuit v. John Crane, Crane Co Trial Starts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve Hodges of The Madison / St. Clair Record reports
that jurors have been selected in a Bolingbrook, Ill., man's
asbestos lawsuit against John Crane and Crane Company.

Madison County Associate Judge Clarence Harrison's third-floor
courtroom was full of prospective jurors being questioned by a
handful of attorneys.

According to the lawsuit filed June 11, 2012, George Hamblet was a
laborer from  1961-1963 at the Owens Illinois Plastics Plant in
Chicago; as a fireman in the U.S. Navy from 1963-1967 in Illinois,
Virginia, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts and aboard the USS
Damato and USS Joseph P. Kennedy; as a laborer at the Argo Corn
Refining Plant in Bedford Park, Ill., in 1968; as a laborer and
fork lift operator at Continental Can Company in Chicago, 1968-
1978; and as a shade tree mechanic in the state of Illinois from
1960-1979.

During the course of employment, he was exposed to and inhaled,
ingested or otherwise absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers
emanating from certain products he was working with and around,
which were manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by the
defendants.

On April 2, 2012, Hamblet first learned he had developed
mesothelioma, an asbestos-induced disease and the disease was
wrongfully caused.

The suit had sought damages from more than 50 other defendants,
but on the eve of trial, only John Crane and Crane Company
remained as defendants.

Voir dire started at 1 p.m. for what Harrison told the jury pool
would be a two-week trial.

Randy Gori and Erin Beavers of Gori Julian & Associates in
Edwardsville; and Aaron Heckman and Fletcher Trammell --
ftrammell@bpblaw.com -- of Bailey Perrin Bailey in Houston, Texas
represent the plaintiff.

Nicole Behnen -- nbehnen@polsinelli.com -- and Leo Chmielewski --
lchmielewski@polsinelli.com -- and Dennis Dobbels --
ddobbels@polsinelli.com --, Brandy Harty -- bharty@polsinelli.com
-- and Allison Sonneveld -- asonneveld@polsinelli.com -- of
Polsinelli Shughart represent the defense.

Madison County case number 12-L-821.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Kills Housewife Exposed to Hubby's Laundry
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News South East Wales reports that a retired painter whose
wife died from cancer caused by washing his overalls for 20 years
is backing a campaign for more awareness of asbestos.

Eric Ward's wife Valerie died at the age of 78 after being
diagnosed with asbestos-related mesothelioma.

Mr. Ward, 85, had worked at Aberthaw power station in the Vale of
Glamorgan in the 70s and 80s, where he came into daily contact
with asbestos fibers.

Compensation over his wife's death has been donated to a hospice.

"When you think about it, you killed your wife by bringing stuff
home that you shouldn't have done," said Mr. Ward.

Speaking to BBC Radio Wales, he explained how wife Valerie would
wash his dust-covered overalls every week -- unaware of the
dangers hidden in the clothing.

He said that working as a fitter's mate at Aberthaw would mean
removing lagging from pipes, showering him in asbestos dust.

At the end of the day, the dirty overalls would be bagged up and
taken home to be cleaned.

"We had no protection at all.  We would just go down there and do
the job.  We knew that it was lagging and that was it," recalled
Mr. Ward.

"The wife would do all the washing, she would shake the overalls
out and then put it in the washing machine."

Mr. Ward's daughter, Avril added: "Probably, we were all exposed
to it.  At the end of the day it was routine -- something that my
mother did.

"We were unaware of any of the dangers."

Her mother developed symptoms of breathlessness about four years
ago, but it was not until 2010 that mesothelioma was diagnosed.

The disease is directly caused by exposure to asbestos.

Mrs. Ward died within ten weeks of the news.

"My missus got really upset over it, because in her opinion, she
shouldn't have had it in the first place," said Mr. Ward.

"I should have had it -- not my wife.  It should have been me."

Earlier this year, an inquest into her death recorded a verdict of
death by industrial disease.

The family received compensation which they have donated to the
Marie Curie Cancer Care charity which treated Mrs. Ward at its
hospice in Penarth.


                             *********

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  * * *