---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 17, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 97

                             Headlines


ALCOA INC: Awaits Appeals Court Ruling in "Curtis" Suit
ALCON LABORATORIES: Seeks Dismissal of Drug Bottle Class Action
ALLY FINANCIAL: Wins Summary Judgment in WVCCPA Class Action
AUTHOR SOLUTIONS: Writers Sue Over Deceptive Practices
AUTOINFO INC: Defends Merger-Related Class Suit in Florida

BANK OF AMERICA: Awaits Final OK of RMBS-Related Suit Settlement
BLUE CROSS: Chiropractors Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
CHEVRON CORP: Plaintiffs Can Seek Different Judge in Fire Suit
CIGNA CORP: Escapes Class Action Over ACA Rebate Conspiracy
CPFL ENERGY: Defends Suit by Caxias do Sul Public Attorney

DIAMOND FOODS: "Pay to Play" Theory Won't Bar Class Action
FANNIE MAE: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $153 Million
GPT: Settles Investor Class Action for AU$75 Million
LOS ANGELES LAKERS: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Court Ruling
MARATHON OIL: 2 Law Firms File Class Action Over Refinery Fire

MARCELLUS SHALE: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violations
MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Class Suits in Canada Remain Pending
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Status Sought for O'Bannon Suit
NEW YORK: Stop-and-Frisk Policy Systemic Racial Profiling
PET VALU: Cassel Brock Discusses Ontario Court of Appeal Ruling

PIONEER FOODS: Bread Distributors Seek Class Action Over Cartel
STAR SCIENTIFIC: Robins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
SHUTTLE EXPRESS: Airport Shuttle Driver Must Arbitrate FLSA Claims
SONY CORP: Palo Alto to Launch Battery Price-Fixing Class Suit
TRANSNET: Faces Class Action Over Pension Funds

UNION PACIFIC: Awaits Order on Petition to Review Cert. Ruling
UNITED STATES: Media Coverage of Pigford Class Action Flawed
URS Corporation: Awaits Ruling in Hurricane Katrina-Related Suits
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Robins Geller Files Class Action in New Jersey
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Awaits Expert Report in Imbituba Port Suit

VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Awaits Final Ruling in "Mato Grosso" Suit
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Awaits for Florida AG and DOJ's Next Move
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Continues to Defend "Oliveira" Suit vs. Unit
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Defends Suit Alleging Cartel Formation
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: In Talks to Settle Serra do Mar-Related Suit

WELLS FARGO: $203MM Judgment Reinstated in Overdraft Fees Suit

* Class Action Targets Hospital Church Plans
* Minn. Appeals Court Revives Generic Drug Sale Class Action
* Policyholders Must Be Aware of Privacy Violation Exclusions


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Had $37M Litigation Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tropicana Las Vegas Hotel Facility Has Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 56,208 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Co-Defendant in 260 PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany's Units Had $541.6MM Gross LAE Reserve

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Named as Defendant in Various Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,160 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Tenneco No Adverse Impact on Financials
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Subsidiary is Defendant in 6,900 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Received 1,435 New Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rouse Properties Recorded $4.6MM ARO Estimate
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Manitowoc No Adverse Effect on Fin'ls
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Says Claims Don't Have Merit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CH Energy Had 1,166 Pending Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro $141.1M Insurance Coverage at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Recorded $1.8MM ARO Estimate
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Douglas Emmett Says 20 Properties Have Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suits v. US Auto Parts Won't Impact Financials
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Subsidiary Involved in 898 Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS Int'l. Denies Obligations to Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Gives No Assurances on Outcome of Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. $12MM Liability Reserve at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Says Claims Won't Impact Fin'ls
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Defends Against 1,125 PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Inc. Involved in 100 Pending PI Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Expects Additional Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Discontinues Asbestos-Related Underwriting
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Had $743MM Reserve at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Order Extinguished Claims v. Global Power
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Maintains Insurance for Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Had 18,090 Pending PI Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cases v. Watts Water Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Had $0.6MM Conditional ARO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Indus Named as Defendant in Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Subsidiaries Had 103 Pending Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had $413.7MM Gross Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corporation Subsidiary Had $62MM Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Recorded $1.8MM ARO Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Subsidiary Had 1,183 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,227 Claims v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Unit at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Seeks Dismissal From Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 66,400 Claims Against Quigley, AO et al.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rowan Companies Facing 18 Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Purchased $2.5BB Reinsurance Contract
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Covidien's Subsidiary Had 11,600 Pending Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Recorded $14.6MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Recorded $3MM Fibro Settlement Expenses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Subsidiary Has $3,300 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Had $2.03BB Net Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $583MM Liability at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reported $7MM for Conditional ARO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Int'l. Reported 1,081 Unresolved Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Had 780 Active Cases as of March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 51,500 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Faces Lawsuits Filed by 100 Plaintiffs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Named as Defendant in PI Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 46,070 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 337 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Energy Had $35.1MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Allstate Corp. Had $1BB Reserves at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Had $60.7MM Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Named as Defendant in Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Is Defendant in PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ametek Is Indemnified Against Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Ed Has $10MM Accrued Liability at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Circor Int'l. Subsidiaries Face Liability Claims


                             *********


ALCOA INC: Awaits Appeals Court Ruling in "Curtis" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. is awaiting an appellate court decision in the class
action lawsuit titled Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., according to the
Company's April 18, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No.
3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by
requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health
insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for
certain medical procedures and prescription drugs.  Plaintiffs
alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated
their rights to vested health care benefits.  The Plaintiffs
additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.  The Plaintiffs sought
injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and
attorneys' fees. Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs'
claims as a class action.  During the fourth quarter of 2007,
following briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation
of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial,
certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs'
breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury
demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a
trial date of September 17, 2008.

In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009
and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to September 22, 2009.
In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an
advisory jury at trial.  Trial in the matter was held over eight
days commencing September 22, 2009, and ending on October 1, 2009,
in federal court in Knoxville, TN, before the Honorable Thomas
Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge.  At the conclusion of
evidence, the court set a post-hearing briefing schedule for
submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by
the parties and for replies to the same.  Post trial briefing was
submitted on December 4, 2009.

On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons
stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  On March
23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or
amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other things,
a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject
to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to
2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are
subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs
must pay.  Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for
award of attorney's fees and expenses.  Alcoa filed its opposition
to both motions on April 11, 2011.  On
June 11, 2012, the court issued its memorandum and order denying
plaintiffs' motion for clarification and/or amendment to the
original judgment order.

On July 6, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's March 9, 2011 judgment.  On July 12, 2012, the trial court
stayed Alcoa's motion for assessment of costs pending resolution
of plaintiffs' appeal.  The appeal is docketed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as case number 12-
5801.  On July 26, 2012, the appellate court issued a briefing
schedule requiring briefing to be complete by the end of October
2012.  On August 29, 2012, the trial court dismissed plaintiffs'
motion for attorneys' fees without prejudice to refiling the
motion following the resolution of the appeal at the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  Briefing on the appeal is complete and oral
argument was held on March 6, 2013.  A decision has not yet been
rendered by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

New York-based Alcoa Inc. produces and manages primary aluminum,
fabricated aluminum, and alumina combined, through its active and
growing participation in all major aspects of the industry:
technology, mining, refining, smelting, fabricating, and
recycling.


ALCON LABORATORIES: Seeks Dismissal of Drug Bottle Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that Alcon Laboratories
Inc. on May 6 asked an Illinois federal judge to dismiss a
putative class action accusing it of forcing consumers to buy
bottles containing more prescription medicine than needed for
effective treatment, arguing the plaintiff has no legitimate claim
under state law for the federally regulated drugs.  According to
the eye treatment specialist, plaintiff Carmen Fields' claim that
Alcon only sells anti-inflammatory Nevanac or antibacterials
Moxeza and Vigamox in containers with substantially more of the
drugs than the typical patient ever uses.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Wins Summary Judgment in WVCCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that Ally
Financial and West Asset Management have won summary judgment in a
class action lawsuit brought by the wife of a Boone County man who
shot himself after a standoff with police.

On May 2, U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin granted both
defendants' motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit that alleged
they were continuing to contact Sadie White over the debts of her
and her late husband, Jessie, even after they were notified she
was represented by counsel.  The lawsuit alleged violations of the
West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act.

"It bears noting that the WVCCPA -- and particularly, the claim at
issue -- involves attempts from the defendants to collect on a
debt owed," Judge Goodwin wrote.

"The language in Sec. 46A-2-128(e) reflects this by stating '[n]o
debt collector shall use unfair or unconscionable means to collect
or attempt to collect any claim.' W. Va. Code Sec. 46A-2-128(e)
(emphasis added).

"The plaintiff's representation by an attorney for her personal
bankruptcy has no bearing on whether she appears to be represented
by an attorney with respect to the debt at issue.

"Even if Ally and West both knew that the plaintiff was
represented by counsel for her personal bankruptcy, neither
defendant would violate Sec. 46A-2-128(e) by communicating with
her if it did not appear that she was represented by an attorney
with respect to the debt at issue."

Ms. White was 66 years old on Sept. 3, 2008, when family members
urged the Sheriff's Department to check on him at his residence.
What resulted was a standoff, and Ms. White and deputies traded
shots at each other during the evening.

The deputies fired tear gas into the building in which White was
barricaded, and White apparently shot himself.

In 2010, Sadie White filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and
Jessie White's estate against Ally Financial, Boone Memorial
Hospital, West Asset Management and Cabin Creek Health Systems
over their debt collection practices.

She was represented by Brett Justice Preston and Dan R. Snuffer of
Preston & Salango in Charleston and L. Lee Javins II of Bucci,
Bailey & Javins in Charleston.

The lawsuit sought $4,400 per statutory violation, as well as
punitive damages.

West Asset Management removed the case to federal court in 2012,
sometime after the plaintiffs amended their complaint to make
class action allegations.

The proposed class were all persons from whom the defendants
attempted to collect, or actually collected, debts owed by West
Virginia decedents outside of the probate process, at any time
from within the applicable limitations period through the time of
class certification.  That included 9,960 accounts serviced by
West that would have been included in the class.  The amount in
controversy, multiplying the high end of the penalty for a
violation by the amount of accounts, was more than $44 million
against West, the company wrote.

"I am mindful of the fact that the WVCCPA should be liberally
construed, as the purpose of the statute is to protect consumers
from unfair, illegal and deceptive conduct," Judge Goodwin wrote.

"In the instant matter, however, viewing the underlying facts and
inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, I find
that she has not offered sufficient admissible 'evidence from
which a reasonable juror could return a verdict in [her] favor."

Representing West Asset Management were Albert C. Dunn, Jr. of
Allen, Kopet & Associates; and James K. Schultz and Allison L.
Cannizaro of Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel.


AUTHOR SOLUTIONS: Writers Sue Over Deceptive Practices
------------------------------------------------------
Suw Charman-Anderson, writing for Forbes, reports that three
authors have begun a federal class action suit against Penguin and
its self-publishing services provider, Author Solutions, seeking
damages of more than $5 million.  Says Publishers Weekly:

"The suit, which seeks class action status, alleges that Author
Solutions misrepresents itself, luring authors in with claims that
its books can compete with 'traditional publishers,' offering
'greater speed, higher royalties, and more control for its
authors.'  The company then profits from 'fraudulent' practices,
the complaint alleges, including 'delaying publication, publishing
manuscripts with errors to generate fees, and selling worthless
services, or services that fail to accomplish what they promise.'"
The suit also alleges that Author Solutions fails to pay its
authors the royalties they are due.

Publishers Weekly reports that the suit has been filed in the
Southern District of New York and will be heard by Judge Denise
Cote, who is current hearing the ebook price-fixing case.

The full complaint, filed by Kelvin James, Jodi Foster (not that
Jodie Foster) and Terry Hardy can be read on Victoria Strauss'
site. Strauss, who has covered Author Solutions in depth for the
Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America's Writer Beware blog,
says that "Allegations include breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, various violations of the California Business and
Professional Code, and violation of New York General Business
Law."

The suit could expand rapidly as the authors' lawyers, Giskan,
Solotaroff, Anderson & Stewart are asking other writers who have
"self-published with Author Solutions or any of its brands and
have been the victim of deceptive practices" to come forward.

When Giskan et al say "any of its brands", it turns out that there
are a lot to choose from.  David Gaughran points out that Author
Solutions has "dozens of self-publishing brands including
iUniverse, AuthorHouse, Xlibris, Trafford and Palibrio as well as
media companies FuseFrame, PitchFest, Author Learning Center and
BookTango."

Author Solutions also operates Archway, a self-publishing imprint
that is actually owned by Simon & Schuster.  Furthermore,
Penguin's Indian self-publishing brand, Partridge, is another
imprint run by Author Solutions.  Says Mr. Gaughran:

Author Solutions' modus operandi is pretty despicable, and they've
been badgering, swindling and confusing writers out of money --
and lots of it -- for years.

"The deceit starts with the web of brands they've established.
With so many imprints, Author Solutions has tricked authors into
thinking they have dozens of choices.  In reality, however, the
parent company is just slapping up half a dozen different logos,
renaming packages, and selling the same grossly overpriced
services to all of their customers no matter which brand ends up
on the cover."

"On top of that, AS has been accused of launching supposedly
unbiased, purely informational comparison websites to help
customers pick the self-publishing company that's right for them,
except all clicks lead back to Author Solutions brands."

The Alliance of Independent Authors has said that it welcomes the
suit:

"[Author Solutions'] true business is not publishing, the
complaint stresses, but selling services to authors.  And not
doing it well.  As we point out in our recent book, ASI is a
company about whom we regularly receive the most complaints from a
wide variety of authors.

The suit comes just in time for Andrew Phillips to take over as
CEO of Author Solutions, succeeding Kevin Weiss.  The Bookseller
says that Phillips "has worked for the Penguin Group for over 10
years, currently as president of Delhi-based Penguin
International".  It goes on to report:

Mr. Phillips commented: "To my mind, self-publishing is the
fastest-growing and most dynamic area of the publishing economy.
The launch of Partridge, the first Penguin Author Solutions
partnership in India, gave me firsthand experience of the huge
opportunities that exist both in developed and emerging markets.
I am greatly looking forward to working with the talented Author
Solutions team, and all our publishing partners, at this exciting
time."

Pearson acquired Author Solutions in July 2012.  Partridge,
Penguin's new self-publishing imprint in India, launched last
February.

It's hard to believe that Penguin didn't know that Author
Solutions was seen as a den of scamsters before they acquired it
-- Emily Suess's chronological catalogue of complaints goes back
to August 2011, a year before Penguin's acquisition.  Simon &
Schuster has even less of an excuse as they partnered with Author
Solutions in November 2012, by which time AS were notorious in
self-publishing circles.

These are serious allegations and it seems very likely that this
class suit will grow as more authors hear about it.  In a
'prepared statement' quoted by Publishers Weekly, Author Solutions
says that it has worked with 170,000 authors, a large pool from
which to draw more aggrieved writers. But with the SFWA one of the
most vocal critics of Author Solutions, this can't just be written
off as the whinings of a few disgruntled amateurs.

Penguin should have taken these problems seriously a year ago and
cleaned up Author Solutions' house, but having let things slide
they may now find some very angry chickens coming home to roost.


AUTOINFO INC: Defends Merger-Related Class Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
AutoInfo, Inc. is defending a merger-related class action lawsuit
in Florida, according to the Company's April 17, 2013, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

A purported class action on behalf of the Company's stockholders
was filed on April 12, 2013, in the Circuit Court of the 15th
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No:
50 2013 CA 006332, captioned Dennis H. Diesterhaupt, Individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, as Plaintiff, v.
Harry M. Wachtel, Peter C. Einselen, Mark K. Patterson, Mark
Weiss, Thomas C. Robertson, AutoInfo, Inc., AutoInfo Holdings,
LLC, AutoInfo Acquisition Corp., Comvest Investment Partners IV,
L.P., Comvest Investment Partners Holdings, LLC and Comvest
Partners, Defendants (the "Action").  The Company has not received
service of process in the Action.

The Action relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement"), dated as of February 28, 2013, by and among
AutoInfo, Inc. (the "Company"), AutoInfo Holdings, LLC., a
Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), and AutoInfo
Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub
shall be merged with and into the Company, and the separate
corporate existence of Merger Sub shall thereupon cease, and the
Company shall continue as the surviving corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Proposed Merger Transaction").

The Action alleges that the Directors of the Company (the
"Directors") breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
stockholders of the Company.  It further alleges that Comvest
Partners, Comvest Investment Partners Holdings, LLC, Comvest
Investment Partners IV, L.P., AutoInfo Holdings, LLC and AutoInfo
Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the Directors in their breach
of their fiduciary duties to the Stockholders of the Company.

The Action seeks relief: (i) declaring the Action to be a class
action and certifying Plaintiff as the Class representative and
his counsel as Class counsel; (ii) enjoining, preliminarily and
permanently, the Proposed Merger Transaction; (iii) in the event
that the Proposed Merger Transaction is consummated prior to the
entry of the Court's final judgment, rescinding it or awarding
Plaintiff and the Class recissory damages; (iv) directing that
Defendants account to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class
for all damages caused by them and account for all profits and any
special benefits obtained as a result of their breach of their
fiduciary duties; (v) awarding Plaintiff the costs of the Action,
including reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses of
Plaintiff's attorneys and experts; and (v) granting Plaintiff and
the other members of the Class such further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

Through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, AutoInfo, Inc. --
http://www.suntecktransportgroup.com/-- a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, is a non-asset based
transportation services company, providing transportation capacity
and related transportation services to shippers throughout the
United States and Canada.  The Company's services include ground
transportation coast to coast, local pick-up and delivery, air
freight and ocean freight.


BANK OF AMERICA: Awaits Final OK of RMBS-Related Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of class action lawsuits over residential mortgage-
backed securities, according to the Company's April 17, 2013, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Litigation expense was $881 million in the first quarter of 2013,
compared to $916 million in the fourth quarter of 2012 and $793
million in the first quarter of 2012.  Included in litigation
expense for the first quarter of 2013 is a class action settlement
in principle between certain Countrywide Financial Corporation
entities and various institutional and individual plaintiffs
(collectively, the Luther, Maine State, and Western Teamsters
plaintiffs) concerning residential mortgage-backed securities
(RMBS) issued by subsidiaries of Countrywide.

The first of these class action lawsuits was filed in November
2007, and they collectively concern the disclosures that were made
in connection with 429 Countrywide RMBS offerings issued from 2005
through 2007.  The original principal balance of the RMBS involved
in these cases exceeded $350 billion, and the unpaid principal
balance of these securities as of February 2013 (excluding
securities that are the subject of individual or threatened
actions) was $95 billion.

Under the settlement in principle, the lawsuits will be dismissed
in their entirety, and defendants will receive a global release in
exchange for a settlement payment of $500 million.  The settlement
will not affect investors' rights to receive trust distributions
upon final court approval of the $8.5 billion settlement with Bank
of New York Mellon as trustee.

The settlement is subject to final court approval.  If approved,
and all class members who have not already filed or threatened
individual lawsuits participate, the settlement is expected to
resolve approximately 80 percent of the unpaid principal balance
of the Countrywide-issued RMBS as to which securities disclosure
claims have been filed or threatened, and approximately 70 percent
of the unpaid principal balance of all RMBS as to which securities
disclosure claims have been filed or threatened as to all Bank of
America-related entities.  The amounts to be paid in the
settlement are covered by a combination of pre-existing litigation
reserves and additional litigation reserves recorded in the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation
-- http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and
a financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BLUE CROSS: Chiropractors Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Association of Chiropractors on May 6 disclosed that on
April 18, 2013, in an historic victory for the chiropractic
profession, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that MAC lawsuits
against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) and Blue Care
Network (BCN) could move forward as class-action lawsuits, meaning
that damages could be awarded.

Michigan Association of Chiropractors (MAC) President Dr. Dennis
Whitford was elated with the victory, which he called a
"tremendous win and important step on the road to overall victory"
in the lawsuits.

                            Background

On Feb. 12, 2013, the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) heard oral
arguments in the MAC's lawsuits against Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan and Blue Care Network.  These lawsuits stemmed from the
fact that Blue Cross and Blue Care Network have engaged in conduct
that the MAC believes has been discriminatory toward doctors of
chiropractic and our patients.

In April 2011, Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Paula
Manderfield, in a very favorable ruling, granted the MAC's motion
for "class certification" in these legal actions.  Her decision
meant that the cases would move forward as class action lawsuits.
BCBSM and BCN appealed the case to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

                           What's Next?

BCBSM and BCN could appeal the COA ruling to the Michigan Supreme
Court.  While we wait to see that they will do next, our attorneys
continue to pursue all possible avenues to resolve these serious
concerns.

More information regarding chiropractic and the MAC can be
obtained online at www.chiromi.com or by calling (800) 949-1401.


CHEVRON CORP: Plaintiffs Can Seek Different Judge in Fire Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean McLernon, writing for Law360, reports that thousands of
California residents suing Chevron Corp. over hazardous chemicals
allegedly released during an August refinery explosion can seek a
different judge to preside over their putative class action, a
state appeals court said on May 6, overturning a lower court's
rejection of their challenge as untimely.


CIGNA CORP: Escapes Class Action Over ACA Rebate Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that Cigna Corp. and a
medical cost management firm on May 7 escaped a putative class
action accusing them of a conspiracy to help Cigna avoid paying
Affordable Care Act-mandated rebates to patients, after a Florida
federal judge ruled the plaintiff didn't have standing to bring
the suit.

According to U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas,
plaintiff MRI Scan Center LLC had no standing to bring its claims
against Cigna and MedSolutions Inc. because it wasn't a
beneficiary under the disputed insurance plans and hadn't been
assigned broad.


CPFL ENERGY: Defends Suit by Caxias do Sul Public Attorney
----------------------------------------------------------
CPFL Energy Incorporated is defending a class action lawsuit
proposed by the federal public attorney's office of the
Municipality of Caxias do Sul, according to the Company's
April 17, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company is subject to legal proceedings relating to the
authorization of certain of its Hydroelectric Power Plants,
including a class action proposed by the federal public attorney's
office of the Municipality of Caxias do Sul challenging the
validity of the environmental licensing of the Rio das Antas
Hydroelectric Complex, and requesting injunctive relief against
the construction of these plants.  The federal public attorney's
injunction request was denied in the lower courts and the district
attorney moved against the denial, requesting a new injunction
from the higher courts.  The higher courts denied the injunction
relief.  The claim was deemed groundless.  An appeal from the
federal public attorney's office still awaits final decision from
the higher courts.  The Company believes that the possibility of a
loss is remote.

Sao Paulo, Brazil-based CPFL Energy Incorporated --
http://www.cpfl.com.br/-- is a corporation (sociedade por acoes)
incorporated in Brazil with the legal name CPFL Energia S.A.  The
Company is a holding company that, through its subsidiaries,
distributes, generates and commercializes electricity in Brazil.


DIAMOND FOODS: "Pay to Play" Theory Won't Bar Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
has certified a shareholder class action against Diamond Foods
Inc., despite its claims of a "pay to play" arrangement behind the
selection of two law firms for lead counsel by Mississippi's state
pension fund.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco certified the
shareholder class action on May 6 led by the Mississippi Public
Employees' Retirement System (MissPERS).  The lawsuit claims the
food company underestimated the price it would pay walnut growers
and improperly accounted for sales costs.

The judge, though, said he has been concerned MissPERS was a
"figurehead" and that Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, who
until recently had authority to pick counsel that represent state
agencies, "used this case as a reward for campaign contributions."

Diamond had pointed to campaign contributions benefiting Mr. Hood
made by the plaintiffs' law firms Chitwood Harley Harnes and Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein as evidence of "an apparent 'pay to
play' arrangement" and a reason why MissPERS was not an adequate
class representative.

John Harnes, a lawyer with Chitwood, and Richard Heimann, a lawyer
with Lieff Cabraser, did not respond to requests for comment; nor
did a spokeswoman for Mr. Hood.

Diamond counsel Dean Kristy of Fenwick & West did not respond to a
request for comment.

Pay-to-play allegations have long dogged lawyers who file
securities class actions.  Critics have raised questions about the
financial contributions these lawyers give to campaigns of
officials who make decisions for public retirement systems.

Those pension funds became frequent plaintiffs in securities class
actions after the passage of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act (PSLRA) of 1995, which encouraged the appointment of
the investor with the most losses as lead plaintiff.

A study published in the New York University Law Review in 2010
reported that in 74 lawsuits from 2002 to 2006 in which at least
one elected official was on the plaintiff institutional
shareholder's board, a law firm connected to the case made a
campaign contribution 55 percent of the time.

In the Diamond case, the defendant pointed to campaign finance
records that showed from 2007 to 2012, Chitwood contributed
$31,250 to Mr. Hood's campaign, and Lieff Cabraser $32,000.

                       Contributions Disclosed

The two firms, which were among 13 that Mr. Hood retained to
monitor Mississippi's state pension investment portfolio for
possible class actions, also contributed $140,150 to the
Democratic Attorneys General Association from 2007 to 2011.

The association in turn contributed $1.4 million to Mr. Hood,
Diamond said.

Until last year, Mr. Hood had unilateral discretion to pick
counsel for Mississippi agencies.  The system changed with a new
state statute aimed at limiting the attorney general from awarding
contingency fee contracts to campaign contributors.

In his decision, Judge Alsup recounted how he has twice made
inquiries about the two law firms' campaign contributions, first
when appointing the lead plaintiff and then in certifying the
class.

The judge last month required Chitwood and Lieff Cabraser to
detail contributions they made directly or indirectly since 2012
to the Democratic Attorneys General Association.

His decision on May 6 said that Lieff Cabraser has made two
contributions to the association for $15,000.

Speaking broadly, Judge Alsup said, it was important that
investors know that plaintiffs' lawyers in class actions did not
get "the job as a reward for political campaign contributions."

"The PSLRA was not intended as a vehicle for keeping elected
officials in office by allowing them to extract campaign
contributions from lawyers selected to serve as class counsel,"
Judge Alsup said.

But Judge Alsup said he was satisfied that Chitwood and Lieff
Cabraser would "adequately and vigorously" represent Diamond
investors.  The defendant had not put forward a record sufficient
"to torpedo this action based on a pay-to-play theory," he wrote.

The judge separately rejected other arguments by Diamond's lawyers
against certification, including that the plaintiff couldn't
establish an efficient market for the company's stock.

The case is In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Securities Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, No. 11-05386.

For Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System: John Harnes,
Gregory Keller, Robert Killorin, Meryl Roper and Ze'eva Kushner
Banks, Chitwood Harley Harnes; and Richard Heimann and Joy Kruse,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.

For Diamond Foods Inc: Dean Kristy and Susan Muck, Fenwick & West.


FANNIE MAE: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $153 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rapoport and Nick Timiraos, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that Fannie Mae and its former auditor KPMG LLP
agreed on May 7 to pay $153 million to settle a long-running
class-action lawsuit in which Ohio public pension funds and other
shareholders accused the company of issuing false and misleading
financial reports in the early 2000s.

The settlement was reached through mediation, according to
documents filed in federal court in Washington, and is subject to
court approval.  Fannie and KPMG will each pay half of the $153
million.

"We are satisfied with the outcome and pleased to put the matter
behind us," said Bradley Lerman, general counsel at Fannie Mae.

Seth Oster, a KPMG spokesman, said that it was in the firm's best
interest to "avoid the significant additional costs and the
distraction and inherent uncertainty of protracted litigation."  A
person familiar with the situation said KPMG has already accounted
for the settlement.

The litigation began in 2004 after federal regulators accused
Fannie of violating accounting rules, partly in a bid to boost
executives' bonuses, and ordered the company to restate four
years' worth of earnings.  The regulators said Fannie had
incorrectly applied the rules relating to derivatives contracts to
allow it to spread out losses over a long period of time instead
of recognizing them upfront.

The class-action suit had also named Franklin Raines, Fannie's
former chief executive, as a defendant, but last year U.S.
District Judge Richard Leon dismissed the suit against Mr. Raines
and two other senior executives.  The judge said the plaintiffs
hadn't produced any direct evidence showing that executives
intended to deceive investors or even that executives knew their
statements were false.

The Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers
Retirement System of Ohio were the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, who announced the settlement,
said in a statement that he was "pleased to see this litigation
finally resolved" and that it "brings closure to this matter."

The settlement "represents a reasonable agreement to end this
long-standing dispute," said Alfred Pollard, general counsel for
the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates Fannie.

Fannie Mae sued KPMG in 2006 alleging negligence and breach of
contract. The two sides reached a settlement in 2010; details of
that settlement weren't disclosed.

Fannie and its smaller sibling, Freddie Mac, have spent tens of
millions of dollars beating back securities class-action lawsuits
on behalf of former executives as a result of the accounting
scandals, even after the companies were seized by the U.S.
government through a legal process known as conservatorship in
2008.


GPT: Settles Investor Class Action for AU$75 Million
----------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Cummins, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that thousands of long suffering GPT investors will share in as
much as AU$75 million after the company settled a class action,
which center on the allegation that GPT engaged in misleading and
deceptive conduct and breached its continuous disclosure
obligations in its earnings outlook for the 2008 year.

The class action was settled on May 8 between the company and law
firm representing the investors, Slater & Gordon.

The lawyers negotiated the settlement on behalf of more than 2300
class action group members in a deal that followed a four-week
trial in the Federal Court of Australia.

Initially, the law firm commenced proceedings against GPT in the
Federal Court in December 2011.  The claim, which was initially
valued at about AUD100 million, was brought on behalf of those
investors who purchased shares in GPT between February 27, 2008
and July 6, 2008.

It's the second such action undertaken in the real estate
investment trust sector after disgruntled shareholders took on the
former Centro Properties (now Federation Centres) and the
accountants Pricewaterhousecoopers over alleged inadequate
disclosure requirements in the midst of the global financial
crisis.

In both instances the action centered on the period between late
2007 and 2008, when the world was being hit by the sub prime
crisis, which then morphed into the GFC.

In the ensuing couple of years, the REIT sector was particularly
had hit with many of the trusts seeing their share prices more
than halved as the dire straits of their lending/debt levels
became obvious.

The GPT class action followed an announcement from the group on
July 7, 2008, in which the company downgraded its forecast
earnings and distributions for the 2008 financial year by almost
30 per cent.

In response, GPT's share price fell dramatically over the
following days.

Ben Phi, class action lawyer at Slater & Gordon, said it was
alleged that when GPT provided its distribution guidance on
February 27, 2008 it was aware that it faced material and
substantial risks that it failed to disclose.

"Compared to previous years, a much greater proportion of GPT's
forecast income was to be derived from large asset sales.  These
sales would need to be completed in the difficult market
conditions prevailing at that time," Mr. Phi said.

"It was further alleged that these risks substantially
materialized over the subsequent months.  On this basis, the
applicant alleged that GPT engaged in misleading conduct when, at
its AGM on May 1, 2008, it confirmed its guidance and made
unqualified representations concerning its forecast underlying
earnings."

GPT has maintained its position that it complied with disclosure
requirements in 2008 and said on May 8 that the settlement will
mean that the litigation is now resolved, including any possible
appeals.

In a short statement, GPT's management said: "As stated
previously, claims of this nature were insured.  GPT's share of
total costs associated with the case and the settlement is not
material, and has been fully provided for in previous years."

According to Property Observer, the class action was filed in
December 2011 with a four-week trial taking place in the Victorian
Federal Court in March with former GPT boss Nic Lyons among those
giving evidence.

It was one of a number of high-profile property disputes
highlighted by Property Observer in January.

The dispute relates to a July 7, 2008 statement from GPT to the
ASX in which GPT downgraded its forecast earnings for the 2008
calendar year by 27%, and its distributions per security (DPS) by
30%, Property Observer discloses.

Six months prior GPT had released its results for the 2007
calendar year and stated that its earnings would be "flat" (about
AUD600 million) for 2008.

Investors claimed that GPT "engaged in misleading or deceptive
conduct and breaches of continuous disclosure obligations in
relation to and following the release of its 2007 Full Year
Statutory Accounts".


LOS ANGELES LAKERS: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Jennifer A. Riley, Esq., at
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, report that on April 18, 2013, Judge George H.
Wu of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed potentially costly class action claims
against the Los Angeles Lakers in Emanuel v. Los Angeles Lakers,
Case No. CV-12-9936-GW (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2013), at the pleading
stage.

In Emanuel, Judge Wu closely evaluated plaintiff's class claims
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") at the outset
of litigation and, applying a common sense approach, found them
insufficient to warrant discovery.

Seyfarth Shaw previously reported other successful attempts to
defeat class claims at the pleading stage.  Although not a
workplace class action, Emanuel demonstrates that pleading stage
attacks are tactics that employers should keep in their arsenals
for use in appropriate cases.

                        Factual Background

Plaintiff David Emanuel filed a putative class action against the
Los Angeles Lakers claiming that the team violated the TCPA by
sending him and others unsolicited text messages.

During a Lakers game on October 13, 2012, the team displayed the
following message at the Staples Center: "TEXT your message to
525377."  After seeing the message, Plaintiff sent a text message:
"I love you Facey. Happy Date Night" to the Lakers "for the sole
purpose of having Defendant put a personal message on the
scoreboard."

Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff allegedly received an "unsolicited
text message" from the same number: "Thnx! Txt as many times as u
like. Not all msgs go on screen. Txt ALERTS for Lakers News alerts
Msg&Data Rates May Apply. Txt STOP to quit. Txt INFO for info."

Plaintiff claimed that the Lakers used an automatic telephone
dialing system to generate the text and did so "to attempt to
solicit business" from Plaintiff. Defendant moved to dismiss and,
in the alternative, for summary judgment.

                       The Court's Opinion

The Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice
finding that the challenged message was not actionable under the
TCPA.   To state a claim under the TCPA, plaintiff must allege
that (1) defendant called a cellular telephone number, (2) using
an automatic telephone dialing system, (3) without the recipient's
prior express consent.  Penalties for certain TCPA violations
begin at $500 and can be tripled to $1,500 for each unsolicited
text message.

Applying a "common sense" reading of the TCPA, the Court found
that, by sending his original message, Plaintiff "expressly
consented" to receiving a confirmatory text message from the
Lakers.

The Court noted that, indeed, when Plaintiff sought to display his
love for "Facey" on the Staples Center jumbotron via text, "it is
difficult to imagine how he could have been certain that the
Lakers received his message without a confirmative response."

Further, while the impact of Defendant's message is not crucial
for a TCPA analysis, the Court noted that, by informing Plaintiff
that "not all msgs go on screen," Defendant's message "provided
Plaintiff with information relevant to his request."

                           Implications

Sending unsolicited text messages can be a costly violation of the
TCPA, with fines ranging from $500 to $1,500 for each unsolicited
message.  Emanuel demonstrates that, in some cases, courts will
apply common sense in the class action context. And defendants can
use pleading-stage attacks to rid themselves of costly class
litigation, under the TCPA or otherwise, at the earliest
opportunity, before incurring the expense of class-wide discovery.


MARATHON OIL: 2 Law Firms File Class Action Over Refinery Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Macuga, Liddle & Dubin and Hertz Schram on May 7 disclosed that
they filed a Class Action Complaint on May 6 in Wayne County
Circuit Court (Case No. 13-005590-NZ, Judge Maria Oxholm) against
Marathon Oil Company on behalf of area residents who were
evacuated from their homes this past weekend's oil refinery fire.

The complaint states that on Saturday, April 27th at approximately
6 p.m., an explosion occurred at the Marathon Oil Refinery located
at 1300 S. Fort Street in the City of Detroit.

The complaint further asserts that the explosion and the
subsequent fire caused thick, black smoke to blanket the
surrounding residential area.  According to complaint, residents
up to a mile away reported feeling their homes shake from the
explosions.

Court documents state that authorities in Melvindale ordered a
mandatory evacuation of about 3000 residents, 1/3 of its
population, within a 9-block area.  Court documents further allege
that the residents were not allowed to return to their homes for
several hours while firefighters battled the blaze.

Neighboring residents have indicated that a heavy, pungent odor
lingered for days disrupting their ability to be outside at their
homes or open up their windows.  According to Melivindale evacuee
and plaintiff Jason Bastien, "The smell was just atrocious, I was
light-headed.  I was dizzy," said Mr. Bastien.  "I was nauseous.
My nose started burning immediately, my throat."

The class action complaint seeks monetary damages in excess of
$25,000.  Affected residents who are interested in learning more
about the lawsuit are being urged to contact the law firms at
(800) 536-0045 or visit them on the web.

Macuga, Liddle & Dubin and Ms. Thomson have experience
representing tens of thousands of Michigan residents in cases
involving environmental damage, including those involving
evacuations.

Macuga, Liddle & Dubin P.C. is one of the premier class action
firms in Michigan. The firm specializes in cases involving oil
refinery fires, basement flooding, air pollution, environmental
contamination and complex consumer class actions.


MARCELLUS SHALE: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that Marcellus Shale
drilling infrastructure and service provider Superior Energy
Resources LLC was hit with a putative class action in Pennsylvania
federal court on May 6 alleging that the company violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act as well as state employment statutes.
Superior employee Lori Smith contends that the company forced
employees to attend mandatory safety meetings along with other
work activities before and after their paid shifts and that the
workers were not compensated for these efforts.


MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Class Suits in Canada Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The three remaining antitrust class action lawsuits against
Microsoft Corporation in Canada remain pending, according to the
Company's April 18, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company in various state, federal,
and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of the Company's PC operating system and
certain other software products between 1999 and 2005.  The
Company obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims
made in the United States.

All settlements in the United States have received final court
approval.  Under the settlements, generally class members can
obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases
of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and
software.  The total value of vouchers the Company may issue
varies by state.  The Company will make available to certain
schools a percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or
claimed (one-half to two-thirds depending on the state).  The
total value of vouchers the Company ultimately issue will depend
on the number of class members who make claims and are issued
vouchers.  The maximum value of vouchers to be issued is
approximately $2.7 billion.  The actual costs of these settlements
will be less than that maximum amount, depending on the number of
class members and schools that are issued and redeem vouchers.
The Company estimates the total cost to resolve all of the state
overcharge class action cases will range between $1.9 billion and
$2.0 billion.  At March 31, 2013, the Company has recorded a
liability related to these claims of approximately $500 million,
which reflects the Company's estimated exposure of $1.9 billion
less payments made to date of approximately $1.4 billion mostly
for vouchers, legal fees, and administrative expenses.

The three cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada have not been settled.  In March 2010, the court in the
British Columbia case certified it as a class action.  In April
2011, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the class
certification ruling and dismissed the case, holding that indirect
purchasers do not have a claim.  The plaintiffs have filed an
appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court, which was heard in the fall
of 2012.  The other two actions have been stayed.

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses and supports a wide range
of software products by offering an array of services, including
cloud-based services to consumers and businesses, by designing and
selling hardware that integrates with the Company's cloud-based
services, and by delivering relevant online advertising to a
global audience.  The Company is based in Redmond, Washington.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Status Sought for O'Bannon Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Mahler, writing for Washington Monthly, reports that the
storm that's slowly rolling toward Indianapolis quietly gained
strength with the filing of several devastating documents in a
federal court in California.  If it stays on course, it's going to
hit with biblical force, reducing the National Collegiate Athletic
Association to a heap of rubble.

This storm is also known as O'Bannon v. NCAA.  It's an antitrust
lawsuit filed in 2009 by former UCLA All-American basketball
player Ed O'Bannon and a handful of other ex-college athletes, who
don't think the NCAA should be profiting from their names and
images without sharing the royalty payments.

In their latest filing, Mr. O'Bannon's lawyers argue that the case
deserves class-action status.  If their request is granted, the
NCAA would be liable for claims brought not just by the plaintiffs
but also by all former athletes.  Anyone who has ever played a
Division I college sport would instantly be suing for damages for
every instance in which his or her image was used in a video game,
highlight reel, broadcast or rebroadcast.

That could get pretty expensive for the NCAA.  But if the case
were just about a few billion dollars, the association would have
settled by now.  It hasn't because O'Bannon and his lawyers are
also asking for something else: They want all current and future
college athletes to be able to make licensing deals of their own.
It's short yardage from there to the NCAA's doomsday scenario:
schools bidding for the services of student- athletes.
Idle Threats

The NCAA's lawyers, of course, are trying everything they can
think of to stop the case from earning class-action status.
They're so desperate that they're resorted to idle threats,
enlisting Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany to file a declaration
stating that if the O'Bannon case were to result in student-
athletes getting paid, his conference's schools would probably opt
out and move down to Division III. (Early line on the upcoming
Amherst-Ohio State game: Buckeyes by 117 1/2.)

Mr. Delany's statement says pretty much everything you need to
know about the NCAA's legal strategy.  It's called -- and this is
not a legal term -- fear-mongering.

The world of college sports would be radically different, the NCAA
says -- in ways we can't even begin to predict! -- if those
responsible for making it a multibillion-dollar business (that is,
the athletes) were entitled to receive some monetary compensation
for their efforts.  This is the same sort of doomsaying that Major
League Baseball engaged in during its battle against free agency
in 1970, when it warned that without the reserve clause,
"professional baseball would simply cease to exist."  For that
matter, every time an amateur sports event "goes pro" -- whether
it's the Olympics, or golf and tennis's majors -- it has been
preceded by predictions of disaster.

Mr. O'Bannon's response to the NCAA may be the most powerful case
ever assembled against the association's propaganda machine.
Among other things, it systematically dismantles the NCAA's
argument that the vast majority of its members lose money on
sports.  In fact, most Division I schools are not caught in an
expensive arms race for coaches and athletic facilities.  They
have simply obscured the profitability of their football and
basketball programs with accounting tricks, such as shifting
revenue from sports concessions to the food service budget.

The NCAA advances these false claims of poverty so it can argue
that its member schools can't possibly afford to spend more money
on sports, much less pay their athletes.  Mr. O'Bannon's lawyers
put the lie to this, too, invoking foundational truths of
economics dating to Adam Smith and David Ricardo: "Redistributing
rents does not change true economic costs.  It simply takes money
from one person or group and shifts it to another."  Translation:
Paying athletes wouldn't result in schools spending additional
money on sports.  They would just spend less of it on coaches and
facilities and more on students.

                         Star Recruits

In truth, if the NCAA's cartel were finally broken, the college-
sports world of tomorrow would look . . . well, it would look a
lot like the college-sports world of today.  More student-
athletes might decide to stay in school rather than gambling on
the draft (a bad thing?).  Maybe some second-tier schools would
take a run at joining the first tier -- not by shelling out $100
million for a new field house, but by spending a lot less on a few
five-star recruits.

And that's about the extent of it.  The same schools that invest
heavily in their sports teams now would continue to do so, much as
the top recruits would continue to gravitate toward the biggest,
richest programs.  Most of all, fans would continue to watch the
games.

The NCAA's lawyers hav one final chance to respond to Mr.
O'Bannon's request that the case be certified as a class action
before the judge rules in June.  Whatever happens from here, the
O'Bannon case has already performed a valuable service: It has
exposed a system whose sole purpose is to deny the value of
talented athletes.  That system and its overlord -- the NCAA --
both deserve to die.


NEW YORK: Stop-and-Frisk Policy Systemic Racial Profiling
---------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Rosario, writing for SocialistWorker.org, reports that
New York City public housing residents and community organizations
have joined forces in support of the class-action lawsuit Floyd v.
City of New York.  The historic case, now being heard in a federal
courtroom, challenges the constitutionality of the New York Police
Department's "stop-and-frisk" program of racial profiling.

Residents of New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) properties
have packed the courtroom to stand against the NYPD's policy of
stopping and harassing residents, overwhelmingly Blacks and
Latinos, with residents of public housing serving as a special
target.

Stop-and-frisk is one component of a larger NYPD strategy called
"Operation Impact," which was launched by Mayor Michael Bloomberg
and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.  Their defense of this
initiative is that it helps "keep guns off the street.  But in
reality, guns have been seized in only 0.15 percent of all stops.

New York police have made a total of 5 million stops in the past
11 years, and in 86 percent of cases, the victim was Black or
Latino.  It couldn't be more obvious that "stop-and-frisk" is
nothing more than systemic racial profiling.  In fact, the stop-
and-frisks of people of color are roughly equal to the entire
population of Blacks and Latinos living in New York.

One particular group disproportionately targeted under stop-and-
frisk is public housing residents.  Although NYCHA residents are
only about 5 percent of the total population, they have been
subjected to between 11 and 15 percent of all documented stops,
according to Families United for Racial & Economic Equality
(FUREE).  Among those stopped and accused of trespassing, 94
percent were Black or Latino.

The result, of course, is to spread fear among NYCHA residents
that at any time -- while in their own housing complex -- they or
a relative or a visitor will be subjected to a stop by police,
including the potential for violence that goes with that.  Plus,
NYCHA families face the threat of eviction if charges or
complaints are made against their household.

Carmen Negron, a resident of Baruch Houses, described for FUREE
the typical outcome of an encounter with police patrolling NYCHA
complexes:

"Several months ago, I asked my 22-year-old son to go get our
mail.  I realized that it had taken him longer than usual to
return and just as I was beginning to get dressed to go
downstairs, there was a loud knock on my door.  When I opened it,
there was my son and two officers."

"The officer said he was loitering in the lobby and had no
identification on him.  I explained that he just went to the lobby
to get the mail, and that he had the key to the mailbox, which
could have verified that he is a resident here.  They were
belligerent and did not want to listen to me.  They even ended up
threatening me that if they would have decided to place a
complaint against us, our tenancy could have been in jeopardy."

And this is exactly the sort of reaction that Bloomberg and Kelly
are hoping for.  Mr. Kelly has admitted that the stop-and-frisk
program is specifically designed to intimidate young Blacks and
Latinos.  In testimony at the Floyd trial, state Sen. Eric Adams,
a 22-year veteran of the NYPD, recalled a 2010 meeting with
Mr. Kelly in which the commissioner "stated that he targeted and
focused on [Black and Latino people] because he want to instill
fear in them that every time that they left their homes they could
be targeted by the police."

The police presence in public housing areas and the hostility they
exhibit leads NYCHA residents to compare what they experience to
living under an occupation.

Police have imposed the equivalent of checkpoints in all NYCHA
developments, using the threat of trespass charges against
residents from going out.  Arnaldo Arzu, a Bronx resident and
member of Community Voice Heard, described the consequences:

"As a lifelong Black male resident of Mott Haven Houses, I can't
walk into my house or buy milk for my daughter in the next
development without being stopped and frisked or without the
threat of arrest.  I have filed over 30 complaints, and nothing
ever happens, not even a notice that my complaint has been
registered.  We deserve to live with respect and dignity."

Messrs. Bloomberg and Kelly have a strong motive for preventing
poor people of color from developing a sense of community.  During
the Floyd trial, lawyers played an audio tape secretly made at a
Brooklyn station house, in which an unidentified speaker says: "If
you get too big of a crowd there, they are going to get out of
control, and they are going to think they own the block.  We own
the block.  They don't own the block.  They might live there, but
we own the block.  We own the streets here."

But in spite of systematic oppression and brutalization at the
hands of the NYPD, communities of color in New York City are
coming together to fight back.

The fact that "stop-and-frisk" has been put on trial is a victory
for our side and testament to an emerging movement speaking out
against police harassment and violence.  Struggles at the
grassroots are critical in putting pressure on the city to get rid
of stop-and-frisk -- as well as putting resources into critical
social investment such as public schools and housing.


PET VALU: Cassel Brock Discusses Ontario Court of Appeal Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kligman, Esq., Eric Mayzel, Esq., Derek Ronde, Esq.,
Geoffrey B. Shaw, Esq. at Cassel Brock Lawyers, report that in a
landmark unanimous franchise class action decision, the Ontario
Court of Appeal has overturned a lower court decision to
invalidate certain opt out notices delivered in a class proceeding
between Pet Valu Canada Inc. and its franchisees.  The notices had
been invalidated by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice due to
allegations of misleading information and unfair pressure by a
group of class members (the "Concerned Pet Valu Franchisees", or
"CPVF") who opposed the class action.

The Court held that the CPVF's campaign to encourage other
franchisees to opt out of the class action was a proper expression
of opinion by these franchisees.  The Court confirmed that class
members have an "unassailable right to speak out in opposition to
[a] class proceeding in an attempt to convince other class members
to opt out" in the context of "acceptable intra-class debate".
In looking at the potential limitations on the CPVF's right to
carry out its campaign, the Court found that the campaign did not
constitute coercion or misinformation, or cause any intimidation
among class members.  Rather, class members were afforded access
to objective information regarding the class action to counter the
opinion of the CPVF (by way of having received the notice of
certification and access to class counsel's website) and there was
"no evidence to support a finding that opt-outs by individual
class members were not voluntary or fully informed."

In coming to its decision, the Court took issue with the
representative plaintiff's failure to promptly notify the motion
judge of its concerns regarding the CPVF's campaign.  The Court
was also critical of the representative plaintiff's inability to
"tender evidence from a single other class member indicating that
the CPVF's campaign improperly influenced the decision to opt out
of the proceeding."
Importantly, the Court held that Pet Valu was not implicated or
involved in the CPVF's actions, which confirmed the earlier
findings of the motion judge.

This decision is important for franchisor defendants, class
members, and class proceeding litigants generally.  It provides
guidance and insight into permissible conduct by class members who
oppose a class action and seek to encourage fellow class members
to opt out.  It also provides insight into what is expected from
all class proceeding litigants in a post-certification
environment.  Lastly, it confirms that a decision to invalidate
opt-out notices will only be made in the most extraordinary of
circumstances, where there is clear evidence of intimidation and
coercion.

Geoffrey Shaw, Derek Ronde, Eric Mayzel, and Robert Kligman of the
Cassels Brock Advocacy Group and Franchise Group acted for Pet
Valu in this matter.


PIONEER FOODS: Bread Distributors Seek Class Action Over Cartel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Mabuza, writing for BDlive, reports that bread distributors
in the Western Cape turned to the Constitutional Court on May 7 in
a bid to institute a class action case against leading bread
producers Pioneer Foods, Tiger Consumer Brands and Premier Foods
after suffering financial losses as a result of cartel activity in
2006.

In what could become one of South Africa's biggest class action
cases if allowed, the Constitutional Court heard arguments from
the bread distributors seeking to pursue claims for damages
against the three leading bread producers.

Imraahn Mukaddam, a bread distributor, says he and about 100 other
distributors in the Western Cape suffered financial losses in 2006
because of the bread companies' prohibited conduct, which included
the increase of the bread price and the reduction of commission
paid to distributors.

Mr. Mukaddam and other bread distributors said they would have
directly suffered a reduction in gross profit margins as a result
of the three producers' unlawful conduct.

The action in the Constitutional Court is the last attempt by the
bread distributors to secure certification needed to institute a
class action case against the three bread companies, after
previous attempts in the Western Cape High Court and the Supreme
Court of Appeal failed.

Although the Supreme Court of Appeal recognized class actions as a
permitted procedural device for pursuing claims, it dismissed
Mr. Mukaddam's appeal on the grounds that the case did not raise a
triable cause of action.

It also said "opt-in" actions -- where the class to be represented
in the action was confined to claimants who came forward and
identified themselves as claimants -- should be confined to
exceptional circumstances.

Counsel for Mr. Mukaddam, Paul Hoffman SC, told the Constitutional
Court the distributors who would form part of the class on
certification, all of whom had not been identified at this stage,
were not experienced in legal matters, especially not in complex
matters relating to price-fixing and the recovery of damages.

Mr. Hoffman also argued that the saving of legal costs was a
factor for class action claimants of modest means.  "Access to
justice is a burning issue in this country," he said.

Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, for the Legal Resources Centre, which was
admitted as a friend of the court, said that opt-in class actions
should not be confined to "exceptional circumstances", as the
Supreme Court of Appeal held.

However, Schalk Burger SC, for Pioneer Foods, said one of the
prerequisites for a class action was that there should be common
facts.  Mr. Burger said in this case, there were different
distributors with different discounts with the producers and
different cost structures and efficiencies.

"They (distributors) sell at different prices to consumers.  You
have to quantify (the claim for damages) individually," Mr. Burger
said.

John Dickerson SC, for Tiger Consumer Brands, argued that there
was no triable issue raised by Mr. Mukadamm.

David Unterhalter SC, for Premier Foods, said an appropriate
course of action to take was for the claimants to join the action
individually, as opposed to a class action.

The court reserved judgment.


STAR SCIENTIFIC: Robins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Arroyo LLP on May 7 disclosed that the firm filed a
federal securities fraud class action complaint on May 7, 2013, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Star
Scientific stock between October 31, 2011 and March 18, 2013,
inclusive, against the company and certain of its officers and
directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Star Scientific and its operating subsidiaries manufacture,
distribute, and sell consumer products and dietary supplements.

The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period in press releases,
analyst conference calls, and filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Star Scientific misled investors about the true nature and extent
of Johns Hopkins University's involvement in the clinical testing
of the company's nutritional supplement, Anatabine; concealed the
true nature and extent of its liquidity condition; engaged in
improper private placement and related-party transactions since at
least 2006; and delayed disclosure of the fact that the company
had received subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's office
investigating potential securities fraud.

As a result of defendants' false statements, Star Scientific's
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, reaching a high of $4.99 per share on July 3, 2012.

On January 23, 2013, The Street issued an article entitled "Star
Scientific's Made-Up, Misleading Relationship with Johns Hopkins"
stating that Star Scientific misled investors concerning Johns
Hopkins' involvement in the clinical testing of Anatabine.  On
this news, Star Scientific's stock price dropped $0.31 per share
to close at $2.33 per share -- a one-day decline of nearly 12% on
volume of 6.1 million shares.

On March 18, 2013, Star Scientific filed its annual report with
the SEC for its fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.  In the
annual report, the company disclosed for the first time that it
was being investigated by the federal government.  On this news,
Star Scientific's stock price dropped another $0.34 per share to
close at $1.64 per share -- a one-day decline of 17%.

Overall, after these revelations reached the market, Star
Scientific's share price declined a total of 67% from the Class
Period high.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Star Scientific stock
during the Class Period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must act no later than May 24, 2013.  To discuss your shareholder
rights, please contact:

          Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
          E-mail: ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com
          Web site: http://www.robbinsarroyo.com

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
nationally recognized leader in securities litigation and
shareholder rights law.  The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.


SHUTTLE EXPRESS: Airport Shuttle Driver Must Arbitrate FLSA Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin P. McGowan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that an
airport shuttle driver in Baltimore who worked under a franchise
agreement with Shuttle Express Inc. must arbitrate his Fair Labor
Standards Act and state law wage claims against the company
despite a class action waiver in the agreement's arbitration
clause, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled
April 1 (Muriithi v. Shuttle Express Inc., 4th Cir., No. 11-1445,
4/1/13).

A federal district court in Maryland had ruled Samuel Muriithi
could not be compelled to arbitrate his federal and state
statutory claims against Shuttle Express because the class action
waiver, in conjunction with a fee-splitting provision and a one-
year limitations period on any claims under the franchise
agreement, rendered the arbitration unconscionable and therefore
unenforceable.

But the Fourth Circuit said the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 79 U.S.L.W. 4279 (U.S. 2011), in
which the court ruled the Federal Arbitration Act preempted a
state rule requiring the availability of classwide arbitration,
also means a class action waiver does not render unenforceable an
otherwise valid arbitration agreement.

"[C]ontrary to Muriithi's contention, the Supreme Court's holding
was not merely an assertion of federal preemption, but also
plainly prohibited application of the general contract defense of
unconscionability to invalidate an otherwise valid arbitration
agreement under these circumstances," Judge Barbara Milano Keenan
wrote.

"The district court in the present case, deciding the same issue
of unconscionability prior to Concepcion, reached the opposite
conclusion," the Fourth Circuit said.  "Accordingly, we conclude
that the district court erred in holding that the class action
waiver was unconscionable."

              Evidence on Fee-Splitting Falls Short

Mr. Muriithi's arbitration agreement with Shuttle Express provides
each party must bear one-half the fees and costs of the
arbitrator.  The district court ruled that provision also rendered
the pact unconscionable because it imposes "prohibitive costs"
that effectively would prevent Mr. Muriithi and similarly situated
drivers from vindicating their federal statutory rights in
arbitration.

The Supreme Court in Concepcion did not mention its precedent in
Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79
(2000), in which the court said a claimant must prove the
likelihood of prohibitive arbitration costs in order to invalidate
an arbitration pact on grounds it would effectively prevent him
from pursuing an underlying statutory claim in arbitration, the
Fourth Circuit said.

Nothing in Concepcion indicates the court was overturning Green
Tree by implication, the appeals court added.

"A fee-splitting provision can render an arbitration agreement
unenforceable if, under the terms of the provision, an aggrieved
party must pay arbitration fees and costs 'that are so prohibitive
as to effectively deny the employee access to the arbitral rum,'"
the Fourth Circuit said.

The appeals court said it analyzes "prohibitive costs" on a case-
by-case basis, focusing on factors including the fees and costs of
arbitration, a claimant's ability to pay, the value of the
underlying claim, and the difference in costs between arbitration
and litigation.

In this case, Mr. Muriithi failed to meet his "substantial
evidentiary burden" of showing a likelihood of incurring
prohibitive arbitration costs that effectively would prevent him
from pursuing his FLSA and state law wage claims in that forum,
the Fourth Circuit said.

Mr. Muriithi was a driver for Shuttle Express, which provides
transportation for passengers to and from Baltimore-Washington
International Thurgood Marshall Airport, the court recounted.

Mr. Muriithi alleged Shuttle Express misled him regarding the
compensation he would receive and that in April 2007, the company
induced him to sign a unit franchise agreement with Shuttle
Express.  Under that agreement, Shuttle Express improperly
classified Mr. Muriithi as an "independent contractor" or
"franchisee" when he actually was an "employee," Mr. Muriithi
alleged.

In 2010, Mr. Muriithi sued under the FLSA, arguing that as a
Shuttle Express employee, he was entitled to compensation of at
least the minimum wage and to overtime pay.  He sought to pursue
an FLSA collective action on behalf of similarly situated drivers
also improperly classified as franchisees and independent
contractors by Shuttle Express.  Mr. Muriithi asserted claims
under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law on behalf of a class of
Shuttle Express drivers.

Pursuant to the franchise agreement, which included a clause
requiring arbitration of "any controversy arising out of this
agreement," Shuttle Express moved to dismiss Mr. Muriithi's
complaint or to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration
Act.

The district court found Mr. Muriithi's FLSA and Maryland law
claims "arise out of" the franchise agreement and therefore fell
within the scope of disputes covered by the parties' agreement to
arbitration.  But in a decision handed down before the Supreme
Court decided Concepcion, the district court ruled the arbitration
clause was unenforceable because of the class action waiver, the
fee-splitting provision, and the one-year limitations period for
bringing all claims arising under the franchise agreement.


The district court said the class action waiver and fee-splitting
provision operate together to "prevent [Muriithi] from fully
vindicating [his] statutory rights."  If the franchise agreement
fully prohibits class actions in arbitration and in court, "the
realistic alternative would be that no individual suits are
brought given that the costs of each individual arbitration [have]
the potential to exceed any recovery," the district court said.

It therefore ruled Mr. Muriithi could not be compelled to
arbitrate and declined to dismiss his FLSA and state law claims.
Shuttle Express appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
Concepcion Not Limited to Preemption

Granting the shuttle company's appeal, the Fourth Circuit said
Concepcion requires reversal of the district court's ruling on the
class action waiver issue.

"The issue whether a dispute is arbitrable presents primarily a
question of contract interpretation, requiring that we give effect
to the parties' intentions as expressed in their agreement," the
court said.  "Any uncertainty regarding the scope of arbitration
issues agreed to by the parties must be resolved in favor of
arbitration."

The district court identified the class action waiver contained in
the franchise agreement's arbitration clause as "one factor
preventing Mr. Muriithi from fully vindicating his statutory
rights," the appeals court observed.

The Fourth Circuit credited Shuttle Express's argument on appeal
the district court's refusal to enforce the class action waiver as
unconscionable is "directly at odds" with the Supreme Court's
later decision in Concepcion.

Mr. Muriithi argued Concepcion is "limited in scope" to Federal
Arbitration Act preemption of state law regarding whether class
action waivers are unconscionable and therefore does not apply to
his suit asserting FLSA collective claims.

But the Fourth Circuit said the Supreme Court's holding in
Concepcion "sweeps more broadly than Muriithi suggests."

"In Concepcion, the Supreme Court cautioned that the generally
applicable contract defense of unconscionability may not be
applied in a manner that targets the existence of an agreement to
arbitrate as the basis for invalidating that agreement," the court
said.  "Applying that principle to the [California state] 'rule'
at issue, the court explained that state law cannot 'stand as an
obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA's objectives' by
interfering with 'the fundamental attributes of arbitration.'"

The Fourth Circuit previously has said Concepcion bars courts from
"altering otherwise valid arbitration agreements by applying the
doctrine of unconscionability to eliminate a term barring
classwide procedures," the court said, citing Noohi v. Toll
Brothers Inc., 2013 BL 50544 (4th Cir. 2013).

The appeals court therefore ruled that even though Mr. Muriithi's
case involved no state law prohibitions on class action waivers,
Concepcion still applies and the district court erred by holding
the arbitration clause unenforceable because it precludes class
actions.

             Limitations Period Not Issue for Court

The district court also erred by citing the franchise agreement's
one-year limitations period for raising claims as an additional
unconscionable feature barring enforcement of the arbitration
clause, the Fourth Circuit said.

Shuttle Express argued the district court erred in addressing the
issue at all, as the limitations period is not part of the
arbitration clause but rather appears elsewhere in the franchise
agreement.  Any challenge to the limitations period provision must
wait until the entire contract is considered by the arbitrator,
the company argued.

The Fourth Circuit agreed that on a motion to compel arbitration,
the district court should consider only challenges specific to the
arbitration clause and not rule on the validity of a general
limitations period located elsewhere in the agreement.

"Moreover, the language of this provision does not overlap in any
substantive manner with the language of the arbitration clause,
such as directing the parties to a different forum depending on
when their claim was raised," the court said.

"[T]he one-year limitations period discretely answers the question
when any claim under the franchise agreement must be brought,
whereas the arbitration clause is silent on that issue and instead
addresses the proper forum where such claims under the franchise
agreement must be brought," the court said.

General contract defenses applicable to the entire agreement, such
as the one-year limitations period, are "reserved for the forum in
which the dispute ultimately will be resolved," the arbitrator in
this case, the court concluded.

Judges Andre M. Davis and John A. Gibney joined the decision.

John M. Singleton Sr., Lutherville, Md., represented Mr. Muriithi.
Christopher A. Parlo and Melissa C. Rodriguez, New York, and
Russell R. Bruch, Washington, D.C., all with Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, represented Shuttle Express.


SONY CORP: Palo Alto to Launch Battery Price-Fixing Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gennady Sheyner, writing for Palo Alto Weekly, reports that Palo
Alto on May 6 became one of California's first public agencies to
charge into the legal battle against global companies accused of
conspiring to fix prices of lithium-ion batteries.

The City Council agreed in a closed session May 6 to have the city
serve as a representative for various cities and public entities
in a class-action lawsuit against Sony, Panasonic, Hitachi, LG
Chem, Samsung and SANYO.  The companies are facing numerous legal
challenges relating to price fixing in California and New Jersey,
though the vast majority of lawsuits are from private individuals
seeking to represent the broader consumer base.

The electronics giants are alleged to have fixed prices of
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries between 2001 and 2011.  The
batteries are commonly used in electric products such as laptop
computers, smartphones and GPS devices.  According to a statement
from City Attorney Molly Stump, the city has purchased many such
devices, including the Toughbook laptops used by police officers
in the field.

According to Ms. Stump, Palo Alto's case will be consolidated with
many others brought against the companies in the U.S. District
Court of Northern District of California.  The companies are also
facing at least 10 lawsuits in New Jersey, with the plaintiffs in
most cases being individuals and law firms.

Ms. Stump said that the only California public agency that to her
knowledge has joined the battle thus far is City College of San
Francisco.  The council decided to initiate the class-action suit
to both recover funds from the companies and to send a signal
about fairness in the marketplace, Ms. Stump said.

Though according to Ms. Stump the sum recovered probably won't be
too large, the bigger issue is the "principle of making sure that
we are standing up for the city's recovery when we have been
overcharged, when we can do so in a very efficient way."

Palo Alto's case will be handled by the law firms of Renne Sloan
Holtzman & Sakai LLP and Green & Noblin PC.  Green & Noblin has
already filed a class-action suit against the battery
manufacturers, alleging price fixing, according to the company's
website.

The firms will work on a contingent-fee basis with the city not
paying any legal fees or incurring other costs, according to
Stump.

"We don't have any out-of-pocket costs to pursue this recovery,"
Ms. Stump said.

Another reason the council decided to join the legal challenge has
to do with its general view that the famously high-tech city
should be a leader in promoting the free-market economy, Stump
said.  The city recognizes that Silicon Valley's "wonderful
technology and innovation marketplace" works well when companies
play by the rules.

She said she expects the council's decision to bolster the efforts
of other plaintiffs seeking recovery from the electronic
companies.

"It gives the plaintiffs' group a stronger voice and says that
there is harm to public entities as well as to individuals who
have purchased one of these devices," Ms. Stump said.


TRANSNET: Faces Class Action Over Pension Funds
-----------------------------------------------
Sapa reports that legal documents were served on Transnet and two
of its funds on May 8 regarding a class action suit over pension
funds, Geyser and Coetzee Attorneys said.

The defendants -- Transnet, the Transport Pension Fund and the
Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund -- had 15 days to respond,
said Wynanda Coetzee, for the pensioners.

She said in a statement it had recently come to the law firm's
attention that "there are concerted efforts by various parties to
distort the true facts of the current court action".

These efforts allegedly included telling the pensioners not to
become involved in the class action because it was a scam.

Ms. Coetzee said this misinformation was "clearly opportunistic".

According to a weekend news report, about 66,000 pensioners are
involved in the civil claim to recover about R79 billion, which
they claim Transnet plundered from their pension funds.

The funds' most important assets, acknowledgements of debt worth
R7.7 billion which generated an annual income of R1.2 billion,
were apparently "swapped" in early 2001 for MTN shares, known as
M-Cell at the time, worth about R1.4 billion.

Leon Kellerman SC, writes in court papers: "There is no indication
that the funds received any income from the M-Cell shares."

Ms. Coetzee denied the application was politically motivated, and
said the application was not launched at the behest of any
political party.

"The Transnet pensioners are hereby emphatically given the
assurance that no party political interference will be tolerated,
and that at all times only the best interests of the pensioners
are sought."


UNION PACIFIC: Awaits Order on Petition to Review Cert. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a
petition to review a class certification ruling, according to the
Company's April 18, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

As previously reported, 20 rail shippers (many of whom are
represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical
antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against the
Company and four other Class I railroads in the U.S. (one railroad
was eventually dropped from the lawsuit).  The original plaintiff
filed the first of these claims in the U.S. District Court in New
Jersey on May 14, 2007.  The total number of complaints stands at
30.  These lawsuits allege that the named railroads engaged in
price-fixing by establishing common fuel surcharges for certain
rail traffic.

In addition to lawsuits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation, a few of the lawsuits involved plaintiffs alleging
that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation
and sought to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers
of rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges.  These
complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel
surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S.
District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  Following numerous hearings
and rulings, Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the
indirect purchasers, which the indirect purchasers appealed.  On
April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling dismissing the indirect
purchasers' claims based on various state laws.

With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman
conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class
certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude
evidence of interline communications.  On April 7, 2011, Judge
Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class
certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the
Wal-Mart employment discrimination case.

On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision certifying a
class of plaintiffs to be represented by eight named plaintiffs.
The class includes all shippers that paid a rate-based fuel
surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for rate-
unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through
December 1, 2008.  This is a procedural ruling, which does not
affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not
affect the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove the
allegations made by the plaintiffs.  On July 5, 2012, the
defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court
review the class certification ruling.  On August 28, 2012, a
panel of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia referred
the petition to a merits panel of the court to address the issues
in the petition and to address whether the district court properly
granted class certification.  The Circuit Court was set to hear
oral argument on May 3, 2013.

The Company denies the allegations that its fuel surcharge
programs violate the antitrust laws or any other laws.  The
Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit, and the
Company will vigorously defend its actions.  Therefore, the
Company currently believes that these matters will not have a
material adverse effect on any of its results of operations,
financial condition, and liquidity.

Headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, Union Pacific Corporation --
http://www.up.com/-- is one of America's leading transportation
companies.  The Company's principal operating company, Union
Pacific Railroad, is a North America railroad franchise, covering
23 states across the western two-thirds of the United States.


UNITED STATES: Media Coverage of Pigford Class Action Flawed
------------------------------------------------------------
Conor Friedersdorf, writing for The Atlantic, reports that a New
York Times investigation into black farmers' lawsuit and
associated settlements vindicates conservative journalists'
concerns.

Dan Foster, a young staffer at National Review, published a 2010
story about a class-action lawsuit against the federal government
that resulted in "the waste of billions of dollars" and "systemic
fraud implicating top federal officials."  He wrote that the
scandal touched President Obama himself, that countless payouts
were made to people falsely claiming racial discrimination, and
that more fraud was likely in successor lawsuits filed on behalf
of women and Hispanics.

Two days after the National Review story appeared online, Nancy
Scola, a progressive journalist, commented on the same suit at The
American Prospect.  "This is one of those times that government
works that Paul Waldman wisely counsels us to celebrate.  So, a
few words of praise for the real progress made by President
Obama's negotiation of the Pigford agreement," she wrote, giving a
brief history of Pigford vs. Glickman, a case originally triggered
by outrageous racial discrimination against black farmers.
Resolving the subsequent class-action lawsuit was, she concluded,
"a demonstration of what's possible when a handful of politicians
sets priorities and then diligently navigates the process to bring
them into being."

The few who frequent both National Review and The American
Prospect could be forgiven for their confusion.  The insular
worlds of conservative and progressive journalism encompass
ideological hacks, but neither Mr. Foster nor Ms. Scola fit that
description, as their regular readers know.  How did two smart,
honest journalists, riffing on the same news, reach such
strikingly dissonant conclusions? Branching out beyond their work
wasn't much help.  The class-action lawsuits were too complicated
for the uninitiated to quickly assess. Conservative and
progressive journalists had wildly different takes.  And the story
was mostly ignored by news organizations without an explicitly
ideological mission.  Everyone seemed to agree that the USDA had a
history of discriminating against black farmers and that
compensating Timothy Pigford, the original plaintiff, was
justified, as were payments to an unspecified number of other
black farmers who actually faced discrimination when seeking
federal farm loans.

It is probably also true that the ideal claims process would
reluctantly permit some false claims to be paid, since a standard
of proof that would stop all fraud would also deny some legitimate
claims.

Did the people involved in Pigford and its successor lawsuits
deserve credit for helping to compensate victims of
discrimination? Or blame for squandering many millions of dollars
on false claims? Did the Pigford settlements with black farmers
establish a useful precedent that could be applied to Hispanic and
female bias claims? Or was it a cautionary tale of real
discrimination being exploited by pandering politicians and
hucksters trying to enrich themselves? When Pigford faded from the
headlines, conservatives and progressives were dug into their
respective narratives, taking almost opposite lessons from the
class action lawsuit.

And then, three years later -- late last month -- The New York
Times published a major story on the case and its legacy.  It
vindicated many of the conservative suspicions about the case.
"The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the
government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias
against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department," Sharon
LaFraniere wrote.  "But an examination by The New York Times shows
that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics,
pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that
stand to gain more than $130 million in fees.  In the past five
years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-
Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers.
In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims.  The total cost
could top $4.4 billion."

The Times went on to report that:

Political appointees in the Obama Administration overruled career
lawyers and agency officials at the Justice and Agriculture
Departments, committing $1.33 billion to compensate "thousands of
Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court,"
even though the civil servants argued that there was no credible
evidence of widespread discrimination.

The template for payouts Team Obama adopted was a magnet for
fraud.

"From the start, the claims process prompted allegations of
widespread fraud and criticism that its very design encouraged
people to lie," but "those concerns were played down as the
compensation effort grew."

". . .  Even now people who say they were unfairly denied loans
can collect up to $50,000 with little documentation."

In a 2010 settlement with Native Americans, Justice Department
lawyers "argued that the $760 million agreement far outstripped
the potential cost of a defeat in court.  Agriculture officials
said not that many farmers would file claims.  That prediction
proved prophetic.  Only $300 million in claims were filed, leaving
nearly $400 million in the control of plaintiffs' lawyers to be
distributed among a handful of nonprofit organizations serving
Native American farmers.  Two and a half years later, the groups
have yet to be chosen. It is unclear how many even exist."

An internal Agriculture Department memo from 2010 stated that the
payouts to women and Hispanics would be "a way to neutralize the
argument that the government favors black farmers over Hispanic,
Native American or women farmers."

A total of 15 Agriculture Department employees who reviewed or
responded to claims "said the loose conditions for payment had
opened the floodgates to fraud."

Said Sandy Grammer, a former Agriculture Department program
analyst who reviewed claims for three years: "Basically, it was a
rip-off of the American taxpayers."

One Arkansas prosecutor rejected a test case against someone who
admitted to lying on his claim form, saying that singling him out
could raise the question of selective prosecution: "The defendant
could go to the jury and say: 'Everybody else did this.  Why am I
standing here?'"

"In one ZIP code in Columbus, Ohio, nearly everyone in two
adjoining apartment buildings had filed."

There's a lot more to the Times story, including a remarkable
final scene. Suffice it to say that, upon examination, Pigford was
not, in fact, "one of those times that government works."  In
hindsight, the progressive media's coverage of Pigford and its
successor lawsuits is revealed to be deeply flawed.  At various
points, progressive writers pointed out real flaws in conservative
coverage.  In doing so, they remained oblivious to the fact that
concern over massive fraud was warranted, and wasn't confined to
rabble rouser Andrew Breitbart*.

The coverage at Media Matters is one cautionary tale.  If you pick
your least favorite writer and cover a complicated story almost
entirely through the prism of what you think he got wrong, you're
extremely unlikely to give your readers an accurate sense of
what's happening in the real world.

Yet even the progressive writers whose work I find most careful,
accurate and valuable got this story wrong in important ways.
Adam Serwer took time to dig into Pigford and provided some useful
correctives (and some critiques with which I disagree) to
conservative coverage, but also wrote, in one particularly
uncharitable post, "the pervasiveness of conservative anger over
the Pigford settlement augurs a new low for conservative anti-
anti-racism, in which remedying an exhaustively documented
instance of racial discrimination is objectionable not because the
claim itself is illegitimate but because it represents a transfer
of income from whites to nonwhites."

In fact, the vast majority of conservatives were upset by the
widespread fraud, the perception that cynical racial politics
helped enable it, and the related fact that hucksters were
exploiting a widespread desire to redress discrimination by
stealing from all taxpayers, nonwhite ones very much included.

Responding to the New York Times piece at Gawker, Cord Jefferson
writes that "the details in this story guarantee it will be talked
about constantly in conservative media circles for the foreseeable
future: minority groups filling their coffers by scamming the U.S.
government, unscrupulous lawyers abetting the scheming, a black
president pressing for lots more money that went to fraudsters,
conservative protestations ignored . . . . The final scene of the
article, in fact, which depicts a man who's made it his job to
help black people get Pigford money saying to an entire church
that they should file discrimination claims, is so wanton and
grotesque it almost seems like a bit of right-wing fiction."  I
think he's onto something. The malfeasance in the Pigford case
fits the progressive stereotype of the sort of thing the right
wing would make up. Perhaps that helps to explain why so many
progressives who dug into the case failed to see the whole truth.

Jefferson goes on to lament that "many will look at Pigford as
further evidence that blacks are lazy takers and that federal
programs intending to right America's historical and racist wrongs
are always wasteful.  In other words, it's going to give fuel to
racists who will in turn go on discriminating against blacks and
Latinos, who will in turn push for institutions to help them get
ahead in a racist country."

Racists who already believe blacks are lazy takers will continue
to think so regardless, but I don't think we ought to treat their
bigoted opinions as if they're influential, and I doubt this case
will create converts to that position.  The conservative line is
explicitly that some of the biggest victims in this case were
black farmers who actually suffered discrimination and are sharing
settlement money with a bunch of people who didn't.  Most critics
of the Pigford settlement understand that offering any racial
group, or any other group, an easy opportunity to make tens of
thousands of dollars defrauding the government will result in
widespread fraud.  And black people told about the fraud,
including black people with real discrimination claims from the
initial Pigford settlement, are just as upset as anyone by the
hucksters.

Another one of my favorite progressive writers, Kevin Drum,
responded to the New York Times story as follows:

The problem here is one that's common in discrimination cases:
even after you've agreed that illegal discrimination happened in
general, how do you decide which individuals were discriminated
against? Proving individual discrimination is incredibly hard,
because in most individual cases there are plenty of plausible
reasons for the discriminatory action.  This was doubly hard in
the Pigford cases because the Agriculture Department simply didn't
keep records of lots of the loan applications in questions, and
there were never any applications in the first place for people
who were flatly turned down before they could even apply.

Given that, you have two choices. You can either set a high bar
for evidence of discrimination, knowing that it will unfairly deny
compensation to lots of people who were treated wrongly.  Or you
can set a low bar, knowing that this will unfairly give money to
lots of people who don't deserve it.  Roughly speaking, it sounds
like the government chose the second course, and lots of money has
been paid out to people who never farmed, never applied to farm,
and never had any intention of farming. But it was raining money,
so they put out their hats.

It's worth noting that there didn't even seem to be agreement that
discrimination happened in the case of the class actions filed on
behalf of Native Americans, Hispanics, and women, but Drum
definitely captures the line policymakers must walk in
discimination cases.  He loses me when he goes on to say, "It's
hard to know what to think of this.  Obviously it's hard to
understand why the Agriculture Department didn't adopt a stricter
standard, one that wouldn't have paid out thousands of fraudulent
claims to people who didn't deserve it."  Is it really hard to
understand? After investigating the subject in great depth, The
New York Times has reported that payouts were "driven by racial
politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law
firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees."
Numerous politicians stood to benefit from lax standards, and
opponents of the bill were blatantly cast as having "named
themselves racist."  And once everyone saw how easy it was for
black claimants with no evidence of discrimination to get paid?
One of the attorneys for Hispanic claimants said, "Once the
government puts a program in place for one racial group, even if
it decides it is too generous, it cannot adopt a different set of
restrictions for another racial group. It's outrageous."

Said a UC Berkeley professor who studied the matter in great
depth, "I was so disgusted.  It was simply buying the support of
the Native Americans."  How can Drum not understand, after all
that, why the Agriculture Department didn't adopt stricter
standards? It's as if progressives writing about Pigford are blind
to the fact that plaintiffs' lawyers and identity-based interest
groups exert influence in politics just like corporate interest
groups, industry interest groups, defense contractors, and every
other constituency that participates in lobbying the U.S.
government.  Not all claims of cynical racial politics are
bogeymen dreamed up by bigoted conservatives.

Every powerful interest group has its excesses.

To mark the 30th anniversary of Washington Monthly, Nicholas
Lemann wrote an essay in which he observed that the magazine's
original mission was "figuring out how to make specific government
policies and agencies work effectively to help ordinary people who
need it."  I have yet to see an article from a progressive or a
liberal that takes a hard look at the excesses of Pigford and its
successor cases and addresses how, in the future, government
policies and agencies can more effectively help the ordinary
people who need or desserve it without squandering money enriching
people who don't, along with their lawyers.  Speculating about the
racist motives of Pigford critics is evidently a more urgent
priority, judging from the coverage so far.  Then again, it
wouldn't shock me if Washington Monthly already has that article
assigned.


URS Corporation: Awaits Ruling in Hurricane Katrina-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
URS Corporation is awaiting a court decision in class action
lawsuits related to the destruction and injuries brought by
Hurricane Katrina, according to the Company's April 17, 2013, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

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

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

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

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


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Robins Geller Files Class Action in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 7 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Vitamin
Shoppe, Inc. common stock during the period between May 8, 2012
and February 25, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 7.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or
David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-
1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/vitaminshoppe/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Vitamin Shoppe and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Vitamin Shoppe, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer and direct marketer of nutritional products in
the United States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations, business trends and same-store sales trends.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Vitamin
Shoppe's business was then being negatively impacted by
competition from on-line retailers which were significantly
reducing prices on popular supplements; (ii) GNC's new discount
program was negatively impacting the Company's sales growth; and
(iii) the Company was experiencing declining same-store sales
trends.  As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements, Vitamin Shoppe common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices, enabling Company insiders to sell more than $30
million of their personally held Vitamin Shoppe common stock at
inflated prices during the Class Period.

Then, on February 25, 2013, according to the complaint, after
guiding toward strong fiscal 2012 sales and profits during the
Class Period, Vitamin Shoppe announced lackluster financial
results for the Company's fiscal and fourth quarter 2012. In
response, the price of the Company's stock fell $11.86 per share,
or more than 18.76% that day.

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

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
recoveries and has been ranked number one in the number of
shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI's Top SCAS 50 every
year since 2003.


VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Awaits Expert Report in Imbituba Port Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. is waiting for an expert report to be
prepared and issued in the class action lawsuit alleging that the
storage and transportation of petcoke in the Port of Imbituba
resulted in environmental damage, according to the Company's April
17, 2013, Form F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In July 2011, the Associacao dos Moradores da Rua de Baixo, the
Instituto Conexao Ambiental and the Associacao de Surf de Imbituba
filed a class action against CRB Operacoes Portuarias S.A., or
CRB, the Company's indirect subsidiary, Companhia Docas de
Imbituba, the city of Imbituba and the Fundacao do Meio Ambiente,
or FATMA, claiming that the storage and transportation of petcoke
in the Port of Imbituba resulted in environmental damage and also
adversely affected the health of residents of the area. The
plaintiffs also claim that CRB breached a conduct agreement (termo
de ajustamento de conduta) it entered into with the State
Attorney's Office, pursuant to which it: (1) would adopt steps
towards adequate storage of petcoke at the terminal of the Port of
Imbituba; (2) would adequately store petcoke in the terminal until
November 30, 2003; (3) would provide an environmental operating
permit to FATMA by the end of 2003; (4) would delay restrictions
on the use of the property of the city's fire department until the
end of the concession of the Port of Imbituba, intermediate with
the federal government the permanent transfer property ownership
to the facilities of the city's fire department and stimulate the
local business community by donating R$52,000 to the Fundo
Municipal do Corpo de Bombeiros, or FMCB, by the end of 2003; (5)
would donate R$100,000 to the FMCB for the acquisition of a
paramedical vehicle to be used in the city by the end of 2003; and
(6) the State Attorney would agree not to take any legal action
against the agencies, entities or individuals that signed the
conduct agreement in the event the conditions of the conduct
agreement were fulfilled during the applicable period.  In
addition, an injunction was issued against CRB and other
defendants that prohibited these companies from storing and
transporting petcoke in the Port of Imbituba.  CRB has provided
evidence demonstrating the renovations and investments made and
appealed the injunction that caused it to close its petcoke
operations at the port and appealed a daily fine of U.S.$100,000
in the event that CRB did not close its petcoke operations.  As a
result of the appeal, the injunction was temporarily suspended.

On December 12, 2011, the CRB and the plaintiffs reached a partial
agreement before the District Court of Imbituba, pursuant to which
CRB has undertaken to carry out six proposed improvements.
Moreover, on January 5, 2012, CRB entered into an adjustment of
conduct agreement (termo de ajustamento de conduta) with FATMA,
pursuant to which FATMA agreed to reduce certain previously
imposed penalties in light of the costs involved in implementing
the improvements.  In May 2012, the District Court of Imbituba
appointed expert testimony to provide support for the alleged
environmental damage arising from the storage of petcoke at the
terminal of the Port of Imbituba.  The District Court notified the
parties to present their inquiries and the names of their
technical assistants.

The Company is currently waiting for the expert report to be
prepared and issued by the court's expert.  Based on the advice of
its external legal counsel, CRB believes the probability of loss
under this claim is probable.  The Company has not recorded any
provision with respect to this claim because this claim is related
to an obligation to limit the emissions of solid particles with
respect to the Company's future operations.  These claims do not
involve a specific amount.

Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia.  The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Awaits Final Ruling in "Mato Grosso" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. is awaiting a final decision from a
higher court in the class action lawsuit brought by Public
Prosecutor of Mato Grosso, according to the Company's April 17,
2013, Form F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On December 11, 2000, the Public Prosecutor of Mato Grosso filed a
civil class action against the Company seeking the annulment of
certain environmental licenses granted to the Company and the
suspension of the Company's operations in the Paraguai/Parana
River.  The court excluded the Company from the civil class action
and the Public Prosecutor has appealed.  In August 2007, a court,
in a unanimous decision, agreed that Brazilian Institute of the
Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro
do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovaveis), or IBAMA,
correctly granted the licenses to the Company.  The Company is
awaiting a final decision from a higher court.

Based on the advice of its external legal counsel, the Company
believes the probability of loss under this claim is possible.
The Company has not recorded any provision with respect to this
claim.

Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia.  The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Awaits for Florida AG and DOJ's Next Move
--------------------------------------------------------------
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. awaits next step to be taken by the
Florida Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice,
according to the Company's April 17, 2013, Form F-1 filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Prestige Concrete Products was party to two consolidated civil
class actions alleging antitrust violations by a number of
companies having cement and ready-mix concrete operations in the
State of Florida.  The court dismissed certain of the claims and
parties in motions to dismiss and subsequently refused to certify
any classes.  The cases were all settled and/or voluntarily
dismissed in February and March 2012.  Subsequent to the
commencement of the civil class actions, the Florida Attorney
General and the U.S. Department of Justice conducted
investigations having, to the Company's knowledge, similar subject
matter but a narrower scope than the civil class actions.  The
last communications with either agency occurred in May 2012 with
no indication by either agency of any intention to conduct further
investigation or to file any charges.

Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia.  The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Continues to Defend "Oliveira" Suit vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. continues to defend a subsidiary against
a class action lawsuit initiated by Marcelo Soares de Oliveira,
according to the Company's April 17, 2013, Form F-1 filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In August 2007, Marcelo Soares de Oliveira filed a class action
(acao popular) against Votorantim Cimentos N/NE S.A., the legal
representative of Companhia de Mineracao do Tocantins -
Mineratins, the State of Tocantins, State Governor of Tocantins
and the President of the Permanent Commission for Tender Processes
of the Treasury Secretariat of State of Tocantins, claiming that
the tender process by means of which Votorantim Cimentos N/NE S.A.
won the rights to be the assignee of the mineral rights related to
the DNPM Process No. 860.933/1982 then held by Companhia de
Mineracao do Tocantins - Mineratins should be nullified due to
failure in the tender procedures which shall cause damages to the
State Treasury.  It is also requested an injunction in order to
immediately suspend the effects of the tender, which has not been
decided by the court yet.

In May 2008, Votorantim Cimentos N/NE S.A. presented defense
arguing that such lawsuit is related (conexo) to another lawsuit
and, therefore, this new one should be judged together with the
previously filed one and requesting the lawsuit to be dismissed.
In April 2009, the State Prosecutor agreed that the lawsuits are
related and should be judged together.

The Company says the expectation of loss under this claim is
considered possible and the Company has not recorded any provision
in connection with this claim.

Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia.  The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Defends Suit Alleging Cartel Formation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. is defending a class action lawsuit
alleging breach of Brazilian antitrust law as a result of alleged
cartel formation, according to the Company's April 17, 2013, Form
F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Office of the Public Prosecutor of Rio Grande do Norte filed a
civil class action against Votorantim Cimentos S.A. ("VCSA"),
together with eight other defendants, including several of
Brazil's largest cement manufacturers alleging breach of Brazilian
antitrust law as a result of alleged cartel formation, and
seeking, among other things, that: (1) defendants pay an
indemnity, on joint basis, in the amount of R$5,600 million in
favor of the class action plaintiffs for moral and collective
damages; (2) defendants pay 10.0% of the total amount paid for
cement or concrete acquired by the consumers of the brands
negotiated by the defendants, between the years 2002 and 2006; and
(3) defendants suffer the following penalties under Articles 23,
Item I and 24 of the Law No. 8.884/94: (i) in addition to the fine
referred to in item (1), a fine ranging from 1.0% to 30.0% of the
annual after-tax revenues relating to the fiscal year immediately
prior to the year in which the administrative proceeding was
initiated, and deriving from the cement business activities of
Votorantim Industrial S.A. ("VID") and its subsidiaries, which may
never be in an amount less than the monetary advantage gained; and
(ii) ineligibility, for a period of at least five years, to obtain
financing from governmental financial institutions or to
participate in competitive government bidding processes conducted
by federal, state or municipal governmental entities or with
governmental agencies.

Because the total amount of the claims referred to in item (1)
amounts to R$5,600 million and the claims allege joint liability,
the Company has estimated that, based on its market share, its
share of the liability would be approximately R$2,400 million.
However, there can be no assurance that this apportionment would
prevail and that the Company will not be held liable for a
different portion, which may be larger, or for the entire amount
of this claim.  The Company's expectation of loss under this
matter is considered possible, and the Company has not established
any provision for this claim.  It is also not possible to ensure
that the Company will not be required to pay other amounts as
compensation for damages caused to consumers in accordance with
item (2), and/or the fine referred to in item (3).

Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia.  The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: In Talks to Settle Serra do Mar-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit alleging Votorantim
Cimentos S.A. and other defendants' operations are causing serious
environmental damage in the Serra do Mar region are currently
negotiating a settlement with the Public Prosecutor of the State
of Sao Paulo, according to the Company's April 17, 2013, Form F-1
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Office of the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo has
filed a civil class action against Votorantim Cimentos S.A.
("VCSA") and other companies alleging that their respective
operations are causing serious environmental damage in the Serra
do Mar region and consequently seeking indemnification to
compensate such damage.  The court has ordered expert testimony to
estimate the environmental damages in the Serra do Mar region.
However, this expert testimony has not yet been completed given
that the appointed expert has declined to testify.  This civil
class action was last suspended in May 2012 for a term of 90 days.
The suspension was renewed for another 90-day period commencing in
August 2012.  The parties are currently negotiating a settlement
with the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo.  Based on
the advice of its external legal counsel, the Company believes the
probability of loss under this claim is probable, and the Company
has recorded a provision of R$2.0 million in connection with this
claim.

Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia.  The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


WELLS FARGO: $203MM Judgment Reinstated in Overdraft Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael W. Sobol of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced that U.S. District
Judge William Alsup late afternoon on May 14 issued an order to
reinstate a $203 million judgment against Wells Fargo Bank.  The
judgment is based upon the court's findings, as affirmed on appeal
by the Ninth Circuit, that Wells Fargo violated California's
unfair competition law by deceiving its customers that debit card
purchases would be posted chronologically to their accounts when
in fact Wells Fargo posted them in a high-to-low order for the
sole purpose of generating overdraft fees.

Sobol, the chair of Lieff Cabraser's consumer practice group,
commented, "There has never been any question that Wells Fargo
used accounting tricks, and directly misled its customers to hide
those tricks, to boost its revenue at the expense of its own
customers.  It is now time for Wells Fargo to act as a responsible
corporate citizen.  Over one million California consumers are
entitled to relief.  They should not have to wait any longer for
Wells Fargo to return their money."

Background on the Wells Fargo Overdraft Fees Litigation

The case before Judge Alsup was brought on behalf of California
Wells Fargo customers who, from November 15, 2004 to June 30,
2008, incurred overdraft fees on debit card transactions as a
result of the bank's practice of sequencing transactions from
highest to lowest.

On August 10, 2010, Judge Alsup issued a 90-page opinion finding
that Wells Fargo manipulated its processing of customer debit card
purchases by its California customers, and made misleading
statements to consumers regarding is resequencing practice, to
maximize overdraft fees in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law.  This practice had the greatest impact on the
bank's low income customers because their accounts often had the
smallest balances.

Instead of posting transaction chronologically, Wells Fargo
deducted the largest charges first, drawing down available
balances more rapidly and triggering a higher volume of overdraft
fees. Judge Alsup ordered that Wells Fargo return to its customers
approximately $203 million in restitution and enjoined the abusive
accounting practices.  Judge Alsup's August 10, 2010, decision
followed two and half years of extended litigation that culminated
in a two-week bench trial which ended in May 2010.

On September 9, 2010, Wells Fargo filed an appeal with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 26, 2012, the appellate
court issued an opinion upholding and reversing portions of Judge
Alsup's order, and remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings.

The appellate court found the National Bank Act preempted
application of state law to Wells Fargo's decision to use high-to-
low posting.  Importantly, the appellate court also found that
false and misleading statements by Wells Fargo were not preempted
and the bank could be held liable for affirmative
misrepresentations in violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law.

In his decision, Judge Alsup reinstated the judgment against Wells
Fargo, finding: "This order is not penalizing Wells Fargo for a
practice protected by federal preemption.  Instead, it is
penalizing Wells Fargo for affirmatively misleading the class as
to what the practice was, namely engaging in a practice likely to
mislead the class to believe that processing would be done in
chronological order when, in fact, processing was done in high-to-
low, non-chronological order."

A copy of Judge Alsup's order is available at http://is.gd/xlJ3AS

Please contact Michael W. Sobol of Lieff Cabraser at 415-956-1000
or msobol@lchb.com for follow up questions or further comments.


* Class Action Targets Hospital Church Plans
--------------------------------------------
M. Sean Sullivan, Esq., at Waller, reports that a number of class-
action lawsuits were recently filed against non-profit hospital
companies over the status of their retirement plans.  The hospital
companies are affiliated with the Catholic Church and have
designated their retirement plans as "church plans."  Church plans
are usually exempt from the requirements of ERISA.

The class-action lawsuits challenge the status of these plans as
church plans on several grounds.  First, plaintiffs argue that the
plan sponsors are not sufficiently affiliated with the Catholic
Church to meet the church plan exception.  In support of this
argument, plaintiffs note that the non-profit hospitals hire
employees regardless of their religious convictions, enter into
joint ventures with partners that do not share religious
convictions common to the Catholic Church, perform medical
procedures such as elective sterilizations, and encourage patients
to reach out to their own spiritual advisors (whether Catholic or
not) for guidance.

Plaintiffs also argue that the Internal Revenue Service and U.S.
Department of Labor have consistently misread and misapplied
ERISA's church plan exemption.  Further, plaintiffs contend that
the extension of the church plan exemption to a non-profit
hospital is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.

The financial stakes in these cases and similar litigation are
very high.  If these retirement plans were determined not to be
church plans, the plan sponsors would have to comply with ERISA.
ERISA compliance would include paying PBGC premiums for the
pension plans, funding the pension plans to the levels required by
ERISA and providing additional disclosures to plan participants.
Based on the plaintiffs' filings, ERISA funding requirements could
involve hundreds of millions of dollars of additional
contributions.  Clearly, this could be financially devastating to
a plan sponsor.  Such high stakes could cause a church plan
sponsor to settle a lawsuit even when the sponsor has an otherwise
strong legal position.

Church plan sponsors, particularly in the non-profit healthcare
arena, should take cases like this very seriously.  Steps that
church plan sponsors can take now include:

Consult with legal counsel about the church plan exception and the
strengths and weaknesses of its position as a church plan sponsor

Establish a process for identifying and following church plan
litigation involving similar plan sponsors

Ensure that inquiries about the plan's status as a church plan are
handled at the appropriate level.  Such inquiries, especially from
plan participants, may be precursors to a class-action lawsuit.


* Minn. Appeals Court Revives Generic Drug Sale Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a Minnesota appeals
court on May 6 ruled that a state law barring pharmacies from
profiting from the sale of generic drugs does not give rise to
private claims, but revived a class action against several major
pharmacies under a separate consumer fraud statute.


* Policyholders Must Be Aware of Privacy Violation Exclusions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robin L. Cohen, Esq., and Michael N. DiCanio, Esq., writing for
Corporate Counsel, report that fueled by statutory damages that
can amount to millions of dollars, companies are increasingly
finding themselves the subject of class-action lawsuits for
alleged invasions of privacy, including violations of federal and
state statutes, as well as claims of negligence and of common law
invasion of privacy.  Faced with the potential of incurring
substantial defense costs in addition to any ultimate liability,
policyholders should first look towards their errors and omissions
(E&O) and/or technology/media liability insurance policies to
provide coverage for liability including any defense costs arising
out of an invasion of privacy claim.

These policies often contain specific coverage grants for alleged
violations of privacy laws.  A policyholder's directors and
officers (D&O) policies or employment practices liability (EPL)
(if the claim is made by an employee) policies may also provide
coverage.  In the absence of specific coverage, policyholders can
also look to the advertising coverage grant of their commercial
general liability (CGL) policies to provide for payment of defense
costs and/or potential liability arising out of a settlement or
judgment of a claim.

A typical CGL policy's advertising coverage grant provides that
the insurer "will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally
obligated to pay as damages because of 'personal and advertising
injury' to which this insurance applies."  "Personal and
advertising injury" will typically be defined as "injury,
including consequential 'bodily injury,' arising out of one or
more of the following offenses: . . . Oral or written publication,
in any manner, of material that violates a person's right of
privacy."  Absent an applicable exclusion, when a complaint
implicitly or explicitly alleges, could be construed to allege, or
could be amended to allege, a violation of the right of privacy,
an insurance company has a duty to defend under a CGL policy.

No matter what type of policy your company has, if your company
tenders a privacy-based claim to its insurer, there are several
issues that your company will likely encounter.

Publication

A common question relating to advertising injury coverage under
CGL policies is to what extent the alleged unauthorized recording
of a phone call or the alleged dissemination of private
information is an "oral or written publication of material."
Since the term "publication" is typically not defined in CGL
policies, insurers will often argue that in order to constitute an
advertising injury under a CGL policy, the recordings or private
information must have been disclosed to a third party, i.e.
someone outside the company.

However, this argument has been squarely rejected by a number of
courts.  A California federal district court held that an
insurance carrier has a duty to defend its insured under a CGL
policy against an underlying class action in which the insured was
alleged to have violated the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act. Lenscrafters, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2005).  The court held that the insuring
clause "publication of material that violates a person's right to
privacy" does not require widespread disclosure, because the
"right to privacy" is not limited to common law invasion of
privacy by public disclosure of private facts, but encompasses,
for example, violations of the California constitutional right of
privacy.

The court in Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dandy-Jim, Inc., adopted a
similar approach when it rejected an insurance company's argument
that the term "publication" in a policy's "advertising injury"
coverage required disclosure to a third party. 182 Ohio App. 3d
311, 320-21 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).  The court recognized that
"there is nothing in the [applicable] policy that suggests that
'publication' means communicating the offending material to a
third party."

Excluded Fines or Penalties

Insurers may try to avoid coverage for advertising injury by
arguing that the statutory minimums available to an injured party
under various federal and state privacy statutes are excluded
"fines or penalties."  This argument has failed in California,
where the court in Visa, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's,
London, CGC-11-509839, January 6, 2012 Order (Calif. Sup. Ct., San
Francisco), held that the statutory minimums available under
California law constituted covered damages under the policy
language.

In Visa, the policy defined damages to exclude fines, sanctions,
or penalties.  The policyholder successfully argued that the state
privacy statutes at issue, including California Penal Code
Sec. 637.2(a), did not characterize the statutorily mandated
minimum damages of $5,000 as a fine, sanction, or penalty to be
imposed on one who violates the statute by the state or any
governmental authority.  The court found that because the
statutory minimums at issue in Visa had both a remedial function
as damages as well as a punitive aspect, that they did not fall
solely and exclusively under the exclusion, and constituted
covered damages under the policy.

Exclusions for Intentional Conduct

Because allegations that a company violated a person's right to
privacy often involve alleged intentional conduct, insurers may
also try to assert an intentional act exclusion to preclude
coverage.  The "Knowing Violation of Rights of Another" exclusion
is a good example of such an exclusion, which purports to exclude
advertising injury caused by or at the direction of the insured
with the knowledge that the act would violate the rights of
another and would inflict advertising injury.  Despite this
language, policyholders should not automatically conclude that
there is no coverage.  As the duty to defend is typically
determined by comparing the allegations in the complaint with the
terms of the policy, if the complaint contains any allegations
that, if true, would result in potentially covered damages under
the policy, then the insurer must defend the lawsuit.

Policyholders should also be aware of another exclusion, the
"Distribution of Material in Violation of Statutes" exclusion,
present in many CGL policies, which purports to eliminate coverage
for injury arising directly or indirectly from actual or alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),
Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing
Act (CAN-SPAM), and other statutes, ordinances, or laws that
prohibit the sending, transmitting, communicating, or distribution
of material or information.  To the extent policyholders face
common law claims of negligence and/or invasion of privacy claims
in addition to statutory claims, under the law of most
jurisdictions, policyholders are entitled to coverage of defense
costs for all of the claims asserted against the company until
such time as the covered claims are dismissed or, at a minimum,
until there is a clear basis for allocation of defense costs among
covered and non-covered claims.

Conclusion

When faced with defending a privacy-based class-action lawsuit,
understanding coverage under your company's various liability
policies and the most common defenses raised by insurers will
allow the well-prepared policyholder to access valuable coverage
for these types of claims.  Policyholders should look carefully
for specifically crafted exclusions for TCPA and other privacy
statute violations and aggressively seek coverage for what has
become a rising tide of privacy-based class-action lawsuits.

In addition, if your company engages with consumers, handles
consumer information, or otherwise participates in business
activities that could potentially trigger a privacy violation, you
should be aware of specific exclusions for privacy statute
violations and the issues discussed above when purchasing
liability policies and constructing your company's insurance
coverage program.  It is important to try to negotiate coverage
for these types of claims at the outset to avoid potentially large
liabilities down the road.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Had $37M Litigation Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
At March 31, 2013, MeadWestvaco Corporation recorded litigation
liabilities of approximately $37 million, a significant portion of
which relates to 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 has been notified by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency or by various state or local governments that it may be
liable under federal environmental laws or under applicable state
or local laws with respect to the cleanup of hazardous substances
at sites previously operated or used by the company. The company
is currently named as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), or
has received third-party requests for contribution under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act ("CERCLA") and similar state or local laws with respect to
numerous sites. There are other sites which may contain
contamination or which may be potential Superfund sites, but for
which MeadWestvaco has not received any notice or claim. The
potential liability for all these sites will depend upon several
factors, including the extent of contamination, the method of
remediation, insurance coverage and contribution by other PRPs.
The company regularly evaluates its potential liability at these
various sites. At March 31, 2013, MeadWestvaco had recorded
liabilities of approximately $6 million for estimated potential
cleanup costs based upon its close monitoring of ongoing
activities and its past experience with these matters. The company
believes that it is reasonably possible that costs associated with
these sites may exceed amounts of recorded liabilities by an
amount that could range from an insignificant amount to as much as
$5 million. This estimate is less certain than the estimate upon
which the environmental liabilities were based. After consulting
with legal counsel and after considering established liabilities,
it is our judgment that the resolution of pending litigation and
proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the company's consolidated financial condition or liquidity. In
any given period or periods, however, it is possible such
proceedings or matters could have a material effect on the results
of operations.

As with numerous other large industrial companies, the company has
been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate
defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the litigation,
including settlement costs, have not been significant. As of March
31, 2013, there were about 500 lawsuits. Management believes that
the company has substantial indemnification protection and
insurance coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy
limits, with respect to asbestos claims. The company has valid
defenses to these claims and intends to continue to defend them
vigorously. Additionally, based on its historical experience in
asbestos cases and an analysis of the current cases, the company
believes that it has adequate amounts accrued for potential
settlements and judgments in asbestos-related litigation. At March
31, 2013, the company had recorded litigation liabilities of
approximately $37 million, a significant portion of which relates
to asbestos. Should the volume of litigation grow substantially,
it is possible that the company could incur significant costs
resolving these cases. After consulting with legal counsel and
after considering established liabilities, it is our judgment that
the resolution of pending litigation and proceedings is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on the company's
consolidated financial condition or liquidity. In any given period
or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings or matters
could have a material effect on the results of operations.

MeadWestvaco is involved in various other litigation and
administrative proceedings arising in the normal course of
business. Although the ultimate outcome of such matters cannot be
predicted with certainty, management does not believe that the
currently expected outcome of any matter, lawsuit or claim that is
pending or threatened, or all of them combined, will have a
material adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial
condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however,
it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material
effect on the results of operations.

MeadWestvaco Corporation (MWV) is a global packaging company
providing solutions to the healthcare, beauty and personal care,
food, beverage, home and garden, tobacco, and agricultural
industries. The company also produces specialty chemicals for the
automotive, energy, and infrastructure industries and maximizes
the value of its land holdings through forestry operations,
property development and land sales. MWV's reporting segments are
Food & Beverage; Home, Health & Beauty; Industrial; Specialty
Chemicals, and Community Development and Land Management. On May
1, 2012, the Company completed the spin-off of its Consumer &
Office Products business and subsequent merger of that business
with ACCO Brands Corporation. On November 30, 2012, MWV acquired
Ruby Macons Limited (Ruby Macons). On December 11, 2012, MWV
acquired the remaining 50% interest in Resitec Industria Quimica,
Ltda.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tropicana Las Vegas Hotel Facility Has Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tropicana Las Vegas Hotel and Casino, Inc., reported that some
portions of its facilities are known to contain asbestos as well
as other environmental conditions, including the presence of mold,
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.

Portions of Tropicana Las Vegas are known to contain asbestos as
well as other environmental conditions, including the presence of
mold. The environmental conditions are expected to require
remediation in isolated areas. The extent of such potential
conditions cannot be determined definitively, and may result in
additional expense in the event that additional or currently
unknown conditions are detected.

Tropicana Las Vegas Hotel and Casino, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation formed in June 2009 for the primary purpose of owning
and operating Tropicana Las Vegas Intermediate Holdings, Inc., and
its wholly owned subsidiary Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc.
(collectively, "Tropicana Las Vegas"). Tropicana Las Vegas offers
casino gaming, hotel accommodations, dining, entertainment, retail
shopping and other resort amenities. Tropicana Las Vegas is
conveniently located on 34 acres at the corner of Tropicana Avenue
and Las Vegas Boulevard on the Las Vegas Strip.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 56,208 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., had 56,208 pending claims as of March 31, 2013,
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 defendant in cases filed
in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos. Activity related to asbestos
claims during the periods indicated was as follows:

Of the 56,208 pending claims as of March 31, 2013, approximately
19,200 claims were pending in New York, approximately 9,900 claims
were pending in Texas, approximately 5,500 claims were pending in
Mississippi, and approximately 4,600 claims were pending in Ohio,
all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company
has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of $2.54
million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after
the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California,
after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate
remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was
made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case
in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009.

The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one
of which, the Patrick O'Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on
appeal. In an opinion dated January 12, 2012, the California
Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and
instructed the trial court to enter a judgment of nonsuit in favor
of the defendants.

On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
James Baccus claim in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with
compensatory damages of $2.45 million and additional damages of
$11.9 million. The Company's post-trial motions were denied by
order dated January 5, 2009. The case was concluded by settlement
in the fourth quarter of 2010 during the pendency of the Company's
appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles, California. The amount of the
judgment entered was $0.68 million plus interest and costs. The
Company pursued an appeal in this matter, and on August 2, 2012
the California Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded
the matter to the trial court for entry of judgment
notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the Company on the ground
that this claim could not be distinguished factually from the
Patrick O'Neil case decided in the Company's favor by the
California Supreme Court.

On February 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury
found that the Company was responsible for one-half of one percent
(0.5%) of plaintiffs' damages of $16.93 million; however, based on
California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment
was entered against the Company in the amount of $1.65 million,
plus costs. Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a
motion with the trial court requesting judgment in the Company's
favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009,
the court advised that the Company's motion was granted and
judgment was entered in favor of the Company. The trial court's
ruling was affirmed on appeal by order dated August 25, 2011. The
plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court of
California, which dismissed the appeal on February 29, 2012; the
matter is now finally determined in the Company's favor.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5
million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share
of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On February 23,
2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in the amount of
$0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and in the amount
of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and two other
defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the amount of
$0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only, in Nelson.
All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs took
timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. The Nelson
appeal is pending. The Company resolved the Bell appeal by
settlement, which is reflected in the settled claims for 2012.

On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the
Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on
the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions
seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to
reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under
New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic
losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October
18, 2011 and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012
confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of
damages to $8 million. At plaintiffs' request, the Court entered a
judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the Company, taking
into account settlement offsets and accrued interest under New
York law. The Company has appealed.

On March 9, 2012, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/8th share of a $123,000
verdict in the Frank Paasch claim. The Company and plaintiffs
filed post-trial motions. On May 31, 2012, on plaintiffs' motion,
the Court entered an order dismissing the claim against the
Company, with prejudice, and without any payment.

On August 29, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
William Paulus claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found
that the Company was responsible for ten percent (10%) of
plaintiffs' non-economic damages of $6.5 million, plus a portion
of Plaintiffs' economic damages of $0.4 million. Based on
California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment
was entered in the amount of $0.8 million against the Company. The
Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in the
Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, which were
denied. The Company has appealed.

On October 23, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Gerald Suttner claim in Buffalo, New York. The jury found that
the Company was responsible for four percent (4%) of plaintiffs'
damages of $3 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict, which were denied. The court entered a judgment of
$0.1 million against the Company. The Company will pursue an
appeal.

On November 28, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the James Hellam claim in Oakland, CA. The jury found that the
Company was responsible for seven percent (7%) of plaintiffs' non-
economic damages of $4.5 million, plus a portion of their economic
damages of $0.9 million. Based on California court rules regarding
allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the Company in
the amount of $1.282 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict and also requesting that settlement offsets be
applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with California law.
On January 31, 2013, the court entered an order disposing
partially of that motion. On March 1, 2013, the Company filed an
appeal regarding the portions of the motion that were denied. The
court is expected to resolve the remainder of the issues raised
shortly, after which the Company will appeal any remaining issues.

On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a
$2,500,000 verdict ($250,000) in the Thomas Amato claim and a
1/5th share of a $2,300,000 verdict ($460,000) in the Frank
Vinciguerra claim, which were consolidated for trial. The Company
filed post-trial motions requesting judgments in the Company's
favor notwithstanding the jury's verdicts or new trials, and also
requesting that settlement offsets be applied to reduce the
judgment in accordance with Pennsylvania law. The Company plans to
pursue an appeal if necessary.

On March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35
million verdict against the Company in the Ivo Peraica claim. The
Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict,
to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company
argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing
awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to
settlement offsets. The plaintiffs have requested judgment against
the Company in the amount of $19.3 million. The matters remain
pending before the trial court. The Company plans to pursue an
appeal if necessary.

Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred
costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final
payment amount is determined.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the three-month
periods ended March 31, 2013 and 2012 totaled $20.5 million and
$23.6 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of
settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of
activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally
lag the tort system activity by several months or more, and may
show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Cash payments of
settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other
required documentation are received by the Company, and
reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by
insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices,
transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and
the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The
Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs,
net of funds received from insurers, for the three-month periods
ended March 31, 2013 and 2012 totaled $10.5 million and $18.2
million, respectively.

Cumulatively through March 31, 2013, the Company has resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) approximately 91,000 claims, not
including the MARDOC claims referred to above. The related
settlement cost incurred by the Company and its insurance carriers
is approximately $375 million, for an average settlement cost per
resolved claim of approximately $4,100. The average settlement
cost per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2012,
2011 and 2010 was $6,300, $4,123 and $7,036, respectively. Because
claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost
per resolved claim, as well as the number of open claims, can
fluctuate significantly from period to period. In addition to
large group dismissals, the nature of the disease and
corresponding settlement amounts for each claim resolved will also
drive changes from period to period in the average settlement cost
per claim. Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not
considered in the Company's periodic review of its estimated
asbestos liability.

                     Hamilton Rabinovitz Hired

The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the
field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos
liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by
the Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as
the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the
claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from
filing to disposition of the claim.

The methodology used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is
based largely on the Company's experience during a base reference
period of eleven quarterly periods (consisting of the two full
preceding calendar years and three additional quarterly periods to
the estimate date) for claims filed, settled and dismissed. The
Company's experience is then compared to the results of widely
used previously conducted epidemiological studies estimating the
number of individuals likely to develop asbestos-related diseases.
Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses
of the population of workers believed to have been exposed to
asbestos. Using that information, HR&A estimates the number of
future claims that would be filed against the Company and
estimates the aggregate settlement or indemnity costs that would
be incurred to resolve both pending and future claims based upon
the average settlement costs by disease during the reference
period. This methodology has been accepted by numerous courts.

After discussions with the Company, HR&A augments its liability
estimate for the costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort
system using a forecast from the Company which is based upon
discussions with its defense counsel. Based on this information,
HR&A compiles an estimate of the Company's asbestos liability for
pending and future claims, based on claim experience during the
reference period and covering claims expected to be filed through
the indicated forecast period. The most significant factors
affecting the liability estimate are (1) the number of new
mesothelioma claims filed against the Company, (2) the average
settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3) the percentage of
mesothelioma claims dismissed against the Company and (4) the
aggregate defense costs incurred by the Company. These factors are
interdependent, and no one factor predominates in determining the
liability estimate. Although the methodology used by HR&A can be
applied to show claims and costs for periods subsequent to the
indicated period (up to and including the endpoint of the asbestos
studies referred to above), management believes that the level of
uncertainty regarding the various factors used in estimating
future asbestos costs is too great to provide for reasonable
estimation of the number of future claims, the nature of such
claims or the cost to resolve them for years beyond the indicated
estimate.

In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide the
best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and
costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors,
including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the
jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any
legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and
the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the
federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation in
the tort system have been significantly affected over the past
five to ten years by the substantial number of companies that have
filed for bankruptcy protection, thereby staying any asbestos
claims against them until the conclusion of such proceedings, and
the establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts for
asbestos claimants, which are estimated to provide $36 billion for
payments to current and future claimants. These trend factors have
both positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos
litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of the
Company's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a
linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods.
Accordingly, the Company's management continues to monitor these
trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an
alternative forecast period is appropriate.

Each quarter, HR&A compiles an update based upon the Company's
experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed during the
updated reference period (consisting of the preceding eleven
quarterly periods) as well as average settlement costs by disease
category (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer and non-
malignant conditions including asbestosis) during that period. In
addition to this claims experience, the Company also considers
additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature
of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and
legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected
future settlement values. As part of this process, the Company
also takes into account trends in the tort system such as those
enumerated above. Management considers all these factors in
conjunction with the liability estimate of HR&A and determines
whether a change in the estimate is warranted.

                        Liability Estimate

With the assistance of HR&A, effective as of December 31, 2011,
the Company updated and extended its estimate of the asbestos
liability, including the costs of settlement or indemnity payments
and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future
claims projected to be filed against the Company through 2021. The
Company's previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed or
projected to be filed through 2017. As a result of this updated
estimate, the Company recorded an additional liability of $285
million as of December 31, 2011. The Company's decision to take
this action at such date was based on several factors which
contribute to the Company's ability to reasonably estimate this
liability for the additional period noted. First, the number of
mesothelioma claims (which although constituting approximately 8%
of the Company's total pending asbestos claims, have accounted for
approximately 90% of the Company's aggregate settlement and
defense costs) being filed against the Company and associated
settlement costs have recently stabilized. In the Company's
opinion, the outlook for mesothelioma claims expected to be filed
and resolved in the forecast period is reasonably stable. Second,
there have been favorable developments in the trend of case law
which has been a contributing factor in stabilizing the asbestos
claims activity and related settlement costs. Third, there have
been significant actions taken by certain state legislatures and
courts over the past several years that have reduced the number
and types of claims that can proceed to trial, which has been a
significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity.
Fourth, the Company has now entered into coverage-in-place
agreements with almost all of its excess insurers, which enables
the Company to project a more stable relationship between
settlement and defense costs paid by the Company and
reimbursements from its insurers.

Taking all of these factors into account, the Company believes
that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos liability for pending
claims and future claims to be filed through 2021. While it is
probable that the Company will incur additional charges for
asbestos liabilities and defense costs in excess of the amounts
currently provided, the Company does not believe that any such
amount can be reasonably estimated beyond 2021.

Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs which may
be incurred for claims which may be made subsequent to 2021.
Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021
based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through
March 31, 2013, the Company's actual experience during the updated
reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed
generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's liability
estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the Company
considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as
the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate
rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects
on expected future settlement values.

Based on this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in
the estimate was warranted for the period ended March 31, 2013.
Nevertheless, if certain factors show a pattern of sustained
increase or decrease, the liability could change materially;
however, all the assumptions used in estimating the asbestos
liability are interdependent and no single factor predominates in
determining the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty
with regard to and the interdependency of such factors used in the
calculation of its asbestos liability, and since no one factor
predominates, the Company believes that a range of potential
liability estimates beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be
reasonably estimated.

A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. The liability was $773 million as of March 31, 2013. It is
not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the
asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected
such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021,
due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the
estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a
claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated
costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability
to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion
of the total estimated liability at March 31, 2013 was $92 million
and represents the Company's best estimate of total asbestos costs
expected to be paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount is
based upon the HR&A model together with the Company's prior year
payment experience for both settlement and defense costs.

                Insurance Coverage and Receivables

Prior to 2005, a significant portion of the Company's settlement
and defense costs were paid by its primary insurers. With the
exhaustion of that primary coverage, the Company began
negotiations with its excess insurers to reimburse the Company for
a portion of its settlement and/or defense costs as incurred. To
date, the Company has entered into agreements providing for such
reimbursements, known as "coverage-in-place", with eleven of its
excess insurer groups. Under such coverage-in-place agreements, an
insurer's policies remain in force and the insurer undertakes to
provide coverage for the Company's present and future asbestos
claims on specified terms and conditions that address, among other
things, the share of asbestos claims costs to be paid by the
insurer, payment terms, claims handling procedures and the
expiration of the insurer's obligations. Similarly, under a
variant of coverage-in-place, the Company has entered into an
agreement with a group of insurers confirming the aggregate amount
of available coverage under the subject policies and setting forth
a schedule for future reimbursement payments to the Company based
on aggregate indemnity and defense payments made.

In addition, with nine of its excess insurer groups, the Company
entered into policy buyout agreements, settling all asbestos and
other coverage obligations for an agreed sum, totaling $82.1
million in aggregate. Reimbursements from insurers for past and
ongoing settlement and defense costs allocable to their policies
have been made in accordance with these coverage-in-place and
other agreements. All of these agreements include provisions for
mutual releases, indemnification of the insurer and, for coverage-
in-place, claims handling procedures. With the agreements
referenced above, the Company has concluded settlements with all
but one of its solvent excess insurers whose policies are expected
to respond to the aggregate costs included in the updated
liability estimate. That insurer, which issued a single applicable
policy, has been paying the shares of defense and indemnity costs
the Company has allocated to it, subject to a reservation of
rights. There are no pending legal proceedings between the Company
and any insurer contesting the Company's asbestos claims under its
insurance policies.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate
referenced above, the Company also developed an estimate of
probable insurance recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In
developing this estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-
place and other settlement agreements described above, as well as
a number of additional factors. These additional factors include
the financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies
and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and
defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, the timing
and amount of reimbursements will vary because the Company's
insurance coverage for asbestos claims involves multiple insurers,
with different policy terms and certain gaps in coverage. In
addition to consulting with legal counsel on these insurance
matters, the Company retained insurance consultants to assist
management in the estimation of probable insurance recoveries
based upon the aggregate liability estimate described above and
assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance
carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other
factors noted above by the Company's legal counsel, and
incorporating risk mitigation judgments by the Company where
policy terms or other factors were not certain, the Company's
insurance consultants compiled a model indicating how the
Company's historical insurance policies would respond to varying
levels of asbestos settlement and defense costs and the allocation
of such costs between such insurers and the Company. Using the
estimated liability as of December 31, 2011 (for claims filed or
expected to be filed through 2021), the insurance consultant's
model forecasted that approximately 25% of the liability would be
reimbursed by the Company's insurers. While there are overall
limits on the aggregate amount of insurance available to the
Company with respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were
not reached by the total estimated liability currently recorded by
the Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company
in its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion
of the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance
coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance
in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the
asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverage
allocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded as
of December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurance
reimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset is
reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are
received. The asset was $193 million as of March 31, 2013.

The Company reviews the estimated reimbursement rate with its
insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order to confirm its
overall consistency with the Company's established reserves. The
reviews encompass consideration of the performance of the insurers
under coverage-in-place agreements and the effect of any
additional lump-sum payments under policy buyout agreements. Since
December 2011, there have been no developments that have caused
the Company to change the estimated 25% rate, although actual
insurance reimbursements vary from period to period, and will
decline over time, for the reasons cited above.

                           Uncertainties

Estimation of the Company's ultimate exposure for asbestos-related
claims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there are
multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity and
quantity of claims and the manner of their resolution. The Company
cautions that its estimated liability is based on assumptions with
respect to future claims, settlement and defense costs based on
past experience that may not prove reliable as predictors. A
significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims
filed, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, the
jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the product
identification, or a significant upward or downward trend in the
costs of defending claims, could change the estimated liability,
as would substantial adverse verdicts at trial that withstand
appeal. A legislative solution, structured settlement transaction,
or significant change in relevant case law could also change the
estimated liability.

The same factors that affect developing estimates of probable
settlement and defense costs for asbestos-related liabilities also
affect estimates of the probable insurance reimbursements, as do a
number of additional factors. These additional factors include the
financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies
and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and
defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, due to the
uncertainties inherent in litigation matters, no assurances can be
given regarding the outcome of any litigation, if necessary, to
enforce the Company's rights under its insurance policies or
settlement agreements.

Many uncertainties exist surrounding asbestos litigation, and the
Company will continue to evaluate its estimated asbestos-related
liability and corresponding estimated insurance reimbursement as
well as the underlying assumptions and process used to derive
these amounts. These uncertainties may result in the Company
incurring future charges or increases to income to adjust the
carrying value of recorded liabilities and assets, particularly if
the number of claims and settlement and defense costs change
significantly, or if there are significant developments in the
trend of case law or court procedures, or if legislation or
another alternative solution is implemented; however, the Company
is currently unable to estimate such future changes and,
accordingly, while it is probable that the Company will incur
additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs in
excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does not
believe that any such amount can be reasonably determined beyond
2021. Although the resolution of these claims may take many years,
the effect on the results of operations, financial position and
cash flow in any given period from a revision to these estimates
could be material.

Crane Co. (Crane) a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered
industrial products. Crane operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two
groups: the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The
Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of two businesses:
Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Company's primary
markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential
construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated
merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear,
building services and utilities. In July 2011, it completed the
acquisition of W. T. Armatur GmbH & Co. KG (WTA), a manufacturer
of bellows sealed globe valves, as well as certain types of
specialty valves, for chemical, fertilizer and thermal oil
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Co-Defendant in 260 PI Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in approximately 260
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 600 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to 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: "We are subject to various pending and
threatened lawsuits in which claims for monetary damages are
asserted in the ordinary course of business. While any litigation
involves an element of uncertainty, in the opinion of management,
liabilities, if any, arising from currently pending or threatened
litigation are not expected to have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations."

"In addition to the routine lawsuits and asserted claims noted
above, we were a party to the lawsuits and legal proceedings
described [] at March 31, 2013.

"We were a co-defendant in approximately 260 cases asserting
claims on behalf of approximately 600 plaintiffs alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases
generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing
products and allege various theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek
compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are only six asbestos cases, involving 23 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages. In each of the six cases, the plaintiff
is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0
million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for
another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of
$10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three
separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of
action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the
remaining two cases, the plaintiffs have each alleged against each
named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the
amount of $50.0 million, for four separate causes of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome
of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that
the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of
operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching
this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being
dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the bases mentioned
above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of
our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's
injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. (Holdings) conducts its business
primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary,
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. (Park-Ohio). It is an industrial supply
chain logistics and diversified manufacturing business operating
in three segments: Supply Technologies, Aluminum Products and
Manufactured Products. Supply Technologies provides the Company's
customers with Total Supply Management services for a range of
specialty production components. Its Aluminum Products business
manufactures cast and machined aluminum components, and the
Company's Manufactured Products business is a manufacturer of
engineered industrial products. The Company's businesses serve
industrial original equipment manufacturers in a variety of
industrial sectors. On March 26, 2012, it acquired Fluid Routing
Solutions Inc. In April 2013, the Company Fluid Routing Solutions
(FRS) business acquired all of the assets of Bates Acquisition LLC
and Bates Real Estate Acquisition, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany's Units Had $541.6MM Gross LAE Reserve
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2013, that "Loss and loss adjustment expenses ("LAE")
include amounts for risks relating to asbestos-related illnesses
and environmental impairment. As of March 31, 2013, such gross
reserve was at $541.6 million for the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiaries Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. ("TransRe") and Capitol
Transamerica Corporation and Platte River Insurance Company
("CATA")."

The reserves carried for such claims, including the incurred but
not reported portion, are based upon known facts and current law
at the respective balance sheet dates. However, significant
uncertainty exists in determining the amount of ultimate liability
for asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment losses,
particularly for those occurring in 1985 and prior, which
represents the majority of TransRe's asbestos-related illness and
environmental impairment reserves. This uncertainty is due to
inconsistent court resolutions and judicial interpretations with
respect to underlying policy intent and coverage and uncertainties
as to the allocation of responsibility for resultant damages,
among other reasons. Further, possible changes in statutes, laws,
regulations, theories of liability and other factors could have a
material effect on these liabilities and, accordingly, future
earnings.

Alleghany Corporation, a Delaware corporation is engaged in the
property and casualty reinsurance and insurance business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Named as Defendant in Various Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation is named as a defendant in 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.

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

IDEX Corporation (IDEX) is an applied solutions business that
sells pumps, flow meters and other fluidics systems and components
and engineered products to customers in a variety of markets
worldwide. IDEX operates in four segments: Fluid & Metering
Technologies, Health & Science Technologies, Dispensing Equipment,
and Fire & Safety/Diversified Products. Reporting units in the
Fluid & Metering Technologies segment consist of Banjo; Energy and
Fuels; Chemical, Food & Process (CFP) and Water & Waste Water
(Water). Reporting units in the Health & Science Technologies
segment consist of IDEX Health & Science (IH&S); IDEX Optics and
Photonics (IOP); Precision Polymer Engineering (PPE); Gast;
Micropump and Materials Process Technologies (MPT). Reporting
units in the Fire & Safety/Diversified Products segment consist of
Fire Suppression; Rescue Tools and Band-It. In March 2013, it
announced the acquisition of FTL Seals Technology, Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,160 Cases at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
At March 31, 2013, Standard Motor Products, Inc., had
approximately 2,160 outstanding asbestos-related cases, 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 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the
seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate
exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on
or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and
defense thereof. At March 31, 2013, approximately 2,160 cases were
outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related
liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through March 31,
2013, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately $14
million. We acquired limited insurance coverage up to a fixed
amount for defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims and have exhausted all insurance
coverage."

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos-related liabilities performed by
an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits
are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions.
As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial
consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related
liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability. The
methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs
in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available
from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent
claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future;
(3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an
analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average
settlement values.

"The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31,
2012. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $27.1 million to
$41.5 million for the period through 2058. The change from the
prior year study was a $0.4 million decrease for the low end of
the range and a $25 million decrease for the high end of the
range. The decrease in the estimated undiscounted liability from
the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range
reflects our actual experience over the prior twelve months. Based
on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other
available information considered by us, we concluded that no
amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely
than any other and, therefore, recorded the low end of the range
as the liability associated with future settlement payments
through 2058 in our consolidated financial statements.
Accordingly, an incremental $0.4 million provision in our
discontinued operation was added to the asbestos accrual in
September 2012 increasing the reserve to approximately $27.1
million. According to the updated study, legal costs, which are
expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations, are estimated to range from $32.3 million to $57
million during the same period.

"We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the
third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Given the
uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the
future and other factors outside our control, we can give no
assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will
continue to monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential
liabilities in determining whether additional provisions may be
necessary. At the present time, however, we do not believe that
any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial
position.

"We are involved in various other litigation and product liability
matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the
final outcome of any other litigation or product liability matter
cannot be determined, based on our understanding and evaluation of
the relevant facts and circumstances, it is our opinion that the
final outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition or results of
operations."

Standard Motor Products, Inc., is an independent manufacturer and
distributor of replacement parts for motor vehicles in the
automotive aftermarket industry, with a focus on the original
equipment service market. The Company operates in two segments:
Engine Management Segment, which manufactures ignition and
emission parts, ignition wires, battery cables and fuel system
parts, and Temperature Control Segment that manufactures and
remanufactures air conditioning compressors, air conditioning and
heating parts, engine cooling system parts, power window
accessories, and windshield washer system parts. In April 2011,
the Company acquired the Engine Controls business of BLD Products,
Ltd. In October 2011, the Company acquired Forecast Trading
Corporation. The Company sells its products primarily to warehouse
distributors, retail chains, original equipment manufacturers and
original equipment service part operations in the United States,
Canada and Latin America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Tenneco No Adverse Impact on Financials
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc., believes that asbestos-related claims will not have
a material adverse impact on its future consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows, 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 addition, we are subject to lawsuits
initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos. In the early 2000s
we were named in nearly 20,000 complaints, most of which were
filed in Mississippi state court and the vast majority of which
made no allegations of exposure to asbestos from our product
categories. Most of these claims have been dismissed and our
current docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases
nationwide. A small number of claims have been asserted by
railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in
railroad cars manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of our
subsidiaries. The substantial majority of the remaining claims are
related to alleged exposure to asbestos in our automotive
products. Only a small percentage of the claimants allege that
they were automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to
involve workers in other industries or otherwise do not include
sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis for
a claim against us. We believe, based on scientific and other
evidence, it is unlikely that mechanics were exposed to asbestos
by our former products and that, in any event, they would not be
at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work
with these products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100 defendants
from a variety of industries. Additionally, the plaintiffs either
do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages. As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users
continue to go out of business or file for bankruptcy, we may
experience an increased number of these claims. We vigorously
defend ourselves against these claims as part of our ordinary
course of business. In future periods, we could be subject to
charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved
unfavorably to us. To date, with respect to claims that have
proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, we have
regularly achieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly, we
presently believe that these asbestos-related claims will not have
a material adverse impact on our future consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

Tenneco Inc. (Tenneco) is a producer of emission control and ride
control products and systems for light, commercial and specialty
vehicle applications. The Company serves both original equipment
vehicle manufacturers (OEMs) and the repair and replacement
markets, or aftermarket, worldwide. Tenneco designs, manufactures
and sells emission control and ride control systems and products
for light, commercial and specialty vehicle applications. It
serves the OEMs and replacement markets worldwide through brands,
including Monroe, Rancho, Clevite Elastomers, Marzocchi, Axios,
Kinetic, and Fric-Rot ride control products and Walker, Fonos,
DynoMax, Thrush, and Lukey emission control products. As a parts
supplier, the Company produces individual component parts for
vehicles, as well as groups of components that are combined as
modules or systems within vehicles. In September 2012, the Company
announced the opening of its first manufacturing plant in Japan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Subsidiary is Defendant in 6,900 Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013, CONSOL
Energy Inc., stated that one of its subsidiaries is named as a
defendant in approximately 6,900 asbestos-related claims.

The Company states: "One of our subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply
Company (Fairmont), which distributes industrial supplies,
currently is named as a defendant in approximately 6,900 asbestos-
related claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Maryland, Texas and Illinois. Because a very small
percentage of products manufactured by third parties and supplied
by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos and many of
the pending claims are part of mass complaints filed by hundreds
of plaintiffs against a hundred or more defendants, it has been
difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the cases actually
involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to
asbestos-containing products supplied by Fairmont. In addition,
while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in
certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products,
the availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at
this time, and in recent years, some of the manufacturers named as
defendants in these actions have sought protection from these
claims under bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage
with respect to these asbestos cases. Based on over 15 years of
experience with this litigation, we have established an accrual to
cover our estimated liability for these cases. This accrual is
immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and
is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet. Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos
cases have not been material."

CONSOL Energy Inc. (CONSOL Energy) is a producer of coal and
natural gas for global energy and raw material markets, which
include the electric power generation industry and the steelmaking
industry. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company
produced 62.6 million tons of high-British thermal unit (Btu)
bituminous coal from 12 mining complexes in the United States. In
addition, it provides energy services, including river and dock
services, terminal services, industrial supply services, coal
waste disposal services and land resource management services. The
Company operates in two segments: Coal and Gas. In July 2012,
Cloud Peak Energy Inc. acquired Youngs Creek Mining Company, LLC
(Youngs Creek) joint venture and other related coal and surface
assets from Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (Chevron) and the Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Received 1,435 New Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
During the three months ended March 31, 2013, MetLife, Inc.,
received approximately 1,435 new 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 31, 2013.

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

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

As reported in the 2012 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately
5,303 asbestos-related claims in 2012. During the three months
ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, MLIC received approximately 1,435
and 1,214 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. See Note 21
of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in
the 2012 Annual Report for historical information concerning
asbestos claims and MLIC's increase in its recorded liability at
December 31, 2002. The number of asbestos cases that may be
brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may
incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year
are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year.

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

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

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

MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the U.S., assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved
in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its regular
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
March 31, 2013.

MetLife, Inc. (MetLife), is a provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs. Through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, MetLife operates in the United States, Japan, Latin
America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East. It is organized
into six segments: Insurance Products, Retirement Products,
Corporate Benefit Funding and Auto & Home (collectively, U.S.
Business), and Japan and Other International Regions
(collectively, International). In addition, the Company reports
certain of its results of operations in Corporate & Other, which
includes MetLife Bank, National Association (MetLife Bank) and
other business activities. U.S. Business provides insurance and
financial services products, including life, dental, disability,
auto and homeowner insurance, guaranteed interest and stable value
products, and annuities through independent retail distribution
channels. In January 2013, it completed the sale of MetLife Bank,
N.A.'s deposit business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rouse Properties Recorded $4.6MM ARO Estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, Rouse Properties, Inc. recorded a
preliminary estimate of the cost of the environmental remediation
liability of approximately $4.6 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 evaluated any potential asset retirement obligations,
including those related to disposal of asbestos containing
materials and environmental remediation liabilities. The Company
recognizes the fair value of such obligations in the period
incurred if a reasonable estimate of fair value can be determined.
As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company recorded a
preliminary estimate of the cost of the environmental remediation
liability of approximately $4.6 million and $4.5 million,
respectively, which is included in other liabilities within the
accompanying consolidated and combined balance sheets. The
ultimate cost of remediation to be incurred by the Company in the
future may differ from the estimates as of March 31, 2013.

Rouse Properties, Inc. (Rouse) is a real estate investment trust
(REIT) company. Rouse is engaged in the operation, development and
management of retail rental property. The Company's portfolio
consists of 30 regional malls in 19 states totaling over 21
million square feet of retail and ancillary space. The Company is
a regional mall owner in the United State. It manages all of its
properties, performing the day-to-day functions, operations,
leasing, maintenance, marketing and promotional services. Its
malls are anchored by operators across the retail spectrum. The
Company's regional malls include Sikes Senter Mall, Valley Hills
Mall, Bayshore Mall and The Boulevard Mall. Its portfolio also
includes regional malls that have growth through lease-up,
repositioning and redevelopment. In February 2012, it purchased
Grand Traverse Mall in Traverse City. In January 2013, the Company
acquired the Mall at Turtle Creek and an adjacent shopping center,
Turtle Creek Crossing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Manitowoc No Adverse Effect on Fin'ls
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc., stated that asbestos related claims
and the liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, do not
have material adverse effect on its the financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flows, 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 involved in numerous lawsuits involving asbestos-
related claims in which the company is one of numerous defendants.
After taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of such
actions, the current political environment with respect to
asbestos related claims, and the liabilities accrued with respect
to such matters, in the opinion of management, ultimate resolution
is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows of the company.

The Manitowoc Company, Inc. (MTW) is a multi-industry, capital
goods manufacturer. MTW operates in two markets: Cranes and
Related Products (Crane) and Foodservice Equipment (Foodservice).
Crane is a provider of engineered lifting equipment for the global
construction industry, including lattice-boom cranes, tower
cranes, mobile telescopic cranes, and boom trucks. Foodservice is
a manufacturer of commercial foodservice equipment serving the
ice, beverage, refrigeration, food-preparation, and cooking needs
of restaurants, convenience stores, hotels, healthcare, and
institutional applications. Its Crane products are marketed under
the Manitowoc, Grove, Potain, National, Shuttlelift, Dongyue, and
Crane Care brand names. Its Foodservice products are marketed
under the Manitowoc, Garland, U.S. Range, Convotherm, Cleveland,
Lincoln, Merrychef, Frymaster, Delfield, Kolpak, Kysor Panel,
Jackson, Servend, Multiplex, and Manitowoc Beverage System brand
names.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Says Claims Don't Have Merit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company believes that asbestos-related
claims against it are without merit, 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 has been named as a defendant in a number of cases
alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure
to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the Company's
historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products. In many of
these cases, the complaints are not specific about the plaintiffs'
contacts with the Company or its products. The Company believes
that the claims against it are without merit and is vigorously
defending against them. It is not currently possible to reasonably
estimate a probable loss, if any, associated with these cases and,
accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in the Company's
Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company is reviewing
agreements and policies that may provide insurance coverage or
indemnity as to these claims and is pursuing coverage under some
of these agreements and policies, although there can be no
assurance of the results of these efforts. There can be no
assurance that these cases, whether as a result of adverse
outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will not
have a material effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company ("Scotts Miracle-Gro") and its
subsidiaries (collectively, together with Scotts Miracle-Gro, the
"Company") are engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and sale of
consumer branded products for lawn and garden care. The Company's
primary customers include home centers, mass merchandisers,
warehouse clubs, large hardware chains, independent hardware
stores, nurseries, garden centers and food and drug stores. The
Company's products are sold primarily in North America and the
European Union. The Company also operates the Scotts
LawnService(R) business, which provides residential and commercial
lawn care, tree and shrub care and limited pest control services
in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CH Energy Had 1,166 Pending Cases at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, CH Energy Group, Inc., had 1,166 pending
asbestos cases, 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, of the 3,338 asbestos cases brought against
Central Hudson, 1,166 remain pending. Of the cases no longer
pending against Central Hudson, 2,017 have been dismissed or
discontinued without payment by Central Hudson, and Central Hudson
has settled 155 cases. Central Hudson is presently unable to
assess the validity of the remaining asbestos lawsuits; however,
based on information known to Central Hudson at this time,
including Central Hudson's experience in settling asbestos cases
and in obtaining dismissals of asbestos cases, Central Hudson
believes that the costs which may be incurred in connection with
the remaining lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on
the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of
either CH Energy Group or Central Hudson.

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

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

CH Energy Group, Inc. is the holding company. The Company's wholly
owned subsidiaries include Central Hudson and Central Hudson
Enterprises Corporation (CHEC). Central Hudson is a regulated
electric and natural gas subsidiary. CHEC, the parent company of
CH Energy Group's unregulated businesses and investments, has one
wholly owned subsidiary, Griffith Energy Services, Inc.
(Griffith). The Company operates in four segments: Central
Hudson's regulated electric utility business; Central Hudson's
regulated natural gas utility business; Griffith's fuel
distribution business, and other businesses and investments, which
includes CHEC's renewable energy investments and the holding
company's activities, which consists of financing its
subsidiaries. Central Hudson purchases, sells at wholesale and
retail, and distributes electricity and natural gas at retail in
portions of New York State. Central Hudson also generates a small
portion of its electricity requirements.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro $141.1M Insurance Coverage at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
At March 31, 2013, Enpro Industries, Inc., had $141.1 million of
insurance coverage to cover current and future asbestos claims
payments and certain expense payments, 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 historical business operations of GST LLC and Anchor resulted
in a substantial volume of asbestos litigation in which plaintiffs
alleged that exposure to asbestos fibers in products produced or
sold by GST LLC or Anchor, together with products produced and
sold by numerous other companies, contributed to the bodily
injuries or deaths of such plaintiffs. GST LLC and Anchor
manufactured and/or sold industrial sealing products that
contained encapsulated asbestos fibers. Other subsidiaries of the
Company that manufactured or sold equipment that may have at
various times in the past contained asbestos-containing components
have also been named in a number of asbestos lawsuits, but only
GST LLC and Anchor have ever paid an asbestos claim.

Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against GST
LLC in 1975, GST LLC and Anchor have processed more than 900,000
claims to conclusion, and, together with insurers, have paid over
$1.4 billion in settlements and judgments and over $400 million in
fees and expenses.  Enpro said its subsidiaries' exposure to
asbestos litigation and their relationships with insurance
carriers have been managed through Garrison.

Beginning in 2000, the top-tier asbestos defendants -- companies
that paid most of the plaintiffs' damages because they produced
and sold huge quantities of highly friable asbestos products --
sought bankruptcy protection and stopped paying asbestos claims in
the tort system. The bankruptcies of many additional producers of
friable asbestos products followed. The plaintiffs could no longer
pursue actions against these large defendants during the pendency
of their bankruptcy proceedings, even though these defendants had
historically been determined to be the largest contributors to
asbestos-related injuries. Many plaintiffs pursued GST LLC in
civil court actions to recover compensation formerly paid by top-
tier bankrupt companies under state law principles of joint and
several liability and began identifying GST LLC's non-friable
sealing products as a primary cause of their asbestos diseases,
while generally denying exposure to the friable products of
companies in bankruptcy. GST LLC believes this targeting strategy
effectively shifted damages caused by top-tier defendants that
produced friable asbestos products to GST LLC, thereby materially
increasing GST LLC's cost of defending and resolving claims.

Almost all of the top-tier defendants that sought bankruptcy
relief in the early 2000s have now emerged, or are positioning to
emerge, from bankruptcy. Their asbestos liabilities have been
assumed by wealthy 524(g) trusts created in the bankruptcies with
assets contributed by the emerging former defendants and their
affiliates. With the emergence of these companies from bankruptcy,
many plaintiffs seek compensation from the 524(g) trusts. These
trusts have aggregate assets exceeding $30 billion ($36.8 billion
according to a study released in September 2011 by the United
States Government Accountability Office) specifically set aside to
compensate individuals with asbestos diseases caused by the
friable products of those defendants.

Enpro said, "We believe that as billions of dollars of 524(g)
trust assets continue to become available to claimants, defendants
will obtain significant reductions in their costs to defend and
resolve claims. As of the Petition Date, however, the
establishment of these 524(g) trusts had taken longer than
anticipated and the trusts had a significant backlog of claims
that accumulated while the trusts were being established.
Additionally, procedures adopted for the submissions of asbestos
claims in bankruptcy cases and against 524(g) trusts make it
difficult for GST LLC and other tort-system co-defendants to gain
access to information about claims made against bankrupt
defendants or the accompanying evidence of exposure to the
asbestos-containing products of such bankrupt defendants. We
believe that these procedures enable claimants to "double dip" by
collecting payments from remaining defendants in the tort system
under joint-and-several-liability principles for injuries caused
by the former top-tier defendants while also collecting
substantial additional amounts from 524(g) trusts established by
those former defendants to pay asbestos claims. Because of these
factors, while several 524(g) trusts had begun making substantial
payments to claimants prior to the Petition Date, GST LLC had not
yet experienced a significant reduction in damages being sought
from GST LLC."

"In light of GST LLC's experience that (a) its cost of defending
and resolving claims had not yet declined as anticipated although
524(g) trusts had begun making substantial payments to claimants,
and (b) new mesothelioma claims filings against it in recent years
had not declined at a rate similar to the rate of decline in
disease incidence, GST initiated voluntary proceedings under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code as a means to
determine and comprehensively resolve their asbestos liability.
The filings were the initial step in an ongoing claims resolution
process, which is ongoing.

"During the pendency of the Chapter 11 proceedings, certain
actions proposed to be taken by GST not in the ordinary course of
business will be subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court. As a
result, during the pendency of these proceedings, we will not have
exclusive control over these companies. Accordingly, as required
by GAAP, GST was deconsolidated beginning on the Petition Date.

"As a result of the initiation of the Chapter 11 proceedings, the
resolution of asbestos claims is subject to the jurisdiction of
the Bankruptcy Court. The filing of the Chapter 11 cases
automatically stayed the prosecution of pending asbestos bodily
injury and wrongful death lawsuits, and initiation of new such
lawsuits, against GST. Further, the Bankruptcy Court issued an
order enjoining plaintiffs from bringing or further prosecuting
asbestos products liability actions against affiliates of GST,
including EnPro, Coltec and all their subsidiaries, during the
pendency of the Chapter 11 proceedings, subject to further order.
As a result, the numbers of new claims filed against our
subsidiaries and, except as a result of the resolution of appeals
from verdicts rendered prior to the Petition Date, the numbers of
claims pending against them have not changed since the Petition
Date, and those numbers continue to be as reported in our 2009
Form 10-K and our quarterly reports for the first and second
quarters of 2010.

"On the Petition Date, according to Garrison, there were more than
90,000 total claims pending against GST LLC, and approximately
5,800 claims alleging the disease mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a
rare cancer of the protective lining of many of the body's
internal organs, principally the lungs. The primary cause of
mesothelioma is believed to be exposure to asbestos. As a result
of asbestos tort reform during the 2000s, most active asbestos-
related lawsuits, and a large majority of the amount of payments
made by our subsidiaries, have been as a result of claims alleging
mesothelioma. In total, GST LLC has paid $563.2 million to resolve
a total of 15,300 mesothelioma claims, and another 5,700
mesothelioma claims have been dismissed without payment.
In order to estimate the allowed amount for mesothelioma claims
against GST, the Bankruptcy Court approved a process whereby all
current GST LLC mesothelioma claimants were required to respond to
a questionnaire about their claims. Questionnaires were
distributed to the mesothelioma claimants identified in Garrison's
claims database. Many of the 5,800 claimants (over 500) have not
responded to the questionnaire at all, many others (more than
1,900) reflect claims where the claimants do not have
mesothelioma, have acknowledged that they cannot establish
exposure to GST products, their claims were dismissed, settled or
withdrawn, their claims were duplicates of other filed claims, or
were closed or inactive. Still others have responded to the
questionnaire but their responses are deficient in some material
respect. As a result of this process, less than 3,300 claimants
have presented questionnaires asserting mesothelioma claims
against GST LLC as of the Petition Date and many of them have not
established exposure to GST products or have claims that are
otherwise deficient."

Since the Petition Date, many asbestos-related lawsuits have been
filed by claimants against other companies in state and federal
courts, and many of those claimants might also have included GST
LLC as a defendant but for the bankruptcy injunction. Many of
those claimants likely will make claims against GST in the
bankruptcy proceeding.

The Company also states: "We believe that the asbestos-containing
products manufactured or sold by GST could not have been a
substantial contributing cause of any asbestos-related disease.
The asbestos in the products was encapsulated, which means the
asbestos fibers incorporated into the products during the
manufacturing process were sealed in binders. The products were
also nonfriable, which means they could not be crumbled by hand
pressure. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
which began generally requiring warnings on asbestos-containing
products in 1972, has never required that a warning be placed on
products such as GST LLC's gaskets. Even though no warning label
was required, GST LLC included one on all of its asbestos-
containing products beginning in 1978. Further, gaskets such as
those previously manufactured and sold by GST LLC are one of the
few asbestos-containing products still permitted to be
manufactured under regulations of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Nevertheless, GST LLC discontinued all
manufacture and distribution of asbestos-containing products in
the U.S. during 2000 and worldwide in mid-2001."

"GST LLC has a record of success in trials of asbestos cases,
especially before the bankruptcies of many of the historically
significant asbestos defendants that manufactured raw asbestos,
asbestos insulation, refractory products or other dangerous
friable asbestos products. However, it has on occasion lost jury
verdicts at trial. GST has consistently appealed when it has
received an adverse verdict and has had success in a majority of
those appeals. We believe that GST LLC will continue to be
successful in the appellate process, although there can be no
assurance of success in any particular appeal. At March 31, 2013,
three GST LLC appeals are pending from adverse decisions totaling
$2.4 million.

"GST LLC won reversals of adverse verdicts in one of two recent
appellate decisions. In September 2011, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned a $500 thousand verdict
against GST LLC that was handed down in 2009 by a Kentucky federal
court jury. The federal appellate court found that GST LLC's
motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted
because the evidence was not sufficient to support a determination
of liability. The Sixth Circuit's chief judge wrote that, "On the
basis of this record, saying that exposure to Garlock gaskets was
a substantial cause of [claimant's] mesothelioma would be akin to
saying that one who pours a bucket of water into the ocean has
substantially contributed to the ocean's volume." In May 2011, a
three-judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld GST
LLC's $700 thousand share of a jury verdict, which included
punitive damages, in a lung cancer case against GST LLC in
Kentucky state court. This verdict, which was secured by a bond
pending the appeal, was paid in June 2012.

"At March 31, 2013, we had $141.1 million of insurance coverage we
believe is available to cover current and future asbestos claims
payments and certain expense payments. GST has collected insurance
payments totaling $54.0 million since the Petition Date. Of the
$141.1 million of available insurance coverage remaining, we
consider $140.0 million (99%) to be of high quality because the
insurance policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-based
carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or
better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or better. We
consider $1.1 million (1%) to be of moderate quality because the
insurance policies are written with various London market
carriers. Of the $141.1 million, $105.1 million is allocated to
claims that were paid by GST LLC prior to the initiation of the
Chapter 11 proceedings and submitted to insurance companies for
reimbursement, and the remainder is allocated to pending and
estimated future claims. There are specific agreements in place
with carriers covering $106.2 million of the remaining available
coverage. Based on those agreements and the terms of the policies
in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we believe that
substantially all of the $141.1 million of insurance proceeds will
ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance that
the insurance companies will make the payments as and when due.
The $141.1 million is in addition to the $0.8 million collected in
the first three months of 2013. Based on those agreements and
policies, some of which define specific annual amounts to be paid
and others of which limit the amount that can be recovered in any
one year, we anticipate that $36.7 million will become collectible
at the conclusion of GST's Chapter 11 proceeding and, assuming the
insurers pay according to the agreements and policies, that the
following amounts should be collected in the years set out below
regardless of when the case concludes:

2013 - $21.2 million (in the remaining nine months of 2013)
2014 - $21.2 million
2015 - $20 million
2016 - $18 million
2017 - $13 million
2018 - $11 million

"In addition, GST LLC has received $7.2 million of insurance
recoveries from insolvent carriers since 2007 and may receive
additional payments from insolvent carriers in the future. No
anticipated insolvent carrier collections are included in the
$141.1 million of anticipated collections. The insurance available
to cover current and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive
general liability policies that cover Coltec and certain of its
other subsidiaries in addition to GST LLC for periods prior to
1985 and therefore could be subject to potential competing claims
of other covered subsidiaries and their assignees.

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

"Neither we nor GST has endeavored to update the accrual since the
Petition Date except as necessary to reflect payments of accrued
fees and the disposition of cases on appeal. After those necessary
updates, the liability accrual at March 31, 2013 was $466.8
million. In each asbestos-driven Chapter 11 case that has been
resolved previously, the amount of the debtor's liability has been
determined as part of a consensual plan of reorganization agreed
to by the debtor and its creditors, including asbestos claimants
and a representative of potential future claimants. GST does not
believe that there is a reliable process by which an estimate of
such a resolution can be made and therefore believes that there is
no basis upon which it can revise the estimate last updated prior
to the Petition Date. In addition, we do not believe that we can
make a reasonable estimate of a specific range of more likely
outcomes with respect to the asbestos liability of GST, and
therefore, while we believe it to be an unlikely worst case
scenario, GST's ultimate costs to resolve all asbestos claims
against it could range up to the total value of GST.

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

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

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

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro) designs, develops, manufactures,
and markets engineered industrial products. As of December 31,
2011, it had 57 manufacturing facilities in 11 countries,
including the United States. It operates in three segments:
Sealing Products segment includes its sealing products, heavy-duty
wheel end components, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products and
rubber products; Engineered Products Segment includes its
bearings, aluminum blocks for hydraulic applications and
reciprocating compressor components, and Engine Products and
Services segment manufacture, sells and services heavy-duty,
medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating
engines. In August 2011, it acquired PI Bearing Technologies. In
July 2011, it acquired Tara Technologies Corporation. In February
2011, it acquired the Mid Western group of companies. In January
2011, it acquired the assets of Rome Tool & Die, Inc. In April
2012, it acquired Motorwheel Commercial Vehicle Systems, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Recorded $1.8MM ARO Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, Digital Realty Trust, Inc., recorded an
accrual of approximately $1.8 million for estimated retirement
obligations that relates primarily to estimated asbestos removal
costs, 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
obligations as required by current accounting guidance. The amount
of asset retirement obligations relates primarily to estimated
asbestos removal costs at the end of the economic life of
properties that were built before 1984. As of March 31, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, the amount included in accounts payable and
other accrued liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance
sheets was approximately $1.8 million and $1.7 million,
respectively."

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company owns, acquires, develops, redevelops and
manages technology-related real estate. The Company's operates
through Digital Realty Trust, L.P. and owns a 97.8% common general
partnership interest. Digital Realty Trust, L.P. holds
substantially all the assets of the Company and holds the
ownership interests in the Company's joint ventures. In June 2012,
the Company acquired 8025 North Interstate 35, a 62,000 square
foot data center facility located in Austin, Texas. In June 2012,
the Company acquired 400 South Akard Street, known as The Databank
Building, a data center facility totaling approximately 269,600
square feet located in Dallas, Texas. In March 2013, it completed
the acquisition of 371 Gough Road in Markham, Ontario (Canada), a
120,000 square foot data center development property.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Douglas Emmett Says 20 Properties Have Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Emmett, Inc., identified 20 properties in its consolidated
portfolio containing 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.

Conditional asset retirement obligations represent a legal
obligation to perform an asset retirement activity in which the
timing and/or method of settlement is conditional on a future
event that may or may not be within our control. A liability for a
conditional asset retirement obligation must be recorded if the
fair value of the obligation can be reasonably estimated.
Environmental site assessments and investigations have identified
20 properties in our consolidated portfolio containing asbestos,
which would have to be removed in compliance with applicable
environmental regulations if these properties undergo major
renovations or are demolished. As of March 31, 2013, the
obligations to remove the asbestos from these properties have
indeterminable settlement dates, and we are unable to reasonably
estimate the fair value of the associated conditional asset
retirement obligation.

Douglas Emmett, Inc. is a fully integrated, self-administered and
self-managed Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). We are one of
the largest owners and operators of high-quality office and
multifamily properties in Los Angeles County, California and
Honolulu, Hawaii. We focus on owning and acquiring a substantial
share of top-tier office properties and premier multifamily
communities in neighborhoods that possess significant supply
constraints, high-end executive housing and key lifestyle
amenities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suits v. US Auto Parts Won't Impact Financials
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. believes that the final disposition
of lawsuits involving its subsidiaries will not have a material
adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or
cash flow, 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.

A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary WAG,
are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for
damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's
and early 1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain
brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains
liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's
assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is
provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the
Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs
in connection with this matter that would be material to its
consolidated financial statements.

The Company is subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise
in the ordinary course of its business. As of the date hereof, the
Company believes that the final disposition of such matters will
not have a material adverse effect on the financial position,
results of operations or cash flow of the Company. The Company
maintains liability insurance coverage to protect the Company's
assets from losses arising out of or involving activities
associated with ongoing and normal business operations.

U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. (U.S. Auto Parts) offers online
sources for automotive aftermarket parts and repairs information.
The Company principally sells its products, identified as stock
keeping units (SKUs), to individual consumers through its network
of Websites and online marketplaces. The Company's Websites
provide customers with a selection of approximately two million
SKUs with product descriptions and photographs. The Company has
developed a product database that maps its SKUs to product
applications based on vehicle makes, models and years. It offers a
selection of aftermarket auto parts. U.S. Auto Parts classifies
its products into three categories: body parts, engine parts, and
performance parts and accessories. The Company sources its
products from foreign manufacturers and importers located in
Taiwan and China, and from the United States manufacturers and
distributors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Subsidiary Involved in 898 Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiary was a defendant
in approximately 898 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.

According to the Company, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries
were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in
21 complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit
Courts of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries
arising out of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in
drilling mud during these plaintiffs' employment in drilling
activities between 1965 and 1986. Each individual plaintiff was
subsequently required to file a separate lawsuit, and the original
21 multi-plaintiff complaints were then dismissed by the Circuit
Courts. We have or may have an indirect interest in a total of 22
cases. The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or
manufactured asbestos-containing drilling mud additives for use in
connection with drilling operations and have included allegations
of negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims
allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The
plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. In each of these cases, the complaints have
named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies
that allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that
contained asbestos. All of these cases are being governed for
discovery and trial setting by a single Case Management Order
entered by a Special Master appointed by the court to reside over
all the cases, and of the 17 cases in which we are a named
defendant, only one has been scheduled for trial and pre-trial
discovery, which was scheduled to take place in 2013. In that
case, we recently were able to present a variety of pre-trial
defense motions challenging the plaintiff's evidence and resulting
in a negotiated settlement for a nominal sum in the first quarter
of 2013. In 2011, the Special Master issued a ruling that a Jones
Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive
damages, and this ruling has now been obtained in three of our 17
cases. To date, seven of the 769 cases have gone to trial against
defendants who allegedly manufactured or distributed drilling mud
additives. None of these cases have involved an individual Jones
Act employer, and we have not been a defendant in any of these
cases. Two of the cases resulted in defense verdicts, and one case
ended with a hung jury. Four cases resulted in verdicts for the
plaintiff. Because the jury awarded punitive damages, two of these
cases resulted in a substantial verdict in favor of the plaintiff;
however, both of these verdicts have since been vacated by the
trial court. The first plaintiff verdict was vacated on the basis
that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof. While the
court's decision is consistent with our general evaluation of the
strength of these cases, it is currently being reviewed on appeal.
The second plaintiff verdict was vacated because the presiding
judge was removed from hearing any asbestos cases due to a
conflict of interest, but when this case ultimately went to trial
earlier this year, it resulted in a defense verdict. The two
remaining plaintiff verdicts are under appeal by the defendants.
We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although there can
be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome. We historically have
maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain
whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out
of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date,
we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these
claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
statement of financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

"One of our subsidiaries was involved in lawsuits arising out of
the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction and
refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets
of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in
1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the
insurance policies involved in its litigation, with its insurers
and, either directly or indirectly through a qualified settlement
fund. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with
numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging bodily injury or
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of March
31, 2013, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 898
lawsuits, some of which include multiple plaintiffs, and we
estimate that there are approximately 1,898 plaintiffs in these
lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided
with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine
whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the
subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their
alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was
filed against the subsidiary in 1990. Through March 31, 2013, the
costs incurred to resolve claims, including both defense fees and
expenses and settlement costs, have not been material, all known
deductibles have been satisfied or are inapplicable, and the
subsidiary's defense fees and expenses and settlement costs have
been met by insurance made available to the subsidiary. The
subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional
lawsuits, and we cannot predict the number of additional cases in
which it may be named a defendant nor can we predict the potential
costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending
cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess of $1.0 billion in
insurance limits potentially available to the subsidiary. Although
not all of the policies may be fully available due to the
insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary
will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly from
settlements and claims payments from insurers, assigned rights
from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with
insurers to respond to these claims. While we cannot predict or
provide assurance as to the final outcome of these matters, we do
not believe that the current value of the claims where we have
been identified will have a material impact on our consolidated
statement of financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

Transocean Ltd. (Transocean) is an international provider of
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The
Company operates in two segments: contract drilling services and
drilling management services. Contract drilling services, the
Company's primary business, involves contracting its mobile
offshore drilling fleet, related equipment and work crews
primarily on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells. Its
drilling management services segment provides oil and gas drilling
management services on either a dayrate basis or a completed-
project, fixed-price (or turnkey) basis, as well as drilling
engineering and drilling project management services. As of
February 14, 2012, it owned or had partial ownership interests in
and operated 134 mobile offshore drilling units. On October 4,
2011, the Company acquired Aker Drilling ASA (Aker Drilling). In
February 2011, it sold the subsidiary that owns the High-
Specification Jackup Trident 20.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS Int'l. Denies Obligations to Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
TMS International Corp., believes that it has no obligation for
asbestos related claims regarding two former subsidiaries that
were subject to asbestos related personal injury 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's states: "Two non-operating subsidiaries of a
predecessor company, along with a landfill and waste management
business, were spun-off to our former stockholders in October
2002. The two former subsidiaries were subject to asbestos related
personal injury claims. We believe that the Company has no
obligation for asbestos related claims regarding the spun-off
subsidiaries. In addition, the Company has been named as a
defendant in certain asbestos-related claims relating to lines of
business that were discontinued over 20 years ago. We believe that
the Company is sufficiently protected by insurance with respect to
these asbestos-related claims related to these former lines of
business, and we do not believe that the ultimate outcome will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

The Company is a party to other lawsuits, litigation and
proceedings arising in the normal course of business, including,
but not limited to regulatory, commercial and personal injury
matters. While the precise amount of loss, if any, is not
presently determinable, the Company does not believe that the
final outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial position or results of operations or
cash flows.

The Company has agreements with certain officers and other
employees. The agreements provide for termination benefits in the
event of termination without cause, or in some instances, in the
event of a change in control of the Company. The aggregate
commitment for such potential future benefits at March 31, 2013
was approximately $8.3 million.

TMS International Corp. (TMS), formerly Metal Services Acquisition
Corp., is a provider of outsourced industrial services to steel
mills in North America. The Company provides a range of services
through two segments: Mill Services Group and Raw Material and
Optimization Group. The Mill Services Group segment includes scrap
management and preparation; semi-finished and finished material
handling; metal recovery and slag handling, processing and sales,
and surface conditioning. The Raw Material and Optimization Group
segment include raw materials procurement and logistics, and
software-based raw materials cost optimization. The Company is a
holding company controlled by Onex, and it operates through its
wholly-owned subsidiaries, including its primary operating company
Tube City IMS, LLC. It operates at 74 customer sites in nine
countries across North America, Europe and Latin America, and its
global raw materials procurement network spans five continents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Gives No Assurances on Outcome of Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. gives no assurances regarding
the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation 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 31, 2013.

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

The Company is party to various claims and legal proceedings that
arise in the ordinary course of business. Although the Company
believes that the resolution of any of these various claims and
legal proceedings will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation
might be asserted or what information might come to light and can,
therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of
these matters.

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) owns and operates two
segments: Ingalls Shipbuilding and Newport News Shipbuilding.
Through the Company's Ingalls segment, it is a supplier and
builder of amphibious assault and expeditionary ships to the
United States Navy, the builder of National Security Cutters for
the United States Coast Guard, and one of the two companies that
builds the United States Navy's fleet of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-
class destroyers. Through the Company's Newport News segment, it
is an industrial designer, builder, and refueler of nuclear-
powered aircraft carriers, and one of the two companies designing
and building nuclear-powered submarines for the United States
Navy. It is a full-service provider for the design, engineering,
construction, and life cycle support of surface ship programs for
the United States Navy. It conducts all of its business with the
United States Government, principally the Department of Defense.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. $12MM Liability Reserve at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
At March 31, 2013, Cabot Corporation had $12 million reserve on a
discounted basis, to cover its expected share of liability for
existing and future respirator 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.

Cabot has exposure in connection with a safety respiratory
products business that a subsidiary acquired from American Optical
Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset purchase transaction.
The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and
disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection with its
acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in certain
circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities, including
costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in settlements and
judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to the
1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.

Generally, these respirator liabilities involve claims for
personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators
that are alleged to have been negligently designed or labeled.
Neither Cabot, nor its past or present subsidiaries, at any time
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing products. At no time
did this respiratory product line represent a significant portion
of the respirator market.

As of both March 31, 2013 and September 30, 2012, there were
approximately 42,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims
against AO in connection with respiratory products. Cabot has a
reserve to cover its expected share of liability for existing and
future respirator liability claims. At March 31, 2013 and
September 30, 2012, the reserve was $12 million and $13 million,
respectively, on a discounted basis ($16 million and $17 million
on an undiscounted basis at March 31, 2013 and September 30, 2012,
respectively). The reserve is being accreted up to the
undiscounted liability through interest expense over the expected
cash flow period, which is through 2062. Cash payments related to
this liability were $1 million in the first six months of fiscal
2013 and less than $1 million in the first six months of fiscal
2012.

Cabot Corporation is a global specialty chemicals and performance
materials company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Its
principal products are rubber and specialty grade carbon blacks,
fumed metal oxides, injet colorants, aerogel, cesium formate
drilling fluids, and activated carbon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Says Claims Won't Impact Fin'ls
------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, does not expect
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against it to have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows, 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.

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

CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC engages in the electric
transmission and distribution business in the Texas Gulf Coast
area that includes the city of Houston. CenterPoint Houston is an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
(CenterPoint Energy), a public utility holding company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Defends Against 1,125 PI Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., is a defendant in 1,125 pending cases
alleging personal injuries due to asbestos exposure, 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 have been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or
operated by us. There are 1,125 of these types of cases pending,
involving a total of approximately 1,643 plaintiffs. In addition,
the claims of approximately 8,298 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts. We do not expect these
claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts'
medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued
any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of
liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if
any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these
matters. Based on information available to us, including:

* facts concerning historical operations,
* the rate of new claims,
* the number of claims from which we have been dismissed and
* our prior experience in the defense of these matters.

"We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of
these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which
are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably
possible outcome would involve amounts material to our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek,
dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In
addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we
have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance
policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us. For a
discussion of other legal proceedings to which we are a party,
refer to our 2012 Annual Report.

"In addition to the litigation . . . , we and our affiliate are
also involved in various other environmental, contractual, product
liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other
claims and disputes incidental to present and former businesses.
In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items,
although we do not expect additional material insurance coverage
for environmental matters.

"We currently believe the disposition of all of these various
other claims and disputes, individually and in the aggregate,
should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the
accruals already provided."

NL Industries, Inc. (NL) is a holding company. The Company
operates in the component products industry through its majority-
owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company operates in
the chemicals industry through its non-controlling interest in
Kronos Worldwide, Inc. As of December 31, 2011, it owned 87%
interest in CompX International Inc and 30% interest in Kronos
Worldwide, Inc. The Company also owns 100% of EWI RE, Inc., an
insurance brokerage and risk management services company. CompX is
a manufacturer of engineered components utilized in a variety of
applications and industries. Kronos is a global producer and
marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments. In July of
2011, CompX completed the acquisition of an ergonomic component
products business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Inc. Involved in 100 Pending PI Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc., is involved in 100 personal injury cases, which were
pending as of May 3, 2013, 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 party to various legal proceedings
and administrative actions that are incidental to our operations.
These proceedings include personal injury cases, 100 of which were
pending as of May 3, 2013, in which we are one of many defendants.
Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in
Pennsylvania and Illinois, generally seeking compensatory,
special, and punitive damages. Typically in these cases, the
claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to a heat-resistant
asbestos fiber. Our alleged predecessors had a small number of
products that contained the fiber, but ceased production of such
products more than 20 years ago. Through May 3, 2013, we have been
dismissed, or reached agreement to be dismissed, in more than 500
similar cases without any going to trial, and with only a
relatively small number of these involving any payment to the
claimant. In our opinion, the proceedings and actions in which we
are involved should not, individually or in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating
results, or cash flows. However, since the trends and outcome of
this litigation are inherently uncertain, we cannot give absolute
assurance regarding the future resolution of such litigation, or
that such litigation may not become material in the future.

"We are a former owner of a property located in Kingston, Canada.
The Ontario, Canada Ministry of the Environment is seeking to
require current and former owners of the Kingston property to
delineate and remediate soil and groundwater contamination at the
site, which we believe was caused by Nortel (a former owner of the
site). We are in the process of assessing whether we have any
liability for the site, as well as the scope of contamination,
cost of remediation, allocation of costs among the parties, and
the other parties' financial viability. Based on our current
information, we do not believe this matter should have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, operating results, or
cash flows. However, since the outcome of this matter is
uncertain, we cannot give absolute assurance regarding its future
resolution, or that such matter may not become material in the
future."

Belden Inc. (Belden) designs, manufactures and markets cable,
connectivity, and networking products in markets including
industrial, enterprise, and broadcast. The Company operates in
three segments: the Americas segment, the Europe, Middle East, and
Africa (EMEA) segment and the Asia Pacific segment. The Company's
offers cable, connectivity and networking products, including
power generation and distribution, data centers, oil and gas,
broadcast, transportation, healthcare and industrial automation.
In December 2012, Carlisle Companies Inc acquired Thermax-Raydex
business from the Company. In December 2012, the Company sold
Consumer Electronics Assets in China to Shenzhen Woer Heat-
Shrinkable Material Co Ltd. During the year ended December 31,
2012, the Company acquired Miranda Technologies Inc. (Miranda).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Expects Additional Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. anticipates that additional
asbestos-related claims may be asserted in the future, 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.

Some facilities owned by CERC's predecessors contain or have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials. CERC or its predecessor companies have been named,
along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a
number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to
asbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by
CERC, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously
owned by CERC's subsidiaries. CERC anticipates that additional
claims like those received may be asserted in the future. Although
their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, CERC
intends to continue vigorously contesting claims that it does not
consider to have merit and, based on its experience to date, does
not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate,
to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC) owns and operates
natural gas distribution systems (Gas Operations). Subsidiaries of
CERC Corp. own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering
systems and provide various ancillary services. A wholly owned
subsidiary of CERC Corp. offers variable and fixed-price physical
natural gas supplies primarily to commercial and industrial
customers and electric and gas utilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Discontinues Asbestos-Related Underwriting
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., has discontinued
underwriting certain lines of business, including asbestos and
environmental liabilities, 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 have discontinued underwriting certain
lines of business, including certain workers compensation and non
proportional property catastrophe programs. Also included in the
Run-off Lines segment are liabilities associated with other
liability policies written in the 1970s and into the 1980s, and
include asbestos and environmental liabilities as well as medical
malpractice liabilities. As we no longer actively underwrite
business within these programs, all current activity is related to
the management of claims and other administrative functions."

Earned premiums for the Run-off Lines segment are due to
adjustments resulting from final audits, reinstatement premiums
and other adjustments on policies previously written.

Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the three months ended
March 31, 2013 included $0.9 million unfavorable development
primarily attributable to $0.7 million unfavorable development
related to commutations. Losses and loss adjustment expenses for
the three months ended March 31, 2012 included $2.0 million of net
unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years due
to strengthening the reserve for unallocated loss adjustment
expenses.

Underwriting, acquisition and insurance expenses for the Run-off
segment consists primarily of administrative expenses. The
increase in the expense for the three months ended March 31, 2013
as compared to the same period ended 2012 was primarily
attributable to increased overhead allocations. Additionally,
expense for the three months ended March 31, 2012 was reduced by
the collection of a reinsurance recovery balance previously
written off.

Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. (Argo Group) is an
international underwriter of specialty insurance and reinsurance
products in the property and casualty market. During the year
ended December 31, 2012, the Company operated in four business
segments: Excess and Surplus Lines, Commercial Specialty,
International Specialty and Syndicate 1200. Additionally, it has a
Run-off Lines segment for products that it no longer underwrite.
In September 2012, the Company's subsidiary, Alteris Inc acquired
Sonoma Risk Insurance Agency. In October 2012, the Company's
subsidiary, Alteris Insurance Services, Inc. acquired the
operating assets and business rights of specialty program manager
Mattei Insurance Services, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Had $743MM Reserve at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
recognized $743 million asbestos-related reserve as of March 31,
2013, 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.

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages
for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or
use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to
1985. As of March 31, 2013, there were 99 asserted claims for non-
malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $18
million, and 46 asserted claims for malignant cases with the
cumulative relief sought of up to $15 million. Based on Duke
Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate
resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the
amount claimed.

Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke
Energy Carolinas in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
totaled $743 million and $751 million as of March 31, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, respectively, and are classified in Other
within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within
Current Liabilities. These reserves are based upon the minimum
amount in Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate of the range of
loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2030.
Management believes that it is possible there will be additional
claims filed against Duke Energy Carolinas after 2030. In light of
the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management
does not believe that they can reasonably estimate the indemnity
and medical costs that might be incurred after 2030 related to
such potential claims. Asbestos-related loss estimates incorporate
anticipated inflation, if applicable, and are recorded on an
undiscounted basis. These reserves are based upon current
estimates and are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection
period lengthens. A significant upward or downward trend in the
number of claims filed, the nature of the alleged injury, and the
average cost of resolving each such claim could change our
estimated liability, as could any substantial or favorable verdict
at trial. A federal legislative solution, further state tort
reform or structured settlement transactions could also change the
estimated liability. Given the uncertainties associated with
projecting matters into the future and numerous other factors
outside our control, management believes that it is possible Duke
Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the
recorded reserves.

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover
certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages
above an aggregate self-insured retention of $476 million. Duke
Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self-
insurance retention on its insurance policy in 2008. Future
payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by Duke Energy
Carolinas' third party insurance carrier. The insurance policy
limit for potential future insurance recoveries for
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $935 million in
excess of the self-insured retention. Insurance recoveries of $781
million related to this policy are classified in the respective
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Investments
and Other Assets and Receivables as of both March 31, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, respectively. Duke Energy Carolinas is not
aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of
insurance claims. Management believes the insurance recovery asset
is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have
a strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) is an energy company. Duke
Energy operates in the United States primarily through its direct
and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
(Duke Energy Carolinas), Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Progress Energy Carolinas),
Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
(Progress Energy Florida), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy
Ohio), and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana), as
well as in Latin America through Duke Energy International, LLC
(DEI). Duke Energy's segment includes U.S. Franchised Electric and
Gas (USFE&G), Commercial Power and International Energy. On July
2, 2012, the Company merged with Progress Energy Inc. In July
2012, the Company acquired Chilean Campanario power plant. In
December 2012, the Company's subsidiary acquired CGE Group's
Iberoamericana de Energia Ibener S.A. (Ibener) subsidiary in
Chile.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Order Extinguished Claims v. Global Power
----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Power Equipment Group Inc. reported that the bankruptcy
court's discharge order issued upon emergence from bankruptcy
extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had filed
asbestos claims against the Company before its emergence from
bankruptcy, 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: "A former operating unit of Global Power has
been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal
injury lawsuits. Neither we nor our predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material
that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions. The
bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon emergence from
bankruptcy extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had
filed asbestos claims against us before that time. We also believe
the bankruptcy court's discharge order should serve as a bar
against any later claim filed against us, including any of our
subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from asbestos at any time
before emergence from bankruptcy. In any event in all of the
asbestos cases finalized post-bankruptcy, we have been successful
in having such cases dismissed without liability. Moreover, during
2012, we secured insurance coverage that will help to reimburse
the defense costs and potential indemnity obligations of our
former operating unit relating to these claims. We intend to
vigorously defend all currently active actions, just as we
defended the other actions that have since been dismissed, all
without liability, and we do not anticipate that any of these
actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or liquidity. However, the
outcomes of any legal action cannot be predicted and, therefore,
there can be no assurance that this will be the case."

Global Power Equipment Group Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiaries provide power generation equipment and industrial
maintenance services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Maintains Insurance for Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company maintains general liability insurance
that, to date, has covered the defense of and all costs associated
with 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 31, 2013.

The Company, along with many other defendants, has been named in a
number of lawsuits in the state courts of Illinois, Minnesota,
North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and
cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the
plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits
are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts
of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the
alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in
question or whether the Company, in fact, distributed the wire and
cable alleged to have caused any injuries. The Company maintains
general liability insurance that, to date, has covered the defense
of and all costs associated with these claims. In addition, the
Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue,
and the Company would rely on any warranties from the
manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the
wire or cable that the Company distributed contained asbestos
which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with
ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities
with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims
that the Company believes it could enforce if its insurance
coverage proves inadequate.

There are no legal proceedings pending against or involving the
Company that, in management's opinion, based on the current known
facts and circumstances, are expected to have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, cash
flows, or results from operations.

Houston Wire & Cable Company, through its wholly owned
subsidiaries, HWC Wire & Cable Company, Advantage Wire & Cable and
Cable Management Services Inc., provides wire and cable, hardware
and related services to the U.S. market through nineteen locations
in twelve states throughout the United States. The Company has no
other business activity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Had 18,090 Pending PI Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, Harsco Corporation had 18,090 pending
asbestos personal injury 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.

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

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

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

As of March 31, 2013, there are 18,090 pending asbestos personal
injury claims filed against the Company. Of these cases, 17,600
are pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York County in
New York State. The other claims, totaling 490, are filed in
various counties in a number of state courts, and in certain
Federal District Courts (including New York), and those complaints
generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York State
court cases or do not state any amount claimed.

As of March 31, 2013, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 26,715 cases.
In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation nationwide, the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims. However,
there have been developments during the past several years, both
by certain state legislatures and by certain state courts, which
could favorably affect the Company's ability to defend these
asbestos claims in those jurisdictions. These developments include
procedural changes, docketing changes, proof of damage
requirements and other changes that require plaintiffs to follow
specific procedures in bringing their claims and to show proof of
damages before they can proceed with their claim. An example is
the action taken by the New York Supreme Court (a trial court),
which is responsible for managing all asbestos cases pending
within New York County in the State of New York. This Court issued
an order in December 2002 that created a Deferred or Inactive
Docket for all pending and future asbestos claims filed by
plaintiffs who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant
condition or discernible physical impairment, and an Active or In
Extremis Docket for plaintiffs who are able to show such medical
condition. As a result of this order, the majority of the asbestos
cases filed against the Company in New York County have been moved
to the Inactive Docket until such time as the plaintiffs can show
that they have incurred a physical impairment. As of March 31,
2013, the Company has been listed as a defendant in 477 Active or
In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County. The Court's Order
has been challenged by some plaintiffs.

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

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

The Company is subject to various other claims and legal
proceedings covering a wide range of matters that arose in the
ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, all
such matters are adequately covered by insurance or by established
reserves, and, if not so covered, are without merit or are of such
kind, or involve such amounts, as would not have a material
adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or
cash flows of the Company.

Insurance liabilities are recorded when it is probable that a
liability has been incurred for a particular event and the amount
of loss associated with the event can be reasonably estimated.
Insurance reserves have been estimated based primarily upon
actuarial calculations and reflect the undiscounted estimated
liabilities for ultimate losses, including claims incurred but not
reported. Inherent in these estimates are assumptions that are
based on the Company's history of claims and losses, a detailed
analysis of existing claims with respect to potential value, and
current legal and legislative trends. If actual claims differ from
those projected by management, changes (either increases or
decreases) to insurance reserves may be required and would be
recorded through income in the period the change was determined.
When a recognized liability is covered by third-party insurance,
the Company records an insurance claim receivable to reflect the
covered liability.

Harsco Corporation is a diversified, multinational provider of
industrial services and engineered products serving global
industries. The Company operates in four segments: Harsco Metals &
Minerals, Harsco Infrastructure, Harsco Rail and Harsco
Industrial. The Company's principal lines of business include
outsourced, on-site services to steel mills and other metals
producers; resource recovery technologies for the re-use of
industrial waste stream by-products; industrial abrasives and
roofing granules; engineered scaffolding, concrete forming and
shoring, and other access-related services, rentals and sales;
railway track maintenance services and equipment; industrial
grating products; air-cooled heat exchangers, and heat transfer
products. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Harsco
Metals & Minerals Segment generated 46% of the Company's total
revenue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cases v. Watts Water Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., has obtained
a dismissal in every asbestos-related case before it has reached
trial, 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 defending approximately 42 lawsuits in different
jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to
asbestos. The complaints in these cases typically name a large
number of defendants and do not identify any particular Company
products as a source of asbestos exposure. To date, the Company
has obtained a dismissal in every case before it has reached trial
because discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial
exposure to any Company products.

Watts Water Technologies, Inc. (Watts)is a supplier of products
for use in the water quality, water safety, water flow control and
water conservation markets in both North America and Europe with a
presence in Asia. It operates in three geographic segments: North
America, Europe and Asia. Watts has manufacturing facilities, such
as Mexico, China, Bulgaria and Tunisia. Its products are sold to
wholesale distributors and dealers, do-it-yourself (DIY) chains
and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). During the year ended
December 31, 2012, it began classifying its many products into
four universal product lines. These product lines are residential
and commercial flow control products, heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) and gas products, drains and water re-use
products and water quality products. On January 31, 2012, it
completed the acquisition of tekmar Control Systems (tekmar). In
December 2012, it sold its subsidiary Flomatic Corporation, to
Boshart Industries Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Had $0.6MM Conditional ARO
----------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc.,
recorded $0.6 million for conditional asset retirement obligations
related to 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 a liability for a conditional asset
retirement obligation, defined as a legal obligation to perform an
asset retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of
settlement is conditional on a future event that may or may not be
within a company's control, when the fair value of the obligation
can be reasonably estimated. Depending on the age of the
construction, certain properties in our portfolio may contain non-
friable asbestos. If these properties undergo major renovations or
are demolished, certain environmental regulations are in place,
which specify the manner in which the asbestos, if present, must
be handled and disposed. Based on our evaluation of the physical
condition and attributes of certain of our properties, we recorded
conditional asset retirement obligations related to asbestos
removal. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the liability
in our consolidated balance sheets for conditional asset
retirement obligations was $0.6 million for both periods. The
accretion expense for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and
2012 was not significant."

Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment
trust (REIT). The Company owns and operates primarily
institutional-quality office properties principally in Hawaii and
southern California. As of December 31, 2011, the Company owned
six office properties consisting of approximately 1.5 million
rentable square feet and interests (ranging from 5% to
approximately 32%) in 17 joint venture properties (including a
sports club associated with its City Square property in Phoenix,
Arizona), of which the Company has managing ownership interests in
13, consisting of approximately 2.9 million rentable square feet.
The Company owns and operates office properties in the western
United States. The Company focuses on the markets in Honolulu and
the western United States mainland (in particular, southern
California and the greater Phoenix metropolitan area). The Company
operates in two segments: (Honolulu and the Western United States
mainland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Indus Named as Defendant in Fibro Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc., has been named as one of the defendants in
asbestos-related litigation claims against numerous industrial
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.

Over recent years there has been an increase in certain U.S.
states in asbestos-related litigation claims against numerous
industrial companies. Roper or its subsidiaries have been named
defendants in some such cases. No significant resources have been
required by Roper to respond to these cases and the Company
believes it has valid defenses to such claims and, if required,
intends to defend them vigorously. Given the state of these claims
it is not possible to determine the potential liability, if any.

Roper Industries, Inc. (Roper),designs, manufactures and
distributes radio frequency (RF) products, services and
application software, industrial technology products, energy
systems and controls and medical and scientific imaging products
and software. The Company markets these products and services to a
range of markets including RF applications, medical, water,
energy, research, education, software-as-a-service (SaaS)-based
information networks, security and other niche markets. the
Company operates in four segments: Medical and Scientific Imaging,
Energy Systems and Controls, Industrial Technology and RF
Technology. On August 22, 2012, the Company acquired Sunquest
Information Systems, Inc. (Sunquest), a provider of diagnostic and
laboratory software solutions to healthcare providers. In May
2013, Roper Industries Inc acquired Managed Health Care Associates
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Subsidiaries Had 103 Pending Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, Ameren Corporation's subsidiaries had a
total of 103 pending 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.

Ameren, Ameren Missouri, and Ameren Illinois have been named,
along with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed
by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos
exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison
County, Illinois. The total number of defendants named in each
case varies with the average number of parties being 80 as of
March 31, 2013. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if
awarded at trial, typically would be shared among the various
defendants.

The claims filed against Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois allege injury from asbestos exposure during the
plaintiffs' activities at our present or former energy centers.

Former CIPS energy centers are now owned by Genco, and former
CILCO energy centers are now owned by AERG. As a condition to
transferring ownership of the CIPS and CILCO energy centers, CIPS
and CILCO, now Ameren Illinois, contractually agreed to indemnify
Genco and AERG, respectively, for liabilities associated with
asbestos-related claims arising or existing from activities prior
to the transfer. The plant transfer agreement between Genco and
Ameren Illinois and the plant transfer agreement between AERG and
Ameren Illinois each will be amended pursuant to the transaction
agreement in which Ameren agrees to divest New AER to IPH. The
amended plant transfer agreements will provide that Ameren
Illinois will continue to retain asbestos exposure related
liabilities for claims arising or existing from activities prior
to the transfer of the ownership of the CIPS and CILCO energy
centers to Genco and AERG. IPH will be responsible for any
asbestos-related claims arising from activities that occur after
it takes ownership of New AER. Any asbestos-related claims arising
solely from activities post transfer of the energy centers from
CIPS and CILCO to Genco and AERG, respectively, but prior to IPH
taking ownership of New AER, of which there are currently none,
will be retained by Ameren.

A total of 103 pending asbestos-related lawsuits are filed against
the Ameren Companies as of March 31, 2013. The total does not
equal the sum of the subsidiary unit lawsuits because some of the
lawsuits name multiple Ameren entities as defendants.

At March 31, 2013, Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois had
liabilities of $19 million, $8 million, and $11 million,
respectively, recorded to represent their best estimate of their
obligations related to asbestos claims.

Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of
asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following
terms: 90% of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included
in base electric rates are to be recovered from a trust fund that
was established when Ameren acquired IP. At March 31, 2013, the
trust fund balance was $23 million, including accumulated
interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base
rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference to
the trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed
cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered
through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider.
Following the Ameren Illinois Merger, this rider is applicable
only for claims that occurred within IP's historical service
territory. Similarly, the rider will permit recovery only from
customers within IP's historical service territory.

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) utility holding company. The Company's
principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company (Ameren
Missouri), Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois) and Ameren
Energy Resources Company, LLC (AER). The Company operates in three
segments: Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois, and Merchant
Generation. Ameren Missouri operates a operates a rate-regulated
electric generation, transmission and distribution business, and a
rate-regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business
in Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric
and natural gas transmission and distribution business in
Illinois. AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including
Ameren Energy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company
(Marketing Company).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had $413.7MM Gross Loss Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to asbestos only, at March 31, 2013, Everest Re
Group, Ltd., had gross asbestos loss reserves of $413.7 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: "A&E exposures represent a separate exposure
group for monitoring and evaluating reserve adequacy.

At March 31, 2013, the gross reserves for A&E losses were
comprised of $131.8 million representing case reserves reported by
ceding companies, $87.0 million representing additional case
reserves established by us on assumed reinsurance claims, $36.1
million representing case reserves established by us on direct
excess insurance claims, including Mt. McKinley, and $177.9
million representing IBNR reserves.

With respect to asbestos only, at March 31, 2013, we had gross
asbestos loss reserves of $413.7 million, or 95.6%, of total A&E
reserves, of which $331.5 million was for assumed business and
$82.1 million was for direct business.

According to the Company, "Industry analysts use the "survival
ratio" to compare the A&E reserves among companies with such
liabilities. The survival ratio is typically calculated by
dividing a company's current net reserves by the three year
average of annual paid losses. Hence, the survival ratio equals
the number of years that it would take to exhaust the current
reserves if future loss payments were to continue at historical
levels. Using this measurement, our net three year asbestos
survival ratio was 7.0 years at March 31, 2013. These metrics can
be skewed by individual large settlements occurring in the prior
three years and therefore, may not be indicative of the timing of
future payments."

"Because the survival ratio was developed as a comparative measure
of reserve strength and does not indicate absolute reserve
adequacy, we consider, but do not rely on, the survival ratio when
evaluating our reserves. In particular, we note that year to year
loss payment variability can be material. This is due, in part, to
our orientation to negotiated settlements, particularly on our Mt.
McKinley exposures, which significantly reduces the credibility
and utility of this measure as an analytical tool. In the first
quarter of 2013, we made no asbestos net claim payments to Mt
McKinley high profile claimants where the claim was either closed
or a settlement had been reached. Such payments, which are non-
repetitive, distort downward our three year survival ratio.
Adjusting for such settlements, recognizing that total settlements
are generally considered fully reserved to an agreed settlement,
we consider that our adjusted asbestos survival ratio for net
unsettled claims is 8.1 years, which is better than prevailing
industry norms."

Everest Re Group, Ltd. ("Group"), a Bermuda company, through its
subsidiaries, principally provides reinsurance and insurance in
the U.S., Bermuda and international markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corporation Subsidiary Had $62MM Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
At March 31, 2013, Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, had reserved approximately $62 million in
total for asbestos-related bodily injury 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.

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

At March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, Generation had reserved
approximately $62 million and $63 million, respectively, in total
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of March 31, 2013,
approximately $16 million of this amount related to 189 open
claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $46 million of
the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury
claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial
assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On
a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against
the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim
payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is
necessary. During the second quarter of 2012, Generation increased
its reserve by approximately $19 million, primarily due to
increased actual and projected number and severity of claims.

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

Approximately 480 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
Generation have pending claims each seeking several million
dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Cross-claims and
third-party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed
against BGE and Generation in these actions. To date, most
asbestos claims which have been resolved have been dismissed or
resolved without any payment by BGE or Generation and a small
minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were
not material to BGE or Generation's financial results.
Discovery begins in these cases once they are placed on the trial
docket. At present, none of the pending cases are set for trial.

Given the limited discovery, BGE and Generation do not know the
specific facts that are necessary to provide an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss relating to these claims; as such, no
accrual has been made and a range of loss is not estimable. The
specific facts not known include:

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

* the names of the plaintiffs' employers;

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

* the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged exposure.

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

Exelon Corporation (Exelon) is an energy provider and holding
company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the
energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company,
LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales
through its Constellation business unit, and the energy delivery
business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO)
subsidiaries. It operates in 47 states, the District of Columbia
and Canada. Exelon Generation has approximately 35,000 megawatts
of owned capacity. Constellation provides energy products and
services to approximately 100,000 business and public sector
customers and approximately 1 million residential customers.
Exelon's utilities deliver electricity and natural gas to more
than 6.6 million customers in central Maryland, northern Illinois
and southeastern Pennsylvania. On March 12, 2012, Constellation
Energy Group, Inc. merged into Exelon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Recorded $1.8MM ARO Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
At March 31, 2013, Southern Star Central Corp. recorded $1.8
million as an ARO liability, 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.

In accordance with the Asset Retirement and Environmental
Obligations Topic 410 of the ASC, Central recorded an asset
retirement obligation, or ARO, for the remediation of asbestos
existing on its system. The asbestos existing on Central's system
is primarily in building materials and pipe coatings used prior to
the Clean Air Act of 1973. The Clean Air Act of 1973 established
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, or
the NESHAPs, that regulate the use of asbestos. The amount of the
regulatory asset and the related ARO liability on the accompanying
Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2013 was $0.6 million and
$1.8 million, respectively. The amount of the regulatory asset and
the related ARO liability on the accompanying Consolidated Balance
Sheet at December 31, 2012 was $0.6 million and $1.8 million,
respectively.

Southern Star Central Corp. was incorporated in Delaware in
September 2002 and operates as a holding company for its regulated
natural gas pipeline operations and development opportunities.
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., or Central, is Southern
Star's only operating subsidiary and the sole source of its
operating revenues and cash flows.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Subsidiary Had 1,183 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, a then subsidiary of Steel Partners Holdings
L.P. has been named as a defendant in 1,183 alleged asbestos-
related toxic-tort 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.

A then subsidiary of BNS Holding, Inc. ("BNS Sub") has been named
as a defendant in 1,183 and 1,160 alleged asbestos-related toxic-
tort claims as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
respectively. The claims were filed over a period beginning 1994
through June 30, 2012. In many cases these claims involved more
than 100 defendants. Of the claims filed, 936 and 926 were
dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and closed as of
March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Of the claims
settled, the average settlement was less than $3. There remained
247 and 234 pending asbestos claims as of March 31, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, respectively. There can be no assurance that
the number of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to
date of existing claims.

BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of $183,000, with $2,282 at March 31, 2013 and
December 31, 2012 in estimated remaining self insurance retention
(deductible). There is secondary evidence of coverage from 1970 to
1973 although there is no assurance that the insurers will
recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies issued for BNS
Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related to asbestos.
Under certain circumstances, some of the settled claims may be
reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in receipt of
notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement
of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub believes it has
significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the
merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and,
therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will
prevail. In addition, there can be no assurance that the number of
future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or
judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of
existing claims; and, that BNS Sub will not need to increase
significantly its estimated liability for the costs to settle
these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the
consolidated financial statements.

BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its
insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals
as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the
ultimate settlement and defense costs for the then-existing claims
are revised. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 BNS Sub
has accrued $1,020 relating to the open and active claims against
BNS Sub. This accrual represents BNS's best estimate of the likely
costs to defend against or settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond
the amounts accrued by the insurance carriers and previously
funded, through the retroactive billings by BNS Sub. However,
there can be no assurance that BNS Sub will not need to take
additional charges in connection with the defense, settlement or
judgment of these existing claims or that the costs of future
claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments
will be consistent with the experience to date relating to
existing claims. These claims are now being managed by the
Liquidating Trust formed by BNS.

Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (SPH) is a global diversified holding
company. The Company is engaged in multiple businesses through
consolidated subsidiaries, associated companies and other
interests. The Company owns and operates businesses and has
interests in companies in various industries, including
diversified industrial products, energy, defense, banking,
insurance, food products and services, oilfield services, sports,
training, education, and the entertainment and lifestyle
industries. The Company operates in three segments: Diversified
Industrial, Financial Services and Other. The Company's
subsidiary, SPH Services, Inc., through its subsidiary, SP
Corporate Services LLC (SP Corporate), provides certain executive
and corporate management services to it and some of its companies.
On July 5, 2011, its ownership interest in DGT Holdings Corp.
increased to 51.1%.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,227 Claims v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Unit at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation reported that for the three months
ended March 31, 2013, there are a total of 8,227 pending claims
against the Company's Air & Liquid Systems Corporation subsidiary
("Asbestos Liability") and of an inactive subsidiary in
dissolution, 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.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of predecessors of the Company's Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation subsidiary ("Asbestos Liability") and of an inactive
subsidiary in dissolution. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases
the Company, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often
in excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal
courts.

For the three months ended March 31, 2013, there are a total of
8,227 pending claims for Asbestos Liability against the
subsidiaries and the Company, along with certain asbestos claims
asserted against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution.

A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs
reflected in the above table was reported and paid by insurers.
Because claims are often filed and can be settled or dismissed in
large groups, the amount and timing of settlements, as well as the
number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to
period.

The Company and its Air & Liquid Systems Corporation ("Air &
Liquid") subsidiary are parties to a series of settlement
agreements ("Settlement Agreements") with insurers that have
coverage obligations for Asbestos Liability (the "Settling
Insurers"). The Settlement Agreements include agreements with
insurers encompassing all known solvent primary policies and
solvent first-layer excess policies with responsibilities for
Asbestos Liability. The Settlement Agreements also include an
agreement, effective on October 8, 2012, with insurers responsible
for the majority of the solvent second-layer and above excess
insurance policies issued to the Company from 1981 through 1984.
Under the Settlement Agreements, the Settling Insurers accept
financial responsibility, subject to the terms and conditions of
the respective agreements, including overall coverage limits, for
pending and future claims for Asbestos Liability. The claims
against the Company's inactive subsidiary in dissolution,
numbering approximately 289 as of March 31, 2013, are not included
within the Settlement Agreements. The Company believes that the
claims against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution are
immaterial.

The Settlement Agreements include acknowledgements that Howden
North America, Inc. ("Howden") is entitled to coverage under
policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the
historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge,
a former subsidiary of the Company (the "Products"). The
Settlement Agreements do not provide for any prioritization on
access to the applicable policies or any sub limits of liability
as to Howden or the Company and Air & Liquid, and, accordingly,
Howden may access the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers
for any covered claim arising out of a Product. In general, access
by Howden to the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers for
the Products will erode coverage under the Settlement Agreements
available to the Company and Air & Liquid for Asbestos Liability.

On February 24, 2011, the Company and Air & Liquid filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against thirteen domestic insurance companies,
certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and certain London market
insurance companies, and Howden. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory
judgment regarding the respective rights and obligations of the
parties under excess insurance policies that were issued to the
Company from 1981 through 1984 as respects claims against the
Company and its subsidiary for Asbestos Liability and as respects
asbestos bodily-injury claims against Howden arising from the
Products. The Company and Air & Liquid entered into an agreement,
effective October 8, 2012, as described above, with eight of the
domestic defendant insurers in the action. That agreement
specifies the terms and conditions upon which the insurer parties
would contribute to defense and indemnity costs for claims for
Asbestos Liability. Howden also reached an agreement with such
insurers, effective the same day, addressing asbestos-related
bodily injury claims arising from the Products. On October 16,
2012, the Court entered Orders dismissing all claims filed by the
Company and Air & Liquid, Howden and the eight settling excess
insurers against each other in the litigation. Various
counterclaims, cross claims and third party claims have been filed
in the litigation and remain pending as to non-settled parties.

In 2006, the Company retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates,
Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the valuation of
asbestos liabilities, to assist the Company in estimating the
potential liability for pending and unasserted future claims for
Asbestos Liability. HR&A was not requested to estimate asbestos
claims against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution, which the
Company believes are immaterial. Based on this analysis, the
Company recorded a reserve for Asbestos Liability claims pending
or projected to be asserted through 2013 as at December 31, 2006.
HR&A's analysis has been periodically updated since that time.
Most recently, the HR&A analysis was updated in 2012, and
additional reserves were established by the Company as at December
31, 2012 for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be
asserted through 2022. The methodology used by HR&A in its
projection in 2012 of the operating subsidiaries' liability for
pending and unasserted potential future claims for Asbestos
Liability, which is substantially the same as the methodology
employed by HR&A in prior estimates, relied upon and included the
following factors:

* HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the
population likely to have been exposed to asbestos;

* epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases;

* HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an
asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the
Company based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims
history from January 1, 2010 to December 20, 2012;

* an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and
jurisdiction where the claim is filed;

* an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1, 2010 to
December 20, 2012 to determine the average settlement value of
claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of filing; and

* an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the
Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation.

Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2012 the number of
future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through
the year 2022, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted
claims through 2022. This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities. In developing the
estimate, the Company considered HR&A's projection for settlement
or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and management's
projection of associated defense costs (based on the current
defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of
additional factors. These additional factors included the
Settlement Agreements then in effect, policy exclusions, policy
limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs,
attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the
coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the
insurance carriers, the nature of the underlying claims for
Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the
Company as reflected in the Company's asbestos claims database,
and the status of negotiations with insurers not party to the
Settlement Agreements, as well as estimated erosion of insurance
limits on account of claims against Howden arising out of the
Products. In addition to consulting with the Company's outside
legal counsel on these insurance matters, the Company consulted
with a nationally-recognized insurance consulting firm it retained
to assist the Company with certain policy allocation matters that
also are among the several factors considered by the Company when
analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical insurance
for Asbestos Liabilities.

Based upon all of the factors considered by the Company, and
taking into account the Company's analysis of publicly available
information regarding the credit-worthiness of various insurers,
the Company estimated the probable insurance recoveries for
Asbestos Liability and defense costs through 2022. Although the
Company believes that the assumptions employed in the insurance
valuation were reasonable and previously consulted with its
outside legal counsel and insurance consultant regarding those
assumptions, there are other assumptions that could have been
employed that would have resulted in materially lower insurance
recovery projections.

Based on the analyses, the Company's reserve at December 31, 2012
for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2022
was $181,022, of which approximately 73% was attributable to
settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed
through 2022 and future defense costs. While it is reasonably
possible that the Company will incur additional charges for
Asbestos Liability and defense costs in excess of the amounts
currently reserved, the Company believes that there is too much
uncertainty to provide for reasonable estimation of the number of
future claims, the nature of such claims and the cost to resolve
them beyond 2022. Accordingly, no reserve has been recorded for
any costs that may be incurred after 2022.

The Company's receivable at December 31, 2012 for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Company's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2012, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity
and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos
Liability claims, was $118,115.

For the three months ended March 31, 2013, the Company's insurance
receivable for asbestos is $109,683.

The insurance receivable recorded by the Company does not assume
any recovery from insolvent carriers, and a substantial majority
of the insurance recoveries deemed probable was from insurance
companies rated A- (excellent) or better by A.M. Best Corporation.
There can be no assurance, however, that there will not be further
insolvencies among the relevant insurance carriers, or that the
assumed percentage recoveries for certain carriers will prove
correct. The difference between insurance recoveries and projected
costs is not due to exhaustion of all insurance coverage for
Asbestos Liability. The Company and the subsidiaries have
substantial additional insurance coverage which the Company
expects to be available for Asbestos Liability claims and defense
costs the subsidiaries and it may incur after 2022. However, this
insurance coverage also can be expected to have gaps creating
significant shortfalls of insurance recoveries as against claims
expense, which could be material in future years.

The amounts recorded by the Company for Asbestos Liabilities and
insurance receivables rely on assumptions that are based on
currently known facts and strategy. The Company actual expenses or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the Company or HR&A's
calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key variables
in these assumptions are identified above and include the number
and type of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of
disposing of each such new claim, average annual defense costs,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the relevant insurance carriers.
Other factors that may affect the Company's Asbestos Liability and
ability to recover under its insurance policies 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 Company intends to evaluate its estimated Asbestos Liability
and related insurance receivables as well as the underlying
assumptions on a regular basis to determine whether any
adjustments to the estimates are required. Due to the
uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation and insurance, these
regular reviews may result in the Company incurring future
charges; however, the Company is currently unable to estimate such
future charges. Adjustments, if any, to the Company's estimate of
its recorded Asbestos Liability and/or insurance receivables could
be material to operating results for the periods in which the
adjustments to the liability or receivable are recorded, and to
the Company's liquidity and consolidated financial position.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two segments: Forged and
Cast Rolls, and Air and Liquid Processing. Forged and Cast Rolls
segment is operated by Union Electric Steel Corporation and Union
Electric Steel UK Limited. The Air and Liquid Processing segment
includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all
divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation. Aerofin produces
highly-engineered heat-exchange coils for a variety of users,
including electric utility, HVAC, power generation, industrial
process and other manufacturing industries. Buffalo Air Handling
makes custom-designed air handling systems for commercial,
institutional and industrial building markets. Union Electric
Steel Corporation produces forged hardened steel rolls used in
cold rolling by producers of steel, aluminum and other metals
throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Seeks Dismissal From Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek Inc., seeks dismissal from asbestos-related lawsuits
associated with business operations it has previously acquired,
but no longer owned, 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 has been named, along with multiple other defendants,
in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations
previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned.
During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or
sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these claims,
the Company believes that it has no such liability. For such
claims, the Company is uninsured and either contractually
indemnified against liability, or contractually obligated to
defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former Magnetek
business operations. The Company aggressively seeks dismissal from
these proceedings. Management does not believe the asbestos
proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations. Given the nature of the above issues, uncertainty of
the ultimate outcome, and inability to estimate the potential
loss, no amounts have been reserved for these matters.

Magnetek Inc., manufactures electrical products in a variety of
product groups: lighting products, including fluorescent and high
intensity discharge ballasts; component transformer products such
as 60 hertz, high frequency and microwave oven transformers; power
distribution products including power distribution, control and
specialty transformers; motors and generator products including
fractional, integral and specialty industrial electric motors and
medium to large output generators; and systems and control
products such as electronic adjustable speed drives and power
conversion systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 66,400 Claims Against Quigley, AO et al.
---------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., reported that as of March 31, 2013, approximately
66,400 claims naming American Optical and numerous other
defendants were pending in various federal and state courts
seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials, 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.

Pfizer states: "Like other pharmaceutical companies, we are
defendants in numerous cases, including but not limited to those
discussed below, related to our pharmaceutical and other products.
Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various
grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss."

Quigley Company, Inc. (Quigley), a wholly owned subsidiary, was
acquired by Pfizer in 1968 and sold products containing small
amounts of asbestos until the early 1970s. In September 2004,
Pfizer and Quigley took steps that were intended to resolve all
pending and future claims against Pfizer and Quigley in which the
claimants allege personal injury from exposure to Quigley products
containing asbestos, silica or mixed dust. Pfizer recorded a
charge of $369 million pre-tax ($229 million after-tax) in the
third quarter of 2004 in connection with these matters.

In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York seeking reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In March 2005,
Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the Bankruptcy Court that
needed the approval of 75% of the voting claimants, as well as the
Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. In connection with that filing, Pfizer
entered into settlement agreements with lawyers representing more
than 80% of the individuals with claims related to Quigley
products against Quigley and Pfizer. The agreements provide for a
total of $430 million in payments, of which $215 million became
due in December 2005 and has been and is being paid to claimants
upon receipt by Pfizer of certain required documentation from each
of the claimants. The reorganization plan provided for the
establishment of a trust for the evaluation and, as appropriate,
payment of all unsettled pending claims, as well as any future
claims alleging injury from exposure to Quigley products.

In February 2008, the Bankruptcy Court authorized Quigley to
solicit an amended reorganization plan for acceptance by
claimants. According to the official report filed with the court
by the balloting agent in July 2008, the requisite votes were cast
in favor of the amended plan of reorganization.

The Bankruptcy Court held a confirmation hearing with respect to
Quigley's amended plan of reorganization that concluded in
December 2009. In September 2010, the Bankruptcy Court declined to
confirm the amended reorganization plan. As a result of the
foregoing, Pfizer recorded additional charges for this matter of
approximately $1.3 billion pre-tax (approximately $800 million
after-tax) in 2010. Further, in order to preserve its right to
address certain legal issues raised in the court's opinion, in
October 2010, Pfizer filed a notice of appeal and motion for leave
to appeal the Bankruptcy Court's decision denying confirmation.

In March 2011, Pfizer entered into a settlement agreement with a
committee (the Ad Hoc Committee) representing approximately 40,000
claimants in the Quigley bankruptcy proceeding (the Ad Hoc
Committee claimants). Consistent with the additional charges
recorded in 2010, the principal provisions of the settlement
agreement provide for a settlement payment in two installments and
other consideration, as follows:

* the payment to the Ad Hoc Committee, for the benefit of the Ad
Hoc Committee claimants, of a first installment of $500 million
upon receipt by Pfizer of releases of asbestos-related claims
against Pfizer Inc. from Ad Hoc Committee claimants holding $500
million in the aggregate of claims (Pfizer began paying this first
installment in June 2011);

* the payment to the Ad Hoc Committee, for the benefit of the Ad
Hoc Committee claimants, of a second installment of $300 million
upon Pfizer's receipt of releases of asbestos-related claims
against Pfizer Inc. from Ad Hoc Committee claimants holding an
additional $300 million in the aggregate of claims (Pfizer began
paying this second installment in April 2013);

* the payment of the Ad Hoc Committee's legal fees and expenses
incurred in this matter up to a maximum of $19 million (Pfizer
began paying these legal fees and expenses in May 2011); and

* the procurement by Pfizer of insurance for the benefit of
certain Ad Hoc Committee claimants to the extent such claimants
with non-malignant diseases have a future disease progression to a
malignant disease (Pfizer procured this insurance in August 2011).

Following the execution of the settlement agreement with the Ad
Hoc Committee, Quigley filed a revised plan of reorganization and
accompanying disclosure statement with the Bankruptcy Court in
April 2011, which it amended in June 2012. In August 2012, the
Bankruptcy Court authorized Quigley to solicit the revised plan of
reorganization for acceptance by claimants. The balloting agent's
preliminary tabulation report filed with the court reflects that
the requisite number of asbestos-related claimants cast votes in
favor of the revised plan. A class of claimants holding non-
asbestos-related, unsecured claims voted against the revised plan.

"However, we believe that, under applicable bankruptcy law, the
revised plan may be confirmed notwithstanding the vote of the non-
asbestos-related claimants," Pfizer said.

According to Pfizer, "Under the revised plan, and consistent with
the additional charges recorded in 2010 referred to above, we
expect to contribute an additional amount of cash and non-cash
assets (including insurance proceeds) with a value in excess of
$550 million to the Trust, if and when the Bankruptcy Court
confirms the plan. The Bankruptcy Court must find that the revised
plan meets the standards of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before it
confirms the plan. We expect that, if approved by claimants,
confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court and
upheld on any subsequent appeal, the revised reorganization plan
will result in the District Court entering a permanent injunction
directing pending claims, as well as future claims, alleging
asbestos-related personal injury from exposure to Quigley products
to the Trust, subject to the recent decision of the Second Circuit
discussed below. There is no assurance that the plan will be
approved by claimants or confirmed by the courts."

"In April 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York that the Bankruptcy Court's preliminary
injunction in the Quigley bankruptcy proceeding does not prohibit
actions directly against Pfizer Inc. for alleged asbestos-related
personal injury from exposure to Quigley products based on the
"apparent manufacturer" theory of liability under Pennsylvania
law. The Second Circuit's decision is procedural and does not
address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims under Pennsylvania
law. After the Second Circuit denied our petition for a rehearing,
in September 2012, we filed a petition for certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court seeking a reversal of the Second Circuit's
decision. In July 2012, the Second Circuit had granted a stay of
its decision while the U.S. Supreme Court considers our petition
for certiorari.

"In a separately negotiated transaction with an insurance company
in August 2004, we agreed to a settlement related to certain
insurance coverage which provides for payments to an insurance
proceeds trust established by Pfizer and Quigley over a ten-year
period of amounts totaling $405 million. Most of these insurance
proceeds, as well as other payments from insurers that issued
policies covering Pfizer and Quigley, would be paid, following
confirmation, to the Trust for the benefit of present unsettled
and future claimants with claims arising from exposure to Quigley
products."

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical
Corporation, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective
devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale
of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify
the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-
related and other claims. As of March 31, 2013, approximately
66,400 claims naming American Optical and numerous other
defendants were pending in various federal and state courts
seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert
is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to
explore various means to resolve, these claims.

Warner-Lambert and American Optical brought suit in state court in
New Jersey against the insurance carriers that provided coverage
for the asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials claims
related to American Optical. A majority of the carriers
subsequently agreed to pay for a portion of the costs of defending
and resolving those claims. The litigation continues against the
carriers who have disputed coverage or how costs should be
allocated to their policies, and the court held that Warner-
Lambert and American Optical are entitled to payment from each of
those carriers of a proportionate share of the costs associated
with those claims. Under New Jersey law, a special allocation
master was appointed to implement certain aspects of the court's
rulings.

Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos and other allegedly
hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products Company
(Gibsonburg). Gibsonburg was acquired by Pfizer in the 1960s and
sold products containing small amounts of asbestos until the early
1970s.

There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries.

Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer) is a research-based, global biopharmaceutical
company. The Company manages its operations through five segments:
Primary Care; Specialty Care and Oncology; Established Products
and Emerging Markets; Animal Health and Consumer Healthcare, and
Nutrition. The Company's diversified global healthcare portfolio
includes human and animal biologic and small molecule medicines
and vaccines, as well as nutritional products and consumer
healthcare products. Its Animal Health business unit discovers,
develops and sells products for the prevention and treatment of
diseases in livestock and companion animals. On August 1, 2011, it
completed the sale of its Capsugel business. In October 2011, it
acquired Icagen, Inc. In December 2011, it acquired the consumer
healthcare business of Ferrosan Holding A/S. In December 2011, it
acquired Excaliard Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In November 2012, the
Company acquired NextWave Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rowan Companies Facing 18 Lawsuits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
At March 31, 2013, Rowan Companies plc, is one of many defendants
in approximately 18 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.

The Company states: "We are from time to time a party to various
lawsuits filed by current or former employees that are incidental
to our operations in which the claimants seek unspecified amounts
of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on our drilling
rigs. At March 31, 2013, there were approximately 18 asbestos
related lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These
lawsuits have been filed in the state courts of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. We intend to vigorously defend against the
litigation. We are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these
lawsuits; however, we do not believe the ultimate resolution of
these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

Rowan Companies plc, formerly Rowan Companies, Inc., is a provider
of international and domestic offshore contract drilling services.
The Company provides offshore contract drilling services utilizing
a fleet of 31 self-elevating mobile offshore drilling platforms
(jack-up rigs). Its primary focus is on jack-up rigs, which its
customers uses for exploratory and development drilling and, in
certain areas, well workover operations. In addition, it had three
deepwater drillships, as of December 31, 2011, which was under
construction. It conducts offshore drilling operations in various
markets throughout the world, and as of February 27, 2012, it had
11 rigs in the Middle East, 10 in the United Sates Gulf of Mexico,
six in the North Sea, two in Trinidad, and one each in Malaysia
and Vietnam. On September 1, 2011, it completed the sale of its
land drilling services business. On June 22, 2011, it completed
the sale of its wholly owned manufacturing subsidiary, LeTourneau
Technologies, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Purchased $2.5BB Reinsurance Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd., purchased a reinsurance contract
with National Indemnity Company ("NICO") for up to $2.5 billion in
old asbestos and environmental ("A&E") 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.

OneBeacon's reserves include provisions made for claims that
assert damages from A&E related exposures. These reserves have
been reclassified to liabilities held for sale as of March 31,
2013 and December 31, 2012, as they are part of the Runoff
Business.

In the normal course of business, OneBeacon's insurance
subsidiaries seek to limit losses that may arise from catastrophes
or other events by reinsuring with third-party reinsurers.
OneBeacon remains liable for risks reinsured even if the reinsurer
does not honor its obligations under reinsurance contracts.

In connection with the OneBeacon Acquisition, Aviva caused
OneBeacon to purchase two reinsurance contracts from subsidiaries
of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: a reinsurance contract with National
Indemnity Company ("NICO") for up to $2.5 billion in old asbestos
and environmental ("A&E") claims and certain other exposures (the
"NICO Cover") and an adverse loss reserve development cover from
General Reinsurance Corporation ("GRC") for up to $570.0 million,
comprised of $400.0 million of adverse loss reserve development
occurring in years 2000 and prior (the "GRC Cover") in addition to
$170.0 million of reserves ceded as of the date of the OneBeacon
Acquisition. The NICO Cover and GRC Cover, which were contingent
on and occurred contemporaneously with the OneBeacon Acquisition,
were put in place in lieu of a seller guarantee of loss and LAE
reserves and are therefore accounted for under GAAP as a seller
guarantee.

Under the terms of the NICO Cover, NICO receives the economic
benefit of reinsurance recoverables from certain of OneBeacon's
third party reinsurers ("Third Party Reinsurers") in existence at
the time the NICO Cover was executed ("Third Party Recoverables").
As a result, the underlying Third Party Recoverables serve to
protect the $2.5 billion limit of NICO coverage for the benefit of
OneBeacon. OneBeacon estimates that on an incurred basis it has
used approximately $2.3 billion of the coverage provided by NICO
at March 31, 2013. Net losses paid totaled approximately $1.5
billion as of March 31, 2013. To the extent that actual experience
differs from OneBeacon's estimate of ultimate A&E losses and Third
Party Recoverables, future losses could exceed the $198.3 million
of protection remaining under the NICO Cover at March 31, 2013.

Pursuant to the GRC Cover, OneBeacon is not entitled to recover
losses to the full contract limit if such losses are reimbursed by
GRC more quickly than anticipated at the time the contract was
signed. OneBeacon intends to seek reimbursement from GRC only for
claims which result in payment patterns similar to those
supporting its recoverables recorded pursuant to the GRC Cover.
The economic cost of not submitting certain other eligible claims
to GRC is primarily the investment spread between the rate
credited by GRC and the rate achieved by OneBeacon on its own
investments. This cost, if any, is expected to be nominal.
OneBeacon has ceded estimated incurred losses of $562.0 million to
GRC under the GRC Cover. As of March 31, 2013, OneBeacon has
$409.3 million of reinsurance recoverable on unpaid losses
outstanding under the GRC Cover.

OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. (OneBeacon) is a property and
casualty insurance writer focused on specialty lines. The Company
offers a range of specialty products and services through
independent agencies, regional and national brokers, wholesalers
and managing general agencies. The Company's products relate to
professional liability, marine, collector cars and boats, energy,
entertainment, sports and leisure, excess property, excess
environmental, group accident, property and inland marine, public
entities, technology and tuition refund. The Company's segments
are Specialty Insurance Operations, Other Insurance Operations,
and Investing, Financing and Corporate Operations. In February
2012, the Company sold its AutoOne Insurance business (AutoOne) to
Interboro Holdings, Inc. (Interboro). In January 2013, the Company
sold Essentia Insurance Company to Markel Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Covidien's Subsidiary Had 11,600 Pending Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 29, 2013, there were approximately 11,600 asbestos
liability cases pending against Covidien Public Limited Company's
subsidiary, Mallinckrodt, 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.

Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A
majority of the cases involve products liability claims, based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
incorporating asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege
premises liability, based on claims that individuals were exposed
to asbestos while on Mallinckrodt's property. Each case typically
names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to Mallinckrodt.
The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury
or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products
containing asbestos.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed
by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in
a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims, and intends
to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. When appropriate,
the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and
defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of March 29,
2013, there were approximately 11,600 asbestos liability cases
pending against Mallinckrodt.

The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that were
incurred but not reported, as well as related insurance
recoveries. The Company's estimate of its liability for pending
and future claims is based on claims experience over the past five
years and covers claims either currently filed or expected to be
filed over the next seven years. The Company believes that it has
adequate amounts recorded related to these matters. While it is
not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate
outcome of these asbestos-related proceedings, the Company
believes that the final outcome of all known and anticipated
future claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued
and insurance coverage, will not have a material effect on its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Covidien Public Limited Company is engaged in the development,
manufacture and sale of healthcare products for use in clinical
and home settings. It operates its businesses through three
segments: Medical Devices, which includes the development,
manufacture and sale of endomechanical instruments, energy
devices, soft tissue repair products, vascular products, oximetry
and monitoring products, airway and ventilation products;
Pharmaceuticals, which includes the development, manufacture and
distribution of specialty pharmaceuticals and active
pharmaceutical ingredients, and Medical Supplies, SharpSafety
products and original equipment manufacturer products. In May
2012, it acquired Newport Medical Instruments, Inc. In May 2012,
it acquired superDimension, Ltd. In June 2012, the Company
acquired Oridion Systems Ltd. In October 2012, its Mallinckrodt
acquired CNS Therapeutics, Inc. In January 2013, the Company
acquired CV Ingenuity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Recorded $14.6MM Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, Olin Corporation's condensed balance sheets
included $14.6 million liability for various legal actions
(including proceedings based on alleged exposures to asbestos)
incidental to its past and current business activities, 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, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in
various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current business
activities. As of March 31, 2013, December 31, 2012 and March 31,
2012, our condensed balance sheets included liabilities for these
legal actions of $14.6 million, $15.2 million and $16.8 million,
respectively. These liabilities do not include costs associated
with legal representation. Based on our analysis, and considering
the inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, we do not
believe that it is reasonably possible that these legal actions
will materially adversely affect our financial position, cash
flows or results of operations."

Olin Corporation is a Virginia corporation, incorporated in 1892.
We are a manufacturer concentrated in three business segments:
Chlor Alkali Products, Chemical Distribution and Winchester. Chlor
Alkali Products, with nine U.S. manufacturing facilities and one
Canadian manufacturing facility, produces chlorine and caustic
soda, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and potassium
hydroxide. Chemical Distribution, with twenty-seven owned and
leased terminal facilities, manufactures bleach products and
distributes caustic soda, bleach products, potassium hydroxide and
hydrochloric acid. Winchester, with its principal manufacturing
facilities in East Alton, IL and Oxford, MS, produces and
distributes sporting ammunition, law enforcement ammunition,
reloading components, small caliber military ammunition and
components, and industrial cartridges.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Recorded $3MM Fibro Settlement Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., reported a total obligation of $920 million
under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement at March 31, 2013,
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.

For the three months ended March 31, 2013, PPG recorded $3 million
of asbestos settlement as net expense in its financial statements
resulting from the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement.

To address the issues raised by the Bankruptcy Court in its
December 2006 ruling, the interested parties engaged in extensive
negotiations regarding the terms of a third amended PC plan of
reorganization, including modifications to the 2002 PPG Settlement
Arrangement. A modified third amended PC plan of reorganization
(the "third amended PC plan of reorganization"), including a
modified PPG settlement arrangement (the "2009 PPG Settlement
Arrangement"), was filed with the Bankruptcy Court on January 29,
2009. The parties also filed a disclosure statement describing the
third amended PC plan of reorganization with the court. The third
amended PC plan of reorganization also includes a modified
settlement arrangement of Corning Incorporated.

Several creditors and other interested parties filed objections to
the disclosure statement. Those objections were overruled by the
Bankruptcy Court by order dated July 6, 2009 approving the
disclosure statement. The third amended PC plan of reorganization
and disclosure statement were then sent to creditors, including
asbestos claimants, for voting. The report of the voting agent,
filed on February 18, 2010, revealed that all voting classes,
including asbestos claimants, voted overwhelmingly in favor of the
third amended PC plan of reorganization, which included the 2009
PPG Settlement Arrangement. In light of the favorable vote on the
third amended PC plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court
conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the proposed plan,
including whether (i) the plan would be fair with respect to
present and future claimants, (ii) such claimants would be treated
in substantially the same manner, and (iii) the protection
provided to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in
view of the assets they would convey to the Trust to be
established as part of the third amended PC plan of
reorganization. The hearing was held in June of 2010. The
remaining objecting parties (a number of objections were resolved
through plan amendments and stipulations filed before the hearing)
appeared at the hearing and presented their cases. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court established a
briefing schedule for its consideration of confirmation of the
plan and the objections to confirmation. That briefing was
completed and final oral arguments held in October 2010. On June
16, 2011 the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision denying
confirmation of the third amended PC plan of reorganization.
Although denying confirmation, PPG believes that the decision
viewed favorably many features of that plan.

Since the June 16, 2011 ruling, the third amended plan of
reorganization has been the subject of negotiations among the
parties in interest, amendments, proposed amendments and hearings.
On April 20, 2012, PC filed plan materials with proposed
amendments to the third amended PC plan of reorganization, which
PPG believes would, upon adoption as a final amended plan, resolve
all of the issues raised by the Bankruptcy Court in its June 16,
2011 ruling. On June 21, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court heard argument
regarding whether the remaining insurer objectors had standing to
continue to prosecute their objections to the plan materials. The
Bankruptcy Court did not rule at that time on the question of the
remaining insurer objectors' standing, but took the matter under
advisement. On July 17, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order
setting forth the schedule for finalizing an amended plan and
moving the PC bankruptcy reorganization proceedings forward.
Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court ordered that an amended plan of
reorganization be filed on or before August 20, 2012. Consistent
with that order, PC filed an amended PC plan of reorganization on
August 17, 2012, along with a certification advising the
Bankruptcy Court that the August 17, 2012 amended PC plan of
reorganization was identical to the plan materials filed on April
20, 2012. The July 17 order contemplated further proceedings in
connection with potential objections to that plan and set a
hearing for October 10, 2012 for arguments on any objections.
Objections were filed by three entities on or before the deadline
prescribed by the Bankruptcy Court. One set of objections was
resolved by PC and another set merely restated for appellate
purposes objections filed by a party that the Bankruptcy Court
previously overruled. The Bankruptcy Court heard oral argument on
the one remaining set of objections filed by the remaining insurer
objectors on October 10, 2012. At the conclusion of that argument,
the Bankruptcy Court set forth a schedule for negotiating and
filing language that would resolve some, but not all, of the
objections to confirmation advanced by the insurer objectors. On
October 25, 2012, PC filed a notice regarding proposed
confirmation order language that resolved those specific
objections. The Bankruptcy Court has taken the remaining
objections under advisement. At a hearing on April 24, 2013, the
Bankruptcy Court stated its intention to rule on confirmation
during May 2013.

If the Bankruptcy Court ultimately finds the amended PC plan of
reorganization to be acceptable, the Bankruptcy Court will enter a
confirmation order if all requirements to confirm a plan of
reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code have been satisfied. Such
an order could be appealed to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania by any remaining insurer or other
objectors to the amended and confirmed PC plan of reorganization.
Assuming that the District Court approves a confirmation order,
any remaining insurer or other objectors could appeal the order to
the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently could
seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement will not become effective
until an amended PC plan of reorganization is finally approved by
an appropriate court order that is no longer subject to appellate
review, and PPG's initial contributions will not be due until 30
business days thereafter (the "Funding Effective Date").

If an amended PC plan of reorganization is approved by the
Bankruptcy Court and becomes effective, a channeling injunction
will be entered under Sec. 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code
prohibiting present and future claimants from asserting asbestos
claims against PC. With regard to PPG, the channeling injunction
by its terms will prohibit present and future claimants from
asserting claims against PPG that arise, in whole or in part, out
of exposure to Unibestos, or any other asbestos or asbestos-
containing products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PC,
or asbestos on or emanating from any PC premises. The injunction
by its terms will also prohibit codefendants in these cases that
are subject to the channeling injunction from asserting claims
against PPG for contribution, indemnification or other recovery.
Such injunction will also preclude the prosecution of claims
against PPG arising from alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-
containing products to the extent that a claimant is alleging or
seeking to impose liability, directly or indirectly, for the
conduct of, claims against or demands on PC by reason of PPG's:
(i) ownership of a financial interest in PC; (ii) involvement in
the management of PC, or service as an officer, director or
employee of PC or a related party; (iii) provision of insurance to
PC or a related party; or (iv) involvement in a financial
transaction affecting the financial condition of PC or a related
party. The foregoing PC related claims are referred to as "PC
Relationship Claims" and constitute, in PPG management's opinion,
the vast majority of the pending asbestos personal injury claims
against PPG. All claims channeled to the Trust will be paid only
from the assets of the Trust.

The channeling injunction provided for under the third amended PC
plan of reorganization, as amended, will not extend to any claim
against PPG that arises out of exposure to any asbestos or
asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold and/or distributed
by PPG or its subsidiaries that is not a PC Relationship Claim,
and in this respect differs from the channeling injunction
contemplated by the second amended PC plan of reorganization filed
in 2003. While management believes that the vast majority of the
approximately 114,000 claims against PPG alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos relate to products manufactured,
distributed or sold by PC, the potential liability for any non-PC
Relationship Claims will be retained by PPG. Because a
determination of whether an asbestos claim is a non-PC
Relationship Claim would typically not be known until shortly
before trial and because the filing and prosecution of asbestos
claims (other than certain premises claims) against PPG has been
enjoined since April 2000, the actual number of non-PC
Relationship Claims that may be pending at the expiration of the
stay or the number of additional claims that may be filed against
PPG in the future cannot be determined at this time. PPG does not
expect the Bankruptcy Court to lift the stay until after
confirmation or rejection of the third amended PC plan of
reorganization, as amended, although the Bankruptcy Court may
entertain motions to lift the stay as to specific claims or may
otherwise modify the stay. PPG intends to defend against all such
claims vigorously and their ultimate resolution in the court
system is expected to occur over a period of years.

In addition, similar to what was contemplated by the second
amended PC plan of reorganization, the channeling injunction will
not extend to claims against PPG alleging personal injury caused
by asbestos on premises owned, leased or occupied by PPG (so
called "premises claims"), which generally have been subject to
the stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Court. Historically, a small
proportion of the claims against PPG and its subsidiaries have
been premises claims, and based upon review and analysis, PPG
believes that the number of premises claims currently comprises
less than 2 percent of the total asbestos related claims against
PPG. Beginning in late 2006, the Bankruptcy Court lifted the stay
with respect to certain premises claims against PPG. As a result,
PPG and its primary insurers have settled approximately 500
premises claims. PPG's insurers agreed to provide insurance
coverage for a major portion of the payments made in connection
with the settled claims, and PPG accrued the portion of the
settlement amounts not covered by insurance. PPG, in conjunction
with its primary insurers as appropriate, evaluates the factual,
medical, and other relevant information pertaining to additional
claims as they are being considered for potential settlement. The
number of such claims under consideration for potential
settlement, currently approximately 350, varies from time to time.
Premises claims remain subject to the stay, although certain
claimants have requested the Court to lift the stay with respect
to these claims and the stay has been lifted as to some claims.
PPG believes that any financial exposure resulting from such
premises claims, taking into account available insurance coverage,
will not have a material adverse effect on PPG's consolidated
financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

PPG has no obligation to pay any amounts under the third amended
PC plan of reorganization, as amended, until the Funding Effective
Date. If the third amended PC plan of reorganization, as amended,
is approved, PPG and certain of its insurers will make the
following contributions to the Trust. On the Funding Effective
Date, PPG will relinquish any claim to its equity interest in PC,
convey the stock it owns in Pittsburgh Corning Europe and transfer
1,388,889 shares of PPG's common stock or cash equal to the fair
value of such shares as defined in the 2009 PPG Settlement
Arrangement. PPG will make aggregate cash payments to the Trust of
approximately $825 million, payable according to a fixed payment
schedule over a period ending in 2023. The first payment is due on
the Funding Effective Date. PPG would have the right, in its sole
discretion, to prepay these cash payments to the Trust at any time
at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date.
PPG's historical insurance carriers participating in the third
amended PC plan of reorganization will also make cash payments to
the Trust of approximately $1.7 billion between the Funding
Effective Date and 2027. These payments could also be prepaid to
the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of
the prepayment date. PPG will grant asbestos releases and
indemnifications to all participating insurers, subject to amended
coverage-in-place arrangements with certain insurers for remaining
coverage of premises claims. PPG will grant certain participating
insurers full policy releases on primary policies and full product
liability releases on excess coverage policies. PPG will also
grant certain other participating excess insurers credit against
their product liability coverage limits.

PPG's obligation under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement at
December 31, 2008 was $162 million less than the amount that would
have been due under the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement. This
reduction is attributable to a number of negotiated provisions in
the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, including the provisions
relating to the channeling injunction under which PPG retains
liability for any non-PC Relationship Claims. PPG will retain such
amount as a reserve for asbestos-related claims that will not be
channeled to the Trust, as this amount represents PPG's best
estimate of its liability for these claims. PPG does not have
sufficient current claim information or settlement history on
which to base a better estimate of this liability, in light of the
fact that the Bankruptcy Court's stay has been in effect since
2000. As a result, PPG's reserve at March 31, 2013 and December
31, 2012 for asbestos-related claims that will not be channeled to
the Trust is $162 million. This amount is included within "Other
liabilities" on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. In
addition, under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG will
retain for its own account rights to recover proceeds from certain
historical insurance assets, including policies issued by non-
participating insurers. Rights to recover these proceeds would
have been assigned to the Trust by PPG under the 2002 PPG
Settlement Arrangement.

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

Of the total obligation of $920 million under the 2009 PPG
Settlement Arrangement at March 31, 2013, $680 million is reported
as a current liability and the present value of the payments due
in the years 2014 to 2023 totaling $240 million is reported as a
non-current liability in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet. The future accretion of the noncurrent portion of
the liability will total $105 million and be reported as expense
in the condensed consolidated statement of income over the period
through 2023.

For the three months ended March 31, 2013, PPG recorded $3 million
of asbestos settlement as net expense in its financial statements
resulting from the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement including the
change in fair value of the stock to be transferred to the Trust
and the equity forward instrument and the increase in the net
present value of the future payments to be made to the Trust.

The fair value of the equity forward instrument is included as an
"Other current asset" as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012
in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. Payments
under the fixed payment schedule require annual payments that are
due each June. The current portion of the asbestos settlement
liability included in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of March 31, 2013 consists of all such payments
required through June 2013, the fair value of PPG's common stock
and the value of PPG's investment in Pittsburgh Corning Europe.
The amount due June 30, 2014 of $5 million and the net present
value of the remaining payments is included in the long-term
asbestos settlement liability in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2013.

If the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement is not implemented, for any
reason, and the Bankruptcy Court stay expires, PPG intends to
defend vigorously the pending and any future asbestos claims,
including PC Relationship Claims, asserted against it and its
subsidiaries. PPG continues to assert that it is not responsible
for any injuries caused by PC products, which it believes account
for the vast majority of the pending claims against PPG. Prior to
2000, PPG had never been found liable for any PC-related claims.
In numerous cases, PPG was dismissed on motions prior to trial,
and in others PPG was released as part of settlements by PC. PPG
was found not responsible for PC-related claims at trial in two
cases. In January 2000, one jury found PPG, for the first time,
partly responsible for injuries to five plaintiffs alleged to be
caused by PC products. The plaintiffs holding the judgment on that
verdict moved to lift the injunction as applied to their claims.
Before the hearing on that motion, PPG entered into a settlement
with those claimants in the second quarter of 2010 to avoid the
costs and risks associated with the possible lifting of the stay
and appeal of the adverse 2000 verdict. The settlement resolved
both the motion to lift the injunction and the judgment against
PPG. The cost of this settlement was not significant to PPG's
results of operations for the second quarter of 2010 and was fully
offset by prior insurance recoveries. Although PPG has
successfully defended asbestos claims brought against it in the
past, in view of the number of claims, and the significant
verdicts that other companies have experienced in asbestos
litigation, the result of any future litigation of such claims is
inherently unpredictable.

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

                       http://is.gd/M4QTQQ

PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) is a global supplier of protective and
decorative coatings. PPG operates in six business segments. The
Performance Coatings, Industrial Coatings and Architectural
Coatings-EMEA segments supply protective and decorative finishes
for customers in a range of end use markets, including industrial
equipment, appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum
extrusions and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft
equipment; automotive original equipment; and other industrial and
consumer products. The Optical and Specialty Materials segment
consist of the optical products and silicas businesses. It is a
producer and supplier of basic chemicals. Glass segment produces
flat glass and continuous-strand fiber glass. The Glass business
segment consists of the flat glass and fiber glass businesses. In
January 2013, the combined company formed by uniting Georgia Gulf
with PPG's former commodity chemicals business is named Axiall
Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Subsidiary Has $3,300 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation projected that its subsidiary's total
liability over the next 50 years for asbestos-related claims is
approximately $3,300,000 excluding costs of defense, 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.

An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978
sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an
installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary
discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other
than the proceeds from insurance settlements received. To date,
the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of
without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against
the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and
anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently
projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50
years for these claims is approximately $3,300 (excluding costs of
defense). Although the Company has also been named as a defendant
in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued
against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the
defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the
subsidiary.

These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion of this
primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is now
insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted that the
aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The
subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the
claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of
the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release
agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 and early 2007 for
$15,000 and $20,000, respectively. The proceeds of both
settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and
costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos
litigation. During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and
the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim
Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay
27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the
subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a
minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. The agreement
continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either
party by providing the other party with a minimum of two years
prior written notice. As of March 31, 2013, no notice of
termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the
term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue
its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the
policy limits. The Company also believes that, if the coverage
issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are
resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds
were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage
from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency
of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless,
liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and
coverage available to the subsidiary.

If the subsidiary's assets and insurance coverage were to be
exhausted, claimants of the subsidiary may actively pursue claims
against the Company because of the parent-subsidiary relationship.
Although asbestos litigation is particularly difficult to predict,
especially with respect to claims that are currently not being
actively pursued against the Company, the Company does not believe
that such claims would have merit or that the Company would be
held to have liability for any unsatisfied obligations of the
subsidiary as a result of such claims. After evaluating the nature
of the claims filed against the subsidiary and the small number of
such claims that have resulted in any payment, the potential
availability of additional insurance coverage at the subsidiary
level, the additional availability of the Company's own insurance
and the Company's strong defenses to claims that it should be held
responsible for the subsidiary's obligations because of the
parent-subsidiary relationship, the Company believes it is not
probable that the Company will incur any material losses. All of
the asbestos cases pursued against the Company challenging the
parent-subsidiary relationship are in the early stages of
litigation. The Company has been successful to date having claims
naming it dismissed during initial proceedings. Since the Company
may be in this early stage of litigation for some time, it is not
possible to estimate additional losses or range of loss, if any.

As initially disclosed in the Company's second quarter 2010 Form
10-Q, one of the Company's subsidiaries may have paid certain
value-added-taxes ("VAT") incorrectly and, in certain cases, may
not have collected sufficient VAT from certain customers. The VAT
rules and regulations at issue are complex, vary among the
jurisdictions and can be contradictory, in particular as to how
they relate to the subsidiary's products and to sales between
jurisdictions.

Quaker Chemical Corporation (Quaker) develops, produces and
markets a range of formulated chemical specialty products for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications and, in
addition, offers and markets chemical management services (CMS).
The Company operates in three segments: Metalworking process
chemicals, Coatings and Other chemical products. The Metalworking
process chemicals segment includes industrial process fluids for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications. Coatings
segment includes temporary and permanent coatings for metal and
concrete products and chemical milling maskants. Its Other
chemical products segment includes other various chemical
products. On July 12, 2011, the Company acquired the remaining 60%
interest in Tecniquimia Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. On October 3, 2011,
the Company acquired G.W. Smith & Sons, Inc. In July 2012, the
Company acquired NP Coil Dexter Industries S.r.l.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Had $2.03BB Net Reserves at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., recorded net reserves
as of March 31, 2013 of $2.03 billion ($1.74 billion and $293 for
asbestos and environmental, respectively), 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 Hartford is involved in claims litigation arising in the
ordinary course of business, both as a liability insurer defending
or providing indemnity for third-party claims brought against
insureds and as an insurer defending coverage claims brought
against it. The Hartford accounts for such activity through the
establishment of unpaid loss and loss adjustment expense reserves.
Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with
respect to such ordinary-course claims litigation, after
consideration of provisions made for potential losses and costs of
defense, will not be material to the consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows of The Hartford.

Like many other insurers, The Hartford also has been joined in
actions by asbestos plaintiffs asserting, among other things, that
insurers had a duty to protect the public from the dangers of
asbestos and that insurers committed unfair trade practices by
asserting defenses on behalf of their policyholders in the
underlying asbestos cases.

The Hartford continues to receive asbestos and environmental
claims that involve significant uncertainty regarding policy
coverage issues. Regarding these claims, The Hartford continually
reviews its overall reserve levels and reinsurance coverages, as
well as the methodologies it uses to estimate its exposures.
Because of the significant uncertainties that limit the ability of
insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves
necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses, particularly
those related to asbestos, the ultimate liabilities may exceed the
currently recorded reserves. Any such additional liability cannot
be reasonably estimated now but could be material to The
Hartford's consolidated operating results, financial condition and
liquidity.

A number of factors affect the variability of estimates for
asbestos and environmental reserves including assumptions with
respect to the frequency of claims, the average severity of those
claims settled with payment, the dismissal rate of claims with no
payment and the expense to indemnity ratio. The uncertainty with
respect to the underlying reserve assumptions for asbestos and
environmental adds a greater degree of variability to these
reserve estimates than reserve estimates for more traditional
exposures. While this variability is reflected in part in the size
of the range of reserves developed by the Company, that range may
still not be indicative of the potential variance between the
ultimate outcome and the recorded reserves. The recorded net
reserves as of March 31, 2013 of $2.03 billion ($1.74 billion and
$293 for asbestos and environmental, respectively) is within an
estimated range, unadjusted for covariance, of $1.6 billion to
$2.4 billion. The process of estimating asbestos and environmental
reserves remains subject to a wide variety of uncertainties, which
are detailed in the Company's 2012 Form 10-K Annual Report. The
Company believes that its current asbestos and environmental
reserves are appropriate. However, analyses of future developments
could cause the Company to change its estimates and ranges of its
asbestos and environmental reserves, and the effect of these
changes could be material to the Company's consolidated operating
results, financial condition and liquidity.

Consistent with the Company's long-standing reserve practices, the
Company will continue to review and monitor its reserves in
Property & Casualty Other Operations regularly, including its
annual reviews of asbestos liabilities, reinsurance recoverables
and the allowance for uncollectible reinsurance, and environmental
liabilities, and where future developments indicate, make
appropriate adjustments to the reserves. The Company will complete
its annual ground-up asbestos and environmental reserve studies
during the second quarter of 2013.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is a holding company
for insurance and financial services subsidiaries that provide
property and casualty and life insurance as well as investment
products to both individual and business customers in the United
States (collectively, "The Hartford", the "Company", "we" or
"our"). Also, the Company continues to manage life and annuity
products previously sold.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $583MM Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation recorded $583 million asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims at March 31, 2013,
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.

Separately, the Company is and has been involved in a large number
of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during
the past three decades. These suits principally allege personal
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed
against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem").
In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Company's products.

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

Based on a study completed by Analysis, Research & Planning
Company ("ARPC") in January 2003, the Company increased its
December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2
billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since
then, the Company has compared current asbestos claim and
resolution activity to the results of the most recent ARPC study
at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual
continues to be appropriate. In addition, the Company has
requested ARPC to review the Company's historical asbestos claim
and resolution activity each year to determine the appropriateness
of updating the most recent ARPC study.

In November 2011, the Company requested ARPC to review the
Company's 2011 asbestos claim and resolution activity and
determine the appropriateness of updating its then most recent
study completed in December 2010. In response to that request,
ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through October 31, 2011. In
January 2012, ARPC stated that an update of its study would not
provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate
reflected in its December 2010 study and, therefore, the estimate
in that study remained applicable. Based on the Company's own
review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity and ARPC's
response, the Company determined that no change to the accrual was
required. At December 31, 2011, the Company's asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims was $668 million.

In October 2012, the Company requested ARPC to review the
Company's historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and
determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2010 study.
In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data
through September 30, 2012. In December, 2012, based upon ARPC's
December 2012 study and the Company's own review of the asbestos
claim and resolution activity for 2012, it was determined that no
adjustment to the accrual was required at December 31, 2012. The
Company's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims
was $602 million at December 31, 2012. At December 31, 2012,
approximately 18 percent of the recorded liability related to
pending claims and approximately 82 percent related to future
claims.

Based on the Company's review of 2013 activity, it was determined
that no adjustment to the accrual was required at March 31, 2013.
The Company's asbestos-related liability for pending and future
claims was $583 million at March 31, 2013. Approximately 16
percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and
approximately 84 percent related to future claims.

At December 31, 2002, the Company increased the receivable for
insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to $1.35
billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability
coverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos
liability was determined by the Company after a thorough review of
applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement,
to which the Company and many of its liability insurers are
signatory parties, as well as other insurance settlements, with
due consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions and
policy limits, and taking into account the solvency and historical
payment experience of various insurance carriers. The Wellington
Agreement and other agreements with insurers are designed to
facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of the Company's
insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance
carriers may raise.

In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "Insurance
Litigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers
that were not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do
not otherwise have agreements in place with the Company regarding
their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate
an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies
and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. Since
the filing of the case, the Company has reached settlements with
most of the carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation,
including settlements reached with two significant carriers in the
fourth quarter of 2009. The Insurance Litigation is ongoing.

The Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its
asbestos liability was $25 million at March 31, 2013 and $25
million at December 31, 2012. At March 31, 2013 and December 31,
2012, all of the receivable for insurance recoveries was related
to insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement
and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place regarding their
asbestos-related insurance coverage.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability, the Company had receivables for defense
and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that have
settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage.

As of March 31, 2013, the Company's total receivable related to
its asbestos-related liability is $178 million.

Union Carbide Corporation and its subsidiaries are wholly owned
subsidiaries of The Dow Chemical Company ("Dow"). The Company's
business activities comprise components of Dow's global operations
rather than stand-alone operations. Dow conducts its worldwide
operations through global businesses. Because there are no
separable reportable business segments for UCC under the
accounting guidance related to segment reporting and no detailed
business information is provided to a chief operating decision
maker regarding the Company's stand-alone operations, the
Company's results are reported as a single operating segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reported $7MM for Conditional ARO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation reported $7 million at March 31, 2013,
for the aggregate carrying amount of conditional asset retirement
obligations related to asbestos encapsulation, 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 has recognized asset retirement obligations related to
capping activities at landfill sites in the United States. The
aggregate carrying amount of these asset retirement obligations
was $4 million at March 31, 2013 and $4 million at December 31,
2012. The Company also has recognized conditional asset retirement
obligations related to asbestos encapsulation as a result of
planned demolition and remediation activities at manufacturing and
administrative sites in the United States. The aggregate carrying
amount of conditional asset retirement obligations was $7 million
at March 31, 2013 and $7 million at December 31, 2012. The
discount rate used to calculate the Company's asset retirement
obligations and conditional asset retirement obligations was 0.87
percent at March 31, 2013 and 0.87 percent at December 31, 2012.

Union Carbide Corporation and its subsidiaries are wholly owned
subsidiaries of The Dow Chemical Company ("Dow"). The Company's
business activities comprise components of Dow's global operations
rather than stand-alone operations. Dow conducts its worldwide
operations through global businesses. Because there are no
separable reportable business segments for UCC under the
accounting guidance related to segment reporting and no detailed
business information is provided to a chief operating decision
maker regarding the Company's stand-alone operations, the
Company's results are reported as a single operating segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Int'l. Reported 1,081 Unresolved Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman International LLC reported 1,081 unresolved cases for the
three months ended March 31, 2013, 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.

According to the Company, "We have been named as a "premises
defendant" in a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically
claims by nonemployees of exposure to asbestos while at a
facility. These complaints generally do not provide the necessary
information about the time period in which the alleged injuries
occurred or the alleged exposures giving rise to the asserted
liability. This information, which would be central to any
estimate of probable loss, generally must be obtained through
legal discovery."

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

"For the three months ended March 31, 2013, there were 1,081
unresolved cases for which service has been received that we have
tendered to the prior owner, all of which have been accepted.

"We have never made any payments with respect to these cases. As
of March 31, 2013, we had an accrued liability of approximately
$10 million relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable
of approximately $10 million relating to our indemnity protection
with respect to these cases. We cannot assure you that our
liability will not exceed our accruals or that our liability
associated with these cases would not be material to our financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity; accordingly, we are
not able to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of our
accruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made against
us in the future, and such claims could be material. However,
because we are not able to estimate the amount or range of losses
associated with such claims, we have made no accruals with respect
to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of March 31, 2013.

"Certain cases in which we are a premises defendant are not
subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. However,
we may be entitled to insurance or other recoveries in some of
these cases. For the three months ended March 31, 2013, there are
50 unresolved cases for which service has been received by us.
Certain prior cases that were filed in error against us have been
dismissed.

"We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that
are not subject to indemnification of nil and $82,000 during the
three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. As of
March 31, 2013, we had no accrual relating to these cases. We
cannot assure you that our liability will not exceed our accruals
or that our liability associated with these cases would not be
material to our financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate the amount or
range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestos
exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and such
claims could be material. However, because we are not able to
estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such
claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted
asbestos exposure claims as of March 31, 2013."

Huntsman International LLC manufactures surfactants (used in
cleaning and personal care products) and performance chemicals
like polyurethanes, propylene oxides, and propylene glycol. Its
polyurethanes segment is the company's largest, representing 39%
of 2011 sales. Huntsman ranks among the largest makers of titanium
dioxide, the most commonly used white pigment, with 15% of the
world market. Huntsman International operates the business of
parent Huntsman Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Had 780 Active Cases as of March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation is a defendant in approximately
780 active cases involving approximately 3,320 plaintiffs as of
March 31, 2013, 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, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately
780 active cases involving approximately 3,320 plaintiffs. Many of
these cases involve multiple defendants (typically from fifty to
more than one hundred). About 2,560, or approximately 77 percent,
of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions
which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based
upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the
actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against
U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of
plaintiffs. During the three months ended March 31, 2013, U. S.
Steel paid approximately $1 million in settlements. These
settlements and other dispositions resolved approximately 75
claims. New case filings in the first three months of 2013 added
approximately 65 claims. At December 31, 2012, U. S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 790 active cases involving
approximately 3,330 plaintiffs. During 2012, U. S. Steel paid
approximately $15 million in settlements. These settlements and
other dispositions resolved approximately 190 claims. New case
filings in the year ended December 31, 2012 added approximately
285 claims. Most claims filed in 2013 and 2012 involved individual
or small groups of claimants as many jurisdictions no longer
permit the filing of mass complaints.

Historically, these claims against U. S. Steel fall into three
major groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos at U. S. Steel facilities (referred to as
"premises claims"); (2) claims made by industrial workers
allegedly exposed to products manufactured by U. S. Steel; and (3)
claims made under certain federal and general maritime laws by
employees of former operations of U. S. Steel. In general, the
only insurance available to U. S. Steel with respect to asbestos
claims is excess casualty insurance, which has multi-million
dollar retentions. To date, U. S. Steel has received minimal
payments under these policies relating to asbestos claims.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. U. S. Steel is
currently a defendant in cases in which a total of approximately
265 plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.
The potential for damages against defendants may be greater in
cases in which the plaintiffs can prove mesothelioma.

In many cases in which claims have been asserted against U. S.
Steel, the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to U. S. Steel or its products or premises; however,
with the decline in mass plaintiff cases, the incidence of
claimants actually alleging a claim against U. S. Steel is
increasing. In addition, in many asbestos cases, the claimants
have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any
identifiable injury or compensable loss at all; that any injuries
that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure
to asbestos; or that such alleged exposure was in any way related
to U. S. Steel or its products or premises.

The amount U. S. Steel has accrued for pending asbestos claims is
not material to U. S. Steel's financial position. U. S. Steel does
not accrue for unasserted asbestos claims because it is not
possible to determine whether any loss is probable with respect to
such claims or even to estimate the amount or range of any
possible losses. The vast majority of pending claims against U. S.
Steel allege so-called "premises" liability-based alleged exposure
on U. S. Steel's current or former premises. These claims are made
by an indeterminable number of people such as truck drivers,
railroad workers, salespersons, contractors and their employees,
government inspectors, customers, visitors and even trespassers.
In most cases the claimant also was exposed to asbestos in non-U.
S. Steel settings; the relative periods of exposure between U. S.
Steel and non-U. S. Steel settings vary with each claimant; and
the strength or weakness of the causal link between U. S. Steel
exposure and any injury vary widely as do the nature and severity
of the injury claimed.

"We are unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-
related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable
nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty,
management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters
will not have a material adverse effect on U. S. Steel's financial
condition, although the resolution of such matters could
significantly impact results of operations for a particular
quarter. Among the factors considered in reaching this conclusion
are: (1) it has been many years since U. S. Steel employed
maritime workers or manufactured or sold asbestos containing
products; (2) most asbestos containing material was removed or
remediated at U. S. Steel facilities many years ago; and (3) U. S.
Steel's history of trial outcomes, settlements and dismissals,"
the Company said.

United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) produces and sells
steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular products,
in North America and Central Europe. Operations in North America
also include transportation services (railroad and barge
operations) and real estate operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 51,500 Claims at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., had 51,500 outstanding claims for three
months ended March 31, 2013, 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.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown Cork") is one of many
defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout
the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation
operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown
Cork purchased in 1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock
purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was
later merged into Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits asbestos-
related liabilities under state law of companies such as Crown
Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are
successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved
with asbestos. The legislation, which applies to future and, with
the exception of Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and
Wyoming, pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the
fair market value of the predecessor's total gross assets adjusted
for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total value of its predecessor's
assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has integrated the
legislation into its claims defense strategy. The Company
cautions, however, that the legislation may be challenged and
there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate effect of the
legislation on Crown Cork.

In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related
liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that
the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003.
The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court
is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld.

The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-
related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have
a material impact on the Company.

During the three months ended March 31, 2013, the Company paid
$7 million to settle outstanding claims and had 51,500 outstanding
claims.

In the fourth quarter of each year, the Company performs an
analysis of outstanding claims and categorizes by year of exposure
and state filed. As of December 31, 2012, the Company's
outstanding claims were 51,000.

The outstanding claims in each period exclude 3,100 pending claims
involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were, maritime
workers subject to exposure to asbestos, but whose claims the
Company believes will not have a material effect on the Company's
consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash
flow. The outstanding claims also exclude approximately 19,000
inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers
it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further
action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims
had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual as the
claims were filed in states, where the Company's liability is
limited by statute.

With respect to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlements in states where the Company's
liability is limited by statute except for certain pending claims
in Texas as described earlier.

According to the Company, "With respect to post-1964 claims,
regardless of the existence of asbestos legislation, the Company
does not include in its accrual any amounts for settlement of
these claims because of increased difficulty of establishing
identification of relevant insulation products as the cause of
injury. Given our settlement experience with post-1964 claims, we
do not believe that an adverse ruling in the Texas or Pennsylvania
asbestos litigation cases, or in any other state that has enacted
asbestos legislation, would have a material impact on the Company
with respect to such claims."

"As of December 31, 2012, the percentage of outstanding claims
related to claimants alleging serious diseases (primarily
mesothelioma and other malignancies) was 19%.

"Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel
in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet
filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims
under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown
Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is
included in the Company's estimated liability as of March 31,
2013.

"As of March 31, 2013, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $249
million, including $193 million for unasserted claims. The
Company's accrual includes estimated probable costs for claims
through the year 2022. The Company's accrual excludes potential
costs for claims beyond 2022 because the Company believes that the
key assumptions underlying its accrual are subject to greater
uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.

"It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual. The Company is unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to
uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 88% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2012), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate
the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed)."

Crown Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is a leading
supplier of packaging products to consumer marketing companies
around the world. World headquarters are located in Philadelphia,
PA. For more information, visit www.crowncork.com.


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

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

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

Ensco plc (Ensco) is a provider of offshore contract drilling
services to the international oil and gas industry. As of December
31, 2011, the Company owned and operated an offshore drilling rig
fleet of 77 rigs, including rigs under construction. As of
December 31, 2011, its rig fleet included seven drillships, 13
dynamically positioned semisubmersible rigs, seven moored
semisubmersible rigs, 49 jackup rigs and one barge rig. Its
customers include national and international oil companies. On May
31, 2011, the Company completed a merger transaction (the Merger)
with Pride International, Inc., (Pride), ENSCO International
Incorporated, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary and predecessor
of Ensco plc (Ensco Delaware), and ENSCO Ventures LLC, an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ensco plc (Merger Sub).
Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, Merger Sub merged
with and into Pride, with Pride as the surviving entity and an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ensco plc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Named as Defendant in PI Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation has been named as one of many defendants in
asbestos-related personal injury 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 states: "Like hundreds of other industrial companies,
we have been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal
injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of
FMC or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or
equipment manufactured or sold by businesses classified as
discontinued operations. We intend to continue managing these
cases in accordance with our historical experience. We have
established a reserve for this litigation within our discontinued
operations and are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of any
exposure of a loss in excess of the established reserve. Our
experience has been that the overall trends in terms of the rate
of filing of asbestos-related claims with respect to all potential
defendants has changed over time, and that filing rates as to us
in particular have varied significantly over the last several
years. We are a peripheral defendant -- that is, we have never
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing components. As a
result, claim filing rates against us have yet to form a
predictable pattern, and we are unable to project a reasonably
accurate future filing rate and thus, we are presently unable to
reasonably estimate our asbestos liability with respect to claims
that may be filed in the future."

FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company. It serves
agricultural, consumer and industrial markets with solutions,
applications and products. It operates in three segments:
Agricultural Products, which develops, markets and sells crop
protection chemicals, such as insecticides, herbicides, and
fungicides; Specialty Chemicals, which includes its BioPolymer and
lithium businesses and focuses on food ingredients that are used
to enhance texture, color, structure and physical stability;
pharmaceutical additives for binding and lithium, and Industrial
Chemicals, manufactures inorganic materials. In October 2011, it
acquired European persulfates business of RheinPerChemie GmbH from
Unionchimica SpA. In November 2011, it acquired Adventus
Intellectual Property. In March 2012, the Company opened its new
Singapore Technical Center in Singapore Science Park 2. In June
2012, the Company acquired Phytone Ltd. Effective March 28, 2013,
it acquired a 6.25% interest in FMC Wyoming Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 46,070 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, CBS Corporation had pending approximately
46,070 asbestos 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 is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one
of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases.
In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a
claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-
containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in
commercial ships.

Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. As of March 31, 2013, the Company had pending
approximately 46,070 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 45,900 as of December 31, 2012 and 48,650 as of
March 31, 2012. During the first quarter of 2013, the Company
received approximately 1,130 new claims and closed or moved to an
inactive docket approximately 960 claims. The Company reports
claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has
been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement
with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.
Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that
form the basis of the claim, the quality of evidence supporting
the claims and other factors. The Company's total costs for the
years 2012 and 2011 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims
after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were
approximately $21 million and $33 million, respectively. The
Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may
vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered
in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses.

The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate
to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many
factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding
claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims
by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of
resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of
asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in the
past five to ten years and has remained flat in recent years, it
is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and
circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and
types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which
could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities.

CBS Corporation is a mass media company. The Company has
operations in segments, which include Entertainment, Cable
Networks, Publishing, Local Broadcasting and Outdoor. During the
year ended December 31, 2011, contributions to the Company's
consolidated revenues from its segments were Entertainment 52%,
Cable Networks 11%, Publishing 6%, Local Broadcasting 19% and
Outdoor 13%. During 2011, it generated approximately 15% of its
total revenues from international regions. During 2011,
approximately 59% and 17% of total international revenues were
generated in Europe and Canada, respectively. Effective March 26,
2013, the Company acquired 50% interest in The TV Guide Network
from Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 337 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, Rogers Corporation had 337 pending 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 31, 2013.

The Company states: "A significant number of asbestos-related
product liability claims have been brought against numerous United
States industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs
allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing
products. We have been named, along with hundreds of other
companies, as a defendant in some of these claims. In virtually
all of these claims filed against us, the plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages, or, if an amount is specified, such amount
merely represents a jurisdictional amount. However, occasionally
specific damages are alleged and in such situations, plaintiffs'
lawyers often sue dozens of defendants, frequently without factual
basis or support. As a result, even when a specific amount of
damages is alleged, such action can be arbitrary, both as to the
amount being sought and the defendant being charged with such
damages. We did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos;
rather we made a limited number of products which contained
encapsulated asbestos. Such products were provided to industrial
users. We stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s."

"We have been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois,
Pennsylvania and Mississippi. As of March 31, 2013, there were 337
pending claims compared to 319 pending claims at December 31,
2012. The number of pending claims at a particular time can
fluctuate significantly from period to period depending on how
successful we have been in getting these cases dismissed or
settled. Some jurisdictions prohibit specifying alleged damages in
personal injury tort cases such as these, other than a minimum
jurisdictional amount which may be required for such reasons as
allowing the case to be litigated in a jury trial (which the
plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them than if heard
only before a judge) or allowing the case to be litigated in
federal court. This is in contrast to commercial litigation, in
which specific alleged damage claims are often permitted. The
prohibition on specifying alleged damages sometimes applies not
only to the suit when filed but also during the trial -- in some
jurisdictions the plaintiff is not actually permitted to specify
to the jury during the course of the trial the amount of alleged
damages the plaintiff is claiming. Further, in those jurisdictions
in which plaintiffs are permitted to claim specific alleged
damages, many plaintiffs nonetheless still choose not to do so. In
those cases in which plaintiffs are permitted to and choose to
assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, we believe the
amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an indicator of a
company's potential liability. This is because (1) the amounts
claimed may bear no relation to the level of the plaintiff's
injury and are often used as part of the plaintiff's litigation
strategy, (2) the complaints typically assert claims against
numerous defendants, and often the alleged damages are not
allocated against specific defendants, but rather the broad claim
is made against all of the defendants as a group, making it
impossible for a particular defendant to quantify the alleged
damages that are being specifically claimed against it and
therefore its potential liability, and (3) many cases are brought
on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injury,
and ultimately are resolved without any payment or payment of a
small fraction of the damages initially claimed. Of the 337 claims
pending as of  March 31, 2013,  72 claims do not specify the
amount of damages sought,  264 claims cite jurisdictional amounts,
and only one (1) claim (less than 1.0% of the total pending
claims) specifies the amount of damages sought not based on
jurisdictional requirements. This one (1) claim, which names 21
defendants, alleges compensatory and punitive damages of $20
million each. However, for the reasons cited above, we do not
believe that this data allows for an accurate assessment of the
relation that the amount of alleged damages claimed might bear to
the ultimate disposition of these cases.

"We believe the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related
suits against us increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because of
increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those
companies that sold asbestos-containing products, but which did
not directly mine, mill or market asbestos. A significant increase
in the volume of asbestos-related bodily injury cases arose in
Mississippi in 2002. This increase in the volume of claims in
Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort reform
legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries), which
became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in a
higher than average number of claims being filed in Mississippi by
plaintiffs seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by the
law in effect prior to the passage of tort reform. The number of
asbestos related suits filed against us decreased slightly in 2005
and 2006, but increased slightly in 2007, declined in 2008 and
increased again in 2009 and 2010. The number of lawsuits filed
against us in 2011 and 2012 was significantly higher than in 2010.
No meaningful trend for 2013 is available at this time. These new
lawsuits are reflected in the National Economic Research
Associates, Inc. (NERA) and Marsh USA, Inc. (Marsh) reports.

"In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to our
asbestos-containing products. We continue to believe that a
majority of the claimants in pending cases will not be able to
demonstrate exposure or loss. This belief is based in large part
on two factors: the limited number of asbestos-related products
manufactured and sold by us and the fact that the asbestos was
encapsulated in such products. In addition, even at sites where
the presence of an alleged injured party can be verified during
the same period those products were used, our liability cannot be
presumed because even if an individual contracted an asbestos-
related disease, not everyone who was employed at a site was
exposed to the asbestos containing products that we manufactured.
Based on these and other factors, we have and will continue to
vigorously defend ourselves in asbestos-related matters.

"Cases involving us typically name 50-300 defendants, although
some cases have had as few as one (1) and as many as 833
defendants. We have obtained dismissals of many of these claims.
For the three months ended March 31, 2013, we were able to have 20
claims dismissed and settled two (2) claims. For the year ended
December 31, 2012, 93 claims were dismissed and sixteen (16) were
settled. The majority of costs have been paid by our insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of
cases that have been settled. Such settlements totaled
approximately $0.9 million for the three months ended March 31,
2013, compared to $6.3 million for the year ended 2012.  Although
these figures provide some insight into our experience with
asbestos litigation, no guarantee can be made as to the dismissal
and settlement rates that we will experience in the future.

"Settlements are made without any admission of liability.
Settlement amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors,
including the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the
nature and extent of the disease alleged and the associated
medical evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the
existence or absence of other possible causes of the alleged
illness of the alleged injured party and the availability of legal
defenses, as well as whether the action is brought alone or as
part of a group of claimants. To date, we have been successful in
obtaining dismissals for many of the claims and have settled only
a limited number. The majority of settled claims were settled for
immaterial amounts, and the majority of such costs have been paid
by our insurance carriers. In addition, to date, we have not been
required to pay any punitive damage awards.

"NERA, a consulting firm with expertise in the field of evaluating
mass tort litigation asbestos bodily-injury claims, has
historically been engaged to assist us in projecting our future
asbestos-related liabilities and defense costs with regard to
pending claims and future unasserted claims. Projecting future
asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables that are extremely
difficult to predict, including the number of claims that might be
received, the type and severity of the disease alleged by each
claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos
exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the
financial resources of other companies that are co-defendants in
claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case and the impact
of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards,
including potential tort reform. Furthermore, any predictions with
respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty
as the projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent
uncertainties, the  variability of our claims history and
consultations with NERA, we currently believe that 10 years is the
most reasonable period for recognizing a reserve for future costs,
and that costs that might be incurred after that period are not
reasonably estimable at this time. As a result, we also believe
that our ultimate asbestos-related contingent liability (i.e., our
indemnity or other claim disposition costs plus related legal
fees) cannot be estimated with certainty.

"Our applicable insurance policies generally provide coverage for
asbestos liability costs, including coverage for both resolution
and defense costs. Following the initiation of asbestos
litigation, an effort was made to identify all of our primary,
umbrella and excess level insurance carriers that provided
applicable coverage beginning in the 1950s through the mid-1980s.
Where appropriate, carriers were put on notice of the litigation.
Marsh, a consulting firm with expertise in the field of evaluating
insurance coverage and the likelihood of recovery for asbestos-
related claims, has historically been engaged to work with us to
project our insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims.
Marsh's conclusions are based primarily on a review of our
coverage history, application of reasonable assumptions on the
allocation of coverage consistent with certain industry practices,
an assessment of the creditworthiness of the insurance carriers,
analysis of applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits,
the experience of NERA and a review of NERA's reports.

"To date, our insurance carriers have paid for substantially all
of the settlement and defense costs associated with our asbestos-
related claims. The current cost sharing agreement between us and
such insurance carriers is primarily designed to facilitate the
ongoing administration and payment of such claims by the carriers
until the applicable insurance coverage is exhausted. This four
year agreement expires on January 25, 2015 and replaced an older
agreement that had expired.

"In 2012, the primary layer insurance policies providing coverage
for the January 1, 1967 to June 30, 1969 period exhausted. The
cost sharing agreement contemplates that any excess carrier
providing insurance coverage over exhausted primary layer carriers
will become a party to the cost sharing agreement, replacing the
coverage provided by the exhausted primary policies if the carrier
providing such excess coverage is not already a party to the cost
sharing agreement. The excess umbrella carrier providing coverage
for the period set forth above is not already a party to the cost
sharing agreement. Such umbrella excess carrier has been notified
of the aforementioned exhaustion and is currently providing
applicable insurance coverage, even though not yet a party to the
cost sharing agreement.

"The models developed for determining the potential exposure and
related insurance coverage were developed by outside consultants
deemed to be experts in their respective fields with the forecast
for asbestos related liabilities generated by NERA and the related
insurance receivable projections developed by Marsh. The models
contain numerous assumptions that significantly impact the results
generated by the models. We believe the assumptions made are
reasonable at the present time, but are subject to uncertainty
based on the actual future outcome of our asbestos litigation.
Historically, due to the inherent uncertainties of the forecast
process and our limited amount of settlement and claims history,
we utilized a forecast period of five years, which we concluded
was the most reasonable period for recognizing a reserve for
projected asbestos liabilities, and that costs that might be
incurred after that period were not reasonably estimable at that
time. In the fourth quarter of 2012, we reviewed this assumption
and determined that it was appropriate to extend the forecast
period from 5 years to 10 years.  We reached this conclusion due
to the fact that we now have considerably more experience in
addressing asbestos related lawsuits and have a longer history of
activity to use as a baseline to more accurately project the
liability over a longer period than previously disclosed. Further,
settlement trends have become more meaningful in recent years and
we believe that we now have a more meaningful history of data on
which to base projections. Further, we determined that a 10 year
projection period is now appropriate as, although we have a longer
and more consistent history of data over the last few years, we do
not believe we have sufficient data to justify a longer projection
period at this time. As of December 31, 2012, the estimated
liability and estimated insurance recovery for the 10 year period
through 2022 was $51.4 million and $48.3 million, resulting in an
additional charge of $2.9 million recognized in the fourth quarter
of 2012 $0.2 million was previously recognized throughout 2012).
There were no changes to these projections during the first
quarter of 2013. We review our asbestos related forecasts annually
in the fourth quarter of each year unless facts and circumstances
materially change during the year, at which time we would analyze
these forecasts.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables described above were based on facts
known at the time and a number of assumptions. However, projecting
future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each
year, the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of
time it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among
insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance
companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding
asbestos litigation in the United States could cause the actual
liability and insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded.

"There can be no assurance that our accrued asbestos liabilities
will approximate our actual asbestos-related settlement and
defense costs, or that our accrued insurance recoveries will be
realized. We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will
incur additional charges for our asbestos liabilities and defense
costs in the future, which could exceed existing reserves, but
such excess amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We
will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and believe we have
substantial unutilized insurance coverage to mitigate future costs
related to this matter."

Rogers Corporation provides innovative solutions and industry
leading products in a variety of markets, including portable
communications, communications infrastructure, consumer
electronics, mass transit, automotive, defense and clean
technology. It generates revenues and cash flows through the
development, manufacture, and distribution of specialty material-
based products that are sold to multiple customers, primarily
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and contract manufacturers
that, in turn, produce component products that are sold to end-
customers for use in various applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Energy Had $35.1MM Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. has accrued
$35.1 million for costs recognized primarily to address
environmental liabilities, 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 subject to federal and state laws and
regulations relating to the protection of the environment.
Environmental risk is inherent to liquid hydrocarbon and natural
gas pipeline operations, and we are, at times, subject to
environmental cleanup and enforcement actions. We manage this
environmental risk through appropriate environmental policies and
practices to minimize any impact our operations may have on the
environment. To the extent that we are unable to recover
environmental liabilities through insurance or other potentially
responsible parties, we will be responsible for payment of
liabilities arising from environmental incidents associated with
the operating activities of our Liquids and Natural Gas
businesses. Our General Partner has agreed to indemnify us from
and against any costs relating to environmental liabilities
associated with the Lakehead system assets prior to the transfer
of these assets to us in 1991. This excludes any liabilities
resulting from a change in laws after such transfer. We continue
to voluntarily investigate past leak sites on our systems for the
purpose of assessing whether any remediation is required in light
of current regulations."

"As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we had $35.1 million
and $18.3 million, respectively, included in "Other long-term
liabilities," that we have accrued for costs we have recognized
primarily to address remediation of contaminated sites, asbestos
containing materials, management of hazardous waste material
disposal, outstanding air quality measures for certain of our
liquids and natural gas assets and penalties we have been or
expect to be assessed."

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. owns and operates crude oil and
liquid petroleum transportation and storage assets, and natural
gas gathering, treating, processing, transportation and marketing
assets in the United States. As of December 31, 2011, its
portfolio of assets included the approximately 6,500 miles of
crude oil gathering and transportation lines and 32 million
barrels of crude oil storage and terminaling capacity; natural gas
gathering and transportation lines totaling approximately 11,500
miles; nine natural gas treating and 25 natural gas processing
facilities with an aggregate capacity of approximately 3,255
million cubic feet per day, including plants; trucks, trailers and
railcars for transporting natural gas liquids (NGLs), crude oil
and carbon dioxide, and marketing assets, which provide natural
gas supply, transmission, storage and sales services. The Company
conducts its business through three business segments: Liquids,
Natural Gas and Marketing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Allstate Corp. Had $1BB Reserves at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were
$1.00 billion and net of reinsurance recoverables of $486 million
as of March 31, 2013, 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.

Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were $1.00 billion and
$1.03 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of $486 million and
$496 million, as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were $192 million
and $193 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $48 million
and $48 million, as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
respectively. Approximately 57% and 58% of the total net asbestos
and environmental reserves as of March 31, 2013 and December 31,
2012, respectively, were for incurred but not reported estimated
losses.

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

The Allstate Corporation (Allstate) is a holding company for
Allstate Insurance Company. The Company's business is conducted
principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life
Insurance Company and their affiliates. It is engaged, principally
in the United States, in the property-liability insurance, life
insurance, retirement and investment product business. Allstate's
primary business is the sale of private passenger auto and
homeowners insurance. The Company also sells several other
personal property and casualty insurance products, select
commercial property and casualty coverages, life insurance,
annuities, voluntary accident and health insurance and funding
agreements. It conducts its business primarily in the United
States. Allstate has four business segments: Allstate Protection,
Allstate Financial, Discontinued Lines and Coverages and Corporate
and Other. In October 2011, the Company acquired Esurance and
Answer Financial from White Mountains Insurance Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Had $60.7MM Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group Inc., recorded $60.7 million of
asbestos and environmental reserves as of March 31, 2013,
primarily in other commercial lines, 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: "Other commercial lines are primarily
comprised of our monoline general liability, umbrella, marine,
professional liability, and healthcare lines. Included in the
above table, in the Chaucer segment, are $255.0 million and $272.4
million of reserves related to Chaucer's liabilities in Syndicate
4000, consisting of financial and professional liability lines
written in 2008 and prior, as of March 31, 2013 and December 31,
2012, respectively. Also included in the above table, primarily in
other commercial lines, are $60.7 million and $60.5 million of
asbestos and environmental reserves as of March 31, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, respectively."

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

                       http://is.gd/LX2iWe

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. (THG) is a holding company. The
Company's business operations are property and casualty insurance
products and services marketed through independent agents and
brokers in the United States. It also conducts business
internationally through a wholly owned subsidiary, Chaucer
Holdings plc (Chaucer), which operates through the Society and
Corporation of Lloyd's (Lloyd's) and is domiciled in the United
Kingdom. Its financial statements include the accounts of THG; The
Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover Insurance) and Citizens
Insurance Company of America (Citizens), which are it's the United
States domiciled property and casualty subsidiaries; Chaucer and
other insurance and non-insurance subsidiaries. It conducts its
business operations through fits operating segments. These
segments are Commercial Lines, Personal Lines, Chaucer and Other
Property and Casualty. On July 1, 2011, the Company acquired
Chaucer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Named as Defendant in Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is one of several unrelated
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits filed in state courts,
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 one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in state courts alleging that defendants
manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing
asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been
utilized aboard our offshore drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing
drilling mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the
drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are
not liable for the damages asserted and we expect to receive
complete defense and indemnity with respect to a majority of the
lawsuits from Murphy Exploration & Production Company pursuant to
the terms of our 1992 asset purchase agreement with them. We also
believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the
remaining lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset
purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation, and we filed a
declaratory judgment action in Texas state court against NuStar
Energy LP, or NuStar, the successor to Diamond M Corporation,
seeking a judicial determination that we did not assume liability
for these claims. We obtained summary judgment on our claims in
the declaratory judgment action, but NuStar has appealed the
court's decision. We are unable to estimate our potential
exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but do not
believe that ultimate liability, if any, resulting from this
litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Various other claims have been filed against us in the ordinary
course of business. In the opinion of our management, no pending
or known threatened claims, actions or proceedings against us are
expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows."

"We intend to defend these matters vigorously; however, we cannot
predict with certainty the outcome or effect of any litigation
matters specifically described above or any other pending
litigation or claims. There can be no assurance as to the ultimate
outcome of these lawsuits."

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is a global offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor. The Company has a fleet of 44 offshore
drilling rigs, consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, seven jack-ups
and five dynamically positioned drillships, four of which are
under construction. The Company's jackups include Ocean King,
Ocean Nugget, Ocean Scepter, Ocean Spartan, Ocean Spur, Ocean
Summit and Ocean Titan. The Company's Deepwater Semisubmersibles
include Ocean Alliance, Ocean America, Ocean Apex, Ocean Onyx,
Ocean Valiant, and Ocean Star. Ultra-Deepwater Semisubmersibles
include Ocean Valor, Ocean Courage, Ocean Monarch, Ocean Baroness,
and Ocean Confidence. Ultra-Deepwater Drillships include Ocean
BlackLion, Ocean BlackRhino, Ocean BlackHornet, and Ocean Clipper.
Mid-Water Semisubmersibles includes Ocean Winner, Ocean Quest,
Ocean Concord, Ocean Guardian, Ocean Whittington, and Ocean
Yorktown.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Is Defendant in PI Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. has been named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos that was used in certain product components, 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: "Various lawsuits, claims and proceedings have
been or may be instituted or asserted against us relating to the
conduct of our business, including those pertaining to product
liability, environmental, safety and health, intellectual
property, employment and contract matters. Although the outcome of
litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and some lawsuits,
claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to us, we
believe the disposition of matters that are pending or have been
asserted will not have a material effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations."

"We (including our subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos that was used in certain components of our products many
years ago. Currently there are a few thousand claimants in
lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of
other companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most of the costs.
However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims
associated with products manufactured or sold by our former Dodge
mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services
businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which occurred on
January 31, 2007. We are also responsible for half of the costs
and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former
Rockwell International Corporation's (RIC's) divested measurement
and flow control business. But in all cases, for those claimants
who do show that they worked with our products or products of
divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless
believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to
the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any
asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing
medical condition on the part of many claimants. We defend those
cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed from the
vast majority of these claims with no payment to claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary. Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity
Company (Nationwide) and Kemper Insurance (Kemper), the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to Allen-
Bradley, we entered into separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with
both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility for
ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. In
exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its remaining
liability and has been released from further insurance obligations
to Allen-Bradley. Nationwide entered into a cost share agreement
with us to pay the substantial majority of future defense and
indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. We believe that
this arrangement with Nationwide will continue to provide coverage
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
the asbestos liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our financial
condition or results of operations.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
component systems business, semiconductor systems business and
Rockwell Collins avionics and communications business, the spun-
off companies have agreed to indemnify us for substantially all
contingent liabilities related to the respective businesses,
including environmental and intellectual property matters.
In connection with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale.

"In many countries we provide a limited intellectual property
indemnity as part of our terms and conditions of sale. We also at
times provide limited intellectual property indemnities in other
contracts with third parties, such as contracts concerning the
development and manufacture of our products. As of March 31, 2013,
we were not aware of any material indemnification claims that were
probable or reasonably possible of an unfavorable outcome.
Historically, claims that have been made under the indemnification
agreements have not had a material impact on our operating
results, financial position or cash flows; however, to the extent
that valid indemnification claims arise in the future, future
payments by us could be significant and could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations or cash flows in a
particular period."

Rockwell Automation, Inc. is a provider of industrial automation
power, control and information solutions that help manufacturers
achieve a competitive advantage for their businesses. The Company
operates in two segments: Architecture & Software and controls
Products & Solutions. In the United States, Canada and certain
other countries, the Company sells primarily through the
independent distributors in conjunction with its direct sales
force. In the remaining countries, the Company sells through a
combination of its direct sales force. In March 2012, the Company
purchased SoftSwitching Technologies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ametek Is Indemnified Against Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Ametek, Inc. is indemnified against a number of 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.

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

Ametek, Inc., is a global manufacturer of electronic instruments
and electromechanical devices with operations in North America,
Europe, Asia and South America. The Company markets its products
worldwide through two groups: the Electronic Instruments Group
(EIG) and the Electromechanical Group (EMG). EIG builds
monitoring, testing, calibration and display devices for the
process, aerospace, industrial, power and medical markets. EMG
produces engineered electromechanical connectors for hermetic
(moisture-proof) applications, specialty metals for niche markets
and brushless air-moving motors, blowers and heat exchangers. End
markets include aerospace, defense, mass transit, medical, office
products and other industrial markets. In December 2011, it
acquired Technical Manufacturing Corporation (TMC). In January
2012, the Company acquired O'Brien Corporation. In May 2012, the
Company acquired the parent company of Dunkermotoren GmbH.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Ed Has $10MM Accrued Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. recorded $10 million in accrued
liability for asbestos suits at March 31, 2013, 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.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large
number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The
suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved
without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were
not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in
all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars;
however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly
exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. In 2010,
CECONY estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential
liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought
over the next 15 years is $10 million. The estimate was based upon
a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk
factor assessment. Actual experience may be materially different.
In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current rate
agreements, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for
subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos
lawsuits and workers' compensation claims. The accrued liability
for asbestos suits and workers' compensation proceedings
(including those related to asbestos exposure) and the amounts
deferred as regulatory assets for the Companies at March 31, 2013
were as follows:

                                    Con Edison      CECONY
                                    ----------   -----------
Accrued liability-asbestos suits   $10 million   $10 million
Regulatory assets-asbestos suits   $10 million   $10 million
Accrued liability-
   workers' compensation           $95 million   $90 million
Regulatory assets-
   workers' compensation           $20 million   $20 million

Consolidated Edison, Inc., is a holding company, which owns
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which
delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New
York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities),
which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily
located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and
northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses,
which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy
services. CECONY's business operations are its regulated electric,
gas and steam delivery businesses. O&R's business operations are
its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses. In July 2012,
Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned subsidiary of Con
Edison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two solar photovoltaic
projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Circor Int'l. Subsidiaries Face Liability Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Circor International, Inc.'s subsidiaries face 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: "Asbestos-related product liability claims
continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries-Spence
Engineering Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the stock of which we
acquired in 1984; and Circor Instrumentation Technologies, Inc.
(f/k/a Hoke Incorporated) ("Hoke"), the stock of which we acquired
in 1998. Due to the nature of the products supplied by these
entities, the markets they serve and our historical experience in
resolving these claims, we do not believe that these asbestos-
related claims will have a material adverse effect on the
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of Spence
or Hoke, or the financial condition, consolidated results of
operations or liquidity of the Company."

CIRCOR International, Inc. (CIRCOR) designs, manufactures and
markets valves and other engineered products and sub-systems used
in the energy, aerospace and industrial markets. It has a global
presence and operates 24 manufacturing facilities, which are
located in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Morocco,
India, Brazil and the People's Republic of China. The Company
operates in three segments: Energy, Aerospace and Flow
Technologies. As of December 31, 2011, its products were sold
through over 950 distributors and it serviced more than 7,500
customers in over 100 countries worldwide. Within its product
groups, it develops, sells and services a portfolio of fluid-
control products, sub-systems and technologies.


                             *********

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  * * *