CAR_Public/130503.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 3, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 87

                             Headlines



ADVENTIST HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Record Breach
AUSTRALIA: 30 to Opt Out of Suit Over 2005 Black Tuesday Bushfires
AVID TECHNOLOGY: May 24 Deadline to Seek Lead Plaintiff Status
BANK OF AMERICA: To Pay $500MM to Settle Countrywide MBS Suit
BAYER INC: Ontario Judge Certifies Class Suit Over Yasmin Drug

CAPITAL ONE: Calif. Ct. Dismisses Interest Rate Fraud Class Suit
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Drinker Biddle Discusses ERISA Class Suits
CHUBB CORP: Awaits Court Okay of $4MM Antitrust Suit Settlement
CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Orville Redenbacher's Classic Kettle Korn
COYOTE UGLY: Trial Began April in Overtime Pay Class Suit

DEWAAY FINANCIAL: Judge Approves $3-Mil. Class Action Settlement
DYNEGY INC: $1.6MM Judgment Overturned After Settlement Reached
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Revised Settlement Triples Gamers' Payout
EXIDE TECH: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Suit in Calif.
GOOGLE INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss AdWords Pricing Class Action

ITALY: Film Producer Mulls $16-Billion Class Suit Over Piracy
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
K12 INC: July 19 Fairness Hearing on $6,750,000 Settlement
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Broken Hill to Get Less Than Half of Claims
LONG ISLAND POWER: Judge Agrees to Consolidate Sandy Class Actions

MANITOBA: Dauphin River First Nation Files Suit Over 2011 Flood
MCDONALD'S CORP: Settlement of Non-Halal Meat Class Action Okayed
MERCK & CO: Product Liability Suit in Kentucky Set for Oct. Trial
MERCK & CO: Still Defends Shareholder Suit; Case in Discovery
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Fosamax Class Suit

MERCK & CO: Awaits Settlement Approval in Vytorin Securities Suit
MERCK & CO: Defending M-M-R II-Related Class Suit in Pennsylvania
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend AWP Class Suit in New Jersey
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend K-DUR Antitrust Litigation
MERCK & CO: Dismissed From Nexium Antitrust Suit in January

MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Coupon Program
MERCK & CO: Aussie Judge Questions Fairness of $540,000 Accord
SAC CAPITAL: Wyeth Investors Sue Over Alleged Insider Trading
SARATOGA THERAPEUTICS: Recalls 900 Bottles of ebA Multivitamins
STANDARD & POOR'S: Aussie Investors File 2nd Suit in April

STANDARD AND POOR'S: NSW Town Receives $660,000 From Settlement
TESLA MOTORS: Facing Class Suit Over Wrongful Dismissal
UMB BANK: Legal Services Gets $260K From Class Action Settlement
UNITED STATES: 2 Doctors Launch Class Suit Against DOD
UNITED STATES: Accord in Asylum Seekers' Suit Awaits Approval

VERIFONE SYSTEMS: May 6 Deadline to Seek Lead Plaintiff Status
WAL-MART STORES: Dukes Leads Smaller Group in New Class Suit
WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Manager's Suit Denied Class Certification
WINDSOR-ESSEX CATHOLIC: Sutts Strosberg Mulls Class Suit
WYETH: June 11 Deadline to Seek Lead Plaintiff Status

ZYNGA INC: Investors Sue Pincus, Other Execs

* LaMagna Discusses Settlement in Medicare Class Action Suit
* ODS-Licensed Entities Under Pressure From Regulators
* Securities Suit Settlements in 2012 in Australia Reached A$480MM


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 140 Pending Cases as of Feb. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chase Corp. Settles Claims in Jansen Complaint
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro Found at Rockdale Children's Oval
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dust Stalls Grisworld Housing Complex Renovation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: L&E Court Gives Custodial Sentence for Dumping

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southampton Man Sentenced for Illegal Dumping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stanley Hall Contaminated With Harmful Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Possible Exposure of County Workers Alleged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scottish Bldgs. Remain Exposed to Toxic Dangers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Carpenter Dies from Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Tech Foreman Admits to Illegal Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UN Group to Debate Fibro/Mesothelioma Link
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Dept. Hits Paterson With 43 OSHA Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Zealand Contaminated Park Covered Over
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Proposes Legislation Changes May Slow Down Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NMBFil Objects to Trial Readiness of NYC Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia's "Asbestos Removal Plan" Maybe Deadly
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saskstoon Identifies Contaminated Buildings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australian Asbestos Death Toll Mounts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Waste Dumped Near Columbey National Park

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Contract Awarded for PC School District
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Has Approval to Build Fibro Disposal Facility
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fly-Tipped Fibro Found in Waterworks Valley
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Alarmed at Fibro Dumping in Kingston
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns Expose Welsh Monitoring Flaws

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Stromlo Bike Trail
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Preschool Gets "All-Clear" After Fibro Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ukraine Prolongs Anti-Dumping Duties
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated Homes Pose Problems in South West
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clydebank Hospital Staff Fears for Health

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Warned of Fibro Risk in Villawood
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fears Increase After Bungled Removal at School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Fire's Appeal in Contribution Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Dropping Grupo From Asarco Suit Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appellate Court Flips Nonsuit Ruling in Meso Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Records $0.6MM Charges in 1Q 2013
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Ltd. Had $234MM Liability at March 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Companies Had $2.33B Asbestos Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Continues to Defend Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMCOR Group Gaskets May Contain Fibro Materials
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had $62.6MM Reserves at March 29

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Realty Records $2.7MM Clean-up Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 Active Pending PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 1,043 Pending Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Had 16,000 Liability Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Technologies Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Records $2MM Litigation Expense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had $412MM Accrued Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 73,500 Pending Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,800 PI Claims at March 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Continues to Defend Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $69.7MM Litigation Reserve


                             *********


ADVENTIST HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Record Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Aboraya, writing for the Orlando Business Journal, reports
that Adventist Health System/Sunbelt Inc. is facing a class-action
lawsuit stemming from a patient record breach that took place from
2009 to 2011.

Richard Faircloth is the plaintiff in the federal suit, filed
April 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, against Adventist and Florida Hospital's 22 locations.
The actions stem from two employees alleging selling the
information of patients involved in car accidents to outside
chiropractic and lawyer referral services.

There are potentially more than 740,000 patients whose information
was accessed. The suit, which doesn't list specific damages
sought, is alleging a breach of contract because Florida Hospital
didn't provide the security measures patients expected.

"They didn't get the full benefit, they were damaged and deserve
to be compensated," said Ben Thomassen, a lawyer representing the
plaintiffs in the case and an associate with Chicago-based Edelson
LLC. "It's paying for something you didn't received. The people
deserve to get that money back."

Samantha O'Lenick, spokeswoman for Florida Hospital, said the
hospital is reviewing the claim and trying to understand what the
issues are, and that they aren't able to say anything more.

The class action complaint was filed April 9.  The Plaintiff is
represented by:

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          WOOTEN KIMBROUGH & NORMAND PA
          236 South Lucerne Circle
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Tel: 407-843-7060
          E-mail: ednormand@whkpa.com
                  normandeservice@whkpa.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
          David J. Dale, Esq.
          EDELSON LLC
          350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Tel: 312-589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  randrews@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com
                  bthomassen@edelson.com
                  ddale@edelson.com


AUSTRALIA: 30 to Opt Out of Suit Over 2005 Black Tuesday Bushfires
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adelaidenow.com's Chief Court Reporter Sean Fewster reports that
lawyers expect 30 Eyre Peninsula graziers and residents to opt out
of a million-dollar class action lawsuit over the 2005 Black
Tuesday bushfires.

In December, the Australian Supreme Court granted permission for a
lawsuit filed by grazier Robert Proude to be expanded into a class
action.  Mr Proude took action against the Country Fire Service
and Marco Visic, whose vehicle started the blaze that killed nine
people, burned 77,000ha and destroyed 93 homes.  He claimed the
fire was mismanaged by the CFS, resulting in the destruction of
$1.8 million of his property -- including 2205 sheep.

In his defence papers, Mr Visic says any compensation awarded
should come from CFS coffers, not his funds.  On Monday, lawyers
representing Mr Proude held a public meeting in Port Lincoln to
discuss the class action.

Lawyer Peter Humphries said 300 people were expected to join the
suit, while 30 had asked for "opt out" paperwork.

The case returns to court in May.


AVID TECHNOLOGY: May 24 Deadline to Seek Lead Plaintiff Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced April 17 that approximately five
weeks remain -- until May 24, 2013 -- to file a motion for lead
plaintiff in a class action that was recently commenced in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of a class (the "Class") of purchasers of Avid Technology,
Inc. ("Avid" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AVID) securities between
April 22, 2011 and February 22, 2013 (the "Class Period").

Avid develops, markets, sells, and supports a variety of software
and systems for creating and manipulating digital media content.
The Company develops and sells digital editing systems and
newsroom computer systems, as well as digital audio systems.
Avid's products are used worldwide in production and post-
production film, video, and television facilities.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants allegedly made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company incorrectly accounted for its Software Updates by
failing to properly treat the Software Updates as post-contract
customer support under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles; (2) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On February 25, 2013, the Company disclosed that it was postponing
the release of its financial results for the fourth quarter of
2012, stating that it would need additional time "to evaluate its
current and historical accounting treatment related to bug fixes,
upgrades and enhancements to certain products which the Company
has provided to certain customers." On these revelations, Avid
shares declined $0.68 per share or nearly 9%, to close at $6.98
per share on February 25, 2013.

After the Class Period, on March 21, 2013, the Company announced
that it had received a notification letter from NASDAQ as it was
no longer in compliance due to the delay in filing its annual
report. On this news, Avid shares declined an additional $0.26 per
share or 3.81%, to close at $6.56 per share on March 22, 2013.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who invested in Avid securities during the Class Period. If you
invested in Avid securities as described above during the Class
Period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the
security, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead
plaintiff.  In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements
set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no
later than May 24, 2013.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class.
Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as an Avid
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,
consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3
billion for its clients. It has been named to The National Law
Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" in each of the last ten years.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.


BANK OF AMERICA: To Pay $500MM to Settle Countrywide MBS Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Rexrode, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Bank of America on April 17 announced it would pay $500 million to
settle a class-action lawsuit brought by the Maine state
retirement system and other investors who say they were misled
about $350 billion worth of mortgage-backed investments they
bought from Countrywide, a mortgage lender Bank of America bought
in 2008.  The settlement still needs court approval.

AP also notes Bank of America agreed in 2011 to pay $8.5 billion
to settle claims brought by Bank of New York Mellon, which made
similar accusations about mortgage-backed investments owned by
institutional investors for which it acted as trustee. That
settlement also still needs court approval, and if the judge
doesn't accept it, Bank of America could be exposed to more
potential claims and litigation expenses.

According to AP, the bank portrayed the $500 million settlement as
good news because it resolved the bulk of securities claims
related to residential mortgage-backed securities.  But financial
analysts, in a conference call to discuss the bank's first-quarter
results, peppered bank executives with questions about the pending
$8.5 billion settlement.

According to AP, Chief Financial Officer Bruce Thompson told
analysts that the bank felt "very good" about settling the pension
funds' lawsuit. But he acknowledged the uncertainty of potential
lawsuits and declined to predict how much the bank might have to
spend on litigation in the future.

Bank of America's current troubles are the latest fallout from its
decision to buy Countrywide, which was known for making exotic
mortgages that later went bad as borrowers defaulted. The purchase
catapulted the bank into a spot at the top of the nation's
mortgage scene, but it's been an albatross ever since, bringing
lawsuits, investigations and quarterly losses.  Hard-to-predict
legal expenses have been a bane to Bank of America and throughout
the banking industry.

In early January, the bank took a charge of $2.7 billion to settle
a dispute with Fannie Mae, which forced Bank of America to buy
back mortgages it had sold to the agency before the crisis. It
also took a $1.1 billion charge to settle government accusations
that it and other banks had wrongfully foreclosed on some
homeowners. The charges sent fourth-quarter earnings down sharply.

Brian Moynihan has been wading through issues dating back to the
financial crisis ever since he became CEO in 2010, and would very
much like to put them behind him. Asked on the conference call
about a report that he was pushing for revenue growth, Moynihan
replied that it wasn't a new strategy, just a bigger focus as
"legacy" issues get resolved.

"As the other issues go away," Moynihan said, "this is what the
team has to be focused on."

                           *     *     *

Des Moines Register staff writer Donnelle Eller reports that the
Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System will share in the $500
million settlement. The class action settlement was filed in 2010
by pension groups who allege that Countrywide and its related
business units overstated the value of 429 different securities
with a combined value to $350 billion.  IPERS was the lead
plaintiff in the litigation.

The deal still needs court approval and would result in the
dismissal of class action lawsuits that date back to 2007,
according to Bank of America. The split between the plaintiffs
will not be disclosed for another 45 days. IPERs serves more than
101,000 retired state and local government employees and paid $1.5
billion in retirement benefits during the last fiscal year.

"IPERS is pleased with the preliminary settlement in the suit
against Countrywide Financial Corporation," IPERS spokesperson
Judy Akre said in a statement. "As fiduciaries of the pension
plan, it's our job to do everything possible to safeguard the
IPERS Trust Fund on behalf of all Iowans. We look forward to
learning more of the details when the allocation plan is complete
in the coming weeks."

"We are pleased that Countrywide elected to negotiate a settlement
with investors who were harmed by its securitization practices,"
according to lead plaintiff's attorney Steven Toll. "This
settlement will bring closure to investors who were misled about
the quality of the mortgages that Countrywide securitized."


BAYER INC: Ontario Judge Certifies Class Suit Over Yasmin Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action relating to the oral contraceptives Yasmin(R) and
Yaz(R) was certified by the Honourable Justice Crane, of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice on April 15, 2013.

In March 2010, Siskinds LLP filed a class proceeding against Bayer
Inc. with respect to its oral contraceptives Yasmin(R) and Yaz(R).
The claim alleges that Yasmin(R) and Yaz(R) are associated with
increased risk of suffering various types of blood clots and
gallbladder disease, compared to other available oral
contraceptives. The claim further alleges that the increased risk
was known to Bayer Inc. and they failed to timely or adequately
communicate the risk information to consumers and the medical
community.

The class action includes all persons in Ontario who used
Yasmin(R) and/or Yaz(R) between the time these drugs were first
made available in Canada (2004 and 2008 respectively) and
November 30, 2011.

Among the issues the court approved for determination at trial are
whether Bayer Inc. breached a duty to warn class members or
materially misrepresented any of the risks of harm from using
Yasmin(R) and/or Yaz(R), compared to other available oral
contraceptives and whether Yasmin(R) and/or Yaz(R) are defective
or unfit for the purpose for which they were intended and sold.
Another issue approved for determination is whether the class can
elect to require Bayer Inc. to account for all or part of the
gross revenue or net income received from the sale of Yasmin(R)
and/or Yaz(R).

Michael J. Peerless, a partner with the London law firm Siskinds
LLP said, "We are very pleased that women across Ontario, who we
allege were exposed to increased risks of blood clots and
gallbladder disease on account of their use of Yasmin(R) and/or
Yaz(R), as opposed to other birth control pills, will be allowed
to go forward with their claims on a class basis. We look forward
to taking the next steps in this litigation."

It is too early at this stage to quantify the claims of class
members if the action is successful, but it is anticipated that
the amount will be significant. Any women in Ontario who use or
have used Yasmin(R) and/or Yaz(R) are encouraged to visit
http://www.classaction.ca/or call Christina Noble at 1-800-461-
6166 ext.2089.


CAPITAL ONE: Calif. Ct. Dismisses Interest Rate Fraud Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Brenzel, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on April 16 dismissed a proposed class action
accusing Capital One Bank (USA) NA of lying to credit card holders
about a loan balance transfer program, agreeing with the bank that
it didn't violate its contract with customers by charging interest
on late payments on the transferred balances.  The bank filed a
motion to dismiss the suit in January, arguing that plaintiff
Priscilla Barton relinquished an interest-free grace period on new
purchases when she failed to pay her entire balance on time.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Drinker Biddle Discusses ERISA Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
In an article on the National Law Review, lawyers at Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP relate that two class action firms with ERISA
class action experience filed lawsuits in April against three tax-
exempt health care systems in Michigan, Pennsylvania and
California.  Each of those health care systems is affiliated with
the Catholic Church.  The lawsuits claim that these systems'
pension plans -- which are operated as ERISA-exempt church plans
-- are in fact subject to ERISA.  Among other things, the lawsuits
-- brought against the employers and certain of their executives
-- allege that the plans do not comply with ERISA's funding
standards, that ERISA-required notices and communications have not
been furnished to participants, and that fiduciaries of the plans
engaged in breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions
in failing to operate the plans as if they were governed by ERISA.
The suits also claim that the operation of the plans in question
as church plans violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment.

These cases could have a profound effect on all church plan
sponsors, regardless of whether they have previously obtained
favorable church plan rulings from the IRS.  This alert is
designed to briefly discuss the claims made in the cases, and
suggest some initial steps that church plan sponsors may take to
protect themselves.

The Assault on Church Plan Status:  Three Basic Allegations

The complaints in these lawsuits rely on several theories to
establish why the defendants' plans are not ERISA-exempt church
plans, which can be distilled down to three basic arguments:

     1. First, while the complaints acknowledge that church plans
can cover employees of church-affiliated organizations (such as
hospitals and universities), they claim that decades of
established IRS and Department of Labor ("DOL") rulings and other
court cases that permit church plan sponsorship by church-
affiliated organizations are simply wrong.  These rulings and
court holdings endorse a model under which church-affiliated
organizations establish church plans that are maintained by
"church plan committees" or similar organizations established for
the purpose of administering and funding church plans.  The
complaints claim that these regulators and courts are
misinterpreting ERISA, and that ERISA requires that a church plan
be established only by a church or convention of churches, not a
church-affiliated organization.

     2. Second, all three actions allege that even if church-
affiliated organizations can sponsor church plans, the defendants
cannot because (at least currently) they operate too much like
sophisticated health care systems and not enough like churches.
First they argue, without elaboration, that the employers are not
controlled by a church; second, they claim they are not associated
with a church because they do not share sufficient "common
religious bonds and convictions" with a church.  Factors they have
cited with regard to the "associated with" alternative test as to
these three Catholic-affiliated systems include that:

        * they offer or encourage interfaith spiritual support
          (including merely providing non-denominational worship
          space);

        * they state that they do not favor Catholics when hiring;

        * some of their facilities and physicians perform
          contraceptive and other services that the plaintiffs
          deem inconsistent with Catholic teachings; and

        * the sponsors have acquired or become affiliated with
          other entities that have no significant ties to the
          Catholic Church.

        In 2010, Plaintiffs' attorneys in these three new actions
made the same claims in an action brought alternatively under
ERISA and state law in the United States District Court in
Minnesota.  Although the court rejected their church plan
arguments in a 2011 ruling, the case ultimately settled for $4.5
million.

     3. Finally, the complaints allege that the extension of the
church plan exemption to plans that are not sponsored by churches
or conventions of churches is an unconstitutional "accommodation"
under the First Amendment.

Of course, analogous arguments could be brought against a church-
affiliated organization of any religion or denomination.

Constitutional Argument

The three lawsuits that have been filed all challenge the
constitutionality of the church plan exemption as applied to plans
sponsored by church-affiliated organizations. This is a new church
plan challenge not yet addressed by the courts, although these
courts' rulings on this issue may affect all such organizations
that sponsor church plans, or might do so in the future. We intend
to address the constitutional argument in a separate alert.

Overview of Key Implications

There are a number of provisions under ERISA that apply to ERISA-
covered plans but not to church plans.  Some of the key
differences include:

    Probably most importantly, ERISA plans are subject to the
minimum funding standards set forth in ERISA and the Internal
Revenue Code.  Church plans are exempt from these standards.

    ERISA plan participants are required to be furnished with
certain notices regarding plan funding, benefit freezes and
reductions, and other matters.  Church plans are not required to
provide these notices.

    ERISA plans are subject to the statute's prohibited
transaction provisions.

    Finally, ERISA defined benefit plans are required to pay
significant premiums to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
while church plans are not.

Of course, these cases are in their infancy, and we anticipate
that the defendants will aggressively defend their church plans'
status.  Even if any of these plaintiffs prevail, it is far from
clear what, if any, consequences would result.
Initial Steps to Consider

We think these cases should fail in light of years of contrary IRS
and DOL guidance and court decisions.  However, even though ERISA
may not apply, state law will, and there are some steps that
church plan sponsors should consider taking even if they are not
currently defendants in one of these lawsuits:

    Review existing church plan rulings, identify any factual
circumstances that may have changed since the rulings, and discuss
with counsel whether those changes could affect those rulings and
whether an updated ruling should be requested from the IRS;

    Review with plan counsel your organization's general
compliance with church plan and applicable state law requirements
to determine potential areas of vulnerability;

    Coordinate closely with upper management and plan fiduciaries
to make sure all affected parties are aware of risks and the need
to maintain sensitivity regarding internal and external
communications;

    Designate a "point person" to handle inquiries by plan
participants and others;

    Work with legal counsel to develop an appropriate response to
inquiries by participants, keeping in mind that those same
participants may have already been contacted by -- and may be
acting on behalf of -- an attorney representing a potential class
of plaintiffs; and

    Compile and review all insurance policies that might possibly
provide coverage to the employer if it is named as a defendant in
one of these cases.

The authors are:

     1. Joseph C. Faucher -- Joe.Faucher@dbr.com -- has been
litigating cases in state and federal trial courts and appellate
courts since 1988, and is of counsel to the firm's Employee
Benefits & Executive Compensation Practice Group. He has litigated
a wide range of business and commercial disputes, including unfair
competition and trade secret misappropriation claims, real estate
syndication disputes, litigation arising out of the purchase and
sale of businesses, insurance and surety bond coverage and bad
faith claims, professional negligence claims and landlord/tenant
disputes.

     2. Mark E. Furlane -- mark.furlane@dbr.com -- is a partner in
the Labor & Employment Practice Group. Before joining the firm in
1979, Mark spent nearly five years as a lawyer for the U.S. Marine
Corps where he gained extensive trial experience. In Mark's 30
years of private practice, he has represented employers in nearly
all labor and employment issues confronting today's employer. He
focuses his practice on employment law, with an emphasis on
employment, benefits and fiduciary litigation and employment
counseling.

The contributors are:

     1. David R. Levin -- David.Levin@dbr.com -- focuses on many
aspects of employee benefits law. David has more than 30 years of
experience assisting clients with ERISA matters and has an
extensive background in counseling and also litigating pension and
welfare benefit plan issues.  His experience has been both with
single employer plans and multiemployer plans.

     2. Michael A. Vanic -- Mike.Vanic@dbr.com -- is a partner in
the firm's Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Practice
Group.  He has approximately 30 years of experience in ERISA
litigation, involving both retirement plans and welfare benefit
plans and representing single-employer, multi-employer, government
and church plans, plan sponsors, fiduciaries and service providers
in a wide range of ERISA claims including fiduciary breach, denial
of benefits, service provider malpractice, withdrawal liability
and other qualified plan and non-qualified.

     3. Joshua J. Waldbeser -- joshua.waldbeser@dbr.com -- Joshua
J. Waldbeser is an associate in the firm?s Employee Benefits &
Executive Compensation Practice Group.  Joshua joins Drinker
Biddle from the U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits
Security Administration.

     4. David L. Wolfe -- David.Wolfe@dbr.com -- is a partner and
member of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Practice
Group.  He represents clients in a full spectrum of industries
with an emphasis on tax-exempt organizations.  He is a co-founder
and member of the Steering Committee for the development and
continuing sponsorship of the HR/Hospital Advisory Board (co-
sponsored by Deloitte) for senior HR executives in tax-exempt
health care systems.


CHUBB CORP: Awaits Court Okay of $4MM Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 1, 2005, The Chubb Corporation and certain of its
subsidiaries were named in a putative class action entitled In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (N.J. District Court). This
action, brought against several brokers and insurers on behalf of
a class of persons who purchased insurance through the broker
defendants, asserted claims under the Sherman Act, state law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
arising from the alleged unlawful use of contingent commission
agreements and an alleged conspiracy to reduce competition in the
insurance markets. The action sought treble damages, injunctive
and declaratory relief. Certain other related or similar putative
class actions that were filed in a number of federal and state
courts were transferred to the U.S. District Court and
consolidated with In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.
Subsequently, several of the other defendants entered into
settlement agreements with the plaintiffs, which were approved by
the N.J. District Court on September 25, 2012.

On January 11, 2013, the Corporation and another defendant agreed
in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit. As part of
the settlement, the Corporation has agreed to pay $4 million. The
settlement is subject to finalization and execution of a
settlement agreement by the parties, which is in the process of
being negotiated, and approval of the settlement by the N.J.
District Court, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012.

Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries also have been named as
defendants in other putative class actions similar to the In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation that have been filed in
various state courts or in U.S. district courts between 2005 and
2007. These actions were subsequently removed and ultimately
transferred to the N.J. District Court for consolidation with the
In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation for certain
pre-trial proceedings. Chubb settled one of these actions, which
was dismissed on August 14, 2012. The parties currently are
conducting discovery in the remaining two actions.

The Corporation believes it has substantial defenses to the
allegations in these actions and intends to continue to defend the
actions vigorously. Management believes that these actions will
not have a material adverse effect on the Corporation's results of
operations or financial condition.


CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Orville Redenbacher's Classic Kettle Korn
----------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods, Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is voluntarily recalling packages of its
Orville Redenbacher's Classic Kettle Korn flavor ready-to-eat
popcorn that may contain an undeclared allergen, milk.  Certain
bags of the Kettle Korn flavored ready-to-eat popcorn may have
inadvertently been filled with white cheddar flavored popcorn,
which contains an allergen, milk.  The milk allergen is not
declared on the Kettle Korn product label.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.  There have been no illnesses reported to
date in connection with this product.  This product was shipped to
food stores and distributors nationwide.

The affected product, Orville Redenbacher's Classic Kettle Korn
flavor popcorn, is packaged in 5.0-ounce and 1.5-ounce red poly
bags with an Orville Redenbacher's graphic logo and picture of the
popcorn product on the front panel.  This voluntary recall is
limited to Orville Redenbacher's Classic Kettle Korn flavor ready-
to-eat popcorn packaged in 5.0-ounce and 1.5-ounce red poly bags
bearing the following UPC and Sell By dates.  The UPC code is
printed on the back of each bag, in the lower left corner.  The
Sell By date is also printed on the back of the bag, in the upper
right corner.  No other Orville Redenbacher's products are
impacted.

   * Orville Redenbacher's Classic Kettle Korn 5.0-ounce packages
     Case UPC: 27000 52321
     Unit UPC: 0 27000 52321 6
     Lot Codes: 5486234100, 5486234200, 5486234300
     Best By Dates: SEP 02 2013, SEP 03 2013, SEP 04 2013

   * Orville Redenbacher's Classic Kettle Korn 1.5-ounce packages
     Case UPC: 27000 52325
     Unit UPC: 0 27000 52325 4
     Lot Codes: 5486234200, 5486234300
     Best By Dates: SEP 03 2013, SEP 04 2013

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm349850.htm

This product is a food safety concern only for people who are
allergic to milk.

In the event that consumers have purchased the impacted product,
they should destroy it.  Consumers who may have questions about
this issue and/or wish to receive replacement product may call
866-518-4177, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The issue was discovered after a consumer found white cheddar
flavored popcorn in a Kettle Korn package and contacted the
Company.  ConAgra Foods has taken the precautionary measure of
notifying the FDA and is voluntarily recalling approximately
14,000 cases of the product shipped to retail food locations
nationwide.  ConAgra Foods will work with retail customers to
ensure that the recalled products are removed from store shelves.

ConAgra Foods is also issuing an alert through Food Allergy
Research & Education (FARE) in an effort to notify any potentially
impacted consumers.


COYOTE UGLY: Trial Began April in Overtime Pay Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Gambill, writing for The Tennessean, reports that a class-
action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Nashville continued
April 17 with bartender-dancers accusing Coyote Ugly Saloon
Development Corp., Coyote Ugly Saloon Nashville and an executive
of denying them overtime pay.

The lawsuit, involving 37 current and former employees of Coyote
Ugly nationwide and 10 former employees of the Coyote Ugly Saloon
in Nashville, accuses the themed bars of failing to pay them for
work performed off the clock.  The lawsuit also accuses CUSDC of
having an illegal tip pool because security guards were allowed to
take 5 percent from gross tip receipts.

The defense argues that the security guards played an important
role in the overall atmosphere of the bars and that they also were
responsible for assisting customers and the bartenders, sometimes
even filling the role as "barback" to change beer kegs, stock bars
and clean counters.  In the instances during which guards did
perform barback duties, they took 10 percent from the overall
tips.

Misty Blu Stewart, a former bartender-dancer from Nashville who
initiated the suit, and Sarah Stone, a former bartender-dancer of
the Oklahoma City Coyote Ugly, are seeking damages for
"retaliation" that occurred because of their involvement in the
suit.

Stewart testified April 17 that she was "ashamed" and "extremely
embarrassed" when Liliana Lovell, CEO of CUSDC, wrote a blog post
shortly after learning about the lawsuit on her blog, "Lil Spill,"
which appears on Coyote Ugly's website, and referred to Stewart in
a derogatory fashion.

Lovell testified that she was upset when she wrote the post
because this was the third time that Stewart had tried to bring
legal action against Coyote Ugly.  But Stewart's name does not
appear in the blog post.

Stone also testified that she quit her job because then-regional
manager Daniel Huckaby posted a Facebook status that asked God to
keep him from "killing the girl" trying to sue him.

Huckaby, director of operations for CUSDC, testified that he was
intoxicated on the night of the Facebook post.  "I honestly don't
remember it at all," he said.


DEWAAY FINANCIAL: Judge Approves $3-Mil. Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Darr, writing for BusinessRecord, reports that a Decatur
County judge approved a $3 million class-action settlement in
lawsuits against Clive businessman Donald DeWaay and the broker-
dealer he founded.

Barring any appeals, the ruling effectively ends a threat coming
from multiple directions that Mr. DeWaay's lawyers said at one
time threatened the financial collapse of his businesses and could
force him to seek protection from creditors in bankruptcy court.

Judge John Lloyd approved the settlement, made up of insurance
payments and nearly $1 million in Mr. DeWaay's personal funds, in
combining two lawsuits that were brought by individuals who made
private placement investments in deals promoted by Mr. DeWaay and
his brokers.

Lloyd observed that investments were placed for about 5,000 people
in 199 funds, many of them through tenant-in-common interests in
real estate deals and others through investment in oil and gas
exploration companies.

Investors claimed that Mr. DeWaay and his agents failed to conduct
proper due diligence in promoting the placements, some of which
paid commissions up to 13 percent, and nearly all of which
promised returns that outpaced investments on public stock
exchanges.

"Certification of a class action in these cases is the only
effective means of adjudicating a large number of claims against
these defendants and the only practical way that many small
investors will have to assert a claim at all," Judge Lloyd said in
the ruling.

The investments were promoted for companies that have since filed
for bankruptcy protection.  The founder and three other employees
of one those companies, DBSI Inc., were indicted last week by a
federal grand jury in Idaho on 83 counts of bank, wire and
securities fraud.

Mr. DeWaay and his broker-dealer, DeWaay Financial Network LLC,
had been the target of arbitration claims before the industry's
private regulator as well as trustees seeking to collect for
creditors in the DBSI bankruptcy and that of a Texas company that
promoted investments in oil and gas leases.

In the DBSI case alone, the trustee had claims in excess of $20
million for investments sold by Mr. DeWaay and other broker
dealers.  Arbitrations before the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority Inc. (FINRA) totaled more than $15 million.  Judge
Lloyd's ruling "adds some certainty.  The thing that you're
concerned about when you have litigation going on in multiple
forums across the country are the costs of proceeding with them;
you're concerned about inconsistent results.  What this does is
hopefully bring an end to all of that," said DeWaay attorney Steve
Wandro.

If it holds, the ruling would block attempts to collect from
Mr. DeWaay in connection with the DBSI bankruptcy, the Texas case
and it blocks future arbitration hearings before FINRA.

Gail Boliver, an attorney who represented investors opposed to the
settlement agreement, said the ruling was likely to be appealed.

Judge Lloyd also approved a $2,500 payment to each named plaintiff
in the case and awarded $750,000 to their attorneys.

In November, Mr. DeWaay shuttered the broker-dealer, but he has
retained his broker's license.


DYNEGY INC: $1.6MM Judgment Overturned After Settlement Reached
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Heallen, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas appeals
court on April 16 overturned a $1.6 million judgment in a
shareholder class action alleging Dynegy Inc. directors tried to
sell the electric utility below market value before its bankruptcy
reorganization last year, citing a settlement the company reached.
The First District Court of appeals vacated a 2011 judgment in
favor of Colleen Witmer and other shareholders who had claimed
Dynegy directors twice tried to sell the company for less than its
true value before restructuring through Chapter 11 last year.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Revised Settlement Triples Gamers' Payout
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Pitcher, writing for Polygon.com, reports that gamers who
bought an EA football game between 2005 and 2012, could be due
triple the amount of settlement money per game thanks to recent
modifications to a $27 million settlement in a class action suit
against Electronic Arts.

Under the new terms, a claimant will now receive $20.37 per last-
gen game on PlayStation 2, Xbox, GameCube and Windows PC, up from
$6.79.  Current-gen games on PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii will
pay out $5.85 per game, up from $1.95.

Pecover v. Electronic Arts class-action monopoly lawsuit
participants who bought a current-gen game covered under the
settlement, and for whom EA has a physical mailing address, will
automatically receive a check at the tripled rate.  Valid claims
will be paid out the amounts listed above once the claims
administrator receives all of the claims and confirms that the net
settlement amount is sufficient. However, if the total claims
exceed $27 million, then claim amounts will be reduced on a pro
rata basis.

Unfortunately, leftover money originally intended as a Child's
Play donation will now go to the federal government. It is not
immediately clear why this modification was made.

Also outlined in the supplemental notice, the deadline to file a
claim or objection has been pushed back from the original March 15
cut off date, so parties who wish to do so now have until May 15.
According to the notice, the settlement modifications are coming
because the number of claimants is lower than was expected.
Plaintiffs want to maximize the amount of money from the $27
million fund that will go to participants in the class action.

The notification states:

The Court modified the distribution plan to ensure that Settlement
Class Members received as much money as possible from the
settlement fund. The amount of money being returned to Settlement
Class Members was less than expected because fewer than
anticipated Settlement Class Members submitted claims prior to the
original close of the claims period (i.e., prior to March 5,
2013), and Electronic Arts had fewer names and physical addresses
for nonclaiming Settlement Class Members than the parties
originally believed. The Court adjusted the distribution plan to
provide for additional money to be returned to Settlement Class
Members.

The Pecover v. Electronic Arts class-action monopoly lawsuit for
EA's exclusive rights to make Madden, NCAA Football and Arena
Football games, was brought to a head after four years of
litigation in the federal courts, when EA agreed to pay $27
million into a settlement fund last July. The settlement was ruled
"fair" in October.

The modifications do not affect the settlement agreement demands
that EA not renew its exclusivity agreements with the Collegiate
Licensing Co. The exclusivity agreements expire in 2014, and EA is
barred from negotiating exclusive agreements with the CLC and
National Collegiate Athletic Association for five years following.

The class-action lawsuit against EA Sports claimed the company's
exclusive licensing agreements with National Football League,
NCAA, the CLC and the Arena Football League monopolized the market
for football video games, killing any competing titles.


EXIDE TECH: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Exide
Technologies (NASDAQ:XIDE), has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of Exide
common stock between February 9, 2012 and April 3, 2013,
inclusive.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
the Company and certain of its executive officers issued false
and/or misleading statements or failed to disclose material
adverse facts concerning the Company's operations and financial
prospects.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150,
Toll-Free at (888) 773-9224, or by email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com

Exide operates in 80 countries producing, recycling and
distributing lead-acid batteries. The Company operates eight
battery recycling facilities worldwide, and its global
transportation and industrial energy groups provide a range of
stored electrical energy products and services for industrial and
transportation applications. The Complaint alleges that during the
Class Period defendants knew but misrepresented or failed to
disclose to the investing public that: (a) Exide was exposing
residents near its Vernon, California, battery recycling facility
to dangerously high levels of arsenic and other pollutants; (b)
Exide knew, based on actual and projected revenues and expenses,
that the Company would not be able to meet its debt repayment
obligations and other pledges and promises under a $200 million
revolving facility, a $675 million bond, and a $55.7 million
floating rate convertible note due in September 2013; and (c) as a
result, Exide knew its environmental liabilities, debt obligations
and potential insolvency supported neither Exide's statements to
investors that the Company was solvent, its quarterly guidance,
nor the inflated share price targets the investment community was
modeling based on defendants' Class Period statements and
guidance.

On March 22, 2013, the Company's recycling facility in Vernon was
cited by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) as
posing a greater cancer risk to residents of Southern California
than any of the more than 450 facilities the agency has regulated
in the last 25 years. Then, on April 3, 2013, Los Angeles City
Council members held a public hearing asking the government to
press charges against the Company to correct the health risk posed
by the Company's environmental contamination, and on April 4, 2013
Debtwire.com published a report that Exide had hired financial
advisory firm Lazard and the law firm of Akin Gump LLP to advise
on the Company's financial restructuring after prior restructuring
efforts stalled. On this news, Exide's shares fell $1.24 a share
to $1.37 a share, a 46% drop on April 4, 2013, before trading in
the stock was halted.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

No class has yet been certified in this action. To be a member of
the Class you need not take any action at this time, or you may
retain counsel of your choice. If you purchased Exide securities
during the Class Period you have certain rights, and have until
June 14, 2013 to move for lead plaintiff status. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning
your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California
90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150, Toll Free at (888) 773-
9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website
at http://www.glancylaw.com

Another firm, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP,
also has filed a class action lawsuit against Exide and certain of
its officers in United States District Court, Central District of
California.

Meanwhile, law firm Federman & Sherwood issued a statement to
announce the filing of the securities class action. Federman may
be reached at:

    K. Lynn Nunn, Esq.
    FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
    10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
    Oklahoma City, OK 73120
    Email: kln@federmanlaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss AdWords Pricing Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that siding against
Google, a federal judge has denied the company's bid to dismiss a
potential class-action lawsuit by an AdWords advertiser who says
he was overcharged for his search campaign.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila ruled that Rick Woods, a
Fayetteville, Ark.-based attorney who used AdWords to market his
legal practice, could proceed with claims that Google failed to
give him a promised discount.

Mr. Woods says that he used AdWords from September of 2009 through
early 2011 to market his legal practice.  During that time, Google
allegedly reneged on a promise to give Woods a "smart pricing"
discount -- which was supposed to reduce his cost-per-click when
ads were served on sites within Google's publisher network.

Specifically, Mr. Woods alleges that Google was supposed to
discount ads by 9.31% when they appeared on IAC's Reference.com.
His complaint lists six instances when Google allegedly did not
apply that discount.  Mr. Woods alleges that he was charged
between 99 cents and $1.88 per click for those six ads, when by
his calculations, he should only have been charged between 90
cents and $1.71 per click.

Woods also alleges that Google didn't apply the smart pricing
discount to some ads served to mobile users.  In addition, he says
that Google failed to geotarget his ads as promised.  Mr. Woods
says he was charged for clicks originating in Pennsylvania, Texas
and Japan -- despite Google's alleged representations that the ads
would be targeted to users in Arkansas.

Mr. Woods, who is suing Google in the Northern District of
California for breach of contract and other claims, is seeking
class-action status.

Google filed papers asking Davila to dismiss the lawsuit in its
entirety.  Among other arguments, Google says that it never
promised a "smart pricing" discount.  "The words 'Smart Pricing'
do not appear anywhere in the concise, two-page contract," Google
argues in court papers.  "Instead, the contract provides that
'Google disclaims all guarantees regarding . . . costs per click.'
This is the opposite of a 'guarantee' to Smart Price all clicks on
Google's Display Network."

Judge Davila rejected Google's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
Judge Davila ruled that Mr. Woods alleged sufficient facts to
proceed with his breach of contract claim, as well as several
other counts.  "Woods has sufficiently alleged that Google failed
to Smart Price several clicks from ads located on the Display
Network," Judge Davila wrote.  "As such, Woods has stated a claim
for breach of contract sufficient to withstand Google's motion."

Google declined to comment on the case.


ITALY: Film Producer Mulls $16-Billion Class Suit Over Piracy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Lyman, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, says Italian
producer Aurelio De Laurentiis has proposed a EUR12.5 billion
($16 billion) class action lawsuit against the Italian state for
lost revenue he says movie producers have sustained because the
state has done too little to combat privacy.

The remarks from De Laurentiis were made during a film industry
symposium co-hosted by Riccardo Tozzi, president of ANICA, Italy's
audiovisual association. The symposium revealed that despite signs
of life earlier in the year and increases in production so far in
2013, that cinema attendance in Italy over the first quarter of
the year fell by nearly 5 percent compared to the same period in
2012, after contracting in each of the last two years.

Tozzi said part of the blame for the Italian cinema sector's woes
stemmed from privacy. That prompted De Laurentiis to call for the
class action suit, aimed at recovering some of the industry's
losses and forcing the state to take a stronger stand against
piracy.

"The problem of piracy is very important, and I say we should ask
for EUR12.5 billion in order to obtain at least EUR2.5 billion,
the amount we lose each year because of piracy," De Laurentiis
said.  He called on other film producers, ANICA, and the Ministry
of Culture to join him in the suit. There were no immediate
takers.

Tozzi suggested a different tact: making it easier for people to
legally download films, for a fee. "We should balance the threat
of illegal downloads with a legal supply of films," he said. "It
can be too difficult to download films legally, so there's no good
alternative" to piracy.

According to attorney Argia Bignami, an intellectual property
expert, it is true that Italy does less than some other countries
to combat the illegal downloads of films and television programs,
taking a stronger stance in Italy means striking the balance
between different concerns.

"There are piracy concerns and privacy concerns that can be at
odds with each other," Bignami said.

De Laurentiis, 63, is part of one of Italy's best-known film-
making families. His father and uncle were Luigi De Laurentiis and
Dino De Laurentiis, respectively, two of the main forces behind
the Golden Age of Italian cinema that lasted from the 1940s into
the 1970s: production credits include Federico Fellini's La
Strada, Europa '51 from Roberto Rossellini, Luchino Viconti's Lo
Straniero (The Stranger), and Riso Amaro (Bitter Rice) from
Giuseppe De Santis, as well as Hollywood hits including Sidney
Lumet's Serpico and the 1976 version of King Kong from John
Guillermin.

Aurelio De Laurentiis' son is up-and-coming producer Luigi De
Laurentiis, Jr., and his cousin is Italian-American chef and TV
personality Giada De Laurentiis. Aurelio De Laurentiis is himself
president of the Naples-based production company Filmauro, whose
credits include the three-film Manuale d'amore (Love Manual) hit
comedy franchise, whose third installment featured Robert De Niro
as an introverted professor.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on April 17,
2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly-traded common stock
of ITT Educational Services, Inc. (NYSE:ESI) between April 24,
2008 and February 25, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges ITT 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, ITT made false and misleading
statements, and concealed material information relating to the
value of the Company's liabilities and sufficiency of its
reserves.

ITT is a for-profit provider of post-secondary degree programs in
the United States. The complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, ITT concealed from shareholders that: (1) the Company had
exposed itself to tremendous liability under three risk-sharing
agreements ("RSAs"); (2) the Company falsely downplayed the risks
associated with the RSAs and assured investors that it had
properly set aside reserves to meet its liabilities; (3) the
Company was improperly accounting for the RSAs, and its accounting
practices were repeatedly questioned by the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") and are now the subject of a formal
SEC investigation; and (4) by failing to book adequate reserves
for its liabilities under the RSAs, the Company misrepresented its
earnings throughout the Class Period.

The truth about ITT was revealed through a series of disclosures.
First, on July 26, 2012, the Company released its results for the
second quarter of 2012 that revealed the allowances for doubtful
accounts and bad debt expenses that ITT had taken in connection
with loans the Company had extended to students directly. These
accounting entries implicitly revealed to investors that the loans
previously issued through the RSAs had experienced similarly poor
performance. In reaction to this news, ITT's stock price fell
$7.65 per share, or 15.1 percent, to close at $42.78 per share on
July 26, 2012.

Then, on January 4, 2013, ITT disclosed that it had settled an
action brought by SLM Corporation ("Sallie Mae") arising out of
the Company's guarantee obligations under the 2007 RSA for $46
million--nearly double the $26 million that Sallie Mae had
originally sought. In connection with this settlement, ITT took a
$13.2 million charge for the 2007 RSA and an additional $70
million charge to establish a reserve related to the 2009 and 2010
RSAs. On this news, ITT's stock price fell $3.72 per share, or
19.2 percent, to close at $15.57 per share during the next trading
session on January 7, 2013.

Finally, after the market closed on February 22, 2013, ITT
disclosed that it had received a subpoena from the SEC on February
8, 2013 that requested the production of documents relating to
ITT's accounting for the 2009 and 2010 RSAs. In reaction, ITT's
stock price fell $3.10 per share, or 16.6 percent, to close at
$15.53 per share during the next trading session on February 25,
2013.

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 ITT 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
Southern District of New York no later than May 10, 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 email at ravan@labaton.com.

Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com/-- with offices in
New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the
country's premier law firms representing 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 been a
champion of investor and consumer rights for nearly 50 years,
seeking recovery of current losses and necessary governance
reforms to protect investors and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and its peers.


K12 INC: July 19 Fairness Hearing on $6,750,000 Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement was issued by Labaton Sucharow LLP on
April 18 regarding the K12, Inc. Securities Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

DAVID HOPPAUGH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs.

K12 INC., RONALD J. PACKARD, and HARRY T. HAWKS, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 1:12-cv-00103-CMH-IDD

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF K12 INC. ("K12") FROM
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 12, 2011, INCLUSIVE, AND WHO
WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-
captioned litigation ("Litigation") has been certified as a class
action and that a settlement with K12, and Ronald J. Packard and
Harry T. Hawks (the "Individual Defendants," and together with
K12, the "Defendants"), in the amount of $6,750,000 in cash, has
been proposed by the Parties. The Parties have also stipulated to
the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of certain claims (the
"Dismissal").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Claude M. Hilton of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia in the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse, 401 Courthouse
Square, Alexandria, VA 22314 at 10:00 a.m., on July 19, 2013 to,
among other things: determine whether the proposed Settlement and
Dismissal should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the settlement proceeds should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and consider the application of Lead Counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses. The Court may change the date of the hearing without
providing another notice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING LITIGATION AND THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If
you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of
Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses ("Notice") and a Proof of Claim and Release Form
("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator:

          K12, Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 9974
          Dublin, OH 43017-5974
          Tel: 1-866-282-3028
          E-mail: k12questions@gcginc.com
          http://www.gcginc.com/cases/K12

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:

          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: 1-888-219-6877
          E-mail: settlementquestions@labaton.com
          http://www.labaton.com/

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim postmarked no later than August 3, 2013. To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice so that it is received no later than June 10, 2013. If you
are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you
will be bound by the Final Order and Judgment of the Court. Any
objections to the proposed Settlement, the voluntary dismissal,
the Plan of Allocation, and/or application for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Court and served
on counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice so that they are received no later than June
10, 2013. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a
valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the Net
Settlement Fund, but you nevertheless will be bound by the Final
Order and Judgment of the Court.

DATED: April 18, 2013   BY ORDER OF THE COURT
                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Broken Hill to Get Less Than Half of Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Boisvert, writing for ABC Adelaide, reports that Broken
Hill City Council is expected to get less than half of the money
it invested in the collapsed US investment bank Lehman Brothers
back under a proposed class action settlement.


LONG ISLAND POWER: Judge Agrees to Consolidate Sandy Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that a New York judge has agreed
to consolidate three class action lawsuits accusing Long Island
Power Authority and its management company of negligence in their
handling of power outages caused by Superstorm Sandy.

Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Antonio I. Brandveen on
April 2 ordered the cases consolidated for discovery and trial
after plaintiffs said they revolve around common issues related to
preparation for, and response to, Sandy, which left the majority
of LIPA's 1.1 million customers without power for months.  The
judge, however, ruled that it was premature to assign lead counsel
for all plaintiffs.


MANITOBA: Dauphin River First Nation Files Suit Over 2011 Flood
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the Dauphin River First Nation is suing the
Manitoba government for damages stemming from the flood of 2011,
which has made much of the community uninhabitable.

Officials with the First Nation, located near Lake Winnipeg, are
claiming C$100 million in damages, according to court documents
obtained by CBC News.

The Dauphin River suit means the province is now facing four
lawsuits, with damages totaling C$1.3 billion, related to the 2011
flood.

Court documents indicate that the Manitoba government faces nearly
a dozen more flood lawsuits dating back to 1997.

"They're under siege.  They're being sued on all sides," said
Russell Raikes, a London, Ont., lawyer who is involved in a class-
action lawsuit involving individuals from Dauphin River and three
other flooded First Nations.

"They got a big problem, they got a big mess, and the best way to
deal with it is to get talking.  We're not doing that yet," he
added.

The C$950-million class action was filed in April 2012 on behalf
of residents from the Dauphin River, Little Saskatchewan,
Pinaymootang and Lake St. Martin First Nations.

It claims the government was negligent in its operation of a
number of water-control structures, including the Shellmouth Dam
and the Portage Diversion, causing excessive flooding in their
reserves as a result.

The province was expected to file a statement of defense, in
response to the class-action lawsuit.

The allegations contained in the lawsuits have not been proven in
court.

No one from the Dauphin River First Nation would comment publicly
on the suits.

Last month, flood victims from Lake Manitoba launched a $260-
million lawsuit against the province, claiming that too much water
was sent into the area, flood land that was already saturated.
'This destroyed my community,' says chief

For the last two years, members of the First Nation have been
housed in hotels while homes and buildings on the reserve grow
mouldy and deteriorate.

"This destroyed my community," Chief John Stagg told CBC News
during a recent trip to the community.

First Nation member Christine Sumner recently visited her house,
which she learned has been condemned.  Still, she said she was
glad to be home.

"When I open the window, I want to breathe in the fresh air," she
said.

Her nephew, Leonard Sumner, has stayed in the First Nation to keep
watch over the community.

"It's kind of ghostly here, a ghostly feeling," he said.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Settlement of Non-Halal Meat Class Action Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab American News.com reports that Judge Kathleen Macdonald
of the Wayne County Circuit Court on April 17 approved the
$700,000 non-halal meat class action lawsuit settlement against
defendants McDonald's Corporation and Finley's Management Company,
the franchisee of McDonald's store number 11663 located at 13158
Ford Rd. in Dearborn.

The plaintiffs, Ahmad Ahmad and his representation Dearborn law
firm Jaafar & Mahdi Law Group, P.C., who also represented the
whole class, sought damages of $700,000 for the alleged possible
selling of non-halal meat at the Dearborn location.

$274,000 of that settlement total will be given to the HUDA clinic
in Detroit, which provides services to people with no health
insurance. $150,000 will also be dispensed to the Arab American
National Museum in Dearborn. Additionally, $20,000 will be awarded
to plaintiff Ahmad Ahmad, the complainant on the case, who
originally made the allegations against the restaurant. The court
agreed that his compensation was not for damages, but rather for
the time he committed in helping to move the case forward.

The remaining $254,000 will go towards the plaintiff attorneys on
the case, who spent hundreds of hours over a 19-month period
assessing and verifying details surrounding the case, as well as
consulting with numerous parties in order to determine the best
possible settlement agreement that would benefit the entire class.
The lawyers were also responsible for looking at dozens of
organizations in surrounding areas to determine which ones could
use a donation and would put it to good use.

The McDonald's non-halal meat lawsuit had gone through twists and
turns in the last couple of months. Misinformation regarding the
case caused Judge Macdonald to extend the public notice period for
the settlement, which was originally set for February. Dearborn
Attorney Majed Moughni, who had publicly disapproved of the
settlement, rallied Facebook users on the Dearborn Area Community
Members Page, urging them to sign forms if they wanted to
intervene into the settlement.

After the public notice period had ended, the court counted 64
objections against the settlement, 16 parties who were looking to
"opt out" of the settlement, and 140 requests to intervene, most
of which came from Moughn's Facebook page.

The plaintiff and defendant representation, along with Judge
Macdonald, agreed that there were no plausible reasons given
against the settlement on any of the objections that were made by
class members.


MERCK & CO: Product Liability Suit in Kentucky Set for Oct. Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend various product liability
lawsuits, one of which is currently scheduled to proceed to trial
in Kentucky state court in October 2013, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

Merck is a defendant in approximately 90 federal and state
lawsuits (the "Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging
personal injury or economic loss as a result of the purchase or
use of Vioxx. Most of the remaining cases are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon
E. Fallon.

There are pending in various U.S. courts putative class actions
purportedly brought on behalf of individual purchasers or users of
Vioxx seeking reimbursement for alleged economic loss. In the
Vioxx MDL proceeding, approximately 30 such class actions remain.
In June 2010, Merck moved to strike the class claims or for
judgment on the pleadings regarding the master complaint, which
includes the cases, and briefing on that motion was completed in
September 2010. The Vioxx MDL court heard oral argument on Merck's
motion in October 2010 and took it under advisement.

In 2008, a Missouri state court certified a class of Missouri
plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating
to Vioxx. On October 15, 2012, the parties executed a settlement
agreement to resolve the litigation. The Company established a
reserve of $39 million in the third quarter of 2012 in connection
with that settlement agreement, which is the minimum amount that
the Company is required to pay under the agreement. The court
preliminarily approved the agreement and the class notice and
claims program is underway.

Merck has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits brought by
state Attorneys General in five states. All of these actions
except for the Kentucky action are in the Vioxx MDL proceeding.
These actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of
Vioxx. These suits seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by
government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or
penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations. The Kentucky
action is currently scheduled to proceed to trial in Kentucky
state court in October 2013. On January 10, 2013, Merck finalized
a settlement in the action filed by the Pennsylvania Attorney
General under which Merck agreed to pay Pennsylvania $8.25 million
in exchange for the dismissal of its lawsuit.


MERCK & CO: Still Defends Shareholder Suit; Case in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend a consolidated shareholder
class action lawsuit, which is currently in discovery phase,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under
federal securities laws and state laws have been filed against
Merck and various current and former officers and directors (the
"Vioxx Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are
coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R.
Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes. In August
2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part Merck's
motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the
consolidated securities action. Among other things, the claims
based on statements made on or after the voluntary withdrawal of
Vioxx on September 30, 2004 have been dismissed. In October 2011,
defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint. On
April 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
and, on January 30, 2013, Judge Chesler granted that motion.
Discovery is currently proceeding in accordance with the court's
scheduling order.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Fosamax Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend product liability class
action lawsuit involving Fosamax, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation"). As of
December 31, 2012, approximately 4,560 cases, which include
approximately 5,140 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were
pending against Merck in either federal or state court, including
one case which seeks class action certification, as well as
damages and/or medical monitoring. In approximately 1,230 of these
actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have
suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), generally subsequent to
invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental
implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the use of
Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 3,330 of these
actions generally allege that they sustained femur fractures
and/or other bone injuries ("Femur Fractures") in association with
the use of Fosamax.


MERCK & CO: Awaits Settlement Approval in Vytorin Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., is awaiting court approval of a settlement in
In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin Securities Litigation, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

In April 2008, a Merck shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in federal court which has been consolidated in the
District of New Jersey with another federal securities lawsuit
under the caption In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin Securities
Litigation. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in October
2008 and named as defendants Merck; Merck/Schering-Plough
Pharmaceuticals, LLC; and certain of the Company's current and
former officers and directors. The complaint alleges that Merck
delayed releasing unfavorable results of the ENHANCE clinical
trial regarding the efficacy of Vytorin and that Merck made false
and misleading statements about expected earnings, knowing that
once the results of the ENHANCE study were released, sales of
Vytorin would decline and Merck's earnings would suffer. In
December 2008, Merck and the other defendants moved to dismiss
this lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a
claim for which relief can be granted. In September 2009, the
court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 1, 2012,
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 25,
2012, the court granted lead plaintiffs' amended motion for class
certification and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.
On February 13, 2013, Merck announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle this matter for
$215 million. The settlement is subject to court approval. The
proposed settlement has been reflected in the Company's 2012
financial results.

There is a similar consolidated, putative class action securities
lawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey, filed by a
Schering-Plough shareholder against Schering-Plough and its former
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fred Hassan,
under the caption In re Schering-Plough Corporation/ENHANCE
Securities Litigation. The amended consolidated complaint was
filed in September 2008 and names as defendants Schering-Plough;
Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, LLC; certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors; and
underwriters who participated in an August 2007 public offering of
Schering-Plough's common and preferred stock. In December 2008,
Schering-Plough and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss
this lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a
claim for which relief can be granted. In September 2009, the
court denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On March 1, 2012, the
Schering-Plough defendants filed a motion for partial summary
judgment and the underwriter defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. On September 25, 2012, the court granted lead
plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification and denied
defendants' motions for summary judgment. On February 13, 2013,
Merck announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs to settle this matter for $473 million. The settlement
is subject to court approval. If approved, this settlement will
exhaust the remaining Directors and Officers insurance coverage
applicable to the Vytorin lawsuits brought by the legacy Schering-
Plough shareholders. The proposed settlement has been reflected in
the Company's 2012 financial results and, resulted in an aggregate
charge of $493 million after taking into account anticipated
insurance recoveries of $195 million.


MERCK & CO: Defending M-M-R II-Related Class Suit in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit has been filed against Merck &
Co., Inc., in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
direct purchasers of the M-M-R II vaccine which is predicated on
the allegations in the False Claims Act complaint and charges that
the Company misrepresented the efficacy of the M-M-R II vaccine in
violation of federal antitrust laws and various state consumer
protection laws. The Company intends to defend against this
lawsuit, according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend AWP Class Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit
alleging manipulation of Average Wholesale Prices, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company and/or certain of its subsidiaries remain defendants
in cases brought by various states alleging manipulation by
pharmaceutical manufacturers of Average Wholesale Prices ("AWP"),
which are sometimes used by public and private payors in
calculating provider reimbursement levels. The outcome of these
lawsuits could include substantial damages, the imposition of
substantial fines and penalties and injunctive or administrative
remedies.

Since the start of 2012, the Company has settled certain AWP cases
brought by the states of Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. The Company and/or certain
of its subsidiaries continue to be defendants in cases brought by
six states.

The Company has also been reinstated as a defendant in a putative
class action in New Jersey Superior Court which alleges on behalf
of third-party payers and individuals that manufacturers inflated
drug prices by manipulation of AWPs and other means. This case was
originally dismissed against the Company without prejudice in
2007. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend K-DUR Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc.'s petition for certiorari in the K-DUR Antitrust
Litigation remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

In June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough settled patent
litigation with Upsher-Smith, Inc. ("Upsher-Smith") and ESI
Lederle, Inc. ("Lederle"), respectively, relating to generic
versions of K-DUR, Schering-Plough's long-acting potassium
chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients, for which
Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications ("ANDAs"). Following the commencement of an
administrative proceeding by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
(the "FTC") in 2001 alleging anti-competitive effects from those
settlements (which has been resolved in Schering-Plough's favor),
putative class and non-class action suits were filed on behalf of
direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR against Schering-Plough,
Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were consolidated in a multi-district
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. These suits claimed violations of federal and state
antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law
causes of action, and sought unspecified damages. In April 2008,
the indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed their case. In March
2010, the District Court granted summary judgment to the
defendants on the remaining lawsuits and dismissed the matter in
its entirety. However, in July 2012, the 3rd Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded the
case for further proceedings. At the same time, the 3rd Circuit
upheld a December 2008 decision by the District Court to certify
certain direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims as a class action.

In August 2012, the Company filed a petition for certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit's
reversal of summary judgment. The Supreme Court has taken no
action on that petition, but in December 2012 it granted
certiorari in an unrelated case in which the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals reached a decision that appears in conflict with the 3rd
Circuit's holding in the Company's case. The Company expects that
the issue it sought to raise with the Supreme Court will be
resolved by the Supreme Court's pending decision in this 11th
Circuit case.


MERCK & CO: Dismissed From Nexium Antitrust Suit in January
-----------------------------------------------------------
In September 2012, Merck & Co., Inc., and certain of its
subsidiaries were among the defendants named in a putative class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of direct purchasers of Nexium in
federal court in New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges violations of
federal antitrust law arising from settlements reached by and
among the defendants to resolve certain patent litigation relating
to the entry of generic esomeprazole on the U.S. market.
Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that these settlements had
the effect of impermissibly delaying the entry of generic
esomeprazole in the United States and extending the monopoly power
of Nexium, leading to higher average market prices. On January 8,
2013, the Company and its subsidiaries were dismissed without
prejudice from the lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Coupon Program
---------------------------------------------------------
Since March 2012, a number of private health plans have filed
separate putative class action lawsuits against Merck & Co., Inc.,
alleging that Merck's coupon programs injured health insurers by
reducing beneficiary co-payment amounts, thereby allegedly causing
beneficiaries to purchase higher-priced drugs than they otherwise
would have purchased and increasing the insurers' reimbursement
costs. The actions, which are pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, seek damages and injunctive relief
barring the Company from issuing coupons that would reduce
beneficiary co-pays on behalf of putative nationwide classes of
health insurers. Similar actions relating to manufacturer coupon
programs have been filed against several other pharmaceutical
manufacturers in a variety of federal courts. The Company intends
to defend against these lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.


MERCK & CO: Aussie Judge Questions Fairness of $540,000 Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that drug company Merck
has reached a $540,000 settlement with Australians who claim its
arthritis drug Vioxx gave them heart problems, but a judge last
month questioned the fairness of the deal.

More than 1700 people joined a class action against the Australian
arm of the international pharmaceutical company, claiming their
heart trouble stemmed from the drug.

Federal Court Justice Christopher Jessup, who must approve the
settlement which will be binding on all group members, on April 17
said he was concerned about its fairness.  The settlement would
result in the proceedings being dismissed and the matter
finalized, meaning no future claims could be brought against Merck
over the drug.  To be eligible for compensation, the group members
would have to have suffered a heart attack after taking Vioxx for
a certain period.

Gerard Dalton, representing the claimants, said the successful
applicants would receive a maximum of $2000 if they were alive and
$1500 if they were dead.  If the total payout for living claimants
was to exceed $497,500, that figure would be divided equally among
them, he said.

The maximum payout for dead claimants will be $45,000.  It was
estimated that only 200 to 300 claimants would meet the
eligibility criteria, he said.

Justice Jessup said the agreement did not take into account
individual circumstances and may not be fair to those who had a
stronger case against the drug company.  "I don't just consider
myself to be a street sweeper," Justice Jessup said.

"I want to know what's really lying around and whether people's
interests or rights are being affected.

"I must say that I'm having difficulty coming to grips with why
the settlement should be regarded as fair and reasonable in the
interests of all group members . . . without any attempt to make a
distinction between those who would be more likely to establish
causation."

Justice Jessup said it also seemed "problematic" that a court
should make an order that would be binding on people who were not
a party to the current proceedings.

"It doesn't strike me as being a very obvious kind of justice," he
said.

Mr. Dalton, urging Justice Jessup to approve the settlement, said
it was fair and reasonable because claimants would face
complexities if they took their own court action.

Claimant Trevor Whitehead, who objects to the settlement, asked
the judge to consider the fact that it painted all group members
with a broad brush and failed to consider their individual
circumstances.

Justice Jessup reserved his decision.

Vioxx was withdrawn from sale globally in 2004 following concerns
over its side-effects.

Merck was ordered in 2010 to pay $330,000 to Victorian grandfather
Graeme Peterson after Justice Jessup found Vioxx caused him to
have a heart attack.

That decision was overturned on appeal to the full court, but the
judgment still allowed others to continue legal action over Vioxx.

Mr. Peterson, who remains the lead applicant, will not receive any
compensation, but the settlement would relieve him of legal costs
he owes from previous proceedings.

Law firm Slater and Gordon, which represents the claimants and has
spent millions of dollars on the case, will not receive any
payment for their services, the court heard.


SAC CAPITAL: Wyeth Investors Sue Over Alleged Insider Trading
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that SAC
Capital Advisors LP was sued by a public pension fund that holds
shares of Wyeth LLC, now a unit of Pfizer Inc. (PFE), over alleged
insider trading on tips about an Alzheimer's drug.

Birmingham Retirement & Relief System sued SAC, its founder,
Steven A. Cohen, and SAC units including CR Intrinsic Investors
LLC, claiming damages for alleged illegal trading by the hedge
fund in the drugmaker's stock.

Stamford, Connecticut- based SAC last month agreed to pay a record
$602 million to settle insider-trading allegations filed by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  In the settlement, which must
be approved by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, SAC didn't
admit or deny wrongdoing.

The Birmingham fund, in its complaint filed on April 11, seeks to
represent a class of investors who bought Wyeth common stock in
2008 from July 21 to July 29.

The U.S. charged Mathew Martoma, a former CR Intrinsic portfolio
manager, with using illegal tips to help SAC make profits or avoid
losses totaling $276 million by trading in Elan Corp. (ELN) and
Wyeth LLC.  Prosecutors said the case is the biggest insider
trading scheme in history.  Mr. Martoma has pleaded not guilty.
'Fund Owner'

Mr. Martoma, according to a Dec. 21 indictment against him, used
tips from a physician who was in charge of monitoring the safety
of a drug undergoing clinical tests to advise an unnamed "hedge
fund owner" to trade in Elan and Wyeth stock.  A person familiar
with the case said Cohen is that hedge fund owner.

In addition to the SAC units and Cohen, the complaint names as
defendants Martoma and Sidney Gilman, the doctor who allegedly
passed him the drug-trial information.  The suit filed on behalf
of Wyeth shareholders follows at least two that have been filed
against SAC by holders of Elan shares.

"Any liability to these plaintiffs is fully discharged by our
settlement with the SEC, and this lawsuit presents no new
liability to SAC," Jonathan Gasthalter, an SAC spokesman at Sard
Verbinnen & Co., said on April 11 in an e-mailed statement.

The case is Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. SAC Capital
Advisors LLC, 13-cv-02459, U.S. District Court, Southern District
of New York (Manhattan).


SARATOGA THERAPEUTICS: Recalls 900 Bottles of ebA Multivitamins
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saratoga Therapeutics, LLC of North Wales, Pennsylvania, is
recalling 900 bottles of ebA Multivitamin Supplement because they
may contain undeclared milk components -- milk protein(s) and
lactose.  The following lot numbers may be affected:

   * # 0912164 expiration date 12/12
   * # 1110354 expiration date 10/14

People with an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk
of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction and people who
have lactose intolerance run the risk of gastrointestinal symptoms
if they consume ebA Multivitamin Supplement.

ebA Multivitamin Supplement was distributed nationwide and in
Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, England, Finland, Ireland,
Malaysia, Switzerland, and Tasmania, and reached consumers by mail
order, fax order, Internet sales and doctors' office sales.  The
vitamins are packaged in a white plastic bottle with white, green
and blue labeling.  The expiration date is listed beneath the
Warning section on the label.  The label erroneously lists the
product as being free of milk components.  Picture of the recalled
products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm349620.htm

One customer with a known milk allergy reported an anaphylactic
reaction to ebA and recovered completely with appropriate
treatment.  Another customer with a reported milk allergy reported
being "sick" while taking ebA.

The milk components were discovered by the distributor, Saratoga
Therapeutics, LLC, via outside laboratory analysis, after being
informed of the anaphylactic reaction.  The source of the milk
components is under investigation by the third party, U.S.-based
manufacturer of the vitamin tablets.

Consumers who have purchased ebA Multivitamin Supplement may
return any unused portion of the product to Saratoga Therapeutics,
LLC for a full refund.  Contact the Company at
info@ebAMultivitamin.com or 215-661-9044 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
east coast time to request mailing materials and/or for any
questions.


STANDARD & POOR'S: Aussie Investors File 2nd Suit in April
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that scores of Australian investors filed a second
class-action lawsuit against Standard & Poor's mid-April, claiming
the ratings agency misled them by giving its highest rating to
derivatives that lost almost all their value in the runup to the
2008 financial crisis.

IMF Australia Ltd, a company that funds large class-action
lawsuits, said the group of 90 councils, churches and charities
had lost more than A$200 million ($207.02 million) after investing
in high-risk financial products known as collateralized debt
obligations (CDOs).

S&P gave its top AAA and AA ratings to eight CDOs sold by U.S.
investment bank Lehman Brothers, which collapsed during the
crisis.  S&P said it believed the lawsuit was without merit, and
that it would vigorously defend itself against it.

"Our ratings were based on the good faith judgment of our analysts
and reflect what they knew at the time," S&P said in an emailed
statement.

The lawsuit follows a landmark ruling by the Australian Federal
Court in November in a class action lawsuit brought by 12 local
councils, also funded by IMF and brought against S&P owner McGraw-
Hill Companies Inc.  The court found in that case that S&P's
ratings for the CDOs in question were "misleading and deceptive."

S&P has appealed against that decision, which would force McGraw-
Hill to pay the councils around A$30 million.

"Rating agencies played a pivotal role in the miscalculation of
billions of dollars worldwide from 2005 to 2008 and it is
important they be held accountable," IMF Executive Director John
Walker said in a statement.

Around 70 of the investors in the current class-action lawsuit are
already part of a separate suit against Lehman Brothers Australia.
Liquidators for the Australian arm of the investment bank applied
to the Federal Court in April seeking approval for a deal that
would return around A$211 million to those 70 investors.

IMF said the money claimed under the current lawsuit represents
the balance of their losses after any payment from Lehman
Brothers.

                           *     *     *

ABC News' Sue Lannin reports that the class action in the Federal
Court is being led by the City of Swan in Western Australia and
the Moree Plains Shire Council in New South Wales.

In a statement provided to the ABC, S&P says it will fight the
class action.

"The lawsuit is without merit and we will vigorously defend
ourselves against it."

"Our ratings were based on the good faith judgment of our analysts
and reflect what they knew at the time."

Litigation funder, IMF Australia, is considering other legal
action against S&P, rival ratings agency Moody's, and banks in
Europe.


STANDARD AND POOR'S: NSW Town Receives $660,000 From Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a Monaro council in the New South Wales
south east has begun receiving a pay-out after a court battle to
recoup money lost during the Global Financial Crisis.  The Cooma-
Monaro Shire was involved in a class action against ratings agency
Standard and Poor's, the investment bank ABN AMRO and the Local
Government Financial Services organization.  The Councils claim
they were misinformed about buying triple-A rated investments,
which eventually failed during the GFC.

It comes after Standard and Poor's on April 17 said it would
vigorously defend another Federal Court class action being planned
by around 90 local councils, churches and charities.

The Cooma-Monaro Shire General Manager, John Vusic, says the
council has begun receiving its payments but is prepared for an
appeal by the ratings agency.

"Of the three groups, we've received the first payment of $660,000
at the moment which is the first payment," he said.

"The payments are done in three tranches and they'll be spread
over a period of about three months.

"So I'm expecting those two to come in a matter of weeks.

"They'll have to actually pay that.

"If the appeal process is on, which I expect it is, we will defend
it vigorously as well."


TESLA MOTORS: Facing Class Suit Over Wrongful Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
Domenick Yoney, writing for AutoBlog, reports that David Vespremi,
former director of communications for the California automaker
Tesla Motors (and new Epic Torq owner) was part of a mass firing,
which ousted Tesla co-founder Martin Eberhard called, at the time,
a "Stealth Bloodbath" in which 26 employees were let go at once
without advance warning.  Unwilling to take what seemed like a
wrongful dismissal lying down, Vespremi and his legal
representative Yosef Peretz took his case to the courts. A similar
situation is playing itself out over at Fisker Automotive, where
recent sudden layoffs have triggered a federal lawsuit over
alleged violations of the US Worker Adjustment Retraining
Notification (WARN) Act, which mandates a 60-day notification
period before mass layoffs.

In any case, after five long litigious years, Vesprimi has just
received word that the court has found in his favor as regards to
his entitlement to 10,000 shares of stock options.  This
translates to $207,000 in cold, hard cash.

While Tesla will certainly be happy to put this case behind it --
the company has, no doubt, already spent far more than the final
award on the proceedings -- it still faces further fallout from
the decision.  With the principles of its obligations to former
employees vis-a-vis stock options now established, it faces a
further class action suit filed on behalf 99 other former workers
with carbon-copy claims.  While that may add up to a significant
out lay for Tesla, it might find comfort in the fact that at least
some of that money may very well find its way back in the form of
orders for more of its Model S.

AutoBlog in April asked Tesla for a comment on the situation.
Tesla said, "We don't comment on pending litigation."


UMB BANK: Legal Services Gets $260K From Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Edwards, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reports that
St. Louis-based Legal Services of Eastern Missouri has received
$260,000 as part of a $7.8 million class action suit settlement
obtained by three law firms, including local firm Gray, Ritter &
Graham.

The suit, which claimed UMB Bank customers were unfairly and
deceptively charged overdraft fees, was settled in 2011. A court
order provided that settlement checks sent to members of the class
that were not cashed after a year would be used to provide legal
services to low-income people.

In all, almost $800,000 had not been redeemed. Legal Aid of
Western Missouri, which, like UMB, is based in Kansas City,
received the balance.  The other law firms that obtained the
settlement were Stueve Siegel Hanson in Kansas City, and Tycko &
Zavareei in Washington, D.C.

Daniel Glazier is executive director and general counsel of the
nonprofit Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, which had total
revenue of $6.6 million in its fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2011,
according to its most recent IRS filing.


UNITED STATES: 2 Doctors Launch Class Suit Against DOD
------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that a pair of doctors
hit the U.S. Department of Defense with a proposed class action in
Washington federal court on April 12, accusing the agency of
failing to implement a mandated 2010 Tricare reimbursement
increase, stiffing thousands of doctors on Tricare payments.
According to the plaintiffs, doctors Elijah Berg and Sarah
Delaney-Rowland, Tricare had failed to pass along a mandated 2.2%
reimbursement increase for doctors treating Tricare patients
during the last seven months of 2010.


UNITED STATES: Accord in Asylum Seekers' Suit Awaits Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Wissel, writing for KPLU, reports that the settlement of a
class-action lawsuit, filed on behalf of asylum seekers, should
make it easier for people to work in the U.S. while for their
asylum petition to be acted on.

The problem has been with something called the "asylum clock."
The clock is actually a complicated formula the Department of
Homeland Security and other government agencies use to decide when
someone is allowed to legally begin working in the United States.
Theoretically, it's supposed to be around six months.  But,
according to the court case, it stretches into years.

Attorney Emily Creighton with the American Immigration Council
describes the case of a Seattle woman who fled India and sought
asylum in the U.S.  The woman said she faced persecution because
of her religious beliefs.  It took nine years for the case to work
its way through the court system.

"She never got employment authorization.  For all those years, she
was not able to actually work and to support herself and her
family," Ms. Creighton said.

The delay held her back despite her training in fashion
merchandising and culinary arts and being offered jobs in those
fields.  Under an agreement signed by the Department of Homeland
Security and the Justice Department, steps will be taken to ensure
that future asylum seekers won't face the same fate when it comes
to being able to get a job.

The agreement will also require immigration judges to make it
clear when a work authorization has been delayed.

The settlement agreement still has to be approved by Judge Richard
Jones in U.S. District Court in Seattle.  Judge Jones is the
federal judge overseeing the case.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: May 6 Deadline to Seek Lead Plaintiff Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until May 6, 2013 to file lead plaintiff applications in
a securities class action lawsuit against VeriFone Systems, Inc.
(NYSE: PAY), if they purchased the Company's securities during the
period between December 14, 2011 and February 19, 2013, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of VeriFone and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, e-mail or call KSF Partner, Melinda Nicholson at
melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com or toll free at 1-877-515-1850.
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by May 6, 2013.

About the Lawsuit

VeriFone and certain of its executives are charged with issuing
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial condition, growth, revenues, and ability to execute its
business plan, during the Class Period, in violation of federal
securities laws.

These false statements and omissions included, in part, the
following: (a) the Company was encountering serious problems in
transitioning to an increasingly subscriptions-based service
model; (b) VeriFone used past acquisitions to mask its declining
revenue base; (c) VeriFone's accounting recognition was overly
aggressive; (d) VeriFone lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (e) as a result, the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

                   About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

To learn more about KSF, whose partners include the Former
Louisiana Attorney General, Charles C. Foti, Jr., and other
lawyers with significant experience litigating complex securities
class actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional and
individual shareholders, you may visit http://www.ksfcounsel.com

Contact:

          Melinda Nicholson, Esq.
          Partner
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington St.
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Tel: 1-877-515-1850
          Email: melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com


WAL-MART STORES: Dukes Leads Smaller Group in New Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlyn Kolker, writing for Reuters, reports that the plaintiffs
who filed the original class action discrimination case against
Wal-Mart that led to a signature Supreme Court decision limiting
large class actions are asking a judge to certify a different,
smaller class of women in an attempt to distinguish the case from
its predecessor.

The case is part of the plaintiffs' revised effort to pursue the
workplace discrimination litigation on a regional scale.  In
2011's Dukes v. Wal-Mart decision, the high court ruled that the
plaintiffs' national case, which encompassed 1.5 million current
and former Wal-Mart workers, was too unwieldy to proceed as a
class action.

With the national class action dismantled, the plaintiffs have
instead tried to pursue regional class cases in federal courts in
California, Tennessee, Texas, Florida and Wisconsin. Because the
case in the Northern District of California is a direct spin-off
of the Dukes case, it is the furthest along procedurally.

In the California lawsuit, as in the other regional ones, female
workers are alleging that Wal-Mart denied them promotions and pay
raises.  Wal-Mart says it did not discriminate against women and
argues that plaintiffs' claims should be litigated individually,
rather than as a class.

The plaintiffs' request for class certification merely "recycles
arguments that were already rejected by the Supreme Court," said
Theodore Boutrous, who represents Wal-Mart. "These claims are not
suitable for a class certification because each plaintiff is so
different."

The plaintiffs, however, argue that the size of the class, the
scope of claims and statistical evidence are "markedly different"
from the case that wended its way to the Supreme Court, according
to the motion for class certification, filed Monday in the
Northern District of California.

The reformulated California case, involving about 45,000 workers,
is led by Betty Dukes, the same name plaintiff in the case that
culminated in the 2011 Supreme Court decision. Dukes, who works as
a store greeter at a Wal-Mart in Pittsburg, California, claims she
was denied promotions because she's a woman.

NEW EVIDENCE

The proposed class is narrower than its predecessor because it is
focused regionally, and it more precisely identifies the practices
that led to the alleged discriminatory practices, the plaintiffs
claim in the class certification motion. New statistical evidence
reflects the pattern of alleged discrimination, they say.

"By identifying specific policies, explaining the common mode of
exercising discretion, and providing statistics at the store,
district and regional level, plaintiffs have met the burdens
created by the Supreme Court," the plaintiffs write in the brief.

The motion focuses on the practices of regional managers who, the
plaintiffs say, consistently paid women workers less. The
plaintiffs' expert statistician has demonstrated that women who
work at Wal-Mart stores in California received fewer promotions
than would have occurred in a "non-discriminatory" system, the
plaintiffs say.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Joseph Sellers, who has represented the Wal-
Mart workers since the case's inception in 2001, said the proposed
class satisfies new standards articulated by the Supreme Court's
decision.

"Our clients are hoping to finally get their day in court in
pursuing more narrowly-drawn cases," Sellers, a partner at
Washington law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, told Reuters.

Even with a regional class, though, the plaintiffs could face the
same problems that the Supreme Court identified in the original
proposed class action, according to Charles Sullivan, a law
professor at Seton Hall Law School who specializes in employment
law.

"They have to find something common to each worker," HE said.
"What did Wal-Mart do, or this region of Wal-Mart do, that makes
each worker have the same problem?"

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer is expected to hold a hearing
on the class certification issue this summer.

The case is Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, No. 01cv2252.

For the plaintiffs: Joseph Sellers, Jenny Rae Yang, Christine
Webber and Peter Romer-Friedman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll;
Anne Richardson, Randy Renick, Cornelia Dai of Hadsell Stormer
Keeny Richardson & Renick; Elizabeth Lawrence and Stever Stemerman
of Davis Cowell & Bowe; Jennifer Reisch and Noreen Farrell of
Equal Rights Advocates; and Jocelyn Larkin of the Impact Fund.

For Wal-Mart: Theodore Boutrous, Rachel Brass, Michele Maryott and
Mark Perry of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.


WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Manager's Suit Denied Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Prochilo, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge ruled April 12 that a former Wendy's International
Inc. manager's suit alleging she was fired after requesting
accommodations for her disability did not qualify as a class
action because individual class members' cases would be too
dissimilar from one another.  U.S. District Judge Terrence F.
McVerry said the claims failed to meet the commonality requirement
for class certification.


WINDSOR-ESSEX CATHOLIC: Sutts Strosberg Mulls Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Sutts, Strosberg LLP has been retained to
investigate and assess the viability of a class action on behalf
current and retired employees of the Windsor-Essex Catholic
District School Board and the Greater Essex County District School
Board whose post-retirement health and welfare benefits will be
terminated effective August 31, 2014.

The decision to terminate these benefits affects certain retired
employees and certain present non-unionized employees of the
Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board and the Greater Essex
County District School Board who were entitled to receive health
and welfare benefits upon reaching 65 years of age.

If you would like to speak to someone about this lawsuit, please
contact Sutts, Strosberg LLP toll-free at 1.800.229.5323,
extension 8296

On the Net: http://www.schoolboardclassaction.com/

According to blackburnnews.com, partner at the law firm, David
Robins, says they've received a number of complaints from retirees
who are set to lose their coverage from the boards next year.  "It
would appear that several millions of dollars are at stake," says
Robins.  "To be sure, both boards have talked about the cost of
these benefits going forward.  From the Windsor Essex Catholic
District School Board's perspective, they have quite a substantial
liability and in-part in relates to these benefits."

Robins says part of the investigation includes taking another look
at some of the contracts in play.  He explains, once they wrap up
the investigation, the firm will then be able to give advice to
its clients and receive instructions accordingly.

                           *     *     *

Brian Cross, writing for The Windsor Star, reports that the
Education Minister, Liz Sandals, noted that the benefits aren't
being cancelled until Sept. 1, 2014, when the existing union
contracts -- which spell out the benefits for retirees -- have
expired.

"It's very difficult, when you have to withdraw a benefit the
employees were expecting," Sandals said, adding that the employees
aren't be blame for this contravention of the Education Act. They
were simply accepting the benefits they were given, she said.

Sandals said the situation came to light as a result of the
provincial appointment of a supervisor, Norbert Hartmann, to take
over the financially troubled Catholic board last year and sort
through its problems.  One discovery he made was the money going
out in benefits to a group of retirees who, according to the act,
shouldn't be getting benefits, she said. Hartmann told her and she
had ministry staff check to see if any other school boards in
Ontario did the same thing. The only board they found was the
Windsor public board.

"To the best of our knowledge, those are the only two non-
compliant boards in the province," said Sandals, who said the
savings -- according to the boards, these benefits cost about $2.9
million a year at the public board and about $4.1 million a year
at the Catholic board -- belong to the boards. That saved money
will help the Catholic board out of its deficit problems and help
prevent the public board from ending up in deficit, she suggested,
and allow them to focus on providing programs for students.

Both local school board directors weren't around when these post-
retirement benefits were agreed to, but public board director
Warren Kennedy confirmed that the unions got them in exchange for
lower wage increases than what the teachers were getting.

Catholic board director Paul Picard figured they were approved at
a time when Windsor was a very strong union town, when the
powerful auto workers were making similar benefit gains in their
contracts.  But it was only very recently that the Catholic board
realized what a huge liability -- $41 million over 10 years -- it
was facing because of the benefits, said Picard.

"It was going to cost almost $200 a student per year for the next
10 years," Picard said.  By comparison, the retirement benefit
costs for other boards that only provide benefits for retirees up
to age 65 amount to $13 or $14 per student, he said.

"We can't afford it, the credit card is maxed out."

Kennedy said there's no real explanation for why this apparently
illegal benefit has been paid. "It's something that's happened
(starting in 1966) and continued and the minister has decided it's
time to put an end to it," said Kennedy, who is one of the non-
union staff who is losing the benefit. (The Catholic board had
already gotten rid of it for senior management.) .

The boards are currently looking into a group plan for the
affected employees, that the employees would pay for. The current
plan provides for things like semi-private hospital coverage, a
drug plan that's better than the government's plan for all people
over 65, dental, hearing aids, vision and life insurance. There
are also survivor benefits.

"I find it really, really atrocious that's how they're going to be
treating people, this government," said Catholic board retiree
Frank DiTomasso.  "All these years we had it, now all of a sudden
it's no good, it's illegal.  Why wasn't it illegal when they gave
it to us?"

The affected retirees had been phoning their unions throughout the
day. "Livid, just livid," was how CAW Local 2458 president Bruce
Dickie described the retirees -- former custodians, maintenance
workers, skilled trades, clerical staff, secretaries and IT people
at the Catholic board.

Teachers don't get the post-65 benefit. There are 258 retirees
affected from the Catholic board, including about 50 non-union
people, plus 129 current employees who now won't be getting the
benefits. At the public board, 312 retirees are affected, plus an
undetermined number of current workers. Pulling the benefits will
save the boards a combined $70 million over the next 10 years.
But the workers say the benefits were something their unions
bargained for starting in the 1960s, giving away wage increases in
exchange for more security upon retirement.

"It's outrageous," said Dickie. "Forty-five years we've been
bargaining those benefits. They can't tell us they're illegal,
because the Education Ministry, every single minister of
education, has approved (the school boards') budgets with those
benefits in there."

He said the retirees include Second World War vets and widows,
people in their 80s and 90s getting $300 or $400 a month from
their pensions. "And they're telling them they're losing their
benefits."

The two local boards are the only two in the province that provide
the post-65 benefits, according to the ministry.


WYETH: June 11 Deadline to Seek Lead Plaintiff Status
-----------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, on April 17 announced
that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Wyeth (formerly NYSE: WYE) common stock
during the period between July 21, 2008 and July 29, 2008,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased Wyeth common stock during the Class Period you
may obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your
ability to become a lead plaintiff by contacting Brower Piven at
www.browerpiven.com, by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com, by
calling 410/415-6616, or at Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, 1925 Old Valley Road, Stevenson, Maryland 21153.
Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating
securities and class action cases of over 60 years.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Members of
the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to
represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead
plaintiff no later than June 11, 2013 and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement and how much of a settlement to accept for the Class in
the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among
applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the
Company during the Class Period.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants
trading on, and profiting from, material, non-public information
related to disappointing clinical trial results for the drug
bapineuzumab (AAB-001), an Alzheimer's disease treatment that was
being jointly developed by Wyeth and Elan Corporation, plc, during
the week before the presentation of the detailed results of the
clinical trial at a July 29, 2008 conference. According to the
complaint, defendants avoided approximately $40.4 million in
losses on their long positions and secured a $16 million profit
from the short positions opened the week before the July 29, 2008
disclosure of detailed results of the clinical trial for
bapineuzumab, and investors buying Wyeth shares during that time
were damaged under the Federal securities laws.

If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven
without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain
other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time
to be a member of the class.


ZYNGA INC: Investors Sue Pincus, Other Execs
--------------------------------------------
Michael del Castillo, writing for Upstart Business Journal,
reports that while Mark Pincus and other Zynga executives sold
shares of their own company for $12 a pop, the company's former
product manager, Wendy Lee, and pretty much every other investor
had to sit back and watch as their money slowly dwindled.  By the
time restrictions imposed on Lee were lifted and she was able to
sell her 30,000 shares their price was nearly half what it was. By
the time she finally sold her share it was down to $3.15.

"It was clearly a vote of no confidence by Pincus," said Lee's
lawyer Ethan Wohl in an interview with Upstart Business Journal on
April 17. "And the company actually warned investors in its
prospectus that the sale of shares by insiders might well drive
the stock price down."

And so the heart of the suit, according to Wohl, is what he calls
the "palpable unfairness" of letting one group of shareholders
benefit while the others are forced to go down with the ship.

In the summer of 2011, when the pre-IPO Zynga was the golden child
of mobile gaming, an industry "poised for strong growth," Lee was
given stock options, and she jumped at the chance, though she was
"sharply restricted" from doing anything with them.

"So while she became an owner of shares at Zynga back in August of
2011, she was not permitted to sell her shares at any point until
ultimately, the end of May 2012," said Wohl. By then Pincus had
sold $190 million worth of stock, according to Forbes.

The suit seeks what is called "disgorgement," which means if Lee
wins, the money would come from Pincus himself, along with other
directors and underwriters, not Zynga, to the tune of what they
would have lost if they had subjected themselves to the same rules
they imposed on others.  Or what Wohl said is roughly $100
million.

"There are other cases pending in federal and state court in
California that allege that Mark Pincus and other insiders knew
the price was going to drop," said Wohl.

This case isn't about what insiders knew about the stock prices
rising or falling, Lee's representation is quick to point out. His
client and the class of other employees included in the suit are
looking for justice, he said.

"And justice here meaning what federal law requires, and that is
equal treatment unless there's a really, really good reason not to
have equal treatment, and there's no really good reason that we're
aware of here."

The case is being seen in the Delaware Court of Chancery which
Wohl said "moves pretty quick." Wohl expects an official response
from Zynga in less than a month.

Zynga's communications representative, Kelly Pakula Kunz told
Upstart Business Journal her employer isn't commenting on the
case.


* LaMagna Discusses Settlement in Medicare Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael LaMagna -- Mlamagna@nyandctlaw.com -- a Partner at LaMagna
& Associates, PC, writes that there are big changes to your
Medicare benefit that will assist you to obtain a longer stay at a
rehabilitation center or more outpatient therapy. Medicare just
settled a lawsuit, Jimmo v Sebelius, which clarifies when a
rehabilitation center, home health care or outpatient therapy
provider can discontinue services paid by Medicare.

As most readers know, your Medicare Part A benefit pays for
rehabilitation after a 3 day hospital stay for a period up to 100
days, day 1 to 20 at 100%, day 21 to 100 at 80% (you are
responsible to pay the 20% co-pay of $148/per day or a
supplemental plan will cover the daily fee). Prior to the recent
settlement of the Jimmo lawsuit, Medicare providers would
discharge beneficiaries, thus denying them more services during
the 100 days if there wasn't any "Improvement." This rule of thumb
"Improvement Standard" meant that the provider would determine
that there wasn't any further rehabilitation or restoration
potential, leaving the beneficiary to pay privately (at $400 to
$500 per day), be discharged or appeal the decision.

Jimmo, which was a class action lawsuit against Medicare based on
this very issue, was just settled. Effective immediately, Medicare
can no longer deny a claim because of a lack of rehabilitation
potential, but is expanded to pay for rehabilitation which
prevents or slows further deterioration in a beneficiaries'
clinical condition. This new standard will allow many Medicare
beneficiaries to continue on with their therapy, even if they do
not show restorative potential, but require more time to prevent
further physical deterioration. This should save beneficiaries
thousands of dollars and more importantly, allow beneficiaries to
obtain the therapy they need to prevent them from further harm
after discharge.

Therefore, if you are currently obtaining Medicare paid
rehabilitation services in a rehabilitation center or at home and
you are being discharged because of a lack of improvement, you may
be able to stop the discharge by reminding the provider of the new
Medicare policy clarification.

Michael LaMagna, a Partner at LaMagna & Associates, PC, practices
Elder Law/Probate/Disability/Wills, Trusts and Estates, Health
Care Regulatory, Medicare Appeals, Social Security and General
Legal practice in both New York and Connecticut. Michael was just
appointed to the ACO Task Force of the American Health Lawyers
Association.


* ODS-Licensed Entities Under Pressure From Regulators
------------------------------------------------------
Dynamic Chriropractors reports that although most chiropractors
may not have heard of the term organized delivery system (ODS),
most doctors readily recognize the names Triad Healthcare,
American Health Specialty Network (ASHN), OptumHealth and other
entities licensed as an ODS.

Recent legal headlines have brought to light that the carrier-ODS
relationship may be teetering, under pressure from regulators,
doctors, patients and legislators for questionable practices that
have been negatively impacting chiropractic care.  Here's a
sampling of some of the major ODS players impacting chiropractic
patients and providers, including a synopsis of some of their
dubious tactics challenged in court by the chiropractic profession
over the past several years.

             American Specialty Health Network (ASHN)

In December 2012, the American Chiropractic Association (ACA),
along with a representative of both patients and the chiropractic
profession, filed a sweeping class-action lawsuit that alleges a
multitude of potentially fraudulent and illegal behaviors that
ASHN (and Cigna Insurance) have perpetrated against the health
care public.  The lawsuit alleges numerous improper practices by
ASHN/Cigna including manipulation of Explanation of Benefits
(EOBs), numerous violations of ERISA and various state prompt-pay
laws, restrictions of care through their pre-authorization
process, and excessive copay requirements.

As recently as 2011, the Connecticut attorney general required
Aetna and ASHN to "review and reprocess chiropractic benefit
claims that may have been denied improperly under Connecticut
law."  According to the AG, "Connecticut law requires health
insurance plans to cover chiropractic care 'to the same extent'
coverage is provided for services rendered by a physician.
Chiropractors licensed in Connecticut are permitted to provide a
wide range of services, such as the use of X-ray and other
diagnostic technology, the administration of foods and vitamins
and preventative care.  Cigna's claims process did not have
payment codes for all the services chiropractors were authorized
to provide in Connecticut, even though the same services provided
by medical doctors were covered."

                           OptumHealth

In 2009, UnitedHealth Group acquired Health Net's health business
in the northeastern U.S. Financial reports reveal huge revenue
numbers making United the largest private health plan in the
country.  In 2011, the Ohio State Chiropractic Association (OSCA),
joined by the ACA and the Congress of Chiropractic State
Associations (COCSA), filed an amended class-action lawsuit
against United Health Group and its subsidiaries, including
OptumHealth, for their alleged "abusive overpayment recoupment,
pre-service plan and concurrent claim denials."

The lawsuit alleges, according to OSCA, that the "post-payment
audit and review process as applied by the Defendants violates
ERISA, in that its repayment demands are retroactive adverse
benefit determinations that particular services are not covered
under the terms of the United and Health Net health care plans,"
and do not provide for proper appeals or other protections
otherwise available under ERISA for both self-funded and fully
insured health care plans.

The OSCA also alleges that both United and OptumHealth did not
follow federal ERISA regulations when they denied pre-service and
concurrent care claims when provided by chiropractors.

                         Triad Healthcare

In 2009, the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance cited
Triad Healthcare for numerous violations/abuses including "failure
to fully implement [a] remediation plan in accordance with New
Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance Bulletin 07-23," which
required all N.J. organized delivery systems to "re-adjudicate all
claims improperly denied due to a network provider's failure to
obtain preauthorization or precertification of medical treatment."
Other violations noted by the N.J.  DOBI in its review of Triad's
market conduct activities included "unfair denials based on
erroneous precertification requirements," "failure to maintain
auditable claim records and unfair denials," "failure to notify
providers and members of internal appeal rights on remediated
preauthorization denials that Triad adjusted as medical necessity
denials," and "failure to provide reasonable explanation for
denial of benefits and utilization of misleading statements in
written notice of adverse determinations."4

After an eight-month onslaught of chiropractor and patient
complaints, Aetna has decided to drop the use of Triad with its
PPO policies, a program implemented in June 2012.  Aetna announced
on its website that after less than one year, it was ending
Triad's handling of PPO policies in New Jersey.

                          What's an ODS?

According to the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance,
"An Organized Delivery System (ODS) is a legal entity that
contracts with a carrier for the purpose of providing or arranging
for the provision of health care services to those persons covered
under a carrier's health benefits plan, but which is not a
licensed health care facility or other health care provider.

"Examples of the types of entities that are an ODS include
preferred provider organizations (PPOs), Physician Hospital
Organizations (PHOs) and Independent Practice Associations (IPAs).
In order to contract with a carrier, an ODS must become licensed
or certified. However, by law, an entity that only contracts to
provide pharmaceutical services, or case management services, or
employee assistance plan services does not have to become licensed
or certified."

Representatives from the Association of New Jersey Chiropractors
(ANJC) had ongoing meetings with state regulators as well as
Aetna/Triad, exposing the litany of complaints, inaccuracies,
problems and confusion that patients and chiropractors were
experiencing.  According to ANJC, Aetna/Triad attempted to place a
$53 global fee on all participating providers that would encompass
virtually all services provided, including diagnostic studies and
a multitude of other procedures typically performed by the
chiropractic profession.

The expansion of Triad apparently was doomed early with confusion
over a "ten visit waiver" which was never fully explained to
doctors.  Tens of thousands of chiropractic claims were either not
processed or improperly processed, and confusing and inaccurate
information was sent to providers, resulting in doctors fleeing
from network participation.  ANJC became aware of these issues
because many of the DCs experiencing/reporting problems with
Aetna/Triad (and ultimately forgoing network participation) are
ANJC members.  In large part due to the great number of patients
and doctors complaining about incorrect information and other
ongoing problems, Aetna re-evaluated the use of Triad and how it
was performing.

                          Taking a Stand

In light of these and other situations, more insurance carriers
may reconsider utilizing an ODS in the future, knowing that
patients and doctors will not tolerate abuses and limitations when
it comes to their health and their valuable health care dollar.
Industry sources have told Dynamic Chriropractors that the costs
of handling complaints seems to be more expensive for carriers
than the money they save utilizing an ODS.  Obamacare is forcing
carriers to look in every direction to scrape an extra dollar into
their pockets, and states throughout the country are seeing the
different methods employed by the carriers to build on profits.

The moral to this story is that when doctors, and especially
patients, file formal complaints to the insurance carrier, as well
as to their own state insurance department, positive change can
result.  Educating doctors on the appeals process, motivating the
patient to take action, and taking legal recourse when potential
violations of federal and state statues occur, are all important
steps that can force insurance carriers to play by the rules.


* Securities Suit Settlements in 2012 in Australia Reached A$480MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Schneider, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the value
of securities class action settlements in Australia in 2012 was a
record A$480 million ($495 million), almost as much as the total
since group lawsuits were introduced, law firm King & Wood
Mallesons said.

Total settlements since the country allowed class actions 20 years
ago now stand at just over A$1 billion, the firm said in a report
April 18, citing a growth in litigation funders as a key reason.

Although the U.S. is seen as the birth place of class actions,
Australia has taken the lead in a number of areas. That includes
the first class action lawsuit examining the conduct of an
investment bank in relation to the sale of collateralized debt
obligations when a Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. unit was found
liable for losses incurred by three towns from buying failed
securities, King & Wood Mallesons said.

Australia was also the first jurisdiction in which proceedings
were successfully brought against a rating company, when Standard
& Poor's was found liable in November for misleading Australian
towns with its investment ratings, the law firm said.

"After 20 years, the risk profile for Australian companies has
been permanently altered," King & Wood Mallesons said. "Class
actions pose a significant threat to any listed company and its
directors and officers."

Last year also saw more settlements than any other year in
Australia, with 13 class actions settled, the firm said. King &
Wood Mallesons, with 2,200 legal professionals, was formed last
year by the merger of Sydney-based and Beijing-based firms.

Centro, Argentum

The record settlement value was led by the highest ever reached in
the Australia in May when Centro Retail Australia and
PricewaterhouseCoopers agreed to pay A$200 million to shareholders
who claimed they were misled by company statements in 2007 that
failed to disclose its debt levels.

U.K.-based Argentum Investment Management Ltd. entered the country
last year, bringing the number of active litigation funders to at
least eight, King & Wood Mallesons said.

"More funders will inevitably drive more class action litigation
as they compete for market share," it said.

Litigation funding has proven to be a good business model, the law
firm said, with IMF (Australia) Ltd. (IMF) generating A$1.2
billion since listing in January 2000 and making a gross return on
investment of 304 percent, King & Wood Mallesons said.

Litigation funders say they can get as much as half the
compensation awarded to the group members, according to the law
firm.

"With the potential profits involved, it is unsurprising that new
players, including both lawyers and funders, are looking for
opportunities to capitalize on this lucrative form of litigation,"
King & Wood Mallesons said.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 140 Pending Cases as of Feb. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. had 140 asbestos cases pending as of February 28,
2013, 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 therefore. 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 Corp. reached an agreement to settle all of the claims
against it in a lawsuit captioned Lois Jansen, Individually and as
Special Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Jansen v. Beazer
East, Inc., et al., 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: More Fibro Found at Rockdale Children's Oval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie O'Brien, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that widespread asbestos contamination has again been discovered
across a children's football field in Rockdale, prompting fears
the oval may have long been a dumping ground.

According to the report, the shock discovery of chunks of asbestos
in the topsoil on the Ador Avenue ground was made after Rockdale
City Council had spent almost $600,000 cleaning up an illegal
dumping of asbestos-contaminated soil at the site in 2010.

Documents obtained by Fairfax Media under government information
access laws have shown the oval, which was home to the St George
United Football Club, had been given the "all clear" when workers
discovered more asbestos, the report said.

An email to the council in April last year said workers had "found
building waste, glass, concrete footings, security fencing in
disrepair or missing and most alarmingly a considerable amount of
asbestos which flies in the face of your 29/11/11 final clearance
certificate."

Environmental experts conducted more tests, checking the soil to a
depth of 20 centimetres and found asbestos in five spots, the
report added.  Their report warned last August that "the site is
not safe with regard to the asbestos hazard."

The report suggested two options to fix it -- removing the top 20
centimetres of soil or "capping" the area but an internal email in
November last year revealed the council got a second opinion that
was more favourable in "terms of budget and constraints". A
council spokesman said they went with the second opinion, which
was to "emu pick" fragments of asbestos, lay a geotextile surface
and returf.

"The important thing is that there were no free asbestos fibres
identified in any soil sample. The pieces of asbestos cement sheet
were bonded, and could not be crumbled, pulverised or reduced to
powder by hand pressure," the spokesman said, the report cited.

In October 2010, the St George United Football Club arranged for
clean topsoil to be delivered to the field, the report related.
The sand arrived, but 3000 tonnes of it was found to be
contaminated with building waste and asbestos. Internal council
emails reveal that the sand came from a local building site.
Fairfax Media has been told that the oval has been top dressed
with sand numerous times in the past seven years.

After the dumping, the Environmental Protection Authority issued a
number of clean-up notices, only to withdraw them and then reissue
a clean-up order against the council, the report pointed out.

By November 2011, the council had paid $546,397.25 for disposal of
the contaminated soil, the report said. It was then discovered the
ground still contained asbestos.

No one has been charged with the dumping, according to the report.
The council has entered a secret deal with the company that
supplied the top soil. The deal, which is the subject of
confidentiality agreements, is understood to involve the company
paying just a fraction of the clean-up bill. Fairfax Media has
been told that a third party was suspected of involvement and
documents show the council had attempted to continue investigating
the illegal dumping.

The council spokesman told the news agency Ador Avenue Reserve was
still closed but the soil had been tested for asbestos and other
contaminants and had again been given the "all clear".

Mary Satti was "disgusted" to learn there was still asbestos on
the sports field, the report said.  She and her husband, Alfred,
bought their house on Ador Avenue 18 years ago.

"We used to walk our dog [on the ground], our kids used to play
soccer, and my husband used to coach a few soccer teams there,"
she told the news agency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dust Stalls Grisworld Housing Complex Renovation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Shea, writing for The Norwich Bulletin, reported that
bidding on the final phase of renovations at a Griswold Housing
Authority complex has been temporarily suspended while the local
housing authority and state Department of Public Health work out
how asbestos abatement should be handled there.

According to the report, bids for the third phase of renovations
on Ashland Manor complex were scheduled to be opened Thursday, but
the due date and bid opening were both pushed back indefinitely.

"The Department of Public Health has specific construction methods
and practices that must be followed, and we're getting directions
from them on what those practices are," Architect David Holmes, of
Capital Studio Architects in East Hartford, told the news agency.
Holmes has been involved with the project since 2007.

Seventeen of the 30 apartments in Ashland Manor have "popcorn"-
style ceilings that contain asbestos, the report said.

Ashland Manor houses seniors and adults of any age with
disabilities, the Bulletin related.  The complex was built in
1968, more than 20 years before the material was banned. In 13 of
the 30 apartments, asbestos was removed during the first two
phases of the current six-year renovation project. Another 17,
however, still have asbestos in the "popcorn"-style ceilings.

The Housing Authority's plan for the renovation is to have
contractors cover the ceilings with new gypsum board or sheet
rock, sealing off the asbestos from human contact, the Bulletin
said.  The asbestos is contained within the ceiling material, and
is not in the more dangerous dust form that would pose an
inhalation risk to residents or visitors, Holmes said.

"There are no unsafe conditions or anything like that," Holmes
told the Bulletin.  "We're just working with the Department of
Public Health to determine the most feasible way to install the
new ceilings."

With a project of this size, involving sealing off asbestos in 13
apartments, Department of Public Health spokesman William Gerrish
told The Bulletin the project will require licensed asbestos
handlers.

"There are certain things you can do without a licensed asbestos
handler, but beyond a certain amount, you need to have someone
with that certification," Gerrish said.

The limit to avoid bringing in a licensed handler is 3 square
feet, Gerrish said, enough that a homeowner wouldn't have to call
in a professional to replace a single asbestos-containing tile,
according to the report.

The Jewett City borough had planned to use a state grant to fund
almost the entire third phase of renovations at the complex, the
report said. Housing Authority Chairman Paul Brycki could not be
reached Friday for information about how the delays of bid
acceptances will affect the project.

Holmes said he expects bids to be opened within a month, the
report added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: L&E Court Gives Custodial Sentence for Dumping
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacinta Studdert and Gavin Shapiro wrote a case analysis Waste
Management World on Environment Protection Authority v Hanna
[2013] NSWLEC 41.  The writers pointed out that although the Land
and Environment Court of NSW very regularly determines pollution
related matters in its criminal jurisdiction, it is very rare for
custodial sentences to be given by the Court.  In a recent
decision, Justice Pain found the operator of a waste transport
business guilty of contempt and sentenced him to 3 months in
prison. The sentence was suspended for 3 months on condition that
he enter into, and comply with, a good behaviour bond. He was also
ordered to pay the EPA's costs.

This case, according to the writers, demonstrates the increasing
scrutiny that the EPA is placing on waste, and waste
transportation, and the seriousness that the Court places on such
offences, particularly where asbestos is involved.

Dib Abdulla Hanna, the respondent, conducted a waste
transportation business.  In 2010, the EPA brought civil
enforcement proceedings against Mr. Hanna for alleged breaches of
section 143 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act
1997 (POEO Act). Section 143 of the POEO Act states that it is an
offence to transport waste to a place that cannot lawfully be used
as a waste facility for that waste.

There were a number of interlocutory proceedings. In essence, the
EPA alleged that Mr. Hanna had breached the POEO Act by
transporting and dumping waste at places which are neither
approved nor licensed for the receipt of the dumped waste, and
sought an order restraining him from further transporting waste to
a place that could not lawfully be used as a waste facility for
that waste.

Throughout the course of those proceedings, the Court made a
number of orders restraining Mr. Hanna from transporting building
and excavation waste to a place for which there is no development
consent or environment protection licence, allowing it to be used
as a waste facility, and the latest set of such orders were made
by Justice Craig on March 21, 2011.

On April 5, 2012, Mr. Hanna transported and deposited 8 loads of
construction and demolition waste, containing asbestos fragments,
to a property in Picnic Point, NSW. The property had no
environment protection licence allowing it to be used for the
receipt of such waste. Further Mr. Hanna apparently gained entry
and deposited the waste without the property owner's knowledge or
approval.

In July 2012, Bankstown City Council issued a cleanup order to Mr.
Hanna. Mr. Hanna did not comply. Subsequently, the Council issued
a clean up order to the property owner, who engaged licensed
asbestos removalists to arrange for the removal and disposal of
the waste, at a cost of $13,200.

Mr. Hanna pleaded guilty to the charge of contempt of court, for
breaching the order made by Justice Craig on 21 March 2011.
Therefore, having admitted guilt, the only issue to determine was
the appropriate sentence.

Justice Pain found that in this case, Mr. Hanna's contempt of
court was 'contumacious' -- i.e., particularly recalcitrant, in a
legal sense. There were a number of reasons for this.

As the waste contained asbestos, Justice Pain found that there was
a potential to seriously affect human health. Her Honour referred
to material issued by WorkCover NSW and the Department of Health,
and also noted that the removal of waste can be especially
dangerous if the waste is unknown, and may contain quantities of
asbestos. This was exacerbated by the fact that for waste such as
construction and demolition waste, the waste is necessarily
broken/damaged, so asbestos fibres can be released into the air.
Mr. Hanna had a poor record of environmental compliance. He had
previously been found guilty of a number of offences relating to
the unlawful transportation of waste (8 in total). Additionally,
he had received a number of penalty notices from various Councils
between 2007 and 2013, relating to waste and other environmental
offences (22 in total). This poor record was one of the factors
that led to imposition of the custodial sentence.

Mr. Hanna expressed only limited remorse. The Court considered his
failure to clean up the property, or even to seek to learn the
identity of the owner, as a demonstration of his lack of
sincerity. Additionally, the Court held that the activity was
carried out for profit, given that he could have disposed of the
waste lawfully, for a fee.

Given these, and other factors, Justice Pain held that a custodial
sentence of 3 months was appropriate. However, noting some factors
in Mr. Hanna's favour, such as his lack of ability to read or
properly understand English, and to comprehend the previous
regulatory action taken against him, Justice Pain suspended the
sentence for 3 months, on condition of his compliance with a good
behaviour bond.

The writers said the case serves as an important reminder that
breaching environmental laws, particularly as they relate to
waste, waste transportation and disposal, is a criminal offence,
and can be punished as such.

The writers added that it also demonstrates the importance of
carefully considering the nature of the waste, including whether
it might contain asbestos and ensuring the appropriate and lawful
disposal of that waste.

Penalty infringement notices and other regulatory actions are not
matters to be taken lightly, the writers noted.  They can be used
against a person in subsequent legal proceedings, and should serve
as a catalyst to address any environmental compliance problems.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances.

         Ms Jacinta Studdert
         NORTON ROSE AUSTRALIA
         Level 18
         Grosvenor Place
         225 George St
         Sydney
         NSW 2000
         AUSTRALIA
         Tel: 029330 Extn: 8000
         Fax: 0293308000
         Email: luke.hodges@nortonrose.com
         URL: http://www.nortonrose.com.au/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southampton Man Sentenced for Illegal Dumping
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Broom, writing for The News, reported that a man has been
ordered to pay thousands of pounds to clean up his mess after
being caught flytipping.

According to the report, Kevin Goodenough admitted three counts of
dumping waste in the front and rear gardens of a council-owned
property in Bellfield in Titchfield.

Among the waste the 58-year-old dumped was cement roofing sheets
containing asbestos, bitumen roofing felt and other building
materials, the report said.

Goodenough, of Hawkhurst Close in Southampton, was sentenced to
225 hours of unpaid work by the bench at Fareham Magistrates
Court, the report added.  He will also have to pay Fareham Borough
Council's GBP1,000 legal costs and a further GBP5,000 to the
council to clean up the rubbish, under the Environmental
Protection Act.

Deputy leader of the council, Cllr Trevor Cartwright said: 'This
is a great result for the council and sends out a strong message
that fly-tipping won't be tolerated in Fareham, the report cited.

'Fareham Borough Council takes a zero tolerance approach in
respect of fly tipping. Through the investigation process, and
where evidence is found which links to the offender or household
to the fly tipping, action will be taken,' the report further
cited.

The council aims to remove incidents of flytipping on public land
within five working days of it being reported, the report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stanley Hall Contaminated With Harmful Dust
------------------------------------------------------------
The Jamestown Sun reported that inspections of Stanley's City Hall
have concluded that the century-old building sits on gasoline-
contaminated soil, contains black mold, asbestos and lead paint,
and has a bad ventilation system.

The Bismarck Tribune reported that city Building Inspector Denis
Kesterson said the building that once was a gas station and car
dealership is dangerous. He's recommending it be repaired,
abandoned or demolished.

City officials are debating whether to build a new city hall under
a public-private partnership, according to the Sun.  Private
investors would finance construction, lease the building to the
city and give the city the option to buy it at some point. Cost
estimates range from $4 million to $8 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Possible Exposure of County Workers Alleged
------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Branan, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reported that a
Sacramento County safety inspector alleges county workers may have
suffered asbestos exposure last year after managers did not take
proper steps when cleaning up fallen ceiling material.

According to the report, a water leak Aug. 20 caused material to
fall from a third-floor ceiling containing asbestos at Sacramento
County's old administrative building downtown. About 230 employees
work in the Seventh Street structure, which also receives public
traffic at service counters.

County employees disagree about whether anyone might have been
exposed to asbestos after the accident, the report said.

Exposure to asbestos can significantly increase the risk of
respiratory diseases, including cancer, the Sacramento Bee
explained.  Risk depends on the length and intensity of the
exposure, but short-term encounters have caused serious illness.

County managers who oversaw the response maintain that asbestos
never became airborne and hazardous, the report related. In an
Aug. 30 letter to the California Division of Occupational Safety
and Health, county safety specialist Michael Landy said the
county's response was "immediate and effective." Cal-OSHA closed
the complaint without any findings against the county.

But Jeff Rommel, a county senior safety specialist for six years,
calls the county's response a "cover-up," the report cited.
Rommel filed a complaint about the incident with Cal-OSHA on
April 12 and included letters from three county officials
questioning how the accident cleanup was conducted. He provided
The Bee with a copy of his complaint.

"The people in the building don't even know they might have been
exposed," Rommel told The Bee.

The other county personnel who signed statements in the complaint
are David Fletcher, an asbestos worker; John Lemieux, a recently
retired stationary engineer; and Karen Carney, an environmental
specialist, the report related.  Along with Rommel, the three
employees said custodial workers removed asbestos without wearing
respiratory protection, as required by law.

County employees had fans blowing on the asbestos-containing
material and left central air running in the building, increasing
the risk for exposure by spreading the material around, Rommel and
others said in written statements, the Bee cited.

The managers responsible for the accident response were Jeff
Gasaway, who runs the county's facility and property services, and
Larry Vice, who heads two sections in the division, according to
the Bee.  Gasaway and Vice said the asbestos was not hazardous
because it was wet, and thus it did not become airborne and
breathable. They said the fans did not blow on any asbestos
because the material on the floor did not contain any.

Fletcher told The Bee that he identified material containing
asbestos on the floor.

In his written statement, Fletcher said he took samples from the
damaged area and brought them to a lab for a rush analysis. Most
of the samples tested positive for asbestos, according to a copy
of the lab's report, according to the Bee.

"When I was notified by the lab of the positive results, I called
John (Lemieux) and asked him to shut down the air handlers and
tape off the area to keep the occupants out of the damaged area,"
Fletcher wrote.

According to statements from Lemieux and Fletcher, Vice did not
comply with the request because the material was wet, the report
further related. Vice confirmed that account with The Bee.

In his written statement, Lemieux said it was well known that the
building contained asbestos, and anyone in the building was at
risk of exposure.  "In my opinion, this hazardous situation was
directly caused by Larry Vice choosing not to follow protocol," he
said in his statement.

Gasaway said Vice consulted with him during the cleanup and he
agreed with the decisions, according to the Bee. Gasaway said
tests were conducted on material that was intact in the ceiling,
not what had fallen to the floor.

County spokeswoman Chris Andis told the Bee officials already knew
there was no asbestos in the fallen material because only tiles
without asbestos fell to the ground. She said they needed to test
the intact material in the ceiling in preparation for planned
repairs.

Air tests were conducted in the building about eight hours after
the ceiling collapsed, according to Gasaway and others, the report
said. The tests found no indication of airborne asbestos, records
show. Lemieux and Rommel say that's only because the fans were
running all day, clearing out any toxic material.

Cal-OSHA will be left to resolve the discrepancies in the various
accounts of the incident, the Bee noted.  The agency's initial
investigation appears to have been the result of an informal
complaint, spokeswoman Erika Monterroza said. Informal complaints
are usually resolved by a letter to the employer asking for an
explanation, which is what happened in this case.  The county's
response consisted of a summary by safety specialist Landy, the
negative air test results and some short emails about materials
used in the cleanup, records show.

Rommel's complaint to Cal-OSHA is being handled differently,
according to the Bee. A report from a known employee is considered
a formal complaint and investigated through an on-site visit by
Cal-OSHA, according to the agency. A Cal-OSHA official interviewed
county officials about the incident this past week, Andis said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scottish Bldgs. Remain Exposed to Toxic Dangers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Borland, writing for The Scottish Express, reported that
homes, schools and offices can be contaminated by deadly asbestos
and other hazardous dust released when neighbouring industrial
buildings are knocked down.  However there is no one agency in
overall control of such demolitions in Scotland -- with even
Holyrood ministers previously admitting to "gaps" in public
protection.

According to the report, council planning officers, the Scottish
Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) all have limited responsibilities but often fail
to work together effectively.

The loophole was first highlighted in 2002 during the demolition
of the former Motherwell Bridge steelworks in Uphall, West
Lothian, the report said.

The failure is at government level, whether at Holyrood or
Westminster, in not getting the HSE, SEPA and local authorities to
work together to protect the public, the report added.

Campaigner?David Campbell-McIntosh, who lives 500 yards from the
site, woke one morning to find the cars on his drive coated in a
film of dust -- which he says tested positive for cancer-causing
asbestos, the report related.  The Scots engineering giant was
later hit with a maximum GBP20,000 fine for "blatantly
disregarding" health and safety rules and putting demolition
workers in danger.

In 2006 local MSP Fiona Hyslop, then in opposition, attempted?to
change the law, warning: "Nobody takes responsibility for the
health of the public when the process of demolition is being
carried out," the report recalled.  Ms Hyslop, now Culture
Secretary and one of the most senior members of the SNP Cabinet,
has continued to highlight the issue.

At a meeting at the Scottish Parliament in June 2008, she warned
of "gaps in the various policy approaches, procedures, rules and
responsibilities" and ordered officials to look into it, the
report further recalled.  The end result -- five years later -- is
the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill, introduced to Holyrood in
March, which will give SEPA new enforcement powers to fine firms
which release toxic dust.

Mr. Campbell-McIntosh told the Express the Bill was no more than
"tinkering" and did not address the central problem -- that no
single agency is directly responsible for industrial demolition
work.  The 73-year-old retired mechanic added: "They have been
pushed into having to do this by 11 years of harassment by the
likes of myself and a handful of other campaigners.  "The failure
is at government level, whether at Holyrood or Westminster, in not
getting the HSE, SEPA and local authorities to work together to
protect the public."

In Scotland, there is a target of 80 per cent of new homes to be
built on old industrial land -- meaning that many more demolitions
will be taking place near housing estates, the report further
related.  Mr. Campbell-McIntosh said: "This is happening
throughout Scotland. Of course, some demolitions are being done
right with the buildings being enclosed in a big plastic sheet but
many more are not."  He describes the current situation as a
"triangle of failure" -- with the HSE responsible for the safety
of demolition workers across the whole of the UK and SEPA
responsible for the safe disposal of rubble and other waste.

Local councils, which control the demolition of residential
buildings but not industrial ones, must issue a building warrant
but have only limited?powers?to ensure the work is?carried?out
properly, the report noted.

A Scottish Government spokeswoman told the Express: "We do not
believe that there is a gap in the legislation on this point but
rather an issue of how agencies work together. Better
environmental regulation is a broad programme of work that the
Government is progressing with SEPA. An important pillar in this
is the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill that will be introduced
to the Scottish Parliament this spring.  We already have very
broad coverage of regulations on activities that affect the
environment, for example regulation of how waste is disposed of
and the licensing of activities involved in the demolition.  The
Bill will lead to the development?of?a?single?permissioning regime
and consistency in the way that SEPA operates across its principle
regulatory regimes.  It?also?increases?the?suite ?of enforcement
measures available to SEPA to deal with non-compliance in cases
where, for example, an operator has not taken the appropriate
steps to treat or dispose of harmful waste."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Carpenter Dies from Fibro Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a retired carpenter from a
Hampshire village died as result of industrial disease, an inquest
heard.

According to the report, Michael Brown was 75 when he died at his
home in Upham Street, Upham, on January 24.

The court was told that Mr. Brown had been employed at a workshop
in Eastleigh and was frequently exposed to asbestos dust, the
report said.

In a statement given before his death, and as part of a claim for
compensation, Mr. Brown said that he first experienced flu-like
symptoms in 2011, the report related.

At the inquest in Winchester assistant deputy coroner Sarah Whitby
told the news agency: "I have no hesitation in concluding that he
died of the industrial disease mesothelioma, as a result of
exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Tech Foreman Admits to Illegal Fibro Removal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that the government says a Richmond
man has pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Air Act for
improperly disposing of asbestos-containing materials at a job he
oversaw at Virginia Tech.

According to the AP report, prosecutors say 52-year-old Edward K.
Durst entered his plea Monday in U.S. District Court in Roanoke.
He was the foreman of an asbestos company that was hired to remove
materials from Tech's Cowgill Hall in 2007. The asbestos was
contained in window frames.

According to prosecutors, Durst instructed his workers to take the
window frames from a designated waste container and to take them
to a metal recycling center, the AP report related. He then kept
the cash payments for the scrap metal.

At his sentencing, Durst faces up to five years in prison and a
fine of up to $250,000, AP said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UN Group to Debate Fibro/Mesothelioma Link
-----------------------------------------------------------
The link between chrysotile asbestos and illnesses such as
mesothelioma will be high on the agenda during the sixth UN
Rotterdam Convention in Geneva, Switzerland, which opened last
month.

The group, made up of representatives from around the world, will
be considering whether or not chrysotile or white asbestos will
finally be added to the list of Controlled Hazardous Substances.
The Rotterdam Convention was assembled in 2002 with the goal of
protecting people and the environment from toxic chemicals like
asbestos. However, in order to include chrysotile asbestos on the
list, the vote of all represented countries must be unanimous. In
the past, countries that still export, import or use asbestos,
including Canada, Brazil, Russia and India, have worked to keep
chrysotile off the toxic list. India withdrew its objection in
2011, but Canada has held its ground.

A naturally-occurring mineral, asbestos was once highly prized as
a strong, inexpensive and heat-resistant additive to insulation
and many building products. But after medical studies linked it to
mesothelioma, lung cancer and chronic illnesses like asbestosis,
the use of asbestos dropped dramatically. Many countries have
banned the substance. According to an article in The Lancet,
chrysotile asbestos is the only type still produced and accounts
for more than 95% of all asbestos mined.

Despite the mesothelioma risk, Canada, Russia and several other
countries continue to maintain multi-billion dollar asbestos
industries, selling it primarily to underdeveloped countries such
as Bangladesh where regulations may be lax or nonexistent. Not
surprisingly, the rates of mesothelioma in and around asbestos
mining towns are dramatically higher than other parts of the
world. Mesothelioma is usually an extremely rare cancer, making up
a tiny fraction of all cancer cases. But in places where asbestos
dust is prevalent -- such as Libby, Montana, home of a former U.S.
asbestos mine -- mesothelioma rates can be hundreds of times
higher than in the general population.

Mesothelioma occurs when inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers lodge
in the tissue, setting up chronic irritation and inflammation at
the cellular level. Over time, this inflammatory response can lead
to DNA damage and eventually mesothelioma. Mesothelioma grows on
the membranes that line the heart, lungs or abdomen.

Although news reports suggest that Canada may finally stop
opposing chrysotile's addition to the toxic list, several other
major players still oppose it.  Worldwide, the World Health
Organization reports that 90,000 people a year die of asbestos-
related diseases which includes mesothelioma and asbestosis. In a
joint statement released in February, the WHO and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer stated that all forms
of asbestos are carcinogenic and called for an end to all uses of
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Dept. Hits Paterson With 43 OSHA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Malinconico, writing for Paterson Press, reported that the
state labor department has determined that Paterson officials
committed 13 "serious" employee health violations when several
municipal workers were exposed to asbestos during an office
renovation project last year.

According to the report, the labor department inspection report,
which was issued in March, says the city failed to provide proper
supervision, training, monitoring and safety equipment to
employees who peeled asbestos tiles from second-floor offices at
133 Ellison Street.

The report also says the city faces fines of $4,500 per day for
each violation, effective April 18, if Paterson does not comply
with state safety requirements, the news agency related. The state
would not disclose whether any fines have been imposed yet, saying
the case remains open.

In the aftermath of the asbestos probe, the state labor department
conducted five additional safety inspections at city public works
facilities and found 30 "serious" violations for possible daily
fines ranging from $3,600 to $2,400, according to labor department
documents, the report said. None of those findings involved
asbestos.

Asbestos concerns prompted the city's health department to stop
the office renovation project last December and officials say the
area has remained sealed off since then, the report recalled. The
city is now in the process of hiring a private company to remove
the hazardous materials from the offices.

The Passaic County Sheriff's Department also is conducting an
investigation of the situation because Paterson allegedly used
inmates from the Sheriff's Labor Assistance Program (SLAP) to
handle the asbestos, according to the report.

Michael Jackson, president of the union that represents the public
works department employees, told the news agency he doesn't expect
the state to impose any fines because the city already has halted
the renovation work involving the asbestos.  "I'm satisfied that
the story is out there now and we don't have to worry about it
happening again," said Jackson.

Mayor Jeffery Jones told the news agency he has not yet seen the
state inspection reports. The mayor said the city needed to
implement a training program for employees who work in old
buildings where lead and asbestos are common.  "We don't have the
luxury to not know," Jones said. "We don't want to put anyone in
harm's way."

"We're in receipt of the notice to comply," Paterson public works
director Christopher Coke said of the inspection report, according
to the news agency. "We're doing all we can to comply with the
individual issues."

The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development "is
not at liberty to discuss this open case," said spokeswoman Kerry
Gatling about the asbestos investigation, the news agency cited.

Gatling confirmed that Paterson had received an order to address
various violations by April 18, the report said. "However, in
accordance with PEOSH (Public Employee Occupational Safety and
Health) statutes and regulations, extensions can be granted if an
employer provides a valid reason for an extension and demonstrates
a good faith effort to abate the identified hazards," Gatling
said.

"At this point," she added, "an extension is under review and we
are working with the Department of Public Works to achieve a safe
workplace environment," the report cited.

The asbestos problem at 133 Ellison Street was brought to light on
the "Let's Save Paterson" Facebook page of city activist David
Gilmore, who is weighing a run for mayor next year, the report
related.  "People that work for the city of Paterson need to be
protected," Gilmore said. "Sometimes you need to be protected from
yourself. The city has an obligation to comply with the state's
findings and be punished, if, in fact, compliance is not timely."

Gatling did not elaborate on the status of the non-asbestos fines,
the report added.

State reports said safety inspections were conducted at the
Paterson public works department's yard in Eastside Park as well
as at the garage on E. 16th Street in February, the report said.

Here are the "serious" violations outlined in the reports:

   * six violations, including a missing fire extinguisher and a
defective ladder, found at the Eastside Park yard. The possible
fines were set at $2,400 per violation per day.

   * six violations, including a lack of instructions for handling
excavation projects, found at the E. 16th Street yard. The
possible fines were set at $3,600 per violation per day.

   * one violation because 14 public works vehicles at the traffic
control center in Eastside Park lacked rear back-up alarm systems.
This was found during a February 12 inspection. The possible fine
was set at $3,600 per day.

   * 13 violations, most of them involving electrical issues,
found at the city yard at E. 16th street. The possible fines were
set at $2,800 per violation per day.

   * four violations at the Facilities Shop at Eastside Park,
including one because there was no sign telling machine workers to
wear protective goggles. The possible fines were set at $2,400 per
violation per day.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Zealand Contaminated Park Covered Over
-----------------------------------------------------------
Phoebe Falconer, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reported that
at the end of Hugo Johnson Drive, just about opposite the old
Southdown Freezing Works site and the co-gen facility, there is an
odd little "park" which consists of some looping paths that go
around and across an overgrown water feature. The paths are
chained off and some of the wooden bridges are starting to break.
It looks to be around 2ha in size from the satellite pictures, so
it's not small.

Around 10 years ago the former Auckland City Council discovered
this little park was heavily contaminated with asbestos and
investigated various remediation options for the site, the Herald
related.  Removing the contaminated material proved to be very
expensive, so the council opted to cover the area with an
appropriate layer of topsoil and mulch, plant the park with shrub
gardens and install fencing to ensure people couldn't use the
area, especially while plantings became established. The walkway
was sealed to ensure public safety and allow the park to remain
open.

Parks staff have investigated the damaged items and will carry out
repairs as soon as possible, the Herald said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Proposes Legislation Changes May Slow Down Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reported that proposed changes to
asbestos claims have some people worried the alterations will slow
down the asbestos lawsuit process, delaying lawsuits until
plaintiffs have died. But the lawmaker who proposed the changes
says they will help clarify whom plaintiffs hold responsible for
asbestos cancer claims.

The LaCross Tribune reported that Rep. Andre Jacque has proposed a
bill that would delay civil lawsuits alleging liability for
asbestos-related diseases until the plaintiff states whether
claims against now-bankrupt companies have also been filed.
Plaintiffs can file lawsuits against now-bankrupt companies but do
not always disclose that they have done so in lawsuits against
still-solvent companies. Jacque says disclosing exactly which
plaintiffs face asbestos-related claims will help to ensure
defendants pay their fair share for the plaintiff's illness.

Critics, however, say the bill is designed to slow down litigation
and delay it so the plaintiff will die before the lawsuit is
finished, LawyersandSettlements.com said. Jacque disputed the
criticism, calling it "sickening" and said plaintiffs' lawyers
hide claims against bankrupt companies in the hope of obtaining
the maximum award possible.

According to Insurance Journal, states that already have a similar
bill in place or are considering one include Ohio, Oklahoma and
Illinois.

Under the proposed bill, plaintiffs would have to disclose that
they have filed a claim against a bankrupt company's trust or that
they plan to file such a claim. Documents related to all claim
actions would have to be provided to all parties in the suit and
any money won through the trust could be used to reduce payouts
from solvent companies.

Asbestos lawsuits can be complicated because plaintiffs or victims
who worked for multiple companies may be eligible to file a
lawsuit against any of those companies believed to have
contributed to the patient's asbestos exposure,
LawyersandSettlements.com said.  In some industries there are
numerous ways employees can come into contact with asbestos over
the course of a career.

One lawsuit was filed in New Orleans against multiple plaintiffs,
including Centerpoint Energy Inc, and Nebraska Public Power
District, alleging Robert Lee Phillips, an employee of those and
other companies, developed mesothelioma and died after exposure on
many occasions to asbestos and products that contained asbestos,
the report said.  The Louisiana Record said the plaintiff,
Phillips' wife, alleges negligence and failure to provide a safe
work environment on the part of each of the defendants. The
lawsuit seeks wrongful death and survival damages.  The lawsuit is
Case No. 2:13-cv-00594.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NMBFil Objects to Trial Readiness of NYC Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Martin Publishing reported that a defendant in an asbestos
action that claims that it manufactured automotive body fillers
that contained talc, not asbestos, has objected to the trial
readiness of the case, saying that it has not received information
it requested during the discovery process.

According to the report, asbestos defendant NMBFil Inc. objected
to the plaintiffs' request that the underlying case be added to a
large group of cases assigned to a trial judge in a April 22
letter filed sent to Special Master Shelley Rossoff Olsen of the
New York Supreme Court for New York County.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia's "Asbestos Removal Plan" Maybe Deadly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annabel Hepworth, writing for The Australian, reported that a
federal push for the nationwide removal of asbestos from
government and commercial buildings by 2030 would cost billions of
dollars, could see rogue operators removing it and could lead to a
surge in illegal dumping of the deadly fibre, the Queensland
government warns.

The warning is made in a scathing submission into a Senate inquiry
into Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten's proposal to set
up an asbestos safety and eradication agency, according to the
report.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saskstoon Identifies Contaminated Buildings
------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Saskstoon reported that the City of Saskatoon is taking a step
toward establishment of an asbestos registry.

According to the news agency, a report tabled at city council
Monday reveals 14 municipal buildings contain asbestos while
another 75 are also likely to contain the harmful substance.

Asbestos is considered a major health hazard, but does not pose a
danger if left undisturbed, the news agency said.

An asbestos audit of civic facilities will be conducted, and the
results will be registered with Saskatchewan Labour in a public
asbestos registry, the news agency added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australian Asbestos Death Toll Mounts
------------------------------------------------------
David Killick, writing for The Mercury, reported that between
30,000 and 40,000 Australians are expected to die from asbestos-
related diseases in the next 20 years, a Senate inquiry has heard.

According to the report, the Inquiry into the Asbestos Safety and
Eradication Agency Bill took evidence in Hobart from a range of
groups with experience with the deadly building material, which is
capable of causing fatal diseases even years after fleeting and
minor exposure.

David Clement, from Asbestoswise, said the age of mesothelioma
patients was becoming younger as people carrying out home
renovations were exposed, the report said.  But despite there
being widespread ignorance among renovators about the risks,
efforts to raise awareness through popular home make-over shows
had largely fallen flat.

"The story we have with home renovations shows is that we have
been banging on their doors for years trying to get on," Mr.
Clement told the news agency.

Simon Crocker, from Asbestos Free Tasmania, told the news agency
about 12 people a year in the state died from asbestos-related
disease.  "We have a poison in our community that's killing people
and it's going to keep on killing people until we do something,"
Mr. Crocker said.  He said it should be a legal requirement that
sellers disclose whether homes contain asbestos.  "We believe that
if somebody knows they have asbestos in the house then they should
disclose that at the point of sale," he said.

Carolyn David, from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, told the inquiry the employer group was opposed to the
wholesale removal of all asbestos from buildings in cases where it
was enclosed and not posing a risk, the news agency related.
Committee member Senator Catryna Bilyk said asbestos would
continue to claim lives in Tasmania for years.

"Many people who mined and installed asbestos have developed
mesothelioma," Senator Bilyk said, according to the report.
"There is also a large potential for the future development of
asbestos-related diseases among those who are currently renovating
buildings where asbestos has been installed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Waste Dumped Near Columbey National Park
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Online reported that officials are investigating the dumping
of hundreds of kilograms of building waste, including asbestos,
near a national park in Port Stephens.

According to the report, a National Parks ranger notified police
of the illegal waste yesterday and it is believed the builder's
rubble was dumped, near the Columbey National park, south of
Dungog.

National Parks spokesman Lawrence Orel says efforts are now
underway to clean up the dangerous waste, the report related.

"It's an unfortunate incident because it means that it has to be
recovered, and taken away and disposed of at a facility that can
handle waste," he told the news agency.  "So certainly the
National Parks and Wildlife Service is very interested if anybody
has any information about this particular incident or other
incidents that have occurred."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Contract Awarded for PC School District
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Crawley-Serpette, writing for News Tribune, reported that
Putnam County School Board on Monday accepted a low bid for
$56,825 for asbestos abatement and floor work.

The bid went to Jim Davis, who has done past asbestos abatement
work for the school district, superintendent Jay McCracken said,
the report related.

The work is to be done this summer at the elementary school,
according to the report. The asbestos currently is contained
beneath a carpet, but when the tile work is done on the floor the
asbestos will have to be removed.

The district will seek a $50,000 school maintenance grant, which
is a matching grant, McCracken told the news agency. If awarded,
the grant would greatly help reduce project costs.  "We could
offset a large portion of that," McCracken said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Has Approval to Build Fibro Disposal Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Beswick, writing for Herald News, reported that a New
Glasgow construction and demolition company has received
environmental approval to build an asbestos disposal facility.

According to the report, Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau
OK'd a request by Marinus Verhagen Enterprises Ltd. to build a
facility to handle up to 500 tonnes of asbestos a year on the
company's property in McLellans Brook, Pictou County.

Company owner Marinus Verhagen filed an environmental assessment
stating that the company intends to begin construction this spring
and open the facility later this year, the report said.

According to the documents, the facility will be one hectare in
size and essentially consist of a pit lined with clay a metre
thick, the report related.  The nearest drinking water wells are
500 metres away and uphill.  Five monitoring wells are already in
place around the planned facility.

"I am satisfied that any adverse effects or significant
environmental effects of the undertaking can be adequately
mitigated through compliance with the attached terms and
conditions," Belliveau wrote in approving the site, the report
further related.

The lengthy list of conditions includes a demand for an
environmental management plan and an order not to disturb certain
sensitive species, according to the report.

The company submitted a remediation plan to cover the site with
soil and sod when its useful life, expected to be more than 20
years, is over, the report added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fly-Tipped Fibro Found in Waterworks Valley
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Qualtrough, writing for Isle News, reported that a second
load of fly tipped asbestos has been found in Waterworks Valley,
following an earlier discovery on April 14. The latest load was
found further up the valley near the Millennium stone.

According to the report, the St. Lawrence Honorary Police received
information about the asbestos sheet building materials in the
early evening of April 17. Specialist officers from the States of
Jersey Police went to assess the material.

The report said officers from Environmental Protection at the
Department of the Environment are now working with the States of
Jersey Police and the Parish of St. Lawrence Honorary Police to
investigate both cases. The fly tipped wastes have been cleared
away and samples from both sites have been collected for analysis.

Asbestos is a hazardous waste which presents a risk to human
health through the inhalation of fibres, the news agency explains.
It must be handled carefully and taken to the appropriate States
facilities for disposal. Anyone finding such material should not
try to move it without protective equipment and knowledge of
asbestos.

Given the potential risk posed by this material, officers are
treating these cases extremely seriously and are appealing for
information, the report said. In particular from anyone who may
have seen or be aware of small scale building works being carried
out, like the removal or replacement of porches, lean-tos, garages
or similar by either a contractor or householder.

Anyone with information should contact either the Department of
the Environment (tel: 441600), the States of Jersey Police (tel:
612612) or Crimestoppers (tel: 0800 555 111). Any information
received can be treated in the strictest confidence.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Alarmed at Fibro Dumping in Kingston
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moorabbin Kingston Leader reported that exposed bundles of
suspected asbestos have been dumped in an Oakleigh South park.
The potentially deadly material was left lying near Mavis Hutter
reserve for two days despite being reported to Kingston Council.

Resident Ray Martell said he was convinced it was asbestos, the
report related.  "One parcel is torn open, that's how I know what
it is," Mr. Martell said.

He said the following day he called Kingston Council but nothing
was done immediately, the report further related.

Council environmental sustainability general manager Rachel
Hornsby said as soon as she was aware of it, a contractor was
asked to remove it, the report said.  "When it came to our
attention two days later that it had not been, council immediately
contacted our contractors and the rubbish has now been removed,"
Ms Hornsby said.

It has not been confirmed whether the material was asbestos, but
Ms Hornsby said all complaints were treated seriously, the report
also said.  Ms Hornsby said she was appalled at the alleged
dumping of asbestos.

"We receive reports of alleged dumping of asbestos approximately
once every two months," she told the news agency.

Anyone with information about such dumpings in Oakleigh South
should call 1300 653 356.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns Expose Welsh Monitoring Flaws
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Online reported that Wales is in danger of falling down a
"devolutionary crack" in regulations over the monitoring of
asbestos on schools, campaigners have warned.

The Right To Know: Asbestos in Schools Wales campaign has warned
existing regulations issued in England do not apply to Wales,
meaning neither educational or health and safety guidance would
apply, the report said.  It comes ahead of a reception held by
asbestos activists in the Senedd to warn of the dangers of
asbestos in schools, set up following the closure of a school due
to a report in October finding pupils were at risk from the
material.

The school is due to reopen in September after Caerphilly
councillors unanimously approved GBP1m of work to remove asbestos
from the site, the report related.  But the Right To Know campaign
-- which is targeting the Welsh Government and local councils --
is calling for a national online register of asbestos levels
across Welsh schools.

Education Minister Leighton Andrews asked all 22 Welsh councils
for assurances on the content of asbestos in their schools in the
wake of Cwmcarn's closure, later saying he was not satisfied Welsh
councils were meeting their legal requirements, the report added.
But he has insisted that responsibility over monitoring of
asbestos in schools lies with local authorities, and the Welsh
Local Government Association has issued guidelines on the
management of asbestos to local authorities.

Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Kirsty Williams had called for a
national audit of asbestos after the Cwmcarn closure, the report
also related.

The building material is known to be carcinogenic and is linked
with a variety of cancers and respiratory diseases -- though it
can be considered safe if it remains structurally undisturbed, the
news agency explains.

Cenric Clement-Evans, spokesman for the campaign and lawyer with
Cardiff-based NewLaw, told the news agency, the campaign wanted
the Welsh Government to take a lead on the issue.  "Now our
concern is that the Guidance on Asbestos Management in Schools,
issued by the Department of Education in October 2012 in England
does not apply in Wales," he said.  "As a result, there is a real
danger of Welsh schools falling into a 'devolutionary crack'
between the areas of health and safety and education.  I would
entirely agree with the international expert Professor Julian Peto
who said in his evidence before the Education Select Committee at
Westminster: 'All that matters is whether or not kids are
breathing in asbestos and, until you find that out, everything
else is hot air.'"

The report explains that under the Right To Know proposals,
parents would be able to access the database online, and check
whether asbestos is present in any school, and whether an up-to-
date management plan is in place where it is present.

The Senedd event sponsor -- Tory Monmouth AM Nick Ramsay, who
chairs the cross-party group on asbestos -- said: "The Right to
Know: Asbestos in Schools Wales campaign is calling for a database
that would result in increased transparency, empowering parents
and teachers to hold their local authority to account regarding
their children and their safety while in the classroom."

A Welsh Government spokeswoman said the management of asbestos was
a non-devolved matter, with the responsibility for its management
lying with the Health and Safety Executive, applying across Wales
and England.  She said: "As the guidance issued by the Department
for Education is based on this legislation, it can apply equally
to schools in Wales.  We are, however, currently in discussion
with the Department for Education and are developing our own
guidance on the management of asbestos in schools.  Local
authorities or schools governing bodies in Wales have a legal
responsibility to have up-to date records on the location and
condition of asbestos containing material and that appropriate
management plans are in place to detail how the risks from these
materials will be managed.  Members of the public may approach
local authorities or governing bodies to access this information."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Stromlo Bike Trail
------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dyett, writing for ABC News, reported that park of the
bike trail on Mount Stromlo in Canberra's west will close
permanently after testing confirmed the presence of bonded
asbestos in the soil.

According to the report, the ACT Government was alerted to the
problem earlier in April and the affected land, owned by the
Australian National University (ANU), will now be fenced off and
revegetated.  The material is believed to be left over from a
building demolished many years ago.

Stromlo Forest Park spokesman Neale Guthrie says the affected
section of the trail between Red Rock and Tall Trees will be
rebuilt, in consultation with riders, the report related.  "We've
started the design on that and we anticipate that we'll probably
be able to restore access to all of our trails by the end of
July," he told the news agency.  Once we agree where our relocated
trails will go, we'll do testing along those alignments to make
sure that we're not just moving from one place into another
problem area, to make sure those areas are free of asbestos."

But Mr. Guthrie says he believes the asbestos has limited health
risks, the report said.  "The advice that we've received is that
it's at the low end of concern," he said.  "This is bonded
asbestos so the material is reasonable stable.  But our concern is
that if we left material on a track where people continually drive
over it and it become airborne that would be a danger."

Canberra riders have backed the move to replace part of the
popular riding trail, the report added.

President of Canberra Off Road Cyclists Sarah O'Callaghan says
some riders were ignoring warnings not to ride in the affected
area, the report related.  "It's a great decision that they're
limiting everyone's exposure to what is probably a relatively
minimal threat of asbestos," she said.  "But it also gives us an
opportunity for some new trails at the top of [Mt] Stromlo."

The Economic Development Directorate says new bike tracks will be
built around the affected area and the trail will be reopened in
areas without hazardous material, the report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Preschool Gets "All-Clear" After Fibro Find
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that a shire on the New South Wales far south
coast says children at a council-run pre-school are safe after an
asbestos find.

According to the report, maintenance contractors working at the
Eden Pre-school over the school holidays found a small amount of
asbestos dust in an electrical meter box.

The Bega Valley shire Council, which operates the pre-school,
called in specialists to assess the danger and six asbestos fibres
were found, the report related.

The council's Acting General Manager, Leanne Barnes, says the
fibres were removed and air monitoring gave the building a clean
bill of health, ABC News added.  "That's well below the threshold
and what you would find in a normal building of that age." Ms
Barnes said.  She says children, parents and staff were never at
risk.  Ms Barns says the Council is currently creating a register
to ensure any contaminated buildings are renovated over time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ukraine Prolongs Anti-Dumping Duties
-----------------------------------------------------
Interfax Ukraine reported that the interagency commission for
international trade after considering the materials from the
Economic Development and Trade Ministry of Ukraine has decided to
prolong antidumping measures concerning imports of asbestos-cement
corrugated sheets from Russia for five years, reads a report of
the commission published in the Uriadovy Kurier publication on
April 27, 2013.

According to Interfax, the report says that the suspension of
antidumping measures could result in the continuation of dumping
and causing losses to domestic producers.

"The state of exporters and their economic conditions are so that
new types of dumping could appear, which could cause damage to
national producers," reads the report of the commission, Interfax
related.

After studying the materials, the commission established that in
the period when the antidumping duties were in effect, imports of
Russian asbestos-cement corrugated sheets was at dumping prices,
and the size of the dumping margin was from 10.6% to 49.3%,
Interfax further related.

The report says that as a part of the investigation no producer or
exporter of Russian asbestos-cement corrugated sheets wanted to
cooperate with the commission, the Interfax added.

As reported, in April 2012, the commission decided to revise
antidumping measures concerning imports of asbestos-cement
corrugated sheets from Russia, following the consideration of
materials submitted by the Economic Development and Trade
Ministry, Interfax recalled.  Ukraine on April 20, 2007 introduced
antidumping measures concerning slate imports from Russia for five
years.  The size of the final antidumping duty rate is 21.8%, the
report said.

Interfax further recalled that Ukraine on May 17, 2006 initiated
an antidumping investigation into slate imports after the
consideration of a claim from the Ukrainian Chrysotile
Association, which was filed on behalf of Ivano-Frankivsk Cement,
Volyn-Slate, Kramatorsk Slate and Tekhprom.

The complaint stated that slate was imported to Ukraine in 2005 at
a price of $1.99 per sheet (under the DAF/border terms), while on
the Russian domestic market the price was $2.44 per sheet (under
the EXW terms), Interfax related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated Homes Pose Problems in South West
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Georgatos, writing for Donnybrook-Bridgetown Mail reported
that many of the inland's property owners face a looming problem
in the form of asbestos.

According to the report, realtors have been reported widely as
tipping a property price rise in the South West where they say
affordable prices have leveraged a buying frenzy.

Perth property prices continue to remain sky-high and median rents
have passed $520 a week, sending many prospective first-home
owners and investors to the South West, the report related.

Most South West real estate agents said the $700,000-plus market
is slow, but the $300,000 to $500,000 price range is at its
strongest for a while but the reason for the hike in sales is a
drop in listed prices by up to 30 per cent, the report said.

South West coastal prices are higher than inland regional prices,
and the further from the coast the lower the prices, according to
the report, but several realtors, who did not want to be named,
pointed to asbestos as an issue for many inland property owners.

"The problem is that most houses are fibro asbestos and even if
they are able to sell them now, those buying them will have a
tough time in the future selling them at a cost benefit," one real
estate agent told the news agency.  "People are increasingly wary
of buying into an asbestos-riddled house.  It is not only a major
problem for the South West but also for Western Australia.  The
state government should have done something but it has left it all
in the hands of the people."

Two Bridgetown real estate sales people, who did not want to be
named, agreed, the report added.  "It's a problem for buyers, and
anyone who buys fibro will risk getting less for it than they
paid," one said.  "As soon as people realise they may be buying
into asbestos, no matter how well contained the asbestos is, it's
an immediate turn off," another said.  "There will come a time
when selling (an) asbestos (home) will a hard sell. They will have
to drop the price in a big way."

One realtor told the news agency that properties with asbestos
homes should radically reduce the listed or desired value, and
accommodate the future cost of the deconstruction of the home, so
as to be replaced by an asbestos-free home, which may mean a 50
per cent reduction in property prices.  "Governments and shires
should start speaking up about all this, it is not scare-
mongering, it's just the right thing to do," the realtor said.

Asbestos removal does not come cheap, but when the time comes,
such as with extensions or upgrades to a home, garage or fence, it
has to be done, the report pointed out.  The hazardous material
known as fibro was used extensively in building almost every
Western Australian home after World War II and up until 1987.
Recently, former parliamentarian Ernie Bridge died from
mesothelioma which he said he contracted from visiting Witte noom
on ministerial duties during the late 1980s.

The Shire of Ashburton has closed some of the roads leading to the
old town of Wittenoom, and has signs on all roads advising of the
asbestos dangers in the now-closed town, the report said.  Eight
residents continue to live in Wittenoom having refused to leave.

The Department of Commerce website states that a licence is
required in Western Australia for the removal of materials that
contains asbestos, and only a licence holder, or an employee of a
licence holder, may carry out this type of work, the report
related.

The Australian Asbestos Net work website has been created by a
team of researchers at Murdoch University to provide easy access
to information on asbestos-related diseases, health information
for work and home, and to tell the history of asbestos in
Australia and abroad, the report pointed out.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clydebank Hospital Staff Fears for Health
----------------------------------------------------------
Clydebank Post reported that worried staff at Clydebank Health
Centre have said they are fearful for their health after the
discovery of asbestos.

According to the report, workers have claimed the discovery was
made earlier this month during refurbishment to the Kilbowie Road
facility when ceiling tiles were pulled down.

Asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in
the UK as the prolonged inhalation of its fibres can cause serious
illnesses, including lung cancer, the report pointed out.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC) have since said that tests
have confirmed no one is at risk and the affected areas sealed
off, the report said, but last week one worker at the centre, who
didn't want to be named, told the Post there were serious worries
amongst staff who felt they had been kept in the dark about the
find.

He said: "People are really concerned, there's no way they can
tell us we haven't been exposed at some time. There's some people
that have been here for 25 years who are scared they've been
exposed to it for years.  There's been no open discussions and
honesty from them and the word asbestos hasn't been used at all.
There's been lots of comings and goings, guys walking about with
masks on doing atmospheric tests and apparently health and safety
have been involved. But no one has said too much, someone said
there had been an email sent to managers saying the air was safe
but they still seem to be doing the same things.  We are seeing
these guys walking about and we are thinking who are they what are
they doing but we don't know what it means. We don't know if we
have been exposed to it and we don't know if we will have any
problems with our health.  We are concerned and nervous-there have
been tiles missing for years.  A lot of the ceiling tiles have
been hanging for years while some have fallen down because of the
rain. We are all wondering what's going on because no one has come
out and said it's asbestos, this is what we are doing about, there
is no information coming through."

But a spokeswoman for NHS GGC insisted that despite the recent
find no one at the health centre was at risk, the report said.
She said: "During internal improvement works to the health centre
contractors identified some asbestos.  This was immediately dealt
with by a specialist contractor and all the appropriate health and
safety procedures were followed.  The affected areas have been
sealed and air quality tests have confirmed that there is no risk
to the health of anyone -- staff or patient -- who uses the health
centre.  The action we have taken has been fully communicated to
all the GP practices who are located within the centre and to all
other staff who work in the building."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Warned of Fibro Risk in Villawood
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Farrell, Luke Bacon, Lawrence Bull, writing for The Global
Mail, reported that dangerous asbestos contamination, revealed
under Freedom of Information, show hazards have been left
unaddressed at Villawood, the nation's largest mainland detention
centre.

Seven years after detainees were temporarily moved from Villawood
Detention Centre to allow for the clearing of hazardous asbestos,
widespread contaminations are still being reported there --
putting current asylum seekers, staff, and visitors at risk of
exposure to lethal disease-causing dust, according to the report.

The report related that since 2006, when the police union and
refugee advocates demanded action on the known presence of
asbestos at Villawood, immigration officials have consistently
claimed that the risk of exposure to asbestos is "minimal". The
nation's largest mainland detention facility, Villawood is
presently holding 411 asylum seekers, including 10 children.  But
the December 2012 Villawood Hazardous Materials Register shows 165
separate asbestos contaminations -- and 27 of those are classified
as "friable", which means that the fibres can be easily crumbled,
spread through the air and inhaled.

Inhaling asbestos fibres can cause lung cancer, asbestosis and
mesothelioma, and the potentially fatal symptoms can take years to
develop, the report explained.  The friable contaminations are
classified as "medium" risk in the report; the company that
created the register, Environmental & Safety Professionals (ESP),
recommended "immediate isolation by signage, management control
until removal". ESP declined to comment on what management of
asbestos hazards, if any, followed these recommendations.  An
earlier register, from July 2011, lists all the same friable
risks, with the same recommendation.

According to the report, the friable asbestos has been detected in
a number of heater shafts and cupboards across the compound. These
have been classified as medium risk, and the condition of some of
these is reported to be "poor".

"When the condition is poor is when the time is to remove," Barry
Robson, the president of the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of
Australia, told the news agency. "It's not only just for the
refugees and asylum seekers, but also for the staff that work
there in the facility who are also exposed."

Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) spokeswoman
Lancia Jordana said the department has worked over a number of
years to ensure the safety of those at Villawood, the report said.
In response to written questions she said that: "Extensive
monitoring over a number of years has consistently found
contaminants are well below the acceptable levels for asbestos set
out under the NSW Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000," she
wrote, repeating verbatim a response given when asbestos concerns
were raised in 2011.

When asked whether the "medium" friable risks reported were
therefore considered safe, Jordana told the news agency.  "I
didn't get to see the FoI report and I've just had to rely on what
some of the experts in my department have said.  "I don't have
access to the information you've read and seen. That's all I can
give you at the moment," she said of the apparent contradiction.
One instance of non-friable asbestos was also labelled "medium"
risk in 2012, detected in eaves located at a basketball court
provided for detainees' use.

The 2012 register also shows that of the total number of asbestos
contaminations, 136 were classified as non-friable and "low" risk;
these have been found in ceilings, heater shafts, cupboards, pipes
and floor tiles in detainee dorm rooms, in the administration
area, visitors' areas and in the staff kitchen, the report said.
"If these hazards have been identified and not removed, and they
are in poor condition, then it's a danger to the refugees in the
detention centre and also the staff and visitors. It's also a
potential hazard to any tradesperson that comes into contact with
it."

Four other instances were reported "unknown" and inaccessible, the
report noted.

For non-friable contaminations, the recommendation in the register
is to "label & control under Management Plan. Remove before
demolition," the report related.

Detainees have been held in Villawood for months or years while
their refugee claims are assessed, and a number of asylum seekers
have also been detained indefinitely because they have been
assessed as security risks, according to the report. The risk of
contracting asbestos-related illnesses increases the longer a
person is exposed to the fibres.

According to the asbestos foundation's Robson: "If these hazards
have been identified and not removed, and they are in poor
condition, then it's a danger to the refugees in the detention
centre and also the staff and visitors. It's also a potential
hazard to any tradesperson that comes into contact with it."
The British company Serco manages the centre under a contract with
the immigration department. Serco subcontracted ESP to create the
hazard register in 2011, to keep track of hazardous materials.
Asked what actions had been taken following the ESP reports of
asbestos, neither the immigration department nor Serco offered any
specifics about whether the areas had been isolated, signposted
and managed as recommended, nor what plans were for removal of the
asbestos reported in the registers.

Immigration spokeswoman Jordana noted that "responsibility for
remediation and removal of asbestos at the [Villawood Immigration
Detention Facility] lies with the Commonwealth" and a number of
organisations play a role in asbestos identification and removal
at the facility. She said DIAC has monitored and undertaken
remediation work, and that all contaminated areas have been
"appropriately treated", overseen by the Environmental Protection
Authority.

She said Serco was responsible for informing staff and contractors
about asbestos in the Villawood complex. She added that the
company "meets its contractual obligations" for asbestos
identification, ongoing monitoring and formal inspections at the
current facility.

The Immigration Services Contract states, in its "waste
management" provision, that Serco must "implement reasonable and
cost effective measures to manage, in accordance with all
applicable Law, disposal of . . . hazardous materials and waste"
When asked whether the asbestos reported was safe, or what action
had been taken following the reports of asbestos, Paul Shaw, a
spokesman for Serco, provided this statement: "The safety of our
staff, those in our care, and other visitors to the site, is our
first priority. We take our responsibilities to them seriously, as
we do our obligations under our contracts, and federal, state, and
local legislation."

Asbestos exposure is a higher risk in environments where fibres
can be easily disturbed, the report noted.  Riots at the Villawood
facility in April 2011 caused damage to the Hughes and Fowler
compounds, potentially increasing the risk of asbestos exposure to
detainees, staff and emergency services. Photos of the riot
aftermath obtained under the Freedom of Information laws show that
areas where asbestos is located were damaged at the time. Even the
presence of non-friable asbestos can be dangerous if it's
disturbed or broken.

In November 2012 more rooftop protests occurred, and it was
reported that Serco officers attempted to smash their way through
the ceiling with axes, the report added.  The revelations come
only a month after the federal government introduced the Asbestos
Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013 in parliament, to set up a
national scheme for asbestos removal.

"If, during the troubles at Villawood, there were broken sheets,
smashed walls or broken eaves where the asbestos was located, then
that would increase the risk," said Robson, of the Asbestos
Diseases Foundation.

Serco referred all questions about the incident to the immigration
department, the report noted.

Jordana said that a review was conducted of the damaged roof and
"all results from these inspections and monitoring showed they
were well within acceptable limits and declared safe for residents
and staff".

The December 2012 report also shows 68 findings of synthetic
mineral fibres, which do not pose as serious a health risk as
asbestos.

The new visitors' building, medical centre and kitchen were found
to contain synthetic mineral fibres in the roof and hot-water
heaters.

Although the risk associated with these fibres is assessed as
"low" and most are stable, ESP recommended removal of
"loose/damaged material" in some areas.

The revelations come only a month after the federal government
introduced the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013 in
parliament, to set up a national scheme for asbestos removal.
The Federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Bill
Shorten, said at the time: "The Gillard Government is committed to
a plan of action for asbestos eradication and handling across
Australia that eliminates exposure, and establishing the Asbestos
Safety and Eradication Agency is a critical step in that process."
The Department of Finance and Deregulation has overseen separate
asbestos remediation work within the facility as part of the $186
million Villawood Redevelopment project underway. Scheduled for
completion in 2015, the plans involve a "new facility" that "will
better manage the wellbeing of people in detention", according to
the government.

Jordana noted that "The Department of Finance, as the client for
the Villawood redevelopment, has also overseen remediation of
asbestos during the Villawood redevelopment project with full
consideration to the health and safety of residents, workers and
visitors."

She said asbestos remediation works related to the Villawood
redevelopment project began in May 2011.

The Department of Finance and Deregulation said that:
"Remediation, including asbestos, is being undertaken across these
buildings and associated areas as part of the works."
Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor has not yet responded to
requests for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fears Increase After Bungled Removal at School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Ball, writing for Romford Recorder, reported that parents are
worried about their children's health in the aftermath of bungled
asbestos work at a primary school -- despite rigorous health
assurances from Havering Council.

According to the report, it is believed the potentially cancer-
causing material had not been fully removed from the roof spaces
of three rooms and the school hall at Benhurst Primary School, in
Benhurst Avenue, Hornchurch, following work carried out by
contractors over the Easter break.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has been informed and there
have been air and dust tests carried out to ascertain any health
risk, the council said in a letter sent to parents, the report
said.  It confirmed: "We wanted to reassure you that we have found
no evidence at all to suggest that any pupils have been exposed to
asbestos fibres."

The HSE is not investigating, the report noted.  A spokesman for
the watchdog added: "HSE was informed by the council of the
asbestos removal work at Benhurst Primary. We have received
assurances from the authority and the school that sampling has
been carried out which shows that schoolchildren, staff and
visitors are not at risk."

Sheets of plastic have been taped to the affected areas before
permanent work is undertaken during the summer holidays, according
to the report.  Council officers met parents twice but some said
the assurances did not go far enough.

"There are a lot of worried parents," one mum said. "Teachers are
worried as well. Some of the plastic sheeting came down in the
hall and that area is now cordoned off. It doesn't sound like the
school has been made safe."

Cleaners working at the school during the works and clean-up are
concerned they may have been exposed to dangerous fibres. But the
council said there was "no evidence" that this had happened but it
is discussing the situation with them.

A second mother said: "There are a lot of concerned parents in the
playground. Some people have written to the MP about it. They
won't remove it all until the summer, I think they should do it
sooner rather than later."

Mary Pattinson, head of Learning and Achievement, said: "We
completely understand parents' concerns about this. But we would
like to stress that air and dust samples tested when the work was
finished showed that the school buildings were safe for the
children to use. Every test since then has shown the same. If we
had any doubts about this, we would have closed the buildings at
the start of term.

"To reassure parents, we will continue to undertake daily air
tests before school starts and make the results available to
parents. We will not be able to complete the removal of asbestos
from the roof void until the school is closed for the summer. So
until then we have taken the additional precaution of sealing the
ceilings in the block -- so we can assure all parents that the
school continues to be safe for pupils to attend."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Fire's Appeal in Contribution Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Fire Insurance Company (U.S. Fire) paid various
costs in defending and settling seven lawsuits alleging asbestos-
related injuries.  It filed a case to recover a portion of these
costs from Arrowood Indemnity Company and United States Fidelity
and Guaranty Company (USF&G).  Following a four-day bench trial,
the trial court agreed that respondents were responsible for a
portion of the costs and calculated their share to be $177,715.
In an appeal, U.S. Fire maintains that this amount was too low and
that the trial court misapplied principles of insurance law by
limiting respondents' liability on the basis of contractual
indemnity provisions.

In an April 17, 2013, decision, the Court of Appeals of
California, First District, Division Four, disagreed with U.S.
Fire and affirmed the trial court's ruling holding that trial
courts have great latitude in apportioning defense and settlement
costs in contribution actions, and U.S. Fire has failed to
demonstrate that the trial court improperly apportioned them in
this case.

Specifically, the Court of Appeals noted that although U.S. Fire
makes general claims that the trial court committed "legal error,"
some of its arguments lack adequate factual support or reasoned
argument demonstrating that the trial court erred.

The case is UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY et al., Defendants and
Respondents, No. A133665 (Calif.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated April 17, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/IIYW5D
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Dropping Grupo From Asarco Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 1999, Grupo Mexico, S.A.B. de C.V., an international mining
concern based in Mexico City, acquired Asarco, Inc., in a
leveraged buyout.  Grupo formed a wholly-owned subsidiary,
Americas Mining Corporation to hold the shares of Asarco.  In
2001, Asarco sued Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and other
insurers in Nueces County, Texas, seeking payment under an
insurance policy for asbestos claims made against Asarco.  Grupo
was not a party to that litigation.

Two years later, Asarco initiated adversary proceedings against
Mt. McKinley in bankruptcy court, in which it sought to avoid a
2003 release as a constructive fraudulent transfer.  Mt. McKinley
then asked Grupo to acknowledge its duty, pursuant to the 2003
settlement agreement, to defend and indemnify it for the adversary
proceedings in bankruptcy court.  Grupo refused to do so.
Subsequently, Mt. McKinley filed a lawsuit in Nueces County
against Grupo, Asarco, and AMC, seeking a declaratory judgment
that the defendants were obliged to defend and indemnify Mt.
McKinley under the settlement agreement.  When Grupo did not
answer the lawsuit within the time prescribed by law, Mt. McKinley
filed a motion for default judgment.  Grupo then filed a special
appearance in February 2009, some 15 months after suit was
initially filed, contending that the trial court lacked personal
jurisdiction over it.

In an appeal, Mt. McKinley and Everest Reinsurance Company asked
whether the trial court erred by granting a special appearance
filed by Grupo in the lawsuit.  The Appellants argue (1) that the
trial court erred by granting the special appearance, and (2) in
the alternative, that the trial court erred by denying Mt.
McKinley's motion for continuance.

In an April 18, 2013, memorandum opinion, the Court of Appeals of
Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi, Edinburg, reversed and
remanded the case.

"Although a substantial amount of time passed between the filing
of the special appearance and the hearing thereon, it is apparent
that Grupo was engaged in a strategy of obstruction that went
beyond, as it claims, merely "oppos[ing] discovery requests as
needed to protect its rights."  Instead, Grupo sought to avoid
even the most benign and reasonable discovery requests -- such as
a request to confirm that Grupo is a Mexican corporation with its
principal place of business in Mexico.  Moreover, Grupo's counsel
repeatedly urged that Grupo was under no obligation to respond to
discovery requests until the trial court ruled on the special
appearance -- a position that is plainly belied by the rules of
civil procedure," the Court of Appeals stated.

"Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the trial
court abused its discretion by denying appellants' motion for
continuance.  See Barron, 190 S.W.3d at 850 (finding, where
plaintiff "alleged sufficient information which, if existing and
discovered, could support his allegations of personal
jurisdiction," that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying a continuance of a special appearance hearing "especially
in light of [defendants'] apparent strategic avoidance of
[plaintiff's] attempted discovery")," the Court of Appeals
explained.

The case is MT. MCKINLEY INSURANCE COMPANY AND EVEREST REINSURANCE
COMPANY, Appellants, v. GRUPO MEXICO, S.A.B. DE C.V., Appellee,
No. 13-12-00347-CV (Texas).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/0H4fokfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appellate Court Flips Nonsuit Ruling in Meso Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Natalia Hernandez, individually and as successor in interest to
Arnulfo Hernandez, deceased, appeals from a judgment of nonsuit in
favor of respondent Amcord, Inc.  The Appellant and Mr. Hernandez
brought suit against respondent and other defendants for
negligence and strict liability after Mr. Hernandez was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in 2008, at the age of 62.  At the start of
trial, respondent was the only remaining defendant in the case.
Nonsuit was granted in favor of respondent after the appellant's
presentation of evidence, on the ground that appellant failed to
present evidence that respondent's product, Riverside's asbestos-
containing gun plastic cement, was a substantial factor in causing
Mr. Hernandez's mesothelioma to a reasonable degree of medical
probability.  The trial court cited Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois,
Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953 (Rutherford), and Whitmire v.
Ingersoll-Rand Co. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1078 (Whitmire), in
support of its decision.

In an April 18, 2013 decision, the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Two, found that the evidence presented
by the Appellant at trial, evaluated in a light most favorable to
the Appellant, meets the standard set forth in Rutherford and its
progeny.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment
of nonsuit.

The Court of Appeals further found that the trial court erred in
excluding evidence of the Respondent's lobbying activities under
the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.  The evidentiary ruling was based
on a misapplication of law and therefore constituted an abuse of
discretion, the Court of Appeals said.  The evidentiary ruling is
also reversed.

The case is NATALIA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMCORD,
INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. B238408 (Calif.).  A full-text
copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/exbfWGfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Records $0.6MM Charges in 1Q 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. recorded charges of $0.6 million, net of
insurance recoveries, related to asbestos matters in Selling,
general and administrative expenses, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits
based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts
known. Costs related to such matters were not material to the
periods presented.

Some of these claims and lawsuits allege health problems resulting
from exposure to asbestos and we expect that additional claims
will be brought against us in the future. However, our liability
exposure from those additional future claims cannot be estimated
because of numerous uncertainties, including the number of such
claims and lawsuits and the costs of defending and settling them,
possible adverse judgments in amounts greater than previously
experienced, and possible changes in the laws and process
governing the compensation of asbestos claimants. In the first
quarter of 2013, we recorded charges of $0.6 million, net of
insurance recoveries, related to asbestos matters in Selling,
general and administrative expenses in the accompanying
Consolidated Statement of Operation.

It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits
or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is
possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our
results of operations for a particular period."

Lennox International Inc. (LII) is a provider of climate control
solutions. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range
of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration (HVACR) markets. Its products and services are sold
through multiple distribution channels under brand names,
including Lennox, Armstrong Air, Ducane, Bohn, Larkin, Advanced
Distributor Products, Service Experts and others. The Company
operates in four segments: Residential Heating & Cooling,
Commercial Heating & Cooling, Service Experts, and Refrigeration.
On January 14, 2011, the Company acquired Kysor/Warren business
from The Manitowoc Company. Kysor/Warren is a manufacturer of
refrigerated systems and display cases for supermarkets throughout
North America and is included in its Refrigeration Segment. In
April 2012, it sold its Lennox Hearth Products business to Comvest
Investment Partners IV.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Ltd. Had $234MM Liability at March 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair Ltd. had $234 million estimated liability for asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 30, 2013.

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

As of March 30, 2013, there were approximately 1,900 lawsuits
pending against our subsidiaries. A lawsuit might include several
claims, and we have approximately 2,300 claims outstanding as of
March 30, 2013. This amount is not adjusted for claims that are
not actively being prosecuted, identified incorrect defendants, or
duplicated other actions, which would ultimately reflect our
current estimate of the number of viable claims made against us,
our affiliates, or entities for which we assumed responsibility in
connection with acquisitions or divestitures. In addition, the
amount does not include certain claims pending against third
parties for which we have provided an indemnification.
Periodically, we perform an analysis with the assistance of
outside counsel and other experts to update our estimated
asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of the
liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim
experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of
potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates.

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

Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $234
million and $235 million as of March 30, 2013 and December 31,
2012, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current
liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for
pending and future claims and related defense costs. Our estimated
receivable for insurance recoveries was $157 million as of March
30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 and was recorded in Other non-
current assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

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

Pentair Ltd., formerly Tyco Flow Control International Ltd., is
global water, fluid, thermal management, and equipment protection
partner. The Company operates in three segments: Water & Fluid
Solutions, Valves & Controls, and Equipment Protection & Thermal.
Water & Fluid Solutions is a provider of water management and
fluid processing products and solutions. Valves & Controls is the
manufacturers of valves, actuators and controls. Valves & Controls
segment's products, services and solutions address applications in
the general process, oil and gas, power generation and mining
industries. Equipment Protection & Thermal is a provider of
products focused on electronics and electronic equipment, and is a
provider of electric heat management solutions. On September 28,
2012, Pentair, Inc. (Pentair) completed its merger (the Merger)
with Panthro Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger Sub). On September 28, 2012,
the Company merged with Tyco's Flow Control business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Companies Had $2.33B Asbestos Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., had net asbestos reserves of $2.33
billion, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2013.

The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond
the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has
received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos
claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others
seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim
filings include intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos
claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on previously
peripheral defendants. The focus on these defendants is primarily
the result of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who
have sought bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition
to contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy
proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses
by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by
significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by
insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those
who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket.  Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
previously peripheral defendants, contributes to the claims and
claim adjustment expense payment patterns experienced by the
Company.  The Company's asbestos-related claims and claim
adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by the
unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to
policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or
through the insolvency of other participating insurers.

The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-
occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims
against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a
moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it
remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.

Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.  It
is possible that the filing of other direct actions against
insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future.  It
is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings,
including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these
actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of
liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain
jurisdictions.

TPC had entered into settlement agreements which are subject to a
number of contingencies, in connection with a number of these
direct action claims (Direct Action Settlements).

The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions.  The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.

Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually.  Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

Net asbestos paid losses in the first quarter of 2013 were $44
million, compared with $55 million in the same period of 2012.
Net asbestos reserves were $2.33 billion at March 31, 2013,
compared with $2.38 billion at March 31, 2012.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range
of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, Government units,
associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three
business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and
International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business
Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty
insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily
in the United States. The Financial, Professional and
International Insurance segment includes surety and financial
liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based
underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products.
The Company's Personal Insurance segment writes a range of
property and casualty insurance covering individuals' personal
risks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to defend itself against a
substantial number of lawsuits that seek to recover damages for
personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-
containing products manufactured and/or distributed by its
heritage companies, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2013.

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

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

Flowserve Corporation (Flowserve) is a manufacturer and
aftermarket service provider of comprehensive flow control
systems. Flowserve develops and manufactures precision-engineered
flow control equipment integral to the movement, control and
protection of the flow of materials. The Company operates in three
segments: FSG Engineered Product Division, for long lead-time,
custom and other engineered pumps and pump systems, mechanical
seals, auxiliary systems and replacement parts and related
services; FSG Industrial Product Division, for pre-configured
engineered pumps and pump systems and related products and
services, and Flow Control Division, for engineered and industrial
valves, control valves, actuators and controls and related
services. Its sales are shipped to North America, Europe, Asia
Pacific, Middle East and Africa, and Latin America. On October 28,
2011, it acquired for inclusion in EPD, 100% of Lawrence Pumps,
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company continues to defend itself against
product liability claims involving exposures to harmful substances
such as silica, asbestos and coal dust, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Cumulative trauma product liability claims
involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos
and coal dust) that occurred many years ago and may have developed
over long periods of time into diseases such as silicosis,
asbestosis or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. We are presently named
as a defendant in 2,658 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to
have contracted certain cumulative trauma diseases related to
exposure to silica, asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits
mainly involve respiratory protection products allegedly
manufactured and sold by us. We are unable to estimate total
damages sought in these lawsuits as they generally do not specify
the injuries alleged or the amount of damages sought, and
potentially involve multiple defendants.

Cumulative trauma product liability litigation is difficult to
predict. In our experience, until late in a lawsuit, we cannot
reasonably determine whether it is probable that any given
cumulative trauma lawsuit will ultimately result in a liability.
This uncertainty is caused by many factors, including the
following: cumulative trauma complaints generally do not provide
information sufficient to determine if a loss is probable;
cumulative trauma litigation is inherently unpredictable and
information is often insufficient to determine if a lawsuit will
develop into an actively litigated case; and even when a case is
actively litigated, it is often difficult to determine if the
lawsuit will be dismissed or otherwise resolved until late in the
lawsuit. Moreover, even once it is probable that such a lawsuit
will result in a loss, it is difficult to reasonably estimate the
amount of actual loss that will be incurred. These amounts are
highly variable and turn on a case-by-case analysis of the
relevant facts, which are often not learned until late in the
lawsuit.

Because of these factors, we cannot reliably determine our
potential liability for such claims until late in the lawsuit. We,
therefore, do not record cumulative trauma product liability
losses when a lawsuit is filed, but rather, when we learn
sufficient information to determine that it is probable that we
will incur a loss and the amount of loss can be reasonably
estimated. We record expenses for defense costs associated with
open cumulative trauma product liability lawsuits as incurred.

We cannot estimate any amount or range of possible losses related
to resolving pending and future cumulative trauma product
liability claims that we may face because of the factors described
above. As new information about cumulative trauma product
liability cases and future developments becomes available, we
reassess our potential exposures.

With some common contract exclusions, we maintain insurance for
cumulative trauma product liability claims. We have purchased
insurance policies from over 20 different insurance carriers that
provide coverage for cumulative trauma product liability losses
and related defense costs. In the normal course of business, we
make payments to settle product liability claims and for related
defense costs. We record receivables for the amounts that are
covered by insurance. The available limits of these policies are
many times our recorded insurance receivable balance.  Various
factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of our
insurance receivables, including the outcome of negotiations with
insurers, legal proceedings with respect to product liability
insurance coverage and the extent to which insurers may become
insolvent in the future.

Our insurance receivables at March 31, 2013 totaled $150.1
million, of which $2.0 million is reported in other current assets
and $148.1 million in other non-current assets. Our insurance
receivables at December 31, 2012 totaled $130.0 million.

Additions to insurance receivables represent insured cumulative
trauma product liability losses and related defense costs.
Uninsured cumulative trauma product liability losses were $0.2
million during the three months ended March 31, 2013. There were
no uninsured cumulative trauma product liability losses during the
three months ended March 31, 2012.

Our aggregate cumulative trauma product liability losses and
administrative and defense costs for the three years ended
December 31, 2012, totaled approximately $99.7 million,
substantially all of which was insured.

We believe that the increase in the insurance receivable balance
that we have experienced since 2005 is primarily due to
disagreements among our insurance carriers, and consequently with
us, as to when their individual obligations to pay us are
triggered and the amount of each insurer's obligation, as compared
to other insurers. We believe that our insurers do not contest
that they have issued policies to us or that these policies cover
cumulative trauma product liability claims. We believe that our
ability to successfully resolve our insurance litigation with
various insurance carriers in recent years demonstrates that we
have strong legal positions concerning our rights to coverage.

Additions to insurance receivables represent insured cumulative
trauma product liability losses and related defense costs.
Uninsured cumulative trauma product liability losses were $0.2
million during the three months ended March 31, 2013. There were
no uninsured cumulative trauma product liability losses during the
three months ended March 31, 2012.

Our aggregate cumulative trauma product liability losses and
administrative and defense costs for the three years ended
December 31, 2012, totaled approximately $99.7 million,
substantially all of which was insured.

We believe that the increase in the insurance receivable balance
that we have experienced since 2005 is primarily due to
disagreements among our insurance carriers, and consequently with
us, as to when their individual obligations to pay us are
triggered and the amount of each insurer's obligation, as compared
to other insurers. We believe that our insurers do not contest
that they have issued policies to us or that these policies cover
cumulative trauma product liability claims. We believe that our
ability to successfully resolve our insurance litigation with
various insurance carriers in recent years demonstrates that we
have strong legal positions concerning our rights to coverage.

We regularly evaluate the collectability of the insurance
receivables and record the amounts that we conclude are probable
of collection. Our conclusions are based on our analysis of the
terms of the underlying insurance policies, our experience in
successfully recovering cumulative trauma product liability claims
from our insurers under other policies, the financial ability of
our insurance carriers to pay the claims, our understanding and
interpretation of the relevant facts and applicable law and the
advice of legal counsel, who believe that our insurers are
required to provide coverage based on the terms of the policies.

Although the outcome of cumulative trauma product liability
matters cannot be predicted with certainty and unfavorable
resolutions could materially affect our results of operations on a
quarter-to-quarter basis, based on information currently available
and the amounts of insurance coverage available to us, we believe
that the disposition of cumulative trauma product liability
lawsuits that are pending against us will not have a materially
adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial
condition, or liquidity."

Mine Safety Appliances Company develops, manufactures, and
supplies products that protect people's health and safety. Its
safety products typically integrate any combination of
electronics, mechanical systems and advanced materials to protect
users against hazardous or life threatening situations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos-containing
brakes, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2013.

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

The Company typically obtains dismissals or settlements of its
asbestos-related lawsuits with no material effect on its financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.  The Company
maintains insurance coverage that applies to a portion of certain
of the Company's defense costs and payments of settlements or
judgments in connection with asbestos-related lawsuits, excluding
punitive damages.

Based on an ongoing evaluation, the Company believes that the
resolution of its pending asbestos claims will not have a material
impact on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows, although these matters could result in
the Company being subject to monetary damages, costs or expenses,
and charges against earnings in particular periods.

Carlisle Companies Incorporated (Carlisle) is a holding company
for Carlisle Corporation, and its wholly owned subsidiaries.
Carlisle is a diversified manufacturing company consisting of five
segments, which manufacture and distribute a range of products.
Its segments include Carlisle Construction Materials (CCM or the
Construction Materials segment), Carlisle Transportation Products
(CTP or the Transportation Products segment), Carlisle Brake &
Friction (CBF or the Brake & Friction segment) and Carlisle
Interconnect Technologies (CIT or the Interconnect Technologies
segment). On August 1, 2011, the Company acquired PDT Phoenix GmbH
(PDT). On January 2, 2012, the Company sold the PDT's non roofing
and waterproofing unit (PDT Profiles) of its German company, PDT
Phoenix GmbH to Datwyler Group of Altdorf. In March 2012, the
Company purchased Hertalan Holding B.V. In December 2012, the
Company acquired Thermax-Raydex business from Belden Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Continues to Defend PI Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos
exposure lawsuits and claims involving approximately 2,600
plaintiffs and claimants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily
injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust. From
1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a
high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958. The typical asbestos
personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seek compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims").

As of March 31, 2013, the Company has determined that it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
approximately 2,600 plaintiffs and claimants. Based on an analysis
of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2012, approximately 66%
of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought,
or in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to
invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court.
Approximately 30% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of $15
million or less, and 4% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages
greater than $15 million but less than $100 million. Fewer than 1%
of plaintiffs specifically plead damages equal to or greater than
$100 million.

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

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

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

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
March 31, 2013, has disposed of the asbestos claims of
approximately 391,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average
indemnity payment per claim of approximately $8,400. Certain of
these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over a
number of years.  Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately
$25 million at March 31, 2013 ($24 million at December 31, 2012)
and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per
claim.  The Company's asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a
per claim basis, and are expected to continue to vary considerably
over time.  As discussed above, a part of the Company's objective
is to achieve, where possible, resolution of asbestos claims
pursuant to claims-handling agreements.  Failure of claimants to
meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in the
Company's administrative claims handling agreements has generally
reduced the number of marginal or suspect claims that would
otherwise have been received.  In addition, certain courts and
legislatures have reduced or eliminated the number of marginal or
suspect claims that the Company otherwise would have received.
These developments generally have had the effect of increasing the
Company's per-claim average indemnity payment.

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

The Company has continued to monitor trends that may affect its
ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments
and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of
pending and future asbestos claims against the Company. The
material components of the Company's accrued liability are based
on amounts determined by the Company in connection with its annual
comprehensive review and consist of the following estimates, to
the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred
and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for asbestos
claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the liability
for preexisting but unasserted asbestos claims for prior periods
arising under its administrative claims-handling agreements with
various plaintiffs' counsel; (iii) the liability for asbestos
claims not yet asserted against the Company, but which the Company
believes will be asserted in the next several years; and (iv) the
legal defense costs likely to be incurred in connection with the
foregoing types of claims.

The significant assumptions underlying the material components of
the Company's accrual are:

a) the extent to which settlements are limited to claimants who
were exposed to the Company's asbestos-containing insulation prior
to its exit from that business in 1958;

b) the extent to which claims are resolved under the Company's
administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable to those
set forth in those agreements;

c) the extent of decrease or increase in the incidence of serious
disease cases and claiming patterns for such cases;

d) the extent to which the Company is able to defend itself
successfully at trial;

e) the extent to which courts and legislatures eliminate, reduce
or permit the diversion of financial resources for unimpaired
claimants;

f) the number and timing of additional co-defendant bankruptcies;

g) the extent to which bankruptcy trusts direct resources to
resolve claims that are also presented to the Company and the
timing of the payments made by the bankruptcy trusts; and

h) the extent to which co-defendants with substantial resources
and assets continue to participate significantly in the resolution
of future asbestos lawsuits and claims.

The Company conducts a comprehensive review of its asbestos-
related liabilities and costs annually in connection with
finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless
significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an
earlier review.  If the results of an annual comprehensive review
indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is
insufficient to cover its estimated future asbestos-related costs,
then the Company will record an appropriate charge to increase the
accrued liability.  The Company believes that a reasonable
estimation of the probable amount of the liability for claims not
yet asserted against the Company is not possible beyond a period
of several years.  Therefore, while the results of future annual
comprehensive reviews cannot be determined, the Company expects
the addition of one year to the estimation period will result in
an annual charge.

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

The Company is conducting an internal investigation into conduct
in certain of its overseas operations that may have violated the
anti-bribery provisions of the United States Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (the "FCPA"), the FCPA's books and records and
internal controls provisions, the Company's own internal policies,
and various local laws. In October 2012, the Company voluntarily
disclosed these matters to the U.S. Department of Justice (the
"DOJ") and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC").
The Company intends to cooperate with any investigation by the DOJ
and the SEC.

The Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope or
result of its internal investigation, or any investigations by the
DOJ or the SEC or whether either agency will commence any legal
action.  The DOJ and the SEC have a broad range of civil and
criminal sanctions under the FCPA and other laws and regulations
including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, disgorgement,
fines, penalties, and modifications to business practices.  The
Company could also be subject to investigation and sanctions
outside the United States.  While the Company is currently unable
to quantify the impact of any potential sanctions or remedial
measures, it does not expect such actions will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's liquidity, results of operations
or financial condition.

Other litigation is pending against the Company, in many cases
involving ordinary and routine claims incidental to the business
of the Company and in others presenting allegations that are non-
routine and involve compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims
as well as other types of relief. The Company records a liability
for such matters when it is both probable that the liability has
been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably
estimated. Recorded amounts are reviewed and adjusted to reflect
changes in the factors upon which the estimates are based
including additional information, negotiations, settlements, and
other events.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a manufacturer of glass containers with 81
glass manufacturing plants in 21 countries. It produces glass
containers for beer, ready-to-drink low alcohol refreshers,
spirits, wine, food, tea, juice and pharmaceuticals. The Company
also produces glass containers for soft drinks and other non-
alcoholic beverages outside the United States. It manufactures
these products in a range of sizes, shapes and colors. It has four
geographical segments: Europe, North America, South America, and
Asia Pacific. On September 1, 2010, it completed the acquisition
of Brazilian glassmaker Companhia Industrial de Vidros (CIV). On
December 23, 2010, the Company acquired Hebei Rixin Glass Group
Co., Ltd. On December 7, 2010, the Company acquired the majority
interest in Zhaoqing Jiaxin Glasswork Co., LTD. On March 11, 2010,
the Company acquired the majority interest in Cristalerias
Rosario.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous
pending multi-claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third
parties, and integrated into or sold with a very limited number of
the Company's products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

Like other companies in recent years, the Company is named as a
defendant in numerous pending multi-claimant/multi-defendant
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and integrated into or
sold with a very limited number of the Company's products. The
Company is vigorously defending itself against these claims.
Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
these matters, the Company does not believe the ultimate
resolution of these issues will have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position or results of operations, either
from a cash flow perspective or on the financial statements as a
whole. This belief is based in part on the fact that no claimant
has proven or substantially demonstrated asbestos exposure caused
by products manufactured or sold by the Company and that a number
of cases have been voluntarily dismissed.

Badger Meter, Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of products
incorporating liquid flow measurement and control technologies
serving markets globally. The Company's products are used in a
variety of applications, including water, oil and lubricants. Its
product lines fall into two categories: water applications and
specialty applications. Water applications include water meters
and related technologies and services used by water utilities as
the basis for generating water and wastewater revenues. Specialty
applications include the sale of meters and related technologies
and services for measuring a range of fluids in industries, such
as food and beverage, pharmaceutical production, petroleum,
heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC), and measuring
and dispensing automotive fluids. On January 26, 2011, it
purchased Remag, AG. On February 1, 2012, the Company acquired
100% interests in Racine Federated, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMCOR Group Gaskets May Contain Fibro Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMCOR Group, Inc., says its gaskets may contain asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2013.

The Company states: "In December 2011, we received a letter from a
gasket supplier that it had supplied us with gaskets from a
Canadian manufacturer that, contrary to our supplier's product
specifications and purchase orders, may contain asbestos material.
Additionally, the supplier has informed us that one of its
customers had found that certain gaskets manufactured by the
Canadian company tested positive for asbestos during a routine
audit. However, our supplier also informed us that industry
experts have advised it no action is necessary to remove or
replace any of these gaskets manufactured by the Canadian company
that may have been installed by us inasmuch as any asbestos
material in the gaskets is fully encapsulated in the gasket
binding and enclosed within piping systems. No reasonable estimate
of our ultimate liability is possible at this time, and based on
our current knowledge, we do not expect that any amounts that we
may incur as a consequence of our installation of these gaskets
will have a material adverse effect on our financial position,
results of operations or liquidity. To the extent we incur any
expenditures related to this matter, we intend to seek
reimbursement from the supplier."

EMCOR Group, Inc. (EMCOR) is an electrical and mechanical
construction and facilities services firm in the United States,
the United Kingdom and globally. The Company provides services to
a range of commercial, industrial, utility and institutional
customers through approximately 70 operating subsidiaries and
joint venture entities. It specializes in providing construction
services relating to electrical and mechanical systems in
facilities of all types and in providing comprehensive services
for the operation, maintenance and management of facilities
services. In January 2011, the Company acquired a company, which
provides mechanical construction services. In June 2011, the
Company completed the acquisition of USM Services Holdings, Inc.
(USM). In August 2011, the Company sold Comstock Canada Ltd. In
November 2011, the Company acquired a company, which provides
mobile mechanical services. In January 2012, the Company acquired
Southern Industrial Constructors, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had $62.6MM Reserves at March 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation has $62,617,000 current reserves for asbestos-
related liability cost, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2013.

As of March 29, 2013, the Company had $62,617,000 current reserves
for probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability
cost that it believes the subsidiaries will pay through the next
15 years, overpayments by certain insurers and unpaid legal costs
related to defending themselves against asbestos-related liability
claims and legal action against the Company's insurers, which is
included in Accrued liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

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

                       http://is.gd/7U6Qq0

Colfax Corporation is a diversified global industrial
manufacturing and engineering company that provides gas- and
fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and services to
customers around the world under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid
Handling brand names.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Continues to Defend PI Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand PLC and its affiliates continue to defend
themselves against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of
those claims have been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company
(IR-New Jersey) or Trane Inc. (Trane) and generally allege injury
caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical
products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers
and railroad brake shoes. Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a
producer or manufacturer of asbestos, however, some formerly
manufactured products utilized asbestos-containing components such
as gaskets and packings purchased from third-party suppliers.

The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an
estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a
detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to
update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. The
methodology used to project the Company's total liability for
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims
relied upon and included the following factors, among others:

* the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally
exposed to asbestos;

* epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung
cancer;

* the Company's historical experience with the filing of non-
malignancy claims against it and the historical ratio between the
numbers of non-malignancy and lung cancer claims filed against the
Company;

* the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely to
file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the Company
based on such epidemiological and historical data and the
Company's most recent three-year claims history;

* an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease
claimed;

* an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history to
determine the average settlement and resolution value of claims,
by type of disease claimed;

* an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted
downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of claims
resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and

* an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the
future.

At March 31, 2013, and December 31, 2012, over 80 percent of the
open claims against the Company are non-malignancy claims, many of
which have been placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the
vast majority of which have little or no settlement value against
the Company, particularly in light of recent changes in the legal
and judicial treatment of such claims.

The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to IR-New
Jersey and Trane was $125.9 million and $191.8 million at March
31, 2013, and $125.5 million and $194.8 million at December 31,
2012, respectively.

IR-New Jersey records income and expenses associated with its
asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries within
discontinued operations, as they relate to previously divested
businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold in
2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos
liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded
within continuing operations.

Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most
of its insurers. The settlements collectively account for
approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance
receivable as of March 31, 2013. Most of Trane's settlement
agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which
the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified
portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane
agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the
insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. Trane
remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November
2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wisconsin,
relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's
historical asbestos-related liabilities.

On January 12, 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory
judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to
defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants are
several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies
that had been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim
defense and indemnity costs. The action involves IR-New Jersey's
unexhausted insurance policies applicable to the asbestos claims
that are not subject to any settlement agreement. The responding
defendants generally challenged the Company's right to recovery,
and raised various coverage defenses.

The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded
that its IR-New Jersey insurance receivable is probable of
recovery because of the following factors:

* a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to IR-
New Jersey, including Trane, and the success of other companies in
recovering under their insurance policies, including Trane's
favorable settlement discussed above;

* the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

* the Company's history of receiving payments under the IR-New
Jersey insurance program, including under policies that had been
the subject of prior litigation.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information. The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results. Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations described above, are expected to result in the
projected total liability to claimants substantially exceeding the
probable insurance recovery.

Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company
that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties. IR-
Ireland operates in four business segments: Climate Solutions,
Residential Solutions, Industrial Technologies and Security
Technologies. It generates revenue and cash primarily through the
design, manufacture, sale and service of a diverse portfolio of
industrial and commercial products that include Club Car,
Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane. On September 30,
2011, IR-Ireland completed the transaction to sell 60% in the
Hussmann business. On December 30, 2011, it completed the
divestiture of its security installation and service business,
which was sold under the Integrated Systems and Services brand in
the United States and Canada, to Kratos Public Safety & Security
Solutions, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Realty Records $2.7MM Clean-up Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
CoreSite Realty Corporation has recorded approximately $2.7
million accruals for estimated retirement and environmental
remediation obligations, including asbestos removal, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We record accruals for estimated retirement
and environmental remediation obligations. The obligations relate
primarily to the removal of asbestos and contaminated soil during
development of the properties as well as the estimated equipment
removal costs upon termination of a certain lease where the
Company is the lessee. At March 31, 2013, and December 31, 2012,
the amount included in other liabilities on the condensed
consolidated balance sheets was approximately $2.7 million and
$2.6 million, respectively."

CoreSite Realty Corporation, through its controlling interest in
CoreSite, L.P. and the subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership,
is a fully-integrated, self-administered, and self-managed real
estate investment trust ("REIT"). The Company was organized in the
State of Maryland on February 17, 2010, completed its initial
public offering of common stock (the "IPO") on September 28, 2010,
and is the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership. As
of March 31, 2013, the Company owns a 45.0% common interest in the
Operating Partnership.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 Active Pending PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had approximately 25,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We had approximately 25,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims at both March 31, 2013
and December 31, 2012. In addition, approximately 1,000 mostly
inactive claims have been settled and are awaiting final
documentation and dismissal, with or without payment. We have
accrued $80 for indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending
and future claims at March 31, 2013, compared to $83 at December
31, 2012. We use a fifteen-year time horizon for our estimate of
this liability.

At March 31, 2013, we had recorded $48 as an asset for probable
recovery from our insurers for the pending and projected asbestos
personal injury liability claims, compared to $50 recorded at
December 31, 2012. The recorded asset represents our assessment of
the capacity of our current insurance agreements to provide for
the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs for pending
claims and projected future demands. The recognition of these
recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to recover
under the respective contracts and on the financial strength of
the insurers. We have coverage agreements in place with our
insurers confirming substantially all of the related coverage and
payments are being received on a timely basis. The financial
strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually with the
assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not represent
the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the amount we
would expect to recover if we paid the accrued indemnity and
defense costs.

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

Dana Holding Corporation (Dana) is a supplier of driveline
products (axles, driveshafts and transmissions), power
technologies (sealing and thermal-management products) and genuine
service parts for vehicle manufacturers globally. The Company
operates in five segments: light vehicle driveline (LVD),
commercial vehicle, off-highway, power technologies and
structures. In June 2011, it increased its investment in Dongfeng
Dana Axle Co., Ltd. (DDAC) from 4% to 50%. In June 2011, it
acquired the axle drive head and final assembly business of its
Axles India Limited (AIL) affiliate. In October 2011, it formed a
50/50 joint venture with Bosch Rexroth to develop and manufacture
power split drive transmissions for the off-highway market. On
September 30, 2011, the Company completed the divestitures of its
49% interest in GETRAG Corporation and its 42% equity interest in
GETRAG Dana Holding GmbH (together the GETRAG Entities).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 1,043 Pending Exposure Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation was a party to 1,043 pending cases alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials
formerly used in gaskets, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

As of March 31, 2013, the Company was a party to 1,043 pending
cases involving an aggregate of 7,913 claimants alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly
used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or
distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use
primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration
industries.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought. Of the 7,913 claims pending at
March 31, 2013, set forth specific amounts of damages (other than
those stating the statutory minimum or maximum).

In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.

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

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

The Company is subject to other claims and litigation in the
ordinary course of business, but does not believe that any such
claim or litigation will have a material adverse effect on its
financial position and results of operations or cash flows.

TriMas Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global
manufacturer and distributor of products for commercial,
industrial and consumer markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Had 16,000 Liability Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. had approximately 16,000 pending asbestos-related
product liability claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies who have
historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the
Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of
many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We
believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in
general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction
products that were manufactured many years ago and contained
encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation
and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these
products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of both March 31,
2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company had approximately 16,000
pending asbestos-related product liability claims, respectively.
Of the approximately 16,000 outstanding claims at March 31, 2013,
approximately half were pending in jurisdictions that have
undergone significant tort and judicial reform activities
subsequent to the filing of these claims."

The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects
that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product
liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to
indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the
Company or its insurers. In 2013, of the approximately 376 claims
resolved, 70 (19%) resulted in payment being made to a claimant by
or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2012, of the
approximately 2,400 claims resolved, 308 (13%) resulted in any
payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance
carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to
the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the
Company has substantial excess insurance coverage available for
potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004,
primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the
alleged exhaustion of their policy limits.

A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty
Company and related companies against the Company and certain of
its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a
number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company
has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance
carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay
specified amounts to the Company. The Company is vigorously
pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers.

Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of pending or
future claims or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be
enacted at the state or federal levels, due to the encapsulated
nature of the products, the Company's experience in vigorously
defending and resolving claims in the past, and the Company's
significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers as of the
date of this filing, management does not believe that asbestos-
related product liability claims are likely to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.

To date, the Company has paid and accrued $243.4 million in
defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and
has received $124.8 million in cash and notes from insurers. The
net balance of $118.6 million, is expected to be fully recovered,
of which approximately $20.0 million is expected to be recovered
within one year. Timing of recovery is dependent on final
resolution of the declaratory judgment action referred to above or
additional negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2012, insurers
owed $111.0 million in association with these claims.

In addition to the $118.6 million net balance relating to past
settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a
liability of $95.2 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs at March 31, 2013. The
Company also has a related asset of $95.2 million to recognize
proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected to be
fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected prior
to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action referred to
above, which, more-likely-than-not, will occur subsequent to March
31, 2014. At December 31, 2012, the comparable value of the
accrued liability and associated insurance asset was $85.6
million.

The 2013 increase in the accrued liability and associated
insurance asset is primarily due to an expected higher rate of
claim settlement based on recent litigation claim activity.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate possible losses, if any, in
excess of those for which it has accrued, because it cannot
predict how many additional claims may be brought against the
Company (or parties the Company has an obligation to indemnify) in
the future, the allegations in such claims, the possible outcomes,
or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at
the state or federal levels.

BorgWarner Inc. is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. On January 31, 2011, the Company acquired 100% of the
stock of Haldex Traction Holding AB (Haldex Traction Systems) of
Haldex Group. In July 2012, the Company sold its spark plug
business to Federal-Mogul Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Technologies Continues to Defend PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos integrated into certain of its products or premises,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies in
recent years, we or our subsidiaries are named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos integrated into certain of our products or premises.
While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer
incorporate it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of
our historical products, like those of many other manufacturers,
have contained components incorporating asbestos. A substantial
majority of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by
insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed
without payment. The remainder of the closed cases have been
resolved for amounts that are not material individually or in the
aggregate. While insurance coverage litigation is pending against
a number of Goodrich insurers, based on information currently
available we do not believe that resolution of asbestos-related
matters will have a material adverse effect upon our competitive
position, results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition."

United Technologies Corporation (UTC) provides high technology
products and services to the building systems and aerospace
industries worldwide. The Company operates in six segments: Otis,
Carrier, UTC Fire & Security, Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand
and Sikorsky. Otis, Carrier and UTC Fire & Security serve
customers in the commercial, government infrastructure and
residential property sectors worldwide. Carrier also serves
commercial, industrial, transport refrigeration and food service
equipment customers. Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand and
Sikorsky primarily serves commercial and government customers. In
February 2013, it completed the divestiture of its UTC Power fuel
cells unit to ClearEdge Power, based in Hillsboro, Ore. In March
2013, it completed the sale of the former Goodrich Corporation
pump and engine control systems business to Triumph Group, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Records $2MM Litigation Expense
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated has recorded asbestos litigation expense of
$2 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2013.

Corning Incorporated and PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) each own 50%
of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC).
Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several other
defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16,
2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Corning, with other relevant parties, has been involved in ongoing
efforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would resolve the
concerns and objections of the relevant parties. A proposed PCC
plan of reorganization (Amended PCC Plan) filed in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania was not
confirmed by the Court. Further changes to the Amended PCC Plan
were filed in August of 2012.  Corning also has an equity interest
in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian Corporation
that is a component of the Company's proposed resolution of the
PCC asbestos litigation. At March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
the fair value of PCE exceeded its carrying value of $145 million
and $149 million, respectively.

The Amended PCC Plan does not include certain non-PCC asbestos
claims that may be or have been raised against Corning.  Corning
has recorded in its estimated asbestos litigation liability an
additional $150 million for the approximately 9,800 current non-
PCC cases alleging injuries from asbestos, and for any future non-
PCC cases.  The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC
asbestos claims was estimated to be $673 million at March 31,
2013, compared with an estimate of the liability of $671 million
at December 31, 2012.  In the three months ended March 31, 2013
and 2012, Corning recorded asbestos litigation expense of $2
million and $1 million, respectively.  The entire obligation is
classified as a non-current liability as installment payments for
the cash portion of the obligation are not planned to commence
until more than 12 months after the Amended PCC Plan becomes
effective and the PCE portion of the obligation will be fulfilled
through the direct contribution of Corning's investment in PCE
(currently recorded as a non-current other equity method
investment).

Corning Incorporated (Corning) is a global, technology-based
corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display
Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,
Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an
environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable
technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).
Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing
processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable
devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers. In
March 2011, the Company acquired all outstanding shares from the
shareholders of MobileAccess. In December 2011, it acquired
Mediatech, Inc. In November 2012, Corning acquired the majority of
the Discovery Labware business from Becton, Dickinson and Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had $412MM Accrued Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's accrued asbestos-related
liability and gross payments, including legal costs, totaled
approximately $412 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and Federal courts. To date, we have disposed
of approximately 106,000 claims by defending and obtaining the
dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement. The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled
approximately $412 million through March 31, 2013 and $407 million
through December 31, 2012.

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

We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We
had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $138 million and $139
million at March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $74 million
and $73 million as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
respectively. We expect that approximately 50% of asbestos claim
related losses will be recoverable through insurance during the
ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these
amounts, $10 million was included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts Receivable at March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012. The
recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect
under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary carriers
as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from
certain of our excess coverage insurance carriers.

We believe that, at March 31, 2013, we had approximately $160
million in limits of excess level policies potentially applicable
to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims. We
also had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining
aggregate limits, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense
costs for asbestos premises claims on a per occurrence basis
pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement.

With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is
reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in
excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be
reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject
to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not
limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure),
alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and
disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of these
characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal
issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by
us."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires. The
Company, together with subsidiaries and joint ventures, develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes tires for a range of
applications. The Company also manufactures and markets rubber-
related chemicals for various applications. The Company is an
operator of commercial truck service and tire retreading centers.
During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company operated
approximately 1,400 tire and auto service center outlets where it
offered its products for retail sale and provided automotive
repair and other services. The Company manufactures its products
in 53 manufacturing facilities in 22 countries, including the
United States. It operates through four operating segments
representing its regional tire businesses: North American Tire;
Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire (EMEA); Latin American Tire,
and Asia Pacific Tire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 73,500 Pending Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 73,500 asbestos claims pending against
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

The Company stated: "As reported in our 2012 Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2012, we were one of numerous defendants
in legal proceedings in certain state and Federal courts involving
approximately 73,200 claimants relating to their alleged exposure
to materials containing asbestos in products allegedly
manufactured by us or asbestos materials present in our
facilities. During the first quarter of 2013, approximately 700
new claims were filed against us and approximately 400 were
settled or dismissed. The amount expended on asbestos defense and
claim resolution by Goodyear and its insurance carriers during the
first quarter of 2013 was $5 million. At March 31, 2013, there
were approximately 73,500 asbestos claims pending against us. The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and
other relief."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires. The
Company, together with subsidiaries and joint ventures, develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes tires for a range of
applications. The Company also manufactures and markets rubber-
related chemicals for various applications. The Company is an
operator of commercial truck service and tire retreading centers.
During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company operated
approximately 1,400 tire and auto service center outlets where it
offered its products for retail sale and provided automotive
repair and other services. The Company manufactures its products
in 53 manufacturing facilities in 22 countries, including the
United States. It operates through four operating segments
representing its regional tire businesses: North American Tire;
Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire (EMEA); Latin American Tire,
and Asia Pacific Tire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself
against cases alleging asbestos induced illness, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

At March 31, 2013, the Company was a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by
approximately 15,081 plaintiffs, which is a net increase of 31
claims from those previously reported. In each instance, the
Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos
claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases
for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been
a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as
follows: 41,199 of those claims were dismissed, 20 were tried to
defense verdicts, seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of
which are being appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an
immaterial amount and 619 were decided in favor of the Company
following summary judgment motions.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is a manufacturer of welding,
cutting and brazing products. Welding products include arc welding
power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic welding packages,
fume extraction equipment, consumable electrodes and fluxes. The
Company's product offering also includes computer numeric
controlled (CNC) plasma and oxy-fuel cutting systems and
regulators and torches used in oxy-fuel welding, cutting and
brazing. The Company operates in five segments: North America
Welding, Europe Welding, Asia Pacific Welding, South America
Welding and The Harris Products Group. In March 2012, the Company
acquired Weartech International, Inc. In May 2012, the Company
acquired Wayne Trail Technologies, Inc. In November 2012, ITT Corp
sold its shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and
Kaliburn brands to the Company. In January 2013, the Company
acquired Tennessee Rand, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,800 PI Claims at March 29
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. has determined that there were
approximately 5,800 asbestos-related personal injury claims
pending against it, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 29, 2013.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous
other companies are named as defendants in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing
materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims
based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or
distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos
or were attached to or used with asbestos containing components
manufactured by third parties. Each case typically names between
dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. While the Company has
observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits over the past
several years, including lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma
related claims, a large percentage of these suits have not
presented viable legal claims and, as a result, have been
dismissed by the courts. The Company's historical strategy has
been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated
suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling suits before
trial. Although a large percentage of litigated suits have been
dismissed, the Company cannot predict the extent to which it will
be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. In addition,
the Company continues to assess its strategy for resolving
asbestos claims. Due to the number of claims and limited amount of
assets held by Yarway Corporation ("Yarway"), one of the Company's
indirect subsidiaries, on April 22, 2013 Yarway filed a voluntary
petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware. As a result of this filing, all asbestos claims against
Yarway have been stayed pending confirmation of a plan of
reorganization by the Bankruptcy Court. Yarway's goal is to
negotiate, obtain approval of, and consummate a plan of
reorganization that establishes an appropriately funded trust to
provide for the fair and equitable payment of legitimate current
and future Yarway asbestos claims, accompanied by appropriate
injunctive relief permanently protecting Yarway and certain other
protected parties from any further asbestos claims arising from
products manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Yarway.
Although the terms of Yarway's plan of reorganization are unknown
at this time, the Company does not expect them to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition or liquidity.

As of March 29, 2013, the Company has determined that there were
approximately 5,800 claims pending against it, its subsidiaries or
entities for which the Company has assumed responsibility in
connection with acquisitions and divestitures. This amount
reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable
claims made against such entities and includes adjustments for
claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect
defendants, are duplicative of other actions or for which the
Company is indemnified.

Annually, during the Company's third quarter, the Company performs
an analysis with the assistance of outside counsel and other
experts to update its estimated asbestos related assets and
liabilities. In addition, on a quarterly basis, the Company re-
evaluates the assumptions used to perform the annual analysis and
records an expense as necessary to reflect changes in its
estimated liability and related insurance asset. The Company's
estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for
pending and future claims and defense costs is based on the
Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the number
and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed.
The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts
these estimates. The Company considers various trends and
developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back
period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is
used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be made
in the future during a defined period of time (the look-forward
period). As part of the Company's annual valuation process in the
third quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company determined that a look-
back period of three years was more appropriate than a five year
period because the Company has experienced a higher and more
consistent level of claims activity and settlement costs in the
past three years. As a result, the Company believes a three year
look-back period is more representative of future claim and
settlement activity than the five year period it previously used.
The Company also revised its look-forward period from seven years
to fifteen years. The Company's decision to revise its look-
forward period was primarily based on improvements in the
consistency of observable data and the Company's more extensive
experience with asbestos claims since the look-forward period was
originally established in 2005. The revisions to the Company's
look-forward and look-back periods do not apply to claims made
against Yarway. Excluding these claims, the Company believes it
can make a more reliable estimate of pending and future claims
beyond seven years. The Company believes valuation of pending
claims and future claims to be filed over the next fifteen years
produces a reasonable estimate of its asbestos liability, which it
records in the unaudited consolidated financial statements on an
undiscounted basis.

The Company's estimate of asbestos related insurance recoveries
represents estimated amounts due to the Company for previously
paid and settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating
to its estimated liability for pending and future claims. In
determining the amount of insurance recoverable, the Company
considers a number of factors, including available insurance,
allocation methodologies, and the solvency and creditworthiness of
insurers. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company
reached an agreement with one of its primary insurance carriers
for asbestos related claims. Under the terms of the settlement,
the Company agreed with the insurance carrier to accept a lump sum
cash payment of $97 million in respect of certain policies, and
has reached a coverage-in-place agreement with the insurance
carrier with respect to certain claims. Upon receipt of the
payments from the insurance carrier in the first quarter of fiscal
2013, the Company terminated a cost-sharing agreement that it had
entered into with an entity that it had acquired a business from
several decades ago and as a result, has access to all of the
insurance policies and is responsible for all liabilities arising
from asbestos claims made against the subsidiary that was
acquired.

As of March 29, 2013, the Company's estimated net liability of
$203 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and
related defense costs of $355 million, and separately as an asset
for insurance recoveries of $152 million. The Company believes
that its asbestos related liabilities and insurance related assets
as of March 29, 2013 are appropriate. Similarly, as of September
28, 2012, the Company's estimated net liability of $155 million
was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
of $401 million, and separately as an asset for insurance
recoveries of $246 million.

The net liabilities reflected in the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheet represent the Company's best estimates of probable
losses for the look-forward periods described above. It is
reasonably possible that losses will be incurred for claims made
subsequent to such look-forward periods. However, due to the
inherent uncertainty and lack of reliable trend data in predicting
losses beyond 2027, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate
the amount of losses beyond such date. With respect to claims made
against Yarway, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate
losses beyond what it has accrued because it is uncertain what the
impact of Yarway's reorganization plan under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code will be on the Company. However, the Company does
not expect the impact to be materially adverse to its financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the
Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently
available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions.
Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new
claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of
claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers,
amount of insurance and the solvency risk with respect to the
Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely
linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption will
impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or
assumption predominately influences the determination of the
Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related
assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's
liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal
tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among
subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those
recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary
significantly from actual results.

Tyco International Ltd is a Switzerland-based holding company of
Tyco Group. The Tyco Group (the Group) is a diversifies, global
provider of diversified products ranging from electronic security
and alarm monitoring to fire-fighting equipment and breathing
apparatus, water purification and flow control solutions. The
Company diversifies its activities into three segments: Tyco
Security Solutions; Tyco Fire Protection and Tyco Flow Control.
The Tyco Security Solutions segment designs, sells, installs,
services and monitors electronic security systems, as well as
designs, manufactures and sells security products. The Tyco Fire
Protection segment designs, manufactures, sells, installs and
services fire detection and fire suppression systems, among
others. The Tyco Flow Control segment designs, manufactures, sells
and services valves, pipes, fittings, automation and controls,
valve automation and heat tracing products for various industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Continues to Defend Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc., continues to defend lawsuits alleging
exposure to asbestos-containing products, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
silica or to asbestos containing materials. The Company currently
has 72 pending silica cases and 10 pending asbestos cases. To
date, 1,394 silica cases and 33 asbestos cases have been
dismissed. Four new asbestos cases were filed in the first quarter
of 2013, and one was dismissed. Most of these claims do not
provide adequate information to assess their merits, the
likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude
of such liability, if any. Additional claims of this nature may be
made against the Company or its subsidiaries. At this time
management anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability,
if any, and the cost of defending such claims, will not have a
material effect on its financial position or results of
operations.

The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to
date. We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed
in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do
not require identifying the amount of the claimed damage. The
aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these cases
since inception was approximately $0.2 million, the majority of
which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc pursuant to the terms of
certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's
initial public offering in 1992. Of the 10 pending asbestos cases,
all allege liability based on products sold largely or entirely
prior to the initial public offering, and for which the Company is
therefore entitled to indemnification pursuant to such agreements.
Our experience has been that the Company is not liable to
plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not
expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits.

Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based
company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a range of
specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral products
and supporting systems and services. The Company has two segments:
Specialty Minerals and Refractories. The Specialty Minerals
segment produces and sells the synthetic mineral product
precipitated calcium carbonate and processed mineral product
quicklime, and mines mineral ores then processes and sells natural
mineral products, primarily limestone and talc. This segment's
products are used in the paper, building materials, paint and
coatings, glass, ceramic, polymer, food, automotive and
pharmaceutical industries. The Refractories segment produces and
markets monolithic and shaped refractory materials and specialty
products, services and application and measurement equipment, and
calcium metal and metallurgical wire products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $69.7MM Litigation Reserve
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc., recorded other a $69.7 million litigation
reserve with respect to potential liability arising from its
asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

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

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
and silica-related lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither the
Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the
materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the
lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the
Products, if any, were enclosed within the subject Products.

The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company. The Company has also pursued litigation
against certain insurers or indemnitors where necessary. The
latest of these actions, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9,
2010, in the Eighth Judicial District, Adams County, Illinois, as
case number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case"). In the lawsuit, the
Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess
insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to
the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs
associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the
Company. In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with
one of the excess insurer defendants for approximately the amount
of such defendant's policy that was subject to the lawsuit. A
related action was brought by certain insurance companies against
the Company and defendants in the Adams County Case. In this
lawsuit, Continental Casualty Company, et al. v. Gardner Denver,
Inc., et al., filed on October 31, 2012, in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, County Department Chancery Division, as
case number 12CH40019 (the "Cook County Case"), the plaintiff
insurance companies are seeking a declaration of the parties'
respective rights and obligations under certain insurance
policies. Substantially all of the Company's expected future
recoveries of the costs associated with the asbestos-related
lawsuits are the subject of the Adams County Case and the Cook
County Case.

The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have
a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's
anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the
risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure
from the Products described above; the Company's experience that
the vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease
attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or
relating to the Products or for which the Company otherwise bears
responsibility; various potential defenses available to the
Company with respect to such matters; and the Company's prior
disposition of comparable matters. However, inherent uncertainties
of litigation and future developments, including, without
limitation, potential insolvencies of insurance companies or other
defendants, an adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or
other inability to collect from the Company's historical insurers
or indemnitors, could cause a different outcome. While the outcome
of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently
known facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes
that the amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and
that the liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related
personal injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect
on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations or liquidity. Other Liabilities within the Consolidated
Balance Sheet includes a $69.7 million litigation reserve as of
March 31, 2013 with respect to potential liability arising from
the Company's asbestos-related litigation. In the event of
unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate
resolution of these matters may be material to the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operation or
liquidity. However, at this time, based on presently available
information, the Company views this possibility as remote.

The Company has been identified as a potentially responsible party
("PRP") with respect to several sites designated for cleanup under
U.S. federal "Superfund" or similar state laws that impose
liability for cleanup of certain waste sites and for related
natural resource damages. Persons potentially liable for such
costs and damages generally include the site owner or operator and
persons that disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous
substances found at those sites. Although these laws impose joint
and several liability, in application, the PRPs typically allocate
the investigation and cleanup costs based upon the volume of waste
contributed by each PRP. Based on currently available information,
the Company was only a small contributor to these waste sites, and
the Company has, or is attempting to negotiate, de minimis
settlements for their cleanup. The cleanup of the remaining sites
is substantially complete and the Company's future obligations
entail a share of the sites' ongoing operating and maintenance
expense.

The Company is also addressing three on-site cleanups for which it
is the primary responsible party. Two of these cleanup sites are
in the operation and maintenance stage and the third is in the
implementation stage. Based on currently available information,
the Company does not anticipate that any of these sites will
result in material additional costs beyond those already accrued
on its balance sheet.

The Company has an accrued liability on its balance sheet to the
extent costs are known or can be reasonably estimated for its
remaining financial obligations for these matters. Based upon
consideration of currently available information, the Company does
not anticipate any material adverse effect on its results of
operations, financial condition, liquidity or competitive position
as a result of compliance with federal, state, local or foreign
environmental laws or regulations, or cleanup costs relating to
the sites discussed above. It is the Company's policy to expense
legal costs as incurred.

Gardner Denver, Inc. (Gardner Denver) designs, manufactures and
markets engineered industrial machinery and related parts and
services. The Company is a global manufacturer of engineered
compressors and vacuum products for industrial applications.
Stationary air compressors are used to pressurize gas, including
air, in excess of 50 pounds per square inch gauge and are used in
manufacturing, process applications and materials handling, and to
power air tools and equipment. Blowers and liquid ring pumps
compress gas, including air, up to 50 pounds per square inch gauge
and are often used in vacuum applications. Blowers are used in
pneumatic conveying, wastewater aeration and engineered vacuum
systems. Liquid ring pumps are sold as part of an engineered
package and are used in process applications, such as power
generation, chemical processing and oil and gas refining.


                             *********

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  * * *