CAR_Public/130419.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 19, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 77

                             Headlines


ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal From Cert. Denial in "Bucio" Suit Pending
ABM INDUSTRIES: Atty. Fees in "Augustus" Suit Reduced to $4.5MM
ACER AMERICA: Gets Initial Okay of "Wolph" Class Suit Settlement
ADVOCAT INC: Awaits Certification Ruling in FLSA Violations Suit
ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in Arkansas

ADVOCAT INC: Dismissed Suit Over Covington Proposals Refiled
AMERICAN REALTY: Unit Inks MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
AMWAY CANADA: Dentons Discusses Canadian Appeals Court Ruling
BARNES & NOBLE: Faces "Trimmer" FLSA Violations Suit in New York
BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Suits & Probes Over Tampered PIN Pads

BARNES & NOBLE: "Nguyen" Suit Remains Stayed in California
BARNES & NOBLE: Parties in "Lina" Suit in Discovery Phase
BARNES & NOBLE: "Torrez" Suit Remains Pending in California
CANADA: Class Action Over 2007 Transit Walk-Out Can Proceed
CANADA: Paliare Roland Discusses Manuge Suit Settlement Ruling

CEDARLANE NATURAL: Recalls O Organics Black Bean Enchiladas
CR ENGLAND: OOIDA Class Action Over Lease Agreement Ongoing
DELOITTE TOUCHE: Escapes Longtop Securities Class Action
DOLLAR TREE: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Wage Class Action
ERA GROUP: Superior Offshore Suit Remains Pending in Delaware

EXPEDIA INC: Ill. Municipalities File Suit to Recover Unpaid Taxes
EXXONMOBIL: Mum on Class Action Over Pegasus Pipeline Oil Spill
GENESIS HEALTHCARE: High Court Dismisses "Symczyk" Class Suit
HANNAFORD BROS: Judge Denies Class Action Certification
HOWREY LLP: Unsec. Creditor Can't Bring Class Action, Judge Says

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action in Calif.
MANDA PACKING: FSIS Updates List of Stores With Recalled Products
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Publicity Rights Settlements Gets Prelim. Court OK
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Hears Arguments on Concussion Class Action
NOKIA CORP: "Chmielinski" Suit Withdrawn and Dismissed in Dec.

NOKIA CORP: Continues to Defend Product-Related Litigation
NOKIA CORP: Defends Suit in Calif. Over Retirement Savings Plan
NOKIA CORP: Dismissal of Securities Suit Became Final in Jan.
NOKIA CORP: Expects Decision in Retirement Savings Plan Suit
NORTH SHORE-LIJ: Frank & Bianco Files Class Action Over Tax Refund

RED ROCK: Loses Bid to Dismiss Schmidt's Debt Collection Suit
SMALL WORLD: Recalls 4,000 Spin-A-Mals Farm and Safari Puzzles
STRATASYS LTD: Plaintiffs Engaged in Confirmatory Discovery
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Compressors
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Still Defends Suits Over Horsepower Labels

THOR INDUSTRIES: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Move in Formaldehyde MDL
UPMC: Wants Highmark to Turn Over Records of Settlement Talks
WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Food You Feel Good About Roasted Red Pepper
WELLS FARGO: Settles Check Deduction Class Action for $850,000
WINN-DIXIE: Settles Security Breach Class Action

YPF SOCIEDAD: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action

* Securities Class Actions Target C-Suite Execs, PwC Report Says


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. Georgia-Pacific Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Plaintiff Allowed to Withdraw Admissions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Junks Bids to Dismiss 3 Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser's Apportionment Issue Sent to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Favoring Backstrom et al. Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Junks PI Suit Following High Ct. Order
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Remand Suit v. GE & Crane
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 140 Pending Cases as of Feb. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Settles Claims in Jansen Complaint
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestosis Increases Chance of Lung Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Questions Arise Over Bldg. Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Riverton School Board Awards Bid for Remediation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Walkers Raise Money for Charity
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. House Mulls Over Fairness in Claims Act
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Feared in Watford Trust Bldg

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chesterfield Family Probes Cause of Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: York Carriageworkers Think Fibro Killed More
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cwmcarn Councillors Face Options in Fibro School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taconite Industry Workers Face Increased Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Midwife Diagnosed with Mesothelioma

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmania Unions Seeks Assurance of Safe Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widower of Meso Victim Seeks Help From Colleagues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron and Budd Warns Fibro Exposure Continues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Containing Cement Found in Navuso School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ball-Chatham Solicits Bids for Fibro Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Begins in Penryn Hall Renovation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dumped in Beckenham Road
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Raps Waltham Forest Counsel Over Hall Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSU Historian Wins Fellowship to Study Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Justice for Meso-Victim Husband

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cape City Council Approves Remediation Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nebraska Men Sued for Improper Dumping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Saskatchewan Civic Buildings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Causes Fawley Plumber's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found Dumped in Curragh Plains

ASBESTOS UPDATE: District 112 Teacher Questions Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Unearthed at Port Stanvac Refinery Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Underway at Vacated Ill. School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife Contacts Cancer From Husband's Overalls
ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Louis Park Biz Cited for Asbestos Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant Removes PI Suit to Federal Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazards Found at Hakea Prison
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Action Costs Biz Owner GBP7,200
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Renovation Halted for Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Oil Company Employee Dies of Mesothelioma


                             *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal From Cert. Denial in "Bucio" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the class certification denial in Bucio case
remains pending, according to ABM Industries Incorporated's
March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2013.

The Bucio case is a purported class action involving allegations
that the Company failed to track work time and provide breaks.  On
April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class.  At the conclusion of that hearing,
the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.
On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider,
which was denied.  The plaintiffs have appealed the class
certification issues.  The trial court stayed the underlying
lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal.  On August 30, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on the class
certification issues.  The Company filed its responsive brief on
November 15, 2012.

The Company expects to prevail in the ongoing case.  However, as
litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance
in this regard.  If the plaintiffs in one or more of these cases,
or other cases, do prevail, the results may have a material effect
on the Company's financial position or cash flows.

Based in New York, ABM Industries Incorporated is a provider of
end-to-end integrated facility solutions services to thousands of
commercial, governmental, industrial, institutional, retail, and
residential facilities located primarily throughout the United
States.  The Company was reincorporated in Delaware in 1985, as
the successor to a business founded in California in 1909.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Atty. Fees in "Augustus" Suit Reduced to $4.5MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles
reduced a fee motion that originally sought attorneys' fees to
approximately $4.5 million, according to ABM Industries
Incorporated's March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2013.

The Augustus case is a certified class action involving
allegations that the Company violated certain state laws relating
to rest breaks.  On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for summary judgment on the rest break claim, which sought
damages in the amount of $103.1 million, and the Company filed a
motion for decertification of the class.  On July 6, 2012, the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior
Court") heard plaintiffs' motion for damages on the rest break
claim and the Company's motion to decertify the class.  On
July 31, 2012, the Superior Court denied the Company's motion and
entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of
approximately $89.7 million.  This amount did not include
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.  The Company filed a notice of appeal
on August 29, 2012.  The plaintiffs filed three separate motions
for attorneys' fees.  One motion sought attorneys' fees from the
common fund.  The common fund refers to the approximately $89.7
million judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs.  The other
two motions sought attorneys' fees from the Company in an
aggregate amount of approximately $12.4 million.  On October 12,
2012, the Company filed oppositions to the two fee motions seeking
attorney's fees from the Company.

On January 14, 2013, the Superior Court heard all three fee
motions.  It granted plaintiffs' fee motion with respect to the
common fund in full.  The Superior Court denied one fee motion in
its entirety and reduced the other fee motion that originally
sought attorneys' fees to approximately $4.5 million.  This $4.5
million is included in the range of loss for all reasonably
possible losses.  The Company strongly disagrees with the
decisions of the Superior Court both with respect to the
underlying case and with respect to the award of attorneys' fees
and costs.  The Company firmly believes that it has complied with
applicable law.

Based in New York, ABM Industries Incorporated is a provider of
end-to-end integrated facility solutions services to thousands of
commercial, governmental, industrial, institutional, retail, and
residential facilities located primarily throughout the United
States.  The Company was reincorporated in Delaware in 1985, as
the successor to a business founded in California in 1909.


ACER AMERICA: Gets Initial Okay of "Wolph" Class Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in the class action lawsuit captioned LORA AND CLAY
WOLPH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, a California corporation,
Defendant, Case No. CV-09-01314 JSW, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court gives its preliminary approval to the Settlement
Agreement, subject to a hearing on the final approval of the
settlement on behalf of the Class that was certified by the Court
on March 25, 2011:

   All persons and entities who reside in the United States who
   have purchased, and have not returned for refund, a new Acer
   notebook computer from Acer or an Acer Authorized Reseller, not
   for resale, that came pre-installed with a Microsoft(R) Windows
   Vista Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate operating system, and
   contained 1 GB of Random Access Memory or less as shared memory
   for both the system and graphics.

The Court appoints KCC Class Action Services LLC as the Claims
Administrator.

Notice to class members will commence no later than 14 days after
the entry of the Order.  Commencing on or before the Notice Date,
(i) the Defendant will spend $20,000 for static (no rich media),
black and white Banner Advertisement, and  (ii) the Defendant will
spend up to $80,000 in online advertising via Google Adwords
and/or similar services provided on Bing, MSN and/or Yahoo to
purchase the following phrases: "Acer Slow;" "Acer Freeze;" "Acer
Lock up;" "Acer Crash;" "Acer Memory Settlement," and "Acer RAM
Settlement."  This advertising will end at the earlier of when the
$80,000 is exhausted or upon the deadline to object or opt-out.

On or before the Notice Date, the Parties will announce the
settlement via a jointly approved press release that is
distributed to national media outlets.

The Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs and incentive
awards must be filed on or before July 9, 2013 (75 days after the
Notice Date).

Class Members have until July 14, 2013 (90 days after the Notice
Date) to file claims, opt-out or exclude themselves, file a Notice
of Intent to Appear at the Fairness Hearing, object to the
Settlement Agreement or respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs must file their motion for final approval of the
Settlement Agreement on or before August 8, 2013 (105 days after
the Notice Date).

The Fairness Hearing will be held on October 4, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the District Court's April 11, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/JdgU1cfrom Leagle.com.


ADVOCAT INC: Awaits Certification Ruling in FLSA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advocat Inc. is awaiting a court decision on the plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification of a nationwide class of all
of its hourly employees, according to the Company's March 7, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In December 2011 and June 2012, two purported collective action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee and the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas, respectively, against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries.  The complaints allege that the
defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and seek
unpaid overtime wages.  The Middle Tennessee action was resolved
by settlement and dismissed in 2012.  The Plaintiffs in the
Arkansas action have moved for conditional certification of a
nationwide class of all of the Company's hourly employees.  The
Company will defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The Company says it cannot currently predict with certainty the
ultimate impact of any of the cases on its financial condition,
cash flows or results of operations.  The Company's reserve for
professional liability expenses does not include any amounts for
the collective actions, the purported class action against Garland
Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility") or the lawsuit
filed against the Company's directors.  An unfavorable outcome in
any of these lawsuits or any of the Company's professional
liability actions, any regulatory action, any investigation or
lawsuit alleging violations of fraud and abuse laws or of elderly
abuse laws or any state or Federal False Claims Act case could
subject the Company to fines, penalties and damages, including
exclusion from the Medicare or Medicaid programs, and could have a
material adverse impact on the Company's financial condition, cash
flows or results of operations.

Advocat Inc. -- http://www.advocatinc.com/-- provides long-term
care services to nursing center patients in eight states,
primarily in the Southeast and Southwest United States.  The
Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, against Advocat
Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility").  The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached their statutory and contractual
obligations to the residents of the Facility over the past five
years.  The lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet
been certified by the court as a class action.  The Company
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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

The Company says it cannot currently predict with certainty the
ultimate impact of any of the cases on its financial condition,
cash flows or results of operations.  The Company's reserve for
professional liability expenses does not include any amounts for
the collective actions, the purported class action against the
Facility or the lawsuit filed against the Company's directors.  An
unfavorable outcome in any of these lawsuits or any of the
Company's professional liability actions, any regulatory action,
any investigation or lawsuit alleging violations of fraud and
abuse laws or of elderly abuse laws or any state or Federal False
Claims Act case could subject the Company to fines, penalties and
damages, including exclusion from the Medicare or Medicaid
programs, and could have a material adverse impact on the
Company's financial condition, cash flows or results of
operations.

Advocat Inc. -- http://www.advocatinc.com/-- provides long-term
care services to nursing center patients in eight states,
primarily in the Southeast and Southwest United States.  The
Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


ADVOCAT INC: Dismissed Suit Over Covington Proposals Refiled
------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissed class action lawsuit relating to a potential
strategic transaction from Covington Investments, LLC, was refiled
in Tennessee, according to Advocat Inc.'s March 7, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On May 16, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, against the Company's Board of Directors.  This action
alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties
to stockholders related to its response to certain expressions of
interest in a potential strategic transaction from Covington
Investments, LLC ("Covington").  The complaint asserts that the
Board failed to negotiate or otherwise appropriately consider
Covington's proposals.

In November, 2012, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The action was refiled in
the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee (21st Judicial
District) on November 30, 2012.  The lawsuit remains in its early
stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a class
action.  The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously.

The Company says it cannot currently predict with certainty the
ultimate impact of any of the cases on its financial condition,
cash flows or results of operations.  The Company's reserve for
professional liability expenses does not include any amounts for
the collective actions, the purported class action against Garland
Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility") or the lawsuit
filed against the Company's directors.  An unfavorable outcome in
any of these lawsuits or any of the Company's professional
liability actions, any regulatory action, any investigation or
lawsuit alleging violations of fraud and abuse laws or of elderly
abuse laws or any state or Federal False Claims Act case could
subject the Company to fines, penalties and damages, including
exclusion from the Medicare or Medicaid programs, and could have a
material adverse impact on the Company's financial condition, cash
flows or results of operations.

Advocat Inc. -- http://www.advocatinc.com/-- provides long-term
care services to nursing center patients in eight states,
primarily in the Southeast and Southwest United States.  The
Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


AMERICAN REALTY: Unit Inks MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.'s subsidiary entered into
a memorandum of understanding in February 2013 to settle a merger-
related lawsuit, according to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form 8-
K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 6, 2013, American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.
("ARCP") announced the completion of ARCP's acquisition of
American Realty Capital Trust III, Inc., a Maryland corporation
("ARCT III"), pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of December 14, 2012, by and among ARCP, ARCT III, Tiger
Acquisition, LLC ("Merger Sub"), a Delaware limited liability
company and a wholly owned subsidiary of ARCP, ARCT III's
operating partnership and ARCP's operating partnership.
Substantially all of ARCT III's business is conducted through
American Realty Capital Operating Partnership III, L.P. (the
"OP").

Since the announcement of the Merger Agreement on December 17,
2012, one putative class action lawsuit had been filed against
ARCT III, the OP, the members of ARCT III's board of directors,
ARCP, ARCP OP and certain subsidiaries of ARCP in the Supreme
Court for the State of New York.  In February 2013, the parties
agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of
all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class of ARCT III's
stockholders.  In connection with the settlement contemplated by
that memorandum of understanding, the class action and all claims
asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to court approval.
The proposed settlement terms required ARCT III to make certain
additional disclosures related to the Merger, which were included
in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on
February 21, 2013.  The memorandum of understanding also added
that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement,
which will be subject to customary conditions, including
confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to ARCT
III's stockholders.  If the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding.

ARCT III maintains directors and officers liability insurance
which ARCT III believes should provide coverage to ARCT III and
its officers and directors for most or all of any costs,
settlements or judgments resulting from the lawsuit.

New York-based American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. --
http://www.americanrealtycapitalproperties.com/or
http://www.americanrealtycap.com/-- was incorporated in 2010 as a
Maryland corporation that qualified as a real estate investment
trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.  The Company was
formed to acquire and own single-tenant, freestanding commercial
real estate primarily subject to medium-term net leases with high
credit quality tenants.


AMWAY CANADA: Dentons Discusses Canadian Appeals Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
In an article available at InternationalLawOffice.com, Marina E.
Sampson, an associate at Toronto, Canada-based law firm Dentons --
marina.sampson@dentons.com -- reports that the complicated
interplay between holding parties to an arbitration agreement and
upholding the purpose and intent of legislation concerned with
public order is not new in Canada.  In 2011 the Supreme Court of
Canada decided Seidel v Telus Communications Inc.,(1) in which the
court refused to enforce an arbitration agreement at the expense
of a class action proceeding.  Seidel concerned the British
Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.(2)

More recently, on February 13, 2013, the Federal Court of Appeal
handed down its decision in Murphy v Amway Canada Corporation.(3)
In Amway the appeal court affirmed the Federal Court's decision
and declined jurisdiction to hear a motion to certify a class
action in respect of the Competition Act,(4) given the parties'
binding arbitration agreement and class action waiver.  In Amway
both parties relied on Seidel to suit their purposes.  At their
core, the issues and arguments in Amway echoed those of Seidel,
although the Amway result was entirely different.

                              Facts

In Amway Kerry Murphy, an independent business owner and
distributor for Amway Canada, sought to commence a class action
proceeding against Amway Canada Corporation and Amway Global.  The
appellant claimed that the respondent's business practices
contravened various provisions of the Competition Act and sought
C$15,000 in damages.  In response to the appellant's proposed
class action, the respondent brought a motion seeking a stay and
to compel arbitration, all based on the parties' contract (which
mirrored the respondent's contract with its distributors
generally).  The contract contained an arbitration agreement,
whereby the parties agreed to submit any possible claims to
arbitration.  The contract further contained a limited class
action waiver which applied if the amount of a party's individual
claim exceeded C$1,000.

The Federal Court granted the respondent's motion with costs, and
the class proceeding was stayed.  The appeal to the Federal Court
of Appeal sought to set aside the stay in order to pursue the
class proceeding at the Federal Court.

                 Federal Court Motion Decision

On the respondent's motion to stay, the appellant invoked Seidel
to argue that both the class action waiver and a resolution of the
dispute through private arbitration was contrary to public
interest.  The appellant analogized the provisions of the
Competition Act at issue and the provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act relied on in Seidel.

The respondent also relied on Seidel, but only insofar as it
distinguished it from the case at hand. The respondent argued that
Seidel made clear that agreements to arbitrate must be enforced
except when there is clear legislative language to the contrary.
In Seidel, such language existed.

The relevant sections of the Consumer Protection Act considered in
Seidel may be summarized as follows:

Section 3 provides that any waiver of a party's rights, benefits
or protections under the Consumer Protection Act is void, except
to the extent that the waiver or release is expressly permitted by
the Consumer Protection Act; and

Section 172 governs court actions with respect to consumer
transactions for parties to contracts and for third parties,
allowing for both declaratory and injunctive relief.

In Amway, while the appellant had argued that express language
excluding arbitration can be found in Section 36 of the
Competition Act, the judge disagreed.  In his view, while Section
36 identified the Federal Court as a court of competent
jurisdiction, it did not declare it to be the only competent
forum.  The judge found that the provisions of the Competition Act
did not prevent the parties from contracting out of the
jurisdiction of the Federal Court through a valid arbitration
process.  Therefore, the judge concluded that Seidel was an
inappropriate analogy for this case.

                Federal Court of Appeal Decision

The fundamental issue on appeal was whether a private claim for
damages brought under Section 36 of the Competition Act was
arbitrable.

The appellant founded its arguments largely on public interest in
stating that the private and confidential nature of arbitration
was incompatible with the underlying objectives of the Competition
Act -- namely, to promote an environment free of anti-competitive
practices.  The appellant further argued that Seidel stood for the
proposition that public interest concerns could displace an
arbitration agreement.

The respondent submitted that to accept the appellant's argument
would be to exclude from arbitration any claim under Section 36 of
the Competition Act, under any circumstances.  The respondent
relied on a number of recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions
which demonstrated that the presence of public order concerns is
not determinative of whether arbitration is permitted.  The
respondent maintained that there is no language in the Competition
Act which excludes arbitration under Section 36. Without express
language to the contrary, the respondent argued that arbitration
ought to be upheld, all of which was supported by the principles
set out in Seidel.

The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the respondent, finding
that the answer to the question of whether the claim was
arbitrable was found entirely in Seidel and undertaking a thorough
analysis of that decision.

The appeal court considered in detail Justice Binnie's analysis of
Sections 3 and 172 of the Consumer Protection Act in Seidel.  In
Justice Binnie's view, the intent of Section 3 was to invalidate
an arbitration clause to the extent that it took away a right,
benefit or protection conferred by the Consumer Protection Act.
Justice Binnie then opined that the wording of Section 172 made
clear that declarations and injunctions, in a consumer context,
were the preferred remedies to protect the interests of consumers,
and that damages were often less important given the small amounts
of money at issue.  Justice Binnie further stated that Section 172
stood out as a public interest remedy and should receive an
interpretation generous to consumers. He remarked that arbitration
would not properly serve its policy objectives.  Notably, Justice
Binnie stated that the true hallmarks of arbitration -- privacy,
confidentiality, lack of precedential value, the avoidance of
publicity -- were incompatible with the objectives of Section 172
of the Consumer Protection Act.

Having thoroughly considered Justice Binnie's analysis in Seidel,
the appeal court completely accepted it.  The appellant's argument
that competition law was so sacred so as to be incompatible with
arbitration was rejected: competition law does not trump
arbitration agreements.

The appellant's claim was indeed arbitrable.  As the Supreme Court
of Canada had most recently made clear in Seidel, the court will
refuse to give effect to valid arbitration agreements only where
there is clear statutory language that excludes arbitration.
However, the claim in Amway, brought under Section 36 of the
Competition Act, was a private claim and must be sent to
arbitration as the parties intended.  The appeal was dismissed,
with costs.

                             Comment

There may be those who viewed Seidel as a setback for arbitrations
in Canada, rejecting as it did arbitration in favor of a class
action proceeding. With the arrival of Amway, there may now be
those who view Seidel more favorably.  As the Federal Court judge
on the stay motion emphasized, a long line of Canadian cases have
confirmed Canada's status as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
Amway is simply one of the most recent.

The Federal Court of Appeal's analysis of the complicated
interplay between holding parties to an arbitration agreement and
upholding the purpose and intent of legislation concerned with
public order brought the overarching principle from Seidel into
sharper focus.  In the absence of clear legislative language to
the contrary, agreements to arbitrate must be enforced. Amway in
turn saw the enforcement of both a binding arbitration agreement
and a class action waiver.

For further information on this topic please contact Marina
Sampson at Dentons Canada LLP by telephone (+1 416 863 4511), fax
(+1 416 863 4592) or e-mail -- marina.sampson@dentons.com

Endnotes

(1) 2011 SCC 15, [2011] SCR 531.

(2) SBC 2004, c 2.

(3) 2013 FCA 38 (CanLII).

(4) RSC 1985, c 34.


BARNES & NOBLE: Faces "Trimmer" FLSA Violations Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit initiated by
Steven Trimmer in New York, according to the Company's
March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 26, 2013.

On January 25, 2013, Steven Trimmer (Trimmer), a former Assistant
Store Manager (ASM) of the Company, filed a complaint, captioned
Trimmer v. Barnes & Noble, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).
Specifically, Trimmer alleges that he and other similarly situated
ASMs were improperly classified as exempt from overtime and denied
overtime wages prior to July 1, 2010, when the Company
reclassified them as non-exempt.  The complaint seeks to certify a
collective action under the FLSA comprised of ASMs throughout the
country employed from January 25, 2010, until July 1, 2010, and a
class action under the NYLL comprised of ASMs employed in New York
from January 25, 2007, until July 1, 2010.  The Company is
investigating the allegations and claims in the complaint.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in New York.
The Company derives the majority of its sales and net income from
its B&N Retail and B&N College stores.


BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Suits & Probes Over Tampered PIN Pads
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. is facing class action lawsuits and
investigations over tampered PIN pads, according to the Company's
March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 26, 2013.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.
Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012,
the Company has been served with four putative class action
complaints (three in federal district court in the Northern
District of Illinois and one in the Northern District of
California), each of which alleges on behalf of national and other
classes of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes &
Noble Retail stores common-law claims such as claims for
negligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well as
statutory claims such as violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state unfair and
deceptive practices statutes.  The actions seek various forms of
relief including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple
or punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.  The
putative class action filed in California is in the process of
being transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, where the court has ordered it
consolidated with the three putative class actions filed in that
court.  The plaintiffs have been ordered to file a single
consolidated complaint in the case, which the Company expects will
contain allegations and prayers for relief substantively similar
to those previously reported.  The Company says it is possible
that additional litigation arising out of this matter may be filed
on behalf of customers, banks or other card issuers, payment card
companies or stockholders seeking damages allegedly arising out of
this incident and other related relief.

The Company also has received inquiries related to this matter
from the Federal Trade Commission and eight state attorneys
general, all of which have either been closed or have not had any
recent activity, and the Company intends to cooperate with them if
further activity arises.  In addition, payment card companies and
associations may impose fines by reason of the tampering and
federal or state enforcement authorities may impose penalties or
other remedies against the Company.

At this point the Company is unable to predict the developments
in, outcome of, and economic and other consequences of pending or
future litigation or state and federal inquiries related to this
matter.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in New York.
The Company derives the majority of its sales and net income from
its B&N Retail and B&N College stores.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Nguyen" Suit Remains Stayed in California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., remains stayed in California, according
to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January
26, 2013.

On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California, County of Orange against the Company.
The complaint is styled as a nationwide class action and includes
a California state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of
orders for HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company's Web site in
August 2011.  The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business
practices and false advertising under both New York and California
state law, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under
California law, and breach of contract.  The complaint demands
specific performance of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad
Tablets at a specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary
relief, but does not specify an amount.  The Company submitted its
initial response to the complaint on May 18, 2012, and moved to
compel plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis
pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012.
The court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration, and
the Company appealed that denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  The Company has also moved to dismiss the complaint and
moved to transfer the action to New York.  The court granted the
Company's motion to stay on November 26, 2012, and the action has
been stayed pending resolution of the Company's appeal from the
court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in New York.
The Company derives the majority of its sales and net income from
its B&N Retail and B&N College stores.


BARNES & NOBLE: Parties in "Lina" Suit in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit styled Lina v. Barnes &
Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., are
currently engaged in pre-certification discovery, according to the
Company's March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 26, 2013.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
in the Superior Court for the State of California making the
following allegations against defendants with respect to salaried
Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of
California from the period of August 5, 2007, to present: (1)
failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed
meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure
to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement for
business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage
statements.  The claims are generally derivative of the allegation
that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt
from California's wage and hour laws.  The complaint contains no
allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations
or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.
The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011.  On
August 30, 2011, the Company filed an answer in state court, and
on August 31, 2011, it removed the action to federal court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d).  On October 28, 2011, the district court granted
the plaintiff's motion to remand the action back to state court,
over the Company's opposition.  On November 7, 2011, the Company
petitioned the Ninth Circuit for an appeal of the district court's
remand order.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
remand order on May 18, 2012.

The parties are currently engaged in pre-certification discovery.
The state court has not yet set a date for plaintiff's anticipated
motion for class certification, and it has not yet set a trial
date.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in New York.
The Company derives the majority of its sales and net income from
its B&N Retail and B&N College stores.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Torrez" Suit Remains Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dustin Torrez, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes &
Noble, Inc., remains pending in California, according to the
Company's March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 26, 2013.

On October 11, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Francisco against the
Company.  The complaint is styled as a California state-wide class
action.  It alleges violations of California Civil Code section
1747.08 (the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971) due to the
Company's alleged improper requesting and recording of zip codes
from California customers who used credit cards as payment.  The
complaint was re-filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Francisco on December 23, 2011, as a
separate action.  The Summons and Complaint have not been served
on the Company for either action.  On February 10, 2012, the
plaintiff filed a request that the action filed in December be
dismissed with prejudice.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in New York.
The Company derives the majority of its sales and net income from
its B&N Retail and B&N College stores.


CANADA: Class Action Over 2007 Transit Walk-Out Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trudie Mason, writing for CJAD Local News, reports that the courts
have authorized a class action lawsuit on behalf of the transit
users who were inconvenienced during a four-day walk-out by
maintenance workers.

Transit maintenance workers went on strike in 2007, causing
significant disruptions to service.  The lawsuit seeks C$50
compensation per person.  At the time, the transit authority
offered angry passengers a maximum refund of C$3.50.

If the class action succeeds, the transit agency will be on the
hook for C$5-million.


CANADA: Paliare Roland Discusses Manuge Suit Settlement Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret L. Waddell, Esq. -- marg.waddell@paliareroland.com --
senior partner at Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP, writing
for Canadian Lawyer Magazine, reports that on April 4, the Federal
Court of Canada approved the massive settlement of a class action
in Manuge v. Canada, brought on behalf of disabled veterans of the
Canadian Armed Forces.  Since June 1976, the Federal Government
had been deducting Pension Act disability payments from the
amounts payable to veterans under their Service Income Security
Insurance Plan LTD benefit plan.  The loss of this income had a
devastating effect on some class members of limited means and
resulted in a substantial hardship to others.

Although the practice had been ongoing since 1976, it was not
until 2007 that any proceeding was brought to challenge the way
the federal government interpreted its obligations under the SISIP
LTD plan.  This is a strong testament to the beneficial effect
class action legislation has in providing access to justice for
the disadvantaged who, on their own, do not have the resources or
fortitude to take on the colossal challenge and financial risk of
asserting a claim against the government.

The plaintiff was successful in having the action certified as a
class proceeding, despite a many-pronged defense to the
certification motion.  Typical of most hotly contested
certification motions, particularly those where a substantial
amount is at stake and the issues are far-reaching, the
certification decision was appealed.  On appeal the decision of
the motions judge was reversed.  This could have been a bitter end
to the claim of more than 4,500 disabled veterans but class
counsel persevered, appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada,
where the plaintiff ultimately prevailed.

In a strategically intelligent move, the parties proceeded with a
motion to have the fundamental issue of how the terms of the SISIP
LTD plan should be interpreted determined as a question of law.
Federal Court Justice Robert Barnes concluded that the Crown was
wrong to deduct pension benefits from the disabled veterans' SISIP
benefits:

"Giving effect to the SISIP offset of Pension Act disability
benefits wholly deprives disabled veterans of an important
financial award intended to compensate for disabling injuries
suffered in the service of Canadians.  The SISIP offset
effectively defeats the Parliamentary intent that is inherent in
the Pension Act which is to provide modest financial solace to
disabled CF members for their non-financial losses. . . . The
practical consequence of the claimed offset is to substantially
reduce or to extinguish the LTD coverage promised to members of
the Class by the SISIP Policy with particularly harsh effect on
the most seriously disabled CF members who have been released from
active service.  That is an outcome that could not reasonably have
been intended and I reject it unreserved."

Once the legal issue of interpretation of the pension contract had
been resolved, it was obvious to the parties the plaintiff would
prevail at the common issues trial, and negotiations to settle
ensued.  Here again, class counsel demonstrated their mettle.  The
settlement they achieved provides benefits not just to the
original class of about 4,500 veterans,; but to an expanded class
of approximately 7,500 vets and their affected family members.  It
includes full compensation for the improper deductions back to
1976, despite a strong limitations period argument in favor of the
Crown for most of the extended class period.

The total present value of the settlement is estimated at more
than C$887 million, likely the fourth highest settlement in
Canadian class actions.  Furthermore, the Crown has agreed to stop
the practice of taking similar offsets from other federal
financial support programs.  Hence, this case demonstrates in
spades the positive effect class action litigation can achieve.

Here, some of Canada's most vulnerable and deserving citizens
gained access to the courts to challenge a long-standing and
unlawful practice carried out by the Crown that was causing very
real loss to the class.  The claims were resolved in favor of not
just the original class, but a much expanded class, all of whom
had been treated in the same way.  And the Crown has modified its
practices, voluntarily stopping taking similar deductions in
comparable circumstances.  Judicial economy, access to justice,
and behavior modification have all been successfully achieved.

Class counsel deserve to be well compensated for this outcome.
The success achieved as a result of the efforts of class counsel
should be the primary factor against which the fees are measured,
with due regard being had as well to all the other well-known
factors enumerated in Parsons v. Canadian Red Cross Society,
including the terms of the retainer agreement with the
representative plaintiff, the risks assumed, the time spent, the
complexity of the case, and the character and importance of the
litigation.

In Manuge, Justice Barnes was highly laudatory of class counsel
and the results achieved.  He recognized:

   * the skillful and tenacious advocacy of class counsel;

   * the high quality of the legal work performed by class counsel
led to the favorable liability outcome;

   * the terms of the settlement are equally impressive;

   * the solutions adopted by the parties to resolve the class'
entitlement to general damages, and the inclusion of surviving
spouses and dependent children were novel and creative;

   * class counsel spent more than 8,500 hours, worth over $3.2
million, and will spend a great deal more time in completing the
settlement given the large and highly engaged class; and,

   * the litigation was extremely important to the class.

Justice Barnes acknowledged, "These are results that would not
have been reasonably contemplated by anyone at the outset of this
litigation."

The risks class counsel undertook were enormous.  This was not a
case of "low hanging fruit."  The outcome was far from certain.
What was certain is the litigation would be hotly contested and
ongoing for many years.  If the motion for determination of a
legal issue had not been successful, the case would have been
lost.  If there had been no such motion, then the litigation would
have been very complex and involve massive document production and
pretrial maneuvering.

Justice Barnes noted: "Given the Defendant's adversarial approach
to the motion to certify, counsel would have assumed that they
were exposing themselves to a financial risk measured in the
potential loss of professional time and disbursements of probably
tens of millions of dollars."

However, at this point, after properly enumerating the factors to
take into consideration, the court misdirected itself regarding
the assessment of what a reasonable fee should be in these
circumstances.

Justice Barnes' decision was driven by his conclusion the effect
of deducting legal fees from the settlement fund would negatively
impact the recovery to the class.  This is, of course, self-
evident.  Every litigant is deprived of some amount of their
recovery in order to pay counsel for prosecuting the action on
their behalf, unless the lawyer has agreed to do it pro bono.

In Manuge, counsel entered into a contingency fee agreement,
agreeing to assume the risks of the litigation and all ongoing
expenses, and they prosecuted the claim to an exceptional result.
They expected and deserved to be richly rewarded for their efforts
when the claim was successfully resolved.

In the ordinary course, a contingency fee in the range of 20 to 33
per cent is not unusual.  The fee is not driven by a simple hours-
times-fee multiple, and it is intended to have the possible result
of a substantial premium.  The contingency premium is an important
element to the class action regime.  Absent the potential for a
substantial fee, there would be little incentive for counsel to
take on difficult cases.  The risk of losing would be too great.

Class actions are sometimes lost.  Unless counsel can look to the
possibility of making up the loss through the premiums gained in a
winning case, they simply would not assume the risk, certainly not
where the cases are highly complex, aggressively defended, and
drawn out.  Why work without payment for years, while expending
tens of thousands of dollars, or more, on the costs of the
litigation, unless the return justifies the efforts?

Barnes failed to give proper weight to the contingency agreement
for the wrong reason.  He said at the time it was made, the
parties had no idea how the litigation would unfold.  Which is
true, and is exactly the point.  The contingency agreement should
never be looked at through the lens of the end result, but from
what the parties' realistic expectations were at the outset.  A
contingency agreement should reward counsel who are able to
innovatively bring a case to swift and effective conclusion --
which is better for both the class and the administration of
justice.

In this case, counsel recognized the percentage fee called for in
their contingency agreement would have been unacceptably high,
given the size of the settlement and the amount of work they
expended to achieve it.  They fairly sought a fee at a much
reduced percentage: only 7.5 per cent of the gross value of the
settlement.  Without applying the percentage to the settlement
amount, but only looking at a contingency fee of 7.5 per cent, one
would be hard-pressed to say it was unreasonable under any
circumstances.

The judge, however, disagreed.  He said: "Cases that generate a
recovery of a few million dollars may well justify a 25 per cent
to 30 per cent costs award.  It is more difficult to support such
an approach where the award is in the hundreds of millions of
dollars."

He concluded a fee of approximately four per cent of gross
recovery was appropriate.  With the greatest of respect, in my
view this decision was misdirected, internally inconsistent, and
wrong.  If it is appropriate for class counsel to be paid 25 to 30
per cent in a case where the risks are similar, the time expended
is similar, and the results are much smaller, there is no
justification for a substantially reduced percentage fee when the
recovery is greater.  Each class member's recovery is still
reduced by the same percentage, and all other factors are static
as well.

The parties agreed on a reasonable percentage at the outset and at
the end.  In fact, at the settlement approval hearing, many class
members confirmed that they agreed the fee sought was reasonable.

It would appear the judge simply found that the fee sought was too
big to chew.  In my view, that is not an appropriate
consideration.  If, on review of the factors in Parsons, the
percentage sought appears reasonable, then there is no reason not
to apply it to the result, no matter how large or small the total
may be.

In Manuge, the risks assumed were substantial and the results
exceptional.  Class counsel should have been rewarded accordingly.
If fees are reduced arbitrarily simply because they are large,
this could have a deleterious effect on future class actions.  The
incentive to take difficult cases advocating for the systemically
disadvantaged would be negatively impacted.  There are few enough
counsel prepared to undertake the risks of these cases, let's not
discount the reward incentives that sustain the system just
because in the exceptional case the fee seems large.  The
exceptional case deserves an exceptional reward.


CEDARLANE NATURAL: Recalls O Organics Black Bean Enchiladas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cedarlane Natural Foods, Inc., is voluntarily recalling one
specific lot of O Organics Black Bean Enchiladas because they
contain undeclared milk.  People with an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reactions if they consume this product.  Symptoms may
include itching, hives, wheezing, vomiting, anaphylaxis and
digestive problems, such as bloating, gas or diarrhea.  No
illnesses have been reported to date.

The Class 1 recall only affects O Organics Black Bean Enchiladas 9
oz. bearing the Best Before date of Oct 26 2013 packaged in
printed boxes and sold in Safeway, Carrs, Dominicks, Genuardi's
Pak'N'Save, Pavilions, Randalls, Tom Thumb and Vons.  The Best
Before Date are printed on the left side of the printed box.
Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm348238.htm

The products were distributed across the United States.  No other
lots or products are affected.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the wrong
product was packed in to the O Organics Black Bean Enchilada box
and the presence of milk was not declared.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled product are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers
with questions may contact Cedarlane Natural Foods, Inc. at 800
826 3322.


CR ENGLAND: OOIDA Class Action Over Lease Agreement Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sandi Soendker, writing for Land Line Magazine, reports that
despite last month's final judgment from a federal judge in Utah,
the 10-year court battle between truckers and a Salt Lake City
carrier does not appear to be over yet.

On March 12, Judge Ted Stewart of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah entered final judgment in the class action
lawsuit of OOIDA v. C.R. England, awarding the class more than
$1.3 million.

On April 5, CRE filed an appeal.

According to David Cohen, an attorney with The Cullen Law Firm,
OOIDA's litigation counsel, because of CRE's latest appeal, there
will be no distribution of any monies until the appeal is
concluded.  Mr. Cohen said the total number of class members was
approximately 6,000.  Of those, he said that approximately 1,000
would be entitled to receive a cash award under the judgment.

OOIDA President Jim Johnston said the Association was set to file
a cross-appeal, an appeal that, if won, could raise the amount of
the final award.

Issues to be raised on cross appeal include the court's denial of
a statutory trust for escrow funds, its rejection of the 18
percent interest rate for escrow funds unlawfully retained by
England, and the court's refusal to award restitution for
England's markups on tires, parts and fuel.

The appeal process is likely to take between a year and 18 months.

The class-action lawsuit was first filed in 2002 and went to trial
in federal court in 2006.  In 2007, Judge Stewart found C.R.
England in violation of the federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations.
He ruled that the lease agreement C.R. England used with its
owner-operators between 1998 and the summer of 2002 violated the
federal regulations.  He ruled that C.R. England's "Independent
Contractor Operating Agreement" violated the chargeback, forced-
purchase and escrow provisions of the leasing regulations.

In the 2007 decision, the court also held that C.R. England's
lease violated the escrow provisions of the leasing regulations,
and specifically found that the motor carrier had improperly
managed truckers' escrow accounts.  The case has remained active
these past years due to lengthy court-ordered accounting of every
escrow fund managed by CRE.


DELOITTE TOUCHE: Escapes Longtop Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on April 8 tossed Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. as a
defendant in a proposed class action accusing Hong Kong-based
financial services software developer Longtop Financial
Technologies Ltd. of lying to investors and exaggerating the size
of its profit margins.  U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin
said that lead plaintiff Danske Invest Management A/S had failed
to sufficiently allege that Deloitte violated federal securities
laws in signing off on Longtop accounts between June 2009 and May
2011.


DOLLAR TREE: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that nearly 6,300 Dollar Tree
employees are waiting to hear whether a federal judge in Norfolk
certifies a lawsuit over wages as a class action.  The workers
claim they often worked through their unpaid half-hour lunch
breaks and are now seeking overtime for those hours.

"In an effort to provide low-cost merchandise to its customers and
still maximize profits, defendant Dollar Tree has engaged in a
policy, pattern or practice of requiring its thousands of hourly
associates and assistant managers to work without pay, in several
ways," the lawsuit says.

According to The Virginian-Pilot, U.S. District Judge Raymond
Jackson has granted conditional certification of the class.
Before the judge makes a final decision, attorneys for both sides
will present additional evidence to help him determine whether the
employees' experiences, and the remedies for compensating them,
share enough in common to allow them to move forward together.
D.G. Pantazis Jr., an attorney for the employees, said he expects
a decision on that issue by this summer.

Tim Reid, a spokesman for Chesapeake-based Dollar Tree, said the
company has a longstanding policy not to comment on pending
litigation.

Dollar Tree has almost 82,000 employees in 48 states.  In its
March annual report, the retailer lists eight pending lawsuits --
including four class actions alleging federal wage-and-hour
violations -- as part of its discussion of legal proceedings that
could have a financial impact on the company.

The case in Norfolk was originally filed in Kane County, Ill., by
two Dollar Tree employees in November 2011.  Dollar Tree succeeded
in getting the case transferred to Norfolk in June 2012.
Thousands of additional employees could join the lawsuit, which
estimates that the retailer owes more than $5 million in unpaid
compensation.


ERA GROUP: Superior Offshore Suit Remains Pending in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Superior Offshore
International, Inc., remains pending in Delaware, according to Era
Group Inc.'s March 7, 2013, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On January 31, 2013, SEACOR Holdings Inc. ("SEACOR") completed the
spin-off ("Spin-off") of the Company by means of a dividend to
SEACOR's stockholders of all of the Company's issued and
outstanding common stock.

On June 12, 2009, a purported civil class action was filed against
SEACOR, Era Group Inc., Era Helicopters LLC and three other
defendants (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware, Superior Offshore
International, Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-438
(D. Del.).  The Complaint alleged that the Defendants violated
federal antitrust law by conspiring with each other to raise, fix,
maintain or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services in
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico during the period January 2001 to December
2005.  The purported class of plaintiffs included all direct
purchasers of such services and the relief sought included
compensatory damages and treble damages.  On September 4, 2009,
the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint.  On
September 14, 2010, the Court entered an order dismissing the
Complaint.  On September 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration and amendment and a motion for re-argument
(the "Motions").  On November 30, 2010, the Court granted the
Motions, amended the Court's September 14, 2010 Order to clarify
that the dismissal was without prejudice, permitted the filing of
an amended Complaint, and authorized limited discovery with
respect to the new allegations in the amended Complaint.

Following the completion of such limited discovery, on
February 11, 2011, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment to dismiss the amended Complaint with prejudice.  On June
23, 2011, the District Court granted summary judgment for the
Defendants.  On July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On
July 27, 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the
defendants.  On August 9, 2011, Defendants moved for certain
excessive costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1927 (the "Fee Motion").  On October 9, 2012, the District
Court denied the Fee Motion.

Era Group Inc. -- http://www.eragroupinc.com/-- was incorporated
in 1999 in Delaware and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.  The
Company is one of the largest helicopter operators in the world.
The Company also provides helicopters and related services to
third-party helicopter operators in other countries.


EXPEDIA INC: Ill. Municipalities File Suit to Recover Unpaid Taxes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
group of seven Illinois local governments are suing to collect
unpaid hotel taxes from a number of online travel agencies.

The cities of Warrenville, Oakbrook Terrace and Rockford and the
villages of Bedford Park, Oak Lawn, Orland Hills and Willowbrook
filed their 33-page complaint on April 5 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Among the named
defendants are online travel companies Expedia, Travelocity,
Hotwire, Priceline and Hotels.com.

The municipalities filed the class action to address what they
call "ongoing tax evasion" by the companies.  They contend the
companies market and sell hotel rooms in the state, but fail to
pay or remit taxes on the amount customers pay to stay in those
rooms.

"As stated, Defendants' business practices include charging
Consumers unitemized taxes and fees on each sale of Lodging.  The
Consumer is led to believe Defendants are remitting the correct
amount of Accommodations Tax to Plaintiffs.  Defendants, however,
are calculating the tax liability of the general public (and
Defendants) based upon the Wholesale Rate Defendants paid the
Hotel for the room, not upon the Retail Rate that the Consumer
paid Defendants," the municipalities wrote in their complaint.
"As a result, the Accommodations Tax liabilities paid by the
general public and owed to Plaintiffs are underpaid/unpaid by the
Defendants who unlawfully retain the difference.

"These practices deprive Plaintiffs and the Class the full amounts
due and owing to them from each sale of Lodging."

The cities contend the online companies, in failing to pay taxes
on the full rates charged, maintain a competitive advantage.

"The lawsuit filed in Illinois seeks to even the playing field,"
said Thomas K. Prindable of Clifford Law Offices PC, a Chicago law
firm representing the plaintiffs.

"There needs to be greater transparency in exactly what these
companies are charging its online customers."

Paul A. O'Grady -- pogrady@pjmlaw.com -- of Peterson, Johnson &
Murray SC in Chicago, John W. Crongeyer of Crongeyer Law Firm in
Atlanta, and William Q. Bird and Kristen L. Beightol of Bird Law
Group in Atlanta also are representing the municipalities.


EXXONMOBIL: Mum on Class Action Over Pegasus Pipeline Oil Spill
---------------------------------------------------------------
ICIS reports that ExxonMobil on April 8 declined to comment on a
class-action lawsuit recently filed against the US energy giant
after the March 29 Pegasus pipeline rupture and oil spill that
forced the evacuation of 22 homes in Mayflower, Arkansas.

"We do not comment on legal matters," said company spokesperson
Kim Jordan.

Kathryn Chunn and Kimla Greene on Friday filed the complaint to US
District Court in the Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of
themselves and others similarly affected.

The lawsuit is seeking more than $5 million (EUR3.85 million) in
damages.

"This Arkansas class-action lawsuit involves the worst crude oil
and tar sands spill in Arkansas history and directly impacts all
individuals who reside by the ExxonMobil Pegasus Pipeline," the
court document said.

"Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to recover for a permanent
diminishment in property value for being located near the unsafe
and defective pipeline on behalf of all property owners similarly
situated throughout the state of Arkansas who are in close
proximity to the Pegasus Pipeline," it added.

In its latest update on April 6, ExxonMobil estimated that 5,000
bbl of oil was spilled in the incident, adding that a final
estimate will be released once the line has been repaired and
refilled.

The company said that much of the free-standing oil has been
recovered, and most of the impacted soil has been removed from the
six homes impacted by the spill.

The main body of Lake Conway remains oil free, and there has been
no impact on the drinking water supply, ExxonMobil added.

On April 5, the Arkansas attorney general's office gave ExxonMobil
a deadline of April 10 to produce investigative reports,
inspection documents and other information connected to the
incident.

ExxonMobil also was issued an order from the US Department of
Transportation (DOT) that requires the company to take "necessary
corrective action to protect public, property and the environment
from potential hazards" associated with the incident, said the
DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA).

ExxonMobil must obtain written approval from the director of
PHMSA's southwest region before the Pegasus pipeline can return to
service.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has categorized the
incident as a major spill, and a number of federal, state and
local agencies are assisting ExxonMobil with response efforts.

The cause of the spill is under investigation, the company has
said.


GENESIS HEALTHCARE: High Court Dismisses "Symczyk" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A divided United States Supreme Court tossed out a purported class
action lawsuit with only one member.  The Supreme Court, in a 5-4
decision, reversed a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, ruling that the lawsuit was appropriately dismissed
at the District Court level for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.

In 2009, Laura Symczyk, a registered nurse at Pennypack Center in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint on behalf of herself
and "all other persons similarly situated" against her former
employer, Genesis Healthcare Corporation.

She alleged that Genesis et al. violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 by automatically deducting 30 minutes of time worked
per shift for meal breaks for certain employees, even when the
employees performed compensable work during those breaks.  Ms.
Symczyk, who remained the sole plaintiff throughout these
proceedings, sought statutory damages for the alleged violations.

When Genesis et al. answered the complaint, they simultaneously
served upon Ms. Symczyk an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 68.  The offer included $7,500 for alleged unpaid
wages, in addition to "such reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses . . . as the Court may determine."  Genesis et al.
stipulated that if Ms. Symczyk did not accept the offer within 10
days after service, the offer would be deemed
withdrawn.

After Ms. Symczyk failed to respond in the allotted time period,
Genesis et al. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.  Genesis et al. argued that because they
offered Ms. Symczyk complete relief on her individual damages
claim, she no longer possessed a personal stake in the outcome of
the suit, rendering the action moot.  Ms. Symczyk objected,
arguing that Genesis et al. were inappropriately attempting to
"pick off " the named plaintiff before the collective-action
process could unfold.

The District Court found that it was undisputed that no other
individuals had joined Ms. Symczyk's suit and that the Rule 68
offer of judgment fully satisfied her individual claim.  It
concluded that Genesis et al.'s Rule 68 offer of judgment mooted
Ms. Symczyk's suit, which it dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed.  It agreed
that no other potential plaintiff had opted into the suit, that
Genesis et al.'s offer fully satisfied Ms. Symczyk's individual
claim, and that, under its precedents, whether or not such an
offer is accepted, it generally moots a plaintiff's claim.  But
the Third Circuit nevertheless held that Ms. Symczyk's collective
action was not moot.  It explained that calculated attempts by
some defendants to "pick off" named plaintiffs with strategic Rule
68 offers before certification could short circuit the process,
and, thereby, frustrate the goals of collective actions.  The
Third Circuit determined that the case must be remanded in order
to allow Ms. Symczyk to seek "conditional certification" in the
District Court.  If Ms. Symczyk were successful, the District
Court was to relate the certification motion back to the date on
which Ms. Symczyk filed her complaint.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion for the majority,
held that in the absence of any claimant's opting in, Ms.
Symczyk's suit became moot when her individual claim became moot,
because she lacked any personal interest in representing others in
this action.  While the FLSA authorizes an aggrieved employee to
bring an action on behalf of himself and "other employees
similarly situated," the mere presence of collective-action
allegations in the complaint cannot save the suit from mootness
once the individual claim is satisfied.

According to Justice Thomas, because Ms. Symczyk had no personal
interest in representing putative, unnamed claimants, nor any
other continuing interest that would preserve her suit from
mootness, her suit was appropriately dismissed for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.

Justice Thomas is joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito.

Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor joined.
Justice Kagan held that Ms. Symczyk's failure to accept, or even
respond, to Genesis's judgment is not a ground for declaring her
individual claim moot.

"An unaccepted settlement offer -- like any unaccepted contract
offer -- is a legal nullity, with no operative effect. As every
first-year law student learns, the recipient's rejection of an
offer 'leaves the matter as if no offer had ever been made,'"
Judge Kagan said.

"After the offer lapsed, just as before, Symczyk possessed an
unsatisfied claim, which the court could redress by awarding her
damages.  As long as that remained true, Symczyk's claim was not
moot, and the District Court could not send her away empty-handed.

"So a friendly suggestion to the Third Circuit: Rethink your
mootness-by-unaccepted-offer theory. And a note to all other
courts of appeals: Don't try this at home."

The case is GENESIS HEALTHCARE CORP. ET AL. v. SYMCZYK CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No.
11-1059.

A copy of the Supreme Court's April 16, 2013 decision is available
at:

   http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1059_5ifl.pdf


HANNAFORD BROS: Judge Denies Class Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
SC Magazine reports that a Maine judge has denied class-action
certification to plaintiffs affected by the 2008 breach of the
Hannaford Bros. grocery chain.  U.S. District Court judge D. Brock
Hornby ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove how much in out-
of-pocket expenses.


HOWREY LLP: Unsec. Creditor Can't Bring Class Action, Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that a California
bankruptcy judge ruled on April 8 that a Howrey LLP unsecured
creditor cannot bring a class action in federal court to try to
hold the firm's former equity security holders accountable for its
downfall.  Denying Howrey Claims LLC's motion, the judge said the
creditor hadn't established cause to modify the automatic stay
protecting Howrey from litigation while the firm is in bankruptcy,
and hadn't established just cause for relief.  The ruling is a
setback for the creditor, which hoped a federal court would hear
its allegations.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on April 8 disclosed that it filed a class
action lawsuit on April 8, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf
of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly-traded common stock of Impax Laboratories, Inc. between
February 25, 2011 and March 4, 2013, inclusive.

The action charges Impax and certain of its officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Complaint
alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company made false
and misleading statements and concealed material information
regarding manufacturing deficiencies at the Company's Hayward,
California manufacturing facility.

Impax is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the
development, manufacture, and marketing of bio-equivalent
pharmaceutical products, referred to as generics, in addition to
the development of branded products.  The complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, Impax concealed from shareholders that:
(1) the Company failed to maintain proper quality control and
manufacturing practices at its Hayward facility in violation of
current Good Manufacturing Practices; (2) the Company failed to
take proper remedial actions to correct quality control issues
identified by the FDA in prior inspections of the Hayward
facility; (3) the extent of the adverse effect that the
manufacturing deficiencies at the Hayward facility could have on
the Company's ability to successfully launch its new branded drug,
RYTARY(TM); and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Impax lacked a
reasonable basis for its positive statements about the Company and
its outlook, including statements about its ability to launch
Rytary or a generic version of a drug called Concerta(R) in 2013.

The truth about Impax and its manufacturing practices was revealed
on March 4, 2013.  That day, Impax announced that the FDA had
completed an inspection of the Company's Hayward facility.  Based
on its inspection, the FDA issued a new Form 483, which is a form
used by the FDA to document and communicate deficiencies in a
company's quality system discovered during an onsite inspection.
In the Form 483, the FDA cited twelve "observations," or problems,
at the Hayward facility requiring remediation, including three
repeat manufacturing problems that had not been corrected
following prior FDA inspections.  On a conference call hosted by
the Company that day, Impax further revealed that, due to the
manufacturing deficiencies, it did not expect to be able to launch
Rytary or a generic version of Concerta until 2014.  In reaction
to these revelations, Impax's stock price declined $5.20 per
share, or 26 percent, to close at $14.80 per share on March 5,
2013, on extraordinary trading volume.

If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the
complaint and join this class action online at
http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm

If you purchased Impax common stock during the Class Period, you
may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California no later than May 6, 2013.  A lead
plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent Class
members.  You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to
share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you are a Class
member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in
that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain counsel
of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have
any questions about the lawsuit, you may contact Rachel A. Avan,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow LLP, at (800) 321-0476 or (212) 907-0709,
or via e-mail at ravan@labaton.com

Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- represents
institutional investors in class action and complex securities
litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions
seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices.
The firm has offices in New York, New York and Wilmington,
Delaware.


MANDA PACKING: FSIS Updates List of Stores With Recalled Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
meat and poultry deli products (roast beef, ham, turkey breast,
tasso pork, ham shanks, hog head cheese, corned beef, and
pastrami) that have been recalled by Manda Packing Company.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/CDvWNw(and http://is.gd/IAZCqo),in
addition to the list of retail stores, to check meat or poultry
products in the consumers' possession to see if they have been
recalled.

    Retailer Name               City and State
    -------------               --------------
    Ben E. Keith                Stores in AR
    Brookshire Brothers         Stores in LA and TX
    Dollar General              Stores in LA
    Kroger                      Stores in LA and TX
    Piggly Wiggly               Stores in LA
    Schnuck Markets             Stores in IL and MO
    Walmart                     Stores in AL, FL, GA, KY, LA,
                                MO, and TX


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Publicity Rights Settlements Gets Prelim. Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Campbell, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
$50 million settlement between the NFL and a group of retired
players over publicity rights was given preliminary approval on
April 8 by a federal judge who likened some of the retirees to
petulant children for complaining about the money now that it has
been awarded.

The settlement of the class-action lawsuit was reached last month,
but some of the plaintiffs opposed the agreement, arguing it's not
good enough.  U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson said in his order
that the contentious nature of the case and the complexity and
expense of further litigation "weigh heavily in favor" of final
approval of the settlement, which could take place this summer.

"It is the height of disingenuousness for these same plaintiffs to
now complain, like children denied dessert, that the settlement
does not benefit enough the individuals who brought the lawsuit,"
Judge Magnuson wrote.  "The benefits of this settlement to the
class are plain: it will assist those who most need assistance,
and will resolve the very problem that this lawsuit seeks to
address by allowing former players true access to the value of
their rights of publicity.  Every hour of attorney time spent
opposing the settlement only diminishes the value of that
settlement to the members of the class."

Some $42 million will be distributed to a "common good" trust over
the next eight years to help retired players with issues like
medical expenses, housing and career transition.  The settlement
will also establish a licensing agency for retirees to ensure
compensation for the use of their identities.

Attorneys for Elvin Bethea, John Dryer, Jim Marshall, Dante
Pastorini, Joe Senser and Ed White, six of the plaintiffs on the
original complaint filed in Minneapolis in 2009, wrote to Magnuson
last week to express concern that the class represented by the
lawsuit cannot be directly compensated through the settlement.

They also complained about the lack of a neutral party to guide
administration of the funds.

The original lawsuit accused the NFL of exploitation of the
identities of retired players in highlight films and memorabilia.
The settlement calls for the NFL to pay $42 million toward the
cause and another $8 million in associated costs including start-
up money for the licensing agency.

The common good fund will be administered by a group of retired
players approved by the court.  The licensing agency will for the
first time market retiree publicity rights in conjunction with the
NFL, thereby making it easier for retired players to work with
potential sponsors and advertisers.

In the past, if Mr. Marshall, for example, was approached by a
company looking to pay him to use footage of him as a player in a
commercial or advertisement, the company had to seek NFL approval,
the Minnesota Vikings for more approval and further approval from
any other player featured in that footage.

The settlement only covers those players who are currently
retired, but players who retire in the future will have the chance
to utilize the newly formed licensing agency.

According to ProFootballTalk's Mike Florio, a hearing on the final
approval of the settlement will be held on September 19, 2013.  In
the interim, all members of the class will have an opportunity to
file their own objections to the proposed agreement, which
"provides for a fund overseen by a panel of former player . . .
that will distribute payments to assist former players and their
families, and for a licensing agency to market former players'
publicity rights, with the blessing (and the use of some
trademarks and copyrights) of the NFL."

The efforts will be overseen by a group of players that includes
Mr. Dryer's former teammate with the Rams, Jim Youngblood.  Also
on the panel will be Jim Brown, Irv Cross, Billy Joe Dupree, Ron
Mix, Darrell Thompson, and David Robinson.

Once a class action settlement receives the preliminary blessing
of the presiding judge, the case usually settles according to the
proposed deal.  But the law requires i's to be dotted and t's to
be crossed before the rights of people who haven't joined the
lawsuit are determined, even if few if any of those people will
ever complain.

"It bears repeating:  the individuals who originally brought this
lawsuit and who now oppose the settlement rode into Court on the
banner of saving their downtrodden brethren, those who had played
in the NFL yet today were penniless and, often, suffering from
injuries or illnesses directly related to their playing days,"
Judge Magnuson writes.  "It is the height of disingenuousness for
these same Plaintiffs to now complain, like children denied
dessert, that the settlement does not benefit enough the
individuals who brought the lawsuit."


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Hears Arguments on Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike DeNardo, writing for CBS, reports that a federal judge in
Philadelphia was set to hears arguments on whether to dismiss a
class action lawsuit accusing the NFL of hiding the risks of
concussions on April 9.

The class action suit by more than 4,000 former NFL players
accuses the league of hiding the dangers of concussions (see
related story).  Players want their case to remain in federal
court, where they can use the rules of discovery to get a look at
NFL files to find out what the league knew about the effects of
repetitive brain injuries.

The NFL, though, is expected to argue that players' health and
safety were covered under collective bargaining agreements -- so
the matter should be heard by a labor arbitrator.

Judge Anita Brody is not expected to rule for several months, and
her decision will likely be appealed.


NOKIA CORP: "Chmielinski" Suit Withdrawn and Dismissed in Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Chmielinski v. Nokia Corporation
was withdrawn and dismissed in December 2012, according to the
Company's March 7, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On May 3, 2012, the class action complaint entitled Chmielinski v.
Nokia Corporation was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York naming Nokia Corporation and
two of its executives as defendants.  In summary the complaint
alleged that from October 26, 2011, to April 10, 2012, false
positive statements were made about Nokia's financial outlook and
growth prospects in relation to the conversion to a Windows Phone-
based operating system for smartphones.  After investigation, the
plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the case against all defendants
without any compensation being paid to any plaintiff or their
counsel by any defendant.  On December 12, 2012, the complaint was
withdrawn and dismissed.

Headquartered in Espoo, Finland, Nokia Corporation --
http://www.nokia.com/-- is a public limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Finland.  Nokia is
in the business of mobile communications, whose products have
become an integral part of the lives of people around the world.


NOKIA CORP: Continues to Defend Product-Related Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Corporation continues to defend itself against product-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

Nokia and several other mobile device manufacturers, distributors
and network operators were named as defendants in a series of
class action lawsuits filed in various U.S. jurisdictions.  The
actions were brought on behalf of a purported class of persons in
the U.S. as a whole, consisting of all individuals that purchased
mobile devices without a headset.  In general, the complaints
allege that handheld cellular telephone use causes and creates a
risk of cell level injury and claim the defendants should have
included a headset with every hand-held mobile telephone as a
means of reducing any potential health risk associated with the
telephone's use.  All of these cases have been withdrawn or
dismissed.

The Company has also been named as a defendant along with several
other mobile device manufacturers and network operators in twelve
lawsuits by individual plaintiffs who allege that the radio
emissions from mobile devices caused or contributed to each
plaintiff's brain tumor and other adverse health effects.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia determined that
adverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellular
handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission radio frequency emission guidelines are pre-empted by
federal law.  Claims that are based upon handsets that operate
outside the Federal Communications Commission Guidelines, or were
in use before the guidelines were established in 1996, are not
pre-empted.  The plaintiffs in the subject lawsuits all allege
that their handsets either operated outside the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission emission guidelines or were manufactured
before any guidelines were established.  The lawsuits also allege
an industry wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing
surrounding the establishment of emission guidelines and testing
protocol.  A hearing on the admissibility of the plaintiffs'
proffered general causation evidence will likely occur in the
fourth quarter of 2013, at the earliest.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit, and
will continue to defend itself against these actions.  Other
courts that have reviewed similar matters to date have found that
there is no reliable scientific basis for the plaintiffs' claims.

Headquartered in Espoo, Finland, Nokia Corporation --
http://www.nokia.com/-- is a public limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Finland.  Nokia is
in the business of mobile communications, whose products have
become an integral part of the lives of people around the world.


NOKIA CORP: Defends Suit in Calif. Over Retirement Savings Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Corporation is defending a lawsuit in California brought on
behalf of participants in or beneficiaries of the Nokia Retirement
Savings and Investment Plan, according to the Company's March 7,
2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On September 19, 2012, a class action based on the U.S. Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") entitled Romero v. Nokia
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The complaint named Nokia Corporation,
certain Nokia Corporation Board members, Fidelity Management Trust
Co., The Nokia Retirement Savings & Investment Plan Committee and
the Plan Administrator, as well as certain individuals from the
Nokia Retirement Savings & Investment Plan Committee.  The
complaint claimed to represent all persons who were participants
in or beneficiaries of the Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment
Plan (the "Plan") who participated in the Plan between January 19,
2012, and the present and whose accounts invested in the Nokia
Stock Fund.  The complaint alleged that the named individuals
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, permitting
the plan to offer the fund as an investment option, permitting the
plan to invest in the fund and permitting the fund to invest in
and remain invested in American Depository Receipts of Nokia
Corporation when the defendants allegedly knew the fund and
Nokia's shares were extremely risky investments.

On December 10, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint against all defendants without prejudice and filed a new
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants Nokia Inc., the Nokia
Retirement Savings and Investment Plan Committee, and several
individuals alleged to be plan fiduciaries, claiming to represent
all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Nokia
Retirement Savings and Investment Plan (the "Plan") who
participated in the Plan between January 19, 2012, and the present
and whose accounts invested in the Nokia Stock Fund.  The
complaint alleges that named individuals breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, permitting the plan to offer the
fund as an investment option, permitting the plan to invest in the
fund and permitting the fund to invest in and remain invested in
American Depository Receipts of Nokia Corporation when the
defendants allegedly knew the fund and Nokia's shares were
extremely risky investments.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit, and
it will continue to defend itself against this action.

Headquartered in Espoo, Finland, Nokia Corporation --
http://www.nokia.com/-- is a public limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Finland.  Nokia is
in the business of mobile communications, whose products have
become an integral part of the lives of people around the world.


NOKIA CORP: Dismissal of Securities Suit Became Final in Jan.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit in New York
became final in January 2013, according to Nokia Corporation's
March 7, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On February 5, 2010, a lawsuit was initiated by a municipal
retirement fund in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of itself, and was seeking
class action status on behalf of purchasers of American Depository
Shares or ADS's, of Nokia between January 24, 2008, and September
5, 2008, inclusive, to pursue remedies under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").  An amended complaint
was filed in the same lawsuit on August 23, 2010, by a different
municipal retirement fund that was appointed lead plaintiff.  The
complaint generally alleged that certain officers and executives
of Nokia Corporation violated the Exchange Act when they allegedly
failed to disclose materially adverse facts about the Company's
business in a timely manner, including allegations of failures to
disclose product launch delays, intense price competition, loss of
market share to competitors and changing worldwide market
conditions, all of which were adverse to the Company.  After
extensive proceedings, the case was dismissed by the Court on
December 12, 2012.  No appeal was taken and the dismissal became
final on January 12, 2013.

Headquartered in Espoo, Finland, Nokia Corporation --
http://www.nokia.com/-- is a public limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Finland.  Nokia is
in the business of mobile communications, whose products have
become an integral part of the lives of people around the world.


NOKIA CORP: Expects Decision in Retirement Savings Plan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Corporation is expecting a decision this year in the class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of the participants in or
beneficiaries of the Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan,
according to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On April 19, 2010, and April 21, 2010, two individuals filed
separate putative class action lawsuits against Nokia Inc. and the
directors and officers of Nokia Inc., and certain other employees
and representatives of the company, claiming to represent all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Nokia
Retirement Savings and Investment Plan (the "Plan") who
participated in the Plan between January 1, 2008, and the present
and whose accounts included investments in Nokia shares.  The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to comply with their
statutory and fiduciary duties when they failed to remove Nokia
shares as a plan investment option.  The cases were consolidated
and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on September 15,
2010.  The amended complaint alleges that the named individuals
knew of the matters alleged in the securities case that the
matters significantly increased the risk of Nokia shares
ownership, and as a result of that knowledge, the named defendants
should have removed Nokia shares as a Plan investment option.  The
plaintiff's claims were dismissed in their entirety on September
5, 2011.

On September 13, 2012 the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend their complaint a second time and entered judgment
in favor of Nokia.  On October 23, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an
appeal of the District Court's order granting judgment in favor of
Nokia.  A decision on the Appeal is expected in 2013.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit, and
the Company will continue to defend itself against this action.

Headquartered in Espoo, Finland, Nokia Corporation --
http://www.nokia.com/-- is a public limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Finland.  Nokia is
in the business of mobile communications, whose products have
become an integral part of the lives of people around the world.


NORTH SHORE-LIJ: Frank & Bianco Files Class Action Over Tax Refund
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank & Bianco LLP on April 8 disclosed that it has filed a class
action complaint in the Supreme Court of New York, New York
County, captioned Weinberg v. North Shore-LIJ Health System, Case
No. 153122/2013.  The lawsuit is filed on behalf of persons who
were medical residents, including fellows in training programs, at
North Shore-LIJ Health System and its member hospitals, from
January 1, 1995, through and including March 31, 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that North Shore-LIJ failed to adequately
notify Medical Residents of the availability of a refund of
Federal Insurance Contributions Act taxes that North Shore-LIJ
improperly withheld from Medical Residents during the Class
Period.

In 2010 the U.S. Treasury Department made available a refund of
the improperly withheld FICA taxes upon its receipt of a consent
form from the Medical Residents.  From July through August 2010,
North Shore-LIJ mailed the consent form for the refund to the
Medical Residents.  That consent form needed to be signed and
returned to North Shore-LIJ in order for the Medical Residents to
receive the refund.

The complaint alleges that North Shore-LIJ did not adequately
update the up to 15 year old addresses it had on file for its
Medical Residents before mailing the consent form.  As a result,
Plaintiff and other members of the Class did not receive notice of
the FICA tax refund, did not receive the consent form, and
therefore, were not refunded tens of thousands of dollars of
improperly withheld FICA taxes.

If you were a Medical Resident at North Shore-LIJ, or one of its
member hospitals, from January 1, 1995, through and including
March 31, 2005, and wish to discuss this litigation, or have any
questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact us.


RED ROCK: Loses Bid to Dismiss Schmidt's Debt Collection Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James C. Mahan denied a motion to dismiss the class
action lawsuit captioned MICHAEL SCHMIDT, et al., Plaintiff(s), v.
RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant(s), No. 2:12-CV-1773
JCM (PAL), (D. Nev.).

The case arises out of the Plaintiffs' claim that Red Rock
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
1692, et seq., in attempting to collect unpaid debts owed by the
Plaintiffs to third parties.  The Plaintiffs' putative class
action complaint contends that the collection letters did not
comply with the FDCPA for two reasons: (i) the collection letters
required plaintiffs to dispute the debts in writing; and (ii) the
collection letters contained a clause which stated defendants
would prepare and file a lien for delinquent assessments on behalf
of the original creditor if the balance was not paid in full
within 30 days.  The Plaintiffs seek: (1) statutory damages in the
amount of $1,000, plus costs and fees incurred in connection with
the prosecution of plaintiffs' claims; (2) statutory damages
awarded to the class members of the amount not to exceed the
lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the debt
collector; (3) disgorgement; (4) actual damages incurred by
plaintiffs; and, (5) a declaration that the form letters violated
the FDCPA pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1592k(a)(3).

The Defendant served a Rule 68 offer of judgment that offered the
Plaintiffs: (1) the total sum of $3,003; (2) reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees incurred by the Plaintiffs in prosecuting their
claims under the FDCPA; (3) any verifiable actual damages; and,
(4) to stipulate to a declaration as sought by plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs declined the offer, which has since lapsed.

After the Plaintiffs declined the offer, the Defendant filed the
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  The Defendant argues
that the Plaintiffs have mooted the case or controversy
requirement by declining the offer.

Judge Mahan said the Court does not find the case moot under the
more flexible nature of the mootness doctrine in relation to class
certification.  "This case has been brought as a putative class
action, therefore the Rule 68 offer of judgment does not render
the action moot," he added.

The court has not set a deadline for the filing of a motion for
class certification.  The local rules of the District of Nevada do
not impose a particular deadline for filing a motion for class
certification.  Though the Defendant contends that there has been
ample time for filing, the Court did not set any deadline for the
class certification motion and discovery has not concluded.
Therefore, says Judge Mahan, because no deadline has been imposed
and discovery has not concluded, the Court, at this time, cannot
rule any motion for class certification untimely.

Accordingly, the Court denied Red Rock's motion to dismiss.

A copy of the District Court's April 10, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/jGB0Zqfrom Leagle.com.


SMALL WORLD: Recalls 4,000 Spin-A-Mals Farm and Safari Puzzles
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Small World Toys Enterprises, of Torrance, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,000 Children's Wooden Puzzles.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Small pegs on the puzzle boards can loosen and separate from the
boards, posing a choking hazard to children.

The firm has received four reports of pegs separating from puzzle
boards.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled products are Ryan's Room brand Spin-A-Mals Farm and
Spin-A-Mals Safari puzzles intended for children over 12 months of
age.  Both toys are made of wood.  The puzzles consist of a
painted, rectangular board with pegs mounted to it and removable
gear and animal-shaped pieces.  The farm puzzle has 14 puzzle
pieces including three animal pieces: a cow, a dog and a sheep.
The safari puzzle has 11 puzzle pieces.  Children place the pieces
onto the pegs and use the knob on one of the pieces or insert an
animal figure into other pieces to rotate all of the gears.  The
puzzle boards have "2012 Small World Toys" on the bottom right.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/SaTAHU

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at toy
stores nationwide and catalogs from May 2012 through October 2012
for about $25.

Consumers should immediately take the puzzles away from children
and contact Small World Toys for a free replacement toy.  After
contacting Small World Toys, the recalled toys should be destroyed
and disposed of in a manner to prevent future use.  Small World
Toys may be reached at (800) 421-4153 from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday, e-mail
recall@smallworldtoys.com, or online at
http://www.smallworldtoys.com/,then click on "Recall" for more
information.


STRATASYS LTD: Plaintiffs Engaged in Confirmatory Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in merger-related lawsuits are presently engaged in
confirmatory discovery with respect to the disclosures made in
proxy statement/prospectus, according to Stratasys Ltd.'s
March 7, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 1, 2012, the Company, formerly known as Objet Ltd.,
completed a merger with Stratasys, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
Pursuant to the merger, Stratasys, Inc. became the Company's
indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary.

On June 29, 2012, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (the "Minnesota Court"), naming Stratasys, Inc., the
members of its board of directors, and Objet's two indirect,
wholly-owned subsidiaries party to the merger agreement (Seurat
Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Objet, or Holdco, and Oaktree Merger Inc., a
Delaware corporation, or Merger Sub) as defendants.  On July 2,
2012, another purported class action complaint was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Court"),
naming the same persons as well as Objet as defendants.  A third
purported class action was filed on July 17, 2012, also in the
Minnesota Court naming the same parties (except for Objet) as
defendants.  The complaints generally allege that, in connection
with approving the merger, the Stratasys, Inc. directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to Stratasys, Inc. stockholders and
that Stratasys, Inc., Objet, Holdco and Merger Sub knowingly aided
and abetted the Stratasys, Inc. directors' breaches of their
fiduciary duties.  The complaints sought, among other things,
certification of the case as a class action, an injunction against
the consummation of the transaction, a judgment against the
defendants for damages, and an award of fees, expenses and costs
to plaintiffs and their attorneys.

While the Company and the other defendants believe that each of
the lawsuits is without merit and that the Company has valid
defenses to all claims, in an effort to minimize cost and expense
of any litigation relating to such lawsuits, on September 6, 2012,
the Company and other defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") with the parties to the actions pending in
the Chancery Court and the Minnesota Court, pursuant to which the
Company and such parties agreed in principle, and subject to
certain conditions, to settle those stockholder lawsuits.  Subject
to approval of the appropriate court and further definitive
documentation, the MOU establishes a framework to resolve the
allegations against the Company and other defendants in connection
with the merger agreement and contemplates a release and
settlement by the plaintiffs of all claims against the Company and
other defendants and the Company's and their affiliates and agents
in connection with the Merger Agreement.  In exchange for such
release and settlement, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the
parties agreed, after arm's-length negotiations, that Stratasys,
Inc. would file a Current Report on Form 8-K amending and
supplementing the applicable disclosure in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus, dated August 8, 2012, which had been sent to
Stratasys, Inc. stockholders.

The plaintiffs are presently engaged in confirmatory discovery
with respect to the disclosures made in the proxy
statement/prospectus.  In addition, the parties are engaged in
negotiating a final settlement agreement, which will be submitted
to the Delaware Court for approval.  However, if the conditions
set forth in the MOU are not satisfied or the Delaware Court fails
to approve the settlement, the litigation will proceed, and the
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend these actions.

Stratasys Ltd. -- http://www.stratasys.com/-- an Israeli company,
was incorporated in 1998, initially as Objet Geometries Ltd.,
later known as Objet Ltd.  After acquiring Stratasys, Inc., the
Company changed its name to Stratasys Ltd.  The Company is a
global provider of additive manufacturing solutions for the
creation of parts used in the processes of designing and
manufacturing products and for the direct manufacture of end
parts.  The Company has dual headquarters -- in Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, and in Rehovot, Israel.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Compressors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company continues to defend itself against
antitrust class action lawsuits arising from investigation in the
compressor industry, according to the Company's March 7, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On February 17, 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ") and
a formal request for information from the Secretariat of Economic
Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil ("SDE") related to
investigations by these authorities into possible anti-competitive
pricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressor
industry.  The European Commission began an investigation of the
industry on the same day.

The Company has entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with
the DOJ under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy.
Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to not bring any
criminal prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect to
the investigation against the Company as long as the Company,
among other things, continues its full cooperation in the
investigation.  The Company has received similar conditional
immunity from the European Commission and the SDE, and has
received or requested immunity or leniency from competition
authorities in other jurisdictions.  On December 7, 2011, the
European Commission announced it had reached a cartel settlement
under which certain of the Company's competitors received fines
for the conduct investigated.  As a result of the Company's
conditional immunity, it was not assessed any fine.

While the Company has taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and
other sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory
authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions
brought by private plaintiffs.  The public disclosure of these
investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in
Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United
States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups.
All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") procedures.

Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh Compressor Company, Tecumseh
do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do Brasil U.S.A. LLC entered into a
settlement agreement with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs on June
24, 2010, to resolve claims in the action in order to avoid the
costs and distraction of this ongoing class action litigation.

On June 13, 2011, the Court issued an order denying without
prejudice a motion for preliminary approval of the Company's
proposed settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs because
the time frame and products covered by the proposed settlement
class were inconsistent with the Court's rulings of the same date
granting, in part, a motion by the other defendants to dismiss
claims by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second
Amended Master Complaint to reflect the court's rulings on the
motion to dismiss which allowed them to cover fractional
compressors, or compressors of less than one horsepower, used for
refrigeration purposes (but excluding those used for air
conditioning) purchased from February 25, 2005, to December 31,
2008 (the "Covered Products").

On October 15, 2012, the Company entered into a new settlement
agreement with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs (the "Settlement
Agreement"), which must be approved by the court.  The Settlement
Agreement was made by and between the Company and its subsidiaries
and affiliates, and plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of
a class of persons who purchased the Covered Products in the
United States, its territories and possessions, directly from a
defendant.  Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in
exchange for plaintiffs' full release of all U.S. direct-purchaser
claims against the Company relating to refrigeration compressors,
the Company agreed to pay a settlement amount of $7.0 million and,
in addition, agreed to pay up to $150,000 for notice and
administrative costs associated with administering the settlement.
These costs were recorded as an expense in the second quarter
ended June 30, 2010 (and paid in the third quarter of 2010), in
the line item captioned "Impairments, restructuring charges, and
other items."  Under the original agreement, administrative costs
were $250,000; however upon signing the new settlement, the
difference was refunded to Tecumseh Products Company.

For the remaining indirect purchaser class actions in the U.S., a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on June 30, 2010, and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser class
action on August 30, 2010.  On June 7, 2012, the court partially
granted a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
with regard to claims for purchasers in several states in which
the complaint identified no named plaintiff.  Supplemental briefs
on the remaining issues raised in motions to dismiss have been
submitted to the court, which has not yet ruled on the issues.  In
Canada, the class actions are still in a preliminary stage.

Persons who engage in price-fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust
law generally are jointly and severally liable to private
claimants for three times the actual damages caused by the joint
conduct.  As a conditional amnesty recipient, however, the
Company's civil liability will be limited pursuant to the
Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, as
amended ("ACPERA").  As long as the Company continues to cooperate
with the civil claimants and comply with the requirements of
ACPERA, the Company will be liable only for actual, as opposed to
treble, damages and will not be jointly and severally liable for
claims against other participants in the alleged anticompetitive
conduct being investigated.

On March 12, 2012, a proceeding was commenced by Electrolux do
Brasil S.A., in the Civil Division of the State District Court in
Sao Paulo, Brazil, against Tecumseh Do Brasil Ltda. and two other
defendants, jointly and severally.  The complaint alleges that
Electrolux suffered damages from over pricing due to the
activities of a cartel of which the Company and Whirlpool were
members.  The complaint states that the amount in controversy is
Brazilian Real 1,000,000.  However, Electrolux would be entitled
to recover any damages it is able to prove in the proceeding, in
the event that they exceed this amount.  The Company timely filed
opposition to this claim.  Electroluxs' expert reports were filed
for consideration by the court that states the claim is time
barred due to the expiration of the applicable statute of
limitations.  The Company intends to continue to vigorously
contest the claim.

Due to uncertainty of the Company's liability in these cases, or
other cases that may be brought in the future, the Company has not
accrued any liability in its financial statements, other than for
the claims subject to the Settlement Agreement.  The Company's
ultimate liability or the amount of any potential future
settlements or resolution of these claims, if any, could be
material to the Company's financial position, consolidated results
of operations and cash flows.

The Company anticipates that it will incur additional expenses as
it continues to cooperate with the investigations and defends the
lawsuits.  The Company expenses all legal costs as incurred in the
Consolidated Statements of Operations.  Such expenses and any
restitution payments could negatively impact the Company's
reputation, compromise the Company's ability to compete and result
in financial losses in an amount which could be material to the
Company's financial position, consolidated results of operations
and cash flows.

Tecumseh Products Company -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is a
Michigan corporation organized in 1934 and headquartered in Ann
Arbor.  The Company's products include air conditioning and
refrigeration compressors, as well as condensing units, heat pumps
and complete refrigeration systems.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Still Defends Suits Over Horsepower Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company continues to defend itself against
lawsuits over horsepower labels of lawnmower engines and
lawnmowers in Canada, according to the Company's March 7, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a
lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against the Company and several other defendants
(including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John
Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton
Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The
Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler
Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawn
mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in
lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the
horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers in violation of
the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and
the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act.  The Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for
their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gas
combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either
the lawn mower or the engine contained within the lawn mower was
manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors
between January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment.  The Plaintiffs
seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs
and equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition
Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh
Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November
2007, have notified the Company that they claim indemnification
with respect to this lawsuit under the Company's Stock Purchase
Agreement with them.

At this time, the Company does not have a reasonable estimate of
the amount of its ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any
potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to
the Company's financial position, consolidated results of
operations and cash flows.

On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court
of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish
against the Company and several other defendants advancing
allegations similar to those in the Foster case.  The Plaintiffs
seek undetermined monetary damages, punitive damages, interest,
costs, and equitable relief.  Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation
and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company
and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have
notified the Company that they claim indemnification with respect
to this lawsuit under the Company's Stock Purchase Agreement with
them.

At this time, the Company does not have a reasonable estimate of
the amount of its ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any
potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to
the Company's financial position, consolidated results of
operations and cash flows.

Tecumseh Products Company -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is a
Michigan corporation organized in 1934 and headquartered in Ann
Arbor.  The Company's products include air conditioning and
refrigeration compressors, as well as condensing units, heat pumps
and complete refrigeration systems.


THOR INDUSTRIES: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Move in Formaldehyde MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thor Industries, Inc. is awaiting for the plaintiffs' next move in
the FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Litigation, according to the
Company's March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2013.

Beginning in 2006, a number of lawsuits were filed against
numerous trailer and manufactured housing manufacturers, including
complaints against the Company.  The complaints were filed in
various state and federal courts throughout Louisiana, Alabama,
Texas and Mississippi on behalf of Gulf Coast residents who lived
in travel trailers, park model trailers and manufactured homes
provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")
following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.  The complaints
generally alleged that residents who occupied FEMA supplied
emergency housing units, such as travel trailers, were exposed to
formaldehyde emitted from the trailers.  The plaintiffs alleged
various injuries from exposure, including health issues and
emotional distress.  Most of the initial cases were filed as class
action lawsuits.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(the "MDL panel") had the authority to designate one court to
coordinate and consolidate discovery and pretrial proceedings in a
proceeding known as multidistrict litigation ("MDL").  The MDL
panel transferred the actions to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court") because
the actions in different jurisdictions involved common questions
of fact.  The MDL Court denied class certification in December
2008, and consequently, the cases were administered as a mass
joinder of claims (the "MDL proceeding").

On December 21, 2011, the MDL Court issued an Order that, among
other matters, mandated certain manufacturing defendants in the
litigation, including the Company and several of its recreation
vehicle ("RV") subsidiaries, to participate in mediation in
January 2012.  The Company's Heartland subsidiary participated in
a mediation on January 27, 2012, and reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the pending claims against it on February 2,
2012.  The other Thor RV subsidiaries involved in the MDL
proceeding collectively participated in a mediation on
January 19, 2012, and during a second mediation session held on
February 10, 2012, reached an agreement in principle to resolve
the litigation.  On March 27, 2012, Heartland and its insurance
carriers entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU")
memorializing the February 2, 2012 settlement.  On March 30, 2012,
Thor Industries, Inc., for itself and on behalf of its other RV
subsidiaries involved in the MDL proceeding, and its insurance
carriers, entered into an MOU memorializing the settlement reached
on February 10, 2012.

On April 19, 2012, the Company disclosed that it and its RV
subsidiaries involved in the MDL proceeding, their respective
insurance carriers, several unaffiliated manufacturers of RVs and
their insurers, and legal representatives of the plaintiffs each
executed a Stipulation of Settlement.

On June 1, 2012, the Company paid $4.7 million into the Registry
of the United States District of Louisiana.  This payment
represents full payment of the Company and its subsidiaries'
obligation under the Stipulation of Settlement.

On September 27, 2012, after counsel for the plaintiffs produced
the list of members of the class who requested exclusion from the
proposed settlement, the MDL Court conducted a Fairness Hearing
during which final approval of the proposed settlement was
evaluated.  On that same date, the Court approved the settlement
and entered a final, appealable order dismissing all of the claims
pending in the MDL litigation.  Because no plaintiffs with claims
against the Company or any of its subsidiaries opted out of the
settlement, this order, assuming no appeal is taken, effectively
ends the litigation against the Company and its subsidiaries.

Thor Industries, Inc., was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in
Jackson Center, Ohio.  Through its subsidiaries, the Company
manufactures a wide range of recreation vehicles and small and
mid-size buses at various manufacturing facilities across the
United States.


UPMC: Wants Highmark to Turn Over Records of Settlement Talks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling, writing for TribLIVE, reports that a federal judge
should order Highmark and lawyers for plaintiffs in a class-action
antitrust lawsuit to turn over records of their settlement talks
to UPMC, a retired judge said in a report filed on April 8.

The hospital system contends that the lawsuit is a "sham" and that
Highmark and lawyers representing Royal Mile Co. and the other
plaintiffs are working together to hurt UPMC's business.

U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti appointed Richard A. Levie,
a retired superior court judge for the District of Columbia, to
untangle competing evidence claims in the lawsuit.  Judge Levie
said UPMC's arguments are "sufficiently strong" to justify giving
it a look at the records.

Scott Hare, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said that
while they have since filed a motion to withdraw the proposed
settlement, they disagree with Judge Levie's recommendation.

"This proposed settlement is not the product of collusion.  It is
not a sham.  That is nothing more than a wild fishing expedition
by UPMC," he said.

A UPMC spokesman declined to comment.  A Highmark spokesman
couldn't be reached.

Judge Conti has yet to rule on the motion to withdraw the proposed
settlement.  She is in the process of appointing a health care
economist to determine what value it would have for premium
payers.


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Food You Feel Good About Roasted Red Pepper
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets is recalling approximately 1,100 affected
units of Wegmans Food You Feel Good About Roasted Red Pepper Dip,
8 oz. tub, with a best-by date of 5/17/13, because some of the
tubs may have an incorrect ingredient label that does not list
milk and eggs.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity
to milk or eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The affected units were distributed to Wegman stores in New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts.

The product is produced for Wegmans by Summer Fresh Salads, Inc.
of Woodbridge, Ontario, Canada, and sold in 8 oz. plastic tubs
bearing UPC 77890 23286 with a best-by date of 5/17/13.  Picture
of the recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm348329.htm

There have been no reported illnesses to date.

The recall was initiated after a customer contacted Wegmans'
consumer affairs department and made them aware of the label
discrepancy.

Concerned customers should return the product to their local
Wegmans service desk for a full refund.  Wegmans customers with
questions or concerns should contact the consumer affairs
department at 1-855-WEGFOODS (934-3663), Monday through Friday,
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.


WELLS FARGO: Settles Check Deduction Class Action for $850,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Brush, writing for Law360, reports that a former Wells Fargo
& Co. mortgage consultant who claims the bank illegally docked his
pay every time he performed a credit check that did not result in
a loan asked a New York federal judge on April 5 to approve an
$850,000 class action settlement.  Plaintiff Trevor D'Andrade
proposed the settlement just over two years after he filed suit
claiming Wells Fargo deducted $15 for a single credit check -- $25
for a double check -- every time he probed the credit of a
customer.


WINN-DIXIE: Settles Security Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Christian Conte, writing for Jacksonville Business Journal,
reports that an employee purchase program company has agreed to
pay $428,500 to resolve a class action lawsuit filed by a former
Winn-Dixie employee after his personal employee data was breached,
according to public records.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court Southern District
of Florida in 2012 after Patrick Burrows was informed by the
Internal Revenue Service that he was not eligible for a tax refund
because someone else had already filed for one using his identity.

The suit was filed against Purchasing Power LLC, along with Winn-
Dixie, and claimed damages of more than $5 million for damages
related to the breach of Winn-Dixie employee names, address, birth
dates, salaries and Social Security numbers.

The April 5 settlement is for all Winn-Dixie employees who had
their personal identifying information transferred to a specific
Purchasing Power file in 2009.  The award includes $225,000 for
class members who establish claims, $200,000 for attorneys' fees
and $3,500 as an incentive award fee to Mr. Burrows for acting as
the class representative.

In the settlement Purchasing Power denies the allegations in the
company, but "nevertheless, for the purpose of avoiding the
burden, expense, risk and uncertainty of continuing to litigate
the action, and for the purchase of putting to rest the
controversies engendered by the action, and without any admission
of any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever, Purchasing Power
desires to settle the action."


YPF SOCIEDAD: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 8 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
American Depositary Shares of YPF Sociedad Anonima between
December 22, 2009 and April 16, 2012, inclusive seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 8.  If you wish to discuss this action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or
via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

Any member of the putative 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.

YPF describes itself as "Argentina's leading energy company,
operating a fully integrated oil and gas chain with leading market
positions" in the exploration, development and production of crude
oil, natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas, and the refining,
marketing, transportation and distribution of energy-based
products.  Since 1999, YPF was owned and controlled by Repsol
S.A., formerly known as Repsol YPF, S.A.  Repsol is a Spanish-
based, integrated oil and gas company that is engaged in all
aspects of the oil and gas industry.

The complaint alleges that in late 2007, Repsol hoped that it
could shield itself against possible Argentinean government
aggression and began to reduce its exposure to Argentina by
agreeing to sell up to 25% of YPF to businessman Enrique
Eskenazi's Petersen Group, which was closely allied with the
Argentinean government.  In December 2009, YPF announced a five-
year plan, also known as the Horizon 2014 plan, to increase
exploration in untapped regions of Argentina.  However, in
reality, the plan was part of a scheme that would allow Repsol to
stave off nationalization of YPF by claiming that it would invest
its capital in exploration and production of Argentina's natural
resources and, at the same time, enable Repsol to sell off large
percentages of its holdings in YPF.

According to the complaint, Repsol and the Eskenazis had no
intention to reinvest YPF's capital into Argentina because Repsol
and the Eskenazi family needed YPF to continue to pay abnormally
high dividends (80 to 90 percent) for their own benefit rather
than invest in the production of oil and gas through their
concession contracts with certain Argentinean provinces.  The high
dividends were used by the Eskenazi family to pay back the "no-
money down" loans it received from Repsol and certain banks to
acquire its stake in YPF.  Specifically, since 2006, YPF invested
$11 billion in Argentina while handing out $3.5 billion in
dividends.  However, contrary to YPF's Horizon 2014 plan, the
majority of their investment went to bolstering existing fields
rather than to exploration.

The complaint further alleges that throughout the Class Period,
the Argentinean government was frustrated with the way that YPF
was being run.  Specifically, the Argentinean government was
dissatisfied that: (i) Argentina was becoming a net importer of
natural gas and oil, despite having sufficient supplies of its own
natural resources; (ii) YPF was not adequately producing oil and
gas within Argentina; and (iii) YPF was continuing to distribute a
large portion of its profits to Repsol and its other shareholders
in the form of high dividends instead of reinvesting them back
into the Company and its operations.  By late 2011, the
Argentinean government grew unhappy with Repsol and the Eskenazi
family and their lack of investment.  On April 16, 2012, the
President of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, announced
that the government would nationalize YPF and seize a majority
stake in YPF from Repsol.  Moreover, President Fernandez ousted
defendant Sebastian Eskenazi as YPF's CEO, among others, and named
two top aides to run the Company.  Upon this news, trading in the
Company's ADSs was halted on April 17, 2012.  When trading resumed
on April 18, 2012, the price of the Company's ADSs declined $6.38
per ADS, or over 32%, to close at $13.12 per ADS, on significantly
heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
YPF ADSs during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is represented by
Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class
actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial
fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.


* Securities Class Actions Target C-Suite Execs, PwC Report Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Louise Ensign, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that in a year of mixed signals for securities litigation, one
thing was for sure in 2012: securities-related class action suits
are going after those at the top.  Chief executives were
explicitly named in 94% of federal securities class-action
lawsuits in 2012, up from 86% of suits the year prior, according
to a report released on April 9 by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. Georgia-Pacific Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2012, doctors diagnosed June Pitman with mesothelioma.
Pitman alleges that asbestos exposure caused her disease.  She
claims that her father carried asbestos fibers home from work in
his clothing and exposed her.  In state court, Pitman brought
strict liability and negligence claims against asbestos products
manufacturers, suppliers, and installers allegedly responsible for
exposing her and her father to asbestos.  Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C.,
a defendant, removed the case to federal court.

Pitman moves to remand, contending that incomplete diversity of
the parties renders the federal court without subject matter
jurisdiction.  Indeed, it is undisputed in the case that Pitman,
along with defendants Eagle Incorporated and Taylor-Seidenbach are
Louisiana citizens for jurisdictional purposes.

Georgia-Pacific argues that diversity remains incomplete because
Pitman improperly joined Eagle and Taylor, and that their
citizenship is inconsequential in the federal court's
jurisdictional analysis.  Georgia-Pacific also filed a separate
motion for limited discovery on the issue of improper joinder.

In an order dated April 5, 2013, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted
Pitman's motion to remand and denied Georgia-Pacific's motion.

Judge Vance found that the Plaintiff's complaint adequately
alleges the Defendants' products contained asbestos and were
unreasonably dangerous, unreasonably dangerous per se, and
unreasonably dangerous for failure to include a warning about the
dangers of asbestos exposure.  Accordingly, Judge Vance concluded
that the Plaintiff has stated a reasonable basis for relief.

Moreover, Judge Vance said the case is not suited for further
discovery on improper joinder since there is already evidence in
the record linking Eagle to Pabco, and Pabco's products to the
Plaintiff's father, Georgia-Pacific's proposed discovery would not
easily disprove an essential fact.

The matter is remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish
of Orleans, State of Louisiana, for further proceedings.

The case is JUNE PITMAN v. CRANE CO., ET AL., Section: R (5),
Civil Action No. 13-83 (E.D. La.).  A copy of Judge Vance's Order
is available at http://is.gd/qEBSs1from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Plaintiff Allowed to Withdraw Admissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California entered an order in an asbestos
personal injury case captioned DONALD WILLIS and VIOLA WILLIS,
Plaintiffs, v. BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
12cv744-BTM-DHB (S.D. Cal.), granting the Plaintiffs' motion to
withdraw or amend admissions.

Defendant John Crane Inc. served written discovery, including
requests for admission in October 2012.  According to the
declaration proffered by the Plaintiffs, they responded to JCI's
written discovery in November 2012, but failed to serve responses
to the requests for admissions.  Kenneth O. Taylor II, counsel for
the Plaintiffs, said the attorney managing the case left the firm
shortly thereafter, and that no one noticed the oversight until
counsel for JCI called them and informed them that the responses
were overdue and would be deemed admitted.  He alleges that he
contacted JCI in December 2012 to seek a stipulation for more time
to respond to the requests for admissions, but defense counsel
declined two days later, and so the Plaintiffs filed the present
motion.

In granting the Plaintiffs' motion, Judge Moskowitz found that
upholding the admissions would practically eliminate any
presentation of the merits of the case.  Judge Moskowitz further
found that JCI would not be prejudiced were the admissions to be
withdrawn or amended.  Judge Moskowitz stated that while the Court
warns the Plaintiffs' counsel to tread carefully in the future,
the Court found that it would only unnecessarily increase the
expense of the litigation to require the Plaintiffs to comply now.

A copy of Judge Moskowitz's Order dated April 4, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/vJPEBvfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Junks Bids to Dismiss 3 Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In three separate asbestos personal injury actions, Judge Sherry
Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the
motions for summary judgment dismissing the cases filed by the
defendants in those cases.

In the first asbestos-related personal injury action, defendant
US Inc. formerly known as American Standard, Inc., moves for
summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence to show
that the plaintiffs' decedent Frank DeRogatis was exposed to
asbestos from an American Standard product.  Mr. DeRogatis was
deposed on June 27, 2011 and June 28, 2011.  He testified that
beginning in 1971 he regularly cleaned ashes out of an American
Standard boiler at his in-laws' residence in Queens, New York.
When he and his wife Emily inherited that home in 1985, he
continued to regularly maintain that boiler until approximately
1993 when they moved to another residence.  Mr. DeRogatis
testified that cleaning the ash pit exposed him to asbestos
fibers.

In denying American Standard's motion for summary judgment, Judge
Heitler pointed out that it is undisputed that a number of
American Standard products utilized asbestos components.  In this
regard, the Defendant's interrogatory responses filed in the Joint
Eastern and Southern District Asbestos Litigation provide that it
manufactured oil-fired boilers with a thick asbestos board to
insulate the combustion chamber.  American Standard product
catalogs further provide that the Company instructed consumers to
integrate asbestos gaskets, rope, wicks, and insulation into some
of its boilers and even supplied consumers with some of these
components.  In the present case, Judge Heitler said the record
permits a reasonable inference that asbestos integrated into an
American Standard boiler would have dried and flaked into the
boiler's ash pit over time.  Taken together with Mr. DeRogatis'
testimony that he maintained the boiler at issue for over 20 years
and breathed the dust therefrom, there is a material issues of
fact whether the defendant contributed to Mr. DeRogatis' injuries.

The case is EMILY DeROGATIS, Individually and as Executrix of, the
estate of FRANK DeROGATIS, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Docket No. 190150/2011, Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y.).  A
copy of Judge Heitler's Decision dated April 4, 2013, is available
at http://is.gd/1Ow7wpfrom Leagle.com.

In the second asbestos personal injury action, defendant Kohler
Co. moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all
cross-claims asserted against it on the ground that plaintiff
William Lindsay did not sufficiently identify a Kohler product as
a source of his asbestos exposure.  Mr. Lindsay worked as a union
electrician from the early 1960's until 1978 when he became his
union's business representative.  In or about 2001 he was elected
to the Suffolk County Legislature, and currently serves as that
body's Presiding Officer.  Mr. Lindsay was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in January 2012, and, along with his wife Lindsay,
commenced the action the following month.  Mr. Lindsay was deposed
over the course of five days.  Relevant to the Defendant's motion
for summary judgment is Mr. Lindsay's testimony that he was
exposed to asbestos containing products while working as an
electrician.  The Defendant contends that it is entitled to
summary judgment because the Plaintiff's testimony is
contradictory and speculative.  The Defendant further argues that
Mr. Lindsay never actually worked on or observed others working on
a Kohler boiler.

In dismissing Kohler's motion, Judge Heitler pointed out that the
testimony in the case illustrates that even if Mr. Lindsay did not
personally work on the Kohler boiler at issue, there is an issue
of fact whether he disturbed the insulation covering said boiler
during the course of his own electrical work.  Moreover, to the
extent the Defendant challenges the Plaintiff's credibility, this
is an issue that, as a matter of law, requires resolution by the
trier of fact, Judge Heitler said.

The case is WILLIAM LINDSAY and PATRICIA LINDSAY, Plaintiff, v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendant(s), Docket No.
190074/12, Mot. Seq. No. 003 (N.Y.).  A copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision dated April 8, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/vAdbxS
from Leagle.com.

In the third asbestos related personal injury action, defendant
York International Corporation moves for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it.
Plaintiff William Krauss was diagnosed with asbestosis in 1991.
In 2011, a biopsy revealed that he had lung cancer.  Krauss and
his wife commenced the action to recover damages for personal
injuries allegedly caused by Krauss's exposure to asbestos-
containing products.  Among other things, plaintiffs allege that
Krauss developed lung cancer as a result of his occupational
exposure to Borg Warner gaskets for which the defendant is liable.
York claims entitlement to summary judgment because Krauss did not
specifically identify any York product as a source of his asbestos
exposure.

In dismissing York's motion for summary judgment, Judge Heitler
noted that although York asserts that it did not manufacture
gaskets for the types of air conditioning equipment identified by
Krauss or sell gaskets under the trade name "Borg Warner", it
appears that through a series of corporate transactions, Borg
Warner and York had a symbiotic relationship which at one point
resulted in a single entity, raising a material question whether
indeed York is liable for injuries caused to the plaintiff by Borg
Warner products.  When identifying the manufacturers of the
asbestos-containing products he used as an apprentice working at
the Empire State Building between 1952 and 1953, Krauss explicitly
named Borg Warner together with Boise Cascade and Crane, Judge
Heitler further noted.

The case is WILLIAM E. KRAUSS and JEANNE KRAUSS, Plaintiffs, v. 3M
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190020/2012, Mot. Seq. No.
006 (N.Y.).  A copy of Judge Heitler's Decision dated April 8,
2013, is available at http://is.gd/al8Kgofrom Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser's Apportionment Issue Sent to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In an April 8, 2013 opinion, the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Four, granted the summary adjudication
and entry of judgment for Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation and
against Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Several years ago, the Court of Appeals addressed the case, which
involves insurance liability and coverage for asbestos bodily
injury claims filed against Kaiser, in London Market Insurers v.
Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 648, 652 (LMI).  There, the
Court of Appeals considered whether thousands of asbestos bodily
injury claims brought against Kaiser Cement constituted a single
annual "occurrence" within the meaning of comprehensive general
liability policies issued by Truck Insurance Exchange.  The Court
of Appeals concluded that they did not: Because under the relevant
Truck policies "occurrence" meant injurious exposure to asbestos,
the thousands of claims against Kaiser could not be deemed a
single annual occurrence.

The present appeal concerns a separate but related coverage issue,
which arises in part out of the Supreme Court's seminal decision
in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th
645 (Montrose).  In Montrose, the Supreme Court adopted a
"'continuous injury' trigger of coverage" approach to continuing
injury claims.  Under that approach, bodily injuries and property
damage that occur in several insurance policy periods are
potentially covered by all policies in effect during those
periods.  Montrose provides no guidance, however, as to how to
apportion liability among insurers in continuing injury cases.

That question of apportioning liability for continuing injuries is
raised squarely by the present case.  Between 1947 and 1987,
Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation purchased primary insurance
policies from four different insurers, including Truck Insurance
Exchange.  During many of the same years, Kaiser also purchased
excess insurance policies.  Kaiser has selected the Truck CGL
policy in effect in 1974, which has a $500,000 per occurrence
limit and no annual liability limit, to respond initially to all
claims that allege asbestos exposure in that year.

At issue in the case is who is responsible to indemnify Kaiser for
asbestos claims that exceed the 1974 primary policy's $500,000 per
occurrence limit.  Kaiser and Truck contend that appellant
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, which issued a
first-level excess policy to Kaiser for 1974, is responsible to
pay claims over $500,000.

ICSOP disagrees: It contends that primary insurance limits must be
"stacked," such that all available primary insurance policies --
that is, all Truck policies issued to Kaiser between 1964 and
1983, as well as primary policies issued to Kaiser by three other
carriers between 1947 and 1987 -- are exhausted before any excess
insurer need indemnify Kaiser for asbestos bodily injury claims.

On June 3, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion concluding
that under the language of the 1974 primary policy and principles
of California law, Truck's maximum exposure for asbestos bodily
injury claims was $500,000 per occurrence.  The Court of Appeals
thus agreed with the trial court that, based on the policy
language, once Truck contributed $500,000 per occurrence, its
obligation to Kaiser ceased.  The Court of Appeals did not affirm
the trial court's grant of summary adjudication, however, because
there was no evidence in the record as to whether the policies
issued to Kaiser by primary insurers other than Truck had been
fully exhausted.  The Court of Appeals therefore could not
determine whether ICSOP had a present duty to indemnify Kaiser.

The Supreme Court granted review on August 24, 2011.  On October
31, 2012, the Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Court of
Appeals with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider
it in light of State of California v. Continental Ins. Co. (2012)
55 Cal.4th 186 (Continental).  Having done so, the Court of
Appeals again conclude that the policies Truck issued to Kaiser
cannot be stacked, and the case is remanded to the trial court to
determine whether Kaiser therefore is entitled to summary
adjudication of the fifth and sixth causes of action of the cross-
complaint.

The Court of Appeals concluded that under the language of Truck's
1974 primary policy, Truck's liability to Kaiser is limited to
$500,000 per occurrence.  Accordingly, once Truck has contributed
$500,000 per asbestos bodily injury claim, its primary policies
are exhausted and Truck has no further contractual obligation to
Kaiser.  The Court of Appeals, however, said its conclusion does
not by itself permit it to affirm the grant of summary
adjudication because the fifth and sixth causes of action require
a finding not only that Truck's policies have been exhausted, but
also that ICSOP's obligations attach immediately upon the
exhaustion of Truck's policies.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court is in a far
better position than the Court of Appeals are to determine in the
first instance the effect of its stipulated order in light of its
conclusion that Truck's primary policies may not be stacked.
Thus, the case is remanded to the trial court for a determination
of whether there remain triable issues of material fact as to the
fifth and sixth causes of action.

The case is KAISER CEMENT AND GYPSUM CORPORATION, Cross-
complainant and Respondent, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA, Cross-defendant and Appellant; TRUCK INSURANCE
EXCHANGE, Plaintiff and Respondent, No. B222310 (Cal. App. Ct.).
A copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/ayeLaPfrom
Leagle.com.

ICSOP is represented by:

         Randall J. Peters, Esq.
         Wendy E. Schultz, Esq.
         LYNBERG & WATKINS
         888 South Figueroa Street, Sixteenth Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-5449
         Tel: (213) 624-8700
         Fax: (213) 892-2763
         Email: rpeters@lynberg.com
                wschultz@lynberg.com

London Market Insurers, which filed an amici curiae in support of
ICSOP, is represented by:

         Brian A. Kelly, Esq.
         Paul J. Killion, Esq.
         Kathryn T.K. Schultz, Esq.
         DUANE MORRIS LLP
         865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450
         Tel: (213) 689-7400
         Fax: (213) 689-7401
         Email: BAKelly@duanemorris.com
                PJKillion@duanemorris.com
                KKSchultz@duanemorris.com

Kaiser is represented by:

         Philip E. Cook, Esq.
         J.W. Montgomery III, Esq.
         Jason C. Wright, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Tel: (213) 489-3939
         Fax: (213) 243-2539
         Email: pcook@jonesday.com
                jwmontgomery@jonesday.com
                jcwright@jonesday.com

Truck Insurance is represented by:

         Scott R. Hoyt, Esq.
         PIA, ANERSON, DORIUS, REYNARD & MOSS
         222 S. Main Street, Suite 1830
         Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
         Tel: (801) 350-9000
         Email: shoyt@padrm.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Favoring Backstrom et al. Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Oregon entered an order dated April 10,
2013, affirming a lower court's decision granting the motions for
summary judgment filed by defendants in an asbestos personal
injury lawsuit.

The Plaintiff appealed the judgment for the Defendants,
challenging the trial court's grant of summary judgment in the
Defendants' favor on claims arising from decedent Russell Greer's
alleged exposure to asbestos on home-construction sites during the
1960s and 1970s.  In his first amended complaint, the decedent
brought negligence and strict-products-liability claims against
numerous defendants alleged to be suppliers or manufacturers of
asbestos-containing materials, including suppliers Backstrom
Builders Center, The Miller Lumber Company, and manufacturer
Georgia-Pacific Corporation.  The trial court granted those three
defendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that there
was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether decedent had
been exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by
Georgia-Pacific or sold by Backstrom or Miller.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision because
the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the summary judgment
record included evidence from which a jury could find in his
favor.

The case is STEPHEN GREER, Personal Representative of the Estate
of Russell Greer, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACE HARDWARE
CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, et al, and UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION, Defendants, and GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, a
Georgia corporation; BACKSTROM BUILDERS CENTER, an Oregon
corporation, as successor-in-interest to Backstrom Builders
Center, Inc.; and THE MILLER LUMBER CO., an Oregon corporation,
Defendants-Respondents, Nos. A143981 (Control), A145112 (Ore. App.
Ct.).  A copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/4KxOGs
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Junks PI Suit Following High Ct. Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos personal injury case came before the United States
Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, on appeal from the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which
dismissed the action as time barred under Virginia law.
Recognizing that the appeal raised an important and unresolved
question concerning the accrual of a cause of action for injury
from a latent asbestos-related disease under the Virginia statute
of limitations, on April 23, 2012, the Third Circuit entered an
order requesting that the Supreme Court of Virginia accept
certification pursuant to Rule 5:40 of the Rules of the Supreme
Court of Virginia, and answer the following question of law:

   "Whether, under Va. Code Sec. 8.01-249(4), a plaintiff's cause
of action for damages due to latent mesothelioma is deemed to
accrue at the time of the mesothelioma diagnosis or decades
earlier, when the plaintiff was diagnosed with an independent,
non-malignant asbestos-related disease."

The Supreme Court of Virginia accepted the certified question of
law by order entered June 8, 2012.  On January 10, 2013, the state
Supreme Court issued an opinion, which was filed with the Court on
April 3, 2013.  The Supreme Court Decision, penned by Chief
Justice Cynthia D. Kinser, ruled that when enacting Code Sec.
8.01-249(4), the General Assembly did not abrogate the common law
indivisible cause of action principle and that a cause of action
for personal injury based on exposure to asbestos accrues upon the
first communication of a diagnosis of an asbestos-related injury
or disease by a physician.

Justice Kinser pointed out that, in Virginia, remedying policy-
related problems is the role of the General Assembly, not the
courts.  The indivisible cause of action rule has existed in the
Commonwealth for decades, and a decision that causes of action for
asbestos exposure are not subject to the rule must come from the
General Assembly, not the Court, she emphasized.  Accordingly, the
Supreme Court answered the question in the negative with respect
to whether, under Va. Code Sec. 8.01-249(4), a plaintiff's cause
of action for damages due to latent mesothelioma is deemed to
accrue at the time of the mesothelioma diagnosis, and in the
affirmative with respect to whether, under Va. Code Sec. 8.01-
249(4), a plaintiff's cause of action for damages due to latent
mesothelioma is deemed to accrue decades earlier, when the
plaintiff was diagnosed with an independent, non-malignant
asbestos-related disease.

For the reasons set forth by the Supreme Court of Virginia in
Kiser v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 736 S.E.2d 910 (Va. 2013), the Third
Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court, dismissing
the action as time barred.

The case is PHYLLIS H. KISER, Executrix of the Estate of Orvin H.
Kiser, Sr., Deceased, Appellant, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO., A
Massachusetts Corporation; CRANE PACKING CO., An Illinois
Corporation formerly known as John Crane, Inc.; CROWN CORK & SEAL
COMPANY, INC., A New York Corporation; EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, A
New Jersey Corporation formerly known as Mobil Oil Corporation;
FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, A New Jersey Corporation; GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY, A New York Corporation; GENERAL REFRACTORIES
COMPANY, A Pennsylvania Corporation; GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION,
A Georgia Corporation; GOULDS PUMPS, INCORPORATED, A Delaware
Corporation; HARSCO INDUSTRIAL PATTERSON-KELLEY, A Division of
Harsco Corporation as successor to Patterson-Kelley Company. A
Delaware Corporation; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, A New Jersey
Corporation; JOHN CRANE, INC., Not a Virginia Corporation;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A New York Corporation; RAPID
AMERICAN CORPORATION, A New York Corporation; RILEY POWER, INC., A
Massachusetts Corporation formerly known as Babcock Borsig Power,
Inc. formerly known as D.B. Riley, Inc. formerly known as Riley
Stocker Corporation; SEPCO, INC., Not a Virginia Corporation;
TRANE U.S. INC., Successor in Interest to American Standard Inc.;
UNIROYAL, INC., A Delaware Corporation; CBS CORPORATION, A
Delaware Corporation formerly known as Viacom, Inc., Successor by
Merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation formerly
known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation ("Westinghouse");
WARREN PUMPS, LLC, Not a Virginia Corporation; ZENITH PUMPS, Not a
Virginia Corporation, No. 11-1986 (3rd. Cir.).  A copy of the
Third Circuit's Decision dated April 11, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/VctNuVfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Remand Suit v. GE & Crane
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs, William Stallings and Carol Lee Stallings, brought
suit in the Jefferson Circuit Court against 10 defendants alleging
various state common law causes of action.  One defendant, General
Electric Corporation removed the case to federal court pursuant to
the federal officer removal statute.  Thereafter, Plaintiffs moved
to remand to state court.  After Plaintiffs served Crane Company
with the Complaint, Crane also asserted its right to a federal
forum under the same jurisdictional statute and opposed
Plaintiffs' motion to remand.  Plaintiffs contend that neither GE
nor Crane satisfy the requirements for federal officer removal.

The U.S. District court for the Western District of Kentucky,
Louisville, disagrees and denied the Plaintiffs' motion in a
memorandum opinion and order dated April 12, 2013.

Judge John G. Heyburn, II, who penned the decision, found that the
Defendants have presented enough evidence to present a plausible
argument that they are entitled to the government contractor
defense.  As such, they have satisfied the requirements of the
federal officer removal statute.

Specifically, Judge Heyburn found that the Defendants have offered
proof in the form of declarations and affidavits that they
manufactured the machines and machine component parts in
compliance with the detailed specifications required by the Navy.
The Defendants have also established that the Navy supervised and
enforced their compliance with the specifications through a
hierarchical command system that involved significant interaction
between naval officers and the Defendants' employees.

The case is WILLIAM STALLINGS and CAROL LEE STALLINGS, Plaintiffs,
v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 3:12-CV-00724-H (W.D. Ky.).  A copy of Judge Heyburn's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/H06mYHfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 140 Pending Cases as of Feb. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. had 140 asbestos cases pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2013.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and
Pennsylvania. There were 140 asbestos cases pending as of February
28, 2013.

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

In 2011, Aerojet received a letter demand from AMEC, plc, the
successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business assets of
Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet subsidiary, for Aerojet to
assume the defense of sixteen asbestos cases, involving 271
plaintiffs, pending in Louisiana and reimbursement of over $1.7
million in past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that
Aerojet retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burk
assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under the
relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only certain,
specified liabilities relating to the operation of Barnard & Burk
before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all unassumed pre-
closing liabilities, and Aerojet agreed to indemnify the purchaser
against unassumed liabilities that are asserted against it. Based
on the information provided, Aerojet declined to accept the
liability and requested additional information from AMEC
pertaining to the basis of the demand. In response to Aerojet's
request, AMEC provided additional information regarding its claims
which Aerojet is reviewing. In the event that this matter is not
resolved consensually, AMEC may take legal action to enforce its
position. No estimate of liability has been accrued for this
matter as of February 28, 2013.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Settles Claims in Jansen Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corporation reached an agreement to settle all claims
asserted against it in a lawsuit filed by Lois Jansen, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended February 28,
2013.

The Company is one of over 100 defendants in a lawsuit pending in
Ohio which alleges personal injury from exposure to asbestos
contained in certain Chase products. The case is captioned Marie
Lou Scott, Executrix of the Estate of James T. Scott v. A-Best
Products, et al., No. 312901 in the Court of Common Pleas for
Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The plaintiff in the case issued discovery
requests to Chase in August 2005, to which Chase timely responded
in September 2005.  The trial had initially been scheduled to
begin on April 30, 2007. However, that date had been postponed and
no new trial date has been set. As of February 28, 2013, there
have been no new developments as this Ohio lawsuit has been
inactive with respect to Chase.

The Company was named as one of the defendants in a complaint
filed on June 25, 2009, in a lawsuit captioned Lois Jansen,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Thomas
Jansen v. Beazer East, Inc., et al., No: 09-CV-6248 in the
Milwaukee County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court. The plaintiff sued a
number of alleged manufacturers or distributors of asbestos-
containing products, including Royston Laboratories (formerly an
independent company and now owned by Chase Corporation), alleging
that her husband died from workplace exposure. In February 2013,
the Company reached an agreement to settle all of the claims
against it in an amount that the Company does not consider to be
material.

Chase Corporation (Chase), through its subsidiaries, is a global
manufacturer of tapes, laminates, sealants, and coatings for high
reliability applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestosis Increases Chance of Lung Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------
MedicalExpress.com reported that the chances of developing lung
cancer associated with asbestos exposure, asbestosis and smoking
are dramatically increased when these three risk factors are
combined, and quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of
developing lung cancer after long-term asbestos exposure,
according to a new study.

"The interactions between asbestos exposure, asbestosis and
smoking, and their influence on lung cancer risk are incompletely
understood," said lead author Steven B. Markowitz, MD DrPH,
professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the School
of Earth & Environmental Sciences at Queens College in New York.

"In our study of a large cohort of asbestos-exposed insulators and
more than 50,000 non-exposed controls, we found that each
individual risk factor was associated with increased risk of
developing lung cancer, while the combination of two risk factors
further increased the risk and the combination of all three risk
factors increased the risk of developing lung cancer almost 37-
fold."

The findings, according to MedicalExpress, were published online
ahead of print publication in the American Thoracic Society's
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The
study included 2,377 long-term North American insulators and
54,243 male blue collar workers with no history of exposure to
asbestos from the Cancer Prevention Study II. Causes of death were
determined from the National Death Index.

Among non-smokers, asbestos exposure increased the rate of dying
from lung cancer 5.2-fold, while the combination of smoking and
asbestos exposure increased the death rate more than 28-fold.
Asbestosis increased the risk of developing lung cancer among
asbestos-exposed subjects in both smokers and non-smokers, with
the death rate from lung cancer increasing 36.8-fold among
asbestos-exposed smokers with asbestosis.

Among insulators who quit smoking, lung cancer morality dropped in
the 10 years following smoking cessation from 177 deaths per
10,000 among current smokers to 90 per 10,000 among those who
quit. Lung cancer rates among insulators who had stopped smoking
more than 30 years earlier were similar to those among insulators
who had never smoked.

There were a few limitations to the study, including the fact that
smoking status and asbestosis were evaluated only once and that
some members of the control group could have been exposed to
relatively brief periods of asbestos.

"Our study provides strong evidence that asbestos exposure causes
lung cancer through multiple mechanisms," said Dr. Markowitz.
"Importantly, we also show that quitting smoking greatly reduces
the increased lung cancer risk seen in this population."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Questions Arise Over Bldg. Fibro Removal
---------------------------------------------------------
Lance Griffin, writing for Dothan Eagle, reported that a dispute
over the abatement of asbestos at a run-down apartment building in
downtown Dothan led to a contentious meeting of the Historic
Preservation Commission on April 11.

The building, Saints Apartments, was purchased Feb. 28 by the
Dothan Downtown Redevelopment Authority through a combination of
funds from the authority, Houston County and Five-Star Credit
Union. DDRA Executive Director Jansen Tidmore scheduled exterior
asbestos abatement for the building. The abatement was completed
Tuesday by Alabama Environmental, Inc., a Tuscaloosa-based
company. Because Saints Apartments is located in Dothan's Historic
District and because asbestos abatement alters the exterior of the
building, the process requires prior approval by the Historic
Preservation Commission. That approval was not sought. Tidmore
said not gaining HPC approval was an "oversight."

"That's on me. It was an oversight. I was not thinking about the
abatement changing the exterior," Tidmore said, according to the
report. "We will make amends in May (at the next HPC meeting)."

The report related that a resident complaint triggered an
inspection of the abatement by the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management. The city has not been notified of any
violations. Messages left for the ADEM inspector were not returned
Thursday.  Ruth Page Nelson, a resident who said she made attempts
to pitch development projects for the building prior to purchase,
addressed the HPC and questioned whether proper notification of
the pending abatement had been made to ADEM. She also said some
health hazards could remain because several doors and a window
have been removed from the apartments.

"There should be an inspection, a cleanup and all open doors
should be closed up," Nelson said, the report quoted.

Tidmore said there should be no health hazards, the report added.
"A professional company did this work. The state was notified
ahead of time. No permit is required for this. This is all
propaganda to scare," Tidmore said.

According to the report, Nelson accused Tidmore of acting
inappropriately during discussions about potential uses for the
building. Tidmore disputes Nelson's assertions and said his only
mistake was failure to notify the HPC about the abatement.
Tidmore also serves on the HPC but not on behalf of the DDRA. He
was appointed by the Festival of Murals. He made three motions to
adjourn the meeting but discussion continued for several minutes.

Garry Pearson, who handled the abatement for Alabama
Environmental, Inc., said all proper notifications were made and
that no health hazards from floating asbestos fibers exist, the
report said.  "There is no danger," Pearson said. "Nothing other
than grinding or sawing would get any fibers into the air."

Pearson said he planned to provide documentation of ADEM
notification to Tidmore, the report added.  HPC member Sam Newton
requested documentation of proper notification.

"We really don't need notification. But, we did a courtesy
notification," Pearson said, the report cited.

Houston County, which contributed $100,000 of the near $200,000
purchase price, wants the building demolished and used primarily
for parking, according to the report.  Nelson wanted to refurbish
the building and use it as a job training center.  The purchase
closed Feb. 28. Tidmore said residents were notified by letter on
March 5 that they had 30 days to vacate. He said a second
notification was provided April 5 and that two or three residents
remained at that time.  Any changes to the building must be
approved by the Historic Preservation Commission.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Riverton School Board Awards Bid for Remediation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernie Over, writing for County10.com, reported that action at
Riverton School Board meeting marks the beginning of the end for
the former Lincoln Elementary School.  Trustees awarded a bid for
asbestos remediation inside the abandoned structure, and then
awarded a contract for the school's demolition, the report said.

According to the report, Superintendent Terry Snyder said the
recently completed analysis of District 25's capacity needs
identified that Lincoln was no longer a viable solution to the
District's needs. "We knew that years ago, but the question
resurfaced and we had to redo that evaluation," Snyder told the
trustees. "We moved all the school's population when Aspen Park
opened, it's a small building on only three acres. Four grade
levels need at least seven acres now."

The report related that Snyder recounted the history of the
District's offer of the building to other governmental entities.
"Two of three took the offer seriously, but to bring it back into
service was just too expensive, and now we have approval from the
state to take it down," he said.

The report further related that the first bid award went to
Schroeder Construction of Billings, Mont., in the amount of
$66,300 for the asbestos remediation. Seven bidders sought the
job. When the asbestos has been removed from the structure, then
demolition can begin.  The second bid that was awarded on April 9
went to Precision demolition of Mills, Wyo., for the demolition.
The bid totaled $278,373.

"Demolition will begin around June first and will be complete by
the end of the summer," Snyder reported, according to the report.
"It's time, the building was becoming an eyesore and a maintenance
problem."

As an aside, the superintendent said he received a call from a
school district patron who wanted two of the windows in the
building, the report said.  "He said he had to buy them when his
son broke them, so, I said okay, he could have two windows."

In other action at the meeting, trustees accepted an
administrative recommendation to accept a grant award in the
amount of $192,888 for Indian Education, the report added.  "The
majority of funds will pay for two staff members who support
students," Snyder said. "The remainder would buy supplies and
provide staff with professional development on programs to support
Native American students."  Trustees also approved the Elementary
School Handbook for the 2013-14 school year. Snyder said the
handbooks for the middle and high schools would be presented for
approval later.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Walkers Raise Money for Charity
----------------------------------------------------------
Arielle Bruins, writing for The News, reported that dozens of
walkers spent their Sunday walking eight miles to raise money for
an asbestos charity.

The walk, according to the report, was organised by Vickie Sykes,
40, from Fareham, following the death of her father, George
Roxburgh, who died as a result of being exposed to the killer
substance.  George, from Portchester, died in October last year,
aged 71, from mesothelioma, a type of cancer caused by inhaling
asbestos.  He was exposed to it during the 1970s when he worked on
naval bases for a ceiling company.

The report related that Vickie organised the walk with his oldest
grandaughter, Natalie Prescott, 23, also from Fareham, to honour
the memory of her dad.

The report added that the group were raising money for Hampshire
Asbestos Support and Awareness Group (HASAG).  Vickie said: 'We
chose HASAG because they are a local charity and were there for
our family the day after my dad was diagnosed, in June 2010.  They
sorted out solicitors, doctors and anyone else we need to see.
They were fantastic.'

The report further related that group raised around GBP2,000 in
sponsorship for HASAG, which was double their initial target.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. House Mulls Over Fairness in Claims Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reported that
the state House Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing on
House Bill 1150, also known as the Fairness in Claims and
Transparency Act, or FACT, which would provide for transparency of
claims made against asbestos bankruptcy trusts and in the tort
system.  The bill is being sponsored by state Rep. Bryan Cutler, a
Lancaster County Republican.  It appears to have close to 30
cosponsors, the report said.

According to the report, records show that those who were
scheduled to testify included Sam Marshall, the president and CEO
of the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania; Sam Denisco, vice
president of government affairs for the Pennsylvania Chamber of
Business and Industry; Kevin Shivers, executive director of the
Pennsylvania chapter of the National Federation of Independent
Business; as well as a handful attorneys, such as Nicholas P.
Vari, of K&L Gates LLP; Peter J. Neeson, of Rawle & Henderson;
Marc Scarcella, of Bates White LLC; and Larry Cohan, of Anapol
Schwartz.

The bill is designed to address a "glaring loophole in the current
system of assessing responsibility for damages in asbestos-related
suits which is imposing job-crushing liabilities on many
Pennsylvania businesses," Cutler had said in his memorandum to
fellow House members, which was sent out on April 2, according to
the report.

The bill is supported by the likes of the Pennsylvania Chamber of
Business and Industry, and is opposed by groups including the
Pennsylvania Association for Justice, which represents trial
lawyers, the report noted.

The measure, which would require plaintiffs in asbestos lawsuits
to disclose claims they had previously filed against the asbestos
bankruptcy trust funds, is similar to a law that was passed by the
Ohio legislature last year called the Asbestos Transparency Act.
It also mirrors a federal bill titled the Furthering Asbestos
Claim Transparency, or FACT, which was initially introduced in
2012 and reintroduced this year.

The federal measure was debated during a House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law
hearing in Washington last month, the report pointed out.  At that
time, the panel's chair, Spencer Bachus, an Arizona Republican,
said that the "enemy of any just compensation system is fraud and
abuse," and FACT needs passage in order to preserve assets for
future victims of asbestos injuries.  While the federal bill still
sits in committee, some states are moving ahead with their own
version of the legislation, such as Ohio.

Darren McKinney, of the American Tort Reform Association, told
Legal Newsline late last year that the Ohio law may be the first
of its kind in the nation, the report said.  At the time, McKinney
was quoted as saying that, "with the scandal that is double-
dipping in the court systems and in trust funds, a statutory
response is the only solution."

Here in Pennsylvania, Cutler hopes his bill, the Fairness in
Claims and Transparency Act, will put an end to the process known
as "double-dipping," whereby people recover damages through
asbestos trust funds and the civil court system, according to the
Record.  "Some may think asbestos litigation is waning, but these
crippling liabilities continue to affect businesses throughout
Pennsylvania, from small businesses that work with asbestos
products to large manufacturers and employers who are successor
companies to the original asbestos miners from the 1970's," Cutler
wrote in his memo to fellow lawmakers.

Cutler claims that recent reports showed that between September
and December 2010, 45 Pennsylvania-based companies were named as
defendants in asbestos suits, the report said.  "The enormous
burden of these cases drains resources from these businesses that
could otherwise be used for economic growth and job development,"
Cutler wrote.

The legislator pointed to the problems with so-called "double-
dipping," in which an asbestos claimant can technically recover
twice for the same injury -- once through tort litigation and a
second time through the asbestos trust claim process involving
since-bankrupt companies who have set up trust funds to compensate
victims, the report added.  Cutler says his bill would correct the
"double-dipping" problem in two ways.

First, it would apply the principles of Pennsylvania's Fair Share
Act to asbestos litigation such that asbestos defendants would be
apportioned liability based only on their relative fault, the
report explained.  And secondly, FACT would require plaintiffs to
disclose all asbestos exposure information and to indicate whether
they have submitted an asbestos injury claim to a trust fund set
up by insolvent companies.

"Disclosure of this information will allow a judge or jury to
consider all asbestos exposures, claims which have been or could
be submitted to a trust and claims which have been paid by a
trust, in some cases as much as $1.6 million per claimant, as part
of an asbestos-related suit," Cutler stated in his House
memorandum, according to the report.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Feared in Watford Trust Bldg
---------------------------------------------------
Adam Binnie, writing for Watford Observer, reported that a woman
and her daughter fear they have been exposed to deadly asbestos
fibres after moving into a property owned by Watford Community
Housing Trust.

According to the report, Joanne Halward's daughter Carly was given
the property in Fleet House on the Holywell Estate in August last
year, and discovered it needed major repairs.  A leaky water tank
had caused damage in the ceilings, as well as spreading damp and
mould throughout the house.  The mother and daughter attempted to
redecorate, only to be told that the damaged ceiling tiles
contained asbestos, and the flat needed to be completely refitted.

She said: "The housing trust told us to make do and decorate, so
we have, and now it all has to be redone. All seven asbestos
ceilings are at risk of collapse and badly damaged.  My 18-month-
old grandson had a convulsion within weeks of us stripping down
the walls and washing down black mould, he was rushed to hospital
because he was having trouble breathing.  Now they are saying our
decorating has caused the damage and claim we are not giving them
access to carry out the repairs," the report related.

The report said Gareth Lewis, director of property and new
business, said the trust was made aware of the damaged ceiling
boards in December.  He added: "The property has textured ceiling
coatings which contain three to five per cent asbestos fibres.
These are unevenly distributed which means that some parts of the
ceiling will have small traces but other parts will be asbestos-
free.  As the fibres are held within a strong bond there is very
little risk of significant release if the ceiling cracks. However
there is a risk of release if the ceiling is abrasively damaged --
for example if it is sanded.  This is why we state in our tenancy
conditions that if a tenant has identified or believes there is
asbestos in their home, that they agree to notify the trust before
interfering with it or disposing of it.  We have offered to
replace them and to redecorate the walls, but have been denied
access to carry out this work."

Ms Halward refuted this and claimed the trust had been holding on
to the keys to the flat for a month, the report said.  She added:
"We've been told this property has slipped through the net, they
just want to do the repairs and put Carly back in there.  She's
back at my house and it's very overcrowded."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chesterfield Family Probes Cause of Death
----------------------------------------------------------
Derbyshire Times reported that a heartbroker family has launched
an investigation into the death of their mother after an inquest
heard how she died of a condition that is often related to
exposure to asbestos.

According to the report, Chesterfield coroner's court heard how
Linda Christine Hunt, 66, of Church Street, Creswell, died after a
post-mortem examination found a malignant mesothelioma tumour
which, according to pathologist Dr Andrew Hitchcock, is a
condition that can be caused by exposure to asbestos in 95% of
cases.

Ms Hunt's relatives opted to adjourn the inquest to try and
establish what may have caused the mesothelioma which they fear
may have been triggered by exposure to asbestos at a former family
home, the report said.

Following the hearing, daughter Joanne Lowde said: "We just want
to know where mum got this horrible disease from and if we can
find this out this information may help other people.  She was so
strong and brave throughout and we never even knew what was wrong
with her until it was too late and now we just want to try and
find out exactly what caused this disease," the report cited.

Ms Hunt, a former warden for the elderly, also suffered with
osteoporosis and ischaemic heart disease and she was diagnosed
with mesothelioma after she was admitted to hospital and sadly
became ill and died on December 6, 2012, the report related.  A
post-mortem examination revealed emphysema, pneumonia and a wide-
spread, inoperable tumour on the right side of her chest which
fitted with a malignant mesothelioma.

According to the report, Dr Hitchcock gave the cause of death as
mesothelioma. He said he did not find asbestos fibres in the lung
tissue or any features supporting any exposure to asbestos and
concluded there was no evidence to suggest Ms Hunt's mesothelioma
was asbestos-related.  However, he explained that 95% of
mesothelioma cases are said to be caused by exposure to asbestos
and five per cent are found not to be asbestos-related where it
has not been possible to demonstrate any relationship to asbestos.

North Derbyshire Deputy Coroner Nigel Anderson adjourned the
inquest for a date to be fixed to allow Ms Hunt's family, who are
in discussions with solicitors, to make further enquiries
regarding any possible causal links to their late mother's fatal
condition, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: York Carriageworkers Think Fibro Killed More
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Laycock, writing for The Press, reported that asbestos is
already thought to have claimed more than 140 lives -- but now a
campaigner has claimed the true death toll from York's asbestos
timebomb may be even higher.

According to the report, Paul Cooper, a former York Carriageworks
employee and trade unionist who now plays a leading role in the
York Asbestos Support Group, has written to York Central MP Hugh
Bayley to raise his concerns.  He said that as well as causing
mesothelioma, he believed asbestos probably led to cancers in many
other parts of the body, including the stomach and the testicles.

He said World Health Organisation research had raised such
concerns, the report related.  Mr Cooper said: "I have, on some
occasions, tried to argue for further investigations into the
deaths of my colleagues where I felt asbestos might be the cause,
both with the consultants and the coroner, Donald Coverdale, sadly
to no avail in most cases."

The report said Mr Bayley has written to Geoffrey Podger, chief
executive of the Health and Safety Executive, saying 141 former
railway carriage builders in his constituency had died as a result
of mesothelioma, contracted through working with asbestos at the
factory in Holgate Road.  He said Mr Cooper was concerned many
more may have been killed through lung, laryngeal and ovarian
cancers, as well as possibly cancer of the pharynx, stomach and
gastrointestinal cancers.

Mr Podger replied, saying HSE statistics included estimates of the
number of other types of cancer caused by asbestos in addition to
mesothelioma, which included lung, stomach and laryngeal cancer,
the report said.  "HSE has been open and clear about the fact that
these cancers are the legacy of past industrial use of asbestos
exposure," he said.

York Coroner Donald Coverdale said he had been aware of Mr
Cooper's views for many years, and said he had to comply with the
law in carrying out his statutory duties, the report added.  "If a
death is reported to me and there is no reason to believe it is
unnatural or merits any further inquiry, I am not able to
commission a post-mortem examination but am legally obliged to
authorise registration of the death without further ado," he said.

He said that if a post-mortem examination clearly dictated a
natural cause of death, he had no jurisdiction to pursue further
inquiries, but if it were a case of industrial disease or
otherwise unnatural, he would hold an inquest, the report further
related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cwmcarn Councillors Face Options in Fibro School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
South Wales Argus reported that Cwmcarn high school pupils could
soon return home if councillors agree to fund more than GBP1
million worth of asbestos works -- or alternatively they could be
split up and sent to nearby schools.

According to the report, these are the two options recommended for
discussion at a meeting to decide the future of the school, which
was closed last October after a survey found airborne asbestos.
Students are currently being taught in Ebbw Vale.

The Argus said a report to members gives five options, but
recommends three be discounted because they are unsuitable.  They
include doing nothing, returning pupils to Cwmcarn while work is
carried out, and carrying out asbestos works plus a backlog of
maintenance work totalling more than GBP3 million.  Instead
councillors will look at two options. Option four is to remove
asbestos and house pupils in temporary classrooms to the cost of
GBP1.048 million, as advised by Ensafe Asbestos Consultants Ltd.
This would make the buildings safe for ongoing maintenance and the
buildings could be reoccupied by September. This is the preferred
option of governors.

Option two, the Argus said, suggest sending pupils in Years 7 to 9
to Risca Community Comprehensive, Years 10 and 11 to
Pontllanfraith Comprehensive and sixth formers to Coleg Gwent
while the council makes a decision on its 21st Century Schools
rationalisation, which could see three schools closed to tackle
surplus spaces. This is the cheapest option costing around
GBP300,000.  But the report warns the council could face a legal
challenge from governors in the form of a judicial review, if they
chose option two.

It says this could discontinue its consultation on the schools
reorganisation indefinitely, which could have "serious
consequences" for the council, the report said.

The report concludes that taking into account the legal and
financial issues, and the best interests of pupils, option four is
the preferred option.  If agreed this would be funded from council
reserves.

Head teacher, Jacqui Peplinski wrote on the school's website: "It
feels very positive that we will have a clear way forward on 17th
April," the report cited.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taconite Industry Workers Face Increased Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that taconite industry workers face
an increased risk of contracting a rare form of lung cancer and
the risk increases the longer they remain on the job, University
of Minnesota researchers announced, but said they can't say for
certain if dust from the state's iron mining and processing
operations causes it.

According to the AP report, the researchers traveled to the Iron
Range of northeastern Minnesota to announce the findings of their
$4.9 million, five-year study into possible links between taconite
dust and mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lung lining caused by
exposure to airborne asbestos fibers that has taken the lives of
82 taconite workers over the years.  Previously released research
confirmed a 300 percent higher rate of mesothelioma on the Range
than the general population in Minnesota.

"Our goal was to begin answering questions around how mining and
taconite processing have impacted the health of Minnesotans. These
studies have started to uncover those answers," John Finnegan,
dean of the university's School of Public Health, said in a
statement, AP related.

According to AP, asbestos fibers fall into a family of "elongated
mineral particles" that are present within dust from taconite
operations.  Taconite, a low grade of iron ore, can contain
asbestos but the types of EMPs generated by iron mining had not
previously been linked to an increased risk of mesothelioma.

"Researchers did identify a potential link between cumulative
exposure to workplace EMPs and mesothelioma in taconite workers.
However, the link is not felt to be certain," the researchers said
in a statement, AP cited. "As a result, the researchers cannot say
with assuredness that dust from taconite operations causes
mesothelioma. Further data analysis in this area will continue in
the coming months."

Jeff Mandel, one of the principal researchers, said they know that
the risk of contracting mesothelioma is higher among people who've
worked longer in the industry, the report related.  Unfortunately,
he said, researchers have "minimal information" on their exposure
to other sources of asbestos that they might have encountered
outside of iron ore processing.

"It is something that we want to continue to look at, if at all
possible," he said, the report further related.  But he also said
it's clear that the industry shouldn't wait for more answers.

"No matter how you look at it, this is dusty work, and it demands
that workers and employers take responsibility to safeguard
themselves," Mandel told the meeting where they present the study
results, AP said.

The Taconite Workers Health Study found that death rates in the
industry are also higher than state averages for more common kinds
of lung cancer and for heart disease, which suggests that other
health conditions are also at work -- and lifestyle appears to be
an important factor, the AP report said.  The death rates were
higher than expected across the Range from all three diseases and
were not concentrated in any particular location.

The study confirmed that air quality in Iron Range communities is
better than in most parts of Minnesota in terms of particulates,
according to AP. It also found that occupational exposures to
taconite dust are generally within safe limits. And it found that
spouses of taconite workers aren't at any higher risk of
contracting dust-related lung diseases than the general public.

"Although working in the taconite industry increases a person's
lifetime risk of mesothelioma, the increase equates to a small
risk of actually developing the disease. Mesothelioma is still a
very rare disease," the statement said, AP cited.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Midwife Diagnosed with Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom Marshall, writing for Ham & High, reported that a former
midwife with asbestos-related cancer suspects her time at the
Whittington Hospital could be responsible for the disease.

According to the report, Margaret Daly, 69, blames her years at
the hospital in the 1960s for her recent diagnosis of incurable
mesothelioma, which is caused by asbestos exposure and leaves her
constantly breathless and suffering chest pains.  Now she is
searching for answers and has instructed lawyers Irwin Mitchell to
help her secure justice before it is too late.

"The news I'm suffering from this terrible illness came completely
out of the blue," she said, the report cited.

She worked at the hospital in Magdala Avenue, Highgate, from 1964
to 1969 and lived in nurses' quarters there, the report related.
She also suspects her time at the Shotley Bridge Hospital in
Newcastle, from 1959 to 1964, may have contributed.

"The two hospitals were really old and decrepit buildings,
particularly the nurse's accommodation at Whittington," she said,
the report added.

The mother-of-one, who now lives in County Durham, is calling for
anyone with information about the use of the deadly substance at
the Whittington in the 1960s to come forward, the report said.

Solicitor Isobel Lovett said: "It can take decades for victims
like Margaret to develop the debilitating conditions for which
there is sadly no cure," according to the report.

A spokesman for Whittington Health said the hospital contains
asbestos "in common with many buildings constructed in the 19th
and 20th centuries," the report said.  She added: "The hospital
manages this in accordance with current regulations. We are sorry
to hear of Margaret Daly's condition."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmania Unions Seeks Assurance of Safe Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blair Richards, writing for The Mercury, reported that Unions
Tasmania wants assurances that asbestos removal is being done
safely at the National Broadband Network worksites, after
receiving calls from concerned workers.

Asbestos-lined telephone pits are being dug up in streets as part
of the fibre rollout, according to the report.  Construction
activity on the NBN rollout is in progress in 45 Tasmanian suburbs
and towns.

Unions Tasmania secretary Kevin Harkins said he made a report to
Workplace Standards about a fortnight ago after he received a call
from an NBN worker who was concerned about exposure to asbestos,
the report related.  Mr Harkins had another call this week from an
NBN worker with similar concerns.

"If they were satisfied in their own mind that the process was
keeping them safe they wouldn't be ringing me," he said, the
report cited.  "I rang Workplace Standards and asked them to
investigate it thoroughly, and I couldn't say what's happened
since then. I haven't heard back in detail."

A spokeswoman for Workplace Standards said the unearthing of
asbestos from the communications pits being used for the NBN was
"nothing out of the ordinary," the report said.

In a letter written to the head of a Launceston childcare centre,
which queried the removal of asbestos near the centre, senior
Workplace Standards inspector Ivan Ebdon said asbestos was being
treated with caution during the NBN rollout, the report related.
Mr Ebdon said telephone pits were being wet cut before being
exposed to digging to keep any asbestos safely in the pit. Dry
pits could be sprayed with a water PVA adhesive to bind asbestos
fibres.  Any worker removing asbestos wore protective gear while
other workers kept a distance of 10m. Asbestos removal signs were
posted to alert the public, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widower of Meso Victim Seeks Help From Colleagues
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Care, writing for ThisisWiltshire.co.uk, reported that a
widower whose wife died from an asbestos-related cancer has
appealed for her former colleagues to help as he fights for
compensation.

According to the report, Kay Brunsden died in August 2011 from
mesothelioma, a type of lung cancer linked to asbestos inhalation.
Husband Derek, of Stockley Lane, Calne, is now asking anyone who
worked with her at Wiltshire Council, especially in the highways
depot in Lancaster Road, Bowerhill, between 1986 and 1988, to come
forward to help his claim against the council.

He said: "Kay was very fit and healthy and we were enjoying our
lives together. She was not exposed to asbestos in any other place
during her lifetime. It is hard to accept her life was cruelly cut
short as a result of inhaling asbestos at work," the report cited.

It is believed Mrs Brunsden was exposed to asbestos fibres during
renovation work at the depot on old buildings there, including
former WW2 aircraft hangars, the report said.

"Kay worked four days a week and we both remember refurbishment
work going on. I used to collect her and she would be covered in
white dust," according to Mr Brunsden.

The report related that the case is being handled by solicitor
Helen Grady. She said: "By the late 1980s, the dangers of asbestos
had been known for many decades. It would appear that Kay was not
given any warnings or advice in relation to this asbestos
exposure."

A Wiltshire Council spokesman said: "We are unable to comment as
there is an ongoing case. However, we have a comprehensive
asbestos management plan in place to ensure the risks associated
with it are minimised."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron and Budd Warns Fibro Exposure Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
When Surgeon General Regina Benjamin issued a public statement on
April 1 alerting Americans to the health risks of all forms of
asbestos at any level of exposure, she dedicated two paragraphs to
the special hazards associated with disturbing latent asbestos:
"Anyone who disturbs asbestos is at risk," she warned. Disturbing
latent asbestos can release billions of invisible fibers into the
air, where they can be ingested.

Asbestos disturbance can occur during demolitions and renovation
projects, such as the $6 million construction project underway
since last August at East Bank Middle School in Kanawha Country,
WV. Inspectors have located several areas in the 1960s
infrastructure since October that tested positive for asbestos.
Kanawha Facilities Director Chuck Wilson is quick to emphasize
that all the demolitions took place when students were away on
holiday or during weekends.

Asthmatic six-grader Ivy Davis, however, is struggling harder to
breathe as the project continues. Ivy explained on camera that she
was very nervous about coming back after Spring break: "When I get
in there," she said, "I notice I can't breathe that well and I
start coughing a lot where the dust has been stirred. Her wheezing
has worsened, too.

East Bank students were scheduled to return Tuesday, April 9,
after Spring Break as parents voiced louder concerns.
In fact the half-century-old infrastructure was stripped to its
pipes and wiring in order to complete the project's goals by
August 2013: foremost is installation of a new HVAC air
conditioning and heating system which Wilson says the school has
been without for 3-4 years. Other updates include modernizing
ceilings, rooftops, ductwork, and floor tiling -- all of which
"required demolition in numerous parts of the building," said
Wilson. "It's not been done while any kids are in school and it's
been glove-bagged, and we're really heavily regulated on how this
occurs," he said. But Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
official literature states: "During renovation and removal
activities, risks from exposure are greatly increased"

Another sample from the boiler room was sent for analysis Monday,
which takes 24 hours to process. Wilson stated optimism that the
samples would test negative, adding he believes no harm will come
to students because of the air, since certified professionals have
properly scrubbed all the trouble spots. Parents wonder why their
children would be allowed to approach the building before test
results were confirmed.

Recognized mesothelioma law firm Baron and Budd's president and
managing shareholder Russell Budd says, "We defend mesothelioma
sufferers 24/7. I am deeply disturbed that school children should
be allowed anywhere near the handling and disposal of asbestos-
containing material."

                      About Baron and Budd

Baron and Budd's attorneys have championed mesothelioma sufferers
for 35 years, achieving some of the largest victories on record
including a $48 million verdict for a California mesothelioma
patient and his family last year against Union Carbide, a
subsidiary of Dow Chemical (Bobbie Izell, et al. v. Union Carbide
Corp., et al., Los Angeles County, Case No. 4674). It was the
largest of its kind in 2012 and recognized among the National Law
Journal's "Top 100 Verdicts."

Baron and Budd is a repeat platinum sponsor of the anti-asbestos
advocate group ADAO (Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization)
whose weeklong observance of Global Asbestos Awareness Week (April
1-7) utilized a singularly powerful platform to blanket the world
with one message: No form of asbestos is safe at any level of
exposure. The firm opened its doors in 1977 to help fight the
battles of those injured from exposure. The firm is a staunch ADAO
ally; together they are calling for the US to stop importing
asbestos from Brazil and join a worldwide asbestos ban. To date 55
nations have signed the ban including all European Union members
-- but the US has not. Call 866.855.1229 (day or night) or visit:
http://baronandbudd.com/areas-of-practice/mesothelioma-attorney/.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Containing Cement Found in Navuso School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Torika Tokalau, writing for The Fiji Times Online, reported that
the Occupational Health and Safety department of the Ministry of
Labour has advised Navuso Secondary School to change the cement
pipes that it believes contains asbestos material.  The school had
recently discovered white substance in its water pipes.

The OHS Department visited the school this month to conduct its
investigations, according to the report.

"We have suggested to the school to work closely with relevant
authorities and change the cement pipes to PVC or steel pipes as a
medium-term measure," the deputy secretary for OHS and Workers
Compensation at the Ministry of Labour, Osea Cawaru, told the
Times Online.  "At this stage we are only assuming it's asbestos
because we could not obtain a sample for analysis.

"We wanted to obtain a sample and confirm the presence of asbestos
through polarised microscopic analysis but it was a very hard and
dangerous task to do because the pipes laid are a few feet
underground and digging might have affected the integrity of the
pipe if it is asbestos or any form of asbestos containing
material."

Mr Cawaru said they would have to wait until the school decided
what to do with the pipes, the report related.  "We formally
recommended to the school not to disturb the pipes except when
there is repair works next time.  Then they should inform us
immediately before any work continues for precautionary measures
to be put in place."

He said if the material was confirmed to be asbestos, they would
carry out a risk assessment to ascertain if there was any damage
or deterioration to the pipes, the report added.  "Immediately we
would liaise with the school and put control measures depending on
the state of the material.  For example, if it's still in its
solid state and intact, the pipes should not be disturbed. If
damaged, the pipe should be removed.  If the asbestos pipe is
found to be damaged and in a deteriorated state then it will be
recommended for immediate removal," said Mr Cawaru.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ball-Chatham Solicits Bids for Fibro Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Petrella, writing for The State Journal-Register, reported
that the The Ball-Chatham School District is soliciting bids for
the removal of asbestos at three schools.

According to the report, the work is related to remodeling and
reconstruction projects that will be paid for with a $35 million
bond issue voters approved in November, Dave Murphy, the
district's director of facilities and grounds, wrote in an email.

Asbestos is a known carcinogen and can cause other lung problems,
and strict regulations must be followed during its removal, the
report related.  The work at Glenwood Intermediate School and
Chatham and Ball elementary schools will be done in compliance
with federal and state regulations and will be completed when the
buildings are not occupied, Murphy said.

"All work will be monitored full time by an independent project
manager to ensure compliance with regulations, and access to work
areas is restricted to authorized personnel," he told the news
agency.

The work at Ball Elementary, expected to cost $35,000 and to begin
next month, will involve the removal of tile, pipe insulation and
caulk, the report said.  A $12,000 project at Glenwood
Intermediate this summer will remove roofing material where an
addition will connect to the existing school.  Work at Chatham
Elementary this summer will remove tile, pipe insulation and
ceilings. It is expected to cost $20,000.  The work all will be
paid for with bond proceeds.

The report related that by nearly a 2-1 margin, voters in November
approved the sale of $35 million in bonds to pay for additions and
upgrades at all six of the district's schools. The work is needed
to keep up with the district's growing student population and to
keep buildngs up to date.  Glenwood and Ball elementary schools,
Glenwood Intermediate and Glenwood High School all are slated for
additions.  Chatham Elementary and Glenwood Middle School will see
smaller improvements.

Aside from the asbestos removal, work is scheduled to begin this
summer on the additions to the two elementary schools and the
intermediate school, the report said.  The portion of Ball
Elementary built in 1926 will be demolished and replaced with a
new structure.  At Glenwood Intermediate, there will be a 13,000-
square-foot addition.  The work at Glenwood Elementary will
include three additions that will add 14 classrooms, along with
parking lot and driveway improvements.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Begins in Penryn Hall Renovation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Fountain, writing for The Packet, reported that work started
on the removal of asbestos and treatment of woodworm at the Stuart
Stephen Memorial Hall in Penryn.  The first phase of renovations
at the hall will also include replacing the flat roof and making
sure the building is watertight.

"First fix" plumbing for the central heating is being carried out
as well, the report said.

Town clerk Michelle Davey said: "All the work has been funded by
grants for the first phase -- The second phase is planned for
later this year and will include refurbishments of the entrance
hall, toilets and kitchen and the completion of the central
heating.  Funding permitting, it should all be complete for the
autumn when it starts to get cold again," the report cited.

She added: "As usual, we need the understanding and patience of
our regular hall users while the work is being carried out. It
will all be worth it in the end!," the report further cited.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dumped in Beckenham Road
-----------------------------------------------
Patrick Grafton-Green, writing for New Shopper, reported that a
road in Beckenham is being used as a dumping ground for asbestos,
putting people's health at risk, says a man who lives there.

John Clasper, 65, of Downs Bridge Road, says he has found crushed
up asbestos on the road a number of times, the report related.

He told News Shopper: "It poses a really bad health hazard in the
area, especially coming into summer as it gets very dry.  At the
moment, because of wet weather, it gets washed away but if it's
dry people, including young children, will breathe in the dust.
The council say they will send men to scrape it up, but I haven't
seen any evidence of this.  It is highly dangerous -- I have two
great grandchildren aged four and six and I'm not sure if I can
keep having them round because I am worried about the risk."

Mr Clasper added that school children, from Bishop Challoner
School, also walk down the road, the report related.  He said: "I
often find a strip of asbestos dust the full length of road -- it
is not very conspicuous.  If you are not looking for it you're not
likely to notice it, but the road is really highly contaminated."

It is thought the asbestos is crushed up so that it blends in with
the gravel on the road, the report said.

Executive Councillor for Environment Colin Smith told the news
agency: "We have cleared fly-tipping in this road but the wet and
wintry weather on the unmade road surface has seriously hindered
the initial identification of location and the final clearance
work, which will be undertaken shortly.  If there is a health
risk, our analysis has concluded that this is low but this does
not mean we will not take action.  We will not hesitate to
prosecute an offender if the information becomes available."

Repeated exposure to asbestos can cause serious health problems in
later life, potentially contributing to lung cancer and other
debilitating lung diseases, the report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Raps Waltham Forest Counsel Over Hall Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Binns, writing for This is Local London, reported that a
safety watchdog has rapped Waltham Forest Council over its
handling of asbestos at the town hall.

According to the report, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has
issued a series of improvement orders on the authority stating it
has failed to draw up legally-required plans for, and records of,
managing the cancer-causing fibre at the site in Forest Road,
Walthamstow.  Last year it emerged that all three types of
asbestos -- including its most dangerous blue variety -- had been
found in multiple rooms of the town hall, potentially putting
dozens at risk.

The report said it was then revealed that the council had known
about the issue since the 1980s but had continued to store
sensitive documents in one of the rooms affected.

The authority then announced it would have to destroy around 5,000
of the documents amid concerns they may have been contaminated,
although it pledged to electronically copy some "important"
financial and legal paperwork, the report related.

The news comes as the HSE continues its investigation into the
council over the handling of asbestos at all its buildings in the
borough, the report said.  This includes the former Warwick School
for Boys site in Brooke Road, Walthamstow, where pupils at St
Mary's Primary School were due to relocate until asbestos was also
found there last summer.

The report related that in February the HSE launched an
investigation into the council's handling of water systems in some
schools, following concerns there was a risk of the potentially
deadly Legionella bacteria developing.

The HSE asbestos improvement order, published this week, states
the council failed to "draw up a suitable and sufficient plan to
manage the asbestos or any asbestos containing substances" and had
failed to "record how the plan will be implemented," the report
said.

Nick Tiratsoo, a community worker of Odessa Road in Leytonstone,
helped publicly uncover news of asbestos at the town hall when he
tried unsuccessfully to obtain election records from the council
last year, the report added.  He told the Guardian: "The council
endlessly trumpets its alleged merits in public, but this
development once again exposes the tawdry everyday realities.  The
town hall is used by thousands of people every month, both staff
and visitors, yet the council now stands condemned for failing to
take the elementary steps which are required to deal with the
building's asbestos.  Moreover, we know that HSE investigations
continue on other council sites. Asbestos is too dangerous to mess
around with. Perhaps [council leader] Cllr Chris Robbins can tell
us exactly what is going on?"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSU Historian Wins Fellowship to Study Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Boswell, writing for MSU News Service, reported that a
Montana State University historian who is a world-renowned expert
in Japanese environmental history has received a $48,000
fellowship that will allow him to pursue a global project on
asbestos.

According to the report, Regents' Professor Brett Walker was one
of 175 scholars, artists and scientists across the nation to win a
2013 John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship.  He and D. Graham Burnett
of Princeton University were the only fellows in the "History of
Science, Technology and Economics" category.

In the midst of checking emails from students, "I got a piece of
good news," Walker told the news agency.

Nicol Rae, dean of MSU's College of Letters and Science, told the
news agency, "I'm very proud of Professor Walker. This adds to his
long list of scholarly achievements and brings credit to the
college and the Department of History and Philosophy. Brett is a
stellar faculty member."

According to the report, Walker applied for the fellowship by
writing a proposal titled, "The Slow Dying: Asbestos and the
Unmaking of the Modern World." Winning the fellowship will allow
him to pursue a project that will look at the possibility of
global poisoning as industrial infrastructures around the world
are destroyed by terrorism, war or natural disasters, or begin to
decay, Walker said. The poisoning could relate to the World Trade
Towers' destruction in 2001, the tsunami that struck northeast
Japan in 2011 or basically a century of industrial infrastructure
that is slowly decaying.

The report related that the fellowship will help fund travel to
Turkey, South Africa, Russia, Quebec and Japan where he will
examine archives, conduct interviews and carry out other field
work, Walker said. The project will also involve Libby, Mont., and
other locations in the United States.

The report added that he will incorporate his findings in the
classes he teaches in the MSU Department of History, Philosophy
and Religious Studies, Walker said. He hopes it might dovetail
with projects in the Institute on Ecosystems at MSU. He expects it
will lead him to expand his asbestos research to related projects,
such as the effects of moving materials containing asbestos across
national borders.

According to the report, Walker served five years as head of MSU's
Department of History, Philosophy and Religious Studies. The
Montana Board of Regents named him a Regents Professor of History
in 2008.

Walker, 46, was born in Bozeman to MSU graduates Nelson Walker and
Linda Harbers, the report said.  He spent most of his summers
growing up on a family wheat and barley farm near Cascade. It
belongs to his aunt and uncle and MSU graduates Lee and Sue
Belote. Every year when the family left the farm to return to San
Francisco and other cities where his father's work took them,
Walker said he vowed to himself, "I have got to get back."
He was thrilled when a job in Japanese history opened up at MSU
and allowed him to return full-time to Montana 14 years ago,
Walker said.

Walker taught at Yale University before coming to MSU, and he has
had the opportunity to return there to teach, the report related.
He has also received other job offers from Stanford University,
Arizona State University and the University of Minnesota, but
Walker said he has strong loyalties to Bozeman, Montana and MSU.
Walker's Guggenheim Fellowship is the third for MSU. The other two
were won by art professors Eric Hongisto and Deborah Butterfield.
Hongisto won his in 2005, and Butterfield won hers in 1980.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Justice for Meso-Victim Husband
------------------------------------------------------------
Reddith Advertiser reported that the widow of a former factory
worker left heartbroken after her husband died of an asbestos-
related cancer is appealing to his former colleagues to help in
her battle for justice.

According to the report, grandfather-of-11 Albert Heaton from
North Redditch died of mesothelioma, a cancer on the lining of the
lungs caused by inhaling asbestos dust, in December 2010 aged 71
years.  Devastated by her loss, wife of 49 years Sheila instructed
experts at law firm Irwin Mitchell to try to get in touch with
Albert's former colleagues at Granville Tin Plate Co Ltd in
Bilston.

The report said it is believed they may be able to provide vital
information about the presence of asbestos and working conditions
at the factory while Albert worked there as a duct maker and
fitter from 1954 to 1960.

Kim Barrett, from Irwin Mitchell, told the news agency: "The
family have been left shocked and unable to come to terms with
Albert's death because he deteriorated so quickly.  Sheila
remembered Albert's time at Granville's factory as he worked there
when they began courting and she used to work nearby so he would
visit her on his lunch hour.  As well as making ducting in the
factory, Albert used to visit other sites where he was responsible
for removing old ducting and fitting the replacement which could
also be a dusty job."

The report related that Sheila noticed Albert was short of breath
at the end of 2009 and he had lost a lot of weight before this.
By the end of November 2010 he was so weak he could no longer get
round the house and he was admitted to the Alexandra Hospital.

The report further related that a scan revealed Albert had cancer
in his lungs but he was too ill for doctors to carry out a biopsy
to confirm the type of cancer and he was sent home on December 6
where he died three days later.

Sheila, 72, told the news agency: "Albert was my world and I still
struggle to accept he is no longer here.  We met at school and
began courting soon after we left so I can barely remember my life
without him.  We should have been planning our 50th wedding
anniversary when he became ill but never got chance to make the
milestone."

She added: "Albert was never one to complain so when his health
began deteriorating it was difficult to know how poorly he was.
Once he was admitted to hospital we knew it was serious but never
imagined he would be taken from us so quickly.  It was
heartbreaking but also made me angry to learn that he had died
from something he had no control over through being exposed so
long ago."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cape City Council Approves Remediation Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Ragan, writing for Southeast Missourian, reported that Cape
Girardeau's city council voted to move forward with steps in
various projects throughout the city during the meeting April 15.

According to the report, asbestos remediation is complete at the
former Convention & Visitors Bureau building on Broadway that soon
will be torn down. The council voted to approve final payment for
the remediation, which cost just more than $20,000.

The report said City manager Scott Meyer said demolition of the
building is likely to begin by early summer. For now, he said, the
site will be turned into a parking lot, but the city also will be
looking for a next best use for the space. The total cost of the
demolition is estimated at $125,000. The project is among several
the council approved earlier this spring to be paid for with
revenue the city receives from the operation of Isle Casino Cape
Girardeau.

The Convention & Visitors Bureau moved from the former bank
building at the corner of Broadway and Main Street in 2007 into
the Himmelberger-Harrison building at 400 Broadway, where it still
is located, the report related.

The council also approved a time extension for a project that will
connect Cape LaCroix Trail to the Shawnee Sports Complex in two
areas, the report further related.  Assistant city manager Kelly
Green said the project is being funded through federal grants. The
project will add two segments to the existing trail, one of which
will start at West End Boulevard and Linden Street and extend to
the current south end of the trail. The other will connect the
trail to the complex and West End Boulevard at Highway 74.
Residential areas near both segments that will gain walking access
to the complex when the project is complete, Green said. Work is
expected to begin in September and be complete by spring.

Green said the additions are one step in eventually connecting a
trail near the downtown riverwalk with Cape LaCroix Trail, which
begins north of the Osage Centre on Kingshighway and stretches
south toward Highway 74, the report said.  The ultimate goal is to
make the trail into a large loop that would take it all the way
around the city, according to a master plan devised by the city's
parks and recreation department with the help of a consultant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nebraska Men Sued for Improper Dumping
-------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth, writing for Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance, reported that
two men charged with the demolition of an old motel in the town of
Falls City, Nebraska are now being sued by the U.S. Attorney's
Office in Omaha because they failed to properly abide by state and
federal laws governing the removal and disposal of asbestos-
containing materials.

An article in the Lincoln Journal Star reported that the men in
question worked for Vision 20-20 Inc., the company that tore down
the old Stephenson Motel and built the new Vision Inn Motel at the
same location. Brian D. Palmer was a director and Jerry R. McKim
was an officer for the company. Both are named in the suit.

According to prosecutors, the men violated laws associated with
the Clean Water Act when they failed to obtain a permit for
disposal of asbestos materials and then proceeded to dispose of
the toxic material in a ditch that led to U.S. waterways, namely
the Missouri and Big Nemaha Rivers.

When asbestos removal occurs as it did at the Stephenson Motel,
the material must then be properly packaged and disposed of only
in landfills that are licensed to receive this kind of toxic
waste. This must occur because errant asbestos fibers can make
their way into the air where they can be inhaled. As a result, any
one who suffers asbestos exposure could one day develop such
respiratory diseases as asbestosis, pleural plaques, and the
cancer known as mesothelioma.

The investigation was led by the Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the case was then filed by the
federal government.

"To our knowledge the disposal was cleaned up and there is no
ongoing health threat that we're aware of," said DEQ spokesperson
Brian McManus, assuring area residents that they were in no danger
of asbestos exposure at this time, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Saskatchewan Civic Buildings
------------------------------------------------------------
The StarPhoenix reported that asbestos has been found in more than
a dozen civic buildings, but will remain contained unless it is
disturbed, states a report going to city committee.

According to the report, responding to a question from Coun. Pat
Lorje, city administrators stated there are 14 buildings known to
contain asbestos, with another 75 "likely" containing the
substance.

The asbestos is contained in heating pipe insulation coverings and
will not become airborne unless the coverings are disturbed, it
stated, the report related.  City administration will also conduct
further assessments to ensure protection of workers and the
public, the report stated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Causes Fawley Plumber's Death
-------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a plumber died years after being
exposed to asbestos, an inquest heard.

According to the report, Arthur George Avery, 80, died at his home
in The Pentagon, Fawley, in October last year following a long
illness.  An inquest at Southampton Coroner's Court was told how
he was diagnosed with an asbestos-related lung disease in 2010.

A post mortem was carried out on Mr Avery, which found the
principal cause of his death was mesothelioma and ischemic heart
disease, the report related.  Southampton coroner Keith Wiseman
recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found Dumped in Curragh Plains
-----------------------------------------------------
Vicki Weller, writing for Kildare Nationalist, reported that a
quantity of potentially lethal asbestos has been found dumped in
an area of the Curragh plains frequently used by children and
families.

According to the report, the discovery was made on Saturday by a
person out walking near the roadway known as 'Hollow Road', which
joins the main road alongside the popular Donnolly's Hollow to the
Curragh Golf Club  premises.

The asbestos material involved was a section of roof sheeting,
comprised of around a dozen tiles, some of which were broken or
chipped, which had presumably been dumped there from a vehicle at
some point, the report said.

Newbridge community activist Jason Turner (Tus Nua) told the
***Kildare Nationalist*** that he had been informed of the find
and was given to understand that the material concerned was likely
to contain the Chrysotile type of asbestos, known as "white
asbestos," the report related.

"Asbestos is especially dangerous when it is broken or chipped and
it appears that some of these tiles were actually in pieces. It is
extremely dangerous to have this happening in an area like
Donnolly's Hollow where children are playing and people are
walking dogs," he told the news agency.  Adding that he believed
this "was not the first time" that similar potentially hazardous
material had been dumped on the plains, Mr Turner said the issue
of  "mindless" illegal dumping was one which needed to be
addressed. He also noted that the material was still in place on
Monday morning, saying he was "surprised" that it could not be
taken away more quickly.

Asbestos, which is known to cause cancer, is banned by the EU and
in Ireland under the 2005 Health and Safety Act, the report said.
When found in any location, it requires expert handling for
disposal and it is understood that in this instance, both the army
authorities and Kildare Co Council's Litter Warden were informed
of the find.

A Kildare Co Council spokesperson told the ***Kildare
Nationalist*** that the council was aware of the find but added
that it was the Curragh Rangers who were taking responsibility for
the disposal of the material, the report added.  "So far as we are
aware, they are arranging for a private company to come and remove
the material, hopefully today," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District 112 Teacher Questions Fibro Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Denys Bucksten and John P. Huston, writing for the Chicago
Tribune, reported that North Shore School District 112 was fined
two years ago for multiple violations regarding asbestos removal
projects at several of its schools dating back to 2007, but one
teacher is still seeking answers.

Steve Bartel, a Lincoln School fifth grade teacher, appeared
before the school board recently to ask that it "come clean on the
asbestos violations that have taken place over the years, and to
let the public and the staff know what happened and not keep it
quiet anymore," the report said.

Work at Elm Place, Indian Trail and Sherwood schools was stopped
in July 2007 when the Illinois Department of Public Health
discovered asbestos removal and record-keeping violations, the
report related.  Work was permitted to resume a month later, and
the district maintains that air quality testing has shown no one's
health was put at risk at any of its facilities.

Bartel worries that asbestos removal work a year prior -- in 2006
-- at Lincoln and other schools may have slipped through the
cracks, "where those schools were most likely left dirty, if what
happened at Sherwood, Elm Place and Indian Trail are any
indication," the report said.

District 112 officials say they are confident the work was handled
properly, the report related.  "There have been no issues where
we're concerned we put anyone's health at risk," said School Board
President Bruce Hyman.

District spokeswoman Andi Rosen said that, by law, an air quality
test is performed on each school facility following asbestos
removal, but by a different company than did the work, the report
further related.  "There was no indication (of danger)," Rosen
said. "Every project got clearance afterwards. If they had
concerns about those other schools it would have been investigated
earlier."

She said the violations came from a licensed sub-contractor that
was performing the work in 2007, and that a different company did
asbestos work in 2006, the report also related.  "School districts
don't take on this kind of work with their own employees, so you
rely on licensed contractors who are licensed by the state," Rosen
said. "Ultimately when you hire contractors you are still
responsible."

According to the report, District 112 paid a $10,000 fine in April
2011, as part of a publicized settlement after Illinois Attorney
General Lisa Madigan's office alleged 12 counts of Environmental
Protection Act and other regulation violations related to asbestos
and air quality at Elm Place, Indian Trail, Lincoln, Red Oak and
Sherwood schools. The consent order also acknowledged that the
district spent $52,000 on asbestos projects during the 2009-10
school year at Elm Place, Green Bay, Lincoln, Red Oak and Sherwood
schools.

As part of the settlement, the district was directed to file an
annual report to the Illinois Department of Public Health
detailing its asbestos training documentation, management plan and
other materials, the report said.

Bartel, a teacher for 25 years -- 20 of them at District 112 --
has pressed district officials over the years to identify
individuals exposed to airborne asbestos, but said he has been met
with indifference and resistance, the report related.

"I can't understand how they can be so insensitive to people
having been exposed to fibers that are linked to asbestosis and
mesothelioma," he told the news agency.

Bartel said after a March 20 school board meeting that it was his
first appearance before the board, and it was driven by
frustration over years of making Freedom of Information Act
requests for documents, unanswered emails, and unreturned phone
calls, according to the report.  Bartel, 59, said his persistent
campaign has drawn harsh words, veiled threats "about crossing the
line" and, in his opinion, a contrived grievance about his
classroom comportment, eventually settled with a reprimand letter
in his personnel file.

District 112 Supt. David Behlow, who joined the district in July
2009, said he is unaware of any animus directed toward Bartel
during the teacher's campaign to alert the schools about asbestos
issues, the report said.  "What I can tell you is that the safety
of the staff and children is my number one priority," Behlow said.
"Any issue brought to our attention we will address immediately."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Unearthed at Port Stanvac Refinery Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Advertiser reported that Safework SA is investigating another
health scare for workers at the Port Stanvac refinery demolition
site with union officials likely to conduct a site inspection.

According to The Advertiser, reports say an excavator unearthed a
large amount of asbestos last week with about 12 workers believed
to have been in the immediate area at the time.  An exclusion zone
has been established, but there are fears exposed contractors
werent properly decontaminated, one news report said.

Workers recently returned to the site after three weeks of closure
related to traces of potentially lethal legionella found in
drinking water, the report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Underway at Vacated Ill. School
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Stout, writing for The Times, reported that crews are
working on asbestos abatement inside the former Central School
building along the Illinois River in Ottawa to prepare for the
condemned building's upcoming demolition.

According to the report, the city officially took the title to the
vacated school property along with 16 surrounding acres for
$375,000 from the Ottawa Elementary School District in February.

The money for the purchase and the ongoing mandatory improvements
came out of a nearly $2 million grant awarded to the city last
year from the federal Hurricane Ike flood recovery funds
administered by the state, the report said.

"Once we get the building demolished and the site cleaned up, we
plan to begin a very public process as how best to use the
property," Mayor Robert Eschbach, told the news agency. "We are
currently reviewing proposals from professional planning
consultants who specialize in small town and riverfront
developments for ideas on what could be done with the space."

Eschbach further told the news agency: "I expect by early summer
to be well into the planning process. The city wants to develop a
consensus between the professional planners and our residents on
what to do with the property."

The mayor said town hall meetings will be scheduled to discuss the
possibilities, the report related.

Reviewing the progress, Ottawa Building and Zoning Official Mike
Sutfin was pleased to see the abatement work on schedule, the
report further related.  "They should have the work completed in
another three to four weeks," said Sutfin.

Looking around the expansive riverfront acreage, Sutfin said it is
easy to imagine having next year's wine and jazz festival or
Riverfest on the property, the report said.  "This is a great
piece of land," he said.

Asbestos abatement project manager Ziggy Bryndal, of Chicago, said
the mostly empty building is secure at all times and is off limits
to the public during the asbestos removal work as it is a
hazardous area, according to the report.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife Contacts Cancer From Husband's Overalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Essex County Standard reported that a wife died from a rare form
of cancer she contracted through washing asbestos from her
husband's work uniform.

According to the report, an inquest at Chelmsford Crown Court
heard on Wednesday how Janet Potton, of Panfield Lane, Braintree,
75, passed away at Broomfield Hospital on December 3 last year
from mesothelioma.  The cancer is normally affects people exposed
to asbestos and coroner Caroline Beasley-Murray was told how Mrs
Potton's husband had worked with the substance in a factory job.

It is thought she came into contact with asbestos when washing the
overalls her husband wore for his work, the report related.

Concluding, Mrs Beasley-Murray said: "Janet Potton died of
industrial disease of mesothelioma.  Looking at the evidence, on
the balance of probability this lady was exposed to asbestos while
washing her husband's overalls," the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Louis Park Biz Cited for Asbestos Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Gauthier, writing for St. Louis Park Patch, reported that a
St. Louis Park business is among more than 50 violations written
up by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency since the start of
2013.

According to the report, SK&N Environmental Safety Services, Inc.,
which is based in St. Louis Park, was cited for an asbestos
violation earlier this year. The company faces a fine of $7,250
from the MPCA.  Penalties collected by the MPCA throughout the
first quarter of 2013 total more than $190,000, with 20% of those
cases for various air quality violations totaling more than
$51,000.

The report said MPCA imposes the monetary penalties as part of its
overall enforcement process. Staff members at the MPCA also
provide assistance, support and information to help the companies
get into compliance with regulations upon request.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant Removes PI Suit to Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reported that one of more than two dozen defendants in an asbestos
lung cancer lawsuit has removed the matter to federal court.

According to the report, United Technologies Corp. (UTC) filed a
notice to remove the suit that William Wood filed in July from the
Madison County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.  Wood sued UTC and 27 other
companies, claiming that he developed lung cancer as a direct
result of being exposed to the defendants' asbestos-containing
products.

The report related that he worked as an aircraft electrician, as
well as a manufacturing and construction worker, from 1960 to 1981
and spent time at numerous job sites in Ohio and West Virginia,
his complaint states.  Asserting that the defendants should have
known about the dangers associated with asbestos, Wood's eight-
count complaint seeks more than $50,000 and includes claims for
negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, conspiracy, negligent
spoliation of evidence and strict liability.

Steven Aroesty, an attorney at Napoli, Bern, Ripka, Shkolnik in
Edwardsville, represents Wood, the report said.  He has filed at
least two other lung cancer asbestos suits -- Leggett v. Boeing
Co. et al. and Spells Jr. v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation et
al. -- in  Madison County since late last year.

The report noted that the increasing number of nationwide lung
cancer suits has been dubbed a new trend in asbestos litigation.
Attorneys discussed it last month at the "Cutting-Edge Issues in
Asbestos Litigation Conference" in Beverley Hills, Calif.

Like the removal notice UTC filed in the Leggett case, which names
it and 19 other companies as defendants, UTC pointed to the U.S.
Code's federal officer removal provision to remove Wood's suit
from state court to federal court, the report related.  This
provision allows parties to remove suits if they can prove they
acted under the direction of a federal officer, raise a colorable
federal defense to the claims and show a causal nexus between the
claims and acts performed.

The plaintiff in Leggett last month filed a motion to remand the
case back to state court, according to the report. CBS Corp., one
of about 30 defendants in the Spells suit, also asserted the
federal officer removal provision to remove its case to federal
court.

UTC asserts that it is entitled to the removal provision because
it acted as a government contractor when it manufactured aircraft
engines for use by the U.S. Air Force, the report said.  Wood, it
notes, worked as an aircraft electrician in the Air Force from
1965 to 1969.

William Shultz Jr. of Kurowski & Shultz Jr. in Swansea represents
UTC, the report said.

Since the removal notice was filed, U.S. District Court Judges
Michael Reagan and J. Phil Gilbert have both recused themselves
from hearing the case, the report related.  An order entered
April 18 shows that Judge William Stiehl has been assigned to the
case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazards Found at Hakea Prison
----------------------------------------------
Beatrice Thomas, The West Australian, reported that The Department
of Corrective Services has been ordered to fix a litany of
asbestos hazards at Hakea Prison as it emerged a number of old
sections of the facility were riddled with the deadly fibres.

According to the report, using question time in Parliament to
raise the issue, shadow corrective services minister Paul Papalia
said WorkSafe had found the old units posed a safety risk with
unstable asbestos in the ceilings that required a complete
evacuation of each unit for the works.

The report said he challenged Corrective Services Minister Joe
Francis to detail how the work could be done when the prison was
at capacity and housing juveniles from the Banksia Hill detention
centre in two newer units after the January riot.

Mr Francis said Hakea prisoners would be moved out of their cells
to facilitate the asbestos removal works after the juveniles
returned to Banksia Hill, the report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Action Costs Biz Owner GBP7,200
--------------------------------------------------------
The Cornish Guardian reported that a stable owner and agricultural
engineer have been ordered to pay GBP7,200 in fines and costs for
a series of offences involving the storage and attempted illegal
disposal of asbestos.

According to the report, magistrates at Bodmin heard how in
February 2012 Catherine Perkins obtained planning permission for a
new equestrian development at Bears Farm, St Giles on the Heath,
near Launceston.  A planning condition was that two large disused
chicken sheds be demolished to make way for the scheme and all
redundant materials be cleared from the site.  Perkins was told to
register the site as a producer of hazardous waste and advised to
use a registered asbestos removal company.

The report said she registered as a producer of hazardous waste
and stated the 4.5 tonnes of asbestos would be placed in a
lockable skip before being taken to landfill for disposal. The
quantity of asbestos was estimated at 4.5 tonnes.  But when
Environment Agency officers visited the farm, they found asbestos
sheets stacked within one of the buildings and the site in a
"generally messy" state.

On August Bank Holiday Monday, 2012, the agency received a report
of asbestos being loaded onto a tractor and trailer at Bears Farm,
the report related. The tractor and trailer were later found at
Trevoulter Farm, Poundstock, near Bude owned by agricultural
engineer, Graham Pluess.  There were approximately 120 asbestos
sheets on the trailer, only partially covered by a tarpaulin.

According to the report, Perkins said that she arranged for Pluess
to take the waste away.  Pluess admitted organising the removal of
asbestos roofing from Bear Farm to Trevoulter Farm. He claimed the
consignment was only 1.5 tonnes but it weighed more than five
tonnes.

"People should not underestimate the risks of bonded asbestos and
must ensure this hazardous material is disposed of responsibly by
consigning it to a registered and suitably qualified waste
carrier," Philip Siddall for the Environment Agency who brought
the case, told the news agency.

Perkins was fined GBP700 and ordered to pay GBP1,500 costs after
pleading guilty to two offences under the Environmental Protection
Act 1990 and the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005, the report
related.  Pluess was fined GBP3,500 and ordered to pay GBP1,500
costs after pleading guilty to three offences under the same acts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Renovation Halted for Fibro Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Lisa Madigan on April 18 announced an agreed
order to halt renovation at a hospital and hotel building on
Chicago's North Side until asbestos contamination is cleaned up.
The City of Chicago has joined Madigan's office in seeking the
emergency legal action.

Cook County Judge Neil Cohen has entered an agreed order that
Madigan's office filed with defendants Zidan Management Group,
Inc., Dubai, Inc. and Somerset Place Realty, LLC. The agreed
interim order requires the defendants to cease all asbestos
removal and to take measures to prevent further release of
asbestos by posting notices at every entrance to the structure and
to bar unauthorized access to minimize the threat to public health
and the environment. In addition, the defendants must present a
project design plan for approval by Madigan's office, Illinois EPA
and the City of Chicago for the removal of asbestos and
remediation of contamination caused.

The Illinois EPA referred the matter to Madigan's office in April,
noting that a City of Chicago inspector observed asbestos had been
improperly and illegally removed on the north side of the nine-
story building at 5009 N. Sheridan Road. In addition, workers were
observed wearing only paper respirators and were not dressed
properly for asbestos removal. Workers were removing pipe
insulation, tile and mastic containing asbestos without enclosures
and without following the proper wetting procedures.

"There is no known safe level of exposure to asbestos," said
Madigan. "Unfortunately, careless mishandling of this dangerous
substance posed a health threat. This legal action will ensure the
workers take appropriate precautions and the contractors
effectively clean up the location."

Joined by city legal officials, Madigan's office also announced an
eight-count complaint against the three defendants alleging
substantial danger to the environment, air pollution, violation of
asbestos inspection, emission control and disposal procedures, and
violations regarding state and local notification of asbestos
removal. A status hearing has been set for May 21, 2013.

Assistant Attorneys General Nancy Tikalsky and Evan McGinley are
handling the case for Madigan's Environmental Bureau.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Oil Company Employee Dies of Mesothelioma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornish Guardian reported that an 80-year-old man died decades
after being exposed to asbestos while working for an oil company,
an inquest has heard.

According to the report, Ronald Davies, from Kilhallon in Par,
became ill in December 2010 and was told he had a tumour the
following Christmas Eve.  He underwent a biopsy on New Year's Eve
and began radiotherapy treatment in January 2011. But a CT scan in
August 2011 showed progression of the tumour. He died a year
later, on August 27, 2012.  Cornwall Coroner Emma Carlyon found
that Mr Davies died of a mesothelioma as the result of asbestos
exposure. He had worked for Shell UK oil refinery in Essex.

The report related that during his career he travelled all over
the world, including to Sudan and Singapore, but took early
retirement in 1983 at the age of 51. He and wife Patricia Davies
moved to Cornwall in 1984.  She said in a statement read at the
inquest on April 5, that he had been evacuated to Polgooth during
the war. Dr Carlyon concluded that Mr Davies died from an
industrial disease.


                             *********

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  * * *