CAR_Public/130614.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 14, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 117

                             Headlines


AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Australian Unit Sued Over Motorway Tunnel
AETNA INC: Awaits Initial OK of $60-MM UCR Litigation Settlement
AMERICA MOVIL: Embratel Defends Suits Over New Dialing System
AMERICA MOVIL: Telcel Defends "Profeco" Class Suit in Mexico
AMERICA MOVIL: Telcel Faces Four Class Suits Filed by Consumers

AMERICA MOVIL: Units Remain Parties to Third Party Disputes
ASSISTED LIVING: Dismissal Motion Briefing Not Yet Complete
ASSISTED LIVING: "Somers" Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
ASSISTED LIVING: Faces Lawsuits in Nev. Over Aid Holdings Merger
ASSISTED LIVING: "Olson" Plaintiff Adds New Class Claims

ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Lefkowitz" Plaintiff Fails to Perfect Appeal
AVIS BUDGET: Inks MOU to Settle Suit Over Zipcar Acquisition
BAJA MINING: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Ontario
BERRY PETROLEUM: Sued Over Proposed Merger With Linn, LinnCo
BLYTH INC: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Connecticut

BOULDER BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss "Aguilar" Class Action Denied
CARDINAL HEALTH: Books $3MM Quarterly Income Amid Settlements
CASH AMERICA: Customers Sue Over Alleged OMLA Violations
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Appeal v. Dismissal of Suit in Supreme Court
COMMUNITY NATURALS: Recalls Salad & Slaw Over Undeclared Allergen

COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Awaits Ruling in Public Attorneys' Suit
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suit Alleging Environmental Damage
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Pegs R$94MM Loss in Public Atty.'s Suits
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Remote Possibility of Loss in "Imidec" Suit
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: May Face $145+ Million in Damage Claims

CYNOSURE INC: Fights Bid to Vacate Dismissal of TCPA Suit
CYNOSURE INC: June 17 Hearing Set in Lawsuit Over Merger
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: "McGrogan" Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal
FIRST FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in Delaware
GREEN MOUNTAIN: "Horowitz" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit

GREEN MOUNTAIN: Briefing on Dismissal Motions Done by June 12
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Moves to Dismiss "Fifield" Securities Suit
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Lead Plaintiff Named in Pa. Securities Suit
HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff in Texas Suit Backs Out
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Settlement of Suit Over Bogalusa Unopposed

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Still Faces Containerboard-Related Lawsuits
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Antitrust Suits Over Gypsum Board Unified
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Tex. Court Junks Stock Suit v. Temple-Inland
INTL FCSTONE: July 16 Hearing on W.D. Mo. Securities Suit Accord
INTL FCSTONE: July 16 Hearing on Accord in Mo. State Court Suit

KADANT INC: Pays Remaining Claims in Suit Over Building Products
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Pa. Securities Suit
MASCO CORPORATION: Pays $75MM to Settle Columbus Drywall Suit
NATIONAL WESTERN: Continues to Face Suit Over Deferred Annuities
NEWS CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Wilder" Class Suit Remains Pending

NEWS CORP: "Forsta Ap-Fonden" Class Suit Dismissed in April
NEWS CORP: Reached Agreement to Settle Consolidated Action
NUCOR CORPORATION: Still Faces Antitrust Suits by Steel Buyers
OCEAN SPRAY: Court Denies Class Certification in Misbranding Suit
OI SA: Appeals in Customer Service Center Suits Remain Pending

OI SA: Still Awaits Court's Initial Decision in Suit vs. TNL
QEP RESOURCES: Awaits Final OK of "Chieftain" Suit Settlement
RENASANT CORPORATION: Faces "Silverii" Suit Over First M&F
RENASANT CORPORATION: "Zeng" Securities Suit Now Amended
S.G. IMPEX: Recalls 60 Universal Chargers Sold in Ontario

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: "Gardner" Plaintiffs Withdraw Injunction Motion
ST. JOE: 11th Cir. Rejects Bid for Rehearing of Securities Suit
TOTAL SYSTEM: Faces Suits Over Planned Acquisition of NetSpend
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Face Antitrust Class Action Suits
U.S. STEEL: Still Defends Suits Against Steel Manufacturers

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit by Retirement System
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Wants Bristol Pension Fund Suit Dismissed
VIVUS INC: Securities Suit Dismissal Under Appeal to 9th Cir.
WALCAN SEAFOOD: Recalls Aquacultured Edulis Mussels Over Toxin
WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Moore" Suit

WALTER ENERGY: Consolidated Securities Suit in Discovery
WELLS FARGO: Settles Medical Capital-Related Suit for $105MM
WELLS FARGO: Court Mulls Nixing Suit Over Md. Mortgage Loans
WELLS FARGO: Settles Fannie Mae's Opt Out Claims


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coalition Exploiting NBN Claims, Advocate Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Happening Without Warning
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos "Scare Campaign" Under Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NBN Controversy Worse Than Pink Batts Affair
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra's Asbestos Payouts Hit $30MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family's Toxic Fibro Fears Confirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Risks Endemic in Construction Industry
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Hit Unmapped Asbestos on Rail Line
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Riled by Asbestos Tiles at Monck
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Considering Fibro Removal From All Pits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Risk to Children "Greater Over Lifetime"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fears Over Deadly Dust in Victorian Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Fears for ACT Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra's Asbestos "Quite Safe," CEO Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: De Aar Residents to Stop Transnet's Fibro Plan

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NBN to Tap Specialist Asbestos Firms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Shock Hits Canberra Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Thousands of Asbestos Pits" in South Coast
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mum Dies of Asbestos-related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nebraska Firm Fined $25,000 for Asbestos Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Redmond HS Fibro Removal Firm Appeals DEQ Fine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Search Begins After Asbestos Dumped in Chilworth
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Taps James Hardie Lawyer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Material Discovered in Newmarket School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Closes Tenison College for Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shed Fire Poses Asbestos Threat
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Linked With Death of Wadesmill Man
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conroy Urges Penrith Asbestos Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. 1009 Bill Poses Serious Limitations, Says ADAO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Left on Grass for Week in Reservoir

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Asbestos Builder Faces Prosecution
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merced County Asbestos Victims Will Get to Speak
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dumping in State Forests a Growing Problem
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Appeal from Substitution Order Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Andrucki" Suit Junked for Lack of Jurisdiction

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WIIA Order Flipped, Atty Fees Granted to Widow


                             *********


AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Australian Unit Sued Over Motorway Tunnel
-----------------------------------------------------------
AECOM Technology Corporation's Australian subsidiary faces
lawsuits in relation to a job it performed that led to the
building of a motorway tunnel in Australia, according to the
company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In 2005 and 2006, the Company's main Australian subsidiary, AECOM
Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast
assignment for a client consortium as part of their project to
design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in
Australia. To fund the motorway's design and construction, the
client formed a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that raised
approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial
public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and another
approximately $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank
loans. The SPV (and certain affiliated SPVs) went into insolvency
administrations in February 2011.

A class action lawsuit, which has been amended to include
approximately 770 of the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM
Australia in the Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.
Separately, KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs, filed a
lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012 claiming
damages that purportedly resulted from AECOM Australia's role in
connection with the traffic forecast.

WestLB, one of the lending banks to the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in
the Federal Court of Australia on May 18, 2012. Centerbridge
Credit Partners (and a number of related entities) and Midtown
Acquisitions (and a number of related entities), both claiming to
be assignees of certain other lending banks, previously filed
their own proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia and then
subsequently withdrew the lawsuits. None of the lawsuits specify
the amount of damages sought and the damages sought by WestLB are
duplicative of damages already included in the receivers' claim.


AETNA INC: Awaits Initial OK of $60-MM UCR Litigation Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. is awaiting preliminary court approval of its
$60 million settlement of the claims in the consolidated lawsuit
styled In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020, according to the
Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

The Company is named as a defendant in several purported class
actions and individual lawsuits arising out of its practices
related to the payment of claims for services rendered to its
members by health care providers with whom the Company does not
have a contract ("out-of-network providers").  Among other things,
these lawsuits allege that the Company paid too little to its
health plan members and/or providers for these services, among
other reasons, because of the Company's use of data provided by
Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company's competitors
("Ingenix").  Other major health insurers are the subject of
similar litigation or have settled similar litigation.

Various plaintiffs, who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to the Company's members
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs
who are members in the Company's health plans seek to represent
nationwide classes of its members, who received services from out-
of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the present.
Taken together, these lawsuits allege that the Company violated
state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone
or in concert with the Company's competitors.  The purported
classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation
and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified
damages and treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and
declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and
seek to disqualify the Company from acting as a fiduciary of any
benefit plan that is subject to ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that
generally contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have
been brought by health plan members and out-of-network providers.

The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").  In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011,
the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs
from MDL 2020 without prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's
action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court")
that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in
MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the
physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's
ruling.

On December 6, 2012, the Company entered into an agreement to
settle MDL No. 2020.  Under the terms of the proposed nationwide
settlement, the Company will be released from claims relating to
the Company's out-of-network reimbursement practices from the
beginning of the applicable settlement class period through the
date the New Jersey District Court preliminarily approves the
settlement.  The settlement class period for health plan members
begins on March 1, 2001, and the settlement class period for
health care providers begins on June 3, 2003.  The agreement
contains no admission of wrongdoing.  The medical associations are
not parties to the settlement agreement.

Under the settlement agreement, the Company will pay $60 million,
the substantial majority of which will be payable upon final court
approval of the settlement, and pay up to an additional $60
million at the end of a claim submission and validation period
that commences upon final court approval of the settlement.  These
payments will fund claims submitted by health plan members who are
members of the plaintiff class and health care providers who are
members of the plaintiff class.  These payments also will fund the
legal fees of the plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of
administering the settlement, in each case in amounts to be
determined by the New Jersey District Court.

The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and final court
approval.  Final court approval of the settlement is expected
during 2013 or early 2014 but could be delayed by appeals or other
proceedings.  In addition, the Company has the right to terminate
the settlement agreement if more than certain percentages of class
members, or class members collectively holding specified dollar
amounts of claims, elect to opt-out of the settlement.  In
connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an
after-tax charge to net income of approximately $78 million in the
fourth quarter of 2012.  The Company will pay for the settlement
with available resources and expects the settlement payments to
occur over the next twelve to twenty-four months.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself against the claims brought in these cases by non-settling
plaintiffs.

Aetna Inc. was incorporated in Pennsylvania and is headquartered
in Hartford, Connecticut.  The Company is one of the nation's
leading diversified health care benefits companies, serving
approximately 38.3 million people with information and resources
to help them in consultation with their health care professionals
make better informed decisions about their health care.  The
Company offers a broad range of traditional, voluntary and
consumer-directed health insurance products and related services.


AMERICA MOVIL: Embratel Defends Suits Over New Dialing System
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Brazilian subsidiary of America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. is
defending itself against class action lawsuits arising from the
implementation of a new domestic dialing system in 1999, according
to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

As a result of alleged service disruptions caused during the
implementation of a new domestic dialing system in 1999, Empresa
Brasileira de Telecomunicacoes, S.A. ("Embratel") was fined by
Brazilian Agency of Telecommunications (Agencia Nacional de
Telecomunicacoes, or "Anatel") and O Departamento de Protecao e
Defesa do Consumidor ("DPDC"), and several class actions were
initiated against it.  The aggregate total amount of these
contingencies is Ps.1,070 million (approximately R$168 million).
The Company is contesting these claims and has established a
provision of Ps.197 million (approximately R$31 million), in the
accompanying financial statements for the loss arising from these
contingencies that the Company considers probable.

America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. -- http://www.americamovil.com/--
provides telecommunications services in 18 countries, including
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and the U.S.  America Movil is
a Mexican company headquartered in Delegacion Miguel Hidalgo,
Mexico.


AMERICA MOVIL: Telcel Defends "Profeco" Class Suit in Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------
Radiomovil Dipsa, S.A. de C.V. (Telcel), a subsidiary of America
Movil, S.A.B. de C.V., is defending a class action lawsuit
commenced by Profeco, according to the Company's April 30, 2013,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Federal Consumer Bureau (Procuraduria Federal del Consumidor,
or "Profeco") filed a class action in Mexican courts on behalf of
customers, who filed complaints before it alleging deficiencies in
the quality of Telcel's network in 2010 and breach of customer
agreements.  If the action is resolved in favor of Profeco,
Telcel's customers would be entitled to compensation for damages.

The Company currently does not have enough information to
determine whether the class action could have an adverse effect on
its business and results of operations if the case is resolved
against the Company.  Consequently, Telcel has not established a
provision in the accompanying financial statements for loss
arising from this contingency.

America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. -- http://www.americamovil.com/--
provides telecommunications services in 18 countries, including
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and the U.S.  America Movil is
a Mexican company headquartered in Delegacion Miguel Hidalgo,
Mexico.


AMERICA MOVIL: Telcel Faces Four Class Suits Filed by Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V.'s subsidiary is facing four class
action lawsuits filed by consumers, according to the Company's
April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Four class actions have been initiated against Radiomovil Dipsa,
S.A. de C.V. (Telcel), a Company subsidiary.  Two of them relate
to quality of service and were filed by consumers.  A third was
also filed by consumers and relates to quality of service, but in
addition compares wireless voice, data and broadband international
rates claiming that rates offered by Telcel are higher than
international comparable rates.  The last one was filed by the
Federal Consumer Bureau (Procuraduria Federal del Consumidor, or
"Profeco") and relates to a network technical malfunction that
occurred in January 2013.

The Company currently does not have enough information to
determine whether these class actions could have an adverse effect
on the Company's business and results of operations if they are
resolved against it.  Consequently, Telcel has not established a
provision in the accompanying financial statements for loss
arising from these contingencies.

America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. -- http://www.americamovil.com/--
provides telecommunications services in 18 countries, including
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and the U.S.  America Movil is
a Mexican company headquartered in Delegacion Miguel Hidalgo,
Mexico.


AMERICA MOVIL: Units Remain Parties to Third Party Disputes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two subsidiaries of America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. remain parties
to certain disputes with third parties, according to the Company's
April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Claro S.A. ("Claro Brasil") and Americel S.A. ("Americel") are
parties to certain disputes with third parties in connection with
former sales agents, class actions (ACP's), real estate issues,
and other matters in the aggregate amount of Ps.2,986 million
(approximately R$469 million).  The Company has established a
provision of Ps.57 million (approximately R$9 million), in the
accompanying financial statements for the loss arising from these
contingencies that the Company considers probable.

America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. -- http://www.americamovil.com/--
provides telecommunications services in 18 countries, including
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and the U.S.  America Movil is
a Mexican company headquartered in Delegacion Miguel Hidalgo,
Mexico.


ASSISTED LIVING: Dismissal Motion Briefing Not Yet Complete
-----------------------------------------------------------
Briefing of the motion of Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. to
dismiss an amended securities complaint has not been completed,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On August 29, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against ALC and Laurie A. Bebo on behalf of individuals and
entities who allegedly purchased or otherwise acquired ALC's Class
A Common Stock between March 12, 2011 and August 6, 2012.

The complaint, captioned Robert E. Lifson, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Assisted Living
Concepts, Inc. and Laurie A. Bebo, 12-CV-884, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.

On November 14, 2012, the court approved the Pension Trust for
Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff in the action and also
appointed lead counsel for the putative class.  An amended
complaint was filed on February 15, 2013, among other things
changing the start date of the class period to March 4, 2011.

The lawsuit, as amended, asserts that ALC did not accurately
disclose occupancy data, falsely touted the success of its
"private pay" business model, and falsely reported that it was in
compliance with its former lease with Ventas Realty, and seeks
damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, plus an award of
plaintiff's legal fees and expenses with respect to the
litigation.

On April 1, 2013, ALC filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (the "PSLRA"), the filing of that motion to dismiss
automatically stayed all discovery in the case pending resolution
of the motion.  On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a motion
for relief from the PSLRA discovery stay, which was granted on May
3, 2013. Briefing of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint
has not been completed. ALC intends to vigorously defend itself
against these claims.


ASSISTED LIVING: "Somers" Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in Guy Somers, Derivatively on Behalf of Assisted Living
Concepts, Inc. and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v.
Laurie A. Bebo, et al. filed a second amended complaint, according
to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On December 21, 2012, a lawsuit was filed derivatively by an
alleged stockholder of Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. against
certain of ALC's current and former executive officers and
directors and ALC, as nominal defendant. The complaint is
captioned Guy Somers, Derivatively on Behalf of Assisted Living
Concepts, Inc. v. Laurie A. Bebo, et al., Case No. A-12-674054-C,
and was filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State
of Nevada in and for Clark County.

The substantive allegations of the Somers complaint, as originally
filed, were similar to the allegations in the Passaro litigation,
and focused upon ALC's alleged failure to comply with state
regulatory and licensing requirements bearing upon the operation
of assisted living facilities, and the defendants' alleged failure
to take action to correct the claimed regulatory noncompliance.

Unlike the Passaro complaint, which purports to allege only a
breach of the fiduciary duty of good faith, the original Somers
complaint purported to allege four causes of action, for breach of
fiduciary duty, contribution and indemnification, waste of
corporate assets, and unjust enrichment.

On February 28, 2013, the Somers plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.  While repeating the substantive allegations contained
in the original complaint, the amended complaint added new claims,
purportedly asserted on a class action basis, against ALC's
directors and certain newly added defendants arising from a
proposed Merger.

On February 25, 2013, ALC entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Aid Holdings, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Aid Holdings"), and Aid Merger Sub,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Aid Holdings ("Aid Merger Sub"), providing for the
merger of Aid Merger Sub with and into ALC (the "Merger"), with
ALC surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aid
Holdings (the "Surviving Corporation").  Aid Holdings and Aid
Merger Sub are affiliates of TPG Capital, L.P. ("TPG").

The amended complaint is captioned Guy Somers, Derivatively on
Behalf of Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated v. Laurie A. Bebo, et al., and names as
additional defendants TPG, Aid Holdings and Aid Merger Sub.  The
newly asserted claims allege that (i) certain of ALC's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
Merger, and (ii) TPG, Aid Holdings and Aid Merger Sub aided and
abetted the claimed fiduciary breaches by the aforementioned
directors.  The relief sought in the amended complaint on behalf
of the purported shareholder class includes, among other things,
an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger and
attorneys' costs and fees.

On April 11, 2013, the Somers plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, adding new allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty by
ALC's directors for allegedly allowing inadequate disclosure in
ALC's proxy statement filed with the SEC on April 8, 2013 (the
"proxy statement").  ALC believes that this lawsuit is without
merit.


ASSISTED LIVING: Faces Lawsuits in Nev. Over Aid Holdings Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 4, 5, and 6, 2013, three additional complaints, all
purportedly asserted on a class action basis, were filed in the
Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for
Clark County, according to Assisted Living Concepts, Inc.'s
May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The lawsuits are captioned Scott Simpson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Assisted Living Concepts, Inc.,
et al., Case No. A-13-677683-C, David Raul as Custodian for Malka
Raul Utma NY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Assisted Living Concepts, et al., Case No. A-13-
677797-C, and Elizabeth Black, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Assisted Living Concepts, Inc., et
al., Case No. A-13-677838-C, respectively.

Each of these complaints asserts claims that ALC's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to ALC stockholders in connection
with the proposed Merger.  These complaints further claim that
TPG, Aid Holdings and Aid Merger Sub aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On February 25, 2013, ALC entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Aid Holdings, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Aid Holdings"), and Aid Merger Sub,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Aid Holdings ("Aid Merger Sub"), providing for the
merger of Aid Merger Sub with and into ALC (the "Merger"), with
ALC surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aid
Holdings (the "Surviving Corporation").  Aid Holdings and Aid
Merger Sub are affiliates of TPG Capital, L.P. ("TPG").

Also on March 6, 2013, another putative class action complaint was
filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada
in and for Clark County, captioned The Joel Rosenfeld IRA, On
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Assisted
Living Concepts, Inc., et al., Case No. A-13-677902-C, against ALC
and certain of its directors.  This complaint alleges the
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed Merger.

The plaintiffs in the Simpson, Raul, Black and Rosenfeld IRA
actions seek equitable relief, including an injunction preventing
the consummation of the proposed Merger, rescission or rescissory
damages in the event the proposed Merger is consummated, and an
award of attorneys' and other fees and costs.  ALC believes that
these lawsuits are without merit.


ASSISTED LIVING: "Olson" Plaintiff Adds New Class Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the suit Lee Olson, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Alan Bell, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-
00571-JCM-NJK filed an amended complaint, adding new class action
claims, according to Assisted Living Concepts, Inc.'s May 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On April 3, 2013, an action asserting violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act was filed against Assisted Living
Concepts, Inc. and its directors in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, captioned Lee Olson,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Alan Bell, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00571-JCM-NJK.

The complaint alleges that the individual defendants and ALC
failed to disclose all material information about the proposed
Plan of Merger with Aid Holdings, LLC, to ALC's public
stockholders in violation of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Exchange
Act.  The Olson complaint also alleges that the individual
defendants failed to prevent the alleged violations of Section
14(a), which itself allegedly is a violation of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

Along with the Olson complaint, the plaintiff brought a motion for
"limited expedited discovery and an order scheduling a preliminary
injunction hearing" in advance of the special meeting which was
denied without prejudice by the court.  On April 23, 2013, the
plaintiff in the Olson action filed an amended complaint, adding
new class action claims alleging breach of state law fiduciary
duties by the Company's directors and adding TPG, Aid Holdings and
Aid Merger Sub as additional defendants alleging that TPG, Aid
Holdings and Aid Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breach.
ALC believes that this lawsuit is without merit.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Lefkowitz" Plaintiff Fails to Perfect Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the suit Ellen Lefkowitz, individually and on
behalf of all Persons similarly situated v. Astoria Federal
Savings and Loan Association, failed to perfect an appeal against
the dismissal of the suit by the March 7, 2013 deadline,
according to Astoria Financial Corporation's May 8, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The company disclosed: "In February 2012, we were served with a
summons and complaint in a putative class action entitled Ellen
Lefkowitz, individually and on behalf of all Persons similarly
situated v. Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association which was
commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Queens, or the Queens County Supreme Court, against us alleging
that during the proposed class period, we improperly charged
overdraft fees to customer accounts when accounts were not
overdrawn, improperly reordered electronic debit transactions from
the highest to the lowest dollar amount and processed debits
before credits to deplete accounts and maximize overdraft fee
income."

"The complaint contains the further assertion that we did not
adequately inform the company's customers that they had the option
to 'opt-out' of overdraft services.  In May 2012, we moved to
dismiss the complaint.  In July 2012, the Queens County Supreme
Court issued an order dismissing the complaint in its entirety.
In September 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second
Judicial Department, or the New York Supreme Court."

The plaintiff failed to perfect the appeal by the March 7, 2013
deadline.  Unless the New York Supreme Court were to permit a
request from the plaintiff to perfect the appeal after the
deadline, the causes of action asserted in the complaint will be
barred under applicable law.


AVIS BUDGET: Inks MOU to Settle Suit Over Zipcar Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Avis Budget Group, Inc. signed and filed a memorandum of
understanding to settle lawsuits in relation to its proposed
acquisition of Zipcar, Inc., according to the company's May 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In January 2013, six putative class actions were filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court and two putative class actions were filed
in Massachusetts state court, all of which arose out of the
proposed acquisition of Zipcar by the Company.

The complaints all generally allege that Zipcar's board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by
failing to take steps to maximize the value of Zipcar for its
public shareholders and that the Company aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duties by Zipcar's board of directors.

The complaints seek injunctive relief or rescission of the
transaction (in the event the proposed transaction has already
been consummated) and compensatory damages, as well as costs and
disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Delaware cases were consolidated into a single case, and
plaintiffs in the Massachusetts cases agreed to seek any pre-
closing relief in the Delaware Chancery Court. In February 2013,
the parties signed and filed in the Delaware court a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle the lawsuits. In the MOU, the
defendants agreed that Zipcar would make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed merger, and would waive a
provision of the confidentiality agreement between Zipcar and one
of its other potential acquirers that would prohibit that party
from requesting a waiver of its standstill obligations under the
confidentiality agreement.

The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement, which would be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval.


BAJA MINING: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------
Baja Mining Corp. continues to defend itself against a shareholder
class action lawsuit pending in Ontario, according to the
Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In July 2012, a shareholder of the Company commenced a class
action lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act (Ontario) against
the Company and certain of its present and former directors and
officers.  Among other reliefs, the petitioner seeks:

   * a declaration that the defendants made misrepresentations
     contrary to the Securities Act (Ontario) during a class
     period extending from November 1, 2010, to April 23, 2012;

   * special damages in the amount of CAD$250 million;

   * punitive damages in the amount of CAD$10 million; and

   * interest and costs.

The class has not yet been and may never be certified.

The Company intends to defend itself, and has engaged various
legal counsels to advise and assist the Company in its defense
against these and any other legal proceedings that may arise.

Baja Mining Corp. -- http://www.bajaminig.com/-- is a Canadian
company based in Vancouver, British Columbia.  The Boleo Project,
the sole mineral property of the Company, is a copper, cobalt,
zinc and manganese project near Santa Rosalia, Baja California
Sur, Mexico.  Since the reverse acquisition in April 2004, the
Company has been focused on the exploration, funding, development
and operation of the Boleo Project.


BERRY PETROLEUM: Sued Over Proposed Merger With Linn, LinnCo
------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Petroleum Company faces purported stockholder class actions
in connection with the proposed merger transaction with Linn
Energy, LLC (Linn), and LinnCo, LLC (LinnCo), according to the
company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On March 1, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
Nancy P. Assad Trust v. Berry Petroleum Company, et al. was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

The case was dismissed by the Court on March 20, 2013 for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, and refiled in the District Court for
the City and County of Denver, Colorado on March 21, 2013, Case
No. 2013CV031365.

On April 5, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging that the individual Company director defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger
transaction with Linn, LinnCo by engaging in an unfair sales
process that resulted in an unfair price for the Company, and that
the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty.

The amended complaint seeks a declaration that the proposed merger
transactions are unlawful and unenforceable, an order directing
the individual director defendants to comply with their fiduciary
duties, an injunction against consummation of the merger
transactions or, in the event they are so completed, rescission of
the transactions, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys'
and experts' fees and expenses, and other relief.

On April 12, 2013, a second purported stockholder class action
captioned David S. Hall v. Berry Petroleum Company, et al. was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, C.A. No.
8476-VCG. The plaintiff in this case makes allegations, and seeks
relief similar to the allegations made and relief sought in the
Assad case.

A response has not yet been filed with respect to either
complaint. However, the Company believes the claims relating to
the merger are without merit, and intends to defend such actions
vigorously.


BLYTH INC: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------
Blyth, Inc., certain of its officers, ViSalus Holdings, LLC, FVA
Ventures, Inc. and ViSalus have been named as defendants in a
putative class action filed in federal district court in
Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of Blyth common stock during
the period March to November 2012, according to Blyth's May 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The amended complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and asserts
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleges certain
misstatements and omissions, including concerning ViSalus's
operations and prospects. The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted against it and it intends to
defend itself vigorously.


BOULDER BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss "Aguilar" Class Action Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Started: 7:17
time spent searching for relevant stories: 7:19  (2 mins.)
time spent summarizing: 7:27                     (8 mins.)
time spent searching for e-mails: 7:38           (11 mins.)

District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz denied defendants' motion to
dismiss a First Amended Complaint in the lawsuit captioned MARIA
AGUILAR, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and
the general public, Plaintiff, v. BOULDER BRANDS, INC., a Delaware
corporation (formerly known as Smart Balance, Inc.) and GFA
BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, (S.D. Cal.),
CASE NO. 12CV01862 BTM (BGS).

The Court directed the Defendants to file an answer to the First
Amended Complaint within 20 days of the entry of the Order.

Maria Aguilar is represented by Manfred Patrick Muecke, Jr., Esq.
-- mmuecke@bffb.com -- at Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint
PC; Patricia N Syverson, Esq. -- psyverson@bffb.com -- at Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC; Stewart Weltman, Esq. --
sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com -- at Stewart M. Weltman LLC, & Elaine
A. Ryan, Esq. -- eryan@bffb.com -- at Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman
& Balint, PC.

GFA Brands, Inc. is represented by Neil R. O'Hanlon, Esq. --
neil.ohanlon@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP, Robert
B. Wolinsky, Esq. -- robert.wolinsky@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan
Lovells US, LLP & Steven P. Hollman, Esq. --
steven.hollman@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US, LLP.

Boulder Brands, Inc. is represented by Neil R. O'Hanlon, Esq., at
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Robert B. Wolinsky, Esq., at Hogan Lovells
US, LLP & Steven P. Hollman, Esq., Hogan Lovells US, LLP.

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


CARDINAL HEALTH: Books $3MM Quarterly Income Amid Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. disclosed that during the three and nine
months ended March 31, 2013, it recognized $3 million and $37
million, respectively, of income resulting from settlements of
class action antitrust claims in which the company is a class
member.  The company disclosed the information on its May 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.


CASH AMERICA: Customers Sue Over Alleged OMLA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Customers of Cash America International, Inc. in Ohio filed
purported class action complaints alleging that the company
improperly made loans under the Ohio Mortgage Loan Act,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Exhibit 99.1 of a Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On May 28, 2009, one of Cash America's subsidiaries, Ohio
Neighborhood Finance, Inc., doing business as Cashland, or
Cashland, filed a standard collections suit in an Elyria Municipal
Court in Ohio against Rodney Scott seeking judgment against Mr.
Scott in the amount of $570.16, which was the amount due under his
loan agreement.

Cashland's loan was offered under the Ohio Mortgage Loan Act, the
OMLA, which allows for interest at a rate of 25% per annum plus
certain loan fees allowed by the statute. The Municipal Court, in
Ohio Neighborhood Finance Inc. v. Rodney Scott, held that short-
term, single-payment consumer loans made by Cashland are not
authorized under the OMLA, and instead should have been offered
under the Ohio Short-Term Lender Law, which was passed by the Ohio
legislature in 2008 for consumer loans with similar terms. Due to
a cap on interest and loan fees at an amount that is less than
permitted under the OMLA, the company does not offer loans under
the Ohio Short-Term Lender Law.

On December 3, 2012, the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals
affirmed the Municipal Court's ruling in a 2-1 decision. Although
this court decision is only legally binding in the Ninth District
of Ohio, which includes four counties in northern Ohio where
Cashland operates seven stores and where the company have modified
the company's short-term loan product in response to this
decision, other Ohio courts may consider this decision.

On April 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed to hear the
company's appeal of the Ninth District Court's decision. If the
Ninth District Court's decision is upheld by the Ohio Supreme
Court on appeal, the company's Ohio operations may be adversely
affected. The company relies on the OMLA to make short-term loans
in its retail services locations in Ohio, and if it is unable to
continue making short-term loans under this law, it will have to
alter its short-term loan product in Ohio.

In addition, following this ruling by the Ninth District Court,
two lawsuits were filed against the company by customers in Ohio
in purported class action complaints alleging that the company
improperly made loans under the OMLA, and it may in the future
receive other claims.

If such legal proceedings are determined adversely to the company,
it could result in material losses or require it to make refunds
in connection with certain short-term loans made under the OMLA.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Appeal v. Dismissal of Suit in Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the United States asked for a reply brief
after plaintiffs in an antitrust suit against Centerpoint Energy
Houston Electric, LLC petitioned for a writ of certiorari in
relation to the dismissal of the case, according to the company's
May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002. CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI Energy Inc., was
a participant in gas trading in the California and Western
markets. These lawsuits, many of which were filed as class
actions, allege violations of state and federal antitrust laws.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of
relief, including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages
(in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of
compensatory damages, full consideration damages and attorneys'
fees. CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009. CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have since
been released or dismissed from all but two of such cases.

CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., is a defendant in a case now
pending in federal court in Nevada alleging a conspiracy to
inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in 2000-2002.  In July 2011,
the court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims
against other defendants in the case, each of whom had
demonstrated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdictional
sales for resale during the relevant period, based on federal
preemption.

The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the trial court's
dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. The other defendants may seek
rehearing en banc before the Ninth Circuit or seek further review
by filing a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007, but in
March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Nevada
Supreme Court. In September 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court
affirmed the dismissal. In December 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the
United States. On April 1, 2013, the Supreme Court asked for a
reply brief.


COMMUNITY NATURALS: Recalls Salad & Slaw Over Undeclared Allergen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 10, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Sesame
                          Seeds, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8063

Affected products:

        Brand name: Community Naturals
------------------------------------------------
Common name          Size     Code(s) on product
-----------          ----     ------------------
Apple Fennel Slaw    250 ml   BEST BEFORE: 13/JN/07 or earlier
UPC: 2 79295 20399 5

Apple Fennel Slaw    500 ml   BEST BEFORE: 13/JN/07 or earlier
UPC: 2 79297 30799 8

7 Grain Salad        250 ml   BEST BEFORE: 13/JN/07 or earlier
UPC: 2 79304 70349 2

7 Grain Salad        500 ml   BEST BEFORE: 13/JN/07 or earlier
UPC: 2 79306 70699 6

Sandwich - Veggie    1 count  BEST BEFORE: 13/JN/07 or earlier
UPC: 2 79098 20399 4

Hummus - Regular     250 ml   BEST BEFORE: 13/JN/07 or earlier
UPC: 2 79200 30350 5

Hummus - Rst Red     250 ml   BEST BEFORE: 13/JN/07 or earlier
Pepper
UPC: 2 79201 00375 6

Couscous Salad       250 ml   BEST BEFORE: 13/JN/10 or earlier
UPC: 2 79190 70349 1


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Awaits Ruling in Public Attorneys' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG is awaiting an
appellate judgment in the class action lawsuit initiated by the
Federal Public Attorneys' Office, according to the Company's
April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Federal Public Attorneys' Office filed a class action against
the Company and Agencia Nacional de Energia Eletrica (or Aneel or
National Electricity Agency), to avoid exclusion of consumers from
classification in the Low-income Residential Tariff sub-category,
requesting an order for the Company to pay 200% of the amount
allegedly paid in excess by the consumers.  The court ruled in
favor of the plaintiff; the Company and Aneel have filed an
interlocutory appeal, and await judgment.  The amount of the
contingency is, approximately, R$133 million.  The Company has
classified the chances of loss as "possible" due to other
favorable judgments on this theme.

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG --
http://www.cemig.com.br/-- was organized in Minas Gerais, Brazil,
in 1952 as a sociedade por acoes de economia mista (a state-
controlled mixed capital company).  The Company runs a business
related to generation, transmission, distribution and sale of
electricity, gas distribution, telecommunications and the
provision of energy solutions.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suit Alleging Environmental Damage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG continues to defend
itself against a class action lawsuit alleging environmental
damage, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

A certain environment association filed a class action for
indemnity for supposed collective environmental damage due to the
construction and operation of the Nova Ponte Hydroelectric Power
Plant.  The amount envisaged by the action is R$1.582 billion.
The Company believes that it has arguments of merit for legal
defense, and as a result has not constituted a provision for this
action.

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG --
http://www.cemig.com.br/-- was organized in Minas Gerais, Brazil,
in 1952 as a sociedade por acoes de economia mista (a state-
controlled mixed capital company).  The Company runs a business
related to generation, transmission, distribution and sale of
electricity, gas distribution, telecommunications and the
provision of energy solutions.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Pegs R$94MM Loss in Public Atty.'s Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG disclosed that the
amount involved in the class action lawsuits initiated by the
Minas Gerais Public Attorney was R$94 million, according to the
Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

The Minas Gerais Public Attorney filed seven class actions against
CEMIG and Cemig Geracao e Transmissao S.A. ("Cemig Generation and
Transmission") seeking an order against the companies to invest at
least 0.5% of its total operational revenue per year from 1997
onward, on the protection and environmental preservation of the
water tables of the municipalities in which the Company's
generation plants are located and indemnify the States
proportionally for the environmental damage caused as a result of
Cemig's failure to comply with the law of the State of Minas
Gerais No. 12.503/97.  In three of these actions, judgment was
granted partly in favor of the Public Attorneys' Office of Minas
Gerais, in the lower courts, with CEMIG and Cemig Generation and
Transmission being ordered to invest 0.5% per year of the gross
operational revenue since 1997 on measures for environmental
preservation and protection of the water tables in Ouro Preto,
Uberaba, Agua Comprida, Campo Florido, Delta, Verissimo and Araxa.
The Company has filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Justice
("STJ") and the Federal Supreme Court ("STF"), since the actions
involve Federal Law and constitutional matters.

On December 31, 2012, the amount involved in these actions was
R$94 million, and the Company assessed the chance of loss as
"possible".

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG --
http://www.cemig.com.br/-- was organized in Minas Gerais, Brazil,
in 1952 as a sociedade por acoes de economia mista (a state-
controlled mixed capital company).  The Company runs a business
related to generation, transmission, distribution and sale of
electricity, gas distribution, telecommunications and the
provision of energy solutions.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Remote Possibility of Loss in "Imidec" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG said in its April 30,
2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, that the
possibility of loss in the class action lawsuit brought by Imidec
has been reassessed from "possible" to "remote."

The Minas Gerais Consumer Defense Institute (Instituto Mineiro de
Defesa do Consumidor, or Imidec) brought a class action against
the Company, questioning the charging of imposition of state sales
tax (Imposto Sobre a Circulacao de Mercadorias e Servicos, or
ICMS) tax on the total amount of the invoice and not only on the
service provided.  Based on the assessment made by the Company's
legal advisors, that the merit of the discussion has already been
the subject of a statement by the Federal Supreme Court, the
possibility of loss has been reassessed from "possible" to
"remote."

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais-CEMIG --
http://www.cemig.com.br/-- was organized in Minas Gerais, Brazil,
in 1952 as a sociedade por acoes de economia mista (a state-
controlled mixed capital company).  The Company runs a business
related to generation, transmission, distribution and sale of
electricity, gas distribution, telecommunications and the
provision of energy solutions.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: May Face $145+ Million in Damage Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit filed against Continental Resources, Inc.
over post-production cost deductions from royalties paid to crude
oil and natural gas wells royalty interest owners in Oklahoma have
indicated that if the class is certified they may seek damages in
excess of $145 million, according to the company's
May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In November 2010, an alleged class action was filed against the
Company alleging the Company improperly deducted post-production
costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest
owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural
gas wells located in Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach
of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
and other claims and seek recovery of compensatory damages,
interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the
alleged class.

The Company has responded to the petition, denied the allegations
and raised a number of affirmative defenses. Discovery is ongoing
and information and documents continue to be exchanged. The
Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action will have
on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows
due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and
number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and
uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of
the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the
scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, the
production years involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of
the matter. The class has not been certified.

Plaintiffs have indicated that if the class is certified they may
seek damages in excess of $145 million, a majority of which would
be comprised of interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims,
disputes that the case meets the requirements for a class action
and is vigorously defending the case.


CYNOSURE INC: Fights Bid to Vacate Dismissal of TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc. filed a response opposing a motion by a plaintiff
to vacate a court order dismissing a suit against the company over
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In 2005, a plaintiff, individually and as putative representative
of a purported class, filed a complaint against Cynosure under the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the TCPA) in
Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County, captioned
Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc., No. MICV2005-01778 (Superior Court,
Middlesex County), seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief,
costs and attorneys' fees.

The complaint alleges that Cynosure violated the TCPA by sending
unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff and other
recipients without the prior express invitation or permission of
the recipients. Under TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile
advertisements are entitled to damages of up to $500 per facsimile
for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 per facsimile for
knowing or willful violations.

Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that
approximately three million facsimiles were sent on Cynosure's
behalf by a third party to approximately 100,000 individuals. In
January 2012, the Court denied the class certification motion. In
November 2012, the Court issued the final judgment and awarded the
plaintiff $6,000 in damages and awarded Cynosure $3,495 in costs.
The plaintiff has appealed this decision.

In addition, in July 2012, the plaintiff filed a new purported
class action, based on the same operative facts and asserting the
same claims as in the Massachusetts action, in federal court in
the Eastern District of New York, captioned Weitzner, et al. v.
Cynosure, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-03668-MKB-RLM (U.S District Court,
Eastern District of New York). In February 2013, that court
granted Cynosure's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims. In
March 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration
of the court's judgment and vacation of the court's order of
dismissal. In April 2013, Cynosure filed a response opposing the
plaintiff's motion.


CYNOSURE INC: June 17 Hearing Set in Lawsuit Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary injunction hearing is set for June 17, 2013 in the
lawsuit Gary Drabek v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. et al.,
No. 8491, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On March 21, 2013, a putative stockholder class action complaint,
captioned Edgar Calin v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., et
al., No. 13-1051 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County), was filed
against Palomar, its board of directors, Cynosure and Commander
Acquisition Corp., Cynosure's wholly-owned subsidiary (Commander),
in Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County.

On April 9, 2013, a second putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. Palomar
Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-1328 BLS1 (Superior
Court, Suffolk County), was filed against Palomar, its board of
directors and Cynosure in Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk
County.

On April 12, 2013, a third putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Albert Saffer v. Palomar Medical
Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 13-1385 BLS1 (Superior Court,
Suffolk County), was filed against Palomar, its board of
directors, Cynosure and Commander in Massachusetts Superior Court
in Suffolk County. On April 23, 2013, each of the plaintiffs in
the foregoing suits filed an amended complaint.

Each amended complaint alleges that members of the Palomar board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the approval of the merger contemplated by the agreement and plan
of merger, dated as of March 17, 2013, by and among Palomar,
Cynosure and Commander, and that Cynosure and, with respect to the
Calin and Saffer suits, Commander, aided and abetted the alleged
breach of fiduciary duties.

Each amended complaint alleges that the Palomar directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction
by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale process and
failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the best
financial and other terms, and that the registration statement
filed by Cynosure is materially deficient. Each of these
plaintiffs seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, including
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, in addition
to other unspecified damages, fees and costs.

The plaintiffs in the three Massachusetts actions moved to
expedite the proceedings on May 1, 2013 and moved to consolidate
the actions on May 1, 2013. Cynosure, Palomar and their respective
boards of directors believe that the Massachusetts lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend them vigorously.

On April 19, 2013, a fourth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Gary Drabek v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 8491, (Del. Ch.) was filed against Palomar, its
board of directors, Cynosure and Commander in Delaware Chancery
Court. On May 1, 2013, a fifth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Daniel Moore v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 8516, (Del. Ch.) was filed against Palomar, its
board of directors, Cynosure and Commander in Delaware Chancery
Court.

Each of the foregoing lawsuits alleges that members of the Palomar
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the approval of the merger and that Cynosure and Commander
aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Each
complaint alleges that the Palomar directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction by,
among other things, conducting a flawed sale process and failing
to maximize stockholder value and obtain the best financial and
other terms, and that the registration statement filed by Cynosure
is materially deficient. Each of these plaintiffs seeks injunctive
and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants
from consummating the merger, in addition to other unspecified
damages, fees and costs.

The plaintiff in the Drabek action moved to expedite the
proceedings on April 29, 2013, and the plaintiff in the Moore
action moved to expedite and moved for a preliminary injunction on
May 3, 2013. The court has scheduled a preliminary injunction
hearing for June 17, 2013 in the Drabek action.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: "McGrogan" Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in a suit filed against First Commonwealth
Financial Corporation over its interest rate on IRA Market Rate
Savings Account are appealing the dismissal of the class action
claims, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank is a class action that was
filed on January 12, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The action alleges that First
Commonwealth Bank (the "Bank") promised class members a minimum
interest rate of 8% on its IRA Market Rate Savings Account for as
long as the class members kept their money on deposit in the IRA
account.

The class asserts that the Bank committed fraud, breached its
modified contract with the class members, and violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
when it resigned as custodian of the IRA Market Rate Savings
Accounts in 2008 and offered the class members a roll-over IRA
account with a 3.5% interest rate.

At that time, there were 237 account holders with an average age
of 64, and the aggregate balances in the IRA Market Rate Savings
accounts totaled approximately $11.5 million. Plaintiffs seek
monetary damages for the alleged breach of contract, punitive
damages for the alleged fraud and Unfair Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Law violations and attorney's fees.

On July 27, 2011, the court granted class certification as to the
breach of modified contract claim and denied class certification
as to the fraud and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Law claims. The breach of contract claim is
predicated upon a letter sent to customers in 1998 which reversed
an earlier decision by the Bank to reduce the rate paid on the
accounts.

The letter stated, in relevant part, "This letter will serve as
notification that a decision has been made to re-establish the
rate on your account to eight percent (8)%. This rate will be
retroactive to your most recent maturity date and will continue
going forward on deposits presently in the account and on annual
additions."

On August 30, 2012, the Court entered an order granting the Bank's
motion for summary judgment and dismissing the class action
claims. The Court found that the Bank retained the right to resign
as custodian of the accounts and that the act of resigning as
custodian and closing the accounts did not breach the terms of the
underlying IRA contract. The Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with
the Pennsylvania Superior Court.


FIRST FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------
First Financial Holdings, Inc. faces two purported shareholder
lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On March 5, 2013, a purported shareholder of First Financial filed
a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
captioned Arthur Walter v. R. Wayne Hall et al., No. 8386. On
March 25, 2013, another purported shareholder of First Financial
filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
captioned Emmy Moore v. R. Wayne Hall et al., No. 8434.

Both lawsuits name First Financial, members of First Financial's
board of directors and SCBT as defendants, are purportedly brought
on behalf of a putative class of First Financial' s common
shareholders and seek a declaration that the lawsuits are properly
maintainable as a class action with the named plaintiffs as the
proper class representatives.

The lawsuits allege that First Financial, First Financial's board
of directors and SCBT Financial Corporation breached duties and/or
aided and abetted such breaches by failing to properly value the
shares of First Financial and agreeing to certain terms of the
transaction. First Financial believes that the claims are without
merit.


GREEN MOUNTAIN: "Horowitz" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit Horowitz v. Green Mountain Coffee
Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00227 filed a notice appealing a
dismissal of an amended complaint to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to the company's May 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

The first consolidated putative securities fraud class action
against Green Mountain, organized under the caption Horowitz v.
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00227, is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III.

The underlying complaints in the consolidated action allege
violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the
Company's disclosures relating to its revenues and its forward
guidance.  The complaints include counts for violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants,
and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
officer defendants.

The plaintiffs seek to represent all purchasers of the Company's
securities between July 28, 2010 and September 28, 2010 or
September 29, 2010.  The complaints seek class certification,
compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should
deem just and proper.  Pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs
had until November 29, 2010 to move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the putative class.

On December 20, 2010, the court appointed Jerzy Warchol, Robert M.
Nichols, Jennifer M. Nichols, Marc Schmerler and Mike Shanley lead
plaintiffs and approved their selection of Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-lead
counsel and the Law Office of Brian Hehir and Woodward & Kelley,
PLLC as liaison counsel.  On December 29, 2010 and January 3,
2011, two of the plaintiffs in the underlying actions in the
consolidated proceedings, Russell Blank and Dan M. Horowitz,
voluntarily dismissed their cases without prejudice.

Pursuant to a stipulated motion granted by the court on November
29, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
February 23, 2011, and defendants moved to dismiss that complaint
on April 25, 2011.  The court heard argument on the motions to
dismiss on January 5, 2012.  On January 27, 2012, the court issued
an order granting defendants' motions and dismissing the
consolidated complaint without prejudice and the lead plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint on March 27, 2012.
On April 9, 2012, the parties filed a stipulated motion for filing
of the amended complaint and to set a briefing schedule for
defendants' motions to dismiss.  Briefing on defendants' motions
to dismiss was completed on August 29, 2012.

On March 20, 2013, the court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed the amended complaint
with prejudice.  On April 19, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice
appealing the court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Briefing on Dismissal Motions Done by June 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing of the motions of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. to
dismiss an amended complaint of Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System was to be completed June 12, 2013,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 30, 2013.

The second putative securities fraud class action against Green
Mountain, captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al.,
Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289, was filed on November 29, 2011 and is also
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III. Plaintiffs'
amended complaint alleges violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its
revenues and its inventory accounting practices.  The amended
complaint seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should
deem just and proper.

Plaintiffs seek to represent all purchasers of the Company's
securities between February 2, 2011 and November 9, 2011.  The
initial complaint filed in the action on November 29, 2011
included counts for alleged violations of (1) Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") against the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
and the Company's underwriters in connection with a May 2011
secondary common stock offering; and (2) Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and the officer
defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the officer defendants.  Pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3),
plaintiffs had until January 30, 2012 to move the court to serve
as lead plaintiff of the putative class.

Competing applications were filed and the Court appointed
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, Sjunde
AP-Fonden, Board of Trustees of the City of Fort Lauderdale
General Employees' Retirements System, Employees' Retirements
System of the Government of the Virgin Islands, and Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi as lead plaintiffs'
counsel on April 27, 2012.

Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed
their amended complaint on October 22, 2012, and plaintiffs filed
a corrected amended complaint on November 5, 2012.  Plaintiffs'
amended complaint does not allege any claims under the Securities
Act against the Company, its officers and directors, or the
Company's underwriters in connection with the May 2011 secondary
common stock offering.  Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 1, 2013 and the briefing of their motions is to
be completed on June 12, 2013.  The underwriters previously named
as defendants notified the Company of their intent to seek
indemnification from the Company pursuant to their underwriting
agreement dated May 5, 2011 in regard to the claims asserted in
this action.


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Moves to Dismiss "Fifield" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. is seeking to dismiss an
amended complaint in Fifield v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters,
Inc., Civ. No. 2:12-cv-00091, according to the company's May 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

The third consolidated putative securities fraud class action
against Green Mountain, captioned Fifield v. Green Mountain Coffee
Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:12-cv-00091, is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Vermont before the
Honorable William K. Sessions, III.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures
relating to its forward guidance.  The amended complaint includes
counts for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 against all defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the officer defendants.  The amended
complaint seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
equitable and/or injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and
such other relief as the court should deem just and proper.

Plaintiffs seek to represent all purchasers of the Company's
securities between February 2, 2012 and May 2, 2012.  Pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C.
78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until July 6, 2012 to move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class.

On July 31, 2012, the court appointed Kambiz Golesorkhi as lead
plaintiff and approved his selection of Kahn Swick & Foti LLC as
lead counsel.  On August 14, 2012, the court granted the parties'
stipulated motion for filing of an amended complaint and to set a
briefing schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss.  Pursuant to
a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint on October 23, 2012, adding William C. Daley as an
additional lead plaintiff.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on January 17, 2013 and the briefing of their
motions is to be completed on May 17, 2013.


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Lead Plaintiff Named in Pa. Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania appointed a Lead Plaintiff in the securities lawsuit
filed against Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., according to the
company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On December 21, 2012, a putative Federal Securities Class Action
Complaint was filed against the Company and three of its Officers
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. This action, Stephanie A. Frater v. Hemispherx
Biopharma, Inc., et al., was purportedly brought on behalf of a
putative class of Hemispherx investors who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between March 19, 2012 and December 17,
2012.

The Complaint generally asserts that Defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the status of the
Company's New Drug Application for Ampligen, which had been filed
with the United States Food and Drug Administration, in alleged
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On February 22, 2013, several putative members of the alleged
plaintiff class filed motions to be appointed Lead Plaintiff
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. 78u-4.

On March 14, 2013, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiff for the
case, and on March 29, 2013, entered a stipulated order setting a
May 20, 2013 deadline for Lead Plaintiff's consolidated amended
complaint and a July 19, 2013 deadline for Defendants' motion to
dismiss. Under the PSLRA, discovery will be stayed pending the
Court's decision on Defendants' motion to dismiss.


HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff in Texas Suit Backs Out
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff appointed in a securities suit against
Hyperdynamics Corporation filed a motion to withdraw as lead
plaintiff, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as a class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
the company and the company's chief executive officer alleging
that the company made false and misleading statements that
artificially inflated its stock prices.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company
misrepresented the prospects and progress of its drilling
operations, including its drilling of the Sabu-1 well and plans to
drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of the Republic of Guinea.

The lawsuit seeks damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, although the specific amount of
damages is not specified.  On June 1 and June 4, 2012, a number of
parties made application to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff, and a lead plaintiff was appointed by the Court.

However, on April 22, 2013, the lead plaintiff appointed by the
Court filed a motion to withdraw as lead plaintiff.  That motion
has not yet been acted upon, and at this time no schedule for
moving forward in the matter has been established by the Court.

The company assessed the status of this matter and have concluded
that, because it is likely that another lead plaintiff will be
appointed, an adverse judgment remains reasonably possible, but
not probable.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Settlement of Suit Over Bogalusa Unopposed
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company said it did not have notice of any
objections against a settlement of a consolidated federal action
over the Bogalusa Incident, according to the company's May 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Temple-Inland Inc. (or its affiliates), which International Paper
Company acquired in 2012, is a defendant in 28 civil lawsuits in
Louisiana and Mississippi related to the Bogalusa Incident.

In August 2011, Temple-Inland's Bogalusa, Louisiana paper mill
received predictive test results indicating that Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD) limits for permitted discharge from the
wastewater treatment pond into the Pearl River were exceeded after
an upset condition at the mill and subsequently confirmed reports
of a fish kill on the Pearl River (the Bogalusa Incident). Temple-
Inland initiated a full mill shut down, notified the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) of the situation and
took corrective actions to restore the water quality of the river.

Fifteen of these civil cases were filed in Louisiana state court
shortly after the incident and have been removed and consolidated
in an action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana along with a civil case originally filed in
that court. During August 2012, an additional 13 causes of action
were filed in federal or state court in Mississippi and Louisiana.

In October 2012, International Paper and the Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee, the group of attorneys appointed by the Louisiana
federal court to organize and coordinate the efforts of all the
plaintiffs in this litigation, reached a tentative understanding
on key structural terms and an amount for resolution of the
litigation. Preliminary approval for the proposed class action
settlement was granted in December 2012. The deadline for opt-outs
and objections to the proposed class action settlement was April
29, 2013. In the SEC filing, the company said it did not have
notice of any objections or opt-outs. In the interim, all civil
litigation arising out of the August 2011 discharge has been
stayed.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Still Faces Containerboard-Related Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company continues to face lawsuits over
alleged antitrust law violations in relation to its sale of
containerboard products, according to the company's May 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in
a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen
Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.).

The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in August
2005 through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and
thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged
class is all persons who purchased containerboard products
directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United
States during the period August 2005 to the present.

The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble
actual damages and attorney's fees on behalf of the purported
class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been
consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. Moreover, in
January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging
that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to
limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-
2005 to the present.

Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class
of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products,
damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. The Company disputes
the allegations made and intends to vigorously defend each action.
However, because the Kleen Products case is in the discovery phase
and the Tennessee action is in the preliminary stages, the company
said it is unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Antitrust Suits Over Gypsum Board Unified
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
transfer of all pending cases against International Paper Company
over its gypsum board to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and consolidated pretrial
proceedings, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In late December 2012, purchasers of gypsum board filed purported
class action complaints alleging civil violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act against Temple-Inland and a number of other gypsum
manufacturers in three separate actions.

Two of the actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (E.D. PA) and one in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (N.D. IL).
The case in the N.D. IL was voluntarily dismissed in December.
Since that time, 26 additional actions were collectively filed
between the E.D. PA and the N.D. IL and the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina (W.D. NC), on behalf of
direct and indirect purchasers.

The complaints are similar and allege that the gypsum
manufacturers conspired or otherwise reached agreements to: (1)
raise prices of gypsum board either from 2008 or 2011 through the
present; (2) avoid price erosion by ceasing the practice of
issuing job quotes; and (3) restrict supply through downtime and
limit order fulfillment.

The alleged classes are all persons who purchased gypsum board
and/or gypsum finishing products directly or indirectly from any
defendant and the conspiracy is alleged to have commenced on or
before either September 2011 or January 2008. The complainants
seek to recover unspecified treble actual damages and attorneys'
fees on behalf of the purported classes.

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered transfer of all pending cases to E.D. PA for coordinated
and consolidated pretrial proceedings.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Tex. Court Junks Stock Suit v. Temple-Inland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas granted the motions of Temple-Inland Inc. and the individual
defendants to dismiss a securities suit without prejudice,
according to International Paper Company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Temple-Inland is also a defendant in a lawsuit captioned North
Port Firefighters' Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc., filed in
November 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas and subsequently amended.

The lawsuit alleges a class action against Temple-Inland and
certain individual defendants contending that Temple-Inland and
certain individual defendants misrepresented the financial
condition of Guaranty Financial Group during the period December
12, 2007 through August 24, 2009. Temple-Inland distributed the
stock of Guaranty Financial Group to its shareholders on December
28, 2007, after which Guaranty Financial Group was an independent,
publicly held company.

The action is pled as a securities claim on behalf of persons who
acquired Guaranty Financial Group stock during the putative class
period. Although focused chiefly on statements made by Guaranty
Financial Group to its shareholders after it was an independent,
publicly held company, the action repeats many of the same
allegations of fact made in the Tepper litigation. On June 20,
2012, all defendants in the lawsuit filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On March 28, 2013, the district granted Temple-Inland's and the
individual defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice. The
plaintiff must first seek the court's leave prior to filing any
amended complaint against the Company.


INTL FCSTONE: July 16 Hearing on W.D. Mo. Securities Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
The terms of the settlement in a securities lawsuit against INTL
FCStone Inc. are expected to be presented to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri for approval
on July 16, 2013, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

FCStone and certain officers of FCStone were named as defendants
in an action filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri in July 2008. A consolidated amended
complaint ("CAC") was subsequently filed in September 2009.

As alleged in the CAC, the action purports to be brought as a
class action on behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock
between November 15, 2007 and February 24, 2009. The CAC seeks to
hold defendants liable under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and concerns disclosures
included in FCStone's fiscal year 2008 public filings.
Specifically, the CAC relates to FCStone's public disclosures
regarding an interest rate hedge, a bad debt expense arising from
unprecedented events in the cotton trading market, and certain
disclosures beginning on November 3, 2008 related to losses it
expected to incur arising primarily from a customer energy trading
account. FCStone and the named officers moved to dismiss the
action.

The parties to the litigation reached an agreement in principle to
settle this matter during May 2012. The proposed settlement would
be at no cost to the Company after consideration of expected
insurance coverage, and is subject to approval by the court. The
terms of the settlement are expected to be presented to the court
for approval on July 16, 2013.


INTL FCSTONE: July 16 Hearing on Accord in Mo. State Court Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The terms of the settlement in a securities lawsuit against INTL
FCStone Inc. are expected to be presented to the Circuit Court of
Platte County, Missouri for approval on July 16, 2013, according
to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

In August 2008, a shareholder derivative action was filed against
FCStone and certain directors of FCStone in the Circuit Court of
Platte County, Missouri, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. An amended
complaint was subsequently filed in May 2009 to add claims based
upon the losses sustained by FCStone arising out of a customer
energy trading account. In July 2009, the same plaintiff filed a
motion for leave to amend the existing case to add a purported
class action claim on behalf of the holders of FCStone common
stock.

In July 2009, a purported shareholder class action complaint was
filed against FCStone and its directors, as well as the Company in
the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. The complaint alleged
that FCStone and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize stockholder value in connection with the
contemplated acquisition of FCStone by the Company.

This complaint was subsequently consolidated with the complaint
filed in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri. The
plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended consolidated complaint
which does not assert any claims against the Company. This
complaint purports to be filed derivatively on FCStone and the
Company's behalf and against certain of FCStone's current and
former directors and officers and directly against the same
individuals. The Company, FCStone and the defendants filed motions
to dismiss on multiple grounds. The parties to the litigation
reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter during
October 2012.

The proposed settlement would result in the Company incurring a
legal cost of $250,000 after consideration of expected insurance
coverage, and is subject to approval by the court. The terms of
the settlement are expected to be presented to the court for
approval on July 16, 2013.


KADANT INC: Pays Remaining Claims in Suit Over Building Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 24, 2011, Kadant Inc., Composites LLC, and other
co-defendants entered into an agreement to settle a nationwide
class action lawsuit related to allegedly defective composites
decking building products manufactured by Composites LLC between
April 2002 and October 2003, which was filed and approved in
Connecticut state court.

As of March 30, 2013, the Company has accrued $33,000 for the
payment of remaining claims under the class action settlement and
$263,000 in related costs, according to the company's May 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Pa. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated filed a motion to dismiss an
amended securities complaint pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the
company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On June 8, 2012, a federal securities class action and shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Genaera Corporation and its officers,
directors, major shareholders and trustee ("Genaera Defendants")
for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties to Genaera
shareholders.

The lawsuit also names Ligand and its CEO John Higgins as
additional defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the
Genaera Defendants' various breaches of fiduciary duties based on
the Company's purchase of a licensing interest in a development-
stage pharmaceutical drug program from the Genaera Liquidating
Trust in May 2010 and its subsequent sale of half of its interest
in the transaction to Biotechnology Value Fund, Inc.

On December 19, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting substantially similar claims against the Company and Mr.
Higgins.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  On
February 4, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice.

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to the Company's
motion to dismiss on May 3, 2013, and the Company's reply was due
on June 3, 2013. The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend against the claims against it and Mr. Higgins in the
lawsuit.


MASCO CORPORATION: Pays $75MM to Settle Columbus Drywall Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corporation paid the $75 million it agreed to pay to settle
the Columbus Drywall litigation, according to the company's
May 8, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In July 2012, the Company reached a settlement agreement related
to the Columbus Drywall litigation. The Company and its insulation
installation companies named in the suit agreed to pay $75 million
in return for dismissal with prejudice and full release of all
claims. The Company and its insulation installation companies
continue to deny that the challenged conduct was unlawful and
admit no wrongdoing as part of the settlement. A settlement was
reached to eliminate the considerable expense and uncertainty of
this lawsuit. The Company recorded the settlement expense in the
second quarter of 2012 and the amount was paid in the fourth
quarter of 2012.

Masco filed a Current Report on Form 8-K to reflect certain
changes with respect to the financial information contained in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2012, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 15, 2013.


NATIONAL WESTERN: Continues to Face Suit Over Deferred Annuities
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Company continues to face the case
titled In Re National Western Life Insurance Deferred Annuities
Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The Company is currently a defendant in a class action lawsuit
pending as of June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California. The case is titled In Re National
Western Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation. The
complaint asserts claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder
Abuse, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq,
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of
Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty,
Fraudulent Concealment, Cal. Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the
Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and
Imposition of Constructive Trust.

On July 12, 2010 the Court certified a nationwide class of
policyholders under the RICO allegation and a California class
under all of the remaining causes of action except breach of
fiduciary duty.

The trial date has been vacated and a pretrial conference was
scheduled for May 31, 2013.


NEWS CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Wilder" Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al., remains pending in New York,
according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 18, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative action captioned Shields v. Murdoch, et al. ("Shields
Litigation"), in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The plaintiff alleged violations of Section
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as state law claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste, abuse of
control and contribution/indemnification arising from, and in
connection with, claims relating to the alleged acts of voicemail
interception at The News of the World (the "NoW Matter").  The
complaint names the directors of the Company as defendants and
names the Company as a nominal defendant, and seeks damages and
costs.  On August 4, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.  The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, an order
declaring the October 15, 2010 shareholder vote on the election of
the Company's directors void; an order setting an emergency
shareholder vote date for election of new directors; an order
requiring the Company to take certain specified corporate
governance actions; and an order (i) putting forward a shareholder
vote resolution for amendments to the Company's Article of
Incorporation and (ii) taking such other action as may be
necessary to place before shareholders for a vote on corporate
governance policies that: (a) appoint a non-executive Chair of the
Board who is not related to the Murdoch family or extended family;
(b) appoint an independent Chair of the Board's Audit Committee;
(c) appoint at least three independent directors to the Governance
and Nominating Committees; (d) strengthen the Board's supervision
of financial reporting processes and implement procedures for
greater shareholder input into the policies and guidelines of the
Board; and (e) appropriately test and strengthen the internal and
audit control functions.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011, and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The plaintiff
brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading
statements were issued regarding the NoW Matter.  The lawsuit
names as defendants the Company, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and
Rebekah Brooks, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission for
damages sustained, and costs.

On July 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative action captioned Stricklin v. Murdoch, et al.
("Stricklin Litigation"), in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The plaintiff brought claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, and waste of
corporate assets in connection with, among other things, (i) the
NoW Matter; (ii) News America's purported payments to settle
allegations of anti-competitive behavior; and (iii) the Shine
Transaction. The action names as defendants the Company, Les
Hinton, Rebekah Brooks, Paul Carlucci and the directors of the
Company.  On August 3, 2011, the plaintiff served a motion for
expedited discovery and to appoint a conservator over the Company,
which defendants objected to.  The motion has not been formally
calendared and there is no briefing schedule yet.  On August 16,
2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The plaintiff
seeks various forms of relief including compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement, the award of voting rights to
Class A shareholders, the appointment of a conservator over the
Company to oversee the Company's responses to investigations and
litigation related to the NoW Matter, fees and costs.

On August 10, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative action captioned Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v.
Murdoch, et al. ("Iron Workers Litigation"), in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
plaintiff brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of
corporate assets, unjust enrichment and alleged violations of
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act in connection with
the NoW Matter.  The action names as defendants the Company, Les
Hinton, Rebekah Brooks and the directors of the Company.  The
plaintiff seeks various forms of relief including compensatory
damages, voiding the election of the director defendants, an order
requiring the Company to take certain specified corporate
governance actions, injunctive relief, restitution, fees and
costs.

The Wilder Litigation, the Stricklin Litigation and the Iron
Workers Litigation are all now before the judge in the Shields
Litigation.  On November 21, 2011, the court issued an order
setting a briefing schedule for the defendants' motion to stay the
Stricklin Litigation, the Iron Workers Litigation and the Shields
Litigation pending the outcome of the consolidated action pending
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  On September 18, 2012, the
Court denied the motion as to two of the cases and dismissed the
third with leave to replead, which the plaintiff has done.
Specifically, on October 4, 2012, Stricklin filed a Second Amended
Complaint that added a claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act challenging the disclosures in the Company's
definitive proxy statements issued during the years of 2005
through 2012.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to void
the election of the director defendants at the Company's 2012
annual meeting.  The plaintiffs in Shields, Stricklin and Iron
Workers have requested a pre-motion conference to address the
potential consolidation of these derivative actions and a briefing
schedule regarding the potential leadership structure for the
plaintiffs.  The pre-motion conference has not yet been scheduled.
In the Wilder Litigation, on June 5, 2012, the court issued an
order appointing the Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel.  Thereafter, on
July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing that an amended
consolidated complaint shall be filed by July 31, 2012.  Avon
filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which
among other things, added as defendants NI Group Limited and Les
Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15,
2011, to July 18, 2011.  The Defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on September 25, 2012, the plaintiffs' opposition was
filed November 6, 2012, and defendants' reply was filed
November 30, 2012.  The motion is pending.

The Company's management believes these shareholder claims are
entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously defend these
actions.  The settlement of the consolidated action pending in
Delaware will not become effective unless the Shields Litigation,
the Iron Workers Litigation and the Stricklin Litigation are also
dismissed.

News Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified global
media company with operations in the following six industry
segments: (i) Cable Network Programming; (ii) Filmed
Entertainment; (iii) Television; (iv) Direct Broadcast Satellite
Television; (v) Publishing; and (vi) Other.  The Company's
activities are conducted principally in the United States, the
United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and Latin
America.  The Company is engaged in the publishing business,
primarily through its subsidiaries News International, News
Limited, Dow Jones, The New York Post, The Daily, HarperCollins
Publishers and News America Marketing Group.


NEWS CORP: "Forsta Ap-Fonden" Class Suit Dismissed in April
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Forsta Ap-Fonden v. News
Corporation, et al., was dismissed in April 2013, according to the
Company's April 30, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On May 30, 2012, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf
of all non-U.S. stockholders of the Company's Class B shares,
captioned Forsta Ap-Fonden v. News Corporation, et al.  The
plaintiff alleges that, by temporarily suspending 50% of the
voting rights of the Class B shares held by non-U.S. stockholders
to remain in compliance with U.S. governing broadcast licenses
(the "Suspension"), the Company and the Board violated the
Company's charter and the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware ("DGCL") and the directors breached their fiduciary
duties, both in approving the Suspension and in failing to monitor
the Company's ownership by non-U.S. stockholders.  The complaint
named as defendants the Company and all directors of the Company
at the time of the Suspension.  The complaint sought a declaration
that the defendants violated the Company's charter and the DGCL, a
declaration that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, a
declaration that the Suspension is invalid and unenforceable, an
injunction of the Suspension, damages, fees, and costs.  On
June 11, 2012, the defendants filed an opening brief in support of
a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.  On August 2,
2012, the plaintiff filed a Verified Amended and Supplemented
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended and Supplemented Complaint").
The Amended and Supplemented Complaint seeks a declaration that
the defendants violated the Company's charter and the DGCL, a
declaration that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, a
declaration that the Suspension is invalid and unenforceable, an
injunction of the Suspension, a declaration that non-U.S.
stockholders of the Company's Class B shares are entitled to vote
all of their shares on the Proposed Separation Transaction,
damages, fees, and costs.

On August 28, 2012, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding providing for an agreement in principle to settle
the lawsuit.  The Memorandum of Understanding, which was filed
with the Court on September 5, 2012, provides in pertinent part:
(i) within 5 business days after receiving Court approval, the
Company will file a petition with the FCC requesting permission to
comply with law governing broadcast licenses for any meeting of
stockholders by (a) determining the number of shares held by
foreign stockholders that are present at the meeting and that
would be entitled to vote but for the Suspension, and (b) counting
as votes cast all voted shares held by foreign stockholders, up to
a total of 25% of the shares voted; (ii) the Company's Audit
Committee will determine on at least an annual basis the total
number of voting shares held by non-U.S. citizens and will have
the power to modify or eliminate any then-existing suspension; the
Company will disclose this information in its annual proxy
materials and (iii) the Company will not consent to amend, modify
or terminate the Murdoch Family Interests agreement without prior
approval of the Audit Committee, which in the case of any vote
related to the Proposed Separation Transaction, must be unanimous.
The settlement is subject to Court approval after notice to the
stockholders and a hearing.  The Stipulation of Settlement was
filed with the Court on November 30, 2012.  On December 10, 2012,
the Court entered a Scheduling Order, which, among other things,
set the settlement hearing for April 26, 2013, and approved the
form of Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement of
Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear, which has
been distributed to holders of the Company's Class B Common Stock
in accordance with the Scheduling Order.  At a hearing held on
April 26, 2013, the Court approved the settlement and dismissed
the action with prejudice.

News Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified global
media company with operations in the following six industry
segments: (i) Cable Network Programming; (ii) Filmed
Entertainment; (iii) Television; (iv) Direct Broadcast Satellite
Television; (v) Publishing; and (vi) Other.  The Company's
activities are conducted principally in the United States, the
United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and Latin
America.  The Company is engaged in the publishing business,
primarily through its subsidiaries News International, News
Limited, Dow Jones, The New York Post, The Daily, HarperCollins
Publishers and News America Marketing Group.


NEWS CORP: Reached Agreement to Settle Consolidated Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated shareholder lawsuit against News
Corporation reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Consolidated Action, according to the Company's April 30, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 16, 2011, a complaint seeking to compel the inspection of
the Company's books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 220,
captioned Central Laborers Pension Fund v. News Corporation, was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The plaintiff requested
the Company's books and records to investigate alleged possible
breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the Company in
connection with the Company's purchase of Shine (the "Shine
Transaction").  Shine is an international television production
and distribution group with production companies across numerous
countries creating and exploiting scripted and non-scripted
content in the global marketplace.  The Company moved to dismiss
the action.  On November 30, 2011, the court issued an order
granting the Company's motion and dismissing the complaint.  The
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on December 13, 2011.  The
Delaware Supreme Court heard argument on the fully-briefed appeal
on April 18, 2012, and issued a decision on May 29, 2012, in which
it affirmed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of the complaint.

Also on March 16, 2011, two purported shareholders of the Company,
one of which was Central Laborers Pension Fund, filed a derivative
action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned The
Amalgamated Bank v. Murdoch, et al. (the "Amalgamated Bank
Litigation").  The plaintiffs alleged that both the directors of
the Company and Rupert Murdoch as a "controlling shareholder"
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Shine
Transaction.  The lawsuit named as defendants all directors of the
Company, and named the Company as a nominal defendant.  Similar
claims against the same group of defendants were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery by a purported shareholder of the
Company, New Orleans Employees' Retirement System, on March 25,
2011 (the "New Orleans Employees' Retirement Litigation").  Both
the Amalgamated Bank Litigation and the New Orleans Employees'
Retirement Litigation were consolidated on April 6, 2011 (the
"Consolidated Action"), with The Amalgamated Bank's complaint
serving as the operative complaint.  The Consolidated Action was
captioned In re News Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation.  On
April 9, 2011, the court entered a scheduling order governing the
filing of an amended complaint and briefing on potential motions
to dismiss.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a
Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and Class Action
Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") on May 13, 2011, seeking
declaratory relief and damages.  The Consolidated Complaint
largely restated the claims in The Amalgamated Bank's initial
complaint and also raised a direct claim on behalf of a purported
class of Company shareholders relating to the possible addition of
Elisabeth Murdoch to the Company's Board.  The defendants filed
opening briefs in support of motions to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint on June 10, 2011, as contemplated by the court's
scheduling order.  On July 8, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
Verified Amended Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and Class
Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint").  In addition to the
claims that were previously raised in the Consolidated Complaint,
the Amended Complaint brought claims relating to the alleged acts
of voicemail interception at The News of the World (the "NoW
Matter").  Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed in the Amended
Complaint that the directors of the Company failed in their duty
of oversight regarding the NoW Matter.

On July 15, 2011, another purported stockholder of the Company
filed a derivative action captioned Massachusetts Laborers'
Pension & Annuity Funds v. Murdoch, et al., in the Delaware Court
of Chancery (the "Mass. Laborers Litigation").  The complaint
names as defendants the directors of the Company and the Company
as a nominal defendant.  The plaintiffs' claims are substantially
similar to those raised by the Amended Complaint in the
Consolidated Action.  Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the
directors of the Company have breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, approving the Shine Transaction and for
failing to exercise proper oversight in connection with the NoW
Matter.  The plaintiff also brought a breach of fiduciary duty
claim against Rupert Murdoch as "controlling shareholder," and a
waste claim against the directors of the Company.  The action
seeks as relief damages, injunctive relief, fees and costs.  On
July 25, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action requested
that the court consolidate the Mass. Laborers Litigation into the
Consolidated Action. On August 24, 2011, the Mass. Laborers
Litigation was consolidated with the Consolidated Action.

On September 29, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Second
Amended Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and Class Action
Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint").  In the Second Amended
Complaint, the plaintiffs removed their claims involving the
possible addition of Elisabeth Murdoch to the Company's Board,
added some factual allegations to support their remaining claims
and added a claim seeking to enjoin a buyback of Common B shares
to the extent it would result in a change of control.  The Second
Amended Complaint seeks declaratory relief, an injunction
preventing the buyback of Class B shares, damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest, fees and costs.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  The hearing on the defendants' fully-briefed motion to
dismiss was postponed to allow further briefing by plaintiffs
after the Cohen Litigation was consolidated with the Consolidated
Action.

On March 2, 2012, another purported stockholder of the Company
filed a derivative action captioned Belle M. Cohen v. Murdoch, et
al., in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Cohen Litigation").
The complaint names as defendants the directors of the Company and
the Company as a nominal defendant.  The complaint's claims and
allegations pertain to the NoW Matter and are substantially
similar to the NoW Matter allegations raised in the Second Amended
Complaint in the Consolidated Action.  The complaint asserts
causes of action against the defendants for alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, contribution and
indemnification, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets.
The action seeks as relief damages, fees and costs.  On March 20,
2012, the Cohen Litigation was consolidated with the Consolidated
Action.

On June 18, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed
a Verified Third Amended Consolidated Shareholder Derivative
Complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint").  The Third Amended
Complaint alleges claims against director defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty arising from the Shine Transaction; against Rupert
Murdoch for breach of fiduciary duty as the purported controlling
shareholder of the Company in connection with the Shine
Transaction; against director defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty arising from their purported failure to investigate illegal
conduct in the NoW Matter and allegedly permitting the Company to
engage in a cover up; against certain defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty in their capacity as officers arising from a
purported failure to investigate illegal conduct in the NoW Matter
and allegedly permitting the Company to engage in a cover up; and
against James Murdoch for breach of fiduciary duty for allegedly
engaging in a cover up related to the NoW Matter.  The class
action claim asserted in the Second Amended Complaint pertaining
to the buyback of Common B shares and the relief related to that
claim were removed.  The Third Amended Complaint seeks a
declaration that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties,
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs.

On July 18, 2012, the defendants renewed their postponed motion to
dismiss in the Consolidated Action, and in support thereof, they
filed supplemental briefing directed towards the allegations of
the Third Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiffs' response was filed
on August 8, 2012.  A hearing on the fully briefed motion was held
in Chancery Court on September 19, 2012.  The Court reserved
decision.

On April 17, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Consolidated Action.  Pursuant to the terms of that
settlement, which is subject to the approval of the Delaware Court
of Chancery after notice to the stockholders and a hearing, the
parties agreed that the director defendants in the Consolidated
Action would cause to be paid on their behalf the amount of $139
million to the Company, minus any attorneys' fees and expenses
awarded by the Court to the plaintiffs' counsel.  Such amount is
to be paid from an escrow account created for the benefit of the
director defendants pursuant to an agreement reached between the
defendants and their directors' and officers' liability insurers
for the payment of insurance proceeds, subject to a claims
release.  In addition to the payment to the Company, the
settlement contemplates that the Company will build on corporate
governance and compliance enhancements which the Company has
implemented in the past year.  These would remain in effect at
least through December 31, 2016, and would be applicable to both
21st Century Fox and New News Corporation.  The Memorandum of
Understanding related to the settlement has been filed with the
Court.  In addition to requiring the approval of the Delaware
Court of Chancery, the settlement will not become effective unless
the Shields Litigation, the Iron Workers Litigation and the
Stricklin Litigation are also dismissed.

News Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified global
media company with operations in the following six industry
segments: (i) Cable Network Programming; (ii) Filmed
Entertainment; (iii) Television; (iv) Direct Broadcast Satellite
Television; (v) Publishing; and (vi) Other.  The Company's
activities are conducted principally in the United States, the
United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and Latin
America.  The Company is engaged in the publishing business,
primarily through its subsidiaries News International, News
Limited, Dow Jones, The New York Post, The Daily, HarperCollins
Publishers and News America Marketing Group.


NUCOR CORPORATION: Still Faces Antitrust Suits by Steel Buyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation has been named, along with other major steel
producers, as a co-defendant in several related antitrust class-
action complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel
purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, according to Nucor's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 30, 2013.

The majority of these complaints were filed in September and
October of 2008, with two additional complaints being filed in
July and December of 2010. Two of these complaints have been
voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending.

The plaintiffs allege that from April 1, 2005 through December 31,
2007, eight steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in
anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and sale
of steel. The plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief. Although
the company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
will vigorously defend against them.


OCEAN SPRAY: Court Denies Class Certification in Misbranding Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Started 6:18
time spent searching for relevant stories: 6:27  (9 mins.)
time spent summarizing: 6:39                     (12 mins.)
time spent searching for e-mails: 6:57           (18 mins.)


District Judge Edward J. Davila denied a motion for class
certification and a motion to strike filed by a plaintiff in the
lawsuit captioned NOELLE MAJOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, (N.D. Cal.), CASE NO. 5:12-CV-03067 EJD.

Ms. Major has alleged that several of the Defendant's food
products have been improperly labeled so as to amount to
misbranding and deception in violation of several California and
federal laws.

Judge Davila held that because the Plaintiff has not met the
typicality requirement under Rule 23(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, her Motion for Class Certification is denied. The
Court also orders that the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is denied
as moot.

Noelle Major is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. --
pgore@prattattorneys.com -- at Pratt & Associates; Brian K
Herrington, Esq., at Don Barrett, P.A.; David Shelton, Esq. --
david@davidsheltonpllc.com -- Dewitt Marshall Lovelace, Sr., Esq.
-- dml@lovelacelaw.com -- at Lovelace Law Firm, P.A. & Don
Barrett, Esq., at Barrett Law Group.

Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. is represented by Ricky Lynn
Shackelford, Esq. -- shackelfordr@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg
Traurig, LLP.

A copy of the District Court's June 10, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/HZk2Ubfrom Leagle.com.


OI SA: Appeals in Customer Service Center Suits Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the class action lawsuits seeking the reopening of
customer service centers remain pending, according to Oi S.A.'s
April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in 69 civil class actions filed by the
Attorney General of the National Treasury jointly with certain
consumer agencies demanding the re-opening of customer service
centers.  The lower courts have rendered decisions in all of these
proceedings, some of which have been unfavorable to the Company.
All of these proceedings are currently under appeal.  As of
December 31, 2012, the Company had recorded provisions in the
amount of R$12 million for those claims in respect of which the
Company deemed the risk of loss as probable.

Headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Oi S.A. --
http://www.oi.com.br/-- is one of the largest integrated
telecommunication service providers in Brazil.  The Company offers
a range of integrated telecommunication services that includes
fixed-line and mobile telecommunication services, data
transmission services (including broadband access services), ISP
services and other services for residential customers, small,
medium and large companies, and governmental agencies.


OI SA: Still Awaits Court's Initial Decision in Suit vs. TNL
------------------------------------------------------------
Oi S.A., formerly known as Brasil Telecom S.A., is still awaiting
an initial court decision in the class action lawsuit involving
its predecessor, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

Tele Norte Leste Participacoes S.A., or TNL, and Brasil Telecom
engaged in a merger under Brazilian law in which TNL merged with
and into Brasil Telecom, and the corporate name of Brasil Telecom
was changed to Oi S.A., or Oi.

The Company is a defendant in a civil class action lawsuit filed
by the Federal Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Publico Federal)
seeking recovery for alleged collective moral damages caused by
TNL's alleged non-compliance with the Customer Service (Servico de
Atendimento ao Consumidor - SAC) regulations established by the
Ministry of Justice (Ministerio da Justica).  TNL presented its
defense and asked for a change of venue to federal court in Rio de
Janeiro, where the Company is headquartered.  Other defendants
have been named and await service of process.  The amount involved
in this action is R$300 million.  As a result of the corporate
reorganization, the Company has succeeded to TNL's position as a
defendant in this action.

As of December 31, 2012, the Company deemed the risk of loss as
possible with respect to these lawsuits and had not made any
provisions with respect to this action since it was awaiting the
court's initial decision.

Headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Oi S.A. --
http://www.oi.com.br/-- is one of the largest integrated
telecommunication service providers in Brazil.  The Company offers
a range of integrated telecommunication services that includes
fixed-line and mobile telecommunication services, data
transmission services (including broadband access services), ISP
services and other services for residential customers, small,
medium and large companies, and governmental agencies.


QEP RESOURCES: Awaits Final OK of "Chieftain" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
QEP Resources, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement
of a class action lawsuit initiated by Chieftain Royalty Company,
according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

The statewide class action captioned Chieftain Royalty Company v.
QEP Energy Company, Case No CIV-11-0212-R, U. S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma, was filed in January 2011 on
behalf of QEP's Oklahoma royalty owners asserting various claims
for damages related to royalty valuation on all of QEP's Oklahoma
wells operated by QEP or from which QEP marketed gas. These claims
include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,
unjust enrichment, tortious breach of contract, conspiracy, and
conversion, based generally on asserted improper deduction of
post-production costs.  The Court certified the class as to the
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment
claims.  The parties successfully mediated the case in January
2013.  On February 13, 2013, the parties executed a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement (the Chieftain Settlement Agreement)
providing for a cash payment from QEP to the class in the amount
of $115.0 million.  In consideration for the settlement payment,
QEP will receive a full release of all claims regarding the
calculation, reporting and payment of royalties from the sale of
natural gas and its constituents for all periods prior to
February 28, 2013, and all class members are enjoined from
asserting claims related to such royalties.  As part of the
Chieftain Settlement Agreement, the parties also agreed on the
methodology for the calculation and payment of future royalties
payable by QEP, or its successors and assigns, under all class
leases for the life of such leases.  On February 20, 2013, the
Court entered a Preliminary Order Approving Class Action
Settlement.  In accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, QEP paid the $115.0 million into an escrow account in
February 2013 pending the Court's final approval of the settlement
at a Fairness Hearing scheduled on May 2013.  The $115.0 million
was included in "Accounts payable and accrued expenses" on the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2012.

QEP Resources, Inc. is a holding company with three major lines of
business: natural gas and crude oil exploration and production;
midstream field services; and energy marketing.  These businesses
are conducted through the Company's three principal subsidiaries:
(1) QEP Energy Company acquires, explores for, develops and
produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids (NGL);
(2) QEP Field Services Company provides midstream field services,
including natural gas gathering and processing, compression and
treating services, for affiliates and third parties; and (3) QEP
Marketing Company markets affiliate and third-party natural gas
and oil, and owns and operates an underground gas storage
reservoir.


RENASANT CORPORATION: Faces "Silverii" Suit Over First M&F
----------------------------------------------------------
On April 5, 2013, a putative class action complaint captioned
Silverii v. Potts, et al., was filed in the Circuit Court of
Attala County of the State of Mississippi, Fifth Judicial
District, against First M&F Corporation, its directors, Merchants
and Farmers Bank, Renasant Corporation and the Bank, according to
Renasant's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

This lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class
of First M&F's shareholders and seeks a declaration that it is
properly maintainable as a class action. The complaint, which was
amended in April of 2013, contains substantially the same
allegations of improper actions by the Company and the Bank as
described in the Zeng lawsuit and alleges that the Company and the
Bank aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties committed by
the First M&F directors by, among other things, (a) making
material misstatements or omissions in the Form S-4 Registration
Statement of the Company filed with the SEC on March 29, 2013, (b)
agreeing to consideration that undervalues First M&F, (c) failing
to engage in, and agreeing to deal protection devices that
preclude, a fair sales process, and (d) engaging in self-dealing.

The lawsuit seek, among other things, to enjoin completion of the
Company's acquisition of First M&F and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees. The defendants believe these actions are without
merit and intend to defend vigorously against the claims.


RENASANT CORPORATION: "Zeng" Securities Suit Now Amended
--------------------------------------------------------
Renasant Corporation is facing a securities fraud suit which was
filed in March 2013 and amended in April 2013 before the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On March 5, 2013, a putative class action complaint captioned Zeng
v. Potts, et al., was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville Division,
against First M&F Corporation ("First M&F"), its directors,
Merchants and Farmers Bank, Renasant and the Bank.

This lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class
of First M&F's shareholders and seeks a declaration that it is
properly maintainable as a class action. The complaint, which was
amended on April 8, 2013, alleges that Renasant and the Bank
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and also aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties committed by the First M&F directors by, among
other things, (a) making material misstatements or omissions in
the Form S-4 Registration Statement of the Company filed with the
SEC on March 29, 2013, (b) agreeing to consideration that
undervalues First M&F, (c) failing to engage in, and agreeing to
deal protection devices that preclude, a fair sales process, and
(d) engaging in self-dealing.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to enjoin completion of the
Company's acquisition of First M&F and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees.


S.G. IMPEX: Recalls 60 Universal Chargers Sold in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 10, 2013
Posting date:             June 10, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Electronics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-33961

Affected products: Universal Charger sold by S.G. Impex

This recall involves a black universal charger with model number
YH-4096 96 W.  The word "Power" is embossed on the top of the
charger.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Ou0WGm

The affected product has not been tested to determine whether it
is compliant with Canadian standards for product safety and may
pose a fire hazard.

The Electrical Safety Authority has received one report of a
charger overheating and melting.  Neither Health Canada nor S.G.
Impex has received any reports of incidents or injuries to
Canadians related to the use of this charger.

Approximately 60 units of the affected products were sold at these
retailers in Ontario:

   * Global Wireless
   * Solution Provider
   * Recopy Printing
   * A 1 Bargain
   * Cellular Shack
   * Variety Tools
   * Half Price Batteries
   * Discount Mart Plus
   * Xiao Ya Li
   * Kings Convenience
   * 99 Cent Zone
   * Dollarplus
   * Second Hand World
   * Borem Enterprises
   * King Electronics
   * Singh Elektronics

The affected products were sold from November 2010 to December
2011.  The recalled products were manufactured in China.

Companies:

   Importer        S.G. Impex
                   Etobicoke
                   Ontario
                   CANADA

Consumers should stop using the charger immediately and unplug it.
Consumers may contact S.G. Impex for a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact S.G. Impex by phone at
1-416-503-9872, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time,
Monday through Friday.

Consumers may also view the recall notice on the Electrical Safety
Authority's Web site
[http://www.esasafe.com/pdf/Recall_Notices/RCL13-23.pdf].


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: "Gardner" Plaintiffs Withdraw Injunction Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead counsel in the case Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et
al. (No. 2013 CH 3540), agreed to withdraw a motion for
preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS
stockholder vote, according Scientific Games Corporation's May 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Complaints challenging the pending WMS Industries Inc. merger were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois and the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial
Circuit, Lake County, Illinois in 2013.

The actions are putative class actions filed on behalf of the WMS
stockholders. The complaints generally allege that the WMS
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their
consideration and approval of the merger and in connection with
their public disclosures concerning the merger. The complaints
allege that other defendants, including WMS, Scientific Games
Corporation and certain affiliates of Scientific Games
Corporation, aided and abetted those alleged breaches.

The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In
re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). The plaintiffs
in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the Delaware
Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had conferred with
the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed to stay the
consolidated Delaware action.

The Lake County, Illinois actions have been transferred to Cook
County. All of the Illinois actions have been consolidated in Cook
County with Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013 CH
3540).

On April 1, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a
motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder
vote on the merger. On April 26, 2013, lead counsel in the Gardner
action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all actions in
Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion for
preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS
stockholder vote in return for WMS' agreement to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the merger. WMS made those
supplemental disclosures on a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April
29, 2013.

Scientific Games Corporation denies all liability with respect to
the claims alleged in the Delaware and Illinois litigation, denies
that it or any of its affiliates aided and abetted any purported
breaches of fiduciary duty by the WMS directors and denies that
any further disclosures are or were required to supplement the
definitive proxy statement filed by WMS with the SEC.


ST. JOE: 11th Cir. Rejects Bid for Rehearing of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition of
plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit against The St. Joe
Company for rehearing or rehearing en banc of the dismissal of the
case, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On November 3, 2010, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against St. Joe and certain of current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
(Meyer v. The St. Joe Company et al., No. 5:11-cv-00027).

A consolidated class action complaint was filed in the case on
February 24, 2011 alleging various securities laws violations
primarily related to the company's accounting for its real estate
assets.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount in damages. The company
filed a motion to dismiss the case on April 6, 2011, which the
court granted without prejudice on August 24, 2011. Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2011.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 24, 2011. On January 12, 2012, the Court granted the
motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of
St. Joe and the individual defendants. On February 9, 2012,
plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the
Court denied on February 14, 2012. On March 15, 2012, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit.

On February 25, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit filed its decision affirming the trial court's
dismissal of the complaint. On March 18, 2013, the plaintiff filed
a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. On April 30, 2013,
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's petition
for rehearing or rehearing en banc.


TOTAL SYSTEM: Faces Suits Over Planned Acquisition of NetSpend
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the proposed acquisition by Total System Services, Inc. of
NetSpend Holdings, Inc., two of which are currently pending,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

A putative class action entitled Litwin v. NetSpend Holdings, Inc.
et al. was filed on February 22, 2013 in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, but was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff effective March 1, 2013. On the day the first suit was
dismissed, another putative class action lawsuit, Koehler v.
NetSpend Holdings, Inc. et al. ("Koehler action"), was filed in
the Delaware Chancery Court. The Koehler action is still pending.

In addition to the lawsuits in Delaware, on February 25, 2013, a
putative class action lawsuit entitled Bushansky v. NetSpend
Holdings, Inc. et al. ("Bushansky action") was filed in the
District Court of Travis County, Texas. The Bushansky action also
is still pending.

The Bushansky and Koehler actions, which were brought individually
and on behalf of a putative class of NetSpend's stockholders, name
as defendants TSYS, Merger Sub, NetSpend, and members of
NetSpend's Board of Directors. The complaints in both lawsuits
allege, among other things, that the members of NetSpend's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
TSYS' proposed acquisition of the Company by depriving the
Company's stockholders of the full and fair value of their
ownership interest in the Company and by failing to inform
NetSpend's stockholders of material facts concerning the proposed
acquisition.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that TSYS, Merger Sub, and
NetSpend aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
by the members of NetSpend's Board of Directors. Both lawsuits
seek equitable relief, including, among other things, to enjoin
consummation of TSYS' acquisition of NetSpend, rescission of the
related Merger Agreement, and an award of all costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses. The Koehler action
also seeks an award of compensatory damages and/or rescissory
damages. A hearing on the plaintiff's motion to enjoin the
proposed acquisition in the Koehler action was scheduled for
May 10, 2013.


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Face Antitrust Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. continues to face antitrust class
action lawsuits in Michigan and Canada, according to the Company's
April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2013.

The Company has been named as a defendant in purported class
action lawsuits filed on various dates from June 2012 through
March 2013, which are now pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Superior Court of
Justice in Ontario, Canada, and the Superior Court of Quebec,
Canada, on behalf of vehicle purchasers, lessors and dealers,
alleging that the Company and certain of its competitors conspired
to fix and raise prices for Occupant Safety Systems products.  The
Company intends to defend these cases vigorously.  Management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these cases will not have
a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
statements as a whole.

TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is a large and diversified supplier
of automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive
original equipment manufacturers, and related aftermarkets.  The
Company's operations primarily encompass the design, manufacture
and sale of active and passive safety related products, which
often includes the integration of electronics components and
systems.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Livonia, Michigan.


U.S. STEEL: Still Defends Suits Against Steel Manufacturers
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a series of lawsuits filed in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois beginning September 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that
eight steel manufacturers, including United States Steel
Corporation, conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict
the domestic production of raw steel and thereby to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize the price of steel products in the United
States.  The cases are filed as class actions and claim treble
damages for the period 2005 to present, but do not allege any
damage amounts.  U. S. Steel will vigorously defend these lawsuits
and does not believe that it is probable a liability regarding
these matters has been incurred.  The Company is unable to
estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

United States Steel Corporation -- http://www.ussteel.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
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.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit by Retirement System
----------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc. is dealing with the lawsuit,
Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. PSI or former PSI
facilities (owned by subsidiaries of Psychiatric Solutions, Inc.),
according to Universal Health's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

PSI facilities were in existence prior to the acquisition of PSI
and for which the company has assumed the defense as a result of
its acquisition which was completed in November, 2010.

Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. PSI is a purported
shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against PSI
and the former directors in 2009 alleging violations of federal
securities laws.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Wants Bristol Pension Fund Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated filed a motion to dismiss the
securities suit captioned as, "City of Bristol Pension Fund v.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al." filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according
to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On September 6, 2012, a purported shareholder class action, City
of Bristol Pension Fund v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through
June 28, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

By order dated December 12, 2012, the court appointed the City of
Bristol lead plaintiff and appointed the City of Bristol's
attorneys lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on February 11, 2013. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on April 12, 2013. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, as well as
disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants'
sales of the Company's common stock.

The Company believes that this action is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously. As of March 31, 2013, the Company has not
recorded any reserves for this purported class action.


VIVUS INC: Securities Suit Dismissal Under Appeal to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities suit filed against Vivus, Inc. in
relation to its New Drug Application for Qsymia as treatment for
obesity, has taken an appeal from the dismissal of the case to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the
company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The Company and two of its officers were defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit captioned Kovtun v. Vivus, Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California. The action, filed in November 2010,
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements made by the defendants in connection with
the Company's clinical trials and New Drug Application, or NDA,
for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's Amended Class
Action Complaint, and that motion was granted with leave to amend.
On November 9, 2011, plaintiff filed his Second Amended Class
Action Complaint, generally alleging that defendants misled
investors regarding the prospects for Qsymia's NDA approval, and
Qsymia's efficacy and safety. Defendants again filed a motion to
dismiss.

After briefing and argument, the District Court on September 27,
2012 granted the motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The District Court entered final judgment for defendants the same
day. On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff filed
his opening appellate brief on February 19, 2013, and defendants
filed their answering brief on April 11, 2013. Briefing is
expected to continue into May 2013, after which the Court of
Appeals may request oral argument.


WALCAN SEAFOOD: Recalls Aquacultured Edulis Mussels Over Toxin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Chemical
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Walcan Seafood Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8062

Affected products:

Brand
name   Common name           Size    Code(s) on product   UPC
----   -----------           ----    ------------------   ---
None   Aquacultured edulis   10 lb   Lot # S282           None
        mussels                       Harvest date -
                                      June 04 2013


WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Moore" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama is
yet to rule on a motion for partial dismissal of a second amended
complaint in a suit filed against Walter Energy, Inc. over alleged
hazardous chemicals arising out of its operation, according to the
company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In 2011, the Company and Walter Coke were named in a suit filed by
Louise Moore (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and Walter Coke,
Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama. This is a putative civil class
action alleging state law tort claims arising from the alleged
presence on properties of substances, including arsenic, BaP, and
other hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of current
and/or historic operations in the area conducted by the defendants
and/or their predecessors.

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint eliminating
Walter Energy as a defendant and amending the claims alleged
against Walter Coke to relate to Walter Coke's alleged conduct for
the period commencing after March 2, 1995.

Thereafter, Walter Coke filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint. On September 28, 2012, the Court issued a memorandum
opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the motion.
In partially granting Walter Coke's motion, the Court held that
the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was not valid and that
class action-related claims must be dismissed (with leave to re-
plead) due to an improperly defined class. In partially ruling for
the plaintiff, the Court held that at the pleading stage the
plaintiff's claims could not be dismissed on rule of repose
grounds or due to insufficient pleading. The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on October 29, 2012.

On November 19, 2012, Walter Coke filed an answer and motion for
partial dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint. The
Court held a hearing on Walter Coke's motion for partial dismissal
of the second amended complaint on January 10, 2013 and a ruling
is pending.


WALTER ENERGY: Consolidated Securities Suit in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the suit In re Walter Energy, Inc. Securities
Litigation are now in the process of discovery, according to the
company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions
were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and
former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et
al.).

The three executive officers named in the complaints are: Keith
Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's
current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President
of Walter's Canadian and U.K. Operations (collectively the
"Individual Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush
and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who
each sought to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who
purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21,
2011.

These complaints alleged that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The
complaints further alleged that the Company and the Individual
Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed
to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make
the statements not misleading.

Plaintiffs claimed violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. On May 30, 2012, the two actions
were consolidated into In re Walter Energy, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The court also appointed the Government of Bermuda
Contributory and Public Service Superannuation Pension Plans as
well as the Stephen C. Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead
plaintiffs and approved lead plaintiffs' selection of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as
lead plaintiffs' counsel for the consolidated action.

On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint in this action. The consolidated amended
complaint names as an additional defendant Joseph Leonard, a
current director and former interim CEO of Walter, in addition to
the previously named defendants. Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss the amended complaint on October 4, 2012.

On January 29, 2013, the court denied that motion without
prejudice. Defendants answered the complaint on February 15, 2013
and on March 5, 2013. The parties are now in the process of
discovery.


WELLS FARGO: Settles Medical Capital-Related Suit for $105MM
------------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, 2013, Wells Fargo & Company reached a settlement in
principle of all claims in a suit brought by holders of Medical
Capital Corporation's debt, according to the company's May 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The settlement provides for Wells Fargo to pay $105 million to the
plaintiffs. The settlement is subject to Court approval.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. served as indenture trustee for debt issued
by affiliates of Medical Capital Corporation, which was placed in
receivership at the request of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) in August 2009. Since September 2009, Wells Fargo
has been named as a defendant in various class and mass actions
brought by holders of Medical Capital Corporation's debt, alleging
that Wells Fargo breached contractual and other legal obligations
owed to them and seeking unspecified damages.


WELLS FARGO: Court Mulls Nixing Suit Over Md. Mortgage Loans
------------------------------------------------------------
The court presiding over a case alleging Wells Fargo & Company
violated the Maryland Finder's Fee Act is considering whether to
dismiss the case or to certify an appellate question to the
Maryland Court of Appeals, according to the company's May 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On July 8, 2008, a class action complaint captioned Stacey and
Bradley Petry, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., was
filed. The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo and others violated
the Maryland Finder's Fee Act in the closing of mortgage loans in
Maryland. On March 13, 2013, the Court held the plaintiff class
did not have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, which was
previously set for March 18, 2013. The Court is considering
whether to dismiss the case or to certify an appellate question to
the Maryland Court of Appeals.


WELLS FARGO: Settles Fannie Mae's Opt Out Claims
------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company settled the opt out claims of Federal
National Mortgage Association in relation to the settlement of In
re Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Certificates Litigation, according
to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

Several securities law based putative class actions were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on July 16, 2009, under the caption In re Wells
Fargo Mortgage-Backed Certificates Litigation.

The case asserted claims against several Wells Fargo mortgage-
backed securities trusts, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and other
affiliated entities, individual employee defendants, along with
various underwriters and rating agencies.

The plaintiffs alleged that the offering documents contain untrue
statements of material fact, or omit to state material facts
necessary to make the registration statements and accompanying
prospectuses not misleading.

The parties agreed to settle the case on May 27, 2011, for $125
million. Final approval of the settlement was entered on November
14, 2011. Some class members opted out of the settlement. Wells
Fargo settled the opt out claims of Federal National Mortgage
Association for an amount that was within a previously established
accrual.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coalition Exploiting NBN Claims, Advocate Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridie Jabour, writing for The Guardian, reported that an advocate
for asbestos victims has accused the Coalition of not caring about
them and using the alleged unsafe removal of asbestos from
National Broadband Network (NBN) sites to score political points.

Reports of asbestos not being disposed of properly by workers
building the NBN surfaced with Telstra launching an audit of the
work being carried out in all of their pits across the country,
the news agency related. There have also been several crisis
meetings held involving representatives from the government-owned
NBN Co, Telstra, the federal government, unions and ADFA.

The Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia president, Barry
Robson, said he was left "disgusted and upset" by the way the
Coalition had handled the issue and told Guardian Australia parts
of the media had whipped up the story, the report said.

"It's being politicised by the Coalition when what should have
been happening was the parties coming together saying 'yes we've
got a massive problem' and in particularly two young families of
Penrith who have been exposed to a possible, I'll say it again, a
possible death sentence hanging over their heads," he told the
news agency.

"And here we go, the opposition getting up trying to score cheap
political points.

"I was thoroughly disgusted and upset."

Robson said he had been particularly put off by the opposition's
performances in question time and that it was looking for
political opportunities in what was a very serious issue.

He said the story had been misunderstood by a lot of people. He
said the point was not that asbestos had been found in the pits,
as Australia used to be one of the biggest consumers of the
product and it was found "everywhere".

"The story," he said, "is sub-contractors working on a Telstra
pit, not an NBN pit, a Telstra pit, removed asbestos in an unsafe
manner and by doing so possibly contaminated two residencies.

"That's the story. As simple as that. And now all of this other
bloody gasbagging about NBN and who did this and who knew what is
irrelevant.

"These two families' health is more important than all of that."

Robson accused Abbott of not making an effort as minister for
health or minister for industrial relations to contact any
asbestos victims' group.

"I would like to hear them say to us 'we are with you on this,
this is a scourge on our nation, on our population and we're going
to do something about it with you'," he said.

A spokesman for Abbott said the Coalition took the issue of
asbestos contamination very seriously.

When asked if Abbott had met with asbestos victims' groups while
health or industrial relations minister he directed Guardian
Australia to comments the opposition leader made during a
doorstop.

"One of my early acts as minister for workplace relations was to
commence the process for banning the importation and use of
chrysotile asbestos," Abbott said.

"As health minister I committed $6m to establish a national
research centre into asbestos-related diseases.

"So, the record is there for all to see and my plea to the
government now is please, please, given what we know about
asbestos, make sure that the roll-out of the National Broadband
Network doesn't add to the asbestos hazards that the Australian
people face."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Happening Without Warning
--------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Ritters, writing for ABC Melbourne, reported that
concerned West Melbourne resident David Franzke tells Jon Faine
about the lack of notification he received asbestos removal being
done by the Regional Rail Link across the road from his house.

Simon Breer from the Regional Rail Link Authority tells Jon the
asbestos removal was done according to OH&S guidelines, the report
said.

Michelle McDonnell, a spokesperson for community education project
Your Rights on Track, tell Jon demountable buildings are being
erected on train platforms in Melbourne. The dual purpose pods
will serve as "staff rooms" for Public Safety Officers during
breaks and double as cells to house alleged offenders prior to
police arriving on the scene.

Macedon Ranges resident Linda Jones tells Jon about a council
development proposal for Hanging Rock. She says the residents are
concerned about the plans and have not been adequately consulted
by the council regarding the details of the development.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos "Scare Campaign" Under Fire
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Tillett, Nick Butterly and Beatrice Thomas, writing for The
West Australian, reported that communications Minister Stephen
Conroy has accused the coalition of whipping up a scare campaign
over the extent of asbestos exposure linked to the rollout of the
National Broadband Network.  But his Opposition counterpart
Malcolm Turnbull again questioned the Government's handling of the
controversy, saying it needed to respond calmly.

"The risk is that the Government will create needless anxiety, if
not public hysteria," Mr. Turnbull told the news agency.

Senator Conroy seized on a template press release attacking the
NBN issued to Liberal MPs and candidates.

At least two Liberals have sent out the release, which says Labor
needs to "come clean" about the risk to workers and residents.

Senator Conroy said the Opposition was playing politics over
asbestos.

"Malcolm Turnbull works on the policy that if you are going to
tell a lie, let's tell a big one," he said.

The minister said of 120,000 pits remediated by Telstra since
2010, there had been only 29 asbestos-related incidents. He said
the coalition's broadband policy would dig up the same asbestos-
lined pits and ducts in front of three to four million homes that
it was demanding not be touched by NBN Co.

Senator Conroy's attack came as it emerged two new investigations
into the mishandling of asbestos in WA were unlikely related to
the NBN rollout, but regular Telstra maintenance work.

The West Australian  reported there were Comcare investigations in
Victoria Park, Canning Vale and East Perth.

It is understood that though the investigations in Canning Vale
and East Perth were related to the mishandling of asbestos by
Telstra workers, they were not connected to the NBN, but the
Victoria Park case was linked to the rollout.

Communications Workers Union branch president John O'Donnell said
Telstra had agreed to use hazardous material specialists to
remediate an East Fremantle pit after a resident complained that
maintenance workers had left the site a mess.

Mr. O'Donnell said a stop-work order would be in place for workers
handling asbestos until the union was satisfied proper training
was in place.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NBN Controversy Worse Than Pink Batts Affair
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Jacob and Patrick Lion, writing for The Daily Telegraph,
reported that subcontracting schemes that plagued the pink batts
affair are now haunting the NBN, one senior union official said,
describing the situation as "the biggest pyramid rort" he had ever
seen.

According to the report, Communications, Electrical and Plumbing
Union national NBN construction and project officer David Mier
said the situation was like "the pink batts scheme on steroids",
with many working on Telstra sites involved in "layers and layers
of subletting".

Union contractors including Service Stream and Vision Stream have
been skimping 38 per cent off market rates paid to their own
subcontractors, leading to short cuts being taken while pits were
being dug up, the report said.

Service Stream and Vision Stream declined to comment.

Families in Penrith, where the furore first started after a NBN
pit was found to contain asbestos, last night said they were being
"stonewalled" by Telstra, who had cancelled a planned meeting to
address their concerns earlier this month.

"We're stuck in a hotel now, the least Telstra can do is clean our
houses and carpets and gardens to make sure all asbestos fibres
are gone for good," homeowner Troy Lancaster said.

But a Telstra spokeswoman said: "We have now received initial test
results which will also inform the conversation. Therefore we have
postponed t[he] meeting until we are in a position to discuss
further."

In Canberra, the government accused the opposition of trying to
benefit politically from the controversy after a Coalition talking
points cheat sheet telling MPs how to spruik their NBN policy was
leaked.

Opposition MPs were told to talk up its fibre to the node plan,
rather than running fibre cables all the way to premises, as
spruiked by Labor.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy attacked reports of some
cases, insisting only 0.02 per cent of pits inspected by Telstra
since 2010 had found asbestos.

Mr. Conroy said while Penrith, Seaford and Ballarat were genuine
issues connected to the NBN, other cases claimed by the Queensland
government and in Western Australia had nothing to do with the
rollout or asbestos. "I'm not playing it down. Penrith, Seaford
. . . these are genuine cases," he said.

Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull said the
rollout had been "super-charged" beyond the normal pace of the
industry and this had caused guidelines not to be followed,
similar to the disastrous pink batts insulation scheme.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra's Asbestos Payouts Hit $30MM
-----------------------------------------------------
James Hutchinson and John McDuling, writing for Financial Review,
reported that Telstra has paid about $30 million in compensation
to workers affected by asbestos since 1999 and could face tens of
millions of dollars in costs over the mishandling of the deadly
fibres.

According to the report, analysts drew parallels between Telstra
and companies such as James Hardie, which had underestimated
financial liabilities from asbestos claims significantly in the
past.

Telstra has told the Australian Securities Exchange it does not
believe the asbestos claims pose a material financial risk at this
stage, the report said.

The telecommunications company has declined to establish a special
fund to deal with compensation to residents who may have been
affected by asbestos materials while the national broadband
network is being built.

Though the company is yet to clarify how much it has paid in the
past to workers, letters exchanged with Workplace Relations
Minister Bill Shorten in 2009 show it dealt with 23 asbestos
disease claims between 1999 and 2009.

Industry estimates put compensation at between $25 million and $32
million between 1999 and 2009, based on average payouts between
$280,000 and $400,000 to former employees who contracted
mesothelioma, a rare lung disease caused by asbestos exposure.

The claims appear to be a small portion of the more than $471
million Telstra has paid in general workers' compensation in the
past 14 years, according to financial statements.

The claims largely related to ex-Telstra employees who were
exposed to asbestos fibres during the installation of James
Hardie-manufactured undergrounds pits and pipes from the 1960s to
the 1980s, when the insulation material was widely used by
Telstra, and in homes and on building sites.

"Telstra's approach to claims and liabilities for asbestos injury
is exemplary," Telstra chief executive David Thodey said in a 2009
letter to Mr. Shorten. "Telstra adopts a benevolent and non-
litigious approach to resolving these claims."

The company insures itself for compensation claims.

                    EXPERTS ESTIMATE COSTS

Slater & Gordon lawyer Stephen Plunkett, who has represented
ex-Telstra workers in dozens of asbestos claims, said it was
difficult to pinpoint an average settlement payout due to varied
illnesses, medical requirements and the age of those affected.

"The very nature of the type of diseases you get is they don't
manifest themselves for 30 or 40 years," he said. "It's a bit like
having a ticket in a lottery that you don't want to win. Chances
are nothing will happen but just like someone wins Tatts Lotto
every week, someone gets the disease."

Law firm Maurice Blackburn principal Jane McDermott said the
biggest risk to ex-workers and bystanders was contracting
mesothelioma.

Citigroup analysts Elaine Prior and Justin Diddams estimated
Telstra could be forced to pay from $86,000 for pleural disease
cases, and up to $2 million for claim costs for mesothelioma.

Recent estimations from asbestos maker James Hardie pinned its
average payouts at $219,000 in 2011-12. CSR said it paid an
average $83,000 for each case of people who worked on its
Wittenoom mine.

The analysts said that while it was "far too early" to predict if
the asbestos scandal would have a material impact on Telstra, the
company faced a bill of more than $30 million to conduct more
inspections on pits and could market share as a result of public
perception.

Some residents have reported finding asbestos in their yards while
at least two families in the Sydney suburb of Penrith were moved
to hotels for several days while workers cleaned the asbestos pits
near their homes.

"We handle claims already and have done for many years," Mr.
Thodey said. "Asbestos and the Telstra network go back over 40 to
50 years .?.?. so if anyone has any instance where they think
there should be a claim they should come and get in touch with us
right now."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family's Toxic Fibro Fears Confirmed
-----------------------------------------------------
Gav McGrath, writing for The Border Mail, reported that a family's
fears have been confirmed after a piece of debris found on the
nature strip of an inner Ballarat family home was found to contain
asbestos.

According to the report, Tracy Tebb said she was concerned about
venturing out onto her own nature strip after being told the
results of the test on the piece of material confirmed traces of
the deadly fibres.

The fragment, part of the rubble removed from a Telstra pit by
unprotected contractors as part of the National Broadband Network
roll-out, was tested by City of Ballarat inspectors and found to
be contaminated.

The council has since given the family the all-clear that there
are no traces of asbestos left, but Ms Tebb is not convinced her
family is now safe.

"When the licenced asbestos remover came they removed the bin,
which was done correctly with the man wearing the appropriate
safety clothing," Ms Tebb said.

"Another inspector then came around and visually checked the area
around the bin and the nature strip. There was nothing touched
though, nor was he wearing any safety gear.

"I have told the council that I was concerned that there could be
fibres remaining in the nature strip soil that cannot by seen by
the eye. Without the soil being tested, I don't want to go out and
sweep my leaves, especially on a dry day, and when else would you
sweep leaves?

"I wouldn't feel comfortable about my husband going out with his
lawn mower on a dry day either. Is the soil still contaminated? Do
we need to get a new lawn? I don't know."

Since the asbestos was discovered, Ms Tebb has contacted NBN Co
and been given a case number for further investigation.

She is yet to hear from Telstra.

The Ballarat council has confirmed to The Courier the result of
tests that showed the fragment contained asbestos.

"The resident was issued a clearance certificate from a qualified
professional to confirm that her property is now clear of
asbestos," City of Ballarat chief executive officer Anthony
Schinck said in a statement. "Concerns about possible asbestos at
the site of the Telstra works area have been reported to
Worksafe."

Telstra has been contacted for comment, and has established a
phone number for anyone with concerns about works in their
neighbourhood. The Telstra hotline is 1800 067 225.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Risks Endemic in Construction Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridie Jabour, writing for The Guardian, reported that dangerous
handling of asbestos is "endemic" in the building and construction
industry with multiple complaints every day that it is being
mishandled at work sites across the country, union leaders say.

According to the report, the discovery of alleged unsafe removal
of asbestos at National Broadband Network worksites which
potentially put workers and members of the community at risk
points to a broader problem.

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union deals with
dozens of similar complaints every week, according to the national
secretary of its construction division, Dave Noonan.

Figures obtained by Guardian Australia through state workplace
safety bodies back up these claims with large states such as
Queensland and New South Wales lodging more than 1,000 official
complaints a year about mismanagement of asbestos.

Complaint systems vary from state to state and Noonan said workers
were more likely to go to the union before WorkCover Australia, so
there was no exact record of asbestos mishandling cases.

"We get heaps [of complaints of mismanagement] and we find it all
the time on jobs," he said.

"It's endemic in the construction industry in Australia. We aren't
particularly involved with the NBN but in terms of the building
and construction industry, it's in lots of buildings and we
constantly find employers who cut corners in their dealing with
the issue.

"For example, probably the largest building site in the country,
Barangaroo, there's been repeated asbestos complaints on that job.

"If we're finding it on the biggest building site in Australia,
built by one of the biggest companies in Australia, you can
guarantee there are even more backyard contractors with even worse
practices."

Work briefly stopped at the Barangaroo site last year amid claims
the builders, Bovis Lend Lease, did not tell workers about the
risk of asbestos on the site.

At the time Lend Lease's group head of development, David Hutton,
said safety was the company's highest priority and procedures were
in place to ensure safety of the workforce, surrounding community
and environment.

"When asbestos has been found in a small number of excavation
locations we closed and quarantined those areas and brought in
accredited occupational hygienists to approve, oversee and
validate the removal of any asbestos in accordance with WorkCover
regulations," he said.

CFMEU represents workers who specialise in removing asbestos but
Noonan said the union also fielded complaints daily from members
of the public worried about how asbestos was being removed near
their homes.

"We deal with dozens and dozens of complaints a week. We would get
them every day from the public, from our own members and also from
organisers visiting sites and coming across unsafe procedures," he
said.

"The first thing we need is a big change in attitude from the
employers and the construction industry. Too many of them are
still too willing to cut corners to save bucks.

"The safe removal and disposal of asbestos is expensive because
workers need proper protection.

"Now I'm not saying all of them -- there are ones who do this
properly -- but many of them, including very large companies, will
try and get away with whatever they can in this space."

His comments came the day after an asbestos victims group accused
Opposition leader Tony Abbott of using the allegations of asbestos
mishandling at NBN sites to score political points.

In 2012 WorkCover NSW received 1,314 complaints about workplace-
related asbestos handling, while Workplace Health and Safety
Queensland received 1,218 calls to its asbestos hotline. The
hotline was set up for members of the public to report their
concerns about asbestos handling on work sites.

A spokesman said about a third of the complaints had to be
investigated by WHSQ.

Since June last year SafeWork South Australia has responded to 176
formal complaints about asbestos issues while Northern Territory
WorkSafe received 109 notifications of concern about the unsafe
removal of asbestos or material suspected of having asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Hit Unmapped Asbestos on Rail Line
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clay Lucas, writing for The Age, reported that large amounts of
asbestos have been found -- and in some cases handled by unwitting
building workers -- in unexpected locations along the route of a
rail line being built through Melbourne's west.

According to the report, workers on the $5 billion Regional Rail
Link have made "a number of unexpected finds" of asbestos,
according to a WorkSafe report obtained by Fairfax Media.

Large amounts of the deadly material were expected to be uncovered
on the $5 billion rail project; much of the work is through an
existing rail corridor where asbestos was commonly used. Those
areas were asbestos was likely to be found were mapped before
construction began and labelled "hot spots" by teams working for
the Regional Rail Link Authority.

The authority has previously said its contractors were removing
this asbestos correctly. But in May, contractors Thiess in
Sunshine dug up asbestos fragments in locations not previously
identified.

The worst of the asbestos unexpectedly encountered and handled by
some Thiess building workers and subcontractors was at Anderson
Road, Sunshine.

Some asbestos was believed to have come from a Telstra pit,
although the authority said the work was not related to the
removal of any telecommunications infrastructure.

Workers did not have training in identifying or handling asbestos,
and WorkSafe was called in and work stopped after it was
identified. WorkSafe's subsequent report, from May 9, recommended
more needed to be done to stop workers on the project unexpectedly
working with asbestos. "Future unexpected finds [of asbestos] can
be reasonably expected to occur during excavation," it said.

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union represents
some workers on the project, and national secretary Dave Noonan
said Thiess had to establish a register of people exposed.

The insurance companies that acted on behalf of building firms
"invariably deny liability", Mr. Noonan said, trying to argue
workers were never exposed to asbestos. "We need a contemporaneous
record of exposure."

A Regional Rail Link Authority spokesman said as soon as asbestos
was identified in the Sunshine incident, it was removed by a
licensed asbestos removal contractor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Riled by Asbestos Tiles at Monck
-------------------------------------------------------
Kelly McShane, writing for Cottage Country Now, reported that it's
been more than two decades since the school board was advised to
remove asbestos-containing ceiling tiles from Monck Public School.
But they're still there.

According to the report, the Trillium Lakelands District School
Board received consultant reports compiled in 1992 and 2004
calling for the removal of the tiles, which contain asbestos, a
known carcinogen.

Now, the Trillium Lakelands Elementary Teachers' Local is asking
the Ministry of Labour to investigate what the union says is a
failure of the school board's asbestos management programs, the
report said.

According to Trillium Lakelands Elementary Teachers' Local
president Steve Colliver, the issue at Monck P.S. came to light
after the local's vice-president Kevin Adams, who sits on the
board's Occupational Joint Health and Safety Committee,
investigated a leak in the roof at Spruce Glen Public School in
Huntsville in February.

According to Adams, of the 171 pipe elbows at Spruce Glen, between
70 and 100 of them were removed over the March Break because of
asbestos.

Additionally, some ceiling tiles and straight piping was also
removed to avoid asbestos contamination caused by disturbance of
the tiles by water from its leaky roof.

"They have moved on this, but not until I put their feet in the
fire," said Adams, noting Macaulay Public School's leaky roof and
asbestos pipes and elbows is also a concern.

After finding asbestos at Spruce Glen, Adams asked the board for a
complete report on all asbestos located in elementary schools
within the board.

"Monck had the most, so I went after Monck first," explained
Adams.

Through reading the reports, Adams said he learned the board had
received recommendations for a Type 2 removal, which requires
extensive ventilation, segregation, and specialized handling, of
the ceiling tiles at Monck P.S. in both 1992 and 2004, but it was
never completed.

As the board prepares to pass the 2013-14 budget calling for
$4.2 million to be withdrawn from its surplus, which now consists
of about $18 million, Adams and Colliver said they aren't sure why
some of these surplus funds aren't being used to remove possibly
cancer-causing toxins from area schools.

Colliver said the board is simply reactive where it should have
been proactive by dealing with the safety concerns when they first
arose in 1992.

Trillium Lakelands superintendent of business Bob Kaye, who also
sits on the health and safety committee, confirmed the two reports
called for the removal of the tile at Monck P.S., but he said the
recommendation for a Type 2 removal was merely a precaution
because of the accessibility of some of the tile.

He said officially the tiles fell under a Type 1 removal.
As per the Ministry of Labour, a Type 1 removal requires dust to
be removed either with a damp cloth or a vacuum equipped with a
high efficiency particulate aerosol (HEPA) filter, and drop sheets
made of polyethylene or other suitable material that is impervious
to asbestos must be used in order to control the spread of dust
from the work area.

Kaye confirmed a number of ceiling tiles are currently missing
from classrooms at Monck but said he doesn't know when or how the
tiles were removed, nor who removed them or where they ended up.
"A Type 1 removal, which the ceiling tiles are, doesn't require
documentation of their removal," he said.

According to Kaye, a 2006 report determined the tiles were fine as
long as they weren't damaged.

"If there were concerns about the tile then we would have replaced
the tile, but the most recent report didn't identify that it
needed to be removed," said Kaye, noting most, if not all, of the
schools within the board have asbestos-containing material.
Adams and Colliver argue the tiles should have already been
removed before that latest report was even compiled.

From the 1920s to 1990s, asbestos was used as insulation and sound
proofing in buildings throughout Canada. Extended and frequent
exposure to asbestos is associated with lung cancer and
mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the chest or
abdominal cavity.

Asbestos-based materials pose little risk if left undisturbed, but
Colliver said because many school staff members were unaware of
the presence of asbestos, they have unknowingly mishandled the
material, including hanging artwork from the asbestos-containing
ceiling tiles, storing classroom supplies above the drop-ceiling
tiles, and cutting or drilling into the tiles causing particles to
be released into the air and later inhaled.

On May 9, members of the teachers' local and provincial staff met
with Monck P.S. educators where school staff was introduced to the
voluntary WSIB Worker's Exposure Form.

Shortly after the teachers' local issued a media release on June 4
outlining their plea to the ministry, the school board issued its
own statement saying the board has an Asbestos Management Plan
Procedure in place.

"It's a really good plan," said Colliver. "But it hasn't been
implemented."

Colliver said many of the staff members the teachers' local polled
didn't even realize there was a plan and that a copy of it,
including the location of known asbestos-containing material, is
located at each school.

"It's their (the board's) duty to inform staff on safe handling,"
he said, referring to Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety
Act. "That's the part that hasn't been done."

Adams said he has attempted multiple times to schedule a sit-down
with human resources administrator Earl Manners but has yet to be
afforded a meeting.

"We have protocols, and issues are to be brought by the staff to
the attention of the principal," said Kaye, confirming
representatives of the teachers' local have indeed made their
concerns known to board staff and attempted to meet with Manners.
Adams' call to the MOL took place on May 30, but as of June 4,
Kaye said he hadn't been contacted by the ministry.

When asked what the board's action will be if the ministry deems
the school unsafe and staff and students are displaced, Kaye said,

"We will comply with any Ministry of Labour order, but I would be
surprised if that were anything that they ordered."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Considering Fibro Removal From All Pits
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that Telstra is considering a long-term plan to
completely remove asbestos from all its pits, amid concerns
members of the public may have been exposed to the deadly fibres.

According to the report, the company's infrastructure is being
used to roll out the National Broadband Network (NBN), but
remediation work has been stopped because of complaints involving
a number of sites in several states.

A taskforce involving Government representatives, unions and
Telstra met for the first time June 6.

Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten says Telstra has agreed
to take responsibility for the removal of asbestos.

"Telstra's now preparing a plan for prioritised removal of pits
which are part of the NBN rollout, once they're tested and if they
have asbestos in them," he said.

Geoff Fary from the Asbestos Management Review is a member of the
taskforce and says Telstra is dealing with the issue.

"Telstra have indicated that they planned to remove asbestos in a
number of circumstances, particularly where it might be damaged,
where it might present a hazard to people's health," he said.

Unions have also raised health concerns about the deadly banned
pesticide dieldrin, used in the past to protect Telstra cables
from termites.

Dieldrin is banned in most countries and was phased out in
Australia in the early 1990s.

After once being widely used in agriculture and timber products,
the toxic chemical has been linked with Parkinson's disease and
can trigger comas.

The Communications Workers Union in Victoria says it raised
concerns about both asbestos and dieldrin with NBN Co at a meeting
in August 2010.

A spokesman for NBN Co referred the ABC back to Telstra and was
trying to track down more information.

Telstra says it will seek advice from chemical experts and
government authorities about the threat posed by the chemical.

"We do not believe it is an issue however we will seek advice from
chemical experts and relevant government authorities on the
issue," Telstra said in a statement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Risk to Children "Greater Over Lifetime"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Harrison, writing for BBC News, reported that a committee
that advises the government on cancer has said children are more
vulnerable to asbestos than adults over their lifetime.

It says a five-year-old is five times more likely than an adult of
30 to develop mesothelioma, a type of cancer linked to asbestos,
if they are exposed to it at the same time, according to the
report.

This is because a child will normally live longer and have more
time for the disease to develop, it says, the report related.

Most schools have asbestos.

Campaigners are calling for the material to be removed from all of
England's schools.

The government says there is no evidence that children's lungs are
more susceptible to mesothelioma, only that the risk to them is
greater because of their life-expectancy and the time it can take
for the disease to develop.

And it says that the accepted advice remains that it is safer to
leave asbestos in place unless it is damaged or disturbed.

The Committee on Carcinogenicity, an independent committee that
advises the government on cancer, was asked by the Department for
Education to look at the relative vulnerability of children to
asbestos compared with adults.

In its final report, published after a two-year study, it says:
"Because of differences in life expectancy, for a given dose of
asbestos the lifetime risk of developing mesothelioma is predicted
to be about 3.5 times greater for a child first exposed at age
five, compared to an adult first exposed at age 25 and about five
times greater when compared to an adult first exposed at age 30."

But the picture is complicated, with the experts saying there is a
"number of uncertainties and data gaps".

The report continues: "From the available data, it is not possible
to say that children are intrinsically more susceptible to
asbestos-related injury. However, it is well recognised... that,
due to the increased life expectancy of children compared to
adults, there is an increased lifetime risk of mesothelioma as a
result of the long latency period of the disease."

The experts say that although there is good evidence that
childhood exposure to asbestos can cause mesothelioma in later
life, data is too limited to say whether children are more
intrinsically susceptible to the disease.

About three-quarters of England's 24,000 schools are estimated to
have some buildings with asbestos, the study says.

Asbestos is a building material commonly used in the UK from the
1950s to the 1980s, often in fireproofing and insulation.

It becomes dangerous when disturbed or damaged because fibres can
break off and get in to the air, where they can be breathed in.

                       WHAT IS ASBESTOS?

The committee defines it as: the name given to a group of six
different fibrous minerals that occur naturally in the environment

Its fibres can damage the lungs and cause diseases.

The government says the Health and Safety Executive advice is that
if asbestos is not disturbed or damaged, then it is safer to leave
it in place and monitor it carefully.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Education said: "We welcome
the Committee on Carcinogenicity's report on the effect exposure
to asbestos can have on children, and have committed to consider
the findings when reviewing our policy on asbestos management.

"Schools already must comply with the strict legal duties on
asbestos. We have also published guidance on the issue and work
closely with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to ensure
asbestos is managed properly in all schools."

Campaigners want the government to pledge to remove asbestos from
all of England's schools over time.

Michael Lees, the founder of Asbestos in Schools, said: "We want
them to look at their policy which says it is safer to leave it
than move it and we want them to have an audit to see how much
fibre is there.

"They have committed to removing asbestos in schools in Australia
but people need this done here."

The Department for Education said it was working hard with the HSE
to make sure asbestos is managed properly in schools and that
schools have to comply with "strict legal duties on asbestos".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fears Over Deadly Dust in Victorian Schools
------------------------------------------------------------
Farrah Tomazin, writing for The Sunday Age, reported that parents,
teachers and principals have called for the wide-scale removal of
asbestos in Victorian schools, as state government audits reveal
many buildings need the toxic material cleaned up immediately.

According to the report, documents seen by Fairfax Media also
reveal that the amount of funding to manage asbestos has plunged
in recent years, from $14.3 million between 2007-10 to $1.8
million in 2011-12.

About two-thirds of Victoria's 1531 public schools contain
asbestos, and the documents show that many of the schools have so-
called "Priority 1" problems -- where asbestos could be of
"substantial risk" unless it was immediately removed, sealed or
labeled, the report said.  But while the government insists
students are safe, it could not categorically say if each school
had adequately dealt with the asbestos, as required under
department guidelines, because there is no central register.

Education Minister Martin Dixon said parents had nothing to fear.
"The safety of students and staff in our schools comes first," he
said. "We have a comprehensive system in place that includes
expert training, detailed asbestos management plans and a hotline
that schools can call to get an immediate site inspection and,
where appropriate, have the asbestos removed."

But schools contacted by Fairfax Media painted the picture of an
ad-hoc system where asbestos had been removed or sealed off in
some cases, but may not have been properly addressed in others.
The education union and principal groups also say safety breaches
occasionally occur, as it was up to individual schools to make
sure they comply with their own asbestos management plans.

"It isn't ideal," said Victorian Principals Association president
Gabrielle Leigh. "It would be better if the asbestos was removed
altogether, but schools can't afford to remove it themselves."
The documents were released under Freedom of Information laws to
former Labor policy adviser Andrew Herington, and come only days
after reports of asbestos not being properly disposed of by
workers building the National Broadband Network. They also show:

   * Between 2006 and 2008, 2775 audits for asbestos and other
hazardous material was undertaken in schools, but during 2011 and
2012 only 47 new asbestos audits were completed.

   * Asbestos works in 2010-11 included the removal of asbestos in
ceilings and eaves at Drouin Secondary College and Balwyn North
Primary; the removal of overgrown trees in a "contaminated area"
at Dingley Primary School; and an "urgent call out" at Albion
North Primary School after dozens of pieces of asbestos were
found.

   * A pilot program to examine different ways of labelling
asbestos hazards in schools will not be implemented more broadly
by the government.

Mr. Herington said the government should conduct new audits on
schools that had not been audited in the past five years, check
that all the recommended actions had been taken and ensure that
any remaining asbestos sheeting was well painted and labelled.
While the risk of asbestos is relatively limited when it is
dormant, fibres that become airborne can lead to diseases such as
lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Parents Victoria spokeswoman Gail McHardy said safety breaches
sometimes occurred, so the department could not afford to be
complacent. A few years ago, for example, contract workers at
Geelong High School drilled a hole through walls containing
asbestos that had not been labelled. In another case, WorkSafe was
called in to Elsternwick High after a student picked up asbestos
found at the school.

"Anything that presents a health hazard to children should be
removed," Ms McHardy said.

Australian Education Union vice-president Carolyn Clancy said the
department should have a central register revealing where the
asbestos is in each school, and embark on a program to get rid of
it.

But department spokeswoman Vanessa O'Shaughnessy said the
department already had a comprehensive program. Each school
managed its own asbestos plan that showed where the asbestos was,
she said, and the department conducted audits on an ongoing basis
to check compliance. More than 300 audits would take place between
April 2013 and June 2014.

"As part of the major capital works programs undertaken in 2011
and 2012, large amounts of asbestos were removed from Victorian
schools and the costs were built into overall project costs," she
said.

Federally, a new national asbestos agency will oversee a two-stage
prioritisation of asbestos removal by 2030, first in public
infrastructure and then in private buildings and structures.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Fears for ACT Workers
-------------------------------------------------
Fleta Page, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
technicians working on the national broadband network roll-out in
the ACT may have been exposed to deadly asbestos fibres according
to a union official who says "it's reasonably common" for workers
to find asbestos in Telstra pits.

According to the report, while it is safe to work around pits
containing concrete asbestos if it is undisturbed, the network
required many pits to be removed and replaced with larger ones.
Such remediation work was called to a halt early in June after it
was discovered asbestos was improperly handled at several pits,
most notably in western Sydney.

Comcare, the federal health and safety agency, issued the order
but Telstra has committed to keep the stop-work in place until
contractors and sub-contractors "have completed further training
on working with, removing, transporting and disposing of asbestos-
containing material".

Assistant secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, Neville Betts,
would like to see professional asbestos removers hired to get rid
of the affected pits before the installation of new ones by
network workers.

"You don't put an ad in the paper 'we need people to work on the
cable roll-out' then send them down the street, say 'here you go,
whack a pair of paper overalls and a paper mask on and have a go -
asbestos, smash these bits up'," he said.

Mr. Betts said he had met a number of younger workers who had
removed asbestos with no more than a face mask for protection.
He said they were largely unaware of the dangers of mesothelioma,
and not properly trained to deal with asbestos.

It's an example of what the unions have labelled "systemic
asbestos safety failures" in the network roll-out, which has come
from a pyramid of subcontracting on the massive national project.
There are millions of pits around the country, but Telstra cannot
say how many pits are in the ACT, nor how many might contain
asbestos, a substance they stopped using in the mid-1980s.

"Our network has been rolled out over a 100-year period in
different places at different times. Our pits that do contain
asbestos were installed before the health issues associated with
asbestos were known so no records were kept of what the pits were
made of," Telstra spokesman Scott Whiffin said.

Officials from the Electrical Trades Union and the Communications
Electrical Plumbing Union held a meeting in Canberra on Thursday
with Telstra, which they described as positive.

Telstra has committed to hire up to 200 people to "ensure all
asbestos-related remediation activity is supervised by an
accredited person" and has appointed independent advisers and a
director to oversee asbestos management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra's Asbestos "Quite Safe," CEO Says
----------------------------------------------------------
John McDuling, writing for The Australian Financial Review,
reported that Telstra chief operations officer Brendon Riley has
dismissed concerns the telecoms giant could face massive financial
liabilities from asbestos exposure, amid rising community fears
about the deadly materials contained inside much of its
infrastructure.

According to the report, under its lucrative deal with the
government, Telstra is obliged to repair and alter its
infrastructure, including pits lined with asbestos, so new
equipment for the national broadband network can be installed.

Last month, it emerged that subcontractors working on Telstra's
behalf had mishandled asbestos, triggering fears about the deadly
substances, which Mr. Riley admitted remains present in "millions"
of the company's older pits.

Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten has asked the company to
investigate whether all asbestos can be completely removed from
its infrastructure.

Speaking on Financial Review Sunday , Mr. Riley said the company
Telstra was still looking at the "overall process and numbers"
before responding to the government's request and called for calm
about the widespread presence of the deadly material.

"I think we have got to continue to remediate our infrastructure
over time but a pit underground that is quite moist that's in
place is quite safe," he said.

Telstra said in an ASX statement early this month it does not
believe it faces any material financial risks from asbestos
exposure at this stage.

Citigroup, however, said the company could face higher costs,
including a $30 million bill to hire 200 specialists to oversee
asbestos removal. Citi analysts also noted that companies, such as
James Hardie, have significantly underestimated asbestos
liabilities before.

James Hardie's asbestos liability was estimated at $230 million in
1996, but it has already paid out $1 billion in claims, with
future liabilities now estimated at $1.7 billion, the analysts
said.

"Well I don't know where Citigroup got those numbers, there has
certainly been no communication with us about them," Mr. Riley
said.

The broker also said that Telstra could suffer market share losses
in the intensely competitive telco market due to changed
perceptions of its brand.

"Customer service and our reputation with the community is our
number one priority and number one focus. Anything that calls that
into question or tarnishes that in any way is of a major concern
to us," Mr. Riley said.

Telstra has admitted full responsibility for the asbestos
incidents, even though the repair work has been contracted out to
other companies, including Visionstream (a Leighton subsidiary),
Silcar (a joint venture between Leighton's Theiss unit and
Siemens) and Service Stream.

Much of the actual work is actually completed by subcontractors.
Unions have claimed that low rates of pay awarded to
subcontractors by construction companies is leading to safety
procedures being ignored and corners being cut.

Mr. Riley defended Telstra's contracts with large construction
companies but said more oversight of subcontractors is necessary.

"We have modelled costings of pit remediation and we believe we
have got fair contractual relationships in place with our
contractors," Mr. Riley said.

"It has been brought to our attention that subcontractors have
indicated they've been asked to remove pits and remediate asbestos
for relatively modest sums and if that's the case, then it's
unacceptable, and if there are any contractors that want to
contact us with information we will thoroughly investigate it,"
Mr. Riley said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: De Aar Residents to Stop Transnet's Fibro Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
SABC reported that residents of De Aar in the Northern Cape are
intensifying their campaign to stop Transnet's plans to dump
thousands of tons of asbestos outside the town.

According to the report, Transnet is in the process of acquiring a
licence to dump asbestos used in railway tracks and quarry mines.
The company has collected more than 550 000 tons of asbestos.

Community spokesperson, Siqelo William, says the community is
against the dumping of asbestos in the area, the report related.
"Transnet wants to dump it 2 kilometres from De Aar. The reason
why we don't want it is because we saw what it did to the people
of Prieska, to the people of Koega, and to the people of
Polokwane. That's one of the reasons why we marched, again it
because there was no consultation, no one from the community was
consulted all of us are in the dark."

Transnet has acknowledged receiving the petition but declined to
comment further, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NBN to Tap Specialist Asbestos Firms
-----------------------------------------------------
Telecompaper reported that Australia's NBN Co, the company rolling
out the national broadband network, has told its contractors to
let specialist firms remove asbestos from pits and pipes.

In an all-staff e-mail, which was obtained by the Australian
Associated Press, NBN Co explained plans for a national asbestos
training standard that workers would have to complete before they
are allowed to handle asbestos. Until the new training is up and
running, NBN Co will transfer the task of handling and removing
asbestos from its tier one contractors to specialist asbestos
removal companies, the company said in the e-mail.

The announcement comes after Telstra, which owns the pits and
pipes, began an investigation into cases of alleged asbestos
mismanagement which has stopped work at several sites, the report
related. NBN Co also said it has agreed to work with Telstra on
the training standard and to improve communications with the
community.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Shock Hits Canberra Homes
-----------------------------------------------------
Meredith Clisby, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
hundreds of Canberra families may have been exposed to a deadly
form of asbestos believed to have been removed from homes in the
early 1990s.

According to the report, about 1000 houses in the ACT were
insulated with loose-fill asbestos in the late 1960s and 1970s by
a company trading as Mr. Fluffy.

Amosite asbestos is considered to be one of the two most dangerous
forms of the substance because it is easily crumbled or reduced to
powder, the report said.

The microscopic amosite fibres require very little disturbance to
become airborne.

A government-funded Loose Asbestos Insulation Removal program was
conducted from 1988 to 1993 to remove the substance from houses.
This followed a survey of all ACT homes built before 1980 to
determine whether this insulation had been used.

The ACT government says at the time home owners were advised that
some residual asbestos would remain in inaccessible areas and
caution was needed when undertaking renovations and repairs.
Since 2004 residential sales in the territory must include a lease
conveyance report advising buyers whether the house contained
loose-fill asbestos.

But there have been calls for a mass public awareness campaign as
this deadly form of asbestos has been found in the subfloors of
five homes in the past four months.

And the ACT government will assist in the remediation this year of
a house that missed the original clean-up two decades ago.
A Yarralumla family contacted The Canberra Times after they were
exposed to amosite during a recent home renovation.

Mark and Sue Harradine want other "Mr. Fluffy" home owners to be
aware of the risks they could face and do not believe the message
is made clear enough to potential buyers.

Robson Environmental, which conducted the testing on the Harradine
home, has found amosite asbestos in the subfloors of five
previously cleaned "Mr. Fluffy" homes this year.

Robson's hazardous materials manager, Ged Keane, said most people
had the perception that the asbestos had been entirely removed
during the program.  But he said it was impossible to remove all
the microscopic fibres. He said the company, which conducts tests
for ACT Work Safe, had recently found the asbestos had migrated
from the wall cavities from which it originally could not be
removed.  They could not see the substance in clumps but had
tested samples invisible to the eye.

"As long as people don't do any refurbishment, knock down walls,
replace sockets, then it's contained within the walls -- the
removalists couldn't get at it to remove it," Mr. Keane said.

"But if you've got areas where you've got a big subfloor where
there's a garage and a workshop, and it's migrated down there,
then there is the risk or the potential because you don't know."
He said the paperwork home buyers received should be stamped in
big print with a warning about the potential of loose-fill
asbestos still proving a danger in the home.

"It's the worst, most dangerous kind. This type's probably a
hundred times worse [than white asbestos].

"Now we know they couldn't clean down the wall cavity so the
chances of it being down wall cavities in all [homes] is quite
likely."

ACT Work Safety commissioner Mark McCabe said while there was
an intensive awareness campaign done at the time of the clean-up
it was hard to say how much knowledge home owners would have now.
He said problems probably arose when the homes changed hands,
despite the requirement for the information to be presented to the
potential buyers in the conveyancing report.

"Current owners may not realise the seriousness of it, or the need
to take care," Mr. McCabe said.

"The real problem with asbestos is it's an invisible health hazard
so it's hard to get people to appreciate the seriousness of it."

While he said there had been a recent spike in awareness of the
dangerous nature of asbestos due to media reports and the
government's public health website on the substance it was not
specifically about amosite.

He said he would not necessarily support a new campaign on the
substance because it was found quite rarely compared with the
white bonded asbestos.

But Mr. McCabe said it was likely that over such a long period of
time the loose-fill asbestos would migrate.

A spokeswoman for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations
Minister Simon Corbell said the government had made efforts to
advise people of the continuing presence of loose-fill asbestos in
their homes since the clean-up more than two decades ago.

She said the program had been considered a success as the aim had
been to remove asbestos from visible accessible areas in
accordance with a code of practice still reflected in current
regulations.

"It was always anticipated that most homes subject to the
abatement program would continue to contain some residual loose-
fill asbestos insulation," the spokeswoman said.

"It is important to understand that the clean-up program was never
intended to remove all loose asbestos from homes.

"What it did was remove loose asbestos from visible and accessible
areas, particularly the roof and accessible wall cavities."

She said at the time owners of abated homes were "expressly
advised of the limitations of the program".

In 2005 the ACT government sent a letter to all home owners
recorded as being part of the program reminding them to take
appropriate steps when undertaking renovations.

Mr. Corbell's spokeswoman said the government was finalising a new
comprehensive asbestos website and fact sheets on the program
highlighting the presence and dangers of the loose-fill asbestos.
The Asbestos Regulators Forum, formed in 2011, is considering
further measures that may be implemented to ensure the public is
appropriately aware of the continued existence of the asbestos.

The ACT government has also assisted in the remediation of three
homes -- in Watson (1996), Lyons (2007) and Mawson (2009) -- that
missed the program.

A fourth home still subject to a confidentiality agreement will be
cleaned this year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Thousands of Asbestos Pits" in South Coast
------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Humphries, writing for Illawarra Mercury, reported that
Telstra still has "thousands" of asbestos pits on the South Coast,
according to a former employee.

According to the report, Telstra is embroiled in a controversy
after NBN Co contractors found deadly asbestos in the pits they
were working in.

Unions have weighed into the issue, calling for a halt to the NBN
roll-out.

According to Dave Cox, many of these asbestos-lined pits can be
found in the Illawarra.

Mr. Cox worked for Telecom, Telstra's previous incarnation, for 23
years, finishing in 1982. He estimated that at the time he left,
there were more than 7500 asbestos pits from Helensburgh to
Gerringong.

"If you go further down the coast, into Nowra, there's even more,"
he said.

"There are thousands upon thousands of them.

"These things are everywhere. They're still there because Telstra
doesn't do maintenance any more. Telstra only work on an as-
required or as-necessary basis."

Mr. Cox claimed many of them would still be in use today because
"they form the backbone of the network to this day"

Contractors with NBN Co needed to access the Telstra pits to lay
their cable. Mr. Cox said this necessitated disturbing the
asbestos.

"The NBN, they've got to install access for their optical fibre
and a lot of these pits aren't big enough," he said. "So what
they've got to do is knock them out or alter them to be able to
take their NBN equipment. You've got to disturb the asbestos, you
have no other choice. If you left it in the ground and didn't
disturb it I don't think there would be a problem."

Mr. Cox was part of a team whose job was to put in the asbestos
pits. He said the asbestos used was the same as fibro and they
wore no protective clothing.

"The engineering instructions, if you want to make a hole in an
asbestos pit, you just use a hammer," he remembered.

"If you want to shorten a pipe or anything else, you use a blunt
saw. That's what they used to recommend."

Mr. Cox also said he had disposed of "hundreds" of broken asbestos
pits at Helensburgh, Russell Vale, Wollongong and Unanderra tips.

"We took them everywhere, just broke them up and just threw them
in a heap on the tip," he said.

"We didn't cover them up or bag them or anything else. Just broke
them up and dumped them out the back of the truck."

Last week, Telstra chief executive David Thodey said the telco
took full responsibility for the issue of the asbestos pits.

A Telstra spokesman said that as the network had been rolled out
over a 100-year period, there were difficulties in determining
where asbestos pits lay.

"Our pits that do contain asbestos were installed before the
health issues associated with asbestos were known so no records of
what the pits were made of were kept," the spokesman said.

"We haven't used concrete with asbestos for our pits since the
mid-1980s. Our network includes millions of pits made from a
variety of materials including plastic and concrete [that may or
may not contain asbestos]."

The spokesman said that the pits posed no risk if left
undisturbed.

However, should they have to carry out work on an asbestos-lined
pit, Telstra workers followed a set safety procedure.

"It is only when the work at a pit requires it to be broken up or
disturbed that workers need to follow strict safety procedures,"
he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mum Dies of Asbestos-related Cancer
----------------------------------------------------
Fran Wetzel, writing for The Sun, reported that a mum of three who
developed cancer after hugging her dad in his asbestos-covered
overalls has died.

According to the report, Debbie Brewer, 53, battled rare lung
cancer mesothelioma for seven years before she died.  She had been
infected by the disease as a child after regularly cuddling her
dad Phillip Northmore as he returned home from work as an asbestos
lagger, the report said.  He worked at the Royal Navy's Devonport
dockyard in Plymouth, Devon, where his job involved scraping
asbestos from pipes.  Each day he went home covered in the deadly
dust where a young Debbie greeted him between the age of three and
six.

Mr. Northmore died from asbestos-related lung cancer at the age of
68 in 2006 -- the same year that Debbie was diagnosed with the
disease.  The following year she was awarded six-figure
compensation by the Ministry of Defence who owned the dockyard
when her father worked there and admitted liability.  Despite her
illness Debbie tirelessly campaigned to raise awareness of lung
cancer by asbestos.  She died at St Luke's Hospice in Plymouth.
Her ex-husband David said: "Debbie was so very dedicated to making
people aware of asbestos and how dangerous it is.

"She gave all of her time and was so well-known for that. She
carried on blogging even when she was at St Luke's."

Mesothelioma can lie dormant for up to 40 years and it finally
emerges it is usually fatal within about two years.

Debbie launched a website to offer support to other sufferers and
underwent experimental treatment in Frankfurt paid for with her
compensation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nebraska Firm Fined $25,000 for Asbestos Removal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a Nebraska company has been
fined $25,000 for illegally disposing of asbestos in an effort to
save money.

According to the report, U.S. Attorney Deborah Gilg announced that
Vision 20-20 Inc. pleaded guilty to an offense involving the
illegal abatement and disposal of asbestos.

The report related that investigators say Vision 20-20 hired an
asbestos removal firm in October 2010 to work on a building that
the company planned to demolish for a new motel. The firm was paid
$24,000 for services to the roof, but additional work remained on
floor tiles and flooring underneath the tiles.

When the firm returned several months later, the building had been
demolished, the report said.

State officials determined Vision 20-20 illegally removed the
asbestos and demolished the building in order to save $14,000, the
report added.

A message for the company was not immediately returned, the report
noted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Redmond HS Fibro Removal Firm Appeals DEQ Fine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barney Lertern, writing for KTVZ.com, reported that the owner of a
Bend asbestos removal firm said he'll fight a $4,500 fine by the
state Department of Environmental Quality alleging improper work
on a project at Redmond High School earlier this year. He disputed
the allegations and threatened a lawsuit over any loss of
business.

According to the report, in the DEQ's news release announcing the
penalty against Alpine Abatement Associates, the agency said,
"This is considered a work practices violation, as there was no
direct threat to human or environmental health."

The agency claims the company failed to adequately wet ceiling
insulation containing asbestos during an asbestos removal project
on Feb. 13 at the high school, the report related.

When asbestos is not adequately wetted during removal, there is a
high potential for the asbestos fibers to become airborne in the
containment area, the agency said. Because the abatement was
conducted in a fully enclosed and contained area, DEQ said, no
students or faculty were exposed to asbestos fibers.

Asbestos fibers are a respiratory hazard that causes lung cancer,
mesothelioma and asbestosis. "However, there was little threat to
human health in this case because the project area was sealed off
in an isolated containment area," the DEQ said.

Company owner Jack Billings said he's been in the business for 25
years and this is only the second DEQ violation, and he's had none
from OSHA.

"They are so wrong on this one," he said. "I talked to an
attorney, and he said we'd spend three times that much fighting
it. But it's the principle of the thing -- I know it's wrong, they
know it's wrong."

"There's not even any ceiling insulation in Redmond High School"
that was part of the job, Billings said Instead, he said, they
were removing fireproofing that contained asbestos and was over-
applied decades ago.

"Fireproofing -- it's kind of a gray area, kind of an impossible
situation to do," Billings said. "So we designed a very extreme
'negative pressure' enclosure, because we were working on it while
the kids were in school."

He claimed that because this was a "prevailing wage job, so $40 an
hour," one of the workers -- they don't have a permanent crew, but
hire out of a pool -- called in the DEQ. And he said that was
because there were "a couple guys trying to figure out how to make
the job last longer." But once a complaint is made, Billings said,
"DEQ has to respond, like OSHA."

"They came down there and looked, and they formed an opinion,
which was completely out of line," Billings said. "We did not
remove anything that wasn't wet. We could only wet where we could
take fireproofing off the underside of the roof, the hanger
locations for the seismic upgrade."

"If you get the whole thing wet, it falls off -- falls to the
floor," which releases more material, he explained. So instead,
"we were using handheld sprayers, spray in the spot that we were
removing."

"They (DEQ) don't have any proof" of the allegations, Billings
said. "They saw some material on the floor that appeared to be
dry, some bags that appeared to not have enough water. But they
were all still in the containment area. You wet the bags as you
take them out."

"We pride ourselves in doing it right," Billings said. "I have had
one time-off accident in 25 years. This was a 'time and materials'
contract -- we were not cutting any corners -- doing it by the
book, but doing it as fast as I could."

Frank Messina, an air quality specialist in the Bend DEQ office,
conducted the inspection and still maintained Monday that the
material was not adequately wetted down to prevent fibers from
spreading, though none were detected in air samples.

Messina said they have not set an informal hearing yet, and that
Billings will have the right to go before an administrative law
judge, should he so choose.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Search Begins After Asbestos Dumped in Chilworth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that police and council officials are
hunting flytippers who dumped nearly half a tonne of potentially
deadly asbestos in Hampshire.

According to the report, cement-bonded asbestos was found in an
underpass on Roman Road, Chilworth.  It has cost council tax
payers more than GBP1,000 to remove it, the report said.

Now council chiefs are trying to track down the dumpers and bring
them to justice, the report related.

Test Valley council environment boss Graham Stallard said:
"Asbestos is a very dangerous substance as it releases cancer-
causing fibres into the air when damaged. There is absolutely no
excuse for putting the public at risk simply because people cannot
be bothered to behave responsibly," the report cited.

Anyone who witnessed the incident or who has information is asked
to contact Test Valley Borough Council's Environmental Services on
01264 368000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Taps James Hardie Lawyer
-------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Nadin, writing for The Australian, reported that the
lawyer who represented James Hardie in its legal battle against
asbestos victim Bernie Banton is acting for Telstra in
negotiations with western Sydney residents whose homes were
contaminated with the potentially deadly material during
construction work for the National Broadband Network.

According to the report, Leon Zwier, from Melbourne law firm
Arnold Bloch Leibler, last week offered his services pro bono to
the telco as it seeks to reach a resolution with the O'Farrell and
Lancaster families, who were evacuated from their Penrith homes
almost three weeks ago after asbestos was found on their
properties. The families are still being housed in hotel rooms and
have not been told when it will be safe for them to return to
their homes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Material Discovered in Newmarket School
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff McMenemy, reporting for Seacoast Online, reported that the
cost for renovating the science wing egresses at the Newmarket
Junior/Senior High School this summer will be higher than
originally thought and take longer after workers found more
asbestos in the section of the school than they expected.

According to the report, Superintendent Jim Hayes told the School
Board that one of the first things done before a construction
project begins is for the hazardous materials team to go in and
see if there's anything dangerous where people will be working.

They expected to find some asbestos, but were surprised to find it
where they did, the report related.

"It's also in the ceiling tiles in a couple of classrooms," Hayes
told the board during its meeting at Town Hall. "That's concerning
and it's going to add time to the project."

School officials had planned the project carefully so the work
would be done by the start of school in September, but Hayes
acknowledged Thursday it could add "one to three weeks" to the
length of the project.

"It just makes it more challenging," Hayes said.

Before any other work can be done, the hazardous materials crew
will have to go in and safely dispose of all the asbestos.

Asked if that meant additional costs for the project, Hayes said,
"It's got to be some added expense."

Town Fire Chief Rick Malasky has told school officials they must
fix about $2 million in fire and life-safety improvements by
September 2015 or risk having the school closed.

Hayes told the board Thursday that he will meet again with Oyster
River school officials on June 18 to work toward finalizing a
tuition agreement to send Newmarket's high school students to
Oyster River High School.

In a memo he gave to School Board members, Hayes asked board
members to give him some direction on the extent of work they want
to do on the current high school/junior high school, assuming it
will become a middle-school after Newmarket's high school students
start going to school in Oyster River.

"Will we merely fix the (fire and life-safety issues)? This does
nothing to fix the many program deficiencies that exist because of
undersized spaces or spaces that are inappropriate for the
educational activity taking place," Hayes wrote in the memo. "With
a modestly increasing enrollment, these issues will become even
more challenging for us."

Hayes outlined three other options in the memo, including doing
large-scale renovations on the current site, building a new middle
school on the Carpenter property across the street from the
current school which the district owns, or doing more than fire
and life-safety improvements but less than a major renovation.

"At the June 20th meeting I will be looking to you to set a
direction for me so that I can work with architects and engineers
to design our options," Hayes wrote in the memo. "First and
foremost, we need a long-term solution that serves the best
interests of our students for generations to come."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Closes Tenison College for Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Kelly-Baker, writing for The Border Watch, reported that
Tenison Woods College has moved to allay fears that students may
have been exposed to asbestos after potentially deadly materials
were found in the school's vegetable patch.

According to the report, the school was shut down for emergency
work as workers wearing protective masks and suits removed
contaminated soil.

The school has barricaded the vegetable patch on the south west
side of the campus since the shock discovery last month.  It is
expected that work will be completed this Saturday, June 15.

College principal David Mezinec acted quickly to inform families
by sending out a letter and holding an information night to ensure
the safety of students, staff, volunteers and visitors.

"The debris was found on the site that was established for the
school's Stephanie Alexander Kitchen program and Community Garden,
used by the Mount Gambier Burmese community," Mr. Mezinec said.

He said the school sought urgent expert advice from Catholic
Safety Health and Welfare SA, SafeWork SA and Licensed Asbestos
Removalists.

"The site was cordoned off according to the Environment Protection
Agency (EPA) guidelines to ensure the materials remained in a form
that minimised risk to health," Mr. Mezinec said.

Meanwhile, senior occupational hygienist Rafal Soroczynski from
Health Safety Environment Australia carried out an on-site
assessment and soil test.

Mr. Soroczynski found the asbestos cement (AC) material on site
was unlikely to release airborne asbestos fibres.

"Digging or tilling the soil may have damaged some of the AC
material, but it is probable that exposures during such processes
would have been very low and possibly indistinguishable from
background levels of exposure," he said.

"It should be noted that exposure to asbestos fibres at very low
levels occurs in most locations as a background exposure."

Mr. Soroczynski was pleased with how promptly the college took the
appropriate action of isolating the site and therefore preventing
any potential exposures.

As per Health Safety Environment Australia's recommendations a
licensed asbestos removalist, South East Asbestos, was employed
for the removal of the AC material and contaminated soil.

Mr. Mezinec said the safety of the community and students was
paramount and all precautions were being taken during the clean up
process, in line with approved EPA guidelines, Work Health and
Safety Act 2012 and Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of
Asbestos.

The remainder of the school campus is in use and classes have
continued as normal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shed Fire Poses Asbestos Threat
------------------------------------------------
Liam Croy, writing for The West Australian, reported Wednesday,
June 12, that firefighters wore breathing apparatus to battle a
blaze that engulfed two asbestos sheds in Lathlain overnight.

According to the report, crews were called to the Keyes Street
property about 3:40 a.m., arriving to find two asbestos garden
sheds on fire.

A Department of Fire and Emergency Services spokesman said the
firefighters had to take precautions when dealing with asbestos.

"With the demolition and clean-up, they have to treat it as a
hazardous site, because it's asbestos-contaminated," he said.

"They have to bag their clothing up onsite and be de-contaminated
before they're ready to go again."

The fire was extinguished two hours later, leaving a damage bill
of about $20,000, including $7500 damage to a nearby car.  The
cause of the fire was not suspicious.

Earlier in the evening of June 11, firefighters were called to a
blaze at an abandoned house on Railway Parade in Midland.  The
DFES spokesman said it appeared the fire was started by a heating
element used by squatters.  Firefighters arrived at 1:55 a.m. and
managed to limit the damage to $50,000.

Finally, just before 5 a.m. Wednesday morning, it is believed a
cigarette sparked a blaze on a second-floor unit in Scarborough.
The DFES spokesman said a shift worker had arrived home and
possibly fallen asleep while having a cigarette on his couch.  The
fire caused smoke damage to the Wilton Place unit, but the shift
worker was not harmed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Linked With Death of Wadesmill Man
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Ford, writing for Hertfordshire Mercury, reported that a
verdict of death through industrial disease has been recorded in
the inquest of a Wadesmill man exposed to asbestos half a century
ago.

According to the report, Leslie Mortlock, 68, of Youngsbury Lane
died at his home on May 9 this year from mesothelioma, a form of
cancer affecting the chest commonly associated with exposure to
asbestos.

His condition was diagnosed after he attended his doctor
complaining of breathlessness in the months leading up to his
death, the inquest heard on Tuesday (June 11), the report said.

Mr. Mortlock had been referred for paliative care by medics and
was due to undergo chemotherapy treatment.

Hertfordshire Coroner Edward Thomas noted that between 1957 and
1964 he had worked for a firm that built fans and ventilation
units.  Although he was mainly based at the company's factory, he
would visit sites to fit the ducting and venting equipment in
crawlways where there were asbestos lag pipes present.

Mr. Thomas said: "On the balance of probability, he came into
contact with asbestos during that time.

"I am mindful of many other cases where someone has died and
studies show it is more likely than not that asbestos has caused
mesothelioma.

"The evidence complies with what is known about mesothelioma
surfacing some 50 years or so from his exposure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conroy Urges Penrith Asbestos Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
9News National reported that Communications Minister Stephen
Conroy is disappointed two western Sydney families forced from
their homes have yet to return after an asbestos scare.

According to the report, two Penrith families living near three
affected telco pits and ducts in Penrith have demanded Telstra
make their properties safe, after moving out more than a fortnight
ago.

The report said asbestos was found last month as part of work on
the rollout of the National Broadband Network. There were further
discoveries at telecommunications works in Ballarat, Perth,
Adelaide and Tasmania.

Telstra has been unable to come to an agreement with the Penrith
residents, who are being put up in a hotel paid for by the telco.
Senator Conroy said Telstra had been negotiating with the families
in "good faith".

"It is absolutely unsatisfactory for any Australian to be still in
a hotel after all this time," he told reporters in Sydney.

"I urge all parties to reach a settlement so that the families can
get back into their homes and be assured that there is no after
affects of the Telstra remediation of the asbestos."

A Telstra spokeswoman said the company had been trying to resolve
the two families concerns "amicably, quickly and fairly", and
hoped they would be able to return to their homes as soon as
possible.

"Unfortunately despite our best efforts, we are yet to reach an
agreement," she said.

"We also sought their consent to have an independent, third party
hygienist come into their homes to understand the extent of any
contamination and to provide an expert view of an appropriate
remediation plan.

"To date we have not been able to secure their agreement to
undertake this assessment."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. 1009 Bill Poses Serious Limitations, Says ADAO
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, an independent non-
profit organization dedicated to eliminating asbestos disease,
stated on June 12 that it cannot support the "Chemical Safety
Improvement Act of 2013" (S. 1009) without significant
improvements to protect the public from dangerous chemicals, such
as asbestos. While the chemical industry is pleased with the bill,
ADAO and the majority of other environmental and public health
groups do not support the current language.

"We are encouraged by bipartisan efforts to overhaul the outdated
and ineffective Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) from 1976, but
we cannot support it unless critical clarifications and changes
are adopted," said Linda Reinstein, ADAO Co-Founder and
mesothelioma widow. "Asbestos victims are outraged to see ADAO's
suggested amendments regarding asbestos stripped from S. 1009. The
facts are irrefutable -- asbestos is a known carcinogen. Congress
has known for more than 100 years that asbestos exposure causes
diseases, yet exposure continues. ADAO urges Congress immediately
amend S. 1009. One life lost from an asbestos-caused disease is
tragic; hundreds of thousands of lives lost is unconscionable."

ADAO wrote a letter voicing their concerns to Chairman of the
Senate and Environment and Public Works Committee Sen. Barbara
Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. David Vitter, Ranking Member (R-LA).
Additionally, this week, ADAO will launch their seventh "six-word
quote campaign," in which they invite asbestos disease patients
and their families to write succinct messages to Congress about
how asbestos has affected their lives. Past quotes submitted
include "Asbestos has stolen my Dad's life . . . stop the killing"
and "Asbestos is a creeping thief -- stealing families."

"Mesothelioma is an awful disease," said Janelle Bedel, a 37-year-
old mesothelioma patient who is now in hospice care in Indiana.
"We need Congress to take action to prevent others from becoming
sick from deadly preventable disease. However, if the legislation
as currently written becomes law, future generations of Americans
will fall victim to mesothelioma and other life-changing
afflictions from exposure to dangerous chemicals. Americans need
to know asbestos is deadly and has not been banned in the U.S.
There are over 3,000 different asbestos-containing products that
are still shipped to the U.S. every day."

The World Health Organization (WHO) states that all forms of
asbestos are carcinogenic to humans and may lead to mesothelioma,
lung, larynx, ovarian cancer, and respiratory diseases. WHO
estimates that 107,000 workers die every year from asbestos-
related lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. Each day, 30
Americans die from asbestos-caused diseases.

        About Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) was founded by
asbestos victims and their families in 2004. ADAO seeks to give
asbestos victims and concerned citizens a united voice to raise
public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure. ADAO is
an independent global organization dedicated to preventing
asbestos-related diseases through education, advocacy, and
community. For more information, visit
www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org.

CONTACT:

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO)
Doug Larkin
Director of Communications
Tel: 202-391-1546
Email: doug@asbestosdiseaseawareness.org
Web site: www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Left on Grass for Week in Reservoir
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tessa Hoffman, writing for Preston Leader, reported that reservoir
residents fear asbestos was dug up from a telecommunications pit
and left on their nature strip for more than a week.

According to the report, Telstra has confirmed it removed the
dumped material and is investigating.  But it's unable to say
whether the pieces left on Darebin Boulevard contain asbestos
because it has no record of which of its millions of pits contain
the dangerous substance.

Darebin Bvd resident Mark Ognesis said an alarmed neighbour showed
him the two pieces of one-foot long material she believed
contained asbestos on the nature strip near a Telstra pit in their
street, the report related.

Mr. Ognesis said the neighbour was "freaking out" because they had
been there for more than a week left by tradesmen who worked on
the pit.

Fellow Darebin Bvd resident Kylie Randall said she would be deeply
concerned if the susbtance was found to be asbestos.

"There're two schools close to here and lots of kids walk around
this way," Ms Randall said.

Telstra spokesman Scott Whiffin confirmed the company collected
the material on June 7 using correct asbestos-removal procedures.

He said it would investigate how it came to be there and whether
it contained asbestos.

"This work was not part of the NBN roll out and appears to be a
one-off, but that said it's still not in any way, shape or form
acceptable for fragments to be left like that and we'll find out
how it happened so it doesn't happen again," Mr. Whiffin said.

He said before the mid-1980s some pits were made with concrete
comprising asbestos.

"Our pits that do contain asbestos were installed before the
health issues associated with asbestos were known so no records of
what the pits were made of were kept," he said.

"The pits are underground and left undisturbed pose no risk."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Asbestos Builder Faces Prosecution
------------------------------------------------------------
Larissa Nicholson, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
the Canberra builder accused of exposing a young family to
asbestos is the subject of an investigation by WorkSafe ACT which
could result in a prosecution.

According to the report, the ACT government could withdraw the
business' licence if it is found employees worked with the toxic
substance without permission.

ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe is seeking the
introduction of $5000 on-the-spot fines for builders who do not
dispose of asbestos properly, the report said.  He said the
seriousness of the breaches of the Work Health and Safety Act
meant the case could end up in court.

"Given the level of exposure to the family I think the public
would demand prosecution if a breach of health and safety laws is
proven in this case," Mr. McCabe said.

The new fines will be considered as part of the ACT government's
review of the Dangerous Substances Act, which is likely to be
tabled in spring, with the new fine schedule to take effect from
January 1.

The family whose home was contaminated says it remains out-of-
pocket and shaken by the affair, which will see them require
ongoing, annual medical check-ups for life-threatening illnesses.

In May the Canberra Times reported Kambah couple Justin and Erin
Thompson and their children Dan, 5, and Sarah, 3, were forced out
of their home for three weeks after the builder, hired to renovate
their bathroom, used angle grinders to cut through asbestos
sheeting in the house.

The family was living in the home at the time and Ms Thompson
cleaned asbestos fibres from surfaces in the living area and
kitchen, not knowing the danger the family were in until alerted
by a neighbour, who called WorkSafe.

Mr. McCabe on Monday confirmed the company involved in the
incident was being probed by the organisation's serious incidents
investigations team.  He said if the builder was found to have
breached the Work Health and Safety Act, the consequences could be
severe. Serious breaches of the act could result in large fines
and jail time for company directors, he said.

A spokesman for the ACT Environment and Sustainable Development
Directorate said all work with asbestos had to undertaken by a
licensed person with active building approval and an asbestos
control plan, and the company had none of those at the time of the
renovation.

The spokesperson said the investigation was ongoing and "a
decision on the status of the nominee is awaiting the outcome of
further investigations and advice from WorkSafe ACT".

The builder declined to comment on the matter.

Mr. Thompson said his family had hired another builder to renovate
their bathroom, which was nearly finished.

"We've got a bath and a toilet after nine weeks, indoors, so
that's good," he said.

Mr. Thompson said about 120 of the family's personal items had
been contaminated and had been destroyed, and that the builder had
refused to refund the family's $6000 deposit or to provide
compensation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merced County Asbestos Victims Will Get to Speak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor A. Patton, writing for The Fresno Bee, reported that Merced
County high school students who were exposed to cancer-causing
asbestos soon will have an opportunity to confront in court the
three men responsible for risking their health.

According to the report, a federal judge has set an Aug. 19
sentencing date for Rudy Buendia III, 50, Patrick Bowman, 46, and
Joseph Cuellar, 73.

The report said they were convicted in May after pleading no
contest to state charges of felony treating, handling or disposing
of asbestos in a manner that caused an unreasonable risk of
serious injury to students, with knowing or reckless disregard for
the risk.

In federal court in Fresno, the trio in March pleaded no contest
to violating federal asbestos laws, the report related.

Under the terms of their plea agreement with Merced County
prosecutors, the three will serve the state and federal sentences
at the same time, likely spending about two years in federal
prison, the report said.

The men had been scheduled to appear in federal court for
sentencing on June 3. That date was postponed until August to give
federal prosecutors additional time to prepare a request for
restitution for the victims who were exposed to airborne asbestos,
said Lauren Horwood, spokesperson for U.S. Attorney Benjamin
Wagner of the Eastern District of California.

Prosecutors said Buendia, Bowman and Cuellar cut corners on a
renovation project by using at least nine high school vocational
students to remove asbestos from the Automotive Training Center at
Castle Commerce Center from September 2005 to March 2006. The
students lacked the proper training or protective gear to perform
such work.

Horwood said the students named as victims in the federal case
will have an opportunity to give impact statements in court during
the August sentencing hearing. However, she said, federal
prosecutors are also interested in hearing from any other students
who may have been exposed to the asbestos during the renovation
work.

"We want to get a better response from potential victims regarding
their interest in medical monitoring to determine if they are or
will be experiencing adverse effects from their exposure to
airborne asbestos," Horwood wrote in an email.

Horwood said anyone who was exposed to airborne asbestos during
the renovation should call the U.S. Attorney's Office at (559)
497-4000.

                    Also civil case pending

Although the criminal case against the three men will be wrapped
up after August, the legal saga of Firm Build could take awhile to
play out.

Ten students who worked during the renovation project have a
pending civil case in Merced County Superior Court that seeks
undisclosed damages from Buendia, Bowman and Cuellar. The civil
case, which seeks damages due to possible injuries and emotional
suffering, also names the Merced County Office of Education as a
defendant, in addition to Lee Andersen, Merced County
superintendent of schools at the time.

The former students, who are now adults in their 20s, are being
represented in the civil case by Stockton attorney Daniel
Malakauskas.

Malakauskas said the convictions of all three men in federal and
state court "dramatically helps" his clients' civil case.

"The unfortunate reality is, I doubt Merced County Office of
Education will take responsibility, and they will try to distance
themselves as much as possible," Malakauskas said.

Nathan Quevedo, MCOE spokesman, responded to Malakauskas' comment,
saying although he can't comment on pending litigation, the MCOE
considers student safety their highest priority. "As an example,
every school employee in Merced County has been given a card
outlining their responsibilities as a mandated reporter," Quevedo
wrote in an email.

Until recently, Bowman had worked as a mathematics teacher at
Valley Community School in Los Banos. Quevedo said Bowman is no
longer employed at the school and his contract with the MCOE has
ended.

According to court documents, the students and others removed and
disposed of about 1,000 linear feet of pipe insulation and
additional tank insulation at the 2245 Jetstream Drive building in
Atwater, which the defendants knew contained asbestos.

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

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

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

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

Firm Build was launched in 1998 as a program of the Merced County
Housing Authority. It was established to allow the authority to
modernize its stock of public housing while giving residents
marketable skills.

In 2005, the MCOE negotiated the lease of the building at Castle
Commerce Center for renovations by Firm Build into an automotive
teaching center. The lease stated the building had asbestos, lead-
based paint, black mold and groundwater contamination.

An environmental management firm in June 2005 also conducted a
review of the site and found asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dumping in State Forests a Growing Problem
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Cowie, writing for The Courier, reported that dangerous
asbestos material is being left in Ballarat bushland, part of a
growing problem of unsightly rubbish being illegally dumped in
state forests.

The Courier has found one instance of large sheets of asbestos
material which have been left uncovered in state forest near White
Swan Reservoir in Invermay.

A sign from the Department of Sustainability and Environment --
now known as the Department of Environment and Primary Industries
(DEPI) -- provides the only warning of proximity of dangerous
material, the report said.

DEPI Midlands district manager Jon Rofe said the department was
investigating a number of incidents of rubbish dumping in state
forests, including the dumping of asbestos.

"Asbestos dumping in state forests is a growing problem. Some
material has been wrapped appropriately but dumped in the forest,
other material is exposed or mixed in with other dumped rubbish,"
Mr. Rofe said.

Mr. Rofe said when dumped asbestos was reported, DEPI taped off
the area, erected hazardous material warning signs and arranged
for a specialist contractor to remove the asbestos.

Master Builders Association Ballarat president Anthony Tuddenham
said it was unlikely the asbestos was left by a registered
builder, as they knew how to safely handle the material.

"It could be home renovators that are trying to cut costs who
don't want to pay for it to be removed," he said.

"Registered builders know that doing something like would put a
black name on them. More than likely it would be once-offers or
inexperienced people not wanting to pay for it themselves."

The issue of illegal asbestos dumping comes as the City of
Ballarat plans to increase the charges for using the Smythesdale
Landfill and Gillies Street Transfer Station.

At the Smythesdale Landfill, it costs $198 a tonne to dispose of
asbestos material over 120 kilograms.

Under the council's current draft budget it will cost more to drop
off asbestos, as well as all other forms of waste, from next year.

During a visit to the state forest near Invermay, The Courier
spotted at least six large trailer loads of rubbish that had been
left indiscriminately.

Two workers cleaning up the bushland for a government agency said
rubbish dumping was an ongoing problem that typically increased
around Christmas time.

"The old telly in the new box, that sort of thing," one said.

Both believed the cost of taking things like mattresses to local
landfills and transfer stations  -- currently $29 -- encouraged
people to dump them in a state forest.

City of Ballarat growth and development director Eric Braslis said
despite anecdotal evidence, there had been a reduction in reported
cases of illegal dumping on council land over the past 12 months.

"In cases of alleged dumping on council-controlled land, officers
will investigate, gather evidence, ascertain the material and
potential sources," he said.

He said fees at council transfer stations were based on a cost
recovery model and that the council provided vouchers for the
Gillies Street transfer station.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Appeal from Substitution Order Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Consolidated Edison Co. of NY Inc. appealed from an
order by the Supreme Court, New York County, dated January 4,
2012, which, among other things, granted Petitioner Catherine
Humphries' motion to approve, nunc pro tunc, settlements
previously entered into with four defendants in an underlying
class action asbestos litigation, and directed the Petitioner's
counsel to amend the caption to reflect the substitution of the
estate of the deceased as petitioner.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated May 28, 2013, affirmed the 2012
Order holding that the court properly granted a nunc pro tunc
substitution of the Petitioner, where she had been appointed
executor of the decedent's estate shortly after his death,
retained the same counsel, and actively participated in the
litigation before the Workers' Compensation Board and the court.
Moreover, the Appellate Division held that the court properly
approved, nunc pro tunc, the previously agreed-upon settlements
with the four entities.  The Petitioner, the Appellate Division,
noted demonstrated that the settlement amounts were reasonable in
light of the limited resources and uncertain liability of the
entities; that she was not dilatory, since she had no reason to
seek court approval of the settlements until after the Workers'
Compensation Board determined that respondent Con Edison's consent
had not been obtained; and that Con Edison was not prejudiced.

The case is CATHERINE HUMPHRIES, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
WILLIAM MISTOFSKY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON
CO. OF NY INC., Respondent-Appellant, 2013 NY Slip Op 03785 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/7P9ZzVfrom Leagle.com.

Michael F. Vecchione, Esq., at Vecchione, Vecchione & Connors,
LLP, for appellant.  Kevin M. Berry, Esq. -- kberry@wilentz.com --
at Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., in New York, for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Andrucki" Suit Junked for Lack of Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1971 and 1972, Mary Andrucki's decedent, a sheet metal worker,
worked on the construction of defendant Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey's World Trade Center, where he believed he was
exposed to asbestos and inhaled fibers.  He was diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma in April 2010.  In October 2010, he and his
wife filed a notice of claim against the defendant for the
injuries he sustained, and in November 2010, they served the
complaint.  The decedent died the same month.

Although the plaintiffs' counsel should have been aware of the
time requirements in the applicable statute, the service of the
complaint was premature, resulting in a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction over the Port Authority.  The Defendant then filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs argue that despite their initial failure to obtain
subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant, they nonetheless
obtained subject matter jurisdiction through service of the
amended complaint after the decedent's death.  This argument,
according to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
unavailing.

The Appellate Division pointed out that the initial notice of
claim specifically stated that it was for personal injury arising
from the asbestos exposure and not for the decedent's death, which
had yet to occur.  As the Plaintiffs correctly note, courts in
this state have held, in considering notices of claim under
General Municipal Law Sec. 50-e, that notice of injury placed a
municipality on notice of a plaintiff's subsequent death from that
same injury (see e.g. Mingone v State of New York, 100 A.D.2d 897,
898 [2d Dept 1984]).  However, these cases have no application to
the Port Authority's suability statute as General Municipal Law
Sec. 50-e contains a "substantial compliance" provision,
permitting courts to consider whether a plaintiff has
substantially complied with the statute's terms; the Port
Authority's suability statute, on the other hand, contains no
substantial compliance provision.

Under these circumstances, the Plaintiffs should have served on
the Port Authority a new notice of claim concerning the wrongful
death and survivorship actions, the Appellate Division held.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction although the
Appellate Division also said that because the Plaintiffs' cause of
action accrued in November 2010, the Plaintiffs may still move for
leave to serve a new notice of claim and commence a new suit
against the Port Authority.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MARY
ANDRUCKI, ETC., ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ALUMINUM
COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants, PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK
AND NEW JERSEY, Defendant-Appellant, 10070, 190377/10 (N.Y. Div.
App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 28, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/DXtvdFfrom Leagle.com.

Christian H. Gannon, Esq. -- cgannon@smsm.com -- at Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., in New York, for the
Appellant.  Daniel T. Horner, Esq., at Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., in
New York, for the respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WIIA Order Flipped, Atty Fees Granted to Widow
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 29, 2013, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two,
entered an order granting reconsideration of the March 19, 2013,
published opinion.  The May 29 Order reversed in part the March 19
Order to grant Petitioners Robert Long and Aileen Long the
additional relief of temporary and interim benefits and reasonable
attorney fees of $25,249.

The case arises from Mrs. Long's application for workers'
compensation benefits under the Washington Industrial Insurance
Act.  Her husband, Robert, died from malignant mesothelioma caused
by asbestos exposure.  She asserted that she is entitled to WIIA
benefits before her husband's last injurious exposure to asbestos
occurred when he was employed by a non-maritime employer covered
by the WIIA.

The case is ROBERT LONG, deceased, and AILEEN LONG,
Petitioner/Beneficiary, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Respondent, NO. 43187-4-II (Wash. App.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/0LMIArfrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

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  * * *